Minister's 2006 Round Table under the Species at Risk Act Minister’s 2006

  1. Introduction
  2. Objectives and Structure of the Round Table
  3. Summary of Proceedings
  4. Panel Discussion
  5. Plenary Questions and Comments on Panel Presentations
  6. Evening Working Session
  7. Round Table Recommendations
  8. Appendix 1: List of Participants
  9. Appendix 2: Preliminary Recommendations
  10. Appendix 3: Summary of Plenary Comments (Day One)
  11. Appendix 4: Summary of Plenary Comments (Day Two)
  12. Appendix 5: Summary of Written Comments (Received at End of Day Two)
  13. Appendix 6: Round Table Evaluation


The first Minister’s round table under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) took place on December 6th and 7th 2006. The objective of the round table was to engage participants in a dialogue about improving the conservation of species and the protection and recovery of species at risk, including the role of SARA therein. The 110 participants at the round table represented a broad cross section of Canadian society and have provided recommendations for consideration by the Minister of the Environment.

Recognizing the large number and diversity of participants, and given the breadth and complexity of the themes addressed consensus was not achieved on the recommendations.

This report details the recommendations generated at the round table and reports them verbatim as they were delivered during discussions. This report also summarizes the proceedings and includes: a brief introduction to, and the objectives and structure of the round table; an overview of the presentations and related discussions that occurred on Day 1 and Day 2; the recommendations that came out of the discussions; the next steps in the round table process; and a summary of key messages expressed by participants in the final plenary. A list of the round table participants, the preliminary recommendations, summaries of the contextual comments from participants that were reported in plenary, and the results of the participants’ evaluation of the round table process are presented as appendices.

The Species at Risk Act (SARA) states that the Minister of the Environment must, at least once every two years, convene a round table of persons interested in matters respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada to advise the Minister on those matters. The first Minister’s round table under SARA was held December 6 & 7, 2006 in Gatineau, Quebec. The Act stipulates that the Minister must respond to written recommendations from the round table within 180 days after receiving them.

Recognizing that roles and responsibilities for species at risk conservation are widely distributed, the 110 participants at the round table represented a broad cross section of Canadian society. Participants included individuals affiliated with: federal, provincial, territorial, regional and municipal governments; Aboriginal peoples and organizations; communities; industry and business groups (including renewable and non-renewable natural resource use and extraction groups); academia; public advocacy groups (including environmental and conservation groups); and, youth (see Appendix 1 for the list of participants).

The agenda for the round table, including its themes and structure, and a comprehensive discussion document were prepared by officials in Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Parks Canada Agency (the core federal departments). These documents were informed by discussions with provincial and territorial government personnel and with several individuals and organizations with an interest in wildlife conservation and protection.

The stated objective of the round table was to encourage dialogue among a broad cross-section of knowledgeable opinion leaders on how to improve the conservation of species and the protection and recovery of species at risk, including the role of SARA therein resulting in forward-looking recommendations. Conserving and protecting species at risk and their habitats is a sizeable and complex undertaking. In order to provide some structure and manageability to the round table discussions, the agenda was shaped along three broad themes: using an ecosystem-based approach to conserve and protect species at risk and their habitats; considering socio-economic factors to improve SARA decision-making; and, promoting Canada’s conservation legacy. Prior to the round table, participants were provided with a discussion document that elaborated on the three themes. The purpose of the discussion document was to help facilitate the thinking of participants on the challenges and lessons that need to be addressed in order to improve the conservation of species and the protection and recovery of species at risk.

Day One of the round table began with opening ceremonies and a panel presentation followed by plenary discussion. For the afternoon of Day One and for all of Day Two participants were pre-seated at one of 13 tables (approximately 8 individuals representing a cross section of stakeholder and sectoral perspectives at each table). Following brief introductions of the three themes by core department representatives, seven tables focused their initial “first round” of small group discussions on the ecosystem-based approach and six tables focused on the socio-economic theme. Each table reported out its preliminary observations and recommendations in the late afternoon. Following the after dinner speech from Monte Hummel, president emeritus of WWF Canada, all tables addressed the conservation legacy theme. Over the evening of Day One, a drafting team compiled all of the preliminary recommendations produced by the Day One deliberations. These preliminary recommendations are included, verbatim, in Appendix 2.

On the morning of Day Two, the consolidated preliminary recommendations on the three themes were distributed to all participants. Tables that addressed the ecosystem-based approach on Day One now addressed the socio-economic theme and vice versa. All tables also revisited the conservation legacy theme. The instructions to participants were to use the preliminary recommendations that came out of Day One as the starting point to refine and enhance the recommendations across the three themes. Over an extended lunch break, the writing team with the table rapporteurs compiled the inputs from all tables and prepared the second version of the recommendations. This version of the round table recommendations was then distributed to all participants at the beginning of the afternoon session. This version is the focal point for the recommendations to the Minister of the Environment. It is detailed in Section 4 of this report.

Recognizing the large number and diversity of participants and given the breadth and complexity of the three themes, there was no expectation that all participants would endorse all recommendations. Indeed, the facilitator stressed that the purpose of the sessions was to solicit the recommendations of participants, and not necessarily to reach consensus on each of the recommendations.

This Report strives to ensure that all of the recommendations that were raised during the round table are presented fully and fairly. However, “the details” that often introduced or accompanied a specific recommendation, and examples often used to rationalize the recommendation are not extensively detailed in this Report. Readers who participated in the sessions are cautioned that the contextual issues they raised are not reported verbatim.

Opening Activities

The round table was opened by a traditional blessing giving by Elder William Commanda. Elder Commanda is the hereditary chief and spiritual leader of the Algonquin Nation in the region. He emphasized the importance of holding a deep respect for the natural environment including wildlife, as well as stating that human beings must see themselves as only one part of the integrated web that is life on earth. Elder Commanda emphasized that cooperation and mutual respect for different points of view were keys to achieving the goal of conserving wildlife.

Following the Elder Commanda’s smudge ceremony, the Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, provided opening comments that set the stage for the round tale deliberations. Minister Ambrose began her speech by stressing the importance of this meeting, it being the first Minister’s Round Table under SARA and that the recommendations will help the government improve their efforts to protect species at risk. The Minister noted that the diversity of the participants provides a unique opportunity for co-operation, collaboration and the exchange of ideas and knowledge. The Minister stated that the new government has a results-oriented approach to protecting species at risk. This approach recognizes biodiversity and also acknowledges that to Canadians, the social, economic and cultural value of nature is beyond measure. Minister Ambrose highlighted some of the progress that has been made with SARA, in particular the Habitat Stewardship Program and various recovery strategies. She also stressed the importance of incorporating aboriginal traditional knowledge into all aspects of the conservation process and highlighted the value of ongoing consultation with aboriginal peoples at all levels of government. Minister Ambrose announced that a National Policy Framework to protect species at risk had been agreed to at a recent meeting with her provincial and territorial colleagues. She also said that with the National Framework agreed to by all jurisdictions she had directed Environment Canada and Parks Canada officials, working with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to aim to finalize the federal SARA policy framework within the next six months. Minister Ambrose concluded with some of the challenges facing SARA, emphasized the importance of acting now, and wished participants success in their deliberations.

Following Minister Ambrose’s remarks, Cynthia Wright, the Associate Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for wildlife issues in Environment Canada and the chair of the round table, briefly outlined the events for the next two days. Importantly Ms. Wright emphasized that it was her responsibility as chair to deliver the round table recommendations to the Minister of the Environment. After providing an overview of the agenda, Ms. Wright introduced the panel.

The purpose of the panel was to provide senior opinion leaders, from a number of key sectors, with the opportunity to share their introductory views on the following questions with regards to the round table themes.

The concept of the panel evolved from suggestions from interested parties on the need to minimize presentations from core departments and to provide the various constituencies with a role in protecting species at risk and their habitats the opportunity to share preliminary insights on the round table themes. The panel presentations were designed to stimulate creative thinking by participants and to encourage fuller participation in the small group deliberations following the panel presentations.

Byron Louis, Coordinator, National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk (NACOSAR)

Please note that the chair of NACOSAR, Beverly Jacobs, was originally scheduled as a panel member, but was unexpectedly unable to attend. Mr. Louis graciously agreed to represent Ms. Jacobs on the panel.

Mr. Louis began his talk by briefly explaining the purpose of the Council. He noted that the Council is made up of members based upon the recommendations of Aboriginal organizations representing First Nation, Inuit and Métis, who collectively share a common belief in the interconnectedness of ecosystems. The Council sees itself as a body that aims to provide balance of decision to minimize the negative impacts of human intrusion into the natural environment.

Mr. Louis noted that Aboriginal title led to historic and contemporary treaty negotiations where identified rights were incorporated into treaties between Aboriginal peoples and Crown as represented by the federal government. These are constitutionally protected rights guaranteeing protection in perpetuity. This recognition of rights enshrined in the Canadian Constitution were the basis of Supreme Court of Canada decisions such as Sparrow that established priority access to Aboriginal peoples for food, social and ceremonial purposes. These rights are second only to conservation.

In many instances, the extinction of a species is also an extinguishment of those aboriginal rights; in accordance to the Sparrow test extinguishment of Aboriginal rights is subject to clear and plain legislative intent and that provinces and territories do not possess the Constitutional authority to extinguish Aboriginal rights. He went on to state that for Aboriginal peoples, SARA is a matter of rights that creates a platform that can enable all levels of government to work with the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and enables interested parties to work together towards the common goal of wildlife conservation.

Mr. Louis stressed the need for all partners and stakeholders, including the federal, provincial and territorial governments to work cooperatively with Aboriginal peoples. More specifically, governments must not only avoid infringing upon Aboriginal rights, but incorporate aboriginal traditional knowledge to ensure that all decisions are based upon the best available information and respectful of Aboriginal rights and fiduciary obligations of the Crown as represented by the government of Canada.

In addition socio-economic factors must also consider the impacts of decisions to list and recover species on the culture, traditions and health of affected peoples, and be factored into any cost/benefit analyses. He noted that shifts in aboriginal diet and food sources from country foods to “imported” processed foods and the loss of ceremonial and/or cultural practices have occurred. Significant decline of the overall health and well-being of Aboriginal peoples must be considered in any discussions involving socio-economic factors.

Mr. Louis concluded his discussion by stressing that the conservation legacy must be protected and promoted “here and now”. Specifically, it is the right of each generation to inherit the natural world. Thus each generation must strive to pass on a legacy that is superior to what they inherited.

Gordon Peeling, President, Mining Association of Canada

Mr. Peeling began his talk by discussing the historical role of natural resources as a driving force in Canada’s economy. Thus in an effort to find an approach that works for both people and species at risk, SARA must be delivered within a framework of stewardship and preventative approaches that conserves wildlife and promotes sustainable resource use. He also argued that as a public good the cost of conserving wildlife species must be shared across sectors. Mr. Peeling stressed that an ecosystem based approach is vital to species conservation. SARA is tailored to respond to a failure of ecosystem management. The better the ecosystem management functions the less need for SARA interventions.

Mr. Peeling felt strongly that SARA includes many of the necessary tools needed to conserve and protect species and habitat but it has yet to be fully or effectively implemented. He gave a list of items that needed to be developed in order to achieve these goals, including more effective enforcement, a clear and effective compensation policy, a transparent, online permitting process, acknowledging and making better use of stewardship agreements, committing to early socio-economic analysis, and bi-lateral agreements with the provinces. He stressed that delivering these critical elements of SARA will require a commitment of resources across the core federal departments.

Mr. Peeling concluded by focusing on the importance of acting decisively and immediately. He believes that a slow implementation of SARA may lead to a dissipation of the goodwill that was evident across all partner and stakeholder sectors at the beginning of the SARA process.

Patrick McGuinness, President, Fisheries Council of Canada

Mr. McGuinness began his talk by noting that the fisheries industry has been grappling with how to implement an ecosystem based approach for several years. Given the realities of the natural environments of fish, it is very difficult to manage fish ecosystems. However, human activities that impact on those ecosystems can and must be managed. Mr. McGuinness felt that SARA is a blunt instrument that relies too heavily on prohibitions and penalties to attain its management objectives. He feels that the prohibition provisions are not an appropriate tool for conservation, and instead SARA must work in conjunction with the Fisheries Act to provide comprehensive management of human activities that impact on fish ecosystems, including quotas, fisheries methods and equipment.

Mr. McGuinness stressed the important role of science in fisheries conservation and species listing and recovery decisions. The fisheries industry has at times expressed concern that some reports have insufficient scientific information to be the basis of a listing decision that could affect the livelihood of an entire community. For major decisions with significant human and economic impact, there must be the utmost confidence in the science that the decision is based on. He urged the government to invest more money to increase its scientific capacity.

Mr. McGuinness emphasized the need to align the various scientific bodies that are involved in wildlife assessment, listing and recovery efforts to avoid duplication of effort and inconsistencies across programs and policies. He noted that this alignment is particularly important given that there are hundreds of species to consider, an impossible task if priority is not given to the areas where it is most needed. He concluded by affirming that the fishing industry is committed to sustainability but acknowledged it will be challenging to attain.

Caroline Cormier, Project Manager, Stewardship of Natural Areas

Ms. Cormier stressed the role of stewardship programs and the promotion of biodiversity. She noted the importance of an inventory of private sites that could lead to conservation agreements with private landowners. This would enable management activities and programs aimed toward the protection of wildlife. These practices rely heavily on voluntary approaches and initiatives. In bringing conservation organizations and landowners together regional actors can be educated and stewardship can be fostered.

Ms. Cormier then proposed a path forward. The first step was making the landowners partners with SARA. There are limited financial resources and thus a volunteer workforce must be trained. Next it was proposed that government funding for land stewardship initiatives be ongoing. It could take years to convince a landowner to protect the land, and the funding must be accessible when needed. A well managed permanent endowment fund for conservation initiatives would ensure effective ecosystem protection over the long term.

Finally, Ms. Cormier stressed the importance of targeted plans and realistic deadlines in implementing the path forward especially in urban regions. This should have the goal of curbing urban sprawl and protecting disappearing ecosystems. Ms. Cormier concluded by observing that it will be a difficult but worthwhile challenge to convince municipalities to preserve natural habitats in the face of growing development.

Mike Russill, President and CEO, WWF Canada

The WWF has been operating for forty years in over 100 countries and has a mandate that considers communities and people, as well as endangered species. Mr. Russill illustrated the power of cooperation and partnerships by detailing examples of recovery successes from around the world.

The first was the tremendous collaborative effort in recovering the Giant Panda. Through the creation of reserves, fighting off poaching and building local capacity for nature preserve tourism, the number of bears has increased by 40% in thirty years. The key here was sustaining activity long enough to make an impact. The next example was the Swift Fox, which has undergone a much faster recovery due to the cooperation of various stakeholders. The third example was the Atlantic Right Whale. This species has only 300 remaining, so every life saved is critical. The WWF, working in cooperation with the shipping industry and others has re-routed shipping lanes and achieved modifications to previous fishing practices. The final example involves the Boreal forests project. WWF is committed to ensuring that 30 million hectares are certified to Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standards, the most widely endorsed and rigorous forest certification system in the world, guaranteeing that these forests will be sustainably managed. Already, over 15 million hectares have achieved certification, making Canada the world leader in FSC certified forests. These forests provide habitat for many species at risk.

Mr. Russill concluded by noting that Canada is at a crossroads and the problems of wildlife conservation are related to human activity. We must abide by the precautionary principle: if there is a lack of full scientific certainty, we must err on the side of caution. Furthermore conservation principles and practices must come first in all management planning decisions and planning must be done on an ecosystem scale. With this in mind, the recovery of species at risk is possible, but it must be sustained and provided with adequate, long term resources. Finally, monitoring, ongoing assessment and review of progress must occur on a regular basis, and improvements identified by those processes must be recognized and immediately addressed by governments.

One participant expressed concern that relying on the Fisheries Act to protect species was questionable given that fish stocks have been reduced to historic lows. Mr. McGuinness reiterated that more integration between the Fisheries Act and SARA is needed.

Further to the comment by Mr. McGuinness that someCOSEWIC assessments suffer from insufficient scientific data one participant described the rigorous and lengthy peer review process employed by COSEWIC and expressed confidence in the COSEWIC assessment reports. This participant acknowledged limitations of old data but stressed that COSEWIC was in the process of addressing this. Another participant suggested that an external peer review process may give the needed increase in confidence and credibility to COSEWIC reports. Furthermore, COSEWIC needs to be more inclusive at the front end and consider information other than just the scientific data. Mr. McGuinness responded by saying that a fundamental weakness of SARA was the lack of attention to science when it was introduced, that in the result placed great pressure on COSEWIC. He re-stated the importance of industry needing the utmost confidence in the scientific data on which key decisions to list species are based. Mr. Louis further supported the statements of Mr. Peeling and stressed the importance of independent scientifically generated Species Status Reports conducted by COSEWIC and added that COSEWIC needs more funding to accomplish this goal.

One participant felt strongly that the rigor and scope of analysis found in COSEWIC reports has gone up markedly since SARA was implemented. He argued that if COSEWIC is opened up to numerous parties then it may be subject to too many new pressures to be effective, as was the case in the USA. Mr. McGuinness clarified that COSEWIC must stress “first class” science in a very transparent manner, but that industry should not be part of COSEWIC’s independent scientific review process. Mr. Peeling agreed with this, as did Mr. Louis who added the caveat that aboriginal traditional knowledge must be accorded the same status/weight as modern science and must be taken seriously.

A participant stressed the importance of considering traditional knowledge in all aspects of SARA. He said that scientists must come to communities and use all the resources available within a community in order to get a complete picture of wildlife status prior to making decisions that will affect those communities. He noted that aboriginal traditional knowledge can help provide more accurate information by giving insight into wildlife habits such as herd movement and migration. Another participant added that Aboriginal peoples have historically managed wildlife resources very well: “our people have never eaten themselves out of a home.” Mr. Louis stated that it was important to involve aboriginal peoples in COSEWIC.

One participant asked if the fishing and mining industries would commit to adopting a conservation first policy and a precautionary approach before any new development takes place. Mr. Peeling (from the mining sector) responded that environmental concerns are taken into account at all stages of mining activities from research and exploration to land reclamation efforts when mines are closed. Mr. McGuinness (from the fishing sector) responded that fisheries must be sustainable in order for the industry to survive. What he would like to see is a “revolution” of policy that involves establishing quotas and working with Fisheries and Oceans Canada in looking at stocks in order to accurately analyze which stocks are at risk and which can be sustainably harvested. Another participant asked for panel members to speak to Abalone recovery efforts on the West Coast of Vancouver Island. Mr. Louis responded that efforts to recover Northern Abalone involved DFO, local and First Nation communities in recovery efforts underway since early 2000. They have cooperated to implement this innovative strategy that will incorporate socio-economic benefits for the local communities and comply with provisions of section 73 to receive special permits that allow for sales of a listed species. This project had an added benefit to Abalone recovery of returning 50% of Abalone produced using shellfish aquaculture techniques to returned present and former habitat.

Mr. Louis felt that this project was a very important step in recovery of a listed species that could be incorporated into other recovery efforts with application to terrestrial and aquatic species.

Several participants stressed the importance of cooperation amongst all interested parties. One participant stated that to attain cooperation across all of Canada we need to address and overcome the fragmentation of jurisdictions. Another participant then noted that some jurisdictions need more aboriginals and non-aboriginals working together and sharing knowledge, as is already happening more frequently in Northern regions.

One participant flagged the dichotomy between habitat and jurisdictional continuity. He noted that the ecosystem based approach is a step in the right direction from single species management, but it must be interpreted broadly to address jurisdictional issues. As an example he noted that Manitoba gets water from Alberta, Saskatchewan, the United States and other places. Because of this a great deal of the pollution in Lake Winnipeg and the resulting stress on the lake ecosystem emanates from the United States. Thus in appropriate circumstances we must consider watershed dimensions.

One participant asked how to most effectively engage private landowners in conservation efforts. Proposed answers included working on the ground, and building up and maintaining mutual respect for the communities of interest, including the rights of landowners. It is also important to give these people a role in the decision making process. A participant gave the example of halting the harvesting of the Hawksbill Turtle in Cuba by implementing alternative sources of local income such as hawksbill tourism, which is now a resounding success. One participant noted that landowners’ practices can be better modified on a voluntary basis where all interested parties are engaged, rather than simply imposing regulatory prohibitions and penalties.

Presentation on the three Round Table Themes

After lunch representatives from the core departments delivered a short presentation of each of the three themes to be discussed during the remainder of the round table. The content of these presentations was extracted from the Discussion Document and served as a “refresher/starting point” on the round table topics to begin the small group (table) discussions.

Following the presentations on the three themes, the floor was opened for points of clarification and for preliminary observations. The following points were raised.

After this brief segment, the participants began their small group (table) deliberations. After a few hours of table discussion, each table reported back in plenary with their first round of preliminary recommendations. These recommendations were consolidated and are reported verbatim in Appendix 2. During the plenary reporting of the preliminary recommendations several contextual comments were raised. These comments are summarized in Appendix 3.

The after dinner speech was delivered by Monte Hummel. His speech consisted of numerous anecdotes from his many experiences as a world leader of conservation that served to convey the theme of Canada’s Conservation Legacy. He began by discussing the history of WWF and the role that he personally it has played in the monitoring, studying, and conserving of over a hundred species. Mr. Hummel noted that since 1987 WWF-Canada has supported 700 co-operative field projects through the Endangered Species Recovery Fund, leveraging matching funding for a core investment by the federal government. And he unequivocally paid tribute to Environment Canada as a loyal and dedicated partner in this effort, regardless of the political persuasion of the government in power.

Mr. Hummel showed a map of northern Canada which overlaid protected areas with numerous mineral, oil and gas, and other extraction-type leases. He said that these were established without due consultation and in advance of the settlement of conservation plans and land claims agreements. He challenged participants “Is this putting conservation first?”.

Mr. Hummel strongly promoted cooperation and coordination of efforts over adversarial conflict as the most effective way to protect species and their habitats and to ensure that future generations have a conservation legacy to consider. His focal point for the legacy asks what we want future generations to say about us, based on the world we bequeath to them. If nothing else, future generations should be able to say that we did our best not to foreclose options for them. But Mr. Hummel then noted we are not doing the job in this regard. He flagged for sober consideration some stunning facts such as one found in the 2006 Living Planet Report in which the WWF convincingly documented that humanity has already exceeded the biological carrying capacity of the earth, and that by 2050, it would take the resources of two planets to sustain our current, “maldistributed” way of life. He then went on to discuss the three strategies of conservation: protection, management and restoration. He made it clear that the ultimate goal must be to manage our activity so that we never have to resort to restoration as it is both the most difficult and most expensive.

Finally he presented some ideas for consideration in promoting the legacy, namely, rewards for politicians and companies who act in favor of conservation and punishments for those who do not. It is up to each of us to support the politicians who stand behind conservation and to support businesses that engage in green practices. By making conscious choices we become part of Canada’s Conservation Legacy. “Our Conservation Legacy should be to leave our children a living planet, so that they can at least choose what to do with it. If we have taught them well, they will choose well, and maybe things will gradually get better.”

Immediately following Mr. Hummel’s speech, the participants discussed recommendations relating to the theme of conserving Canada’s conservation legacy. The work books from each table detailing the recommendations were then submitted to the writing team for consolidation.

During the evening of Day One the writing team assembled the preliminary recommendations for each of the three themes. These are included verbatim in Appendix 2.

The morning of Thursday December 7 began with the distribution the preliminary recommendations for all three themes. The Assistant Deputy Ministers for Environment Canada, the Parks Canada Agency and Fisheries and Oceans Canada then provided brief overviews/summaries of the recommendations. Following this overview, the facilitator instructed participants to use the small group discussion period to generally improve on the preliminary recommendations (“refine, revise, add to, and amend, as considered necessary”). Tables that addressed the ecosystem-based approach on Day One now addressed the socio-economic theme and vise versa. All tables also addressed the preliminary recommendations for the conservation legacy theme.

After 2 hours of small group discussion the tables reported back in plenary. The refinements to the preliminary recommendations were discussed and were consolidated during the extended lunch break. These are reported in Section 4. During the plenary reporting out several contextual comments were raised. These comments are summarized in Appendix 4.

Over an extended lunch break, the writing team with the table rapporteurs compiled the inputs from all tables and prepared the second version of the recommendations. This version of the round table recommendations was distributed to all participants at the beginning of the afternoon session. These recommendations to the Minister of the Environment will be consolidated in the Report on the Minister’s 2006 Round Table under the Species at Risk Act and analyzed in conjunction with the input provided by participants in the final plenary session.

[Note: The numbering of the recommendations is for ease of reference and does not signify any priority ranking.]

Recommendations
  1. That the Minister develop a tool that existing groups can use to incorporate SARA considerations in their decision-making process (i.e. build upon existing community consultation forums to develop an ecosystem analysis and recommended approach to dealing with and incorporate endangered species issues into existing community planning vehicles).
  2. That the Ministers responsible for SARA and INAC create a fund to support case studies that would allow exploration of ecosystem based approaches from the bottom up. Groups of regional partners (e.g., Aboriginal peoples, other levels of government, sectoral, citizens, organizations, etc.) be encouraged to either contribute or apply to this fund to further our ecosystem based approaches knowledge.
  3. That the Minister, in partnership with provincial and territorial (P/T) and Aboriginal communities, should launch pilot projects (aquatic and terrestrial) in each P/T to manage an area using ecosystem based approaches so as to evaluate its effectiveness. These pilot programs should involve all stakeholders and be adequately co-funded by all levels of government with stakeholders encouraged to contribute.
  4. That the Ministers adopt an existing definition (i.e., definition in Canada’s Biodiversity Strategy … CBD) or develop a working definition of the ecosystem approach for Canadians. (It is important to sequence the information in the ecosystem approach so that science and ATK are the foundation and that the human dimension is integrated with this.) This working definition must then be applied to SARA within the context of the Biodiversity Outcomes Framework.
  5. Ministers responsible for species at risk must recognize that SARA is one tool to remediate ecosystem problems. Taking biodiversity and ecosystem approaches are laudable goals, but may not always be of benefit to species at risk. Ecosystem based approaches should be used as one tool where appropriate to meet species at risk goals and objectives at the action planning stage.
  6. Ministers must work to ensure cross-jurisdictional and cross-departmental commitments to goals and objectives of species at risk conservation and recovery, so that we do not have conflicting decisions.
  7. Ministers should recognize that conservation planning should be sharply focused on identifying and alleviating problems. Ecosystem based approach is sometimes appropriate to that task.
  8. The Ministers should ensure that ecosystem based approaches should not delay recovery and remedial actions and should include an adaptive management approach.
  9. That Ministers explicitly identify the home coordinating mechanism, the leadership and accountability for the ecosystem approach in Canada.
    • Leadership could also come from outside government
    • This top-down approach must build on the current work being done by P/T, sectors, Aboriginal peoples, communities, and connect to national work (i.e. Biodiversity Outcomes Framework) and global work (i.e. Convention on Biological Diversity)
  10. An ecosystem approach is needed to provide long term monitoring and evaluation and baseline information, and it must be built with resources, users and communities and structured so that it can empower local stewards for biodiversity.
  11. That the Minister, in collaboration with P/T colleagues, adopt the strategy of conservation first with a focus on prevention and precaution that will actively engage and fund local governments and communities to protect and recover species at risk.
  12. Recommend that the Ministers meet their current obligations on species at risk and at the same time begin to develop the required resources and tools for implementing the ecosystem approach in Canada.
Other considerations
  1. We recognize that the ecosystem based approaches has value, however, it is not applicable in all cases. There is a need to further our understanding of the applicability of ecosystem based approaches through development of representative case studies.
  2. We recognize that good bioregional planning is an important prevention tool.
Recommendations
  1. Ensure that socio-economic (SE) analysis is as transparent as species assessment.
  2. SE should be equally important in its contribution to decision making and that documents are available in a timely fashion.
  3. SE analysis should not include recovery cost at the listing stage.
  4. SE should be done at the time of legal listing using recovery scenarios to inform ministers of the consequences of listing. Consultation involvement of stakeholders and jurisdictions early in the process and in the review of the results is desirable. SE must be done in the broader context of all available conservation tools (e.g. existing legislation and stewardship programs).
  5. SE should be viewed as a progressive exercise and be updated as additional information is gathered, including at the recovery planning and action planning stage when management measures are being further explored or defined.
  6. We recommend that the Minister, in consultation with stakeholders, develop criteria for ecological SE [ESE] analysis so that it is transparent, inclusive and accurately reflects the values of all ESE considerations including biodiversity, ecosystem services, aboriginal interests and the impact on Canadians.
  7. Standardize procedures for SE analysis, drawing on a broad spectrum of best practices, reflecting value of species recovery in the analysis, and short and long term considerations.
  8. Minister should immediately establish an independent evaluation of current SARA SE methodologies across departments and jurisdictions.
  9. Guidelines for provincial SE analysis should be consistent with the federal SE analysis.
  10. Minister should establish a committee on social progress and economic development to offer independent advice on proposed SARA listing which should be made public.
  11. Create an advisory panel of eminent persons (broad cross-section of stakeholders) in the short term to review the current SE framework, methodologies and approaches to consultation on the content of SE analysis. This committee could provide advice on the development of guidelines for practitioners.
  12. Create a website that includes all COSEWIC status assessments and tracks them through the listing process and that states reasons for not listing species.
  13. Recovery planning should identify SE challenges (through consultation and consideration of aboriginal traditional knowledge) and means to address these challenges (e.g. compensation, re-training and economic opportunities, etc.).
  14. Designating of “critical habitat” (CH) has been impeded by a fear of considering SE consequences. These consequences should be considered at the stage of defining CH and are important for estimating the need for compensation to land owners.
  15. Nominate the members of the ATK sub-committee of COSEWIC.
  16. We recommend that the Minister change the terminology “SE evaluation” to “Ecological SE Evaluation” (ESEE) so as to better reflect the need to incorporate ecological benefits into such analyses.
  17. Minister should meet with aboriginal peoples to discuss the relevant issues of jurisdictions authority, capacity, policy, consultation and funding.
  18. Recognize importance of subsistence values, aboriginal and community use, in SE analysis.
  19. Respect the provisions of land claims agreements and processes in implementation of SARA.
  20. SE analysis should include: social importance of species, social values and way of life, intrinsic values of species, ATK, economic cost and benefits. This requires the engagement of aboriginal peoples, communities, partners, NGOs, etc.).
  21. Ensure that not only economists are involved in SE analysis, acknowledging that Aboriginal peoples and landowners have not conducted SE impact studies on reserves and private lands to date. Social and cultural component of SE should be given greater weight and emphasis than they are now.
  22. Support SE capability in community development and provide them with long term support. This is particularly challenging for aboriginal groups.
  23. Definition of SE analysis must include full cost accounting including potential cost to landowners, stewardship incentives and land owner compensation that among other things addresses the ecosystem based-approach, aboriginal traditional knowledge and the implications on future generations.
  24. Government should encourage municipalities and industries to take a broader and longer term view of the implications of social and economic development initiatives in order to save money on mitigation in the future.
  25. The minister should publicize the social and economic implications at play and offer a public comment period on potential SARA listings in order to build public awareness of the implications of both listings and development.
Recommendations
  1. Ministers should work with federal, provincial and territorial (FPT) colleagues to develop programs and commit funding to implement programs that connect Canada’s youth to nature through environmental awareness and education.
  2. Minister should reinstate the Importance of Nature to Canadians survey so that the marketing of the conservation legacy to Canadians, industry, & funding agencies at all levels can be integrated, research based & targeted, support domestic tourism which contributes to the education level.
  3. Government should put in place incentives for effective conservation (e.g. negative income tax, rebates for energy efficient products, ecological goods and services, incentives that work for Aboriginal peoples), research and development.
  4. The Minister develops a process to explicitly formulate a conservation legacy for Canada.
    • work with and engage all Canadians in the development of this legacy;
    • link to the health of Canadians;
    • the legacy must address key aspects of changing Canadian demography, e.g. rural communities, cities, the North, new Canadians, youth, etc.
  5. All federal departments and agencies be required to include promotion of nature conservation as a core Canadian value as part of their annual sustainability plan. The government must implement the entire range of tools available to them to instill nature conservation as a core value of Canadians, e.g. hunting, fishing, bird-watching, ecotourism. This could be done, for example, through greater exposure in the media.
  6. Ministers develop reward programs and praise “conservation knowledge” down to the community level (including Aboriginal peoples and private land owners) and foster conservation legacy knowledge, especially with new Canadians and youth. Extend recognition programs to those who are successful at conservation. Promote contests for free day-passes in national parks, wildlife reserves, etc.
  7. The Minister should promote meaningful ways to reduce consumption by individual Canadians by setting the tone, leading by personal example (political leaders) on governments commitments to sustainability.
  8. Amend the Canadian constitution to incorporate the conservation legacy.
  9. Make water the pillar of the conservation legacy.
  10. Provide citizens with information on the condition of their local environment so they are more knowledgeable and make better choices (e.g. reinstate the State of the Environment reporting).
  11. Long term commitment through supporting, co-funding, and promoting a consortium of all partners, stakeholders and Aboriginal peoples to promote the conservation legacy. Adopting the principles of conservation first, precaution, prevention and respect for ATK and the holistic view of people as part of the environment, will over time, minimize the need for recovering species at risk.
  12. Aggressive marketing campaign for conservation legacy including information on ecosystem benefits to Canadians.
  13. Working with local partners, launch a communication outreach campaign to educate Canadians about SARA and what it means to them (e.g. hunters, trappers, fishers, landowners). They would become more supportive of SARA once the implications are understood.
  14. Promote the link between climate change and other environmental issues, which are rising in public awareness, to species at risk conservation.
  15. Improve prospect of partnership with other organizations and local communities by providing seed funding on a timely and consistent basis similar to that used by the Model Forest program in order to ensure species protection and recovery.
    1. Streamline accountability requirements
    2. Explore multi-year funding to ensure continuity
    3. Divert species at risk funds currently housed in INAC to dedicated aboriginal funds and the ATK sub-committee with Environment Canada.
Other Considerations
  1. Long term commitments by all partners, stakeholders, and Aboriginal peoples to promote the conservation legacy. Adopting the principals of conservation first, precaution and prevention will, over time minimize the need for recovering species at risk.
  2. Awareness/education/experience of nature must be recognized in terms of its relation to human physical and mental health.

The next step in the round table process was for the participants in their small groups to provide any comments in writing on these recommendations. It was requested that written comments be handed in to the facilitators at the end of the round table. These final written comments are summarized in Appendix 5.

In the final half hour of the round table, participants were given the opportunity to convey one or two key messages that they believed participants needed to take away from the round table. Several participants stressed the need for adequate government funding to implement SARA and to deliver on the recommendations. Another reoccurring generalization was that there was broad support for SARA but it must not be made more complicated than it has to be. Most participants felt that this meeting did not provide enough time to discuss all of the diverse topics of interest to all participants. Still, participants want to see the process get beyond planning and evaluation and that the next steps must move towards action. And most participants stressed the vital importance of cooperation and collaboration and the need for the government to actively facilitate this engagement to ensure ongoing success in conserving and protecting species at risk and their habitats.

With respect to socio-economic analysis, many participants expressed a concern that if not properly managed this topic could waste scarce human and financial resources; measures must be taken to ensure this does not happen. Some participants disagreed with the recommendation that socio-economic analysis is equally important in its contribution to SARA decision making. Another reoccurring comment was to ensure that socio-economic evaluations were publicly available, a variation on views expressed by several participants who insisted on the need for transparency, clear and accessible methodologies and stakeholder and partner involvement throughout the socio-economic process.

With respect to ecosystem based approaches, a recurring final message was that the Minister commit to an early engagement of staff to develop consistent definitions and a pilot project. Furthermore there was wide support to make ecosystem based approaches a priority as a preventative tool and build on existing protection of habitat and ecosystems. Many participants voiced a common sentiment that stronger public involvement in ecosystem based approaches is needed.

With respect to Canada’s conservation legacy, most participants fully appreciated the value and role of promoting the conservation legacy. Several participants stressed the importance that ATK contributes to the legacy. Some participants suggested that a constitutional amendment incorporate nature and conservation as core Canadian values.

The Minister’s round table was closed with a prayer from Elder William Commanda. Elder Commanda thanked participants for attending the round table. He reminded participants of their need to respect nature and their pivotal individual and collective roles in protecting the natural world. He congratulated participants for accepting their responsibilities to work cooperatively and constructively to conserve wildlife for present and future generations and wished everyone continued success in pursuing these goals.

At the end of the meeting, participants were given evaluation questionnaires to comment on their experience at the first Minister’s round table under the Species at Risk Act. Forty participants took the time to complete them, and most people were satisfied with their experience. They indicated that the format of the round table was appropriate, and that they had had an opportunity to express their views. An overwhelming number voiced the importance of the timely consideration of the resulting recommendations and concrete action towards the implementation of the next steps. The feedback showed that the attendees were most pleased with the manner in which the round table provided extensive opportunity for various stakeholders from different sectors to communicate and share ideas.

Several participants expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of time in plenary to address so many topics and also expressed concern that the predetermined agenda themes were not universally supported.

A detailed summary of the evaluations is included in Appendix 6.

Name
Affiliation
Mellissa Cooper
Assembly of First Nations
Sue Scott
Canada's Atlantic Salmon Federation
Nick Schultz
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Bonny Campbell
Canadian Electricity Association
Karen Etherington
Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
Brenda Kenny
Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
Peter de Marsh
Canadian Federation of Woodlot Owners
Robert Morley
Canadian Fishing Company, British Columbia
Gillian MacEachern
Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
Colin Maxwell
Canadian Wildlife Federation
Sandy Baumgartner
Canadian Wildlife Federation
Alastair MacPhee
Congress of Aboriginal Peoples
Jeffrey Hutchings
Dalhousie University, Chair of COSEWIC
Rachel Plotkin
David Suzuki Foundation
Barrett Lenoir
Dene First Nation
Aaron Freeman
Environmental Defence
Pascal Alarie
Fédération québécoise de la faune
Patrick McGuinness
Fisheries Council of Canada
Ghislaine St. André
Fondation de la Faune du Québec
Marcel Shepert
Fraser River Aboriginal Fisheries Secretariat
Daniel Banville
Gouvernement du Québec, ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune
Line Couillard
Gouvernement du Québec, ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs
James Goudie
Government of Nunatsiavut
Steven Brechtel
Govt. of Alberta, Fish and Wildlife Division
Nancy Wilkin
Govt. of British Columbia, Ministry of Environment
James R. Duncan
Govt. of Manitoba, Manitoba Conservation
Mike Sullivan
Govt. of New Brunswick, Department of Natural Resources, Fish & Wildlife Branch
Joe Brazil
Govt. of Newfoundland and Labrador, Department of Environment and Conservation
David Coffin
Govt. of Newfoundland and Labrador, Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture
Dr. J. Sherman Boates
Govt. of Nova Scotia, Biodiversity Program
Simon Awa
Govt. of Nunavut, Department of Environment
Kevin J. Wilson
Govt. of Ontario, Ministry of Natural Resources
Lois Deacon
Govt. of Ontario, Ministry of Natural Resources
Dave Phillips
Govt. of Saskatchewan, Department of Environment
Lynda Yonge
Govt. of the Northwest Territories, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Joy Waters
Govt. of Yukon, Department of Environment
Harvey Jessup
Govt. of Yukon, Department of Environment, Fish & Wildlife Branch
Jessica Annis
Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association - Urban Development Institute
Dale Drown
Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia
Peter L. Miller
Imperial Oil Limited
John Cheechoo
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK)
Frank Pokiak
Inuvialuit Game Council
Dulcie House
Limestone Barrens Habitat Stewardship Program
Gabriella Mackenzie-Scott
Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board
Roger Hunka
Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council
Dean Trumbley
Métis Nation British Columbia
Donald S. Sharp
Métis National Council
Anthony Belcourt
Métis National Council
Gordon Peeling
Mining Association of Canada
Pierre Gratton
Mining Association of Canada
Henry Lickers
Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, Department of the Environment
Bob Stevenson
NACOSAR
Allan Morin
NACOSAR
Melody Nice-Paul
NACOSAR
Byron Louis
NACOSAR coordinator
Josh Duncan
Native Brotherhood of British Columbia
Josephine Mandamin
Native Women's Association of Canada
Julie Gelfand
Nature Canada
Sarah Wren
Nature Canada
Michael Bradstreet
Nature Conservancy Canada
Charles-Antoine Drolet
Nature Québec
Kathleen Martin
Nova Scotia Leatherback Turtle Working Group
Gabriel Nirlungayuk
Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
Joe Tigullaraq
Nunavut Wildlife Management Board
Terry Quinney
Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
Tom Hilditch
Ontario Stone, Sand & Gravel Association
Ron Hall
Osoyoos First Nation
Michael Burgess
Prairie Conservation Action Plan
Doug Wolthausen
Professional Habitat Specialist
Chris Blake
Quesnel River Watershed Alliance
Caroline Cormier
Réseau de milieux naturels protégés
Stephen Hazel
Sierra Club of Canada
Devon Page
Sierra Legal Defense Fund
James Guptill
Tourism Industry Association of Canada
Silvia D'Amelo
Trout Unlimited Canada
Glenn Jim
Tseycum First Nation
Vern Jacks
Tseycum First Nation
Marco Festa-Bianchet
Université de Sherbrooke, past Chair of COSEWIC
Penny White
University of British Columbia
Ken Stewart
University of Manitoba
Stewart Elgie
University of Ottawa
Dan Lane
University of Ottawa - School of Management
Dean Jacobs
Walpole Island First Nation
Gwen Barlee
Western Canada Wilderness Committee
Justina Ray
Wildlife Conservation Society - Canada
David Brackett
Wildlife Habitat Canada
Mike Russill
WWF - Canada
Monte Hummel
WWF - Canada
Alon Weinberg
Youth Environmental Network
Name
Title
Cynthia Wright
A/Associate Assistant Deputy Minister
EC
Ian Shugart
Associate Deputy Minister
EC
Donna Stewart
A/Director, Migratory Birds, Ontario Canadian Wildlife Service
EC
Greg Thompson
Director, Species at Risk, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environmental Stewardship Branch
EC
Mary Taylor
Director, Program Operations Branch
EC
Michele Brenning
Director General, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environmental Stewardship Branch
EC
Patricia Houle
Acting Regional Director, Québec Canadian Wildlife Service
EC
Paul Kluckner
A/Regional Director General, Pacific & Yukon Region, Canadian Wildlife Service
EC
Bill Doubleday
Director General, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Economic Analysis and Statistics
DFO
John Davis
Special Advisor To The Deputy Minister On Species At Risk
DFO
Kevin Stringer
Director General, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Resource Management Directorate
DFO
Lucie McClung
Senior Associate Deputy Minister
DFO
Pauline Lalonde
Manager, Aboriginal Programs
DFO
Susan Mojgani
Director, Biodiversity Science Branch
DFO
Alan Latourelle
Chief Executive Officer
PCA
Doug Stewart
Director General, National Parks
PCA
Gilles Seutin
Research Manager, Species at Risk
PCA
Mike Wong
Executive Director, Ecological Integrity Branch
PCA
Stephen Woodley
Chief, Ecosystem Science
PCA
Name
Affiliation
Role
Kathleen Connelly
Intersol Group
Facilitator
Frank VanGool
Intersol Group
Facilitator
Menno Versteeg
Intersol Group
Recorder
Hajo Versteeg
Intersol Group
Recorder
Ecosystem Based Approach: Preliminary Recommendations
A: Definitions

1) Language used to describe EBA should be modified to better reflect what we do (e.g. stewardship, science (different connotation)). Be more inclusive and not biased in our vocabulary. Keep some flexibility in our choice of ecosystem, so as to include ecozones, watersheds, etc. Choose type of ecosystem based on species categories (e.g. watershed for aquatic species).

2) Definition of EBA needs to be changed to have more flexibility (i.e. assemblage, grouping). Context also required in order to better understand and define EBA. To do proper EBA, it would be enormous undertaking. Grouping or species assemblage (where applicable) would be more cost effective (as part as a suite of other tools). This should be done at the management stage (i.e. action plans) and not at the earlier stages (e.g. assessment).

B: Engage, Cooperate & Build Capacity

3) Pre-condition to implementing EBA is jurisdictional harmony including F/P/T, aboriginal governments, and communities as well as municipal governments and international jurisdictions (where appropriate e.g. migratory species).

4) Key words to be integrated within EBA recommendations:

5) Stakeholders need support and recognition of their efforts and contributions.

6) Engage, Engage, Engage! This will ensure buy in and greater ownership of the results. For EBA to be successful, it is crucial that we have inclusive participation from all Canadians.

7) In the transition from a single species approach to an EBA, we need to recognize the human dimension (NGOs, researchers, volunteers).

C: Determining Where

8) Prioritize habitat types using existing ecozones as the basis. Focus efforts within these to give developers advance notice of potentially sensitive areas to do systematic surveys. (This would provide a better opportunity to attract aboriginal involvement if we approach it based on habitat).

9) Make better use of the conservation data centers (CDCs) in order to identify priority zones at different scales. There are concerns regarding privacy issues on entering data into the CDC (e.g. identifying exact locations of species at risk that are vulnerable to poaching).

10) Prepare recovery plans by zones or by threats.

11) Identify ecosystems which are the most affected by climate change. We need to prioritize ecosystems and establish recovery plans based on their threats.

12) As part of EBA, we need to establish strategic ongoing monitoring and evaluation of ecosystem performance. When monitoring goes beyond threshold (which we need to establish) we need to take action.

D: Approaches

13) The minister, in partnership with the P/T and aboriginal communities, should launch pilot projects in each P/T to manage an area using EBA so as to evaluate its effectiveness. These pilot programs should involve all stakeholders and be adequately co-funded by all levels of government with stakeholders encouraged to contribute.

14) Stewardship programs should be institutionalized, given greater consideration, recognition, and weight in the safety net consideration of SARA. There should be multi-year core funding for stewardship groups (stakeholders, private landowners, recovery teams, engagement teams). EBA will put more pressure on the on the need for stewardship or public participation programs because of the extent of private lands. More interactive communication and education that people can understand and relate to.

15) Ecosystem management planning should be informed by current stewardship efforts.

16) EBA should capture environmental, social and economic dimensions (sustainable development). Possibly the most effective strategy to using EBA would be to set up multi-stakeholders groups including aboriginal governments to engage their knowledge and resources with stronger collaboration than at present. We should address species and their habitat on an appropriate scale including a multi-generational timeframe (flexible and pragmatic). Ecosystems are best defined at the local level at a scale appropriate to the local issue and local authorities.

17) There are some advantages to assessing multiple species in the same ecosystem, but it is especially in recovery that economic benefits are realized; important to retain flexibility in approach (e.g., watersheds).

18) In the transition from single species approach to an EBA, consider and apply methods to support redirection of energy.

E: EBA not an Overarching Priority

19) EBA should not be an overarching priority based on other current SARA challenges and additional challenges that EBA could entail. This is true given our current scarce resources for SARA implementation – EBA will require significant capacity and resources. Priorities should be given to fundamental issues in the administration of the Act such as aboriginal traditional knowledge (ATK), listing and critical habitat identification.

The members of Table 7 were of the opinion that their recommendations on the ecosystem-based approach were not fully reflected in the preliminary recommendations above. Their recommendations are therefore included below in there entirety.

Socio-Economic Considerations: Preliminary Recommendations
A: Definition

1) Use broad definition of SE (include positive outcomes and clarify), including consideration of cultural, social and community interests (including cross-generational).

2) Definition of SE analysis must include full cost accounting that among other things addresses the ecosystem based-approach, aboriginal traditional knowledge (ATK) and the implications on future generations.

B: When to consider SE factors?
SE analysis – listing stage:

3) SE should be considered at the listing stage; it should not be a two step process which creates conflict (through polar views).

4) Accelerate recovery planning so that recovery goals/requirements are available to inform the SE analysis at listing stage.

SE analysis – action planning stage:

5) SE analysis should not contribute to either assessment or the identification of recovery goals and objectives in recovery strategies.

6) Focus SE considerations at action planning stage only.

7) SE considerations should play no role in SARA listing; species should be listed automatically.

Key considerations:

8) When critical habitat is identified, SE considerations will be taken into account concurrently (with biological considerations) and thus separately (from biological considerations).

9) Remove mandatory prohibitions on listing, thereby eliminating the federal regulatory requirement at this step.

10) Use a tiered approach to determine when a focused SE approach should be applied (to address the timeline issue). Could be a concurrent process initiated internally when COSEWIC is undertaking assessments.

C: How should SE be conducted / considered?
Standards, tools and processes:

11) For listing: create a parallel group to COSEWIC from different resource sectors to conduct SE analysis. Also need to develop guidelines for the development of assessments which must be transparent and subject to peer review.

12) Create economic incentive out of recovery actions themselves (e.g. eco-tourism).

13) Lengthen SARA timelines, particularly for listing, to accommodate consultation requirements.

14) When developing cost-benefit analysis, there should be a methodology to use to adequately value biodiversity.

15) Develop better tools and/or restructure outreach materials to ensure all interests and inputs are equally valued. This requires a consistent and objective process/protocol /guidelines for SE analysis.

16) Develop outreach capacity (e.g. a community worker for the environment who is looking for information and feedback on SARA generally). Use appropriate tools; SARA public registry not always appropriate.

17) Address inequity between local costs and large-scale benefits by:

  1. Conducting an updated modern survey of the value of wildlife/species at risk/biodiversity to Canadians (addresses needed for better information on ecological goods and services).
  2. Developing and encouraging other mechanisms such as ecosystem certification and ecological goods and services which need to be sustainable, not government funded.
    1. Catch quota systems in fisheries (thresholds linked to license)
    2. Transfer of development rights (cattlemen’s)
    3. Ecological credits
Who:

18) Ensure engagement with local resource users, P/T and First Nations governments and wildlife management boards.

19) Work with recovery teams and consult with affected parties.

20) Ensure that not only economists are involved in SE analysis, acknowledging that First Nations and other landowners have not conducted SE impact studies on reserves and private lands to date.

21) Support SE capability in community development and provide them with long term support

Capacity building:

22) Support SE capability in communities and provide long term support.

23) Need adequate funding.

24) Educate stakeholders in best practices.

25) Ensure access to multi-year core capacity for communities, to allow them to meaningfully engage in SE consideration.

D: Preventative

26) Determine the SE value in preventing listing, concept of promoting conservation that prevents species from becoming at risk (e.g. watershed of greater Vancouver area, cheaper to protect the watershed than to treat the water).

27) Put more effort into preventative measures; taking actions early in effect balances SE considerations.

28) Take advantage of consultation opportunities to do broader outreach activities that have preventative and proactive outcomes.

E: Other

29) Address jurisdictional fragmentation.

Conservation Legacy: Preliminary Recommendations
  1. Minister should work with her colleagues to commit funding to programs that connect Canada’s youth to nature through outdoor education, reinstate the Importance of Nature to Canadians survey so that the marketing of the conservation legacy to Canadians, industry, & funding agencies at all levels can be integrated, research based & targeted.
  2. Government should promote incentives for effective conservation (e.g. Negative income tax, rebates for energy efficient products), research and development.
  3. Provide citizens with information on condition of their local environment so they are more knowledgeable and make better choices.
  4. Federal government to fund educational curriculum development with provinces and territories to foster biodiversity conservation ethic.
  5. Change the perception that accepting a lower standard of living is necessary to achieve sustainability.
  6. Long term commitment by all partner and stakeholders to promote the conservation legacy. Adopting the principals of conservation first, precaution and prevention will, over time minimize the need for recovering species at risk.
  7. Form a consortium (governments, industry, ENGOs, Aboriginal peoples) to develop & implement a national education/advocacy strategy that is effective. Governments need to promote, support and help fund the consortium, and find a way to bring multi-jurisdictional interests together in a constructive, productive and meaningful way.
  8. Reward and praise “conservation knowledge” down to the community level and foster conservation legacy knowledge, especially with new immigrants and youth.
  9. Establish criteria for rating the conservation function of various consumer products to enable consumers to more easily make informed decisions.
  10. Define what we want the legacy to look like.
  11. Promote ecological education centers that target youth and promote an understanding of biodiversity; give children the opportunity to learn about and respect nature.
  12. Provide free access government parks, wildlife refuges and other protected areas.
  13. Intergenerational transfer of conservation legacy knowledge from credible organizations/individuals, particularly to urban youth, raising awareness and “making conservation cool”. Must be youth-led and well-supported.

On Day One, tables 1-7 addressed the ecosystem based approach, and tables 8-13 looked at the socio-economic theme. After a few hours of table discussion, each table reported back in plenary with their first round of preliminary recommendations. These recommendations were consolidated during the evening of Day One and are reported verbatim in Appendix 2. During the plenary reporting several contextual comments were raised. These comments are summarized in this Appendix.

At the end of the morning on Day Two, following two hours of small group discussion on the preliminary recommendations, the tables reported back in plenary. The refinements to the preliminary recommendations were discussed and were then consolidated during the extended lunch break. These are reported verbatim in Section 4 of this report. During the plenary reporting out several contextual comments were raised. These comments are summarized in this Appendix.

Ecosystem Based Approaches
Socio-Economic Approaches
Canada’s Conservation Legacy
Written Comments on Ecosystem Based Approaches

At the beginning of the Day Two afternoon session the facilitator asked the participants in their small group session to provide any concluding comments in writing on the second version of the recommendations (detailed in Section 4). These written comments were collected by the facilitators at the end of the round table, and summarized in this Appendix.

[Notes : Some tables did not write comments on all themes. Some written comments did not clearly identify the table number. All numbers for recommendations refer to the numbers listed in Section 4 of this report. References to “preliminary recommendations” refer to those listed in Appendix 2 and can be cross-referenced against the numbers under their particular thematic heading. Several comments were flagged that did not necessarily address a specific theme. These are captured at the end of this Appendix under the heading “Written Comments on Overarching Considerations”.]

Table 1

Priority should be given to recommendations 3, 12, 11 and 4.

Table 2

Highest priority recommendations are 4 (but needs practical and workable definition), 5, 10 and 12. Also merge the “other consideration” aspects of recommendation 1 with recommendation 5.

Table 6

The priorities in implementing the ecosystem based approach should focus on the following

Table 7

Table 9

Priority should be given to recommendations 3, 4, 5 and 6

Table 11

Priority should be given to recommendations 12, 3 and 4

Table 12

Table Y

Priority should be given to recommendations 10 and 12


Written Comments on Socio-Economic Analysis (SEA)

Table 1

Priority should be given to recommendations 16, 6 and 12

Table 2

Highest priority recommendations:

Table 6

The priorities in implementing the ecosystem based approach should focus on the following:

Table 7

Table 9

Table 11

First incorporate recommendations 18-21 into preliminary recommendation 11. Combine the result with recommendation 6 and then combine the result with recommendation 1.

Table 12

Table X

Table Y


Written Comments on Canada's Conservation Legacy

Table 1

Priority should be given to recommendations 1, 5 and 2

Table 2

Table 6

Commitment

Table 7

Priority should be given to recommendations 2, 8, 11

Table 9

Priority should be given to recommendations 1, 3, 2

Table 11

Table 12

Revise recommendation 8, as follows: Amend the Canadian constitution, incorporating nature conservation as key Canadian Values.

Table X

Table Y

Merge recommendation 8 and 12


Written Comments on Overarching Considerations

[Note: The following comments do not necessarily apply to any one of the three themes.]

Table 2

Make sure everything is written in plain language.

Table 7

Table 9

Table 11

Table 12

Table Y

Summary of Participants’ Responses to the Round Table Evaluation

Forty (40) responses were received. The questionnaire responses are tabulated as follows:

The two things that were of greatest value to me were:

The responses clearly showed that the most valuable element of the round table was the opportunity for networking among participants. Participants gave very positive feedback on the diversity and varying viewpoints found among the attendees. This provided the setting for participants to be exposed to different perspectives on the issues, as well as share their own. As well as viewpoints, the sharing of information that took place was also credited as a strong positive element of considerable value.

It seems from the responses that the framework/structure, management and facilitation of the round table was what created an environment conducive to this exchange of information. Many responses cited the value of the table discussions and the corresponding mix of varying sectors at each table, with particular emphasis on the strong representation from aboriginal communities.

Examples of more specific elements that were of value are the after dinner talk by Monte Hummel, the opportunity to better understand the importance of ATK, and the emergence of some common threads for improving implementation of SARA, in particular the need for long term funding of SARA initiatives.

The two things that were of least value to me were:

A recurring concern that was raised in this section of the evaluation was the predetermined focus of the discussion. A few participants felt that the format and themes went so far as to lead discussions towards a pre-determined outcome of the round table. More common was the notion that the predetermined topics minimized the opportunity for many participants to raise issues that they felt were important and thus some key views were not expressed or discussed in plenary.

Another concern raised by several respondents was that there was not enough time to adequately discuss the agenda items, let alone time to raise other issues of concern (i.e., those that did not fall into the three predetermined themes). Suggestions included increasing the length of the round table to three days.

Further concerns noted that the second day seemed too much like it was being planned as it went along. Some participants did not like the use of voting to determine how the meeting would proceed. These same people also stated that it seemed that the second day aimed to achieve some sort of consensus, a goal which they thought was completely unrealistic.

There were also a couple of comments that the “warm-up” questions, and the documents sent out in advance were of little use.

Other comments and suggestions:
What do we need to do from here to maintain our momentum?

The vast majority of the responses to this question stressed the importance of maintaining contact with the participants. The specifics ranged from monthly status reports, to annual round tables, to holding workshops every two years to evaluate progress. A general sense emerged that asked for a quick distillation of recommendations and a subsequent public posting.

Some participants felt that in order to move forward that concerns not on the round table agenda be collected and considered. Others in fact used this evaluation as a forum to promote this goal. A recurring example of this was to ensure a consideration of North-South differences and meetings with aboriginal peoples that respects aboriginal governance when making recommendations.

Finally, an overwhelming number of respondents wanted to see some form of positive and obvious action in a timely manner. Some respondents did express doubts as to the resolve of the current government to move into the action stage.

Page details

Date modified: