Transcript Species at Risk Legislation

Species at Risk Legislation
Class 8
Presentation 1
To prepare for this class think about the question
below
If you were writing a Species at
Risk law, what would you
include in it?
Major international laws
Convention on Biological Diversity,
 Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species,
Convention on Migratory Species,
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands,
World Heritage Convention
Canada is
signatory to all
of these
agreements
Objective of Convention on
Biological Diversity,
The conservation of biological diversity, the
sustainable use of its components, and the
fair and equitable sharing of the benefits
arising from commercial and other
utilization of genetic resources. The
agreement covers all ecosystems, species,
and genetic resources.
International
International treaty
– Convention on biological diversity (ratified
by Canada 1994)
– Responsibility to conserve biodiversity
nationally
– Develop policies that act as incentives for
conservation and sustainable use
Application of CoB
 In 2002 US $400 billion spent on
pharmaceuticals (50% derived from wild)
 Coral reefs and tropical forests primary sources
(e.g. cone shells*)
 No pharmaceutical companies in most tropical
countries
 Therefore no benefit to people that are stewards
of these resources
 CoB committed signatories to share benefits
Cone shells
 Coral reefs and
mangrove swamps
 Both habitats
threatened
 Host of drugs
–
–
–
–
Pain
Anti-inflammatory
Anti-psychosis
etc
Application of CoB
Drugs take decades to develop
Logging and land clearing provide
immediate revenue
One solution: up front payments
– Problem: payments are small (e.g. Suriname
gets $60k plus 29k/year for 5 yrs)
– Public outrage at small payments (agreements
in Brazil, Mexico and US suspended)
Application of CoB
May take court action to determine fair
compensation
Deterring companies from investing
Other solution?
Application of CoB
 Drug research also done by universities, govt,
and small biotech companies
 Share work with local universities etc.
 Panama example
– $3 million bio-prospecting grant
– Search and collection done by US
– Analyses done in Panama, discoveries can be patented
and licenced by local discoverers
– Panama now has 6 new labs and over 60 people doing
bioassay, toxicity and efficacy tests.
 Brazil: developing labs, bans export, local patent
Convention on international trade
in endangered species (CITES)
ensure that international trade in species
and specimens of wild animals and plants
does not threaten their survival
About 25,000 plant species and 5,000
animal species are covered by the
provisions of the Convention
Canada joined in 1975
164 countries have signed on
CITES
CITES was drafted as a result of a
resolution adopted in 1963 at a meeting of
members of IUCN (The World
Conservation Union)
Not one species protected by CITES has
become extinct as a result of trade since the
Convention entered into force*
*Claim by CITES, extinction caused by
poaching, habitat destruction, etc
CITES levels of control
 Appendix I species threatened with extinction. Trade
of these species is permitted only in exceptional
circumstances.
 Appendix II species not necessarily threatened with
extinction, but in which trade must be controlled in
order to avoid utilization incompatible with their
survival.
 Appendix III species that are protected in at least
one country, which has asked other CITES Parties
for assistance in controlling the trade.
CITES
About 5,000 species of animals and
28,000 species of plants are protected
Includes the charismatic spp
Most are non-charismatic, e.g. corals,
mussels and frogs
Includes species, sub species and
populations
Convention on the Conservation of
Migratory Species of Wild Animals
 Also known as the CMS or the Bonn Convention
 Aims to conserve terrestrial, marine and avian
migratory species throughout their range
 Provide strict protection for endangered
migratory species, conclude multilateral
agreements for conservation and management of
migratory species, and undertaking co-operative
research activities.
Why Convention on Migratory Spp?
intricate interrelationships, in many cases
still to be fully understood, with resident
plant and other animal species
unique role as indicators for the
interdependence of and linkages between
ecosystems and for ecological change
Why Convention on Migratory Spp?
More susceptible than non-migratory spp
They need good habitat for reproduction
but also during their off-season and all
along their migratory routes
Convention on Migratory Spp
Spp most at risk:
– Spp with unknown life histories (e.g. marine
turtles, slender billed curlew)
– Spp under heavy exploitation
– Spp with small populations
Another International Treaty
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
The treaty was developed by countries
meeting in the city of Ramsar, Iran in 1971
Today 137 countries have signed on
Ramsar Commitments
 Designate at least one site that meets the
Ramsar criteria for inclusion in the List of
Wetlands of International Importance (the
Ramsar List)
 Include wetland conservation within their
national land-use planning
 Establish nature reserves on wetlands
 Consult with other Parties about the
implementation of the Convention, especially
with regard to transfrontier wetlands, shared
water systems, shared species,
World Heritage Convention
Identify and conserve the world's cultural
and natural heritage,
Drawing up a list of sites whose
outstanding values should be preserved for
all humanity and
Ensure their protection through a closer cooperation among nations.
World Heritage Convention
 Signed by175 countries, was adopted by the
General Conference of UNESCO in 1972
 Canadian natural sites:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Rocky Mt National Parks
Gros Morne Nat Park
Kulane (Yukon)
Nahanni National Park
Waterton Glacier International Park
Wood Buffalo National Park
General rule
Benefit must be realised
Threat reduced
Need awareness,
this usually
through research
and effective
means to engage
decision makers
For people to change behaviour
So look at policy instruments and
determine who benefits under existing
socio-economic and technological system.
Federal
Species at risk Act (SARA)
National strategy: Canadian Biodiversity
Strategy (1995)
National Accord for the protection of
species at risk (1996)
– Aim of accord: prevent SAR from becoming
extinct due to human activity
Goals of Canadian Biodiversity
Strategy
Conservation and sustainable use
Ecological management (improve
understanding and application of new
knowledge)
Education & awareness
Incentives and legislation
International cooperation (inc. equitable
sharing of benefits from genetic resources)
Provinces that have laws
Ontario (1971 amended 1990)
New Brunswick (1974 amended 1996)
Manitoba (1990 amended 1993)
Quebec (1998 amended 2000)
Nova Scotia (1998)
Newfoundland and Labrador (2001)
Identifying SAR
 Done since 1977 by Committee on the Status
of endangered wildlife in Canada
(COSEWIC)
 Listing criteria based on IUCN (World
Conservation Union) methods
 Looks at 1) Terrestrial Mammals, 2) Marine
Mammals, 3) Birds, 4) Amphibians and
Reptiles, 5) Freshwater Fishes, 6) Marine
Fishes, 7) Plants and Lichens, and 8)
Lepidopterans and Molluscs. (20% of all spp)
Identifying SAR
After COSEWIC listing legal listing done
by political body
Difference between COSEWIC
listing and legal list
Province
COSEWIC
LEGAL
Newfld & Lab
11
11
PEI
7
0
Nova Scotia
15
15
New Brun
10
6
Quebec
25
10
Ontario
92
22
Province
COSEWIC
LEGAL
Manitoba
14
10
Sask
16
11
Alberta
22
8
BC
62
3
Yukon
4
1
NWT
10
0
Nunavut
8
0
Comparison of provincial laws
Critical habitat protected explicitly in NF,
NS,NB & ON
– Can occur with extra legal aid
Recovery plan required: NF, NS and AB
Property rights agreements: NF, PEI, NS,
PQ, MB
– High % of private property
– Critical habitat on private land
Comparison of provincial laws
Multi-jurisdictional cooperation: NF,NS
Citizen participation (including legal
challenges: NF, NS, PQ, ON
All prohibit taking listed SAR
Comparison of provincial laws
Possession and sale permitted with limits:
ON,MB, BC
Habitat destruction: permitted BC, SK
Nunavut has no SAR Act.
Reporting status: NS, MB, NF, AB, PEI,
NW, YK
Comparison US & Canada
 US Endangered Spp Act passed 1973
 SAR Canada passed 2002
 ESA covers all ownerships
 SARA only federal ownership (inc mig birds
and fish)
 Covers animals and plants only
 Listing in Canada by COSEWIC (approval by
Minister)
 US by Secretary of Interior and Commerce
Questions