securing canada's natural capital: a vision for nature conservation in the 21st century

S t a t e o f t h e D e b a t e S t a t e o f t h e D e b a t e

S E C U R I N G C A N A D A’ SN AT U R A L C A P I TA L :

A V i s i o n for

N a t u r e C o n s e r v a t i o n in the

2 1s t C e n t u r y

NRTEE TRNEE

© National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, 2003

All rights reserved. No part of this work covered by thecopyright herein may be reproduced or used in any form orby any means – graphic, electronic or mechanical, includingphotocopying, recording, taping or information retrievalsystems – without the prior written permission of thepublisher.

National L ibrary of Canada Cataloguing in Publ icat ion

Main entry under title : The state of the debate on theenvironment and the economy : securing Canada’s naturalcapital: a vision for nature conservation in the 21stcentury.

Report and recommendations by the National Round Tableon the Environment and the Economy.

ISBN 1-894737-07-5

1. Nature conservation—Government policy—Canada.2. Nature conservation—Canada. I. Title.

QH77.C3N26 2003 333.7’2’0971 C2003-902717-1

Issued also in French under title: L’état du débat surl’environnement et l’économie : préserver le capital natureldu Canada : une vision pour la conservation de la nature auXXIe siècle.

This book is printed on Environmental Choice papercontaining 20 percent post-consumer fibre, usingvegetable inks.

N AT I O N A L R O U N D TA B L E O N T H E E N V I R O N M E N T A N D T H E E C O N O M Y344 Slater Street, Suite 200Ottawa, OntarioCanada K1R 7Y3Tel.: (613) 992-7189Fax: (613) 992-7385E-mail: [email protected]: www.nrtee-trnee.ca

Other publications available from the National Round TableState of the Debate on the Environment and the EconomySeries:

1. State of the Debate on the Environment and theEconomy: Water and Wastewater Services in Canada

2. State of the Debate on the Environment and theEconomy: Private Woodlot Management in theMaritimes

3. State of the Debate on the Environment and theEconomy: The Road to Sustainable Transportation in Canada

4. State of the Debate on the Environment and theEconomy: Greening Canada’s Brownfield Sites

5. State of the Debate on the Environment and theEconomy: Managing Potentially Toxic Substances inCanada

6. State of the Debate on the Environment and theEconomy: Aboriginal Communities and Non-renewable Resource Development

7. State of the Debate on the Environment and theEconomy : Environment and SustainableDevelopment Indicators for Canada

8. State of the Debate on the Environment and theEconomy : Environmental Quality in Canadian Cities: the Federal Role

Toutes les publications de la Table ronde nationale surl’environnement et l’économie sont disponibles en français.

To order:Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd.5369 Canotek Road, Unit 1Ottawa, ON K1J 9J3Tel.: (613) 745-2665Fax: (613) 745-7660Internet: www.renoufbooks.comE-mail: [email protected]

Price: C$19.98 plus postage and tax

M a n d a t e

THE National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) was created to“play the role of catalyst in identifying, explaining and promoting, in all sectors of Canadiansociety and in all regions of Canada, principles and practices of sustainable development.”Specifically, the agency identifies issues that have both environmental and economicimplications, explores these implications, and attempts to identify actions that will balanceeconomic prosperity with environmental preservation.

At the heart of the NRTEE’s work is a commitment to improve the quality of economic andenvironmental policy development by providing decision makers with the information they needto make reasoned choices on a sustainable future for Canada. The agency seeks to carry out itsmandate by:

advising decision makers and opinion leaders on the best way to integrate environmental and economic considerations into decision making;

actively seeking input from stakeholders with a vested interest in any particular issue and providing a neutral meeting ground where they can work to resolve issues and overcome barriers to sustainable development;

analysing environmental and economic facts to identify changes that will enhance sustainability in Canada; and

using the products of research, analysis and national consultation to come to a conclusion on the state of the debate on the environment and the economy.

The NRTEE’s State of the Debate reports synthesize the results of stakeholder consultations onpotential opportunities for sustainable development. They summarize the extent of consensusand reasons for disagreement, review the consequences of action or inaction, and recommendsteps specific stakeholders can take to promote sustainability.

i

The NRTEE is composed of a Chair and up to 24

distinguished Canadians. These individuals are appointed

by the Prime Minister as opinion leaders representing a variety

of regions and sectors of Canadian society including

business, labour, academia, environmental organizations,

and First Nations. Members of the NRTEE meet as a round table

four times a year to review and discuss the ongoing work

of the agency, set priorities, and initiate new activities.

iii

N R T E E M e m b e r s

ChairHARVEY L. MEADSainte-Foy, Quebec

Vice-ChairPATRICIA McCUNN-MILLERVice-PresidentEnvironment and Regulatory AffairsEnCana CorporationCalgary, Alberta

Vice-ChairKEN OGILVIEExecutive DirectorPollution Probe FoundationToronto, Ontario

HARINDER P. S . AHLUWALIAPresident and CEOInfo-Electronics Systems Inc.Dollard-des-Ormeaux, Quebec

EDWIN AQUILINASpecial Advisor to the MayorCity of OttawaOttawa, Ontario

LOUIS ARCHAMBAULTPresident & CEO Groupe-conseil Entraco Inc.North Hatley, Quebec

JEAN BÉLANGEROttawa, Ontario

KATHERINE M. BERGMANDean of Science & ProfessorDepartment of Geology University of Regina Regina, Saskatchewan

WILLIAM J. BORLANDDirector, Environmental AffairsJD Irving LimitedSaint John, New Brunswick

DOUGLAS B. DEACONOwner, Trailside Café and AdventuresCharlottetown, Prince Edward Island

TERRY DUGUIDChairmanManitoba Clean Environment CommissionWinnipeg, Manitoba

MICHAEL HARCOURTSenior AssociateSustainable Development Research InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver, British Columbia

MARIE-CLAIRE HÉLIEVice-PresidentFinancière Banque NationaleOutremont, Quebec

LINDA LOUELLA INKPENSt. Phillips, Newfoundland and Labrador

DIANE FRANCES MALLEYPresidentPDK Projects Inc. Winnipeg, Manitoba

CRISTINA MARQUESCo-owner and DeveloperDreamcoast HomesToronto, Ontario

ANGUS ROSSChairmanL & A ConceptsScarborough, Ontario

QUSSAI SAMAKUnion AdvisorConfédération des syndicats nationauxMontreal, Quebec

JOHN WIEBEPresident & CEOGLOBE Foundation of CanadaVancouver, British Columbia

JUDY G. WILLIAMSPartnerMacKenzie FujisawaVancouver, British Columbia

President & CEODAVID J . McGUINTY

v

T a b l e of C o n t e n t s

M A N D AT E ................................................................................................................ i

N R T E E M E M B E R S ................................................................................................ i i i

F O R E W O R D .......................................................................................................... v i i

TA S K F O R C E M E M B E R S ...................................................................................... i x

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y ........................................................................................ x i

Summary of Recommendations ..............................................................................................xviThe Round Table's Vision for Conservation ............................................................................xx

1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N .............................................................................................. 1

2 . T H E G R O W I N G E C O N O M I C C A S E F O R C O N S E R VAT I O N ..........................7

2.1 Nature Provides Vital Ecosystem Services............................................................................92.2 These Ecosystem Services Have Economic Value ................................................................92.3 The Value of Natural Capital is a Growing Factor in the Market ......................................12

3 . T H E S TAT E O F C O N S E R VAT I O N I N C A N A D A .......................................... 13

3.1 Who Is Responsible for Nature? ........................................................................................153.2 Strategies for Conserving Nature in Canada......................................................................163.3 Shaping Approaches to Conservation:

Conservation Biology and Connectivity ............................................................................183.4 Shaping Approaches to Conservation: Aboriginal and Treaty Rights ................................19

4 . E VA L UAT I N G P R O G R E S S T O D AT E ............................................................23

4.1 Commitments to Nature Conservation ............................................................................264.2 Progress to Date ................................................................................................................294.3 Best Practices in Canada....................................................................................................294.4 Summary ..........................................................................................................................36

5 . K E Y B A R R I E R S T O P R O G R E S S .................................................................. 37

5.1 Lack of Political Will and Accountability By Governments ..............................................395.2 Lack of Conservation Planning at a Landscape Level ........................................................395.3 Key Stewards Are Often Not “At the Table” ......................................................................395.4 Lack of Economic Benefits and Incentives for Key Stewards ............................................405.5 Lack of Information and Tools to Support Decision Making ............................................405.6 Failure to Integrate the True Costs and Benefits of Nature ................................................405.7 Lack of Financial Resources to Support Conservation and Partnerships ............................415.8 Summary ..........................................................................................................................41

T a b l e of C o n t e n t s cont’d

6 . C O N S E R VAT I O N P L A N N I N G F O R W H O L E L A N D S C A P E S ...................... 43

6.1 Key Challenges..................................................................................................................456.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................46

7 . W O R K I N G W I T H I N D U S T R Y T O P R O M O T E W H O L E - L A N D S C A P E A P P R O A C H E S .......................................................... 57

7.1 Current Initiatives ............................................................................................................597.2 Key Challenges..................................................................................................................617.3 Recommendation ..............................................................................................................63

8 . C O M M U N I T Y S T E WA R D S H I P ...................................................................... 67

8.1 Communities in Canada Are in Transition........................................................................698.2 Current Programs..............................................................................................................728.3 Key Challenges..................................................................................................................738.4 Recommendations ............................................................................................................73

9 . C O N S E R VAT I O N O F M A R I N E E C O S Y S T E M S ............................................ 79

9.1 Emerging Tools for the Conservation of Marine Ecosystems ............................................819.2 Key Challenges..................................................................................................................839.3 Recommendations ............................................................................................................839.4 Summary ..........................................................................................................................86

1 0 . I M P L E M E N T I N G A N AT I O N A L F R A M E W O R K F O R A C T I O N .................. 87

10.1 Recommendations ..........................................................................................................8910.2 Meeting the Conservation Challenge Together................................................................92

1 1 . T H E WAY F O R WA R D ....................................................................................93

A P P E N D I C E S ........................................................................................................97

Appendix A: Glossary of Selected Terms..................................................................................99Appendix B: Program Participants ........................................................................................105Appendix C: Acknowledgements, Photo Credits, Endnotes ..................................................119

vi

vii

F o r e w o r d

THE National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (Round Table) established theConservation of Natural Heritage Program to encourage Canadians at all levels to undertakestewardship of the land and waters—publicly and privately owned—and to shape and support newtools that can be used to better conserve, restore and maintain the long-term health of ecosystems.

The impetus for this program stemmed largely from the findings of the Round Table’s MillenniumProgram, which outlined several key challenges and opportunities for Canada with respect to natureconservation. The Conservation of Natural Heritage program marked the first time that the RoundTable focused directly on the importance and implications of nature conservation for Canadian societyas a whole. It is the intention of the Round Table to continue to relate these findings to issues wheresocial and economic factors impinge on Canada’s natural heritage.

As Chair of the Round Table, I am therefore pleased to introduce this State of the Debate report,which details the program’s findings. The report is based on the work of a multistakeholder process,which brought together representatives from governments, industry, local communities, Aboriginalpeoples, NGOs, and the agricultural sector to examine the state of conservation in Canada today.

The report outlines key challenges and opportunities for conservation, and presents a set ofrecommendations that, if applied, will position Canada as a global leader in conservation by 2010.

HARVEY L. MEAD

Chair

Task Forc e Member s

ix

Task Force ChairTERRY DUGUIDNRTEE MemberChairmanManitoba Clean Environment Commission

KAREN DAVIDGEDirectorNew Brunswick Federation of Agriculture Inc.

DOUGLAS B. DEACONNRTEE MemberOwnerTrailside Café and Adventures

ROD FOWLERExecutive Vice-PresidentDucks Unlimited Canada

JULIE GELFANDExecutive DirectorCanadian Nature Federation

JACQUES GÉRINChairPanel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada’sNational Parks (1998–2000)

GARY W. GOODWINCorporate CounselDucks Unlimited Canada(replacement for Rod Fowler)

STEPHEN HAZELLExecutive DirectorCanadian Parks and Wilderness Society

ED HUEBERTExecutive Vice-PresidentMining Association of Manitoba

JOHN LOUNDSPresident, National OfficeNature Conservancy of Canada

CHRIS McDONELLEnvironmental DirectorTembec Inc.

LAURIE MONTOURBiologistIndigenous Resource Management andEnvironmental Protection

WILLIAM OPPENFormer Deputy MinisterYukon Department of Renewable Resources

ROBERT PAGEVice-President, Sustainable DevelopmentTransAlta Utilities

ROSS RISVOLDPast MayorHinton, Alberta

Task Force Ex-officio KAREN BROWNAssistant Deputy MinisterEnvironment Canada

YVAN HARDYAssistant Deputy MinisterCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources Canada

JOHN HERITYDirector, Biodiversity Convention OfficeEnvironment Canada

MONTE HUMMELPresidentWorld Wildlife Fund Canada

HARVEY LOCKESenior Program OfficerHenry P. Kendall Foundation& Senior Program AdvisorTides Canada Foundation

NIK LOPOUKHINEDirector General, National Parks DirectorateParks Canada Agency

DAVID J . McGUINTYPresident and CEONational Round Table on the Environmentand the Economy

Special Advisor to the Task ForceARTHUR HANSONDistinguished FellowInternational Institute for SustainableDevelopment

AdvisorCATHY WILKINSONOttawa, Ontario

StaffKAREN HÉBERT (MAY 2002 – JUNE 2003)Policy Advisor

LISA WOODWARD (APRIL 2001 – APRIL 2002)Policy Advisor

The s h e e r s c o p e and d i v e r s i t y o f ou r na tu ra l b l e s s i n g s s t a g g e r s t h e imag ina t i on . Fo r a l l Canad i an s , p r e s e r v i n g t h e na tu ra l h e r i t a g e o f Canada i s on e o f ou r g r e a t e s t p a s s i on s .

—The Right Honourable Jean Chrét ien, Prime Minister of Canada

October 3, 2002”“

E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y

xi

To s u s t a i n n a t u ra l c a p i t a l o v e r t h e l o n g t e r m , w e n e e d t o m o r e e f f e c t i v e l y i n t e g r a t e e c o l o g i c a l a n d e c o n o m i c d e c i s i o n m a k i n g .

”“

”“

S E C U R I N G C A N A D A ’ S N A T U R A L C A P I T A L • E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y

xiii

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (the Round

Table) identified nature conservation as one of the key sustainability issues

facing Canada at the turn of the millennium. A year later, in spring 2001,

the Round Table established the Conservation of Natural Heritage Task

Force, with representatives from governments, industry, communities,

Aboriginal peoples, agriculture and non-governmental organizations.

The Task Force agreed on two main goals forthe program: to encourage Canadians at all levels to undertake

stewardship of the land and waters, both publiclyand privately owned; and

to shape and support new tools that will helpCanadians better conserve, restore and maintainthe long-term health of ecosystems.

The findings from the program have now beenincorporated into this State of the Debate report,which reflects the state of play in conservation inCanada today. The report outlines key challenges andopportunities for conservation, as well as progress todate. It includes examples of best practices and anoverall vision for a renewed approach to conservationfor the next decade.

The report also notes some of the diverging viewson key areas in conservation. The issue of how tobalance the economic needs of communities withconservation goals, for example, was an importantarea of debate.

CANADA’S NATURAL HERITAGEWe value nature for many reasons: not only does ithave aesthetic and spiritual aspects, but it also providesus with clean air and water and other ecological serviceson which our economy, environment and quality of lifedepend. These ecological services are increasingly beingseen as a natural form of capital that has economicvalue. This realization is creating a new economic casefor nature conservation around the world.

The economic case for nature conservation inCanada is also linked to the nation’s role in the globaleconomy. Nature conservation is a growing factor inthe international market for Canadian natural resourceproducts, as consumers seek to ensure that the productsthey buy come from sustainable, healthy ecosystems. Inresponse, Canadian companies are increasingly seekingto demonstrate their commitment to conserving naturein order to remain competitive in global markets.

The context for conservation is changing, and newapproaches are clearly needed to secure and enhanceCanada’s natural capital. As a result, in this report theRound Table outlines a new vision for conservation inCanada, which it encourages all governments andother key conservation partners to adopt.

This vision is to position Canada as a global leader innature conservation by 2010, by taking innovative anddecisive actions to maintain the diversity and health of

our unparalleled natural ecosystems for all time. Achieving this vision will provide Canada and the worldwith clean air and water, abundant wildlife populations,healthy communities, and a robust, diversified economy

now and in the future.

The Round Table urges the Prime Minister to leadthe implementation of this national vision by conveningand working with provincial, territorial, Aboriginal andlocal governments, each of which plays a critical rolein implementing conservation solutions on theground. The Round Table also encourages govern-ments to work together to inspire and supportstewardship by Canadians in their communities.

E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y

A STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR ACTIONThe Round Table has developed a strategic frameworkfor action, and believes that this framework must beimplemented in order to achieve more and better conservation in Canada. The framework features fivecore elements: design conservation solutions through integrated

planning, by focusing on planning that looks atwhole landscapes and considers the social, eco-nomic and environmental values of thoselandscapes;

level the playing field for conservation, by encour-aging industry to become a better steward ofCanada’s lands and seas;

enhance stewardship by all Canadians, toencourage and support local communities inconservation planning and monitoring;

build and share a strong base of knowledge insupport of conservation in Canada; and

value natural capital, to ensure that economicdecisions formally factor in the value of nature.

The report examines the application of these coreelements in four specific areas: 1) conservation planningfor whole landscapes, 2) working with industry topromote whole-landscape approaches, 3) communitystewardship and 4) marine ecosystems. Each of theseareas represents unique and important opportunitiesto advance conservation on the ground and accelerateimplementation of the Round Table’s vision.

CONSERVATION PLANNING FOR WHOLE LANDSCAPES Protected areas are important anchors in any conserva-tion system. At the same time, the health of theseareas depends on the health of the lands around them.Conservation planning therefore needs to take wholelandscapes into account to ensure that our naturalcapital is secured over the long term.

The Round Table has identified several difficultiesin the area of conservation planning. One of these isthe failure of planning to keep pace with other pres-sures on the landscape—decisions about industrialdevelopment are being made more rapidly and inadvance of conservation planning.

As a first priority, the Round Table recommendsthat governments immediately require integratedland-use planning to ensure that conservationdecisions are made at the same time as, or prior to,decisions about major industrial development. Allgovernments should adopt this approach; however,the federal government should take the lead by requir-ing completion of integrated conservation planning inadvance of major regulatory approvals such as oil andgas pipeline construction licences.

Another difficulty with regard to conservationplanning is the lack of necessary information. Arobust information base is needed to identify, predictand manage existing and emerging challenges tonature conservation—now and in the future. TheRound Table therefore recommends that immediateinvestments be directed to key federal departments,such as Environment Canada and Natural ResourcesCanada, and other agencies to build a strong, nation-ally consistent conservation knowledge database. Sucha database is essential to achieving a comprehensivenew vision for conservation in Canada.

WORKING WITH INDUSTRY TO PROMOTE WHOLE-LANDSCAPE APPROACHESThe Round Table’s work on conservation underscoredthe importance of industry as a key steward in natureconservation in Canada. However, the Round Tablefound that there is little government support or incentives to encourage industry to take a bigger rolein conservation.

As a priority, the Round Table recommends that alllevels of governments adopt a series of measures aimedat eliminating known barriers to better conservationpractices. For example, to facilitate voluntary surren-ders by industry of areas of high conservation value,the Round Table recommends that provincial govern-ments amend their legislation to 1) enable thecreation of interim protected areas pending comple-tion of conservation planning and 2) remove “use it orlose it” requirements when resource rights are surren-dered for conservation purposes.

Over the longer term, the Round Table recommendsthat federal, provincial, territorial and Aboriginalgovernments examine their policy and legislative

xiv


frameworks to identify and remove key policy barriersto voluntary stewardship by resource industries.

COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIPConservation efforts must respond to the needs oflocal communities and Aboriginal peoples by empha-sizing their role as stewards of nature, and by workingto ensure that nature conservation brings them socialand economic benefits.

The Round Table identified a lack of incentives andbenefits for private landowners to conserve as a keybarrier to accelerating conservation across Canada.Landowners are critical players in conservation, parti-cularly in southern landscapes. Incentives directed tothese landowners can play a significant role in encour-aging stewardship actions.

As a priority, the Round Table recommends that thefederal government take immediate steps that includethe provision of specific incentives for landownersthrough Environmental Farm Plans and their equiva-lents, as well as amendments to the federal EcogiftsProgram to further encourage private landowners toconserve ecologically sensitive lands.

CONSERVATION OF MARINE ECOSYSTEMSThe Round Table identified marine ecosystems as apriority area for conservation. However, pressures onthe seascape, combined with complex and often unco-ordinated approaches to oceans management, are rapidlypreventing effective marine conservation.

As a priority, the Round Table recommends that thefederal government develop comprehensive plans forestablishing marine protected areas in each marineregion of Canada: for the Pacific Coast by 2003, theAtlantic by 2004 and the Arctic by 2005. These plansshould be based on the identification of areas of highconservation value in each region.

Another immediate step to moving conservationforward on Canada’s marine front is to accelerate effortsto implement Canada’s Oceans Strategy. This strategy isbased on the principles of ecosystem management,sustainability, integrated management and precaution.

The Round Table therefore recommends, as anotherpriority area, that the federal government allocate$500 million over the next five years to implement

Canada’s Oceans Strategy. This would enable Fisheriesand Oceans Canada to speed up the application ofintegrated management approaches across the countryand the establishment of a network of marineprotected areas under the Oceans Act.

ACHIEVING GLOBAL LEADERSHIP Canada has an opportunity to become a global leaderin conservation. However, immediate steps need to betaken in order to secure the natural capital uponwhich we all depend. As a first priority, the RoundTable calls on governments at all levels to implementthe following recommendations:

1. Meet ex i s t ing commitments Canadian governments have made a series of individualand collective commitments to conserve nature overthe past 20 years. Yet progress in meeting these commit-ments has been slow.

As a first step, the Round Table recommends thatgovernments take immediate actions to meet theirexisting commitments. At the federal level, the Round Table recommends the government fulfilcommitments made at the 2002 World Summit onSustainable Development to: establish 10 new national parks and five national

marine conservation areas; and restore the ecological integrity of existing parks.

In early 2003 (in the February budget and inMarch), the federal government announced a total of$218 million in new funding over the next five yearsto establish these parks and to maintain the ecologicalintegrity of existing parks. A further $54 million peryear in operational funding will be provided startingin 2008. The Round Table acknowledges the signi-ficance of this investment and believes that these areimportant steps toward achieving our conservationgoals. However, more funding will be needed toensure that commitments in this area are fully met.


xv

2. Inves t in conservat ion Government departments and agencies at all levels donot currently have the capacity to meet their existingconservation commitments, or to plan proactively forconservation in the future.

As a priority, the Round Table recommends that thefederal government invest in the establishment of ahighly leveraged National Conservation Fund, modelledin part on the existing federal-provincial infrastructureprogram. Specifically, the Round Table calls on thePrime Minister to make an initial investment of $250 million in the fund, and to encourage theprovinces, territories and conservation communitygroups to match that investment by a target of 3:1.The fund would support conservation activities on aproject-by-project basis consistent with the prioritiesoutlined in this report, as well as other conservationinitiatives across the country.

3. Adopt c l ear new goal s and t ime framesand measure progre s s

There is an urgent need to translate the Round Table’sfindings into measurable national goals and deadlinesfor meeting them. Once these goals are set, regularreporting would enable all Canadians to track theimplementation of this approach over the next 10 years.

Consequently, the Round Table recommends thatthe Prime Minister establish an independent, multi-stakeholder Conservation Council, which wouldmonitor progress on the implementation of thisreport’s recommendations, many of which relate toinitiatives such as the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy,Canada’s Stewardship Agenda and Canada’s OceansStrategy. The Council would report back to the PrimeMinister within 18 months of the release of this report.

These priority recommendations form part of alarger set of key measures identified by the RoundTable as being crucial to the federal government’srenewed commitment to nature conservation inCanada. Once implemented, these measures will helpposition Canada as a global leader in natureconservation by 2010.

xvi


S U M M A R Y O F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

Recommendation 1: The Round Tablerecommends that the federal governmentaccelerate conservation planning in twoareas where unique opportunities exist toplan in advance of major industrialdevelopment. These areas are:

the Mackenzie Valley, where the federalgovernment should require conservationplanning prior to issuing permits; and

Canada’s boreal forests, where the federalgovernment can work with provinces,territories and Aboriginal governments todevelop a framework—which includes bothprotected areas and sustainablemanagement—to sustain and conserveCanada’s boreal forests.

Recommendation 2: The Round Tablerecommends that federal, provincial,territorial and Aboriginal governmentsrequire integrated land-use planning toensure that conservation decisions are madeat the same time as or prior to decisionsabout major industrial development.

Recommendation 3: The Round Tablerecommends that federal and provincialgovernments require satisfactorycompletion of conservation and land-useplans for major regulatory approvals suchas oil or gas pipeline constructionlicences. At the federal level, suchapprovals would include permits issued byagencies such as the National EnergyBoard and offshore oil and gas boards.

Recommendation 4: The Round Tablerecommends that all governments enhancethe benefits of conservation for Aboriginalcommunities, both through the parksestablishment process and by providingAboriginal peoples with support for orpreferential access to the development ofbusinesses built around conservation areasin their traditional territories.


xvii


An essential part of this process is the directinvolvement of Aboriginal communities indetermining what benefits should be realizedand how Aboriginal peoples can bothcontribute to and benefit from initiatives suchas parks establishment.

Recommendation 5: The Round Table recom-mends that all governments support traditio-nal land-use studies for Aboriginal communi-ties. This support would allow Aboriginal com-munities to enhance community capacity,access local knowledge and develop informa-tion systems to effectively manage and utilizethat knowledge. It would also enable Aborigi-nal communities to effectively engage in land-use planning and management decisions.

Recommendation 6: The Round Table recom-mends that the federal government supportefforts to provide the nationally consistentinformation needed to plan effectively forconservation across the country. Supportwould include:

a national electronic biodiversity informationnetwork;

a standard national classification of bothterrestrial and aquatic biological communities;

a national land-cover monitoring program;

a national gap analysis program;

a publicly accessible digital map and databaseof all conservation areas in Canada; and

a nationally coordinated community moni-toring network to provide for the specificneeds of local and regional stakeholders.

Recommendation 7: The Round Table recom-mends that the federal government continueto support the work of Statistics Canada indeveloping a system of national accounts andto support the development of the CanadianInformation System for the Environment(CISE). The Round Table also recommends thatthe nature and society research program

currently being considered by the SocialSciences and Humanities Research Councilestablish, as a priority, research to determinethe best way to value Canada’s natural capitaland to factor these values into decisionmaking by all levels of government.

Recommendation 8: The Round Table recom-mends that federal, provincial and territorialgovernments examine their policy and legisla-tive frameworks to identify and remove keypolicy barriers to voluntary stewardship byresource industries.

As a first step, provincial governments should:

amend their legislation to enable the creationof interim protected areas pending completionof conservation planning; and

remove “use it or lose it” requirements whenresource rights are surrendered for conserva-tion purposes.

This move would enable companies to volun-tarily surrender areas of high conservationvalue with the certainty that they would notbe penalized and that these areas would notbe reallocated to other companies.

Recommendation 9: The Round Table recom-mends that the federal government accelerateefforts to conserve priority sites in highlyfragmented southern landscapes by supportinglocal communities in planning and monitoringactivities.

Recommendation 10: The Round Table recom-mends that the federal government establisha Canadian Biosphere Reserve Secretariathoused at Environment Canada to coordinatethe work of the reserves and share best prac-tices in engaging communities in regionalconservation planning.



Recommendation 11: The Round Table recom-mends that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canadaand Finance Canada, in partnership withprovincial governments as appropriate,introduce a suite of specific incentives forlandowners through Environmental Farm Plansor their equivalents. While these incentivesmay vary by jurisdiction, priority should beplaced on:

accelerated capital cost allowance claims onconservation equipment, such as flushing bars,fencing, watering and manure managementfacilities;

cost-sharing for capital improvements andequipment related to conservation objectives;

priority qualification or premium benefits foragricultural support, credit and insuranceprograms; and

technical assistance and other extension andsupport services.

Recommendation 12: The Round Table recom-mends that the federal government enhancethe Ecogifts Program to further encourageprivate landowners to conserve ecologicallysensitive lands. Enhancements would include:

removing the remaining capital gains tax ongifts of ecologically sensitive lands andeasements; and

including donations of ecologically significantlands held by corporations or individuals aspart of the inventory of their businesses.

Recommendation 13: The Round Table recom-mends that the federal government, with part-ners such as the Tourism Industry Associationof Canada, develop a national sustainabletourism strategy to enhance the economicbenefits associated with protected areas forlocal communities.

Recommendation 14: The Round Table recom-mends that the federal government, in part-nership with the Federation of Canadian Muni-cipalities and other agencies, invest in thedevelopment of computerized and GIS-baseddecision-support systems that can be used byR3 and other communities in social, economicand conservation planning and communitydevelopment. The Round Table has two furtherrecommendations: 1) that Natural ResourcesCanada’s GeoConnections program be renewedwith an expanded Sustainable CommunitiesInitiative and 2) that the expanded Sustaina-ble Communities Initiative should includepiloting the use of these decision-supportsystems in an additional 10 R3 communitiesper year.

Recommendation 15: The Round Table recom-mends that the federal government develop acomprehensive strategy to complete the net-work of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) by2003.

The Round Table also recommends that thefederal government develop comprehensiveplans for establishing MPAs in each marineregion of Canada: for the Pacific Coast by2003, the Atlantic by 2004 and the Arctic by2005. These plans should be based on theidentification of areas of high conservationvalue in each region.

Finally, the Round Table recommends thatfederal agencies with MPA programs adopt thefollowing targets:

five new Oceans Act MPAs by 2004 and anadditional 10 sites by 2010;

five new national marine conservation areas by2007 and 10 additional sites by 2010; and

five new national or marine wildlife areas by 2007.

xviii


xix


Recommendation 16: The Round Table recom-mends that the federal government allocate$500 million over the next five years to imple-ment Canada’s Oceans Strategy. This wouldenable Fisheries and Oceans Canada, in collab-oration with other federal departments, toaccelerate the application of integrated mana-gement approaches across the country and theestablishment of a network of marine protec-ted areas under the Oceans Act.

Recommendation 17: The Round Table recom-mends that the federal government allocate$50 million over five years to:

fund the SeaMap program as part of efforts tocreate a multidisciplinary, integrated nationaldatabase that would form the basis for deci-sion making about marine conservation andmanagement in Canada; and

identify information gaps, collect new informa-tion and conduct additional research inpartnership with the Ocean ManagementResearch Network.

The Round Table also recommends thatFisheries and Oceans Canada take the lead inproducing a “state of the oceans” report forCanada every five years.

Recommendation 18: To ensure that federalconservation priorities and commitments arefulfilled, the Round Table recommends that thefederal government allocate over the next five years:

$300 million to Parks Canada for new parksand for maintaining the ecological integrity ofexisting parks; and

$175 million to Environment Canada to signifi-cantly enhance the network of nationalwildlife areas and migratory bird sanctuaries,particularly in the North.

The Round Table also recommends that, toensure that these new resources are employedin the most effective and integrated wayspossible, these departments work withFisheries and Oceans Canada to develop andimplement a more integrated Federal ProtectedAreas Strategy.

Recommendation 19: The Round Table callson the Prime Minister to make an initialinvestment of $250 million in a NationalConservation Fund, and to encourage theprovinces, territories and conservationcommunity groups to match that investmentby a target of 3:1. The fund would supportpriority conservation activities on a project-by-project basis consistent with the prioritiesoutlined in this report, as well as otherconservation initiatives across the country.

Recommendation 20: The Round Table recom-mends the establishment of a Prime Minister’sConservation Council. The Council would moni-tor the government’s progress on the adoptionof measures outlined in this report, in particu-lar the priority recommendations, many ofwhich relate to initiatives such as theCanadian Biodiversity Strategy and Canada’sStewardship Agenda. The Council would reportback to the Prime Minister on progress within18 months of the release of this report.

The Council would also lead the developmentof a conservation charter that would guideconservation priorities over the next 10 yearsin Canada, based on the Round Table’s visionfor Canada’s lands and seas.

Finally, the Council would work with all sectorsto raise awareness about conservation issuesin Canada, focusing particularly on the role ofyoung people in conservation.

CANADA’S forests, rivers, Arctic tundra,oceans and other natural riches are unparalleled. They have shaped our history, our economy, ourcommunities and our sense of identity. They sustainus physically, emotionally and spiritually and provideecological services on which our economies andcommunities depend. This natural legacy is preciousand, like many precious things, is also fragile andfundamentally irreplaceable.

The Round Table believes that Canadians have aresponsibility to demonstrate global leadership in thestewardship of natural capital. In a time when naturalplaces disappear daily, we have a small window ofopportunity to create a natural legacy for both ourcountry and the world. Our chance to demonstrateglobal leadership in conservation will disappear if we donot act quickly and adopt fundamentally newapproaches to nature conservation.

The Round Table believes that enhanced action isrequired by all Canadians and their governments in orderto ensure that our natural capital is secure. We need tovalue ecological services in all aspects of decision making,since maintaining the health of these services is vital to ourlong-term quality of life and our economic strength.

To ensure conservation, we need to employ threerelated strategies across all of our terrestrial and marineecosystems, whether on public or private property. Thesestrategies are to: establish a complete system of protected areas that

are well-connected and representative of allCanadian ecosystems and key wildlife habitats;

adopt best practices for conservation on ourworking landscapes and marine ecosystems; and

connect and integrate these strategies within thecontext of a whole-landscape and marineecosystem approach.

In addition, we need to prioritize conservationdecisions. Urgent action must be taken in some partsof the country where conservation opportunities aretime-sensitive, as well as in ecologically intact areaswhere there is still the opportunity to provide forconservation in tandem with development decisions.

In our conservation efforts, we need to recognizethat communities are stewards of nature, and providethese communities with meaningful economic andsocial benefits that contribute to their sustainability.We need to engage a broader range of landowners andother interested parties in building long-termsolutions that benefit both nature and communities.

Finally, we need to ensure that conservationstrategies work within Aboriginal treaty rights andtitle, and we need to forge meaningful partnershipswith Aboriginal governments. Aboriginal governmentsand communities must be key players in developmentdecision-making processes, and they must be givensignificant responsibility for land-use planning andmanagement where their interests and lands are affected.

The Round Table believes that all Canadians takepride in their natural heritage, and that theyunderstand that this heritage, more than anythingelse, defines them as a people and as a nation.

The Round Table’s vision is to position Canada as aglobal leader in nature conservation by 2010, by takinginnovative and decisive actions to maintain the diversityand health of our unparalleled natural ecosystems for alltime. Achieving this vision will provide Canada and the

world with clean air and water, abundant wildlifepopulations, healthy communities, and a robust,

diversified economy now and in the future.

In the following chapters, the Round Table outlineshow to begin to make this vision a reality.

xx


The discussion below summarizes the overall vision for nature conservation proposed by

the Round Table. This vision was developed through discussions within the Conservation

of Natural Heritage Task Force over its two-year span, and through various consultations

conducted throughout the Conservation of Natural Heritage Program.

T H E R O U N D T A B L E ’ S V I S I O N F O R C O N S E R V A T I O N

C h a p t e r 1C h a p t e r 1

I n t r o d u c t i o n

1

W h i l e l a r g e - s c a l e p r o t e c t e d a r e a sr e m a i n a c r i t i c a l a n c h o r f o rn a t u r e c o n s e r v a t i o n , p a r k s a l o n e a r e n o t e n o u g h t o e n s u r e k e ye c o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n s a r e m a i n t a i n e d .

”“

”“

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (Round

Table) launched its Conservation of Natural Heritage Program in May 2001.

The impetus for this program stemmed largely from the findings of the

Round Table’s Millennium Program, which outlined several key challenges and

opportunities for Canada with respect to nature conservation.

IN particular, the Millennium Program found thatwhile Canada has a responsibility to demonstrateglobal leadership in the stewardship of natural capital,current approaches are not adequate to meet the needsof nature conservation. For example, according to theprinciples of conservation biology, the simple creationof parks will not be enough to maintain our naturallegacy. Rather, new approaches are needed that addressthe land base and marine ecosystems as a whole.1

The Conservation of Natural Heritage Programsought to encourage Canadians at all levels to under-take stewardship of the land and waters—publicly andprivately owned—and to shape and support new toolsthat can be used to better conserve, restore and main-tain the long-term health of ecosystems.

Program activities were overseen by a task force—the Conservation of Natural Heritage Task Force—consisting of representatives from governments, indus-try, local communities, Aboriginal peoples, theagricultural sector and non-governmental organizations(NGOs). Over the two-year span of the program, thismulti-sector task force examined the key issues, barriersand bridges related to successful nature conservation.It also undertook consultations to obtain input fromindividuals and sectors across Canada. Key activitiesincluded:

a workshop on science and traditional ecologicalknowledge;research on Aboriginal experiences with andindustry’s role in conservation; case studies examining lessons learned from land-use planning and conservation efforts across thecountry;2

a national conference entitled Conservation thatWorks!; anda review of innovative financing mechanisms thatcould be used to support nature conservation.

This work has culminated in the present State ofthe Debate report. Securing Canada’s Natural Capital:A Vision for Nature Conservation in the 21st Centuryreflects the views of both the Conservation of NaturalHeritage Task Force and the Round Table as a whole.

Program scopeIn electing to undertake a program on nature conser-vation in Canada, the Round Table tackled a verywide-ranging, complex issue. It looked at conservationthrough a broad lens, emphasizing the context forconservation and the importance of valuing naturalcapital in all sectors of Canadian society. Nevertheless,four issues emerged that were of clear importance toconservation in Canada but beyond the scope of theprogram’s current mandate: Aboriginal governance, therole of provinces and territories in conservation, thecurrent structure of incentives and disincentives for con-servation as they apply to industry, and freshwater issues.

Aboriginal governance: The Round Table recognizesthe importance of Aboriginal governance issues inCanada. Aboriginal governance pertains not only tothe treaty and Aboriginal rights of Aboriginal peoplesas recognized and affirmed in Section 35 of theConstitution, but also extends to the larger issue ofownership, authority over lands and waters, decisionmaking and benefits (from activities such as

C h a p t e r 1

S E C U R I N G C A N A D A ’ S N A T U R A L C A P I T A L • C h a p t e r 1

3

development and parks establishment). In its work onthe Conservation of Natural Heritage Program, theRound Table examined Aboriginal participation inareas such as community conservation initiatives,parks establishment and management, and land-useplanning.

Throughout the Program, the Aboriginal memberof the Conservation of Natural Heritage Task Forceraised questions as to Canada’s fulfillment of theRoyal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples’ recom-mendations, as well as other longstanding reportsrecommending a renewed relationship with theindigenous peoples of Canada. The member wouldnot accept the limits of Securing Canada’s NaturalCapital, as she felt it did not fully recognize theimportance of fulfilling Aboriginal and treaty rights incontemporary ways, and did not address theunderlying issue of an inherent right of Aboriginalgovernments to determine their priorities forthemselves. In her estimation, self-determination is aprecondition to working together to achieve the visionfor conservation set out in this report.

Role of provinces and territories in conservation: Muchof the land and water that sustains Canada’s naturalheritage is provincially owned and managed. In recog-nition of the provinces’ important role in conservation,the Round Table consulted with representatives of thesejurisdictions to ensure that this report would reflectsome of the conservation perspectives and needs ofthese key players. However, given that the Round Tableis a federal agency, the recommendations in this reportare targeted primarily toward federal decision makers.

Conservation incentives and disincentives for industry:The Round Table believes that incentives that recog-nize and encourage conservation by industry are animportant measure for furthering conservation inCanada. Although this report outlines some key chal-lenges and opportunities for industry to become moreengaged in conservation (see Chapter 7), it does notattempt to identify a comprehensive suite of incentives.The Round Table may delve more deeply into thisarea in future work.

Freshwater: The Round Table recognizes that fresh-water issues are important to nature conservationacross the country. However, time and resources didnot permit an adequate examination of freshwaterissues within the context of the program.

CANADA’S RICH NATURAL HERITAGEOur economy, environment and quality of life alldepend on healthy natural systems to provide us withclean air, clean water and other life-sustaining ecologi-cal services. These systems are increasingly beingconsidered natural capital. In combination withfinancial and human capital, natural capital providesthe fundamental underpinnings of a healthy societyand economy.

As the second largest country in the world, Canadais home to diverse species and ecosystems. Almost50 percent of the country’s landbase is blanketed inforests,3 while a quarter consists of northern tundra.Wetlands cover 16 percent, and lakes and rivers coveralmost 8 percent of the country’s land mass.4 Canada’sthree oceans, covering an area larger than 6.5 millionsquare kilometres, teem with a rich variety of species,from large marine mammals to the tiny phytoplanktonthat are the building blocks of marine life.

Canada’s global share of natural capital is very rich.Canada is home to 20 percent of the world’sfreshwater, though only 7 percent of the world’s freshrenewable water.5 Canada has designated 36 wetlands,covering 13 million hectares, as wetlands of inter-national importance under the Ramsar Convention.This is more in area than any other country.6

Canada’s vast landscapes and seascapes are also hometo some of the largest populations of bears, wolves,caribou and beluga whales.

These natural riches do not stop at the Canadianborder. Canada shares many species and ecosystemswith the rest of the Americas. Approximately 13 millionducks nest in Canada’s western boreal forest,7 and anestimated 1 to 3 billion landbirds breed in the borealregions of Canada8 before travelling as far as Texas,Mexico and Argentina. Large carnivores such asgrizzly bears and wolves, as well as migratory whales,move freely between Canada and the United States.

4


Canada has a unique opportunity to be a global leaderin nature conservation. With a small population andlarge land mass, Canada still has an abundance of naturein relatively healthy condition. The sheer richness andrelative integrity of our resources—particularly theimmense tundra and great northern forests—may haveshielded us so far from the massive loss of biodiversitythat scientists are observing around the world.

THREATS TO NATUREDirect threat s We are rapidly losing opportunities to create a lastinglegacy for our wild places. Direct threats, such asdevelopment pressures—from urban sprawl to thenorthward expansion of forestry, mining, and oil andgas development—threaten to transform our land-scapes and seascapes at an unprecedented pace overthe next 10 years. These activities can fragment thehabitat of key species or even convert this habitat tonew uses.

Agricultural expansion, suburban sprawl and indus-trial development have also fundamentally alteredimportant ecosystems such as grasslands and wet-lands.9 Agricultural expansion, for example, hasconverted more than 60 percent of the original grass-land cover in southern Canada. Our marine ecosystemsare also under stress, due to pressures such as oil and

gas development, the rapidly expanding aquacultureindustry, and land-based sources of marine pollution.

New threats from invasive or exotic species areemerging as well. For example, the introduction ofnon-native species is one of the leading causes of bio-diversity loss in Canada. The accidental introductionof the zebra mussel into the Great Lakes in the mid-1980s, for example, has had a profound impact onpopulations of native molluscs throughout the region.10

Indirec t threat sThere are also a number of indirect threats to naturein Canada. Pollution—whether from the release oftoxic substances and other pollutants or from the air-borne transport of pollutants from distant sources—significantly damages our ecosystems.

Another threat that is having a serious impact onnature is climate change. In our vast northernlandscapes, we are seeing the unmistakable signs oflarge-scale ecological change as a result of a warmerclimate. Northern pack ice is melting, preventingpolar bears from hunting during critical times whenthey need to feed their young. In the North andelsewhere, changes in the flowering times of plants,and changes in the migratory patterns of bird popula-tions caused by rising global temperatures, have beendocumented in scientific journals such as Nature.11


5

Direct and indirect threats to nature are having anincredible impact on our natural systems, and optionsfor maintaining our natural capital in an intact,healthy state are rapidly shrinking.12

MEETING THE CONSERVATION CHALLENGEThe challenges before us are great and increasinglycomplex. We know that our activities must remainwithin the limits of the earth’s carrying capacity, butwe do not know where those limits lie. Our challenge,then, is to understand and respect the earth’s presumedecological thresholds—before it is too late.

Yet conservation efforts in Canada are not keepingpace with these challenges. Despite ambitiousconservation goals adopted over the past 10 years,governments have fallen behind in meeting theircommitments.

Science and experience have demonstrated the need foran ecosystem-based approach to conservation.

Conservation must strive to maintain the health of wholelandscapes and marine ecosystems, with protected areasbeing a key component of conservation. This not onlyrequires new approaches to the design of protected and

adjacent areas, but also means that governments cannotachieve our conservation goals alone. All members ofCanadian society—including industry, Aboriginal

peoples, communities and NGOs—need to be engaged sothat the natural basis for our economies and communities

can be maintained.

The remainder of this report details the findingsfrom the Round Table’s Conservation of NaturalHeritage Program. The early chapters (2 to 5) makethe economic case for conservation, explore the stateof conservation in Canada today, examine currentinitiatives that support conservation, and identify keybarriers to conservation. The later chapters (6 to 10)present the Round Table’s recommendations for deci-sion makers, targeting in particular those decisionmakers within the federal government.

While implementing these recommendations willbe an important step toward achieving conservationin Canada, they are only part of the answer. Tosustain natural capital over the long term, we need tomore effectively integrate ecological and economicdecision making. As we do so, trade-offs are inevitable.How much are our natural systems worth? How muchshould we protect? And who should pay for theirconservation? This last issue, which is perhaps themost contentious in the debate on conservation today,is addressed in Chapter 11. While the answers willnot be simple, they are essential to our ability tomanage effectively in the long term.

6



The G r o w i n gE c o n o m i c C a s e

for C o n s e r v a t i o n

7

T h e c a s e f o r n a t u r e c o n s e r v a t i o ni n C a n a d a i s m o r e t h a n s i m p l y e n v i r o n m e n t a l , a e s t h e t i c o r s p i r i t u a l : i t i si n c r e a s i n g l y e c o n o m i c .

”“

”“


9

There are many reasons to keep natural systems healthy. We protect nature

because it provides places of breathtaking beauty and wonder, a source

of clean air and open space in an increasingly industrialized society,

and a destination for tourists from all parts of the globe seeking

world-class recreation. Nature also provides a source of regional

spiritual and cultural benefits.

WILD places and creatures are an essential partof the Canadian identity. Symbols of nature adorn ourflag, our currency and even our sports teams. Nationalparks are particularly symbolic for Canadians, so muchso that public opinion polls show parks ranking as amore important symbol of Canadian identity thanhockey.

The case for nature conservation in Canada is morethan simply environmental, aesthetic or spiritual: it isincreasingly economic. The growing case for conser-vation goes beyond the direct contribution of ournatural resources to the economy to take into accountthe economic value of the services our ecosystemsprovide—a value we are just beginning to understand.

The direct economic contribution of our naturalresources is significant. In 1996, for example, theforestry sector added more than $34 billion toCanada’s trade surplus.13 New economic sectors thatdepend on healthy ecosystems are also emerging.According to a recent government study, Canadiansnow spend $11 billion annually on nature-relatedactivities such as birdwatching and canoeing. If visitorsfrom the United States are included in the equation,this investment rises to almost $12 billion.14

Protected areas also contribute significantly toCanada’s national and local economies. Revenue fromnature-related activities generates $12.1 billion ofCanada’s GDP, and creates approximately 215,000jobs.15 One example of this can be found in Alberta,where revenues from visitor expenditures at Alberta’sRocky Mountain national parks (Banff, Jasper andWaterton) were estimated at $954 million in 1998.16

2.1 NATURE PROVIDES VITAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Scientists recognize that healthy natural systems perform a series of vital functions on which our livesdepend. These “ecosystem services” include air andwater purification, natural pest control, pollinationand flood control.17

One of the most critical services is watershedprotection. By filtering sediments and pollutants,intact watersheds play a pivotal role in providing uswith clean drinking water. They also play an essentialrole in managing floods and storing water—keyfunctions on which our communities depend.

Forests also provide us with vital ecological services.Forested areas store carbon in their trees, other vege-tation and even soils. This process of carbon seques-tration is a critical component of the global carboncycle that regulates the earth’s climate. This servicepromises to become increasingly important—andvaluable—as the world struggles to address the challenges of climate change. In fact, the KyotoProtocol will create a market for sequestered carbon,making carbon an economic commodity.

2.2 THESE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES HAVE ECONOMIC VALUE

The stocks of healthy natural resources—e.g. free-standing timber, wildlife, air, water and diverse eco-systems—that provide these services are increasinglyreferred to as “natural capital.” Although some formsof natural capital (such as land or timber) have meas-urable economic values, natural capital as a whole is

C h a p t e r 2

not assigned a direct or indirect market value, sincenature provides us with these services free of charge.Consequently, our economic and business decisionmakers have not typically taken the value of thesenatural assets into account.

Although it is virtually impossible to precisely meas-ure or place an economic value on these services, in1998 some economists estimated their value world-wide to be $16–54 trillion per year (the gross worldproduct that year was $28 trillion).18

Moreover, recent studies suggest that the economicvalue of wild ecosystems far outweighs the gains fromconverting them for human uses such as urban develop-ment, agriculture or resource extraction. A recentstudy indicates that a worldwide network of naturereserves both on land and at sea would cost about $45 billion a year to maintain. But this is far lowerthan the cost—from the loss of natural goods andservices—of allowing these habitats to be destroyed.This cost is estimated at between $4.4 trillion and$5.2 trillion.19

The Round Table recognizes that these figures arevery preliminary, and that it is extremely difficult toset the economic value of ecosystem services in anyprecise way. At the same time, we know that the valueof these services is greater than zero—and is evengreater if we accept that many of the services providedby our ecosystems have no known human substitutes.For example, while the earth produces all the oxygenthat several billion people need to breathe each day,the US$200-million Biosphere IIexperiment was unable to reproducethis service for just eight people.20

Progress in valuing ecosystemservices has accelerated in recentyears, as a small number of govern-ments and other innovators havebegun to calculate the costs ofconserving watersheds and tocompare them with the costs ofbuilding mechanical plants. In abold departure from business asusual, they were taking stock oftheir natural capital. In the process,they were learning how ecosystems

can be seen as capital assets, supplying human beingswith a stream of services that sustain and enhance ourlives.21

These innovators are learning that it is often morecost-effective to conserve natural systems than to tryto replicate or restore them. Officials in New York State,for example, faced with a price tag of $6–8 billionfor a new water filtration plant, decided instead toinvest in the watersheds that naturally provide cleanwater for New York City’s 9.5 million people. Thecity invested $1.5 billion—a fraction of the cost ofthe new plant—into land acquisition, training andincentives for landowners to reduce pollution andmaintain watershed health throughout theCatskill/Delaware and Croton watersheds.22

Conserving natural systems is clearly the most cost-effective way to maintain the ecological services theyprovide. What’s more, there are economic opportuni-ties associated with restoring natural systems: restoringrivers and redeveloping historic waterfronts, for exam-ple, can have a significant economic impact on localbusinesses and communities. The magnitude of theseeconomic opportunities is only beginning to beunderstood.23

In addition, we are beginning to see the emergenceof a “conservation economy.” This is occurringthrough the emergence of new sectors such as outdoorrecreation and ecotourism, as well as through theentry of new players into traditional economic sectors.A good example of this trend is Iisaak—the joint

10


T H E I M P O R T A N C E O F N A T U R E T O C A N A D I A N S

In 2000, Environment Canada released the results of its secondmajor survey on the importance of nature to Canadians. The reportshowed that 20 million Canadians participated in one or morenature-related activities in 1996, and that Canada’s natural capitalalso attracted more than one million visitors from the UnitedStates. In total, participants spent $11.7 billion enjoying thesepursuits. This in turn contributed $12.1 billion toward the GDP andhelped to create 215,000 jobs.1

1 Statistics Canada, The Importance of Nature to Canadians: The EconomicSignificance of Nature-related Activities, 2000.


11

owned company with Aboriginal peoples born fromthe turbulent clashes over the fate of ClayoquotSound in British Columbia (see box).24

Organizations such as Ecotrust Canada haveemerged to support the development of the conser-vation economy.25 Ecotrust works to empower com-munities, encourage sustainable resource stewardship,provide working capital and bring the conservationeconomy to life. Its programs fall into two categories:

information services, mapping and planning tohelp local groups assess their resources, gaintools for informed decision making and plan fortheir futures; andlending and economic development services thatprovide concrete supports toward building neweconomic opportunities.

Bioprospecting—the search for biological sourcesof food, fibre and energy—is rapidly becoming anintegral part of an increasingly innovative globaleconomy. Biodiversity is responsible for an aston-ishing number of medical advances within oursociety. A broad range of pharmaceuticals—fromantibiotics to antidepressants—are derived fromplants, animals or micro-organisms. The over-the-counter cost of drugs from plants was estimated in1998 to be $84 billion worldwide.26

In addition, a number of countries are exploringthe potential to build “bio-based economies,”which use renewable biological resources such asagricultural and forest crops to produce fuels,industrial chemicals, building materials and evenpower. Supported by advances in both plant bio-technology and industrial bioprocessing, this trendmay support a shift from fossil fuels and petro-chemicals while enhancing the sustainability ofrural and agricultural communities. A report fromthe U.S. National Research Council suggests thatthis transition may “have the same impact on theformation of new industries in the next century asphysical and chemical sciences have had on indus-trial development in [the last] century.”27

I I S A A K F O R E S T R E S O U R C E S L T D .

Iisaak is a joint venture between the five CentralRegion First Nations of Clayoquot Sound and theBC Coastal Group of Weyerhaeuser. Iisaak has atimber-harvesting and forestry tenure coveringapproximately 87,000 hectares in Clayoquot Sound.1

The strategic intent of the company is tobecome a global example of leadership in thedevelopment of successful approaches to themanagement of forests with high conservationand cultural values, and the production of forestproducts and services. The company seeks tocreate maximum value from a reduced volume oftimber harvest, in part through the creation ofnew conservation values based on environmentalservices, particularly carbon credits.

1 “Iisaak: A New Economic Model for Conservation-basedForestry in Coastal Old Growth Forests, BritishColumbia,” paper presented at a workshop entitledDeveloping Markets for Environmental Services, A NewRole for Forests in the Green Economy, organized by theUniversity of British Columbia, October 2000.

12


2.3 THE VALUE OF NATURAL CAPITAL IS AGROWING FACTOR IN THE MARKET

The case for nature conservation is also linked toCanada’s place in the global economy. Natureconservation is a growing factor in the internationalmarket for Canadian natural resource products, asinternational consumers seek to ensure that theproducts they buy come from sustainable, healthyecosystems. Canadian companies are feeling pressureto demonstrate corporate social and environmentalresponsibility in order to remain competitive in globalmarkets. A key driver for these companies is the desirefor certainty on the landscape and access to markets.Companies in all industrial sectors want tounderstand clearly where and how they can operate.Failure to achieve this certainty can be costly, bothfinancially and in terms of a company’s national andinternational reputation.

Controversy over industrial development atparticular sites (such as Clayoquot Sound, the GreatBear Rainforest and Temagami) bears witness to thegrowing pressure from international consumers forcompanies to have strong environmental records.Indeed, pressure from international consumers isbeginning to extend beyond the cash register to thesupply chain. Highly organized and effectivecampaigns by environmental groups such asGreenpeace and Forest Ethics have sought to changeforest practices by securing commitments fromretailers, rather than from consumers, to purchasegoods from sustainable sources.

To manage public expectations and theirinternational reputations, many resource companiesbelieve they need what amounts to a “social licence tooperate.” More leading companies, recognizing thatsociety wants industrial development to be balancedwith conservation, are therefore driving the creationof a new corporate environment that embracesconservation.


The S t a t eof C o n s e r v a t i o n

in C a n a d a

13

D e t e r m i n i n g t h e b e s t w a y t o s e c u r e o u r n a t u ra l c a p i t a lr e q u i r e s a s o l i d u n d e r s t a n d i n go f t h e s t a t e o f c o n s e r v a t i o n i n C a n a d a .

D e t e r m i n i n g t h e b e s t w a y t o s e c u r e o u r n a t u ra l c a p i t a lr e q u i r e s a s o l i d u n d e r s t a n d i n go f t h e s t a t e o f c o n s e r v a t i o n i n C a n a d a .

”“

”“


15

3.1 WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR NATURE?In Canada, unlike many countries, the vast majorityof the land mass is publicly owned: 94 percent of thecountry’s forests are public land, with 71 percent heldby the provinces and 23 percent (largely north of the60th parallel) by the federal government.28 On themarine side, the federal government has primary juris-diction over the oceans and the continental shelf,while authority for the coastal zone is shared betweenthe federal government and the provinces and terri-tories. Because of the high level of public ownershipof land and water in Canada, our governments play agreater role in nature conservation than governmentsin most other countries, where significantly more landis privately owned.

Legislative responsibility for nature conservation isshared under the Constitution.29 Areas of federalresponsibility generally include oceans and freshwaterecosystems, migratory birds and the management offederal lands including Nunavut and the NorthwestTerritories. Responsibility for management of theselands is slowly being devolved to territorial govern-ments in the North, and as of April 1, 2003, this res-ponsibility was devolved to the Yukon Territory.Discussions on transfer of responsibilities to theNorthwest Territories are currently underway.

The federal government also has a fiduciary respon-sibility for lands upon which Aboriginal peoples livesouth of the 60th parallel, although land claims nego-tiations over the past 10 years have begun to cedeauthority over portions of the Canadian landscape toAboriginal governments.30

The provinces have direct responsibility for managingthe majority of Canada’s publicly owned lands, andhave a critical role to play in promoting conservationin their planning, permitting and monitoring programs.They are also the bridge between national goals andthose responsible for implementing them.

Provincial governments have a range of instrumentsat their disposal to foster better conservation, inclu-ding implementing conservation programs; providingincentives for individuals, communities and companies;and developing information and decision-makingtools for local communities. Provincial governmentsalso set the rules for allocating and managing landsunder their jurisdiction, and can therefore design andimplement the results of comprehensive conservationplanning processes.

C h a p t e r 3Determining the best way to secure our natural capital requires a solid under-

standing of the state of conservation in Canada. This means understanding both

jurisdictional responsibilities and some emerging trends that influence our

approaches to conservation, in particular the emergence of new scientific

knowledge and developments in Aboriginal treaty rights and title.

Scientific advances, particularly in conservation biology, have informed

conservation planning and management decisions over the past 20 years,

and continue to be a key aspect of conservation in Canada. Aboriginal

rights to land and resources have also been evolving over the last 20 years, and

have extensive implications for how conservation is achieved in Canada today.

Role s in conservat ion Although jurisdictional responsibility is primarilyshared between the federal and provincial/territorialgovernments, all sectors of society can make a sub-stantial contribution to ensuring that our naturalcapital is conserved for future generations.

The role of municipal governments in natureconservation is becoming increasingly important,particularly as they face amalgamation and thedownloading of responsibilities from provincialgovernments. Municipal governments contribute tonature conservation through their decisions aboutplanning, infrastructure development and localeconomic development. As the level of governmentclosest to communities and natural resources, localgovernments can promote local-level stewardship andfoster economic benefits associated with protectedareas and other conservation initiatives in their regions.

Aboriginal communities play a unique role in conser-vation, in part because their traditional activities oftendepend on the long-term health of the ecosystems theyconsider home. To participate effectively in conservationplanning, Aboriginal communities need support to collect traditional ecological knowledge (in part throughtraditional land-use mapping) and to use this infor-mation in their decision making.

Industry is emerging as a conservation leader and asource of energy and commitment. Participation in

conservation initiatives by leading companies has beencritical in forging consensus on conserving naturalareas across the country. Companies can demonstrateleadership through innovation: by finding new waysof using resources more efficiently, setting parts oftheir management areas aside for conservation pur-poses, and gaining third-party certification that theirpractices are environmentally sound.

Non-governmental organizations have an opportunityto be both leaders and partners in the developmentand implementation of conservation solutions. NGOsplay an important role in monitoring performance,leveraging opportunities and acting as catalysts forchange. Given their hands-on role in delivering con-servation education and activities across the country,they are also an important source of informationregarding best practices and new approaches.

Individual Canadians also have an important contri-bution to make to nature conservation by acting asstewards of nature (often in their own backyards),holding governments accountable for their performance,and using their power as consumers to encouragecompanies to adopt strong conservation practices.

3.2 STRATEGIES FOR CONSERVING NATURE IN CANADA

The federal, provincial and territorial governmentseach have legislation, regulations and programs to

establish and implement theirconservation commitments. Theserange from wildlife managementregulations and environmentalassessment regimes to voluntaryprograms that engage landowners,industry players and individualcitizens in conserving habitats andbiodiversity.31

Government strategies forconserving land and marineecosystems include: the establishment and

management of protectedareas;

F R A G M E N T A T I O N A N D C O N N E C T I V I T Y

Habitat fragmentation is one of the major threats to biodiversity.Entire landscapes that were once connected mosaics of nativehabitats are now often altered or affected by human uses. Nativehabitats that remain may occur in patches of various sizes that areseparated from one another by these altered landscapes. Manyspecies and processes are unable to survive in human-modifiedlandscapes, and their ability to travel between patches of nativehabitats has been severed. This fragmentation disrupts naturalmovements of animals (and their genes), seeds, spores and pollen,as well as nutrient and energy flows. Connecting these isolatedpatches of habitat is a critical way to ensure that natural systemscontinue to function well.

16


managing for biodiversity on working landscapesand seascapes; and

restoring the health of degraded ecosystems.

The extent to which each of these strategies isapplied differs widely across the country, dependingon conservation objectives. For example, there issignificantly more potential for new protected areas innorthern Canada, as development and populationpressures there are less intense than in the heavilyfragmented lands along the Canada–U.S. border. Atthe same time, there is an urgent need to secureremaining intact habitats and restore the fragmentedparts of our southernmost landscapes, where a signi-ficant percentage of Canada’s species are found.

Establ i shment and management o f protec ted areasProtected areas generally refer to areas protected frommost human uses, including industrial developmentand settlement. Parks and protected areas form a corepart of any nature conservation effort. Experience onevery continent has demonstrated that strictly protectedareas are required on a portion of land and marineecosystems to ensure that vital elements of naturalcapital—namely, the full range and function of bio-diversity—persist over time.

These core areas can operate as reference or controlareas, which we can use to judge the success of effortsto sustainably manage the rest of the landscape, andcan act as a “fail safe” where those efforts are notsuccessful. They also provide a necessary haven forspecies that are sensitive to human activities. Largeprotected areas act as fortresses against invasive exoticspecies and make a considerable contribution to


17

human and economic health by protecting water-sheds, regulating local climates and protecting soilsfrom erosion. In addition, protected areas allowpeople to experience nature on its own terms andoften contribute significantly to local economies.

In Canada, types of federally protected areas includenational parks and park reserves, migratory birdsanctuaries, and national wildlife areas. Provincialdesignations vary by jurisdiction, but may includeprovincial or territorial parks, wilderness areas andecological and nature reserves.32

The use of conservation areas to protect marineecosystems is at an early stage of development. Marineprotected areas can be established at either the federalor provincial level in Canada. Federally, areas can beprotected as coastal and offshore wildlife sanctuaries(under the Canadian Wildlife Service), marineprotected areas (under Fisheries and Oceans Canada),or national marine conservation areas (under ParksCanada) (see Chapter 9).

3.3 SHAPING APPROACHES TO CONSERVATION:CONSERVATION BIOLOGY AND CONNECTIVITY

Protected areas are a critical anchor in maintaining theecological health of both wildlife and natural ecosys-tems. Yet a number of different approaches have alsobeen used to guide nature conservation efforts overthe past 20 years in Canada. These have included: protection of special elements—identifying, map-

ping and protecting occurrences of rare species(particularly “hotspots” where such occurrences areconcentrated), watersheds of high biological value,imperilled natural communities and other sites ofhigh biodiversity;

representation of habitats—including a full spec-trum of habitat types (e.g. vegetation, abiotichabitats, aquatic habitats) in protected areas andother areas managed for natural values33; and

conservation of focal species—identifying andprotecting key habitats of species that have highecological importance or are hypersensitive todisturbance by humans.

Scientists also emphasize the need for approachesthat seek to maintain specific ecological functions andservices. These include: providing for the daily and seasonal movements

of animals; facilitating the dispersal of animals and plants, as

well as a healthy flow of genes among animal andplant populations;

allowing for shifts in the range of species (in res-ponse to climate change, for example); and

maintaining the flow of ecological processes (e.g. fire, wind, sediments, water).34

These four approaches, which are usually pursuedseparately, have different goals and can therefore resultin very different sets of priorities. A comprehensivestrategy for biological conservation requires the inte-gration of these approaches.

While large-scale protected areas remain a criticalanchor for nature conservation, conservation biologyclearly demonstrates that parks alone are not enoughto ensure that key ecological functions are maintained.In other words, what occurs on the lands that sur-round and connect protected areas is as important tothe health of the park’s ecosystem, and survival of thepark’s inhabitants, as the management of the parkitself. This is, in part, because protected areas cannever be large enough to meet all the needs of manymigrating animals (such as caribou) or wide-rangingspecies such as bears, cougars, wolves or even birdsand because ecological systems do no necessarilyfunction within the boundaries of the protected area.

Consequently, conservation biology underscores theimportance of maintaining ecological integrity acrosswhole landscapes and marine ecosystems. This requiresplanners to apply new, integrated approaches toensure that natural systems and functions are main-tained wherever they exist on our lands and in our seas.

Further, these scientists are stressing the significanceof connectivity between protected areas, as well as theneed to ensure that connectivity is an integral part ofany conservation agenda. Maintaining or restoring thenatural connections between core protected areas isessential to the survival of many plant and animalspecies. These “corridors” are more than pathways by

18


which animals move between protected areas; they arealso habitats in which animals can feed and breed.While not needing the strict restrictions of core pro-tected areas, corridors need to be managed to providegood or at least suitable habitat and to accommodatenormal patterns of movement without bringinganimals into high-risk areas such as roads. To beeffective, a system of protected areas needs to preserveconnectivity by ensuring the conservation of naturalhabitat along the migratory routes of large carnivoresand other key species.

These findings call for new, integrated approachesto conservation that maintain the structure, composi-tion and, perhaps most importantly, functions ofecosystems. These approaches, in turn, will requiremore scientific research to understand and designpotential corridors, which may be easier to implementin the North than in the more fragmented south.Northern areas, such as the boreal forest and theArctic, as well as the oceans, offer a unique opportunityto maintain the natural connections. In areas that aremore heavily developed, innovative mechanisms andtools will be needed to re-establish lost connections.

State of the debate: approaches to connectivity There was widespread support among the participantsin the Conservation of Natural Heritage Program forsecuring Canada’s natural capital across whole land-scapes and seascapes. Yet the issue of how to achievethis goal revealed an important area of continuingdebate.

Most participants acknowledged that connectingprotected areas was a necessary part of any plan tomaintain Canada’s natural capital. However, someparticipants raised concerns that wildlife corridorscould unfairly set limits on communities in or aroundthese corridors. Limits on industrial activity orresource extraction could impact a community’s socialand economic needs, when there might be few otheroptions available.

The Round Table acknowledges that this importantarea of debate continues. However, consensus seems tobe emerging that, within corridors, sensitive resourcedevelopment can occur where wildlife movements andother habitat needs are taken into account. In this

context, corridors or “special management areas” are amove toward balancing the needs of communitieswith the needs of wildlife.

Restor ing degraded ecosy s temsThe restoration of ecosystems that have been degra-ded, damaged or destroyed as a direct or indirectresult of human activities is yet another approach thatCanada has used in conservation. Restoration canconsist of a broad spectrum of activities, from address-ing a specific barrier to ecological function to reintro-ducing lost species or eliminating exotic ones. Thegoal of these activities is to restore the ecosystem’sability to function in a natural way.35

Ecological restoration is difficult, time-consumingand costly, making it preferable from both an ecologi-cal and economic perspective to avoid ecologicaldegradation in the first place. Restoration is never-theless an important part of any conservation strategy.In Canada, it is most likely to be employed in oursouthernmost landscapes, where wetlands and prairieecosystems have been significantly affected by agri-cultural development and urbanization. As noted inChapter 2, there are often significant corollary eco-nomic benefits from the restoration of degradedecosystems, particularly in urban areas.

3.4 SHAPING APPROACHES TO CONSERVA-TION: ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS

For Aboriginal peoples, the legal landscape has shifteddramatically over the past 20 years, as a result of newland claims negotiations and the clarification of rightsby the courts. Aboriginal rights and title have notonly been constitutionally recognized and affirmed,but are also increasingly integrated into legislative andpolicy frameworks.


19

Aboriginal rights with respect to public lands gener-ally refer to the use of certain areas for traditional andcultural activities or practices. Different Aboriginalrights may exist in different places, depending on thetraditional use or occupation of the land in question.One of these rights is to harvest fish and wildlife,both within and outside protected areas.

Aboriginal rights have been clarified through a seriesof seminal Supreme Court decisions. One was the1990 Sparrow decision,36 which for the first timeconsidered the scope and meaning of Section 35(1) ofthe Constitution Act, 1982, which recognizes andaffirms Aboriginal and treaty rights. In this case, theSupreme Court ruled that Aboriginal peoples have aconstitutionally protected right to fish for food anduse wild animals and plants for social and ceremonialpurposes. This right takes priority over all otherrights, with the exception of the conservation of thestock in question. The Badger decision extended thesame approach to treaty rights.37

A 1997 Supreme Court decision further clarifiedAboriginal rights and title. The Delgamuukw decisionfound that groups or communities that can demon-strate Aboriginal title to land must be involved in any

decision making that could result in an infringementon their rights. Depending on the infringement,Aboriginal peoples’ consent, and potentially compen-sation, may be required.38

Land c laimsLand claims agreements are also of paramountimportance to First Nations and the Inuit, in partbecause they provide a specific vehicle for ensuringthat their communities benefit from bothdevelopment proposals and nature conservation.These agreements are rapidly changing the map ofCanada and have broad implications for allCanadians, particularly policy makers.

Modern land claims settlements—from the JamesBay Northern Quebec Agreement of 1975 to morerecent agreements in the Yukon, Northwest Territoriesand Nunavut—now account for more than 545,000square kilometres of land. Combined with Métissettlements in Alberta, the amount of Canadian landrecognized as held by Aboriginal communitiesexclusively rises to almost 7 percent. With land claimsnegotiations underway in many parts of the country,this number can be expected to grow significantly in

the next 10 years.39

Land claims often lead to theestablishment of co-managementor joint jurisdictional bodies tomanage natural resources. Theseboards, which are composed ofAboriginal and governmentrepresentatives who make recom-mendations on a host of environ-mental issues, play an increasinglyimportant role in conservationdecisions.

Other efforts to strengthenAboriginal access to land andresources include a revenue-sharing agreement between theGrand Council of the Cree andthe Quebec government. Signedin 2001, the agreement providesthe Cree with an annual revenueflow from mining, forestry and

J A M E S B A Y N O R T H E R N Q U E B E C A G R E E M E N T

The 1975 James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement established thefirst co-management boards in Canada. The mandate of these earlybodies was primarily to provide advice on issues related to wildlifemanagement. Co-management agreements also exist under the1984 Inuvialuit Final Agreement (which establishes two WildifeManagement Advisory Councils and a Fisheries Joint ManagementCommittee) and the 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. TheNunavut claim is far more detailed than earlier agreements, andcreates several new resource management institutions withsignificant decision-making powers. These boards are increasinglyimportant players in conservation planning.

Co-management boards can also play a key role in the marineenvironment. Co-management arrangements under the Inuvialuitagreement, for example, led to the development of the BeaufortSea Integrated Management Planning Initiative, which will guidedecisions about multiple users and marine environment quality inthe region in the face of major potential oil and gas developmentsin the Mackenzie Delta.

20


hydroelectric projects on their traditional lands andallows the Cree to participate directly in economicdevelopment on their traditional territory. A similaragreement was reached with the Inuit of northernQuebec in 2002.

Recommendations to increase Aboriginal peoples’access to land and resources are contained in the finalreport of the Royal Commission on AboriginalPeoples. Released in 1996, the report covers a widerange of issues related to the relationship betweenAboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in Canada.Key recommendations dealing with land andresources include: Recommendation 2.4.27, which calls on the

Crown to take interim steps to expand Aboriginalpeoples’ land base prior to treaty negotiations.

Recommendation 2.4.50, which calls for theadoption of interim measures to improve access toforestry resources. Largely directed at provincialgovernments, this recommendation calls for:

- promoting Aboriginal involvement inprovincial forest management and planning;

- encouraging large timber licencees toprovide for forest management partnershipsor joint ventures with Aboriginal firms;

- providing Aboriginal peoples with the rightof first refusal on unallocated Crowntimber close to reserves or Aboriginalcommunities; and

- greater flexibility in timber managementpolicies and guidelines to reflect less-intensive Aboriginal practices andtraditional activities (e.g. reductions inannual allowable cut requirements,experimentation with lower harvest ratesand smaller logging areas).

Recommendation 2.4.51, which calls on thefederal government to ensure that Aboriginalpeoples obtain the “full beneficial interest” inminerals, oil and gas located on reserves.

These recommendations provide an important blue-print for strengthening Aboriginal access to land andresources, both for people living on-reserve and forthe many Aboriginal persons who now live off-reserve.


21


E v a l u a t i n gP r o g r e s s to D a t e

23

W h a t c o m m i t m e n t s h a s C a n a d am a d e t o c o n s e r v i n g n a t u r e a n dh o w h a v e w e f a r e d i n m e e t i n gt h e s e c o m m i t m e n t s ?

”“

”“


25

What commitments has Canada made to conserv ing nature and how

have we fared in meet ing these commitments? This chapter out l ines

progress so far and ident i f ies best pract ices used in Canada

for secur ing our natural capita l .

C h a p t e r 4

A T I M E L I N E O F S E L E C T E D E V E N T S A F F E C T I N G N A T U R E P R O T E C T I O N I N C A N A D A , 1 9 7 0 – 2 0 0 2

1971 Federal Department of the Environmentformed.

1973 Canada Wildlife Act proclaimed, laying thegroundwork for initiatives such as theNational Wildlife Areas.

1975 Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna andFlora (CITES) comes into force withCanada as a member.

1977 Committee on the Status of EndangeredWildlife in Canada established.

1981 Canada accedes to the Ramsar Conventionon Wetlands of International Importance,eventually designating 36 Ramsar sitescovering some 13 million hectares.

1982 Establishment of the Beverly-QamanirjuaqCaribou Management Board, the first ofseveral northern co-managementstructures intended to draw on traditionalecological knowledge and nativeobjectives in wildlife and ocean resourcemanagement.

1986 Canada and the United States agree onthe North American WaterfowlManagement Plan, now the leading sourceof funds for waterfowl restoration projectsin Canada.

1988 Committee on the Recovery of NationallyEndangered Wildlife (RENEW) established.

St. Lawrence Action Plan launched byCanada and Quebec; 1994 renewallaunched St. Lawrence Vision 2000 withbiodiversity as one key objective.

1989 World Wildlife Fund Canada publishes Endangered Spaces: The Future for Canada’s Wilderness and begins the major Endangered Spaces campaign for habitat conservation based on representative areas, including completion of the national park system (at that time only 54 percent complete).

Permanent Cover Program initiated on thePrairies, with removal of almost 500,000hectares of land from cultivation.

1990 Canada’s Model Forest Network of 10 sites totalling some 8.3 million hectares established, which was later extended internationally. The model forest sites incorporate a concern for biodiversity.

North American Wetlands ConservationCouncil formed to advise on wetlandsconservation.

1991 Green Plan announced, allocating over$170 million to protecting “Special Spacesand Species.” The Plan enunciated anational long-term goal of 12 percentprotected areas; it was terminated in1995.

1992 A Statement of Commitment to CompleteCanada’s Networks of Protected Areassigned in November by federal, provincialand territorial ministers.

United Nations Convention on BiologicalDiversity ratified by Canada.

Commission on Resources andEnvironment (CORE) established to resolveland allocation issues in British Columbia.

1995 Ecogifts Program established andamendments to the Income Tax Actannounced to increase the annual limit

4.1 COMMITMENTS TO NATURE CONSERVATION

The federal government has made a series of commit-ments to nature conservation over the past 10 years.These include commitments to: complete Canada’s networks of protected areas

representative of Canada’s land-based naturalregions by the year 2000, and accelerate theprotection of areas representative of Canada’smarine natural regions; 41

create national parks in each of the country’s 39land-based natural regions;

maintain the ecological integrity of the nationalparks system by establishing an EcologicalIntegrity Panel and implementing a plan to restoreparks to ecological health;

work toward more integrated, sustainable man-agement of Canada’s oceans, in part by enactinglegislation to enable the creation of a system ofmarine conservation areas;

26


A T I M E L I N E O F S E L E C T E D E V E N T S . . . C O N T ’ D

for tax refunds for ecological gifts from20 to 100 percent.

1996 Federal, provincial and territorial wildlifeministers sign an Accord for Species atRisk, agreeing to provide complementarylegislation and programs across Canada.

Banff-Bow Valley Study released.

1997 Canada’s Oceans Act comes into force,providing a legal basis for marineprotected areas.

1998 Panel on the Ecological Integrity ofCanada’s National Parks established toexamine the “maintenance and restorationof ecological integrity within nationalparks.”

Federal Commissioner of the Environmentand Sustainable Development reports toParliament that Canada has an“implementation gap” in meeting itsobligations under internationalagreements, including the Convention onBiological Diversity.

1999 Canada, United States and Mexico signthe North American Bird ConservationInitiave (NABCI).

2000 WWF Endangered Spaces campaign endson Canada Day. More than 1,000 newprotected areas covering 38 millionhectares had been established, about halfthe campaign’s target of at least 12percent of Canada’s lands and waters.

Canada National Parks Act passed; createsnew or enlarges existing parks and parkreserves by means of order in council.Both the federal and the provincialCrowns are subject to the bill.

Amendments to the Income Tax Actreduce the income tax payable on thedeemed capital gains associated withecological gifts from 75.0 to 33.3percent.

2001 The Round Table’s Task Force on theConservation of Natural Heritageestablished.

2002 Federal Species at Risk Act receives RoyalAssent; deals with the listing, protectionand recovery of endangered species andother species at risk within federaljurisdiction.

Approval by Cabinet of the completion ofthe National Parks System, July 2002.40

Canada National Marine ConservationAreas Act passed; provides a frameworkfor the designation and management ofnational marine conservation areas.

Prime Minister announces commitment toestablish 10 new national parks and fivenew marine protected areas.

Agriculture Policy Framework announced;revolves around five new priorities forgovernment spending: food safety andquality, the environment, business riskmanagement, renewal, and science andinnovation.

Canada’s Stewardship Agenda released, afederal/provincial/territorial stewardshipinitiative.

Canada commits to completing arepresentative system of marine protectedareas by 2012 at the World Summit onSustainable Development in September.

pass legislation and create stewardship programs toprotect species at risk;

consider whether to amend the Canadian Environ-mental Assessment Act to require consideration ofthe impact of projects on parks and protectedareas;

invest in research, development and advancedinformation systems to enable better land use andprotect water supplies from industrial and agricul-tural operations;

help Canada’s agricultural sector move beyondcrisis management to more genuine diversificationand value-added growth, new investments andemployment, better land use, and high standardsof environmental stewardship and food safety; and

review incentives and disincentives to soundenvironmental practices.

Complet ion o f protec ted areas sy s temAs noted above, there has been a specific commitmentto complete a system of protected areas in Canada. In1992, the Canadian Parks Ministers’ Council metjointly with the Canadian Council of Ministers of theEnvironment and the Wildlife Ministers’ Council ofCanada to sign a Statement of Commitment to Complete Canada’s Networks of Protected Areas.

The statement committed theirgovernments to complete a network ofprotected areas representing samples of allecological regions of Canada by the newmillennium. World Wildlife Fund Canada’s10-year Endangered Spaces campaign bothinspired this commitment and supported andmonitored the governments’ progress towardthis goal. Progress on the completion of asystem of protected areas is discussed later inthis report.

More recently, the Prime Ministerannounced at the World Summit onSustainable Development in September 2002that the federal government will create 10new national parks and five new marineconservation areas within the next five years.In early 2003 (in the February budget and inMarch), the federal government announced a

total of $218 million in new funding over the nextfive years to establish these parks and to protect theecological integrity of existing parks. A further $54million per year in operational funding will beprovided starting in 2008. The first new nationalparks will likely be the Gulf Islands of BritishColumbia and Ukkusiksalik (Wager Bay) in Nunavut,and the first marine conservation area will likely beLake Superior Marine Conservation Area. This newfunding will also allow for progress on othercommitments related to new parks and nationalmarine conservation areas.

Other Canadian commitments to conservationCanada is party to a number of international agreementsin support of nature conservation. Most recently,Canada’s conservation efforts have been informed bythe 1992 United Nations Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD).42 Canada was the first industrializedcountry to ratify this convention, whose objectivesinclude the conservation of biological diversity, thesustainable use of biological resources, and the “fairand equitable sharing of benefits” from the use ofgenetic resources (i.e. genetic material with actual orpotential value).43 Highlighted below are some


27

I S I T P R O T E C T E D ?

The Endangered Spaces campaign set out criteria inorder to determine if a park or reserve was trulyprotected. In order to meet campaign standards, anarea had to be permanently protected—usuallythrough legislation—and prohibit industrial usesincluding logging, mining, hydroelectric and oil andgas development. For marine areas, a qualifyingprotected area must prohibit oil and gas drilling,dumping, dredging, bottom trawling and dragging,along with other non-renewable resource explorationand extraction activities.

Source: Endangered Spaces, World Wildlife Fund Canada (October 2000).

commitments to nature made by Canadian governmentsover the last 10 years. This section is not meant to beexhaustive; rather, it showcases a selection of bothcommitments and programs created in response tothese commitments.

Canadian Biodiversity Strategy: This is a frameworkfor action by federal, provincial and territorial govern-ments, as well as non-governmental actors. Developedin 1994 in response to the CBD, it is the first nation-al framework for the conservation of Canada’s naturalsystems. The Strategy’s five goals are: to conserve biodiversity and sustainably use

biological resources; to enhance our understanding of ecosystems and

our resource management capability; to promote an understanding of the need to

conserve biodiversity and sustainably use biologicalresources;

to provide incentives and legislation that supportthe conservation of biodiversity and thesustainable use of biological resources; and

to work with other countries to conserve biodiversity,use biological resources sustainably and share equitablythe benefits from the use of genetic resources.

Signatories to the Strategy included all provincesand territories. All agreed to pursue these goalsaccording to their policies, plans, priorities and fiscalcapabilities, and to report regularly to the public onprogress in meeting these commitments. However,while it outlines key strategic directions related to thefive goals, the Strategy contains relatively few measur-able commitments with specific time frames. Instead,more specific commitments have either been announ-ced by individual jurisdictions or negotiated on acase-by-case basis on specific issues such as protectedareas and species at risk.

Recently, the Strategy has given rise to some impor-tant initiatives. For example, the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Biodiversity Working Group was mandatedby wildlife ministers in September 2001 to identifynational and crosscutting priorities for action underthe Strategy. This group is currently advancing workin the areas of biodiversity science capacity, biological

information management, statusand trends monitoring andreporting, alien invasive speciesand stewardship.

Canada’s Stewardship Agenda: This isanother example of a joint federal,provincial and territorial initiativethat addresses conservation.Endorsed by the Joint ResourceMinisters’ Councils in 2002, theAgenda is intended to establish abroad, long-term course of actionfor stewardship, foster collaborativestewardship actions, and identifypriorities for future investment instewardship in Canada. All threelevels of government will further thedevelopment of the Agenda byidentifying options to supportstewardship that are appropriate foreach jurisdiction.

N O R T H A M E R I C A N B I R D C O N S E R V A T I O N I N I T I A T I V E

28


In June 1999, government leaders from Canada, the United Statesand Mexico signed the North American Bird Conservation Initiative(NABCI), an agreement that encourages international cooperationto conserve the continent’s bird species. The initiative is designedto increase the effectiveness of existing and new bird conservationprograms, enhance coordination between organizations and fostergreater international cooperation. National coordination of NABCIin Canada occurs through the NABCI Canada Council, chaired by theAssistant Deputy Minister of Environment Canada’s EnvironmentalConservation Service. Council members include representatives fromprovincial governments, non-governmental organizations, andpartners from Canada’s four major bird initiatives: the NorthAmerican Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight Canada,the Canadian Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the North AmericanWaterbird Conservation Plan. The success of NABCI depends entirelyon the active participation and enthusiasm of individuals, wildlifeorganizations and government agencies internationally.

Source: Environment Canada, Migratory Bird Conservation, www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/birds/nabci_e.cfm


29

Accord for the Protection of Speciesat Risk: This accord was signed byfederal, provincial and territorialministers responsible for wildlifein 1996.44 Subsequently revised tohighlight the importance ofstewardship programs, the Accordincludes commitments by allgovernments to establishlegislation and programs that: provide an independent

process for assessing the statusof species at risk;

provide immediate legalprotection, as well as habitatprotection, for threatened orendangered species;

implement recovery plans for threatened or endan-gered species; and

undertake preventive measures to prevent speciesfrom becoming at risk.

4.2 PROGRESS TO DATEBy any measure, progress in meeting the commitmentsoutlined above has been slow. Between 1989 and2000, the total amount of Canada’s land base inprotected areas doubled, reaching almost 7 percent.However, less than one third of Canada’s terrestrialnatural regions are adequately or even moderatelyrepresented by protected areas.45

At the federal level, despite commitments in threeconsecutive Throne Speeches and a deadline of 2000,14 of Canada’s 39 natural regions are not yet represen-ted by a national park.46 Progress has been even morelimited in the marine context (see Chapter 9).

While formal designation of protected areas is impor-tant, the ecological integrity of these areas must bemaintained in practice. The federally commissionedPanel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada’s NationalParks concluded in 2000 that the ecological integrity ofthe vast majority of Canada’s national parks was at risk.Of Canada’s 39 national parks, 31 reported significantto severe ecological stress as a result of human activitiesin and around park boundaries, and 13 reported thatthe situation had grown worse since 1992.47

The panel recommended that an additional $328 mil-lion be invested over five years to safeguard nationalparks, and that annual investments of approximately$83 million follow.

The federal government has released a response tothe panel’s report, and allocated some funds towardthis priority in the March 2003 commitment toimplement the Action Plan for Canada’s NationalParks and Marine Conservation Areas and in theFebruary 2003 budget. However, it is still much lessthan the panel recommended.

4.3 BEST PRACTICES IN CANADAWhile progress in securing our natural capital has notbeen sufficient, a number of innovative conservationapproaches and initiatives have begun to emerge.

Forging innovat ive par tner shipsThe last 10 years have shown what can be achievedwhen divergent sectors—including industry andNGOs—come together to find novel ways to conserve important natural areas. In coastal BritishColumbia, for example, environmental groups,Aboriginal peoples and Weyerhaeuser (formerlyMacMillan Bloedel) reached a historic agreement in2000 to protect more than 100 intact valleys, putting an end to years of intense local, national and international conflict.48

N O R T H A M E R I C A N W A T E R F O W L M A N A G E M E N T P L A N

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) is aninternational partnership initiated in the late 1980s that bringstogether all levels of government, industry and NGOs interested inmaintaining healthy populations of waterfowl and their habitats.The NAWMP has been instrumental in leveraging funds from bothCanada and the United States to protect habitat (by, for example,purchasing and protecting or restoring prairie potholes). Workingtogether on a series of regional joint ventures, NAWMP partnershave successfully conserved almost 700,000 hectares of wetland,shoreline, grassland and woodland habitat.1

1 www.nawmp.ca/eng/real_e.html

In addition, parks agencies are beginning to workwith Aboriginal peoples in new ways, and are using avariety of new tools to identify, design and manageareas of high conservation and cultural value,particularly in the North. Vuntut National Park, forexample, was established in 1995 as part of theVuntut Gwitchin First Nation Final Agreement. TheGwitchin advocated the establishment of a national

park as a way of ensuring the survival of the caribouherd that supports their traditional way of life. VuntutNational Park represents a new era in parks establish-ment: for the first time, Aboriginal peoples couldenvision a park that protects an area for, not from,their use.49

30


Jurisdiction Percentage ofprovince/territoryprotected1

Size of protectedareas (in hectares)

Percentage increase in protection

Notes 1 Logging, mining and oil, gas and hydroelectric development must be prohibited by regulation within the protected area bound-

aries (Endangered Spaces campaign minimum protection standards).

2 These numbers reflect the Government of Quebec’s data on protected areas. However, according to WWF-Quebec and the Union québé-coise de la conservation de la nature, these numbers include protected areas that include development activity occurring withinthem. According to WWF’s methodology, these do not qualify as protected areas. Specifically, commercial logging on AnticostiIsland and mining on caribou calving grounds in northern Quebec change the percentage of protection. Accordingly, NGO datawould read as follows: percentage of province protected: 0.51%; size of protected areas (in hectares ): 856,445; and increase inprotection: 0.15%. With the recent addition of new protected areas, the NGO data as of February 2003 would be 2.65%, or4,475,795 protected. Personal communication, WWF-Canada, Quebec Office, February 2003.

Source of table : See Endangered Spaces, World Wildlife Fund Canada (October 2000).

British Columbia 11.40 10,770,100 6.15

Yukon 10.38 5,008,000 3.71

Alberta 9.99 6,612,303 1.46

Ontario 8.74 9,405,300 3.95

Manitoba 8.61 5,579,883 8.12

Nova Scotia 8.30 458,615 5.79

Saskatchewan 6.01 3,912,800 3.04

Northwest Territories/Nunavut 5.22 17,941,954 1.65

Newfoundland and Labrador 4.32 1,749,526 3.41

Prince Edward Island 4.19 23,709 3.13

New Brunswick 3.17 231,116 2.24

Quebec2 4.31 6,646,278 3.91

CANADA 6.85 68,339,584 3.37

PROGRESS UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPACES CAMPAIGN , 1989—2000

Industry as a leader in conservation solutionsSome of the most significant conservation successesover the past five years have been implemented byindividual companies, particularly within theforestry sector. Goodwill on the part of thesecompanies has led to significant conservationpartnerships and achievements.

Examples of these conservation partnershipsinclude the Ontario Forest Accord, which wassigned in 1999 by three leading forest companies(Tembec, Abitibi-Consolidated and Domtar), theOntario government and the Partnership for PublicLands (Wildlands League, Federation of OntarioNaturalists and World Wildlife Fund Canada). Thisaccord identified 378 new protected areas andintroduced a “Room to Grow” framework (see box)that links further increases in wood supply toincreases in protected areas.

Another important example of industry playing aleadership role in conservation occurred in Alberta’sWhaleback, where more than 70,000 acres were

protected as a result of an innovative agreementbetween environmental groups and the oil and gasindustry. BP Amoco, which had petroleum andnatural gas licences for the area, agreed torelinquish and donate these rights to the NatureConservancy of Canada so that the area could beprotected under the province’s Special Placesprocess.50

Managing for biodiver s i ty on working landscapes and seascapesAs discussed in the previous chapter, what occurson the lands and seas that surround and connectprotected areas is as important to the survival of apark’s biodiversity as the management of the parkitself. Managing for biodiversity on land and seasrequires the involvement of a broad spectrum oflandowners and land users, including key industrialplayers in the forestry, mining, and oil and gas sec-tors, as well as fisheries and shipping.

2 0 0 2 J O H A N N E S B U R G W O R L DS U M M I T O N S U S T A I N A B L ED E V E L O P M E N T : C A N A D A ’ SC O M M I T M E N T S

At the Summit, the federal governmentreiterated its commitment to:

create 10 new national parks;

establish five new national marineconservation areas, including representativenetworks by 2012; and

accelerate work to restore the ecologicalhealth of Canada’s existing parks, in responseto recommendations made by the Panel on theEcological Integrity of Canada’s National Parksin spring 2000.

Once established, the new parks are expected toincrease the area covered by Canada’s nationalparks system by 50 percent.1

1 www.parkscanada.gc.ca/apps/cp-nr/release_e.asp?bgid=570&andor=bg


31

R O O M T O G R O W F R A M E W O R K

Signatories to the Ontario Forest Accord identi-fied the need to develop a process for sharingpermanent increases in wood supply betweenadditional protected areas. This is to ensure thatmeasures to make resource use more efficient, orto generate higher wood volume to offset thecreation of protected areas, did not unintention-ally put new pressures on the landscape. For thisreason, they conceived Room to Grow—a policyframework that ties the expansion of any newwood supply to an equivalent expansion ofprotected areas in the province. Adoption of thisframework eliminates a key structural barrier tobetter conservation by providing certainty to allplayers that intended conservation results willbe achieved.

Source: Room to Grow, Final Report of the Ontario ForestAccord Advisory Board on Implementation of theAccord (March 2002) available atwww.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/oll/ofaab/room2grow.pdf

In Canada, many strategies can be employed toconserve nature and maintain biodiversity on aworking landscape. Many forestry companies, forexample, have adopted an ecosystem-based manage-ment approach in which they attempt to model theirpractices on natural systems.51

Managing for biodiversity may also include settingaside sensitive habitat or wetland areas, investing inpost-harvest regeneration to re-establish a forestsimilar to the one harvested, restoring or rehabilitatingkey riparian areas, and introducing monitoring pro-grams to measure progress toward sustainable forestmanagement. Efforts have been made in other sectorsas well. For example, shipping lanes have been movedto accommodate marine mammal movements, andland contaminated by mining operations has beenreclaimed and used for other purposes.

Foster ing connect iv i ty and whole- landscapeapproachesNew methods for maintaining and enhancing connec-tivity across the landscape are emerging across NorthAmerica. The Yellowstone to Yukon ConservationInitiative, for example, is promoting an interconnectednetwork of large protected areas and landscapes, witha variety of conservation designations, through whichwildlife can move freely throughout the entire RockyMountain range. The Baja to Bering Initiative has asimilar mandate in the Pacific marine environment.

In Canada, there are many more options for awhole-landscape approach to conservation than justset-aside areas or parks. These include new designa-tions such as wildlife areas (where traditional activitiessuch as hunting, trapping and fishing are allowed) orlegislated “special management zones.” First used inthe Muskwa-Kechika Management Area in BritishColumbia (see box), these zones are open for someindustrial development, but it is much morecontrolled than in non-designated areas.

Harnes s ing the power o f the marketOpportunities for new partnerships and approaches toconservation are growing as the market begins toreflect conservation priorities and conservationbecomes integrated with the bottom line of leadingcompanies. These initiatives are still in their infancy,but are likely to grow significantly in the next 10 years.

Third-party certification, particularly within theforestry sector, is one example of a market mechanismthat enables consumers to recognize leading compa-nies that are going beyond regulatory requirementsand charting a more sustainable future. These certifi-cation systems include standards developed by theCanadian Standards Association, the ForestStewardship Council, and the American Forest &Paper Association’s Sustainable Forestry Initiative.

The same is true in the agricultural sector. Federal,provincial and territorial ministers of agriculture havedeveloped an Agriculture Policy Framework—a newvision for the agricultural sector that focuses on devel-

oping new forms of incomesecurity and preparing the sectorfor changing world markets.

An important component ofthe Agriculture Policy Frameworkis the enhancement of environ-mental performance. Ministers areworking on a comprehensive planfor accelerated environmentalaction that will achieve measurablegoals for air, water and soilquality, as well as for biodiversity.They anticipate that thesemeasures will foster innovation


E N D A N G E R E D S P A C E S : A F R A M E W O R K F O R A C T I O N

The Endangered Spaces campaign was launched in 1989 by WorldWildlife Fund Canada (WWF-Canada). The goal of the campaign was tocomplete a network of protected areas representing all 486 naturalregions of Canada by 2000. WWF-Canada gathered more than 600,000signatures to a “Wilderness Charter” in the initial stages of the program,and by 1992 had convinced all governments in Canada to adopt thecampaign’s goal as a national commitment. The campaign, which ranuntil July 1, 2000, was instrumental in protecting more than 38 millionhectares of land, and led to the establishment of processes for creatingover 1,000 protected areas across the entire country.1

1 See Endangered Spaces, World Wildlife Fund Canada (October 2000).

32

and support a major transition within theindustry that will provide it with a premiersustainability “brand” or market niche withwhich to distinguish itself in the emergingmarkets of the 21st century.

Providing incentives for privatelandownersThe last 10 years have also witnessed anincrease in conservation agreements and othertools that support habitat conservation onlargely private working lands. These voluntaryagreements include landowner contracts,easements and covenants and often involvepartnerships between conservation organizationsand landowners. They have been quitesuccessful in securing conservation areas onecologically significant lands.

There has also been growing recognition ofthe need to provide incentives for landowners toengage in habitat, water and soil conservation.One such incentive was the Ontario LandStewardship Program, which provided grantsfor the adoption of conservation farmingpractices that enhanced and sustained agri-cultural production and improved soil resourcesand water management. More than $9 millionwas paid to farmers from 1989 to 1993 in theform of research, technical and financial assistance.

Revisions to the federal Income Tax Act have alsoincreased incentives for private landowners. Until

1995, the Act allowed donations of land to registeredcharities and municipalities, but the receipt couldonly be applied against 20 percent of the donor’s

income each year. After 1995, thisrestriction was lifted and donationscould be applied against 100 percentof the donor’s income, removing theformer ceiling on deductibility.

Additional amendments in 1998confirmed that gifts to the Crowncertified as ecologically sensitive landswould be treated in the same way asother ecological gifts to qualifiedrecipient charities and municipalities.As such, all ecological gifts to theCrown are deductible against up to 100percent of a taxpayer’s annual income.

I N N O V A T I O N I N A C T I O N : T H E M U S K W A - K E C H I K A

The Muskwa-Kechika Management Area, initiated in theearly 1990s by a loose coalition of conservationists andtourist operators, is one of the leading models of land-use planning and conservation biology. BritishColumbia’s imposition of a two-year restriction on newvehicle access in the area, combined with theestablishment of comprehensive land-use planning, setthe stage for this unique management agreement.

Participants on the planning table ultimately agreed toestablish large protected areas (one million hectares)surrounded by special management areas (three millionhectares) where logging, mineral exploration, and oiland gas development are allowed to take place in waysthat are sensitive to wildlife and conservation values.British Columbia enshrined the consensus-basedoutcomes in legislation and established a trust fund tosupport ongoing research, development and monitoringin the region.1 With continued engagement by industry,conservation groups, First Nations and localcommunities, the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area isan example of a “good way to a good place.”

1 www.nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/programs/Current_Programs/Nature/Case-Studies/KMA-Case-Study-Brief_e.htm

“Our collective vision is for a Canadian agriculture industry inthe 21st century that is strong and healthy, with access tointernational markets, and one in which consumers havecomplete confidence in our products. Our vision is for a sectorthat is branded number one in the world. A sector fuelled byinnovation and the latest research… and squarely based onthe highest standards of food safety and environmentalprotection. Other countries—our competitors—are starting tomove ahead in these areas. We cannot and will not be leftbehind in our bid for consumer confidence.”

—Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister– Lyle VancliefJune 28, 2001See www.agr.gc.ca/cb/speeches/s010628e.html


33

34


Finally, the federal budget in February 2000announced that the capital gains inclusion rate forecological gifts would be lowered to one half of thegeneral inclusion rate. Given that the general inclusionrate was dropped from 75 to 66 percent, this resultedin an inclusion rate for ecogifts of 33 percent. InOctober of that year, thegeneral inclusion rate waslowered still further to 50percent, bringing the rate forecogifts down to 25 percent.Although more action isneeded, more than 260 giftsrepresenting over $49million have been madesince the program was firstintroduced, protecting nearly21,000 hectares.52

The federal government committed in 1999 to introduce legislation andstewardship programs and work with the provinces and territories to protectspecies at risk and their habitats.

The 2000 federal budget provided $45 million over five years for stewardshipprograms to preserve species and habitats. Amendments to the EcogiftsProgram have also made it easier for people to donate ecologically sensitivelands as a way of protecting species at risk.

The federal Species at Risk Act (Bill C-5) received Royal Assent in December2002. The Act provides immediate legal protection for endangered speciesunder federal jurisdiction (e.g. migratory birds, aquatic species and species onfederal lands) and their residences. In addition, the Act establishes a recoveryplanning process that addresses major threats to the species (such as habitatloss or pollution). Where provinces fail to act to protect an endangeredspecies, the legislation provides a federal safety net, allowing the Minister ofthe Environment to intervene and provide additional protection for a givenspecies. The Act is expected to come into force in summer 2003.

Finally, the February 18, 2003, federal budget announced an investment of $33million over two years forthe implementation ofCanada’s Species at RiskAct. The funding is to beallocated as follows: $13million for fiscal years2003–2004, and $20million for 2004–2005.

P R O G R E S S I N P R O T E C T I N G S P E C I E S A T R I S K


35

M A N I T O B A P R O P E R T Y T A X C R E D I T P I L O T P R O G R A M

Manitoba’s pilot municipal property tax credit program has demonstrated that even asmall municipal tax credit can serve as an incentive for conservation. In twomunicipalities, a $1-per-acre property tax credit was provided each year to landownerswho adopt specified environmentally sustainable land-use practices. Participation wasvoluntary. Land was eligible for the tax credit if it was used to create or maintainconservation cover (e.g. vegetation that may include tame forage, native grassland,wetlands, riparian buffer zones and annual croplandwith a minimum of 40 percent straw cover). While thetax credit was clearly worth less than the totalecological services provided by the land, it did providesome compensation to landowners for allowing societyto benefit from conservation. The program’s simple,low-cost system of verifying land use was based onaerial photo interpretation.

For a cost of about $75,000, the program protected6,538 acres of wetlands, 15,116 acres of land underconservation tillage, and 39,334 acres of tame forage,native prairie and riparian zones—about 30 percent ofthe land in the two rural municipalities. The averagetax credit payout was $261, with individual farmers receiving between $1 and $1,628.In a mail survey, 86 percent of the participants agreed the program was worthwhile and88 percent agreed that the property tax credit was effective compensation. This type ofprogram is simple to administer and could be used in a variety of settings, includingprivate forest areas.1

1 Nancy Olewiler, “Property Tax Credits for Conservation,” paper prepared for the National Round Tableon the Environment and the Economy Ecological Fiscal Reform Program, September 2001.

36


4.4 SUMMARYProgress in securing our natural capital has been slow.However, innovative models are emerging that canpoint the way forward for decision makers at all levels.

Best practices recently occurring in Canada arecharacterized by several important features. First, theyfocus on results, recognizing that a diversity ofapproaches can be used to achieve agreed-to goals andthat innovative solutions emerge where there is awillingness to entertain such solutions. Second, theyfoster strong partnerships among a variety of groups,including those that have traditionally beenadversaries. Lastly, they recognize the importance ofproactive, large-scale planning as one of the key toolsto achieving meaningful results on the ground.

However, innovative models are not enough. Severalsignificant barriers to conservation must be addressedbefore Canada can position itself as a global leader innature conservation. The following chapter outlinessome key barriers to conservation in Canada.


K e y B a r r i e r sto P r o g r e s s

37

T h e a b s e n c e o f a n e w n a t i o n a lf r a m e w o r k o r v i s i o n f o r c o n s e r v a t i o ni n C a n a d a t h a t r e s p o n d s t o t h ec h a n g i n g c o n t e x t f o r c o n s e r v a t i o nt h r e a t e n s t o c o m p r o m i s e f u t u r ea t t e m p t s t o m a i n t a i n o u r n a t u r a l s y s t e m s .

”

“

”

“


39

Previous chapters have shown that nature conservation in Canada has not

been advancing as quickly as it could and that governments have made

many commitments that remain unimplemented. The Round Table has

sought to understand why this is the case, and to identify the main

systemic barriers to more and better conservation in Canada.

This chapter provides an overview of these key barriers.

5.1 LACK OF POLITICAL WILL ANDACCOUNTABILITY BY GOVERNMENTS

First and foremost, the Round Table points to a lackof political will as a key barrier to nature conservationin Canada. Conservation goals have not been givensufficiently high priority relative to other governmentpriorities, nor have they been effectively integratedinto the overall agendas of most Canadian governments.Rather, conservation commitments and programs areoften in competition with the priorities of othergovernment departments.

There is a lack of a national vision for conservationin Canada, which could be a powerful mechanism forintegrating and coordinating the actions of govern-ments at all levels. Such a vision has been effective inthe past; a number of conservation initiatives over thepast 10 years took place in the context of the NGO-led Endangered Spaces program (1989–2000). Theabsence of a new national framework or vision forconservation in Canada that responds to the changingcontext for conservation threatens to compromisefuture attempts to maintain our natural systems.

This problem is also exacerbated by the relative lackof measurable commitments and time frames foraction by federal, provincial and territorial govern-ments. The Canadian Biodiversity Strategy sets strategicdirections but contains almost no measurablecommitments with specific time frames. The Com-missioner of the Environment and SustainableDevelopment has been highly critical of the lack ofmeasurable results, performance indicators and timeframes for action at the federal level to implement theConvention on Biological Diversity.

5.2 LACK OF CONSERVATION PLANNING AT A LANDSCAPE LEVEL

The Round Table also notes that integrated approach-es to establishing and coordinating conservation goals,priorities and efforts are rare. Despite federal–provin-cial cooperation on initiatives such as the NorthAmerican Waterfowl Management Plan and the GreatLakes and Fraser Basin action plans, governmentshave not systematically pursued conservation plans forbroad landscapes, coastal zones or regions.

This has led to disagreement on conservationpriorities both among government departments withmandates affecting the same lands and among playerssuch as industry, NGOs and communities. As a result,conservation efforts are often less targeted and effectivethan they might otherwise be—a key barrier, giventhe limited funds and time available for conservation.

5.3 KEY STEWARDS ARE OFTEN NOT “AT THE TABLE”

While governments have an important role to play inmaking land-use decisions and setting the rules forappropriate management, others—including industry,Aboriginal peoples, local communities and NGOs—are equally important stewards of Canada’s lands andwaters. However, these players have not always beensystematically or effectively engaged in conservationplanning over the last 10 years.

Despite the fact that conservation solutions such asprotected areas will survive only if they are seen to beof value to Aboriginal communities,53 many conser-vation initiatives in the past have not respectedAboriginal rights or allowed for the full participation

C h a p t e r 5

of these communities in the co-management ofresources. Other local communities also feel isolatedfrom conservation decisions. This is becoming anincreasingly significant barrier, particularly asexperience and science both dictate the need for moreholistic approaches.

5.4 LACK OF ECONOMIC BENEFITS ANDINCENTIVES FOR KEY STEWARDS

Across the country, communities have long struggledto balance the need for healthy natural ecosystemswith the need to prosper economically. Rural, remoteand resource communities in particular have oftenseen conservation initiatives as running counter totheir interests. In the struggle to improve theirmembers’ social and economic quality of life, thesecommunities may see nature conservation as animpediment to resource development that bringsconcrete economic benefits.

The Round Table has identified the lack of economicand financial benefits as an important barrier toconservation. For communities to become meaningfulpartners in conservation, they must be supported byboth economic and financial benefits that enableconservation to benefit both nature and communities.

5.5 LACK OF INFORMATION AND TOOLS TO SUP-PORT DECISION MAKING

Another key barrier encountered by the Round Tableis the lack of information and technical resources tosupport good conservation planning, includingscientific information (such as mapping andinventories) and training resources to ensure that allplayers have the capacity to participate effectively indecision making.

This conclusion is supported by the findings of theCanadian Information System for the Environment(CISE) initiative, which identified in its 2001 report“significant gaps in the data and information requiredto identify threats to biodiversity and to managebiological resources.”54 The report recommended thatthe Minister of the Environment make it an urgentpriority to establish projects to improve data quality,integration and reporting in three areas, includingbiodiversity.

Additional information gaps identified by theRound Table include the fact that traditional andlocal ecological knowledge is not yet routinelyfactored into decision making. In addition, verylimited information is generally available about theeconomic costs and benefits of conservation options.This has made it difficult to make informed trade-offsor to ascertain whether conservation initiatives havehad a positive or negative impact on the developmentprojects of local economies. Understanding ofcumulative environmental effects is also relativelyweak at present.

5.6 FAILURE TO INTEGRATE THE TRUE COSTSAND BENEFITS OF NATURE

A key barrier to conservation in Canada is our failureto integrate the true costs and benefits of our uses ofand dependence on nature into decision making at alllevels. In essence, under our current decision-makingframeworks, it costs money to build a water filtrationplant, but not to access clean water from naturalsources, at least until those natural sources are in crisis.

That much of our natural capital—from water totrees to oil and gas deposits—is available to the publicand to industry at little or no cost has led to aperception that conservation is bad for jobs and badfor the economy. Despite growing evidence to thecontrary, this has been a key barrier to conservation,as it has led many companies and communities tooppose the establishment of protected areas and otherconservation initiatives in the past.

At present, we understand neither the true value ofour ecosystem services, nor what it would cost toreplace them. What we do know, however, is that notunderstanding these costs and benefits is compro-mising our ability to make meaningful decisionsabout the balance between nature conservation andindustrial development. While it is difficult to measureand place a value on the ecological services that natureprovides, better understanding and quantification ofthese forms of natural capital will be critical to ourability to manage change over the long term.

40


5.7 LACK OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO SUPPORT CONSERVATION AND PARTNERSHIPS

Finally, despite the range of conservation initiativesacross the country, the resources dedicated toconservation are clearly insufficient. At all levels ofgovernment, financial resources have decreased whiledemands have increased. Parks Canada, for example,experienced a 25-percent decrease in budgetallocations between fiscal years 1994–1995 and1999–2000. Prior to that, spending power haddecreased a total of 19 percent since 1983. This isconsistent with trends in public spending on natureconservation and environmental protection inCanada, where governments are falling steadily behindother nations, including the United States, ininvesting in natural capital.55

5.8 SUMMARYKey barriers as outlined above pose a significantchallenge to our ability to move forward with renewedenergy to maintain the natural systems on which ourcommunities and economy depend. The followingchapters examine how to address these barriers withinthe context of four specific areas: conservationplanning for whole landscapes, partnerships withindustry on working landscapes, communitystewardship and marine ecosystems.

These areas have been chosen for a variety ofreasons. For example, the North and marineecosystems represent both key conservationopportunities and ecosystems where the federalgovernment has significant jurisdiction. The RoundTable also wished to examine how best to strengthencommunities and industry as increasingly importantstewards of nature in Canada. Each of these chapterstherefore presents important opportunities to advanceconservation and accelerate the implementation of thenew vision outlined earlier.


41


C o n s e r v a t i o nP l a n n i n g

for W h o l eL a n d s c a p e s

43

P r o t e c t e d a r e a s a r e i m p o r t a n t a n c h o r s i n a n y c o n s e r v a t i o n s y s t e m .

”“

”“


45

Protected areas are important anchors in any conservation system.

At the same time, the long-term health of these areas depends in large

measure on the health of the lands around them. Conservation planning

therefore needs to take whole landscapes into account to ensure

that our natural capital is secured over the long term.

INTEGRATED planning can lead to solu-tions that maintain and balance ecological, social andeconomic objectives.56 Planning does not have to bean expensive and time-consuming exercise; rather, itcan be an effective upfront investment that leads toconsiderable savings. By proactively involving industry,Aboriginal communities and NGOs in planning,governments can largely avoid future conflicts on thelandscape.

Opportunities to engage in such planning varyacross the country. For example, there is significantlymore potential for integrated planning, and for theestablishment of new protected areas, in northernCanada, as this region is largely intact and notallocated for major industrial development. As acountry with so much nature still in a wild state, wehave a special opportunity to make proactive planningdecisions with respect to these lands.

This chapter explores some of the biggest challengesto conservation planning and presents recommenda-tions to support better conservation planning inCanada, with a focus on adopting whole-landscapeapproaches to planning in Canada’s North.

6.1 KEY CHALLENGESThe central barrier identified by the Round Table isthat conservation planning has not kept pace with otherpressures on the landscape. Decisions about industrialdevelopment are being made more rapidly and inadvance of conservation planning across the country,from northern landscapes to urban fringes.

Part of the problem is the lack of coordination,integration and accountability for meeting conservation

goals across government departments. The departmentsthat make conservation decisions are often not thoseresponsible for approving industrial development orresource allocation, and there may be little communi-cation between them. In addition, many departmentsresponsible for conservation face shrinking budgets,which hinders their ability to plan proactively.

Conservation efforts have been most effective whena strong champion for conservation (such as formerpremiers Mike Harcourt in British Columbia andGary Filmon in Manitoba) has set a clear agenda withspecific time frames. The lack of such high-level politicalcommitments across the country is a significant barrierto integrated conservation planning.

Lack of progress in achieving conservation goalsmay also stem from the fact that governments at alllevels are not working together to set conservation goalsand priorities. Given that jurisdiction for biodiversityconservation is shared between federal, provincial andterritorial governments, joint planning and prioritysetting are critical. While there are several mechanismsfor federal-provincial cooperation on conservation,there is relatively little infrastructure in place for thesegovernments to jointly set goals, take action andmonitor progress.

Another challenge is that conservation initiativeshave often failed to include local and Aboriginalcommunities from the ground up. As such, the needsof local and Aboriginal communities have often beenignored. Governments set aside land for many ofCanada’s first parks and prohibited traditionalAboriginal activities on this land with little or nonotice and without consulting the communities that

C h a p t e r 6

were affected. In addition, local and Aboriginal com-munities near protected areas have often not benefitedsufficiently from them in terms of either direct jobs orindirect economic benefits. As a result, these commu-nities often feel that they are being asked to pay the pricefor conservation without receiving any of the benefits.This has led many rural communities to resist theestablishment of new protected areas.

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONSThere are clear opportunities in Canada to movefaster in conserving our natural heritage. Canada hasperhaps the single greatest opportunity in the worldto get “ahead of the curve” and make conservationdecisions in advance of major industrial develop-ments, particularly in the North. Governments cantake the lead by adopting the following sequencedrecommendations.

Acce lerate p lanning in prior i ty areasAs an immediate first step, the Round Table stronglyrecommends that governments initiate integratedplanning in several places offering unique and time-limited opportunities to plan proactively in advance ofmajor industrial development. These places includethe following parts of the country, in which few or noindustrial allocations are in place.

The Mackenzie Valley: Canada’s Mackenzie Valleyholds a unique place in Canada’s history. Twenty-fiveyears ago, Justice Thomas Berger led Canada’s largest-ever Royal Commission into this northern “frontier,”determining that the great pristine river valley was a“northern homeland” for both indigenous people andwildlife. Justice Berger recommended that a majorpipeline should not be approved in this area untilseveral conditions had been met. These conditionsremain relevant today, as they include the settlementof land claims, “adequate planning for all northernconservation areas before proposals for new large-scalefrontier projects are advanced,” and“withdrawals of land from any industrialuse … to preserve wilderness, wildlifespecies, and critical habitat.”57

Although progress has been made in this regionwith respect to land claims settlements over the past20 years, conservation planning has lagged significant-ly behind. Of the 12 natural regions that would bedirectly affected by a northern pipeline, for example,none is adequately, moderately or even partiallyrepresented in protected areas.58

The Mackenzie Valley offers an exceptional oppor-tunity to plan for conservation in advance of majorindustrial development. This approach has beenendorsed by a number of local Aboriginal peoples,agencies and officials. In October 2002, theNorthwest Territory’s Protected Areas ImplementationAdvisory Committee, whose diverse members repre-sent everyone from local Aboriginal peoples to theCanadian Association of Petroleum Producers, voicedunanimous support for this approach.

Boreal forests: Canada’s boreal forests—one of thelargest contiguous wilderness areas left on Earth—areattracting national and international attention. A1997 assessment by the World Resources Institute,for example, noted that Canada now contains 25percent of the world’s frontier or intact forests.59 Arecent report by the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme reiterated the importance of these foreststo the world, and called Canada the most importantG8 country for forest conservation.60

Canada’s boreal forests provide a host of ecosystemservices for Canadians and the world: they are thelargest water filters on the planet and help regulate theearth’s climate by storing close to 25 percent of totalcarbon stored in vegetation and soils on Earth.61 Theyare home to roughly one third of the continent’smigratory birds, as well as 40 percent of its waterfowl.Canada’s forests are also some of the last remainingwild areas where intact natural systems functionwithout human intervention; almost 70 percent ofCanada’s boreal region consists of intact, connectedexpanses of forests and wetlands.

46


“Conservation is itself an important land use and areas shouldbe identified and set aside while the options are still open.”

—Justice Thomas

This means that globally unsurpassed opportunitiesstill exist to protect intact wild areas within Canada’sboreal forests. However, pressures on these areas aregrowing rapidly as industrial development movesnorthward and many provinces consider developmentproposals for these resources. To secure this naturalcapital for future generations, we need to immediatelyadopt new approaches to managing the boreal forest.

With constitutional authority north of the 60thparallel and fiduciary responsibility for Aboriginalcommunities within this region, the federal governmentshould, in cooperation with other levels of government,lead the development and implementation of a plan orframework for the conservation and sustainabledevelopment of these lands in perpetuity.

Making progress in conserving these two ecosystemsover the next five years will be a significant contribu-tion to securing Canada’s natural capital. This targetedapproach will enable the federal government to focusits resources strategically on those areas with thegreatest conservation potential and where it has signi-ficant authority, while working in partnership withother levels of government, industry, Aboriginalpeoples and local communities.

Require integrated land-use p lanning toensure that conservat ion and deve lopmentdec i s ions are made in proper s equenceAcross the country, industrial development decisionsare proceeding ahead of conservation planning. Insome cases, industry can and does supportconservation planning in advance of development;however, these instances are too few, limiting ourlong-term options to secure Canada’s natural capital.

To address this problem, the Round Table believesthat governments should immediately commit to makingconservation decisions at the same time as or prior todecisions about industrial development, to ensure thatdecision making takes into account both natural andother forms of capital. In cases where work onconserving natural capital has been effective, much ofthe credit is due to federal, provincial and territorialgovernments, which have recognized and assisted insuch processes.

Two important mechanisms for implementing thisrecommendation are environmental assessmentrequirements and land-use planning. Environmentalassessment regimes are largely project-based (i.e. applyto potential new industrial development projects),whereas land-use planning enables decision makers toplan for a mix of land uses within a larger geographicarea. All provinces and territories have legislative andpolicy frameworks to enable them to use these tools,as does the federal government; however, the federalrole in land-use planning is largely confined to federallands, many of which are north of the 60th parallel.


47

Recommendation 1: The Round Tablerecommends that the federal governmentaccelerate conservation planning in twoareas where unique opportunities exist toplan in advance of major industrialdevelopment. These areas are:

the Mackenzie Valley, where the federalgovernment should require conservationplanning prior to issuing permits; and

Canada’s boreal forests, where the federalgovernment can work with provinces, terri-tories and Aboriginal governments todevelop a framework—which includes bothprotected areas and sustainable manage-ment—to sustain and conserve Canada’sboreal forests.

Recommendation 2: The Round Tablerecommends that federal, provincial,territorial and Aboriginal governmentsrequire integrated land-use planning toensure that conservation decisions are made at the same time as or prior todecisions about major industrialdevelopment.

Although new projects are generally required to undergosome form of environmental assessment as a part of theregulatory approvals process, land-use planning is notrequired on all public lands. In addition, neither envi-ronmental assessments nor land-use planning—at theprovincial or federal levels—routinely require consi-deration of biodiversity values or conservationplanning.62 As a result, the conservation of naturalcapital is not consistently incorporated into regulatorydecisions across the country.

A powerful mechanism for effective conservationplanning would thus contain two elements: one, incor-porate ecological values into environmental assessmentsand land-use planning at all levels and, two, requirecompleted conservation and land-use plans beforemajor new industrial developments are approved.

At the federal level, this would mean ensuring thatCanada’s national and international commitmentsand objectives relating to biodiversity and natureconservation are addressed in environmental assess-ments conducted under the Canadian EnvironmentalAssessment Act, and are taken into account whendetermining the significance of the adverse environ-mental effects of development projects.

Federal and provincial agencies could also requirethat the terms of major regulatory approvals—such asoil or gas pipeline construction licences granted bythe National Energy Board, or new provincial timberharvesting allocations—include the completion ofconservation and land-use plans. If this were the case,the construction of pipelines such as the MackenzieValley or Alaska Highway pipelines would proceedonly after land-use planning had been completedand networks of protected areas had been designedand set aside.

State o f the debate : conservat ion p lanning in advance o f deve lopmentLike the issue of connectivity through wildlife corri-dors, the notion of conservation planning in advanceof development revealed another important area ofcontinuing debate.

Participants in the Conservation of NaturalHeritage Program agreed that it was important tohave certainty on the landscape. When all key stake-holders are at the table, ready to make meaningfultrade-offs and have a common understanding ofwhere development will or will not take place, plan-ning becomes an important tool for conservation.However, views on how to achieve this goal some-times differed.

Some participants in the program felt that it wascrucial to have a system of protected areas in place,and thus ensure ecological integrity across whole land-scapes, before opportunities to establish such a systemare lost through development pressures. However,other participants felt that there should be no stop todevelopment until the needs of communities are takeninto account. Some participants also noted thatopportunities for industry activity on the landscape orseascape should not be entirely compromised by theestablishment of protected areas.

In their discussions, participants generally support-ed the need for conservation planning to take place atthe same time as development planning. All partici-pants conceded that this approach can address theneeds of industry and communities, as well as theecological integrity of land and seas.

48


Recommendation 3: The Round Tablerecommends that federal and provincialgovernments require satisfactory comple-tion of conservation and land-use plans formajor regulatory approvals such as oil orgas pipeline construction licences. At thefederal level, such approvals would includepermits issued by agencies such as theNational Energy Board and offshore oil andgas boards.

Adopt be s t pract ice s in land-use p lanningLand-use planning processes and requirements are inplace in all jurisdictions across the country. However,while there is a federal-provincial committee on land-use planning, there is no consistent approach to land-use planning across the country.

The Round Table’s research and case studies suggestthat effective planning processes are those that haveclear, consistent terms of reference and that bring allinterests and all potential land users to the table at thesame time. Such processes have been used to greateffect in British Columbia, where the Land andResource Management Planning (LRMP) process hassuccessfully allocated lands to both conservation andindustrial development, while also attempting toaddress Aboriginal rights and title and the concerns oflocal communities.

The Round Table believes that best practices shouldbe used in the design and implementation of land-useplanning. A checklist has been provided (see box onpage 56) to help design these exercises so that theyincorporate social, ecological and economic perspectives.

Expand the conservat ion networkNational wildlife areas (NWAs) and migratory birdsanctuaries (MBSs) are underused federal tools forconservation, particularly in the North. EnvironmentCanada manages a network of 49 NWAs coveringalmost 500,000 hectares of land and water and, incooperation with the provinces and territories, 98MBSs encompassing more than 11 million hectares.63

These designations complement other federal andprovincial protected areas, but they have seldom beenimplemented in Canada’s northern ecosystems.

NWAs and MBSs are often particularly attractive tonorthern communities, as they do not generallyexclude traditional activities such as hunting andtrapping. A growing number of proposals for NWAsare being developed through such processes as theNorthwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy, inwhich communities develop and propose conservationsolutions that meet their own needs and interests.

NWAs and MBSs could be used to protect impor-tant wildlife habitat across the boreal, taiga and Arcticregions, but only if Environment Canada has the

capacity to expand the network of NWAs and MBSs.The Round Table therefore recommends that thefederal government allocate new funds to Environ-ment Canada for this purpose (see Chapter 10).

Forge s t ronger par tner ships with Aborig inalpeople sFor conservation to move forward, governments needto find new ways to partner with and enhancebenefits for Aboriginal communities when establishingnew protected areas. One such mechanism is thecooperative agreement, which can guarantee economicbenefits to Aboriginal communities by requiring thata percentage of park staff be employed from withinthe community. The cooperative agreement can alsoguarantee business development opportunities.

The Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve/HeritageSite offers one example of benefit sharing. As part ofefforts to establish the park, the governments ofCanada and British Columbia provided $126 millionto compensate logging companies and forestryworkers, invest in more extensive silviculturaloperations outside the park, fund the startup of thepark reserve/heritage site itself, and establish a regionaleconomic diversification program and trust fund.

A 1995 study of the economic impacts of the parkreserve found that the logging jobs that were lost havebeen replaced by new jobs in silviculture, tourism andprotected areas management, a trend that waspredicted to continue under the remaining spending


49

provisions of the agreement. Approximately 50percent of the park reserve staff are Haida, who wererecruited through Parks Canada training anddevelopment programs.

This new kind of partnership can also be seen inthe North. Several new national parks in the Arctichave been accompanied by detailed park benefitagreements negotiated between Parks Canada andAboriginal peoples, particularly the Inuvialuit. Theseagreements seek to ensure that Aboriginal peoples willbenefit economically and culturally from parks createdin their settlement areas. Some of the mechanismsused by these agreements are: locating park offices in local communities; setting hiring policies that give preference to local

Aboriginal people; jointly preparing economic development or

community development plans for communitiesaround the park; and

giving Aboriginal-controlled businesses the firstopportunity to take on park contracts or toestablish park-based businesses.

These efforts are consistent with the recommenda-tions of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples,which called on governments to: increase their allocation of tourist outfitters’

licences or leases to Aboriginal peoples by- granting exclusive allocations in certain

geographical areas (as Ontario now does northof the 50th parallel),

- offering new licences to Aboriginal peoplesbefore any other applicants, and

- giving Aboriginal peoples the right of firstrefusal on licences or leases that are beinggiven up; and

encourage Aboriginal peoples to develop outfittingbusinesses based on their cultural values.

An example of an existing federal program thatcould support these efforts is Aboriginal BusinessCanada (ABC). ABC is an Industry Canada programthat promotes the growth of commerce as a way toachieve economic self-sufficiency for all Aboriginalpeople. For eligible applicants, it provides financialassistance, information, resource materials and referralsto other sources of financing or business support.64

Suppor t Aborig inal communit ie s in land-use p lanning Many Aboriginal communities have begun to mapaspects of their cultures and traditional ecologicalknowledge. Maps of traditional land use and occupan-cy can be used to settle land claims, negotiate co-management agreements and provide much-neededbaseline data for long-term community and resourceplanning. They can also increase a community’sawareness of its connections to its territory and helprecapture the history and stories of a people.

These maps usually include places where animalsand plants have been harvested, as well as knowledgeabout the habitats and sites critical to the survival ofkey animals, settlements, travel routes and sacred sites.Although many Aboriginal communities do not want

50


Recommendation 4: The Round Tablerecommends that all governments enhancethe benefits of conservation for Aboriginalcommunities, both through the parksestablishment process and by providingAboriginal peoples with support for orpreferential access to the development ofbusinesses built around conservation areasin their traditional territories.

An essential part of this process is thedirect involvement of Aboriginalcommunities in determining what benefitsshould be realized and how Aboriginalpeoples can both contribute to and benefitfrom initiatives such as parksestablishment.

this information to become publicly available, theyoften use it in the identification of protected areas.Such information has played a role in the NorthwestTerritories Protected Areas Strategy and land claimssuch as the Sahtu Dene settlement in the NorthwestTerritories.

There is no standard approach within the federal,provincial or territorial governments to supportingstudies of traditional ecological knowledge or landuse, nor are there programs that help communitiesintegrate this knowledge into conservation planning.Such studies are supported on a case-by-case basisthrough land claims agreements, land-use planning,co-management boards and protected areas strategies.A central fund to support these studies would ensurethat more Aboriginal communities have the informa-tion they need to participate effectively in conserva-tion and land-use planning.


51

Recommendation 5: The Round Tablerecommends that all governments supporttraditional land-use studies for Aboriginalcommunities. This support would allowAboriginal communities to enhance com-munity capacity, access local knowledgeand develop information systems to effec-tively manage and utilize that knowledge.It would also enable Aboriginal communi-ties to effectively engage in land-useplanning and management decisions.

Gather and share informationA strong, nationally consistent conservation knowledgebase is critical to Canada’s ability to design and achievea comprehensive new vision for nature conservation.Such knowledge is a building block of conservation,since “you cannot manage what you cannot measure.”

A robust information base is needed in both theimmediate and long term to identify, predict andmanage existing and emerging challenges to theconservation of nature. Immediate investments aretherefore required in order to build that base, whichwould include the elements below. Many of thefollowing initiatives are either currently underway,or are being developed to contribute to the broaderinformation base:

a. A national electronic biodiversity informationnetwork. There is a need for a variety ofinitiatives, outlined below, to help generatenationally consistent data to support conservationplanning, species at risk recovery andenvironmental assessments across the country.However, a critical component of a successful,comprehensive conservation information base isfor the information to be accessible to all decisionmakers and interested members of the public. A national electronic biodiversity informationnetwork would help ensure the collection,analysis and dissemination of biological data onspecies and habitat important to Canadians.

In April 2003, the federal government’s Inter-departmental Assistant Deputy Minister’s NatureTable endorsed the agreement of a number ofstakeholders in the biodiversity informationcommunity to house the country’s biodiversityknowledge and innovation network under theCanadian Information System for the Environment(CISE). As a first step, this federal biodiversityinformation partnership will coordinate federalactivities in fiscal year 2003–04. Working throughprovincial Conservation Data Centres, the MiistakisInstitute and other partners, this partnership aimsto expand in 2004 to become a coordinatingcentre for the country to support the information-related activities outlined in this section.65

Estimated Cost: One million per yr for threeyears to the proposed Canadian Institute forEnvironmental Information to synthesizeprotected area, species and habitat information insupport of a range of conservation decisions.

b. A standard national classification of both terrestrialand aquatic biological communities (which wouldallow for broad assessment of habitat change andidentification of national-level conservationpriorities). The Canadian Forest Service,NatureServe (in Canada and the United States),Parks Canada and some provincial conservationdata centres are cooperating in an effort todevelop a Canadian National VegetationClassification. This classification is a criticalcomponent of biodiversity information.

Estimated cost: $1 million over three years tokey departments such as Natural ResourcesCanada and Environment Canada to acceleratethe completion of a standard nationalclassification system.

c. A national land-cover monitoring program.Although a number of departments andjurisdictions have been collecting someinformation about land cover, there is no nationalland-cover monitoring program. The CanadianLand Cover Initiative (CLCI), which involvesNatural Resources Canada (Canadian ForestService) and the Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources, is developing terms of reference forsuch an effort. The CLCI will require twocomponents: development of standard protocolsand mapping through the use of satellite imagery.The need for a national land-cover monitoringprogram, as part of the System of NationalAccounts, is supported by the findings of theRound Table’s Environment and SustainableDevelopment Indicators (ESDI) Initiative.66

Estimated cost: $200,000 to key departmentsto begin developing a national, coordinated land-cover monitoring program.

52


d. A national gap analysis program. Gap analysis usesGIS—or geographic information systems—tomap wildlife habitat and predict the distributionof key species. This information can then be usedto identify “gaps” in biodiversity protection thatneed to be filled by the establishment of newreserves or changes in land-use practices. Onceoverlain by industrial allocations and other landuses, maps produced through gap analysis canhelp landowners and users agree on one map ofconservation priorities for a given landscape basedon shared data and information. Such agreementwas critical to the success of Ontario’s Lands forLife process, as it provided a tangible focus fornegotiations and conservation planning. This gapanalysis program would depend on informationfrom the Canadian National VegetationClassification discussed above.

A national gap analysis program has been usedto great effect in the United States, where it hashelped catalyze the establishment of conservationnetworks and cooperation among various agencies.Establishing such a program in Canada—whichcurrently has no similar program or set ofprotocols—would create the basis for long-termscientific cooperation in support of conservationplanning.

Estimated cost: $10 million annually toEnvironment Canada, Natural Resources Canadaand other partner organizations to begin theprocess of creating a national gap analysisprogram in Canada.

e. A publicly accessible digital map and database of allconservation areas in Canada (and their level ofprotection). This would draw on work done byNatural Resources Canada, Environment Canadaand the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas todevelop the Canadian Conservation AreasDatabase (CCAD). Considerable work remains tobe done to transform CCAD into a fullyaccessible digital database accessible to the publicthrough the GeoAccess Division of NaturalResources Canada’s National Atlas of CanadaWeb site.

Estimated cost: $300,000 and three full-timeequivalents over three years to Natural ResourcesCanada to transform CCAD into a fullyaccessible database.


53

f. A nationally coordinated community monitoringnetwork. In 2002–2003 a prototype community-monitoring network was launched by EnvironmentCanada and the Canadian Nature Federationwith Voluntary Sector Initiative funds. Over onehundred and twenty communities applied toparticipate, which demonstrated a remarkableshow of interest in sharing community-basedknowledge on the environment. Althoughsuccessful, the program cannot continue withoutsustained funding. If funded and expanded, sucha network would enable multiple communitystakeholders to pool complementary skills, rolesand resources in an effort to collect information,monitor trends and respond effectively to localenvironmental issues that are directly linked topolicy and decision making. When communitiesexperience multistakeholder success, the benefitscan be multiplied by sharing their approach withother communities participating in the network.

Value natural capi ta l and integrate the se values into dec i s ion makingThere is clearly a growing need to integrate ecologicaland economic factors into decision making. This ischallenging in part because of the difficulties in deter-mining the value of natural capital.

The Round Table’s ESDI Initiative resulted in tworecommendations that address this issue. These wereto report on five national indicators of natural capitaland, in the long term, create new natural capitalaccounts within the existing System of NationalAccounts (SNA).67 Both measures would highlight thecritical contribution that natural capital makes tonational wealth. Although the current state of infor-mation precluded inclusion of a national indicator ofbiodiversity in its recommended set of indicators, theESDI Initiative’s work on natural capital indicatorshas underscored the importance of developing such anindicator. The Round Table supports efforts to developa biodiversity indicator that reflects the general healthof “eco-units” in a given province or area, based on anumber of key sub-indicators such as those forspecies, habitat and threats. The indicator would pro-vide a useful starting point for determining the valueof natural capital and measuring changes that areparticularly relevant to the conservation of nature.

The SNA is currently the basis for many powerfuleconomic indicators such as the GDP. Creating newaccounts that track the stocks and flows of differenttypes of natural capital within the SNA would enablethe linkage of economic and environmental data,helping to integrate issues of natural capital into eco-nomic analysis and policy making. These newaccounts would be coordinated by Statistics Canadabut would require the cooperation of many otherdepartments including Environment Canada. Inparticular, Environment Canada’s Canadian Informa-tion System for the Environment would be critical tothe creation of these natural capital accounts.

Significant work is still needed to establish the bestway to value natural capital and incorporate thesevalues into economic and environmental decisionmaking through ecological fiscal reform and relatedmeasures. This difficult task would requirecollaboration among a broad range of academics,

54


Recommendation 6: The Round Tablerecommends that the federal governmentsupport efforts to provide the nationallyconsistent information needed to planeffectively for conservation across thecountry. Support would include:

a national electronic biodiversityinformation network;

a standard national classification of bothterrestrial and aquatic biologicalcommunities;

a national land-cover monitoring program;

a national gap analysis program;

a publicly accessible digital map and data-base of all conservation areas in Canada;and

a nationally coordinated communitymonitoring network to provide for thespecific needs of local and regionalstakeholders.

conservation experts and policy makers from acrossthe country. While this issue is currently being exam-ined by several departments (notably EnvironmentCanada and Statistics Canada), the Round Table alsorecommends that it be pursued within the context ofthe proposed nature and society research program ofthe Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.


55

Recommendation 7: The Round Table rec-ommends that the federal governmentcontinue to support the work of StatisticsCanada in developing a system of nationalaccounts and to support the developmentof CISE. The Round Table also recommendsthat the nature and society research pro-gram currently being considered by theSocial Sciences and Humanities ResearchCouncil establish, as a priority, research todetermine the best way to value Canada’snatural capital and to factor these valuesinto decision making by all levels ofgovernment.

56


I N T E G R A T E D L A N D - U S E P L A N N I N G : C H E C K L I S T O F B E S T P R A C T I C E S

1. Integrated approach to planningAre all known and new industrial allocations onthe table at the same time?Are there voluntary mechanisms available thatenable industry, Aboriginal peoples, localcommunities and interested conservation voicesto collaborate on conservation initiatives?Is there agreement that no new significantdevelopment approvals will be given whileplanning is underway?Is the planning area appropriate? Does it followecological boundaries? Is it big enough to allowfor trade-offs and small enough to allow allrelevant players to be engaged?

2. Engagement of all playersAre all industrial players at the table?Are First Nations and other Aboriginalcommunities at the table?Are local communities at the table?Are all interested conservation voices at thetable?

3. Clear goals and terms of referenceHas the government established clear policy goalsand terms of reference? Have participants agreedto these goals?Is there a commitment to both conservationgoals and economic goals within the context ofthe planning process?Is there a clear understanding on the part of allparticipants about the expected results and theconsequences of not reaching consensus?Is the government involved, as either aparticipant or an observer?Has the government agreed to implementconsensus results?

4. Knowledge base for decision makingIs there access to reliable information about theecological and economic values of the area?Does the planning table have GIS-mappingcapacity?Is traditional and local knowledge being usedwhere possible?Does the table have access to information aboutinnovative tools that have been used elsewhere?

5. ResourcesDoes the table have adequate resources?Does it have access to independent facilitationwhere needed?Are capacity and decision-making supports (e.g.training, resource materials) available to thosewho require them?Do participants have adequate time to pursueconsensus?

6. Supportive measuresCan the participants propose new tools to respondto specific barriers (e.g. measures to offsetresources lost in the creation of protected areas)?Do they have the information and/or resources todo this effectively?

7. Institutional arrangementsDo all participants understand who is accountablefor implementing the plan?Is there a commitment to creating institutionalarrangements (e.g. advisory board, five-yearreview) to ensure the long-term sustainability ofthe plan?How will all sectors be involved? To whom arethey accountable (individually, to each other)?


Wo r k i n g with

I n d u s t r y to

P r o m o t e W h o l e -L a n d s c a p e

A p p r o a c h e s

57

Ev i d e n c e s u g g e s t s t h a t t o s u s t a i ne c o l o g i c a l s e r v i c e s w e n e e d t o p r o m o t e c o n s e r v a t i o n a c r o s s w h o l e l a n d s c a p e s , i n c l u d i n g p u b l i c l a n d s t h a t a r e s u b j e c t t o r e s o u r c e d e v e l o p m e n t o r i n d u s t r i a l m a n a g e m e n t .

”

“

”

“


59

Scient i f ic ev idence suggests that to sustain ecologica l serv ices we need to

promote conservat ion across whole landscapes, inc luding publ ic lands

that are subject to resource development or industr ia l management.

THIS whole-landscape approach requires newconservation partnerships with resource companies,many of which are seeking new ways to act as stewardsof nature. In fact, many companies are advancingconservation faster than are governments. In some cases,companies are driven to go beyond their regulatoryrequirements by public pressure or controversy overparticular products or areas of operation. In otherinstances, companies have adopted conservation meas-ures to make their operations more efficient and there-fore cost-effective. And some companies are motivatedto launch significant conservation initiatives thatposition them as leaders in an increasingly globalmarket for goods produced in an environmentallyresponsible manner.

Companies can use various tools to maintain eco-logical integrity. They can agree to set aside or protectareas of high conservation value (such as key wildlifehabitat) or adopt new operating practices that mini-mize their ecological impact. They can also seek waysto use natural resources more efficiently—in essence,to do more with less. This approach often requiressignificant technological innovation and in somecases may involve switching to new materials, such asagricultural waste or recycled fibre instead of virginpulp in paper production. Companies can also restoreareas that have been fragmented or disturbed as aresult of industrial activity.

In some cases, individual companies or industrialsectors may simply choose to adopt certain measureswithin their own operations. In other cases, however,governments must implement or foster the adoption ofconservation solutions, for example, by creatingagreed-to protected areas, providing incentives orremoving policy barriers. Some of these actions canmitigate or offset any negative impacts (e.g. reductions

in resource supply) associated with voluntaryconservation activities.

To a large extent, provincial governments have thenecessary legislative and policy tools to implementand encourage conservation solutions by resourcecompanies. However, these regulatory and policyframeworks vary significantly from jurisdiction tojurisdiction. Instead of identifying specific legal andpolicy barriers or designing specific measures thatprovincial governments could adopt—a task that wasbeyond the scope of the Round Table’s mandate—thischapter suggests several overall directions and areaswhere further work could be done to support greatercorporate stewardship.

This chapter focuses primarily on opportunities topromote stewardship in the forestry and mining sec-tors. However, sectors such as oil and gas and hydro-electricity also depend on Canada’s natural capital andthus have equally important roles to play in designingand implementing conservation solutions. More workin this area is required to determine how governmentscan best support these actions.

7.1 CURRENT INITIATIVESSome of the most important conservation successesover the past five years have been initiated by compa-nies. Goodwill on the part of these companies has ledto significant conservation partnerships and achieve-ments on the ground, including: joint identification by World Wildlife Fund

Quebec and the Quebec Lumber ManufacturersAssociation of forests of high conservation value inthe southern portion of Quebec’s commercialforest (south of the 52nd parallel);

C h a p t e r 7

the Manitoba Mining Initiative, which bringsWorld Wildlife Fund Canada, the CanadianNature Federation and the Mining Association ofManitoba together to identify candidate areas forprotected status across the entire province inconcert with the Parks Branch of ManitobaConservation and the Geological Survey Branch ofManitoba Industry, Trade and Mines; and

the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management(ESSIM) initiative, which brings togetherscientists, conservationists and key players fromthe fishing, oil and gas, and tourism sectors. Apilot project under the federal Oceans Act, ESSIMaims to develop a proactive framework forconservation, multiple use of oceans andsustainable development. Although it is at a muchearlier stage than the initiatives above, it isnevertheless an important new approach toinvolving industry in the integrated managementof marine ecosystems.

Partnerships such as theseare beginning to identifyinnovative mechanisms tohelp companies adjust to amore conservation-basedapproach to the landscape.The Ontario Forest Accord,for example, proposed the useof mitigation measures (suchas pre-commercial andcommercial thinning; moreeffective harvesting of small-diameter wood; and salvage oftimber damaged or killed byfire, insects or disease) tooffset wood supply lost to theindustry through theestablishment of newprotected areas.

All these mitigation measures required policychanges under existing provincial legislation. TheOntario Ministry of Natural Resources, for example,agreed to eliminate stumpage fees for treetops, whichwere previously left at the side of the road, in a bid toencourage timber companies to use them. Thisincreased the volume of wood available to the indus-try with no new ecological impact.

In March 2002, the multistakeholder advisoryboard to the Ontario Forest Accord confirmed thatthe mitigation measures had succeeded in offsettingthe wood supply lost through the establishment ofprotected areas throughout the province. This signifi-cant achievement proves that increased industrialefficiency can free up resources for conservation.68

60


G L O B A L M I N I N G I N I T I A T I V E

The Global Mining Initiative (GMI), launched in 1998, is led by 10 miningcompanies from around the world, including the Canadian firm Noranda.1

It set out to redefine the role of the global mining industry in relation tosustainable development. In particular, it aimed to reach a clearerdefinition and understanding of the positive role the mining and mineralsindustry can play in making the transition to sustainable patterns ofeconomic development.

Over the past three years, GMI has engaged more than 20 globalcompanies in a search for more sustainable operating practices. Thissearch has included assessing the impacts (positive and negative) ofmining on economic prosperity, human well-being and ecosystem health,as well as developing guidelines for sustainability.

Current priorities include developing an industry-wide sustainabledevelopment charter; designing best-practice protocols that encouragepublic reporting and third-party verification; resolving questions ofprotected areas and mining; developing community sustainabledevelopment plans and tools at mine sites; and promoting the concept ofintegrated materials management, which encourages reuse and recycling.

1 www.globalmining.com

7.2 KEY CHALLENGESThe emergence of industry as a major force inconservation is one of the most powerful trends andopportunities identified by the Round Table. At thesame time, significantly more can and should bedone on public lands subject to resourcedevelopment to ensure that conservation values aremaintained in the face of growing industrialpressures.

Although leading companies are increasinglywilling to plan for conservation in areas under theirmanagement or use, most governments do not havethe capacity or tools in place to respond effectively.In a number of cases, industry and conservationgroups have developed solutions agreeable to bothsides only to find that governments are eitherunable or unwilling to integrate these solutions intobroader legislation or policy.

M I N I N G A S S O C I AT I O N O F C A N A D A A N D T H E C A N A D I A N N AT U R E F E D -E R AT I O N : A C O L L A B O R AT I V E E F F O R T

A recent study released by the Mining Associationof Canada (MAC) and the Canadian NatureFederation (CNF) examines the extent and natureof mining activities and their impacts on Canada’snational parks.1 The report is an invaluableresource for MAC, CNF and the Parks CanadaAgency, as it serves to enhance their collectiveunderstanding of the ecological risks associatedwith mining activities in the vicinity of protectedareas. This work, which will guide future actions tomitigate the impacts of mining on national parks,represents an important partnership between CNFand MAC and demonstrates collaboration amongthe non-government, private and public sectorstoward the common goal of enhancing theprotection of our natural heritage.

1 www.cnf.ca


61

For example, even though the Mining Associationof Manitoba and World Wildlife Fund Canada jointlyidentified more than nine million acres of priorityprotected areas, none of these lands have been givenformal legal protection by the Manitoba government.However, some interim protection has been established:no mineral exploration or development will take placein these areas, but they remain open to otherindustrial development such as potential hydroelectricdevelopment and logging pending full legal protection.

The Manitoba experience, as well as other relatedexperiences, points to a number of structural barriersto conservation within policy and legislative frame-works across the country. One such barrier is thescope and nature of current tenure regimes. Industrialallocations are currently given for relatively long time

frames and are generally made on a piecemeal, sector-by-sector basis in isolation from conservation or land-use planning. The lack of integrated planning is oneof the most important structural barriers to conser-vation on allocated lands in Canada.

In some places, a lack of integrated planning has ledto ongoing conflicts both within and between industrialsectors active on the same land base. Overlappingallocations (e.g. between two forest companies withtenure over different tree species, or between a forestcompany and an oil and gas company on the sameland) can intensify pressure on the landscape andmake it difficult for one company or sector to

conserve parts of it. In one Alberta example, oil andgas companies were found to cut more trees than theforest company with tenure for the same area.

In recent years, better approaches to coordinationand planning for these multiple industrial uses haveemerged. However, for the most part, these approach-es have not been effectively integrated into all stagesof decision making, from planning to project reviewto approvals. This makes it extremely difficult topredict, manage and avoid the loss of biodiversity onthese landscapes.69

Another difficulty is that leading companies inconservation still have only a limited ability to differen-tiate themselves in the market. Despite the emergenceof third-party certification and related initiatives, thecompetitive edge gained from taking leadership in

establishing protected areas andadopting best practices on thelandscape is not yet significant.

Moreover, the companies thatrisk the most in demonstratingleadership may sometimes besubject to greater criticism thanthose that choose to wait at theback of the pack. Unlike itsfinancial status, a company’s socialand environmental performance isneither reported nor generallyreflected in the market.Companies that make an extraeffort to internalize environmentalcosts may therefore fail to capture

public recognition and financial rewards for doing so.This raises serious questions about the market linksbetween environmental and economic performance. Italso demonstrates a need to ensure that our economicand policy signals better integrate and reflect the valueof natural capital.

An additional challenge is to get past the position-ing, rhetoric and levels of distrust that have character-ized exchanges between industry and conservationgroups in the past and made it difficult for them toreach consensus on innovative new approaches. Over-coming this barrier will take leadership, trust and time.

62


In response to concerns over growing conflicts on the landscape,industries in Alberta, led by the Chamber of Resources, have beenexploring ways to better coordinate their activities and reducetheir impact on the landscape. Already, two companies working onthe same land base have found ways to save $1 million on roadinfrastructure alone. A key tool in achieving these results has beenthe ALCES (A Landscape Cumulative Effects Simulator) model,which helps industry and land managers identify, predict andaddress cumulative environmental effects.1

1 www.acr-alberta.com/Projects/integrated_landscape_management.htm

I N T E G R AT E D R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T P L A N N I N G

7.3 RECOMMENDATIONClearly, there are opportunities to engage companiesactive on public lands in new forms of conservationpartnerships. Significant effort will be required, how-ever, if these new partnerships are to go beyondcurrent conservation initiatives.

Changing global markets are already driving newconservation partnerships and will continue to do so.Governments can play an important role by creatingpolicy frameworks that support and encourage thesemarket-driven partnerships.

Remove pol i cy barr ier s to vo luntar y s t ewardshipFederal and provincial policy and legislativeframeworks contain a number of structural barriersthat impede conservation actions by industry, and anumber of them could be immediately removed tofurther conservation.

Although one of the most powerful actions acompany can take to maintain core habitats or habitatlinks is to voluntarily surrender its resource rights toparticularly sensitive areas, most legislative and policyframeworks do not have provisions to effectivelyrecognize this action. This is a serious impedimentfor any industrial sector wanting to become moreengaged in conservation.

Some provinces (such as British Columbia andSaskatchewan) even have “use it or lose it” clausesthat allow resources to be reallocated to otherindustrial players if they are not exploited within acertain period of time. This situation presents notonly a significant barrier for companies that want togive up resources for conservation purposes, but alsoimpedes good conservation planning by preventingareas from being set aside even for short periods whileanalysis, mapping and planning are underway.

Other policy changes that could be explored byprovincial governments include allowing companies toexchange areas of high conservation value for those ofequal resource value. Current regulatory regimes donot provide sufficient flexibility for forestry companiesto make such swaps.

Policy barriers are also an issue for the miningsector. Some mining companies, for example, want totake part in efforts to manage abandoned mine sites,which have an accumulated liability of approximately$2 billion (excluding key sites such as the Giant Mine).Provincial governments could introduce “goodSamaritan” provisions into their legislative frameworksto enable companies to help clean up mine sites forwhich they are not legally responsible without fear ofbecoming liable for these sites. This policy changewould make a significant difference to the ecologicalintegrity of affected areas.

In addition to eliminating specific barriers that havealready been identified, federal, provincial and terri-torial governments all need to examine their policyand legislative frameworks to identify and remove allother barriers to conservation. The Round Tablerecommends that each government undertake thisexercise as a priority, in conjunction with industry andconservation interests.


63

Recommendation 8: The Round Tablerecommends that federal, provincial andterritorial governments examine their policyand legislative frameworks to identify andremove key policy barriers to voluntarystewardship by resource industries.

As a first step, provincial governmentsshould:

amend their legislation to enable thecreation of interim protected areas pendingcompletion of conservation planning; and

remove “use it or lose it” requirementswhen resource rights are surrendered forconservation purposes.

This move would enable companies tovoluntarily surrender areas of highconservation value with the certainty thatthey would not be penalized and thatthese areas would not be reallocated toother companies.

Engage companie s and conservat ion intere s t s in integrated land-use p lanningGovernments could also further conservation byengaging companies in integrated land-use planning.Land-use planning is a critical mechanism for bringingindustry and conservation interests together to identifyconservation priorities and solutions for entire land-scapes. Governments have a vital role to play indesigning and establishing these processes and inimplementing their results.

Such planning can help reconcile competingdemands on increasingly fragmented landscapes (e.g.when different companies or industrial sectors havebeen allocated resources in the same area). Whencombined with the use of innovative tracking toolssuch as the ALCES (A Landscape Cumulative EffectsSimulator) model, integrated planning can signifi-cantly reduce companies’ ecological footprints whileidentifying efficiencies (such as shared roads) that cansave them time and money.

As outlined in Chapter 6, the Round Table recom-mends that federal and provincial governmentsrequire satisfactory land-use plans prior to issuing newlicences for major industrial development, and thatthese governments work together with all interests todevelop comprehensive approaches to conservationplanning for all regions of the country.

Provide f inancia l incent ive s to suppor t corporate conservat ion l eadersA longer-term measure for furthering conservation isfor governments to adopt incentives that recognizeand encourage conservation actions by industry. Suchincentives would vary by sector and need to betailored to the opportunities in different landscapes.

Ecological fiscal reform (EFR) is oneapproach that could identify incentivesto help support conservation actions byindustry.70 EFR could help usunderstand where spending and taxpolicy (and the incentives anddisincentives created by them) puteconomic and conservation goals atcross-purposes. From there, we couldbegin to identify positive fiscal and

economic measures that actually benefit conservation.Although the identification of a comprehensive suiteof incentives through an EFR approach was beyondthe scope of this report, the Round Table may delvemore deeply into this area in future work.

Incentives can support enhanced resource efficiencyand conservation in all industrial sectors. In theforestry sector, incentives could be targeted at improvingwood utilization (e.g. using different species, sizes andages), modifying harvesting practices (e.g. commercialthinning, partial harvesting and some intensiveforestry techniques) and promoting the reforestationof private land. Incentives could also be provided tocompanies adopting measures that enhance theefficiency of their resource use, or those demonstratinginnovation in value-added manufacturing.71

Tax incentives could also be used to encourage greaterconservation leadership by industries. For example,within the mining sector, tax incentives could encouragecontributions to a multistakeholder mine site restora-tion fund, provided that performance in restoring minesites was independently verified by third parties.

It is critical that incentives be targeted and recog-nize only those efforts that go above and beyondbusiness as usual. In other words, incentives shouldnot simply support actions that would have happenedanyway (e.g. in areas where there is limited resourcepotential or high conservation values). As such, insetting conservation priorities, governments shouldfirst distinguish between areas of low resourcepotential, which should not be the target of incen-tives, and other areas where incentives could beessential to conservation. This could also help govern-ments identify those rare cases where compensationmay be necessary to secure critical natural areas.

64


Ontario established the Living Legacy Trust Fund under theForest Accord to directly support forest managementimprovements that would counterbalance supply reductionsresulting from new protected areas. The $30-million fund is animportant source of support for research, development andpilot testing of innovative approaches.1

1www.livinglegacytrust.org

O N T A R I O L I V I N G L E G A C Y T R U S T

Other incentives that federal and provincialgovernments could adopt include recognitionprograms, which could play a valuable role inidentifying and promoting industrial leaders, aswell as promoting best practices to other companiesin the same sector. The Canadian ForestStewardship Recognition Program, for example,aims to stimulate awareness of and appreciation forstewardship, sustainable practices and efforts toconserve biodiversity in Canada’s forests. Theprogram was developed by Wildlife HabitatCanada, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Associationand the Canadian Forest Association, with thesupport of numerous national and provincialforestry and conservation organizations.

Governments can also encourage conservation bysupporting research and development into processefficiency and other technological improvementsthat offset reductions in resource supplies. Federalor federally sponsored programs that couldcontribute to this research and developmentinclude research programs within the CanadianForest Service, the Model Forest Network and theSustainable Forest Management Network. Theseprograms could be tasked with developingadditional mitigation and offsetting measures forindustry leaders over the next five years.


65

B R A N D I N G A N D C E R T I F I C A T I O N

The “war in the woods” between forestry compa-nies and environmental groups in British Columbiathroughout the 1990s led to the recognition byindustry that market pressures were driving com-panies to go beyond regulatory requirements anddemonstrate new commitments to voluntary stew-ardship. One result of this change was forest certi-fication, which for some B.C. companies has beenpart of efforts to convince consumers and activistsin the United States and Europe that there hasbeen a sea change in their management practices.

By committing to a certification scheme, a compa-ny agrees to have the sustainability of its day-to-day operations, as well as the success of its natureconservation initiatives, verified by an independentthird party. Certification systems are currentlybeing developed separately by the CanadianStandards Association, the Forest StewardshipCouncil (FSC) and the American Forest & PaperAssociation’s Sustainable Forestry Initiative. Ofthese systems, the FSC’s is considered the mostdemanding, in part because standards must bejointly developed and approved by four sectors or“chambers”: economic, social, Aboriginal andenvironmental.

Regardless of which standard is adopted by indi-vidual companies, these certification schemes aresending strong signals to the market. What is nowa voluntary commitment is likely to become anessential part of doing business. The ForestProducts Association of Canada, for example,recently announced that its members must adoptsome form of third-party certification by 2006.

Certification is proof of the powerful influenceconsumer choice can have on nature conservation.It is becoming part of the internalization ofenvironmental costs, with benefits to companiesthat include risk reduction, growth of market shareand, potentially, premium prices. The value ofcertification to nature is not yet clear, as onlylimited information on the impacts of certificationis available in Canada and elsewhere.

66


Encourage market approachesAs noted in Chapter 4, one of the most significanttrends over the past 10 years has been the emergenceof the market as a factor in conservation. Third-partycertification, for example, has emerged to recognizeindustry leaders in conservation.

Governments have no formal role to play in thedevelopment of certification standards, as they are bynature voluntary. Nevertheless,governments at all levels maybe able to recognize andpromote these standards andthe companies that adoptthem. In many cases, thesevoluntary standards may evenbe integrated into governmentregulations over time, thusraising the bar for entiresectors.

The growing engagement ofindustry partners in seekingconservation solutions on theground is another importanttrend identified by the RoundTable. At the same time, toolsdo not yet exist to encourageand promote these stewardshipactivities. There is a need to accelerate theidentification and adoption of such tools, which willcomplement integrated planning processes in bothallocated and unallocated landscapes.


C o m m u n i t yS t e w a r d s h i p

67

O n e o f t h e k e y c h a l l e n g e s w e f a c e i n s e c u r i n g o u r n a t u ra l c a p i t a l i sb r i d g i n g t h e d i v i d e b e t w e e n g l o b a le x p e c t a t i o n s a n d t h e n e e d s o f t h el o c a l c o m m u n i t i e s t h a t c a n m a k es t e w a r d s h i p a r e a l i t y.

O n e o f t h e k e y c h a l l e n g e s w e f a c e i n s e c u r i n g o u r n a t u ra l c a p i t a l i sb r i d g i n g t h e d i v i d e b e t w e e n g l o b a le x p e c t a t i o n s a n d t h e n e e d s o f t h el o c a l c o m m u n i t i e s t h a t c a n m a k es t e w a r d s h i p a r e a l i t y.

”“

”“


69

Earlier chapters of this report spoke of Canada’s unique opportunity to

conserve nature and of growing international expectations that Canada

will act as a global leader in nature conservation. One of the key

challenges we face in securing our natural capital is bridging the

divide between these global expectations and the needs of the

local communities that can make stewardship a reality.

THE Round Table emphasizes that people andcommunities are part of the landscape. Thus conser-vation planning should respond to the needs of localcommunities and Aboriginal peoples by emphasizingtheir role as stewards of nature and by working toensure that nature conservation brings them socialand economic benefits.

This approach requires greater acknowledgement ofthe role that municipal governments can play in foster-ing stewardship at a local and regional level. It alsorequires better access for municipal officials to infor-mation and innovative tools that can support theirdecision making. And it means engaging a broaderrange of landowners and other interested parties inbuilding long-term solutions that benefit both natureand communities.

Communities across the country face different chal-lenges. But whether they live in urban, rural or agricul-tural communities, Canadians care about nature andwant to find ways to ensure its long-term sustain-ability. They are also increasingly aware that healthynatural systems are critical to their own social andeconomic well-being, as well as their quality of life.The challenge, then, is to design incentives and sup-ports to effectively engage Canadians as stewards ofour lands and waters.

In this chapter, the Round Table explores some ofthese issues and identifies ways to ensure that conser-vation efforts engage local communities and reflecttheir needs. At the same time, the Round Table recog-nizes that these communities face broader economic

and social issues that are beyond the scope of thisreport. Accordingly, its recommendations do notattempt to address the issue of community economicgrowth and sustainability in its entirety.

8.1 COMMUNITIES IN CANADA ARE IN TRANSITION

Some Canadian communities, particularly in ruralareas, are in crisis as a result of a combination offactors such as low commodity prices (especially in theagricultural sector), declining numbers of farmers, andlack of access to resources (either because the resourcesare in decline, as in the case of east coast fisheries, orbecause of restrictions on resource extraction).

Other communities, including “gateway communi-ties” (which are situated close to areas of great naturalor cultural significance) are booming and face newand unanticipated challenges because of their rapidpace of growth. Rural communities on the urban“fringe” face another set of challenges and opportuni-ties. What unites these communities is the desire tofind ways to sustain their economic viability, naturalcapital and quality of life over the long term.

R3 communit ie sRural, resource-dependent, remote (R3) communitiesare dotted across almost 90 percent of Canada’s landbase. Their traditional dependence on natural resourceextraction makes them vulnerable to shifts in theavailability of the resource, resource prices and trendsin global markets.

C h a p t e r 8

In general, these communities want better recogni-tion for their contributions to nature conservation.They want to see real commitments by consumers,urban residents and governments to pay more for theecological services these communities sustain for thepublic good. In other words, they increasingly wantto reap the social and economic benefits of natureconservation.

R3 communities do not want to become museumsof either nature or culture. They seek vibrant, well-rounded ways of life in which nature plays a muchlarger role than in an urban setting. They want betteraccess to knowledge and the opportunity to be fullpartners in making decisions that affect the lives,livelihoods and success of current and future genera-tions. Decision support systems and information canbe in short supply, especially during times of crisis ortransition.

Urban communit ie sUrban communities face different challenges whenit comes to nature. Many cities are struggling tomaintain or create natural capital by preservingparks and other green spaces, creatinghabitat for wildlife, and implementingnaturalization programs such as treeplanting. Such activities offer a variety ofpayoffs. The Evergreen Foundation, forexample, believes that access to parks andopen space has become a new measure ofcommunity wealth—an important wayto attract businesses and residents byguaranteeing both quality of life andeconomic health.72

The vast majority of Canadians live incities, and even more are expected to doso in the next 20 years. The ecologicalfootprint of our urban centres is alsoexpanding, as urban sprawl and thedevelopment of suburban infrastructureand transportation corridors put pressureon biodiversity, water quality andsurrounding rural communities. Urbancommunities need to gain a betterunderstanding of their connections with

communities on their borders, and of theirdependence on the natural systems that surroundthem. The proposed development of the Oak RidgesMoraine (see box)—and growing public awareness ofthe critical role the moraine plays in providing cleanwater to the entire Greater Toronto Area—serves as areminder of these urban-rural links and the importanceof planning for conservation across entire regions.

Agricul tural communit ie sAgricultural communities play a critical stewardshiprole that often goes unrecognized in Canadian society.In addition to producing their traditional commodities,these communities also provide important publicgoods such as clean air and water, as well as fish andwildlife habitat. Although these and other ecologicalservices benefit us all, the cost of maintaining them isoften borne by these communities alone.

The agricultural sector is in the midst of a long anddifficult period of transition in Canada. Farmingcommunities face declining prices for their goods andrising subsidies for their competitors. Consumerpressure for “green” products is growing, particularly

70


S M A R T G R O W T H A N D U R B A N S P R A W L :T H E O A K R I D G E S M O R A I N E

The Oak Ridges Moraine stretches for 160 kilometres across 34municipalities and four counties in the Greater Toronto Area(GTA). The moraine contains some of the most significanttracts of forested lands in the GTA, as well as the headwatersof most of the waterways that provide Toronto’s drinkingwater, leading some to call the moraine the “rain barrel” ofsouthern Ontario. In 2001, as part of its Smart Growthstrategy, the provincial government introduced a freeze ondevelopment on the moraine, which had been slated forsuburban development. Legislation was then unanimouslypassed by the provincial government to ensure protection of49,200 acres of the moraine, 62 percent of which cannot beopened up to subdivision development without reopening thelegislation. All local municipalities must now ensure that theircommunity plans conform with the legislation.

Source: Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Oak Ridges Moraine, available at www.ontarionature.org/issues/orm.html

in Europe. At the same time, the long-term economicsof farming is leading to profound intergenerationalshifts, with younger generations increasingly leavingtheir farms and communities to find new ways tomake a living.

The recent federal-provincial Agricultural PolicyFramework (APF) seeks to provide Canadian farmerswith income security and prepare the sector to competein changing world markets. The Round Table sees theAPF as an important attempt to make natural servicesa core component of the sector’s future.

However, some participants in the Conservation ofNatural Heritage Program expressed concerns aboutthe extent to which farmers have been involved in thedesign and implementation of the APF. Participantswent on to underscore the importance ofcontinuing to consult with agriculturalcommunities at all stages ofdevelopment of the APF—if theyare to embrace the APF, farmerswill need to see their concernsreflected in its programs.

Agricultural communities areconcentrated in Canada’s mostsouthern regions. These areas alsohave the highest concentration ofdifferent types of species (or“species richness”) in the country.However, 14 of Canada’s 177terrestrial natural regions are athigh risk of biodiversity loss,mainly due to competing landuses such as urbanization and agriculture.73

These landscapes, and the people who managethem, provide Canadians with critical ecosystemservices. Wetlands, for example, filter the water onwhich many city dwellers depend. Programs such asthe Conservation Cover Incentive Program (see box)and Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS)74 as proposedby the Delta Waterfowl Foundation recognize theimportant role that landowners play in deliveringthese valuable ecosystem services.

However, pressures on these ecosystems are growingrapidly, as urban sprawl accelerates and more agri-cultural lands are converted to transportation networks

and far-flung suburbs. An estimated 90 percent ofsouthern Ontario’s original woodland cover hasalready been converted to agricultural use or urbanlandscapes. As a result of these intense humanpressures, southern Canada has the highest numbersof species at risk in Canada.75

We need strategies to maintain and, in some cases,restore these valuable ecosystems. Because a relativelyhigh proportion of our southern, species-rich land isprivately owned, it requires different conservationstrategies than those proposed in other chapters,which focus on publicly held land. The next five yearsare an important window of opportunity toconsolidate and build on the work of groups such asDucks Unlimited and the Nature Conservancy ofCanada to encourage landowners in these areas tocommit to conservation.


71

D U C K S U N L I M I T E D : P R O P O S A L F O R AC O N S E R V A T I O N C O V E R I N C E N T I V E P R O G R A M

Ducks Unlimited Canada has proposed a national ConservationCover Incentive Program that provides an economic incentive forlandowners to convert marginal agricultural land to conservationcover, and protect or restore degraded riparian zones and managethese to enhance the provision of environmental goods andservices.1 Agreements with landowners are being sought tomaintain long-term securement of the restored lands and thebenefits they provide.

1 Ducks Unlimited Canada, “A Conservation Cover Incentive Program,” draft discussion paper, October 17, 2001.

8.2 CURRENT PROGRAMSA number of programs and initiatives across the countryaim to engage local communities in nature conser-vation.76 For example, a wide variety of watershedplanning projects and approaches are being used tomaintain the health of key watersheds and ecosystemsand restore ecosystems that have been degraded. BothOntario and British Columbia have established water-shed planning processes (such as B.C.’s Living RiversFramework) that promote regional approaches tokeeping rivers and their watersheds healthy. Similarly,the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) and localland trusts have developed “conservation blueprints”—methodology for ecoregional planning that enablesthem to set conservation priorities for entire ecoregions.Focusing on those regions under the greatest humanpressures, the NCC uses consolidated data sets, GIStechnology and community input to identify sites ofgreatest biodiversity value, threat and opportunity.

In addition, Environment Canada, in partnershipwith the provinces and territories, has introducedecosystem initiatives that respond to the problems ofparticular areas and communities across the country.The St. Lawrence Action Plan and the AtlanticCoastal Action Plan, for example, are characterized bya commitment to an ecosystem-based approach,federal-provincial partnerships to maximize integration,

and participation by local communities in the designand implementation of activities. These initiatives alsoseek to build the capacity of all participants to makebetter stewardship decisions.

Similarly, the federal government, in partnershipwith Ontario, has long been involved in efforts torestore degraded areas within the Great Lakes basin.The Great Lakes Remedial Action Plan seeks torestore 42 “areas of concern” in the basin to a levelthat meets both government and public expectations.Communities sit at the table to design action plans,which must also be ratified through publicconsultation. The program has been a criticalmechanism for engaging communities in restoringand maintaining this important ecosystem.77

Canada’s Biosphere Reserve Program is anotherinnovative mechanism for involving local comm-unities in whole-landscape approaches. Biospherereserves are designated by the United NationsEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organization inareas that demonstrate innovative approaches to livingand working in harmony with nature. Biospherereserves include core protected areas, buffers andbroader “areas of cooperation,” where communitiesseek new ways to maintain ecological integrity whilesustainably using natural resources. These areas ofcooperation are an important model for exploring

connectivity and whole-landscapeapproaches in full partnershipwith local communities. Thereare currently 12 biospherereserves in Canada, distributedacross seven provinces.78

Recently, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada announced theGreencover Initiative. Greencoveris a $110-million national effortto promote sustainable land useand expand the area covered byperennial forages and trees by upto 1.6 million hectares over fiveyears. The benefits would includeeconomic production alternativesfor farmers, land conservation,improved grassland management,

According to a recent review,1 the benefits of urban naturalizationinclude:

enhancing environmental health by rehabilitating degradedlandscapes;

providing habitat for native birds, butterflies and other insects;

increasing biodiversity by using native plant species;

eliminating the need for chemical pesticides, fertilizers andherbicides;

learning first-hand about the natural world and the ecologicalprocesses that support it; and

strengthening community ties by fostering a sense ofcooperation and instilling feelings of pride and stewardship.

1 Evergreen Foundation, Ground Work: Investigating the Need for Nature in theCity, 2000.

B E N E F I T S O F U R B A N N A T U R A L I Z A T I O N

72


protection of water quality, reduced greenhouse gasemissions and enhanced biodiversity and habitat.79

8.3 KEY CHALLENGESDespite growing recognition of the importance ofinvolving communities in nature conservation—fromthe creation of parks and protected areas to theprotection of local habitats—our track record inengaging rural communities in nature conservation hasbeen mixed at best.

One of the key challenges is one of perception. R3communities in particular have often seen conservationinitiatives as running counter to their interests — asan impediment to resource development that bringsconcrete economic benefits. Yet through their actions,many rural Canadians—both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal—have demonstrated their commitment tonature conservation. It is a commitment that stemsfrom direct dependence on our lands and waters.

Another problem is the lack of consistent approachesor standardized tools to support the participation oflocal communities in regional conservation planning,although there are a number of important modelsacross the country. Communities and individualCanadians need to be engaged more effectively andconsistently in efforts to maintain healthy ecosystemsand restore degraded ones.

A third challenge is the rapid pace of landscapepressures, particularly along the urban-rural fringe.City dwellers have not internalized the true costs oftheir lifestyles: although their ecological footprintextends far beyond city borders, city dwellers haveyet to bear the costs associated with lost biodiversityand poorer air and water quality. Reflecting thesecosts in decision making—and ensuring that thosewho benefit from using our natural capital also payfor it—is a shift that will help communities becomemore effective stewards of their lands and waters.

The lack of incentives for communities and privatelandowners is another barrier to stewardship.Incentives are inadequate to ensure that naturalcapital, particularly on private lands, is maintained.Landowners and local decision makers also face a lackof information about regional ecological values andthe conservation solutions they could adopt.

8.4 RECOMMENDATIONS

Engage communit ie s in reg ional conservat ion p lanningThe Round Table recognizes that it is critical forcommunities to be involved in conservation planningto ensure that conservation solutions provide ecologi-cal, social and economic benefits. In essence, com-munities need to be at the table to participate in thedecisions that affect them.

As an immediate first step, the Round Table urgesall governments to work with local communities andother sectors in adopting conservation planning forentire regions. Based on its findings, the Round Tablebelieves that one of the priority regions where imme-diate action is necessary is the southern landscape.This landscape is highly fragmented and has littleconservation potential left. However, there is greatopportunity for local communities to becomestewards of this landscape and ensure that prioritysites that are still undeveloped remain so. To accom-plish this goal, communities must have the opportu-nity to participate effectively in planning and moni-toring activities.

One example of work to support communityparticipation is provided by Environment Canada’sEcological Monitoring and Assessment NetworkCoordinating Office (EMAN CO). EMAN hassuccessfully been developing and testing a consistentmodel and standardized tool set for engaging citizensand community decision makers in generating andusing environmental information to improve localdecisions related to conservation and sustainability.


73

Recommendation 9: The Round Tablerecommends that the federal governmentaccelerate efforts to conserve priority sitesin highly fragmented southern landscapesby supporting local communities inplanning and monitoring activities.

The resulting Canadian Community MonitoringNetwork, developed in partnership with the CanadianNature Federation, provides tested strategies and criticalsuccess factors for applying a consistent model andstandardized tool set in communities across Canada.Development and application in multi-communitylandscapes has been initiated. However, despiteinterest from communities, conservation authorities,provinces and others, plans to implement the programfurther have been stalled for lack of resources.

The Biosphere Reserve Program is another mecha-nism for engaging communities in planning, one thatalso contributes to broader stewardship and sustainabledevelopment efforts. A lack of sustained funding andinstitutional support has weakened the program,however, leaving most reserves to rely on volunteersalone. Strengthening the capacity of this programwould provide an important mechanism forencouraging conservation across the country.

A core element of community participation inconservation is emphasizing the role of young peoplein conservation initiatives. The Round Table believesthat young people should be given the capacity to beable to engage effectively in conservation planningand management decisions. The federal governmentcould explore the potential to establish a “conserva-tion corps” as a part of its Youth Employment Strategy.This mechanism would enable young people acrossCanada to obtain job experience while contributing toconservation efforts across the country.

Provide incent ive s for landownersAccelerating conservation planning requires engagingnot only communities as a whole but also individuallandowners, who can be critical players in southernlandscapes. Incentives directed to these landownerscan play a significant role in encouraging stewardshipactions, from changes in farm practices to thedonation of ecologically sensitive lands toconservation agencies. Below are immediate measuresthat the government could adopt to ensure that keystewards are supported in their conservation efforts.

Provide incentives for conservation measures: Farmerscan adopt a wide variety of measures to enhanceecological services on their lands. Some of thesemeasures could be introduced in the context ofEnvironmental Farm Plans (EFPs).

There are seven EFP programs across the country,in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and each of the Atlanticprovinces. Under these programs, farmers voluntarilyprepare an EFP that identifies areas of environmentalconcern and sets goals for improvement, often inreturn for a financial incentive. Participants inOntario, for example, receive a cash transfer of up to$1,500 per farm business to support the implementa-tion of new management practices. As of May 30, 2001,approximately 20,000 farm families were participatingin the program.80

Most EFP programs are delivered by independentorganizations across the country, and have beendesigned to meet the needs of farmers in each region.The Agricultural Policy Framework is seeking toenhance EFPs as part of its national programs, althoughdelivery of EFPs would remain with local organizations.

Additional incentives for farmers could be linked tothe adoption and implementation of EFPs and theirequivalents. These incentives could also be used tointegrate EFPs into regional conservation plans.

74


Recommendation 10: The Round Tablerecommends that the federal governmentestablish a Canadian Biosphere ReserveSecretariat housed at Environment Canadato coordinate the work of the reserves andshare best practices in engaging communi-ties in regional conservation planning.

Provide incentives for donating ecologically sensitiveland: The Ecogifts Program is another important toolfor encouraging landowners to conserve naturalcapital. Through theprogram, taxincentives are offeredto landowners whodonate ecologicallysensitive lands oreasements on theirland for conservationpurposes. Since itsestablishment in1995, more than21,000 hectares ofecologically sensitiveland have beenconserved throughthe program.81

Despite this success, proponents of the programhave identified three areas as warranting attention bythe federal government in order to realize the fullpotential of the Ecogifts Program and enable allCanadians to participate: Allowing tax receipts to be issued for donations that

are part of “below market” or “bargain” sales: Manyof Canada’s ecologically significant private landsare found on working landscapes. Owners of suchlands often cannot afford to gift the land outrightbut are willing to sell the land to a conservationcharity for significantly less than the appraisedmarket value and receive a tax receipt for theportion of the land donated (i.e. the differencebetween the purchase price and the fair marketvalue of the land). However, the accepteddefinition of a gift is “a voluntary transfer ofproperty owned by a donor to a donee, in returnfor which no benefit flows to the donor.” A receiptcannot be issued for the donation portion of adiscount sale of property because the entiretransaction is considered a sale, not a gift.

Reducing the capital gains tax on ecological gifts tozero: Under the Income Tax Act, any disposition ofland, whether by donation or by sale, is deemed tohave occurred at fair market value, with anyincrease in value thereafter being taxed as a capitalgain. Landowners who donate their lands areaccordingly taxed on their notional capital gains,


75

Recommendation 11: The Round Tablerecommends that Agriculture and Agri-FoodCanada and Finance Canada, in partnershipwith provincial governments as appropriate,introduce a suite of specific incentives forlandowners through Environmental FarmPlans or their equivalents. While theseincentives may vary by jurisdiction, priorityshould be placed on:

accelerated capital cost allowance claimson conservation equipment, such asflushing bars, fencing, watering andmanure management facilities;

cost-sharing for capital improvements andequipment related to conservationobjectives;

priority qualification or premium benefitsfor agricultural support, credit andinsurance programs; and

technical assistance and other extensionand support services.

even though they have received no such income.Although amendments to the Income Tax Act havepartially addressed this problem, it remains abarrier to conservation. Removal of the capitalgains tax on ecological gifts would encourage moreowners of ecologically sensitive land to donate thetitle or conservation easements to a conservationorganization.

Expanding the program to include inventory lands:The disposition of land held as inventory yields aprofit rather than a capital gain (because it is not a“capital asset”), 100 percent of which is deemedincome for income tax purposes. Such land is noteligible for tax benefits under the Ecogifts Program,which applies only to capital gains associated withecological gifts. As the Ecogifts Program is intendedto offer incentives to preserve significant ecologicalareas, it should apply to all people and companies

owning qualified land, regardless of how the land isheld. Extending the program to apply to lands heldas inventory would foster the conservation of areassuch as the Oak Ridges Moraine, where someecologically sensitive land is part of the inventory ofdevelopment companies.

In December 2002, Finance Canada releasedtechnical amendments to the Income Tax Act thatappear to have addressed the bargain sale issue.Through amendments to section 118.1, subsectionswere added to clarify the circumstances under which atransfer of property will be considered a gift,notwithstanding that the donor may be entitled toreceive an advantage or benefit in respect of theproperty. New subsection 248(30) provides for an“eligible amount” of the gift, defined as the amount bywhich the fair market value of the property that is thesubject of the gift exceeds the amount of advantage, ifany, in respect of the gift.82

These proposed amendments, which have yet to befinalized in legislation, seem to have paved the way forpart sale/part donation transactions to conserve land,as the difference between the purchase price and theappraised value should be considered an “eligibleamount” for charitable receipt purposes. Assuming the

Recommendation 12: The Round Tablerecommends that the federal governmentenhance the Ecogifts Program to furtherencourage private landowners to conserveecologically sensitive lands. Enhancementswould include:

removing the remaining capital gains taxon gifts of ecologically sensitive lands andeasements; and

including donations of ecologicallysignificant lands held by corporations orindividuals as part of the inventory of theirbusinesses.

76


A S U S T A I N A B L E C O M M U N I T Y : O K O T O K S , A L B E R T A

In 1998, the community of Okotoks recognized thatits master plan should respect the carrying capacityof its watershed, rather than continuing to pushthe environmental limits of growth.1 Thecommunity created a sustainable development planthat reflects the key goals of its residents: topreserve their small-town way of life and stimulaterespect for the environment.

The town focused on creating a balance betweeneconomic opportunity, social consciousness andenvironmental stewardship, and also looked beyondtraditional municipal boundaries to embrace aregional ecosystem approach. A key objective of theplan is to live within the carrying capacity of theSheep River watershed. The plan also seeks toprotect an urban/rural transition zone to ensurethat aesthetic values are maintained and that thetown does not become a bedroom community forCalgary. Partnerships with a variety of government,university and community organizations werecritical to the success of this plan.

Source: Federation of Canadian Municipalities, SustainableCommunities, Okotoks, Alberta Case Study, available atwww.nrcan.gc.ca/media/newsreleases/2000/200027a_e.htm

above, an important new tool has been introduced toencourage private landowners to conserve theirecologically sensitive lands, yet barriers still remain torealizing the full potential of the Ecogifts Program.

Enhance benef i t s to loca l communit ie s f rom conservat ionAs noted earlier in this report, new mechanisms areneeded to ensure that local communities benefit fromconservation. As we engage communities in conservationthrough immediate measures such as planning andincentives, longer-term measures are needed to benefitand sustain communities for future generations.

Tourism provides one way for R3 communities tomaximize the economic benefits of living near protectedareas. Tourism strategies are typically based on localknowledge and the unique ecology, history and cultureof the protected landscape.

An advisory committee struck by the Minister ofCanadian Heritage in 1996, for example, recommendedthe development of a heritage tourism strategy for theentire Banff Bow Valley area. The Banff/Lake LouiseTourism Bureau subsequently organized a HeritageWorking Group composed of high-level representativesof the public and private sectors. The resulting strategyaims to: make all visitors aware they are in a national park by

fostering their appreciation and understanding of theecology, history and culture of Banff National Parkand the Banff Bow Valley area;

encourage and develop opportunities, products andservices consistent with heritage values;

encourage environmental stewardship initiatives, onwhich sustainable heritage tourism depends; and

strengthen employee orientation, training andaccreditation programming as it relates to sharingheritage understanding with visitors.

As one of the most important partners in the strategy, Parks Canada has agreed to collaborate with thetourism industry to market high-quality heritage experi-ences and to use its communications capacity to promoteheritage to park visitors. It also agreed to include theheritage tourism strategy as part of the Banff NationalPark management plan for 1997–2002.

Other gateway communities could use similarstrategies. However, there is currently no nationalframework to support the development or promotionof these strategies.

Build knowledge and dec i s ion-making suppor t sAgricultural and other R3 communities have tradition-ally relied on the wealth of their natural resources andtheir agricultural productivity to sustain their qualityof life. A variety of factors have dramatically changedthese communities and pose major challenges to theirlong-term sustainability.

These communities need tools to monitor the eco-logical systems on which they depend and to makedecisions that support their long-term social, environ-mental and economic well-being. This applies equallyto resource-dependent communities, who may seeconservation initiatives as running counter to theirinterests, and to new gateway communities that areattracting people who choose to move to a communitybecause of its proximity to nature.

Gateway communities near new parks often experi-ence rapid changes in their economic structure due tothe expansion of tourism facilities and services to meetgrowing demand. Managing growth is a major issuefor such communities.


77

Recommendation 13: The Round Tablerecommends that the federal government,with partners such as the Tourism IndustryAssociation of Canada, develop a nationalsustainable tourism strategy to enhancethe economic benefits associated withprotected areas for local communities.

A good way to get decision-support systems fornature conservation out to R3 and gateway communi-ties is to more effectively integrate such systems intoexisting rural support programs such as the SustainableCommunities Initiative. Launched through NaturalResources Canada’s GeoConnections program, thisinitiative is designed to build the capacity of smallcommunities to pursue sustainable development byusing geographical information available to Canadiansthrough the Internet and other sources.

GIS decision-support tools are an important part ofa community’s ability to plan proactively for conser-vation, but they are only part of the answer. R3communities also need social and economic decision-support tools to effectively implement sustainabilityprograms. The Round Table did not identify a completesuite of social and economic decision-support tools.However, it does recommend that more work be donein this area.

78


Recommendation 14: The Round Tablerecommends that the federal government,in partnership with the Federation ofCanadian Municipalities and other agencies,invest in the development of computerizedand GIS-based decision-support systemsthat can be used by R3 and othercommunities in social, economic andconservation planning and communitydevelopment. The Round Table has twofurther recommendations: 1) that NaturalResources Canada’s GeoConnectionsprogram be renewed with an expandedSustainable Communities Initiative and 2)that the expanded Sustainable Commun-ities Initiative should include piloting theuse of these decision-support systems inan additional 10 R3 communities per year.


C o n s e r v a t i o nof M a r i n eE c o s y s t e m s

79

W i t h t h e l o n g e s t c o a s t l i n e i n t h ew o r l d a n d a l l b u t t w o p r o v i n c e sb o r d e r i n g o n t h e s e a , C a n a d a i si n a r g u a b l y a m a r i t i m e n a t i o n .C a n a d a ' s o c e a n s a r e r i c h i n d i v e r s i t y.

”“

”“


81

With the longest coastline in the world and all but two provinces bordering

on the sea, Canada is inarguably a maritime nation. Canada’s oceans are

rich in diversity, from the sea floor with its underwater mountains,

canyons and sediment beds to the coastal zones that are a

vital transition between land and sea.

YET Canada’s marine ecosystems are underincreasing stress. Fishing and transportation, long themain activities in marine and coastal waters, havebeen joined by a variety of other developmentpressures. The results are evident: marine habitatshave been dramatically altered by overfishing, theintroduction of exotic species, land-based sources ofpollution, and physical damage caused by trawlers, oiland gas development, and underwater infrastructuresuch as cables, electricity lines and pipelines. Inaddition, the impact of climate change—on oceancurrents and the melting of Arctic Ocean ice—bringsa whole new set of concerns.

There are many similarities between approachesfor conserving terrestrial and marine ecosystems.The principles of conservation biology discussed inChapter 3, for example, appear to be as applicable toprotecting biodiversity in the oceans as on land.Indeed, scientists are increasingly exploring strategiesto avoid the loss of biodiversity in marine ecosystemsand to protect key corridors used by migratory species.

One of the main differences between marine andterrestrial approaches to conservation, however, is inthe role of the federal government. The federal govern-ment is the dominant regulator and manager of theoceans, whereas the provinces and territories have thelead in advancing conservation of the terrestrialenvironment. However, provincial and territoriallevels of government must also be involved inadvancing more integrated oceans management.

9.1 EMERGING TOOLS FOR THE CONSERVA-TION OF MARINE ECOSYSTEMS

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are emerging as animportant part of a new approach to marine conserva-tion that considers the functioning of marine ecosystemsas well as the role of species in these ecosystems, theirhabitat needs and their interactions with one another.83

The term “marine protected area” can apply to abroad range of formal designations that provide long-term legal protection for the seabed, water columnand plants and animals and their habitats. MPAs canrange in size and level of protection, from reservestotally closed to consumptive uses to multiple-useareas that allow for human uses compatible with theMPA’s conservation objectives.

Various complementary federal programs exist forthe establishment of MPAs. The Oceans Act (1997),administered by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, providesfor MPAs to be established to protect and conservecommercial and non-commercial fishery resources andhabitats, endangered and threatened marine species andtheir habitats, unique habitats, marine areas of highproductivity or biodiversity, and any other habitat ormarine resource needing special protection.

Before an area can be designated an MPA, it mustfirst be identified as an “area of interest.” Canada’sfirst Oceans Act MPA was designated in March 2003,and 12 other areas of interest have been identified.Oceans Act MPAs are designated by regulation andtherefore are not necessarily designated in perpetuity.Activities of various types will be permitted providedthey are consistent with the conservation objectives setout in the site’s management plan, which is developed

C h a p t e r 9

by Fisheries and Oceans Canada in cooperation withinterested sectors. In addition, there is no process forParliament to review MPA management plans oramendments to these plans.

Parks Canada administers the Canada NationalMarine Conservation Areas Act, which was passed inJune 2002. National marine conservation areas(NMCAs) are established to protect and conserve forall time marine areas representative of Canada’s 29marine natural regions in the three oceans and theGreat Lakes, as well as to encourage public under-standing, appreciation and enjoyment of Canada’smarine heritage. NMCAs are multiple-use MPAs withboth fully protected zones and zones for ecologicallysustainable use, but with no non-renewable resourceexploration and extraction or ocean dumping. Com-prehensive consultation is required to establish anNMCA and to develop management plans for eachsite. The management plans are tabled in Parliamentand sites are established by order in council, withParliamentary scrutiny. NMCAs, like national parks,are established in perpetuity.

Two other pieces of federal legislation, administeredby the Canadian Wildlife Service (EnvironmentCanada), protect nationally significant marine wildlifeand habitat: the Canada Wildlife Act, which providesfor the establishment of marine wildlife areas (MWAs)in Canada’s oceans outside the 12-mile limit and nation-al wildlife areas (NWAs) within the 12-mile limit; andthe Migratory Birds Convention Act, which providesfor the establishment of migratory bird sanctuaries.

Although MPAs hold significant promise, progressin establishing a representative network in Canada hasbeen slow. More than 150 MPAs have been estab-lished using a variety of legislative tools, but most aresmall and provide very limited protection for themarine environment. Only three sites—the Saguenay–St. Lawrence Marine Park, Pacific Rim National ParkReserve and Fathom Five National Marine Park inGeorgian Bay—meet minimum protection standardsestablished by international conservation organizations.

Other changes to oceans management in Canadainclude the development of a new approach to fish-eries management based on a more sophisticatedunderstanding of the role of habitat and ecosystems,

which is superseding the single-species approach ofthe past. This new ecosystem approach can be seen inthe increase in integrated fisheries management plans,the use of selective fishing gear and practices, and thecollection of benchmark data.

Another tool of growing importance is integratedplanning and management. Canada’s Oceans Act wasintroduced with an explicit mandate to implement anintegrated approach to the management of oceans.Integrated management refers to a combination ofpolicies and programs aimed at enhancing coordina-tion and planning between the agencies and playersinvolved in marine management.

Canada’s Oceans Strategy defines the vision, princi-ples and policy objectives for oceans management inCanada. The strategy commits the federal governmentto undertake a wide range of activities such as: integrating scientific and traditional ecological

knowledge to increase our understanding ofmarine ecosystems;

reducing marine pollution; developing a strategy for a national network of MPAs; promoting development of a “state of the oceans”

reporting system; establishing and implementing a policy and

operational framework for improving the qualityof the marine environment;

using integrated management to resolve conflictsand manage human activities in ocean areas wheremultiple interests are involved;

promoting stewardship and public awareness; supporting the implementation of the National

Programme of Action for the Protection of theMarine Environment from Land-based Activities;

examining regulatory regimes to ensure effectiveenvironmental protection and streamlineregulations;

developing a framework for a National Programmeof Action for the Protection of the MarineEnvironment from Sea-based Activities to addresspriorities such as ballast water discharges and theintroduction of exotic species;

helping developing countries build their capacityto sustainably develop their marine resources andoceans; and

82


promoting international collaboration to protectglobally shared fisheries and ocean resources.

Another key aspect of the program is a commitmentto meeting the changing needs of communities asthey strive toward sustainability.

9.2 KEY CHALLENGESOne of the most significant barriers to advancingmarine conservation in Canada is the extent to whichresponsibility for protecting marine habitat isfragmented and spread among various agencies andjurisdictions. Within the federal government alonethere are more than 35 pieces of legislation and atleast 25 agencies concerned with marine management.In addition, although the federal government hasprimary jurisdiction over the oceans and the conti-nental shelf, authority for some portions of the coastalzone is shared by the federal government with provin-ces and territories. This has resulted in confusion,duplication of effort and protracted delays in makingdecisions that affect ocean users.

There is also a lack of coordination within thefederal government. Although Fisheries and OceansCanada has a mandate under the Oceans Act tocoordinate the efforts of the three federal agencies thatcan establish MPAs—Fisheries and Oceans Canada,Parks Canada and Environment Canada—there is nocomprehensive federal approach to MPAs. Fisheriesand Oceans Canada has taken a “learning by doing”approach to Oceans Act MPAs, by identifying a seriesof pilot Oceans Act MPA sites on Canada’s coasts.Parks Canada has developed a systems plan based on29 marine regions but has not identified specific sitesfor all of them, and Environment Canada has yet toidentify the sites that would complete its marinesystem of national and marine wildlife areas. The lackof a coordinated national plan for MPAs has led touncertainty among resource users that in some caseshas translated into fear and diminished support forconservation initiatives.

A third major challenge is our limited knowledge ofthe oceans compared with what is known about theland. For example, decision makers have extremelylimited knowledge about the seabed and the habitat itprovides for key species. In essence, we do not knowenough about the underwater topography of impor-tant marine habitats to manage them effectively.Much of the bottom of Canada’s oceans is mapped atonly a very rough scale and, even though ecosystemmanagement requires an understanding of marinefood webs, many of the links between marine speciesare not well understood.

9.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

Acce lerate the deve lopment o f a nat ional network o f MPAsThe Round Table recommends that immediate stepsbe taken to accelerate the development of a nationalnetwork of MPAs, as committed to by the federal government at the 2002 World Summit on SustainableDevelopment.

As previously described, efforts to establish MPAslag far behind similar efforts on land. Yet our marineecosystems are under increasing pressure from a varietyof sources, from climate change and land-based


83

sources of marine pollution to exponential increases inoil and gas exploration and development. Conservationplanning for marine ecosystems needs to be sequenced.As with the terrestrial experience, marine conservationplanning needs to occur before or in tandem with dev-elopment decisions, while the opportunity still exists.

There is great potential for Canada to create anational network of MPAs that would significantlycontribute to securing the natural capital contained inour oceans. The complementary nature of the MPAprograms of Parks Canada, Environment Canada andFisheries and Oceans Canada—and increasing coordi-nation among the three agencies—should facilitate thedevelopment of such a network. Cooperation withNGOs, resource users and others is also critical. Aninitiative to identify areas of high conservation valueand establish marine protected areas would make asignificant contribution to securing the natural capitalcontained within our oceans.

Acce lerate the implementat ion o f Canada’sOceans Strateg yAnother immediate step to moving conservationforward on Canada’s marine front is to accelerateefforts to implement Canada’s Oceans Strategy.Canada’s Oceans Act was explicitly designed toaddress the need for a comprehensive approach tomanaging the diverse uses of the country’s oceans. TheAct called for the development of the oceans manage-ment approach that is embodied in Canada’s OceansStrategy—a strategy based on the principles of ecosys-tem management, sustainability, integrated manage-ment and precaution.

A key feature of this strategy is its integrated man-agement program, a comprehensive planning andmanagement process that strives to minimize conflictbetween ocean users. This innovative process encour-ages collaboration among multiple parties whilerespecting regulatory and legislative authorities. Thereis growing evidence that integrated resource manage-ment is instrumental to reconciling competingdemands on increasingly fragmented marine habitats.

This integrated management program is a vitalcounterpart to the conservation planning frameworkoutlined in other chapters of this report, with theadded benefit that the Oceans Act provides an insti-tutional framework and legal mandate for thisapproach. Given the importance of this approach toachieving significant and long-lasting conservation inthe marine ecosystem, the federal government shouldprovide adequate resources to speed up implementa-tion of the Oceans Act and its programs.


Recommendation 15: The Round Tablerecommends that the federal governmentdevelop a comprehensive strategy to com-plete the network of MPAs by 2003.

The Round Table also recommends that thefederal government develop comprehensiveplans for establishing MPAs in each marineregion of Canada: for the Pacific Coast by2003, the Atlantic by 2004 and the Arcticby 2005. These plans should be based onthe identification of areas of high conser-vation value in each region.

Finally, the Round Table recommends thatfederal agencies with MPA programs adoptthe following targets:

five new Oceans Act MPAs by 2004 and anadditional 10 sites by 2010;

five new national marine conservationareas by 2007 and 10 additional sites by2010; and

five new national or marine wildlife areasby 2007.

Recommendation 16: The Round Tablerecommends that the federal governmentallocate $500 million over the next fiveyears to implement Canada’s OceansStrategy. This would enable Fisheries andOceans Canada, in collaboration with otherfederal departments, to accelerate theapplication of integrated managementapproaches across the country and theestablishment of a network of marineprotected areas under the Oceans Act.

84

Increase the information avai lable for dec i -s ion makingIntegrated management planning requires detailedand timely information about marine ecosystems.Many types of information must be collected todevelop a full picture of the ecosystem—everythingfrom data on habitat critical to specific fish toinformation about whale migration and deepwatercorals and sponges. Information about the marineenvironment from Aboriginal and local communities,industry and other parts of Canadian society must becollected and integrated for use in oceansmanagement planning.

An important tool for gathering some of thisinformation is multispectral analysis of the seabed.SeaMap, a proposed federal interdepartmentalprogram that makes use of such analysis, wouldprovide practical information about ocean habitats.The visual resolution of information collected underSeaMap, for example, would allow fishers to drag theocean bottom in areas with marine resources (e.g.scallops) while staying clear of significant biodiversityconcerns (e.g. corals, sponges). Multispectral analysiscould also provide essential information for locatingpipelines, cables and offshore oil and gasinfrastructure, and in the future might be used toidentify sites for offshore mineral development.

SeaMap, which is being developed through cross-country consultations to identify regional andnational mapping priorities, would also provideinvaluable information for managing decisions aboutconflicting land use in Canada’s offshore lands ormarine ecosystem.

Consolidating information from a variety of sourcesin a regular national report on ocean trends wouldgive decision makers at all levels much-needed infor-mation about whether the health of the country’smarine ecosystems is improving or declining. No suchreport is currently produced in Canada.

Recommendation 17: The Round Tablerecommends that the federal governmentallocate $50 million over five years to:

fund the SeaMap program as part of effortsto create a multidisciplinary, integratednational database that would form the basisfor decision making about marine conserva-tion and management in Canada; and

identify information gaps, collect newinformation and conduct additional researchin partnership with the Ocean ManagementResearch Network.

The Round Table also recommends thatFisheries and Oceans Canada take the leadin producing a “state of the oceans” reportfor Canada every five years.


85

Foster innovat ionAs Fisheries and Oceans Canada and other departmentsbegin to implement the Oceans Strategy, the RoundTable recommends that they seek ways to fosterinnovation within the marine sector. This includesencouraging the use of new technologies to conserveand enhance the ecological integrity of our marineenvironment, as well as seeking new, sustainableeconomic opportunities in the marine environment.Innovative tools are needed to support sustainablemarine ecosystem management in the future.

9.4 SUMMARYMarine ecosystems, despite their significance toCanada both environmentally and economically, have not received as much conservation attention asterrestrial systems. The Round Table believes thatimmediate steps need to be taken to ensure that thehealth of our seas is maintained. Immediate steps,such as developing a national network of MPAs andimplementing Canada’s Oceans Strategy, are crucial toensuring their health and the health of those commu-nities whose livelihoods are supported by the sea.

86


C h a p t e r 1 0C h a p t e r 1 0

I m p l e m e n t i n ga N a t i o n a lF r a m e w o r k

for A c t i o n

87

P r o g r e s s i n m e e t i n g p a s t c o m m i t m e n t s o n t h e g r o u n d h a sb e e n s l o w. Ne w a p p r o a c h e s a r ec r i t i c a l i n o r d e r t o s e c u r e t h en a t u ra l c a p i t a l u p o n w h i c h o u r e c o n o m y a n d q u a l i t y o f l i f e d e p e n d .

”

“

”

“

S E C U R I N G C A N A D A ’ S N A T U R A L C A P I T A L • C h a p t e r 1 0

89

Canadian governments have made a series of individual and collective

commitments to conserve nature over the past 20 years (see Chapter 4).

Yet progress in meeting these commitments on the ground has been slow. In

addition, we know that new approaches are critical in order to secure the

natural capital upon which our economy and quality of life depend.

IN earlier chapters of this report, the Round Tableoutlined a series of specific measures that governmentsshould adopt to accelerate conservation efforts in fourkey areas: conservation planning at a large landscapelevel, partnerships with industry, community steward-ship, and integrated management of marine ecosystems.

At the same time, the Round Table recognizes theneed to address overarching barriers to conservation ifCanada is to position itself as a global leader in conser-vation solutions by 2010. Perhaps most importantly,new institutional arrangements are required to enableall governments—federal, provincial, municipal andAboriginal—to work together to develop and imple-ment a new vision for conservation in Canada.

As well, enhanced efforts are required at all levels ofgovernment to promote investment in natural capitaland build the tools needed to factor the economicvalue of healthy ecosystems into decision making.

This chapter outlines a series of additional recom-mendations that the Round Table believes are essentialto securing our natural capital and implementing anew vision of conservation in Canada.

10.1 RECOMMENDATIONS

Meet exi s t ing commitments The Round Table has called on governments to reaffirmand revitalize their collective efforts to conserve naturein Canada.

As a first step, governments must meet their existingcommitments to conservation, from completing sys-tems of protected areas in the terrestrial and marineenvironments, to implementing the principles andspecific priorities outlined in the CanadianBiodiversity Strategy—an important existing frame-work for intergovernmental cooperation on natureconservation.

These commitments are the building blocks oflong-term ecological health and, as such, are essentialfor any effective conservation strategy in Canada.However, departments and agencies responsible forcreating protected areas do not have the resourcesrequired to meet their conservation commitments, letalone consider new ones that reflect our emergingunderstanding of conservation needs. All orders ofgovernment need to make significant new investmentsto meet existing commitments and lay the foundationfor a new generation of conservation goals.

C h a p t e r 1 0

As a first step, the Round Table recommends thatthe federal government allocate resources to meet itscommitments over the next five years, recognizingthat departments may also require ongoing funding tomaintain priority conservation programs and plan forthe future. Many of these funds have already beenrequested by individual departments.

The Round Table believes that the announcementof new and stable resources will be essential toadvance the immediate priorities set out in this report,as well as to take the first steps toward realizing theRound Table’s new vision for conservation. The feder-al budget of February 2003 and a subsequentannouncement in March provide a total of $218million in new funding over the next five years toestablish new parks and to maintain the ecologicalintegrity of existing parks. A further $54 million peryear in operational funding will be provided startingin 2008. Although this investment falls short of whathas been recommended by the Panel on EcologicalIntegrity, recent commitments such as these areimportant beginnings.

At the same time, the Round Table recognizes thatnew funds are not a long-term solution and expectsthat the need for new funding will significantlydecrease as efforts are made to value natural capitaland integrate these values into decision making.

Inves t in natural capi ta lGovernment departments and agencies at all levelscurrently lack the capacity to meet their existing con-servation commitments, or to plan proactively forconservation in the future.

The Round Table therefore recommends that thefederal government invest in the establishment of ahighly leveraged National Conservation Fund.Modelled in part on the existing federal-provincialinfrastructure program, the initial investment shouldbe matched by a variety of sectors, including all levelsof government, NGOs, community groups, andothers by a target of 3:1. This investment wouldsupport conservation initiatives across the country ona project-by-project basis.

Set c l ear goal s , target s and t ime frames , and measure progre s s As outlined earlier in this report, there are severalimportant initiatives underway that address conserva-tion goals. The work of the Joint Resource Ministers’Councils on the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy andCanada’s Stewardship Agenda demonstrates that

90


Recommendation 19: The Round Tablecalls on the Prime Minister to make aninitial investment of $250 million in aNational Conservation Fund, and toencourage the provinces, territories andconservation community groups to matchthat investment by a target of 3:1. Thefund would support priority conservationactivities on a project-by-project basisconsistent with the priorities outlined inthis report, as well as other conservationinitiatives across the country.

Recommendation 18: To ensure thatfederal conservation priorities andcommitments are fulfilled, the Round Tablerecommends that the federal governmentallocate over the next five years:

$300 million to Parks Canada for new parksand for maintaining the ecological integrityof existing parks; and

$175 million to Environment Canada tosignificantly enhance the network ofnational wildlife areas and migratory birdsanctuaries, particularly in the North.

The Round Table also recommends that, toensure that these new resources areemployed in the most effective andintegrated ways possible, these departmentswork with Fisheries and Oceans Canada todevelop and implement a more integratedFederal Protected Areas Strategy.

cooperation among levels of government results inconservation gains.

However, current approaches are not enough toadequately protect Canada’s natural capital. As aresult, in addition to meeting their existing commit-ments, governments need to set conservation goalsand targets that reflect the changing context for conser-vation in Canada and measure their progress in achiev-ing these goals and targets.

To help address this need, the Round Table recom-mends that the Prime Minister create a ConservationCouncil. The Council would be independent andmultistakeholder, led by a prominent Canadian andinclude representatives from federal, provincial andterritorial governments, Aboriginal communities,NGOs, industry and local communities.

The Council’s work would be threefold. First, itwould monitor the government’s progress on the adop-tion of measures outlined in this report, particularlythe priority recommendations, many of which relate toinitiatives such as the Canadian Biodiversity Strategyand Canada’s Stewardship Agenda. The Council wouldreport back to the Prime Minister on progress within18 months of the release of this report.

Second, the Council would lead the development ofa conservation charter to guide conservation prioritiesin Canada over the next 10 years. The charter wouldincorporate the Round Table’s vision for nature con-servation in Canada and a whole land and seascapeapproach.

Finally, the Council would work with all sectors toraise awareness about conservation issues and to edu-cate and engage Canadians in conservation and stew-ardship. One focus could be to encourage the partici-pation of young people in conservation—possiblythrough the establishment of a conservation corps asa part of Canada’s Youth Employment Strategy.84

Recommendation 20: The Round Tablerecommends the establishment of a PrimeMinister’s Conservation Council. The Councilwould monitor the government’s progress onthe adoption of measures outlined in thisreport, in particular the priority recommen-dations, many of which relate to initiativessuch as the Canadian Biodiversity Strategyand Canada’s Stewardship Agenda. TheCouncil would report back to the PrimeMinister on progress within 18 months ofthe release of this report.

The Council would also lead the developmentof a conservation charter that would guideconservation priorities over the next 10 yearsin Canada, based on the Round Table’s visionfor Canada’s lands and seas.

Finally, the Council would work with allsectors to raise awareness about conserva-tion issues in Canada, focusing particularlyon the role of young people in conservation.


91

10.2 MEETING THE CONSERVATION CHALLENGE TOGETHER

As noted in Chapter 3, all sectors of society have acritical role to play in ensuring that our natural capitalis conserved in its entirety for future generations.Consequently, the Round Table calls on all Canadiansto participate in efforts to implement a new vision forconservation and position Canada as an internationalconservation leader by 2010.

In the first instance, the Round Table calls on thefederal government to play a proactive and catalyticleadership role in the adoption and implementation ofthis national vision. Key federal priorities for actioninclude putting the federal government’s own house inorder by ensuring adequate resources to meet existingcommitments; requiring conservation planning inadvance of issuing federal permits; supporting thedevelopment of a strong knowledge base for action;identifying and eliminating disincentives and barriersto conservation at the federal level; and findinginnovative ways to provide conservation-relatedbenefits to Aboriginal governments and communities.

As the order of government with direct responsi-bility for managing the majority of Canada’s publiclyowned lands, the Round Table calls on provinces andterritories to adopt best practices in conservationplanning, and to require planning in advance of newindustrial development. Provinces and territoriesshould also identify and eliminate key barriers tovoluntary conservation initiatives by industry andother sectors of society.

The Round Table recognizes that Aboriginal govern-ments and communities have always been and continueto be key stewards of Canada’s lands and seas. Aboriginalgovernments have a crucial role in resource planningand development. The Round Table believes thatconservation goals can only be met by continuing towork with Aboriginal governments to ensure thatconservation both benefits nature and is consistentwith Aboriginal community goals and values.

The Round Table recognizes industry as an emerg-ing conservation leader. The Round Table calls onindustrial leaders to adopt world-class conservationpractices, including the establishment of protectedareas as well as measures to conserve biodiversity on

working lands. Companies can also demonstrateleadership through innovation: by finding new waysof using resources more efficiently, setting parts oftheir management areas aside for conservation pur-poses, and gaining third-party certification that theirpractices are environmentally sound.

The Round Table believes that NGOs have animportant role to play in developing and promotingconservation solutions. It calls on NGOs to continuetheir work in developing and implementing steward-ship partnerships in communities across the country,to ensure that all Canadians participate in achievingthis vision for Canada.

92


C h a p t e r 1 1C h a p t e r 1 1

The Wa y F o r w a r d

93

I t i s o n l y b y w o r k i n g t o g e t h e r — a sg o v e r n m e n t s , i n d u s t r i e s ,c o m m u n i t i e s , Ab o r i g i n a l p e o p l e sa n d o t h e r s — t h a t w e c a n s e c u r eo u r n a t u ra l c a p i t a l f o r o u r o w n a n d t h e w o r l d ' s b e n e f i t .

““””


95

Natural capital represents a fundamentally new way of looking at the

diversity of life and all its inherent values. It also provides a valuable

new lens for considering how best to integrate ecological

and economic decision making at all levels.

WE have a unique opportunity to position Canadaas a leader in securing the natural capital on whichour society and economy depend. However, thiswindow of opportunity is rapidly closing, and immedi-ate steps are required to ensure that Canada does notfall behind the international community in this regard.

This report outlines both a powerful new vision andpragmatic solutions for nature conservation inCanada. Our vision recognizes the importance ofestablishing and connecting protected areas while alsomaintaining the ecological integrity of landscapes andmarine ecosystems under resource management. Atthe same time, we recognize that people are part ofthe landscape and that our conservation effort mustrecognize and support local and Aboriginal communi-ties as stewards of the land.

THE STATE OF THE DEBATE: WHO PAYS FOR CONSERVATION?One of the basic theses of this report is that the futureof conservation rests on our ability to work with pri-vate landowners and resource companies operating onpublic land to achieve conservation goals. Further, anyconservation burden that is placed on private landown-ers will have to be the subject of negotiation, compro-mise and compensation. Although this principle wasgenerally accepted by the Conservation of NaturalHeritage Task Force, it was not addressed further.Nevertheless, it can be assumed that putting thisprinciple into practice will result in significant debatebetween landowners, land users, the environmentalcommunity and public authorities.

Recent difficulties in legislating an acceptable Speciesat Risk Act in Canada highlighted the issues involvedin compensating landowners for conservation. For

example, land with valuable mineral deposits willneed to be treated differently from ranch land.Timberlands will need to be assessed individually andcompensation will depend on whether partial orslower exploitation is acceptable environmentally.Land for corridors for large predators may still besuitable for certain kinds of limited development.Over time, it is expected that a system of compen-sation for partial restrictions will be developed.

Incentives and measures directed to landowners andbusiness are already emerging and can play a signifi-cant role in addressing concerns. Examples such asEnvironmental Farm Plans and the Ecogifts Programacknowledge the contribution that landowners aremaking to conservation and seek to compensate them.These are important first steps toward addressing theexpected debate.

NEXT STEPSIn its work on the Conservation of Natural HeritageProgram, the Round Table found that incentives thatrecognize and encourage conservation by industry arean important measure for furthering conservation inCanada. Although this report outlines some keyopportunities to engage industry more fully in conser-vation, it does not attempt to identify a comprehensivesuite of incentives. The Round Table may delve moredeeply into this area over the next year.

The Round Table encourages all sectors to worktogether to implement its vision for Canada’s landsand seas. Governments alone cannot achieve theseambitious goals. It is only by working together—asgovernments, industries, communities, Aboriginalpeoples and others—that we can secure our naturalcapital for our own and the world’s benefit.

C h a p t e r 1 1

A p p e n d i c e s

97

S E C U R I N G C A N A D A ’ S N A T U R A L C A P I T A L • A p p e n d i x A

G l o s s a r y o f S e l e c t e d T e r m sABORIGINAL PEOPLES85

The Aboriginal peoples of Canada are defined by theConstitution Act (1982) as Indian, Inuit and Métis.Indians have traditionally been sub-divided into 2groups: status and non-status. A status Indian is aperson registered or entitled to be registered as anIndian for purposes of the Indian act. Status Indiansare members of the approximately 600 bands acrossCanada, which are located mainly south of the 60thparallel on reserve lands within the province. Theterm non-status Indian is applied to people who maybe considered as “Indians” according to ethnic criteria,but who, for various reasons, are not entitled toregistration under the Indian Act. Métis people aredefined as being people of mixed Indian and non-Indian ancestry. Statistics Canada includes under thecategory of Métis all people living in any part of Canadawho claim mixed Indian and non-Indian ancestry.The Inuit are those Aboriginal peoples who live inCanada’s northern most regions. Indian, Inuit andMétis people are separate peoples with unique heritages,languages, cultural practices and spiritual beliefs

BIO-BASED ECONOMY86

The emergence of an economy that is moving awayfrom using conventional industrial processes that arenot ecologically efficient and depend on non-renewable resources, toward more biologically basedindustrial processes that rely on renewable resourcesand cleaner, more ecologically efficient processes.

BIODIVERSITY (BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY)87

The variability among living organisms from allsources including, among others, terrestrial, marineand other ecosystems, and the ecological complexesof which they are part. This includes diversity withinspecies (genetic diversity), between species and ofecosystems.

BIO-PROSPECTING (BIODIVERSITY PROSPECTING)88

The exploration of biodiversity for commerciallyvaluable genetic and biochemical resources.

BUFFER ZONE89

An area in or adjacent to a protected area surroundinga central core zone, in which non-destructive humanactivities such as eco-tourism, traditional (low-density)agriculture, or extraction of renewable naturalresources are permitted.

CANADA’S NORTH (THE NORTH, NORTHERN LANDSCAPES)90

The definition of Canada’s North varies depending onthe context or its use in different parts of the country.In some cases, it may refer to Canada’s three northernterritories: Yukon, Nunavut and the NorthwestTerritories. However, the term is also often used todescribe a wider area, delineated by common environ-mental processes, socio-economic conditions, geographiclocation, jurisdictions, policies, regulations or programswhich may apply within these boundaries. In thisreport, unless otherwise indicated, Canada’s North, theNorth and northern landscapes refer to the land andocean-based territory that lies north of the line ofsporadic permafrost, from British Columbia to Labrador.

CARBON SEQUESTRATION91

Capturing and securely storing carbon emitted fromthe global energy system. There are different types ofcarbon sequestration, including naturally occurringsequestration by plants, or technologically basedsequestration, such as separating and storing carbondioxide emissions from effluent streams.

A p p e n d i x A

99

CLIMATE CHANGE92

A change in measured quantities (e.g. precipitation,temperature, radiation, wind, cloudiness) within theclimate system that departs significantly from previousaverage conditions and is seen to endure, bringingabout corresponding changes to ecosystems and socio-economic activity.

CONSERVATION93

The maintenance or sustainable use of the Earth’sresources in a manner that maintains ecosystems,species and genetic diversity and the evolutionary andother processes that shaped them. Conservation mayor may not involve the use of resources; that is, certainareas, species or populations may be excluded fromhuman use as part of an overall landscape/ waterscapeconservation approach.

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY94

A relatively recent field of study that emerged inresponse to the existing and future risk of biodiversityloss. It is an interdisciplinary field that applies principlesof ecology, biology, population genetics, economics,sociology, anthropology, philosophy and otherdisciplines related to the maintenance of biodiversity.

CONSERVATION ECONOMY95

An economy that promotes economic relationshipsthat maintain ecological integrity while advancingsocial equity.

CORRIDORS96

The areas that link or border natural areas, includingprotected areas, and provide ecological functions suchas hydrological flow, wildlife habitat, passage andconnection for wildlife species, or buffering fromimpacts due to activities in adjacent areas. The use ofcorridors emerged as a conservation tool in responseto habitat fragmentation. Corridors can vary fromvery small, linear strips of vegetation along a waterwayconnecting two small habitat patches, to broader andlonger corridors that connect major landscape fea-tures, such as large strips of forests following a topo-graphic feature such as a mountain range.

CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT97

The effect on the environment that results from theincremental impact of a proposed action when addedto other past, present and reasonably foreseeablefuture actions.

ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY98

The degree to which an ecosystem has the ability tobe self-sustaining over the long term.

ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES OR FUNCTIONS99

The processes or mechanisms that occur within anecosystem, linking living organisms and their environ-ment. These include production, decay, nutrientcycling, disturbance, successional development,energy flows and interactions between organismswithin an ecosystem.

ECOLOGICAL REPRESENTATION100

A strategy for conserving biodiversity that aims toprotect a representative sample of all natural regions.Determining what qualifies as a representative sampleis achieved using a scientific methodology based on“enduring features,” which are physical characteristics(such as climate, topography and soils) that exert asignificant influence on the distribution of species andnatural communities in an area. This approach wasdeveloped in part by conservation biologist ReedNoss, and pioneered by organizations participating inthe Endangered Spaces campaign led by WorldWildlife Fund Canada.

ECOLOGYThe study of the interrelationships between livingorganisms and their physical and biologicalenvironment.

ECO-REGION101

An ecoregion is a geographical area characterized bybroad similarities or dissimilarities in features such aslandform, geology, climate, vegetation cover, soil orwater properties, and wildlife.

100


ECOSYSTEM102

A dynamic, multi-scale unit of interacting organismsand the non-living resources (e.g. water, soil) onwhich they depend, as a functional and integratedwhole. Ecosystems vary in size and composition anddisplay functional relationships within and betweensystems. The term generally refers to geographic units,which can be defined at multiple and often nestedscales. For instance, the term may be applied to a unitas large as the entire ecosphere (planet) or to smallerdivisions like the Arctic or small lakes.

ECOSYSTEM APPROACH103

A comprehensive and holistic approach to under-standing and anticipating ecological change, assessingthe full range of consequences, and developing appro-priate responses. This approach recognizes the complex-ity of ecosystems and the interconnections amongcomponent parts. Among other things, the ecosystemapproach recognizes that humans are an integral partof ecosystems and that human social and economicsystems constantly interact with other physical andbiological parts of the system.

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES (ECOLOGICAL SERVICES)104

The fundamental life-support services that are providednaturally by ecosystems, such as purification of airand water, detoxification and decomposition of wastes,regulation of climate, regeneration of soil fertility, andproduction and maintenance of biodiversity. Theservices are generated by a complex interplay ofnatural cycles powered by solar energy and operatingacross a wide range of space and time scales.

FRONTIER FORESTS105

Frontier forest is a term developed by the WorldResources Institute to refer to the world’s remaininglarge intact natural forest ecosystems. These forests arerelatively undisturbed and large enough to maintainall of their biodiversity, including viable populationsof the wide-ranging species associated with each foresttype. To qualify as a frontier forest, a forest must meetseven criteria established by WRI.

GIS (GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM)106

GIS refers to a computer program for collecting,storing, retrieving, transforming and displaying spatialdata collected for analysis. GIS is capable of layeringdifferent kinds of information about one geographicalspace.

HABITAT107

The place or type of site where plant, animal ormicro-organism populations normally occur. Theconcept of habitat includes the particular characteris-tics of that place, such as climate and the availabilityof water and other life requisites (e.g. soil nutrients forplants and suitable food and shelter for animals),which make it especially well suited to meet the life-cycle needs of the particular wildlife.

INTEGRATED PLANNINGLand-use planning that is holistic, or comprehensive,rather than driven by one single use, or by short-termeconomic gain. It aims to sustain ecological functionsand biodiversity, and is aligned with public policygoals. The process involves considering the viewpointsof multiple stakeholders, from Aboriginal peoples toindustry to local citizens.

INTEGRATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT108

The use of an ecosystem approach to the managementof two or more resources in the same general area;commonly includes water, soil, timber, range, fishand other wildlife, and recreation.

INVASIVE SPECIES (EXOTIC SPECIES)109

Refers to a species that has moved into an area andreproduced so aggressively that it has replaced someof the original species. Canadian examples includepurple loosestrife and European starling.

LANDSCAPE110

A mosaic of habitat patches across which organismsmove, settle, reproduce and eventually die.


101

LAND-USE PLANNING111

The systematic assessment of land and water poten-tial, alternative patterns of land use and other physi-cal, social and economic conditions, for the purposeof selecting and adopting various land-use options.Land-use planning may be conducted at various levels,including international, national, regional, district,ecosystem, project, catchment or local levels. Theprocess should include participation by existing andpotential land users, planners and decision makers.

NATURAL CAPITAL112

Natural capital is a relatively recent term describing aform of capital that can be contrasted to produced/economic capital and human/social capital. Naturalcapital generally refers to natural assets in their role ofproviding natural resource inputs and environmentalservices for economic production. There are threemain categories of natural capital: renewable and non-renewable natural resource stocks (e.g. sub-soilresources, timber, fish, wildlife and water), land andecosystems. Natural resource stocks are the source ofraw materials used in the production of manufacturedgoods. Land is essential for the provision of space inwhich economic activity can take place. Ecosystemsare essential for the services they provide directly andindirectly to the economy.

NATURAL RESOURCES113

Natural resources consist of the materials and capaci-ties supplied by nature. They are divided into twocategories: renewable and non-renewable resources.Renewable resources are those natural resources thatare capable of regeneration. If properly managed, theyshould never be exhausted because they are contin-uously produced. Examples of renewable resourcesinclude tree biomass, fresh water and fish.

Non-renewable resources are those natural resourcesthat cannot be replaced, regenerated or brought backto their original state once extracted. Examples ofnon-renewable resources include coal, crude oil andmetal ores.

NATURENature is not a precise, scientific term, and it can havedifferent meanings in different contexts. In this re-port, nature refers to the Earth’s biological diversity(including ecosystem, species and genetic diversity)and its ecosystems.

PRIMARY FORESTS114

The term primary forest has been interpreted in manydifferent ways. In this report, primary forest refers toa forest ecosystem characterized by an abundance ofmature trees, relatively undisturbed by human activity.Human impacts in such forest areas have normallybeen limited to low levels of hunting, fishing and har-vesting of forest products, and, in some cases, to low-density, shifting agriculture with prolonged fallowperiods. Such ecosystems are also sometimes referredto as “mature,” “old-growth” or “virgin” forests.

PROTECTED AREA115

A geographically defined area of land and/or sea thatis dedicated to the protection and maintenance ofbiological diversity, and of natural and associatedcultural resources, and managed through legal orother effective means. To qualify as a protected areaunder Canada’s NGO-led Endangered Spaces cam-paign, an area has to be permanently protected(usually through legislation) and prohibit industrialuses, including logging, mining, hydroelectric and oiland gas development, or in marine areas, prohibit oiland gas drilling, dumping, dredging, bottom trawlingand dragging and other non-renewable resourceexploration and extraction activities.

SEASCAPEA sea-based mosaic of habitat patches across whichorganisms move, settle, reproduce and eventually die.

SPECIES116

A group of related individuals with common hereditarymorphology, chromosome number and structure, phys-iological characteristics, and way of life, separated fromneighbouring groups by a barrier that is generally sexualin nature—i.e. members of different species do not nor-mally interbreed, and, if they do, the progeny are sterile.

102


SPECIES AT RISK117

Species or populations of animals and plants that arein danger of becoming extinct. Categories of speciesat risk under the recent Canadian Species at Risk Actinclude extirpated, endangered or threatened species,and species of special concern.

STEWARDSHIP118

The responsible management and use of natural areasand resources based on a balance of economic, environ-mental and social values, in order to sustain produc-tion of these amenities and values to people, and alllife, today and for future generations. The essence ofstewardship is taking responsibility for actions todaythat directly influence the protection of values forfuture generations. Good stewardship implies actiondirected toward the common good for society andthe environment.

TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE119

The knowledge base acquired by indigenous and localpeoples over many hundreds of years through directcontact with the environment. This knowledgeincludes an intimate and detailed knowledge ofplants, animals and natural phenomena; the develop-ment and use of appropriate technologies for hunting,fishing, trapping, agriculture and forestry; and aholistic knowledge or “world view” that parallels thescientific discipline of ecology.

WATERSHED120

A watershed is a geographic area of land bounded bytopographic features and height of land that drainswaters to a shared destination. A watershed alsocaptures precipitation, filters and stores water, anddetermines its release. Watersheds vary in size. Everywaterway (stream, tributary, etc.) has an associatedwatershed, and smaller watersheds join together tobecome larger watersheds.

WETLAND121

Land that has the water table at, near or above theland surface or that is saturated for a long enoughtime to promote wetland or aquatic processes andvarious kinds of biological activity that are adapted to

the wet environment. Wetlands include fens, bogs,swamps, fresh and saltwater marshes, and shallowopen water.

WHOLE-LANDSCAPE APPROACH122

An approach used in designing and implementingmanagement and conservation plans that aim tomaintain ecological integrity over the long term. Awhole-landscape approach is comprehensive, consi-dering landscape patterns and land-use patterns out-side the management unit. It is an adaptive process,and captures the range of social, economic andecological values that ultimately define human–ecosystem relationships. The approach requires anecological context for decision making, reflecting anevolution in the way we assess and manage the impactof human activities on the natural environment.When applied in the context of land-use planning, awhole-landscape approach provides early and system-atic guidance on the interrelationships between hu-man activities (existing and planned) and ecosystemintegrity over time.

WILDLIFE123

All non-domesticated and non-human living organ-isms, including not only vertebrate animals (mam-mals, birds, fish, amphibians and reptiles) but alsoinvertebrate animals, vascular plants, algae, fungi,bacteria, and all other wild living organisms.

WORKING LANDSCAPE (WORKING SEASCAPE)The portion of public and private lands allocated toindustrial uses, such as forestry, mining, oil and gasexploration and development, hydroelectric develop-ment and others.


103

P r o g r a m P a r t i c i p a n t s

ABORIGINAL LEADERSHIP INSTITUTEFontaine, Ted: Chair, Board of DirectorsWalker, Rosa: Executive Director

AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE OF CANADACarver, Roy: Executive DirectorTyrchniewicz, Edward W.: President

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS ASSOCIATIONOF SASKATCHEWANKing, Steve: Director, District 2Ottenbreit, Ivan: Vice-President

AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD CANADABaltacioglu, Yaprak: Assistant Deputy MinisterBrand, Paula: DirectorBrenning, Michele: Director, Environment BureauDoyle, Kevin: Rural SecretariatEilers, R.G.: Head, Land Resource UnitFitzmaurice, John: Regional Land Use Analyst, PrairieFarm Rehabilitation Administration, Manitoba RegionHenderson, Kim: Environmental Analyst, Environment BureauMacDuff, Jodine: Environmental Analyst, Prairie FarmRehabilitation Administration, Manitoba RegionMartini, Roger: Senior Environmental EconomistMorrissey, Brian: Assistant Deputy MinisterSpencer, Carrie: Senior Environmental Analyst,Environment Bureau, Strategic Policy Branch

AIMM NORTH HERITAGE TOURISMSimon, James: Consultant

ALBERTA ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL DISTRICTSGuyon, Bart: Vice-President

ALBERTA CONSERVATION ASSOCIATIONHull, Steven: Managing Director

ALBERTA COUNCIL FORSUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIESCampbell, Robin: President

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTDixon, Richard: Advisor, Policy SecretariatMcGregor, Cameron: Team Leader, Integrated Resource Management

ALBERTA-PACIFIC FOREST INDUSTRIES INC.Wasel, Shawn: Business Unit Leader, Environmental Resources

ALGONQUIN ANISHINABEG NATIONHunter, Jimmy: Representative

ALGONQUINS OF GOLDEN LAKE FIRST NATIONSarazin, Dennis: Conservation Officer

ANIELSKI MANAGEMENT INC.Anielski, Mark: President

APF ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY GROUPKamenz, Geri: Chair

ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONSIgnace, Lawrence: Senior Policy Analyst

ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA CHIEFS TURTLE ISLANDELDERS ’ COUNCILBruyère, Caroline: Representative

ASSINIBOINE COMMUNITY COLLEGEBashforth, Gerald: Vice-President, EnterpriseDevelopment

ASSOCIATION FOR BIODIVERSITY INFORMATIONCurtis, Steve: Canadian Program Director

ASSOCIATION FOR VACCINE DAMAGED CHILDRENJames, Mary: Representative

ASSOCIATION OF CANADIAN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESCasselman, Alice: Representative

ASSOCIATION OF IRRIGATORS IN MANITOBASmallwood, Doug: Executive Director

ASSOCIATION OF MANITOBA MUNICIPALITIESBriese, Stuart: Vice-PresidentMotheral, Wayne: President

AVALON INSTITUTE OF APPLIED SCIENCEHombach, Sven: Coordinator, Pollution Control and Waste ManagementYanko-Hombach, Valentina: President

BATTEAU CONSULTING LTD.Gladue, G.C.: President

BIODIVERSITY STEWARDSHIP IN RESOURCE INDUSTRIESPatterson, James: Coordinator

BLUE SKI COMMUNICATIONSOvergaard, Paul: President

BLUENOSE ATLANTIC COASTAL ACTION PROGRAMCook, Brooke: Executive Director

A p p e n d i x B

S E C U R I N G C A N A D A ’ S N A T U R A L C A P I T A L • A p p e n d i x B

105

Note: This program was carried out over a number of years, and some participants’ titles/organizations may have changed during that time.


BOREAL FOREST NETWORKForrest, Michelle: Project Coordinator, Environment

BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENTBailey, Scott: Senior Policy Analyst, Corporate Policy andIntergovernmental Relations Branch

BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF WATER, LAND AND AIR PROTECTIONSmith, Risa B: Head, State of Environment Reporting

C. MRENA CONSULTING LTD.Mrena, Chuck: Consultant, Environmental and NaturalResources Management

CAMPBELL, MARRBruun, Anders: Partner

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCERSHyndman, Rick: Senior Policy Advisor, Climate ChangeLuff, David: Vice-President, Environment and Operations

CANADIAN BOREAL TRUSTElgie, Stewart: Executive Director

CANADIAN CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATIONStrankman, Peggy: Manager, Environmental AffairsVan Der Byl, Dick

CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR ECOLOGICAL AREASWiken, Ed: Chair

CANADIAN COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF THE ENVIRONMENTKunec, Diane: Programs Coordinator

CANADIAN ENERGY RESEARCH INSTITUTEBruchet, Doug: Senior Director, Environment and Energy Research

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGENCYBotkin, Wendy: Senior Program OfficerMcNaughton, Daniel: Regional Director

CANADIAN FEDERATION OF AGRICULTUREFriesen, Robert: PresidentHigginson, Jennifer: Executive DirectorHowe, Nicole: Policy Analyst

CANADIAN GROUND WATER ASSOCIATIONHigginson, Jennifer: Former Executive DirectorLewis, Maurice: Executive DirectorRohne, Guy: Director, Manitoba Region

CANADIAN HERITAGEDufresne, Alain: Head, Conservation of Ecosystems,Conservation of Natural Resources, Quebec SectorGranskou, Mary: Director, Parks Policy and Liaison, andformer Round Table Task Force Ex-officio Member

Himelfarb, Alex: Deputy MinisterMcNamee, Kevin: Director, Park EstablishmentNeve, Barbara: Senior Editor, Executive CorrespondenceOffice

CANADIAN HERITAGE RIVER SYSTEMSGibson, Don: National Manager

CANADIAN NATURE FEDERATIONBingeman, Kristin: Research CoordinatorKrindle, Jackie: Past ChairSpence, Christie: Manager, Wildlands CampaignWhelan Enns, Gaile: Manitoba Director, Wildlands Campaign

CANADIAN PARKS AND WILDERNESS SOCIETYDanyluk, Donna: Board Member, NewsletterEditor–ManitobaJessen, Sabine: Conservation Director, British Columbia ChapterJohnson, Shelly: Conservation Projects CoordinatorKidd, Scott: Conservation Director, Manitoba ChapterPeart, Bob: Executive Director, British Columbia ChapterPeepre, Juri: Executive Director, Yukon ChapterPoulton, David: Executive Director, Calgary-Banff ChapterSmith, George: National Conservation DirectorWoodley, Alison: Federal/Northern CampaignerYeoman, Greg: Conservation Director, NWT

CANADIAN RECREATIONAL CANOEING ASSOCIATIONTaylor-Hallick, Kathy: President

CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSIONMcCourt, Lydia: Analyst

CANADIAN TURKEY MARKETING AGENCYRuchkall, Richard: Chair

CANADIAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATIONBlais, Eric-Lorne: President, Manitoba BranchKienholz, Esther: National Secretary

CANADIAN WILDLIFE FEDERATIONBaumgartner, Sandy: Manager, Programs and Communications

CENTRE FOR INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Bobiwash, A. Rodney: Director, Forum for GlobalExchangeBreu, Reegan: Research AssociateLaliberté, Larry: LibrarianMcDonald, Rodney: Sustainability StrategistMorgan, Shaunna: Research AssociateSellers, Patricia: Instructor/Curriculum Designer

CHETWYND ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIETYFofonoff, Marcie: RepresentativeSawchuk, Wayne: Past-President

106



107

CITY CENTRE RESIDENTS ADVISORY GROUP, WINNIPEGMasniuk, Trish: Representative

CITY OF EDMONTON, COMMUNITY SERVICES, ALBERTAPriebe, Bob: Coordinator, Conservation Planning

CITY OF SELKIRK, MANITOBAPawley, Chris: CouncillorSwiderski, Darlene: Councillor

CITY OF THOMPSON, MANITOBATaylor, Lynn: City Manager

CITY OF WINNIPEG, MANITOBAHeming, Cheryl: City NaturalistSmith, Harvey: Councillor

CLEAR LAKE ASSOCIATION, ONTARIOBuck, Karen C.D.: President

CLUBS-CONSEILS EN AGROENVIRONNEMENTVachon, Elizabeth: Expert Consultant

COMMISSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATIONCarpentier, Chantel-Line: Program Manager, Environment, Economy and TradeHerrmann, Hans: Head, Biodiversity Program

COMMUNITY COUNCIL OF SOUTH INDIAN LAKE, MANITOBATrewin, Gary: Mayor

CONGRESS OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLESPalmater, Frank: Vice-Chief

CONSERVATION SCIENCE INC.Noss, Reed: President and Chief Scientist

CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION OF CANADADesorcy, Gloria: Policy and Issues

COOKS CREEK CONSERVATION DISTRICT, MANITOBABrown, Garry: Chair

COUNCIL OF WOMEN OF WINNIPEGGarlich, Carolyn: Chair of Civic Issues

CRITICAL WILDLIFE HABITAT PROGRAM, MANITOBABilecki, Lori: Habitat Stewardship CoordinatorHamel, Cary: Assistant Biologist, Manitoba ConservationData Centre

DAIRY FARMERS OF CANADABouchard, Réjean: Assistant Director, Policy and Dairy Products

DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITYWillison, Martin: Professor of Biology and EnvironmentalStudies, School of Resource and Environmental Studies

DAUPHIN DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, MANITOBAOvergaard, Gail: Past-President

DEERWOOD SOIL AND WATER MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATIONMcEwan, Les: PresidentTurner, Bill: Technician

DELTA WATERFOWL FOUNDATIONBailey, Robert: Vice-President

DIAVIK DIAMOND MINES INC.Kenny-Gilday, Cindy: Senior Advisor, Northern Community Affairs

DUCKS UNLIMITED CANADAAnderson, Michael G.: Canadian DirectorAndrews, Rick: Field Office BiologistBogdan, Les: Manager of Conservation Programs, B.C.Bruce, Greg: Policy AnalystButterworth, Eric: Senior Biologist, Western BorealRegionChekay, Doug: Manager of Public Policy, Prairie RegionGrant, Bob: Manager of Field OperationsGuyn, Karla: Conservation Programs BiologistLindgren, Cory: BiologistMurkin, Henry R.: Chief BiologistStewart, Gary: Manager of Conservation Programs, Western Boreal Forest Region

EARTHBOUND ENVIRONMENTAL INCORPORATEDFriesen, Ken

ECOLOGICAL MALES AND FEMALES IN ACTIONPrymate, JosephShute, MalcolmStewart, Ben

ECOLOGICAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT NETWORKStewart, Craig: Network Science Advisor

ECOMATTERSSheppard, Marsha I.: Soil Specialist

ECONETWORKPrymak, Joseph: Volunteer

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WINNIPEGHolowchuk, Lisa: Economic Development Officer

ECOSTEM LTD.Ehnes, James: Forest Ecologist and Data Analyst

ENSYN TECHNOLOGIES INC.Smith, Stuart: Chairman of the Board, and Round Table Past Chair

ENTER THE ELEMENTSReimer, Josh: President


ENVIRONMENT CANADABlight, Steve: Project Leader, Environmental Economics BranchBond, Wayne: Head, Environmental Reporting, NationalIndicators and Assessment OfficerBruce, Kathryn: Executive Director, Canadian Wildlife ServiceCooper, Elizabeth: Special Assistant, Office of theMinisterEros, Susan: Policy Analyst, Canadian Wildlife Services–Prairie and Northern RegionHendrickson, Ole: Science Advisor, Biodiversity Convention OfficeHnatiuk, Nancy: Communications OfficerHovorka, Mark: Scientific Advisor, Wildlife Trace Act, Canadian Wildlife ServiceKent, Robert A.: Manager, Science Liaison and Integration Office, Environmental Quality BranchLawson, Bevan D.: Climate Trends Meteorologist,Atmospheric and Hydrologic Sciences DivisionMcLean, Robert: Director, Wildlife Conservation BranchPeddie, Jane: Policy Analyst, Policy and CommunicationsRakowski, Patrick: Habitat Stewardship Biologist, Canadian Wildlife ServiceRubec, Clayton: National Wetlands Coordinator, Habitat ConservationSmith, Risa: Manager, National Indicators andAssessment Office, Environmental Quality Branch, Ecosystem Services DirectorateSmith, Sharon Lee: Director, Conservation Priorities and PlanningSwerdfager, Trevor: Regional Director, Pacific and YukonRegion, Environmental Conservation ServiceThompson, Gregory: Chief, Stewardship Division, WildlifeConservation Branch, Canadian Wildlife ServiceVaughan, Hague: Ecological Monitoring and Assessment NetworkWood, Heather: Policy Advisor, Environmental Conservation

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTREWilliams, Robert R.G.: Staff Counsel

EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN CANADALorch, Rhonda: Office Manager

EVERGREEN COMMON GROUNDSHeidenreich, Barbara: Land Trusts and Conservation Manager

FALCONBRIDGERobertson, Jamie: Regional Exploration Manager, North America and Greenland

FEDERATION OF ALBERTA NATURALISTSCoutts, Margaret: President

FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIESComeau, Louise: Director, Sustainable Communities and Environmental PolicyFink, Sylvestre: Policy Analyst, Environmental Issues,Sustainable Communities and Environmental Policy

FEDERATION OF MANITOBA ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE CLUBSMager, Gayle: Secretary-Treasurer

FINANCE CANADABowlby, Mark: Economist, Resources, Energy and Environment

FIRST NATIONS ENVIRONMENTALNETWORK–MANITOBACook, JasonMaytwayashiny, DianeRichard, Kathy: Co-founder, Member of Council–National

FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADABallinger, Kelly: Oceans Policy Advisor, Oceans StewardshipBooth, Samantha: Oceans Policy Analyst, Oceans Policy and Integrated ManagementChudczak, Chrystia: Director, Oceans Policy BranchHall, Peter: National Coordinator, IntegratedManagement, Marine Ecosystems Conservation BranchHuffman, Kenneth J.: Senior Policy Advisor, Oceans Policy BranchKarau, John H.: Director, Oceans Stewardship BranchLeClair, Stephen: Chief, Policy AnalysisPowles, Howard: Director, Biodiversity Science BranchRutherford, R.J.: Project Manager for the ESSIMInitiative, Oceans and Coastal Management (Maritimes)

FOOTHILLS MODEL FOREST, ALBERTAStorie, Mark: General Manager

FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADEParent, Gilbert: Ambassador for the EnvironmentRekai Rickerd, Julie: Senior Advisor

FOREM TECHNOLOGIESStelfox, Brad: Forest Landscape Ecologist

FOREST CERTIFICATION WATCHTM

Kiekens, Jean-Pierre: Editor

FOREST ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF CANADAPaillé, Gilbert: President and CEO

FOREST PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION OF CANADADevries, Andrew: ConsultantRotherham, Tony: Director, ForestsVice, Kirsten: Vice-President, Environment, Forestry and Technology

108



109

FORT WHYTE CENTREElliott, Bill: President and CEOToews, Aynsley: Education Coordinator

G.P.C . INTERNATIONALLang, Otto: Senior Counsel

GOVERNMENT OF YUKON–CABINET OFFICEBlack, David: Executive Assistant

GRAND COUNCIL OF THE CREES Craik, Brian: Director of Federal RelationsQuaile, Geoff: Environmental Analyst

GRANT PARK PARENT ASSOCIATION, WINNIPEGMoffatt-Razniatowski, Susan: Representative

HAY RIVER RESERVE, NORTHWEST TERRITORIESBarnaby, Joanne: Traditional Knowledge/Environmental Management

HEALTH CANADAGarrow, Robert: Senior Business Development Analyst,External Relations and Partnerships

HUSKY ENERGY INC.Worbets, Barry

HYDRO-QUÉBECPérusse, Martin: Project Leader, Strategic Environmental Issues

INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENTStadel, Angela: Advisor, Protected Areas Strategy Secretariat

INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCESPhare, Merrell-Ann: Executive Director

INDUSTRIAL FOREST SERVICESReimer, Tara: Forestry Technician

INDUSTRY CANADAFeatherman, Sidney: Senior Policy Analyst, InnovationPolicy Branch

INNU NATION (SHESHATSHIU, LABRADOR)Ashini, Daniel: IBA Implementation CoordinatorInnes, Larry: Environmental Policy Advisor

INSTITUTE FOR BIODIAGNOSTICSWestmacott, Garrett: Volunteer

INSTITUTE FOR WETLAND AND WATERLAND RESEARCH Howerter, David: Research Biologist

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTCurtis, Shawna: Officer, Fund Development and OutreachGlanville, William H.: Vice-President and CEOGonzaless, Virginia V.: Development OfficerHardy, Patricia: Director of Development and OutreachParry, Jo-Ellen: Project Officer

INUIT TAPIRISAT OF CANADANichols, Scott: Manager, Environment Department

ISLAND WASTE MANAGEMENT INC.Antle, Paul: President and CEO

KEEWATIN COMMUNITY COLLEGELauvstad, Doug: Director of Special ProjectsStepaniuk, Jeff: Natural Resource ManagementTechnology

KERR-MCGEE OFFSHORE CANADA LTD.d’Entremont, André: Health, Safety and Environmental Coordinator

KETASHINOW TECHNICAL FIELDWORKSBraun, Carl R.: Principal Owner

KEYSTONE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERSBroadfoot, Duncan: Executive MemberMcPhee, Gordon: District 2 Board Member

KRUGER INC.Mercer, Peter: General Manager

LAKE OF THE PRAIRIES CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1Hunter, John: Vice-Chair

LAKE WINNIPEG WHITE FISH FLEETKristjanson, Robert T.: President

LICHEN FOUNDATIONVanGeest, Bill: Consultant

LITTLE SASKATCHEWAN RIVER CONSERVATION DISTRICTFalkevitch, Kristie: Resource TechnicianWhitaker, John: Vice-Chair

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CANADA LTD.LeBlanc, Paul: District Forester, Swan Valley ForestResources DivisionWaito, Barry: Woodlands Superintendent

LP CANADA LTD.Donnelly, Margaret: Regional Biologist, Forest Resources Division

MACKENZIE VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW BOARDAzzolini, Louie: Environmental Assessment OfficerPope, Frank: Board Member

MANITOBA ABORIGINAL AND NORTHERN AFFAIRSBarbeau, Armand: Consultant, Community and Resource DevelopmentChéné, Donna: AnalystGreen, Catherine: Executive Assistant to the Minister

MANITOBA ABORIGINAL RESOURCE COUNCILBarker, TrevorDaniels, JosephGarson, JohnGiuboche, ErnieHead, EdwardParker, MurielSanderson, TheoTraverse, GordonTurner, PatWiebe, JacintaWood, Ed

MANITOBA AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CORPORATIONKibbins, Charlene: Director, Policy and Program Development

MANITOBA AGRICULTURE AND FOODBrunke, Richard: Agricultural EngineerCrone, Jacques: Coordinator, Provincial TrailsEwanek, John: Specialist, Soil and Water ManagementFriesen, Tim: Land Stewardship SpecialistGauer, Elaine: Soils Conservation Specialist Hay, David: Soils and Water Management SpecialistLee Craig: Assistant Deputy MinisterScott, Leloni: Soils and Water Management Specialist,Central RegionYusishen, Bryan: Regional Director, Central Region

MANITOBA AGRO WOODLOT PROGRAMTornblom, Shane: Field Manager

MANITOBA CATTLE PRODUCERS ASSOCIATIONDe’Athe, Claire: Executive Secretary, Environment Chair, Resolutions Vice-ChairEdwards, Rod: Communication Coordinator, and Editor, Cattle Country

MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSIONCarter, R.L.: CommissionerGibbons, Kenneth: CommissionerLecuyer, Gerard: CommissionerPotton, James E.: Senior Professional Officer

MANITOBA COMMERCIAL LAMB PRODUCERSSchroedter, Peter

MANITOBA CONSERVATIONAndreychuk, Colleen: Policy Analyst, Water BranchArthur, John W.: Regional Water Manager

Beaubien, Yvonne: Parks and Natural Areas BranchBird-Billy, Ramona: Junior Program and Planning Analyst,Environmental Stewardship, Aboriginal RelationsBorowski, Peter: Senior Technician, Western Region–ForestryBoyle, Harvey J.: Assistant Deputy Minister, Regional Operations DivisionBrandson, Norman: Deputy Minister, Conservation Districts CommissionBruyère, Bruce: Senior Program and Planning Analyst,Environmental Stewardship, Aboriginal RelationsCarlson, Greg: A/Coordinator, Inventory and Wood SupplyCarmichael, Bob: Chief, Game and Management,Wildlife Branch

Cook, Don: Director, Forestry BranchCreed, Wendy: Digital Information Specialist, Parks and Natural AreasCrichton, Vince: Wildlife BiologistDelaney, Jeff: Assistant Coordinator, Practices and PlanningDixon, Jackie: Water Management OfficerDixon, Roy: Manager, GeomaticsDorward, Kurt G.: Water Licensing Technician, Water BranchDuncan, James R.: Chief, Biodiversity, Wildlife BranchDunford, Lyn: Forest Technologist, Forestry BranchFraser, Sherman: Fisheries BiologistGibson, Tammy: Sustainable Resource ManagementBranch, Environmental Stewardship DivisionGrauman, Andrew: Forester, Western RegionGray Bryan R.: Executive Director, EnvironmentalStewardship DivisionHenderson, Vicki: Environment Office, Terrestrial QualityHernandez, Helios: Parks and Natural Areas BranchHildebrand, Wayne: Manager, Intergovernmental AffairsHoughton, Jeff: District SupervisorHreno, Trent: Manager, Land Use ApprovalsHummelt, Cathy: Park Planner, Management, Planning and Heritage RiversIrwin, John: A/Manager, Planning and DevelopmentJonasson, Harley S.: Director, Lands BranchJonasson, JohnJones, Geoff: Environment Officer, Terrestrial QualityKearny, Steve: Regional Director, Northeast RegionKing, Albert D.: Senior Consultant, ProgramsKnowles, Keith: Forest Health Biologist, Forestry BranchLiebgott, Lisbeth: Coordinator, Water EfficiencyLui, Tai: Planning Engineer, Water BranchMadder, Ross: Assistant Project ManagerMazur, Kurt: Avian Ecologist, Wildlife BranchMissyabit, Ron: Director, Aboriginal Relations BranchMoran, Tom: Regional Resource Manager, Wildlife andLand ManagementO’Connor, Joe: Director, Fisheries Branch

110



111

Oswald, Barry: Resource Planner, Water Planning and CommunicationsPeniuk, Maureen: Parks and Protected Areas SpecialistPhillips, Floyd: Section Head, Terrestrial QualityPorteous, Ken: Head of InterpretationProuse, Gordon: Director, Eastern Region, Operations DivisionRichmond, Kelly-Anne: Parks and Natural AreasScaife, Barbara: Bio-economist, Fisheries BranchSchroeder, Roger: Head of Protected Areas and SystemsPlanning, Parks and Natural Areas BranchSchykulski, Ken: Parks and Natural Areas BranchScott, Carol A.: A/Director, Wildlife BranchStephens, DickStrachan, Larry: Director, Environmental ApprovalsBranchThompson, Lorimer: Chief, Fish Habitat ManagementThorpe, John: Regional Forester, Western Region–ForestryVerbiewski, Barry: Aboriginal LiaisonWhaley, Kent: Regional Wildlife Manager, Northwest RegionWilson, Rick: Parks and Natural Areas BranchZebrowski, Deirdre: Forest Ecologist, Forestry Branch

MANITOBA CONSERVATION DISTRICT ASSOCIATIONBaker, Rick: District Manager, Whitemud WatershedConservation DistrictDelorme, Gerry: Resource PlannerNylen-Nemetchek, Marcy: Resource PlannerKopytko, Myles: District Manager, Little Saskatchewan Conservation DistrictMazur, Jewel: District Manager, Lake of the PrairiesConservation District

MANITOBA CROP INSURANCE CORPORATIONKolisnyk, Walter: Chair, Board of Directors

MANITOBA CULTURE, HERITAGE AND TOURISMCollins, Jan: Tourism Development Consultant

MANITOBA ECO-NETWORK INC.Dykman, Liz: CoordinatorDubois, Jack: President, Steering CommitteeLindsey, Anne: Executive Director

MANITOBA EDUCATION, TRAINING AND YOUTHMcDonald, Christina: Divisional Policy and PlanningCoordinator, and Sustainable Development Coordinator,School Programs Division

MANITOBA ENVIRONMENTAL INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATIONConnell, Barbara: Communication Director

MANITOBA FAMILY SERVICES AND HOUSINGDustan, Leanne: Policy Analyst

MANITOBA FORESTRY ASSOCIATIONBeaven, Dianne: Executive DirectorEngel Boyce, Claudia: Board MemberFosty, Ken: Executive OfficerHreno, John: Executive AssistantJames, Mike: Coordinator–Manitoba EnvirothonMacKenzie, Robert C.: DirectorMacKenzie, BeverlyUhmann, Eric

MANITOBA FUTURE FOREST ALLIANCESullivan, Donald: North American Coordinator

MANITOBA HABITAT HERITAGE CORPORATIONForsyth, GeraldPoyser, Edward A.: Vice-ChairSopuck, Tim: Manager of OperationsUhmann, Tanys: Habitat Stewardship Technician

MANITOBA HEALTHPopplow, James R.: Medical Officer of Health

MANITOBA HYDROBarnes, Nick: Environmental Specialist, Major Projects PlanningDudar, Michael: Division Manager, Customer Service and MarketingHamlin, Bill: Strategic Issues OfficerJohnson, Doug: Senior Environmental Specialist, Power SupplyMoffat, Tom: Division Manager, Transmission and DistributionOnyebuchi, Ed: Senior Economic Consultant, Financial and Economic PlanningRindall, Barry: Division Manager, Transmission and DistributionYarmill, Brian: Environmental Technician, Generation SouthZacharias, Allison: Environmental OfficerZbigniewicz, Halina: Manager, Hydraulic Engineering and Operations

MANITOBA INDUSTRY, TRADE AND MINESBailey, Brian D.: Manager, Inspection and Rehabilitation ServicesJones, Charles: Geologist, Resource ManagementKaszycki, Christine: Assistant Deputy Minister, MineralResources Division

MANITOBA INSTITUTE OF AGROLOGISTSClift, Patrick: Member

MANITOBA INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRSBoles, David: Community PlannerJopling, David: Policy PlannerPearce, Terry: Community Planner

MANITOBA LABOUR AND IMMIGRATIONFarrell, Thomas J.: Deputy Minister

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYDoer, Gary: Premier of ManitobaFriesen, Jean: Minister of Intergovernmental AffairsGerrard, Jon: Leader of the Liberal PartyLathlin, Oscar: Minister of ConservationSelinger, Gregory: Minister of FinanceWowchuk, Rosann: Minister of Agriculture

MANITOBA MÉTIS FEDERATIONMonkman, Olive: Vice-President, Interlake Region

MANITOBA MÉTIS WOMENBrass, Germaine: Cree NationRinas, Diana: Winnipeg Region

MANITOBA MODEL FOREST INC.Boulette, Dale: Director, Community of ManigotaganBruneau, Robert: Director, Regional Municipality of Lac du BonnetChief, Paul: Councillor, Brokenhead Ojibway First NationChristensen, Chris: Director, Regional Municipality of Lac du BonnetHarry, Gerald: O’HanleyKaczanowski, Stan: President Kynman, George R.: Publication ConsultantMuldrew, Cec: Director, Pine FallsRaven, Garry: Director, Pine FallsSmith, Carl: SecretarySpence, Steve: Director, Pine FallsTokar, Walter: First Vice-PresidentWaldram, Mike: General Manager

MANITOBA–NORTH DAKOTA ZERO TILLAGE FARMERS ASSOCIATIONDoupe, Neil: Past Presdient/Director

MANITOBA PULSE GROWERS ASSOCIATION INC.Hicks, Steve: Director

MANITOBA RECREATIONAL CANOEINGASSOCIATIONBrabant, Gary: MemberBrabant, Sandra: MemberMacKay, Jim: SecretaryTrachsel, Rosemary: Executive Director

MANITOBA ROUND TABLE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTDubois, Jack: Vice-ChairHamilton, Dwayne: MemberPringle, Connie: MemberSoprovich, Dan: Call Centre Supervision, Riding Mountain National Park

MANITOBA RURAL ADAPTATION COUNCIL INC.Goulden, Herb: DirectorJacobson, Leslie: ChairJohnson, Terry: DirectorLenderbeck, Gaye: DirectorRempel, Margaret: DirectorVan Ryssel, Neil: Vice-Chair

MANITOBA SHEEP ASSOCIATIONPryzner, Ruth: Director at Large

MANITOBA TRANSPORTATION AND GOVERNMENT SERVICESChristie, RhianLe Clair, FrankPachal, Rosaline

MANITOBA WILDLIFE FEDERATIONRybuck, Ray

MANITOBA WILDLIFE HABITAT FOUNDATION INC.Milian, L.: Chair, Board of Directors

MANITOBA WOMEN’S INSTITUTEKaastra, Renske: Chair, Ag + Rural DevelopmentCommittee

MENNONITE CENTRAL COMMITTEEBraun, Will: Justice Coordinator

MÉTIS NATION OF ALBERTACardinal, Gabe: Vice-President, Zone II

MÉTIS NATION OF ONTARIOLipinski, Gary: Chair

MÉTIS NATION OF SASKATCHEWANHanson, Norman: Regional Director

MÉTIS NATIONAL COUNCILHeighington, Paul: National Projects CoordinatorMcCallum, Lisa: Métis Women’s Spokesperson, Métis Women’s SectionMorin, Allan: Portfolio HolderRolt, Dwayne: Legal Advisor

MÉTIS PROVINCIAL COUNCIL OF BRITISHCOLUMBIAMineault, Walter: Environment

MILLER THOMSONClark, Wade D.: Lawyer

MINING ASSOCIATION OF CANADAGratton, Pierre: Vice-President, Public AffairsPeeling, Gordon: President

MINING WATCH CANADAKuyek, Joan: National Coordinator

MIXED-GRASS PRAIRIE STEWARDSHIP PROGRAMOliver, Gerry: Project Coordinator

112



113

MOHAWK COUNCIL OF AKWESASNELickers, Henry: Director of EnvironmentStevenson, Bob: Co-Chair, Environment, Species at RickAct Aboriginal

MOTHER EARTH FIRST NATIONSWilson, Ardyth: Writer

MUSKWA-KECHIKA MANAGEMENT AREAPorter, Dave: Member of Advisory Board

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL FORESTRY ASSOCIATIONBombay, Harry: Executive DirectorGladu, Jean Paul: Policy Forester

NATIONAL DEFENCEShearer, Garnet: Environment, Property and SafetyOfficer, Canadian Forces Base Shilo, Manitoba

NATIONAL FARMERS UNIONBobins, Martha: Youth PresidentMelnyk, Mandy: Youth Vice-PresidentTait, Fred: National Vice-President

NATURAL RESOURCES CANADAAmyot, Marie-Annick: Forest Sector Analyst, CanadianForest ServiceChristie Sajan, Allison: Policy Analyst, SustainableDevelopment and Environment, Strategic Planning and CoordinationDe Franceschi, Joe: Chief, Development Coordinator,Canadian Forest ServiceDonnelly, Ken: Assistant Director, Aboriginal Affairs andSustainable Communities, Strategic Policy and Regional InitiativesFrehs, Jim: Senior Policy Analyst, SustainableDevelopment and EnvironmentKing, John: Senior Policy Analyst, Energy SectorMcAfee, Brenda: Science Advisor, Biodiversity, ScienceProgramsPasho, David W.: Director, Sustainable Development Policy, Mineral Metal PolicyRousseau, André H.: Secretary, National Forest StrategyCoalition, Canadian Forest Service

NATURE CONSERVANCY OF CANADAFortney, Gene: Director, Land ProtectionMoore, Michael: Executive Director, Manitoba RegionRiley, John: Director, Conservation Science and StewardshipSilver, Thea: Director, Government and External Relations

NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR FORESTRESOURCES AND AGRIFOODDeering, Keith: Regional Planner–Labrador

NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR LEGACY NATURETRUSTMaunder, Andrea: Executive Director

NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR TOURISM,CULTURE AND RECREATIONDawe, Ron: Senior Advisor and Coordinator, NaturalHeritage Stewardship Secretariat

NEXEN INC.Kratt, Lary: Manager, Environment, Safety, Environment and Social Responsibility

NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATIONCOUNCIL–CANADALynch-Stewart, Pauline: Senior Associate

NORTHERN ONTARIO TOURIST OUTFITTERSASSOCIATIONEastman, Todd: Research Analyst

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES RESOURCES, WILDLIFEAND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTHeder, Heidi: Manager, Parks and Protected AreasParker, Chuck: Assistant Deputy Minister, MackenzieValley Development Project

NORWAY HOUSE CREE NATIONMowatt, Loretta: Environmental Coordinator

NOVA SCOTIA AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIESUnderwood, Peter: Deputy Minister

NOVA SCOTIA ENVIRONMENT AND LABOURLangdon, Robert: Executive DirectorLeDuc, John: A/Manager, Protected Areas

O BAR K LAND AND CATTLEHanson, Kim: Rancher

OAK HAMMOCK FARMEdie, Kenneth: Farmer

OAK HAMMOCK MARSH INTERPRETIVE CENTRELaidler, Bob

OFFICE OF THE PREMIER OF MANITOBAGray, Jane

OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADALoveys, Marjory: Senior Policy Advisor, Economic Development

OLTHUIS, KLEER, TOWNSHENDPatterson, Grace: Counsel

ONTARIO CORN PRODUCERS ASSOCIATIONMcCabe, Don: Vice-President

ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCESIreland-Smith, Adair: Managing Director, Ontario Parks

ONTARIO RURAL COUNCILHill, Michele: Administrative Assistant

OSORNO ENTERPRISES INC.Hombach, Peter: PresidentMotnenko, Irena: Chief ScientistMotnenko, VictorNewman, Robert: Vice-President, Marketing

OUTDOOR RECREATION COUNCIL OF BRITISH COLUMBIAWilson, Norma: Executive Director

OXFORD HOUSE FISHERMAN ASSOCIATIONChubb, Eric: Community CouncilGrieves, Kerry: Community Advisor

PARKS CANADA AGENCYAmos, Bruce: Senior Advisor to the CEOCobus, Michael: Manager of Communications, Manitoba Field UnitDodds, Graham: Management Planner, Western Canada Service CentreFay, Mike: Director, Strategic Business ServicesFenton, Gregory: Field Unit Superintendent, Riding Mountain National Park of CanadaJohnston, James: Chief, New Park Proposals, Park Establishment BranchLee, Thomas: Chief Executive Officer Leonard, Richard: Manager, Ecosystems, Western Canada Service CentreLoiselle, Carole: Superintendent, Wapusk National Park of CanadaLuchak, Orysia: Director, Western Canada Service CentreOlekshy, Risa: Manager, Frontcountry Services, Riding Mountain National Park of CanadaPeckett, Marilyn K.: Senior Park Planner, Manitoba Lowlands ProjectPeebles, Elaine: Chief, Multilateral Relations, Protected AreasReside, Bob: Warden Services Manager, Wapusk National Park of CanadaSimon, Linda: Director, Aboriginal Affairs SecretariatSnipper, Colleen: A/Director, Protected Areas Cooperation Therrien-Richards, Suzanne: Environmental Science andAssessment Coordinator, Western Canada Service CentreWong, Mike: Executive Director, Ecological Integrity BranchWalson, Mike: Manager, Ecosystem Secretariat, Yukon Field UnitWoodley, Stephen: Forest Ecologist, Ecological Integrity

PASSIONATE VISIONBondar, Roberta: Scientist and Astronaut

PEMBINA VALLEY CONSERVATION DISTRICTAlexander, Don: Board Chairman

PFK PROJECTS INC.Martin, Paul D.

PFRA-SHELTERBELT CENTRETurnock, Bob

PIMICIKAMAK CREE NATIONMonias, Tommy: Secretary to the CouncilsMuswagon, David: Executive CouncilsOsborne, William: Vice-Chief

PITBLADO BUCHWALD ASPERNewman, David G.: Barrister and Solicitor

POPLAR RIVER FIRST NATIONBattenchuk, Sandra: Lands ManagerBruce, NoelMitchell, Vera: Chief

PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING SERVICESGray, Richard: Planning Assistant

POWER BUDD LLPCrocker, David: Solicitor

PRENDIVILLE INDUSTRIESPrendiville, Maureen: President

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND FISHERIES,AQUACULTURE AND ENVIRONMENTGriffin, Diane: Assistant Deputy Minister

PROSPECTORS AND DEVELOPERS ASSOCIATION OF CANADAAndrews, Tony: Executive DirectorComba, David: Director, Issues Management

PROTECTED AREAS ASSOCIATION OFNEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADORJackson, Laura: Executive Director

PROVINCIAL COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENTDalmyn, Ron: President

PROVINCIAL COUNCIL OF WOMEN OF MANITOBA INC.Flemming, Elizabeth

PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES CANADAKuryk, Kellyann: Green Building Coordinator,Environmental Services

QUEBEC ENVIRONMENTGérardin, Vincent: Ecological Heritage/Sustainable Development

QUEBEC NATURAL RESOURCESParé, Germain: Forestry Engineer

RATH & COMPANYRath, Jeffrey R.W.: Lawyer

RECREATION CONNECTIONS MANITOBASteiner, Carla: Executive Director

114



115

RED RIVER COLLEGEMcMaster, Jason: Environmental Hygiene CoordinatorMiller, Bill: Director of FacilitiesSeaba, Natalie: Recycling Coordinator

RIDING MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK OF CANADAKingdon, Ken: Communication OfficerTarleton, Paul: Manager, Ecosystem SecretariatVanderschuit, Wybo: Vegetation Manager

ROCK LAKE COMMUNITY ROUND TABLE, MANITOBALeadbeater, Bev

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK FOUNDATION CANADAMcLaughlin, Jeffrey: Regional Director, Manitoba and Saskatchewan

ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICEFletcher, Karen: Regional Environmental Coordinator,Northwest Region

RTL CONSULTING GROUPDow, Duncan: Principal

RURAL MUNICIPALITY OF FRANKLIN, MANITOBAHunter, Archie: ReeveRiach, Duaine: Councillor

RURAL MUNICIPALITY OF LAC DU BONNET,MANITOBAJohnson, Colleen L.: Chief Administrative Officer

RURAL MUNICIPALITY OF NEEPAWA, MANITOBASpicer, Scott: Director of Operations and Maintenance

RURAL MUNICIPALITY OF PINEY, MANITOBAStewart, Neil: Councillor, Ward 4Zailo, Barbara: Councillor, Ward 3

RURAL MUNICIPALITY OF RITCHOT, MANITOBAStefaniuk, Robert: Mayor

RURAL MUNICIPALITY OF ST. ANDREWS,MANITOBABoch, Ralph: CouncillorForfar, Don: ReeveFoster, Murray: CouncillorKeryluk, Elmer: CouncillorKolach, Cliff: CouncillorKrasnesky, Kurtiss: CouncillorRegiec, Marilyn: Chief AdministratorSkazyk, Peter: Councillor

RURAL MUNICIPALITY OF SPRINGFIELD,MANITOBABoileau, Vince: CouncillorHolland, John D.: ReeveLucko, Ken: CouncillorPaulishyn, William: CouncillorPochuk, Steve: Councillor

RURAL MUNICIPALITY OF STUARTBURN,MANITOBAKiansky, David: ReeveTkachuk, Rick: Deputy Reeve

SASKATCHEWAN AGRICULTURE AND FOODParisien, Gloria: Manager, Land and Resource Policy,Policy and Program Development BranchSyhlonyk, Alan: Manager, Crown Land Resources

SASKATCHEWAN CONSERVATION ACTION PLANPatkau, Allen: Chair

SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENTLangford, Lynda: Senior Manager, Policy and LegislationMarshall, Ann: Policy AnalystMazur, Doug: Director, Sustainable Land ManagementRiemer, Greg: Senior Policy AdvisorSherratt, Dennis: Director, Fish and Wildlife BranchVandall, John

SASKATCHEWAN FINANCEHilsenteger, Grant: Analyst

SASKATCHEWAN POWER CORPORATIONKalmakoff, Johnathan J.: Legal Counsel

SASKATCHEWAN–PRAIRIE CONSERVATION ACTION PLANScalise, Karyn: Manager

SASKATCHEWAN SOIL CONSERVATIONBennett, John: President

SENATE OF CANADAJohnson, Janis: Senator and Deputy Chair of theAboriginal People’s CommitteeMacDonald, Jake: Research AssistantMcCarthy, Kate: Policy Advisor to Senator J. JohnsonSpivak, Mira: Senator

SIERRA CLUB OF BRITISH COLUMBIAWareham, Bill: Executive Director

SIERRA CLUB OF CANADAMay, Elizabeth: Executive DirectorPlotkin, Rachel: Forest CampaignerVon Mirbach, Martin: Director, Forest and Biodiversity Campaigns

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITYOlewiler, Nancy: Professor of Economics

SIMPLOT CANADA LTD.Collis, Gordon: Special Environmental Project Manager

SNOMAN INC.Aitken, Bob: Executive Director

SOARING EAGLE SCIENCE SCHOOLWood, Valerie: Independent Nature Environmentalist

SOCIAL PRAXIS INITIATIVESSpice, Kevin: Applied Anthropologist for Community Development

SONORAN INSTITUTERasker, Ray: Director, Northwest Office

SOUTH-EAST QUOTA HOLDERS ASSOCIATIONNakka, Norman: President

SOUTH INDIAN LAKE FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONDysart, William: PresidentSpence, Thomas: Board Member

SOUTHERN CHIEFS ORGANIZATIONTraverse, Myrtle: Director, Natural Resources

SOUTHPORT AEROSPACE CENTRE INC.Lucko, Helene: Assistant, Marketing

SPELEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF MANITOBAKobylecki, Andy J.: President

STORA ENSO PORT HAWKESBURYMiddel, Kevin: GIS Supervisor and Biologist, Woodlands Unit

STRATOS INC.Cairns, Stephanie: Consultant

SUNCOR ENERGY INC.Fordham, Chris: Manager, Environmental Assessment andResearch, Sustainable Development and Legal Affairs

SUSTAINABLE FOREST CERTIFICATION WATCHKiekens, Jean-Pierre: Executive Director

SWAMPY CREE TRIBAL COUNCILHead, Judy E.

SWIST & CO.Swist, Ronald C.: Senior Partner

TEMBEC INC.Barnard, Paul: Pine Falls PaperKeenan, Vince: Divisonal Forester, Pine FallsKotak, Brian: Director, Division of Environment, PineFallsLopez, Jim: Vice-President, Forest Resource Management,Temiscamingue, QuebecSnell, Bill: Vice-President of Woodlands, Chief Forester,Pine Falls

TETRES CONSULTANTS INC.Harron, Donald: Environmental ScientistMcMahon, Blair: Environmental Scientist and Associate

THE DELPHI GROUPWalker, Jennifer: Project and Program Officer

THE INTERNATIONAL COALITIONTaylor, Harold

THE URBAN NATURALISTSorensen, Morris: Owner

THE WILDLANDS PROJECTDugelby, Barbara L.: Director of Conservation Science

THOMPSON DORFMAN SWEATMANRosenberg, SherylStefaniuk, John: Partner

TOLKO INDUSTRIES LTD.Henderson, William J.: Manager, Policy and Community Relations

TRANSGAS LTD.Hanley, Kerry: Supervisor, Environmental Programs

TREATY AND ABORIGINAL RIGHTS RESEARCH CENTREPeristy, Dennis: Analyst, Land Use and Resources

TRENT UNIVERSITYFigueroa-Cano, Marla: Student, Watershed Ecosystems

TROUT UNLIMITED CANADAShyba, Greg: President

TYRCHNIEWICZ CONSULTINGTyrchniewicz, Allen: Principal

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE–FARM SERVICE AGENCYStephenson, Robert: Director, Conservation andEnvironmental Programs Division

UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION IN CANADA–WINNIPEGSmith, Muriel

UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTAHiggs, Eric: Director, Department of AnthropologyLindsay, Kate: Student

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARYKennett, Steve: Professor, Canadian Institute of Resources Law

UNIVERSITY OF GUELPHFitzgibbon, John: Professor and Director, School of Rural Planning and DevelopmentGoss, Michael J.: Professor, Land Resource ScienceNudds, Thomas D.: Professor, Department of Zoology

116



117

UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBAAidnell, Linda: Student, Natural Resource InstituteAziz, Amanda: Staff Member, Recycling and Environment GroupBill, Laren: StudentBockstael, Erin: Coordinator, Recycling and Environment GroupBrown, Laura: ProfessorFalk, Mel: Sessional Instructor, Environmental Science ProgramGardner, James: Vice-President (Academic) and ProvostGlass, Catherine: StudentHenley, Thomas: Professor and Associate, Natural Resources InstituteHu, Beibei: Student, Natural Resources InstituteHunter, Kristina: Instructor, Environmental Science ProgramJohnson, Gary V.: Professor of AgribusinessKaye, Stuart: Senior Scholar, PsychologyMiko, Roselle: StudentNewman, Karin: Student, BotanyNuttall, Dan: Professor of Landscape ArchitecturePruitt, William O.: Professor of ZoologyPunter, David: Professor and Head, BotanySchlag, Michelle: Student, Natural Resources InstituteScott, JaceyShymko, Randall: Natural Resources InstituteSmith, Lise: Student, Soil ScienceSmith, Paul: Student, EconomicsVillegas, Gerald: Student, Natural Resources InstituteYantz, Jennifer: Student

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWACurrie, David: Professor and Chair, Biology Department

UNIVERSITY OF REGINAMcGovern, Katherine: Research Assistant, Canadian PlainsResearch Centre

UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWANRoy, Robert G.: Associate Professor, Agricultural Economics

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTOLefevre, Kara: Faculty of Forestry

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIAOwen, Stephen: Professor, Institute for DisputeResolution

UNIVERSITY OF WINNIPEGBeattie, Heather: StudentCottes, Jeffery JacobMiller, Peter: Professor and Senior Scholar in Philosophy,Centre for Forest Interdisciplinary ResearchMostarda, Marco: Student, PoliticsWestwood, Richard: Professor of Biology

UNSHIN-NIN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICESKnott, Gilbert

VALDIE SEYMOUR & ASSOCIATESSeymour, Valdie: President

VANCOUVER CITY SAVINGS CREDIT UNIONBoucher, Priscilla: Manager, Corporate SocialResponsibility

VETERANS AFFAIRS CANADAMorin-Kitkoski, Jeanette: Environmental StewardshipRepresentative, Planning, Management and Administrative Services

VINEYARD INNHinze, Lawrence: Supervisor, Sewage Systems, KelownaZailo, Basil: Rodent Control AdvisorZailo, Nancy

WALPOLE ISLAND HERITAGE CENTREJacobs, Dean: Executive Director

WARDROP ENGINEERING INC.Cochrane, Kelly: Environmental Scientist

WATER WATCHKoroluk, Glen: Researcher, Coalition to Save the Assiniboine

WATERSHED AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL (USA)Coombe, Richard I.: Chair and CEO

WEBSAR LABORATORIES INC.Wesbter, Barrie: President

WEST REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP.Gaywish, Richard D.: General Manager

WESTERN CANADA WILDERNESS COMMITTEEGeorge, Paul: Founder and Executive DirectorThiessen, Ron: Campaign Director, Manitoba

WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATIONBateman, Joyce: Manager, Program DevelopmentFisher, Michael: Regional Sustainable Development Coordinator

WHELAN ENNS ASSOCIATESHart, Bryan: Development AnalystWhelan, Jared: Project Manager

WILDLANDS LEAGUE, TORONTOBaggio, Anna M.: Northern Boreal Conservation Analyst

WILDLANDS PROJECT, TEXAS, USAAnderson, Willard: Wildlands Ecologist

WILDLIFE HABITAT CANADABoyd McIntyre, Lynn: National Stewardship CoordinatorCinq-Mars, Jean: PresidentTutty, Brian: Stewardship Canada Web Portal, and Stewardship Centre Liaison with Fisheries and Oceans CanadaWiken, Ed B.: Director, National Habitat Status ProgramWolthausem, Doug: Director of Programs

WILDLIFE HABITAT COUNCIL, MARYLAND, USAHoward, William W.: President

WINNIPEG AIRPORTS AUTHORITY INC.Shewchuk, Leanne: Manager, Environmental ProtectionTaylor, Jacqueline: Environment Technician

WINNIPEG CHAMBER OF COMMERCEAngus, Dave: President and CEOHill, Walter: Chair

WORLD WILDLIFE FUND CANADAKavanagh, Kevin: Director, Endangered Spaces CampaignZinger, Nathalie: Regional Director, Quebec

YELLOWSTONE TO YUKON CONSERVATIONINITIATIVEGailus, Jeff: Outreach Coordinator

YORK UNIVERSITYRogers, Ray: Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies

YUKON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTMoodie, Janet: Assistant Deputy Minister

YUKON RENEWABLE RESOURCESHutton, Don: Assistant Deputy Minister

ZERO TILLAGE FARMERS ASSOCIATIONHacault, Daniel: Secretary-Treasurer, Manitoba/North Dakota

UNAFFILIATEDAttridge, Ian: Barrister and SolicitorCampbell, Liza: ConsultantFrancis, Wendy: Consultant

118


A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t sA p p e n d i x C

S E C U R I N G C A N A D A ’ S N A T U R A L C A P I T A L • A p p e n d i x C

119

The Round Table extends its appreciation to all who assisted with the

Conservation of Natural Heritage Program, especially Cathy Wilkinson,

Advisor to the Program, who consolidated all the work undertaken by the

Task Force over the past two years in order to draft the present

State of the Debate report.

p h o t o c r e d i t sCOVER PHOTO, PAGES 1 & 2:

Stephen Perry

PAGE 5: Tania Tremblay

PAGE 6: Julie Cyr

PAGE 11: Julie Cyr

PAGE 19: Julie Cyr

PAGE 21: Mark Hovorka



PAGE 36: Courtesy Canadian Tourism Commission

PAGE 37, 38, 39: Julie Cyr

PAGE 41: Julie Cyr

PAGE 49: Julie Cyr

PAGE 51: Karen Hébert

PAGE 53: Meg Ogden

PAGE 55: Claire Aplevich/Jonathan Stuart

PAGE 65: Jonathan Stuart

PAGE 66: Agriculture Canada


PAGE 75: Julie Cyr


PAGE 79, 80, 81: Julie Cyr

PAGE 83: Louise Violette

PAGE 85: Meg Ogden

PAGE 86: Courtesy Canadian Tourism Commission

PAGE 91: Julie Cyr

APPENDIX 97, 98: Stephen Perry

120


E n d n o t e sA p p e n d i x C

1 Reed Noss, Past President of the Society forConservation Biology, “The Importance ofConnections”, presented at NRTEE Conference,Conservation that Works! November 2000.

2 An important objective of the Conservation ofNatural Heritage Program is to encourage the spread and use of best practices and processes inconservation. To accomplish this goal, the TaskForce commissioned a series of eight case studiesof conservation initiatives in Canada. Each casestudy outlines best practices and innovative toolsfor nature conservation. For more detailedinformation on each of the case studies and draftfindings, visit the Round Table’s Web site(www.nrtee-trnee.ca).

3 Natural Resources Canada, The State of Canada’sForests 2001-2002: Reflections of a Decade(Ottawa, 2002).

4 Environment Canada, Freshwater, Quickfacts,www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/e_quickfacts.htm

5 Ibid.

6 See Ramsar Sites and Directory,www.wetlands.org/RDB/Directory.html

7 www.ducks.ca/conserv/wbf/

8 Bird Studies Canada, Importance of Canada’s BorealForest to Landbirds (December 2002).

9 Environment Canada, Environmental Priority—Nature: Getting Environmental Results on Nature,www.ec.gc.ca/envpriorities/nature_e.htm

10 Environment Canada, The State of Canada’sEnvironment—1996 (Ottawa, 1996).

11 G. Walther and others, “Ecological Responses toRecent Climate Change,” Nature 416 (March 28,2002):389–395.

12 Although the Round Table acknowledges the impor-tance of all of these threats, the measures outlined inthis report do not address them all. Also, the discussionof threats is by no means meant to be an exhaustive orcomplete discussion of threats to nature.

13 Natural Resources Canada, The State of Canada’sForests 2001–2002: Reflections of a Decade (Ottawa,2002).

14 Statistics Canada, The Importance of Nature toCanadians: The Economic Significance of Nature-related Activities, 2000.

15 Ibid.

16 Alberta Economic Development, The EconomicImpact of Visitors to Alberta’s Rocky MountainNational Parks in 1998 (February 2000).

17 See generally Gretchen Daily, ed., Nature’s Services:Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (1997).

18 Lester R. Brown and others, State of the World1998, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1998).

19 Robert Costanza et al., “The Value of the World’sEcosystem Services and Natural Capital”, Nature 387(1997):253–260.

20 Amory Lovins, L. Hunter Lovins and Paul Hawken,Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next IndustrialRevolution (Snowmass, CO: Rocky MountainInstitute, 1999).

21 Gretchen C. Daily and Katherine Ellison, The NewEconomy of Nature: The Quest to Make ConservationProfitable (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2002).

22 See generally Gretchen Daily and Katherine Ellison,The New Economy of Nature (2002).

23 See, for example, Storm Cunningham, TheRestoration Economy (San Francisco: Berrett-koehler, in press).

24 “Iisaak: A New Economic Model for Conservation-Based Forestry in Coastal Old Growth Forests, BritishColumbia,” paper presented at a workshop, DevelopingMarkets for Environmental Services, A New Role forForests in the Green Economy, organized by theUniversity of British Columbia, October 2000.

25 Ecotrust Canada is a non-governmental organizationbased in British Columbia that works with coastalcommunities to promote sustainable resource use.For more information on their work, visitwww.ecotrustcan.org

26 E.O. Wilson, The Future of Life (Toronto: Knopf Canada, 2002).

27 Commission on Life Sciences, National ResearchCouncil, Biobased Industrial Products: Research andCommercialization Priorities (Ottawa, 2000).

28 Natural Resources Canada, The State of Canada’sForests 2001-2002: Reflections of a Decade(Ottawa, 2002).

29 See Constitution Act 1867, sections 91, 92 and 92A.

30 See Guerin v. R. Supreme Court of Canada, 1984,which was the first case to set out the fiduciaryduty.

31 One-window access to information, contacts andresources about these programs can be found at theStewardship Canada Web site(www.stewardshipcanada.ca).

32 www.pyr.ec.gc.ca/EN/Wildlife/habitat/other_protected.shtml

33 See Reed Noss, Maintaining Ecological Integrity inRepresentative Reserve Networks—A DiscussionPaper for WWF Canada and WWF US (1995).

34 Ibid.

35 Society for Ecological Restoration, SER Primer onEcological Restoration (Tucson, AZ, April 2002).

36 See Sparrow v. The Queen, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075.

37 See R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771

38 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3. S.C.R.

39 Professor Brad Morse (University of Ottawa),“Aboriginal Legal Issues in the Conservation ofNatural Heritage,” presentation to the Round TableTask Force on the Conservation of Natural Heritage,January 2002.

40 Ian McGregor, Director General, INAC, personalcommunication, April 1, 2003.

41 See A Statement of Commitment to CompleteCanada’s Network of Protected Areas, signed inAylmer, Quebec, November 25, 1992 byrepresentatives from the federal, provincial andterritorial governments. Representatives of theCanadian Council of Forest Ministers and ofCanada’s four national Aboriginal organizations alsoattended the meeting and endorsed the Statementof Commitment. See Parks Canada Web site(www2.parkscanada.gc.ca/library/FPPCR/english/FPPCR_e02.asp).

42 Convention on Biological Diversity, text available atwww.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp

43 Government of Canada, Canadian BiodiversityStrategy: Canada’s Response to the Convention onBiological Diversity (Ottawa, 1995), p. 73.

44 See Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk,available atwww.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/strategy/accord_e.cfm

45 See Endangered Spaces, World Wildlife Fund Canada(October 2000).

46 www2.parkscanada.gc.ca/library/SPHA/en/30.html

47 Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada’sNational Parks, Unimpaired for Future Generations?Conserving Ecological Integrity with Canada’sNational Parks (Ottawa, 2000).

48 For more information, see Clayoquot Sound casestudy on the Round Table’s Web site (www.nrtee-trnee.ca).

49 For more information on Vuntut National Park, seethe Round Table’s case study at www.nrtee-trnee.ca

50 bp.stage.saltmine.co.uk/environ_social/case_studies/north_america/index.asp#1

51 The forest industry in Canada has seen many otherinnovative solutions. For example, a growing numberof companies have adopted criteria and indicators tomonitor changes in biodiversity in areas they manage,as well as forest management guidelines aimed atprotecting species and habitat diversity. See Wren Resources and Natural Resources Canada,Canada’s Forest Biodiversity: A Decade of Progress inSustainable Management (Ottawa, 2002).


121

52 See Sustainable Development Action, CanadianSuccess Stories, Species at Risk,www.canada2002earthsummit.gc.ca/sd_action/stories/species_risk_e.cfm

53 International Union for the Conservation of Natureand Natural Resources [IUCN—The WorldConservation Union], Indigenous and TraditionalPeoples and Protected Areas—Principles, Guidelinesand Case Studies (Gland, Switzerland, 2000).

54 Final Report of the Task Force on a CanadianInformation System on the Environment, SharingEnvironmental Decisions (Ottawa, 2001).

55 See, for example, data compiled by George Hoberg,University of British Columbia, which suggests thatCanada allocates less than 1 percent of totalgovernment spending to environmental protection(including nature conservation). The United States,in comparison, allocates almost twice thatpercentage of total spending.

56 Integrated planning refers to land-use planning thatis holistic, or comprehensive, rather than driven byone single use, or by short-term economic gain. Itaims to sustain ecological functions andbiodiversity, and is aligned with public policy goals.The process involves considering the viewpoints ofmultiple stakeholders, from Aboriginal peoples toindustry to local citizens.

57 From Chapter 10, “Northern Conservation Areas,”Report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry, vol.2, part 2 (1977), and Justice Berger’s coveringletter to Minister Allmand accompanying the report,dated April 15, 1977.

58 World Wildlife Fund Canada, personalcorrespondence, December 2002.

59 World Resources Institute, The Last Frontier Forests:Ecosystems and Economies on the Edge (1997),available at www.wri.org/wri/ffi/lff-eng/

60 United Nations Environment Programme, AnAssessment of the Status of the World’s RemainingClosed Forests (Nairobi, 2001).

61 earthobservatory.nasa.gov:81/Newsroom/NasaNews/2003/2003032111806.html

62 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, AGuide on Biodiversity and Environmental Assessment(Hull, QC, 1996).

63 See www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/hww-fap/hww-fap.cfm?ID_species=87&lang=e

64 ABC’s current priorities are intended to promote thegrowth and expansion of firms in today’s rapidlychanging environment. These priorities includesupporting innovation, market expansion,Aboriginal tourism and a new generation ofAboriginal business owners. The program has justbeen amended to ensure that access to businessopportunities is made easier. For more information,visit the ABC Web site (www.abc.gc.ca).

65 Personal communication, Canadian InformationSystem for the Environment, April 2003.

66 The ESDI Initiative’s final report can be found atthe NRTEE’s Web site (www.nrtee-trnee.ca).

67 Ibid.

68 Room to Grow: Final Report of the Ontario ForestAccord Advisory Board on Implementation of theAccord, presented to the Ontario Minister of NaturalResources, March 2002.

69 Steven Kennett, Canadian Institute for ResourcesLaw, personal communication, November 2002.

70 Ecological fiscal reform is a strategy that redirectsa government’s taxation and expenditure programto create an integrated set of incentives to supportthe shift to sustainable development. For moreinformation on EFR, visit the Round Table’s Website (www.nrtee-trnee.ca).

71 Examples provided by Chris McDonell, Tembec, andAndrew Devries, Forest Products Association ofCanada.

72 For more information on the Evergreen Foundation,see the Evergreen Web site (www.evergreen.ca).

73 Canadian Biodiversity Information Network, atwww.cbin.ec.gc.ca/issues/canlsttxt_e.cfm

122


74 Planning is underway for ALUS pilot projects inOntario, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island. Formore information on ALUS, see the Delta WaterfowlFoundation Web site(www.deltawaterfowl.org/programs/alus.html).

75 See the species at risk map on the EnvironmentCanada Web site (www.sis.ec.gc.ca/msapps/ec_species/htdocs/ec_species_e.phtml).

76 Information about many of these programs can befound on the Stewardship Canada Web site(www.stewardshipcanada.ca).

77 See Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes Region, atwww.great-lakes.net/envt/pollution/aoc.html#overview

78 Canadian Biosphere Reserves Association, atwww.biosphere-canada.ca/home.asp

79 See Agriculture Canada, Backgrounder, GreencoverInitiative, atwww.agr.gc.ca/cb/news/2002/n20712be.html

80 See the Ontario Crop and Soil ImprovementAssociation Web site(www.ontariosoilcrop.org/EFP.htm).

81 See Sustainable Development Action, CanadianSuccess Stories, Species at Risk, atwww.canada2002earthsummit.gc.ca/sd_action/stories/species_risk_e.cfm

82 See Finance Canada, Legislative Proposals andExplanatory Notes, available atwww.fin.gc.ca/drleg/02-107_5e.html

83 Marine protected area is a generic term for a suiteof protected ocean areas. This report refers to MPAsdesignated under the Oceans Act as Oceans ActMPAs.

84 See Canada’s Youth Employment Strategy, atjeunesse.gc.ca/yesinfo_e.shtml, for moreinformation.

85 Menno Boldt and J. Anthony Long editors. TheQuest for Justice: Aboriginal Peoples and AboriginalRights. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985.

86 Bio-Products Canada, at www.bio-productscanada.org/home_e.html

87 Environment Canada, The State of Canada’sEnvironment—1996, Glossary of Selected Terms,available at www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/SOER/1996report/Doc/1-10-1.cfm (Adapted from Federal–Provincial–TerritorialBiodiversity Working Group 1995).

88 Environment Canada, The State of Canada’sEnvironment—1996, Glossary of Selected Terms,available at www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/SOER/1996report/Doc/1-10-1.cfm (Adapted from Reid et al. 1993).

89 Environment Canada, The State of Canada’sEnvironment—1996, Glossary of Selected Terms,available at www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/SOER/1996report/Doc/1-10-1.cfm (Adapted from Meffe,G.K., C.R. Carroll, and contributors, Principles ofConservation Biology, Sunderland, Massachusetts:Sinauer Associates 1994).

90 A Guide to Natural Resources Canada Programs andActivities in Canada’s North, Quality of Life throughSustainable Resource Development, available atwww.nrcan.gc.ca/sd-dd/pubs/norguide/p1_e.htm

91 United States Department of Energy, NationalEnergy Technology Laboratory, available atwww.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/sequestration/old%20seq/whatis.html

92 Environment Canada, The State of Canada’sEnvironment—1996, Glossary of Selected Terms,available at www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/SOER/1996report/Doc/1-10-1.cfm (Adapted fromEnvironment Canada, State of Canada’s Climate:Detecting Variability and Change and EnvironmentCanada, State of the Environment Directorate, SOEReport No. 95-1, 1995).

93 Environment Canada, The State of Canada’sEnvironment—1996, Glossary of Selected Terms,available at www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/SOER/1996report/Doc/1-10-1.cfm (Adapted fromFederal–Provincial–Territorial Biodiversity WorkingGroup 1995).

94 Meffe G.K. et al., Principles of Conservation Biology, 2 ed. (1997).


123

124


95 Ecotrust, Principles of a Conservation Economy,available atwww.ecotrust.org/mission/principles.html

96 Environment Canada, The State of Canada’sEnvironment—1996, Glossary of Selected Terms,available at www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/SOER/1996report/Doc/1-10-1.cfm (Adapted from OntarioMinistry of Municipal Affairs, Comprehensive set ofpolicy statements, Toronto 1994) and Meffe G.K. etal., Principles of Conservation Biology, 2 ed. (1997).

97 Environment Canada, The State of Canada’sEnvironment—1996, Glossary of Selected Terms,available at www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/SOER/1996report/Doc/1-10-1.cfm. (Adapted fromKaufmann et al., An Ecological Basis for EcosystemManagement. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forestand Range Experiment Station and SouthwesternRegion, USDA Forest Service General TechnicalReport RM-246, 1994).

98 Environment Canada, The State of Canada’sEnvironment—1996, Glossary of Selected Terms,available at www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/SOER/1996report/Doc/1-10-1.cfm

99 Environment Canada, The State of Canada’sEnvironment—1996, Glossary of Selected Terms,available at www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/SOER/1996report/Doc/1-10-1.cfm (Adapted fromKaufmann, M.R. et al., An Ecological Basis forEcosystem Management. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S.Department of Agriculture Forest Service, RockyMountain Forest and Range Experiment Station andSouthwestern Region, USDA Forest Service GeneralTechnical Report RM-246, 1994).

100 Noss, R., Maintaining Ecological Integrity inRepresentative Reserve Networks, Discussion Paper forWorld Wildlife Fund (1995).

101 Environment Canada, The State of Canada’sEnvironment—1996, Glossary of Selected Terms,available at www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/SOER/1996report/Doc/1-10-1.cfm and Noss, R.,Maintaining Ecological Integrity in RepresentativeReserve Networks, Discussion Paper for World WildlifeFund (1995).

102 See Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre,www.accdc.com/glossary/


104 Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University,Ecosystem Services, available atwww.stanford.edu/group/CCB/ecosvcs.htm

105 See World Resources Institute, The Last FrontierForests: Ecosystems and Economies on the Edge(1997), available at www.wri.org/wri/ffi/lff-eng/

106 The Internet Guide to Geographic InformationSystems, What is GIS? Available atwww.gis.com/whatisgis/index.html


108 Ibid.

109 Environment Canada, The State of Canada’sEnvironment—1996, Glossary of Selected Terms,available at www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/SOER/1996report/Doc/1-10-1.cfm (Adapted fromEnvironment Canada, The Nature of Canada: A Primeron Spaces and Species, Environmental CitizenshipSeries, 1993).

110 Meffe G.K. et al., Principles of Conservation Biology, 2 ed. (1997).


112 Statistics Canada and Centre for Living Studies, AProposed Approach to Environment and SustainableDevelopment Indicators Based on Capital, preparedfor the NRTEE (January 2001), available atwww.nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/programs/Current_Programs/SDIndicators/Program_Research/StatsCanada-SDIreport_E.pdf

113 Environment Canada, The State of Canada’sEnvironment—1996, Glossary of Selected Terms,available at www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/SOER/1996report/Doc/1-10-1.cfm (Adapted fromInternational Organization for Standardization,Environmental Management—Life CycleAssessment— Principles and Guidelines (ISO/CD 14040.2), Berlin: ISO Secretariat 1995).

114 Food and Agriculture Organization, Second ExpertMeeting on Harmonizing Forest-Related Definitionsfor Use by Various Stakeholders, available atwww.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y4171E/Y4171E36.htm

115 International Union for the Conservation of Nature,Protected Areas Programme, available at www.unep-wcmc.org/protected_areas/categories/ and WorldWildlife Fund Canada, Endangered Spaces (October2000).

116 Environment Canada, The State of Canada’sEnvironment—1996, Glossary of Selected Terms,available at www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/SOER/1996report/Doc/1-10-1.cfm (Adapted from DemayoA. and E. Watt, Glossary of Water Terms, Cambridge,Ontario: Canadian Water Resources Association, withthe assistance of Environment Canada, Ottawa,1993).

117 Species at Risk Act, section 2, available atwww.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-5/C-5_3/90106bE.html#3

118 Ontario Stewardship, Program Guidelines, ImportantConcepts, available atwww.ontariostewardship.org/index.htm


120 Department of Fisheries and Oceans, HabitatConservation and Stewardship Program, available atwww-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/english/programs/hcsp/watrshd/wtrsdef.htm


122 Government of Canada, Learning from Nature –Canada: The Ecosystem Approach and IntegratedLand Management (2000), available atwww.sdinfo.gc.ca/reports/en/monograph13/landnat.cfm#a2, and Noss, R., Maintaining EcologicalIntegrity in Representative Reserve Networks,Discussion Paper for World Wildlife Fund (1995).



125

Canada Bu i ld ing, 344 S la ter S t ree t , Su i te 200, Ot tawa, Ontar io , Canada K1R 7Y3

Te l . : (613) 992-7189 • Fax: (613) 992-7385 • E-mai l : admin@nr tee- t rnee.ca • Web: www.nr tee- t rnee.ca

securing canada's natural capital: a vision for nature conservation in the 21st century

Documents