Applied Filters
- Perspective
- Conservation and SustainabilityRemove filter
- Science and PolicyRemove filter
- FACETSRemove filter
- Open AccessRemove filter
Topics
Publication Date
Author
- Cooke, Steven J4
- Bennett, Joseph R3
- Jacob, Aerin L2
- Lapointe, Nicolas W R2
- Abrams, Alice E I1
- Aitken, Sally1
- Algera, Dirk A1
- Alook, Sharlene1
- Anctil, François1
- Armitage, D1
- Auld, G1
- Bard, Brittany1
- Beazley, Karen F1
- Bennett, Elena1
- Berkes, Fikret1
- Bernstein, Steven1
- Bihun, Christian J1
- Bleau, Nathalie1
- Bourque, Alain1
- Bowles, Ella1
- Brooks, Jill L1
- Brown, Bryson1
- Burch, Sarah1
- Byrne, James1
- Cooke, S J1
Access Type
1 - 13of13
Save this search
Please login to be able to save your searches and receive alerts for new content matching your search criteria.
Filters
You do not have any saved searches
- OPEN ACCESSContemporary conservation problems are typically positioned at the interface of complex ecological and human systems. Traditional approaches aiming to compartmentalize a phenomenon within the confines of a single discipline and failing to engage non-science partners are outmoded and cannot identify solutions that have traction in the social, economic, and political arenas in which conservation actions must operate. As a result, conservation science teams must adopt multiple disciplinary approaches that bridge not only academic disciplines but also the political and social realms and engage relevant partners. Five reasons are presented that outline why conservation problems demand multiple disciplinary approaches in order to move forward because: (i) socio-ecological systems are complex, (ii) multiple perspectives are better than one, (iii) the results of research must influence practice, (iv) the heterogeneity of scale necessitates it, and (v) conservation involves compromise. Presenting reasons that support multiple disciplinarity demands a review of the barriers that impede this process, as we are far from attaining a model or framework that is applicable in all contexts. Two challenges that impede multiple disciplinarity are discussed, in addition to pragmatic solutions that conservation scientists and practitioners can adopt in their work. Overall, conservation researchers and practitioners are encouraged to explore the multiple disciplinary dimensions of their respective realms to more effectively solve problems in biodiversity and sustainability.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Catherine Potvin,
- Divya Sharma,
- Irena Creed,
- Sally Aitken,
- François Anctil,
- Elena Bennett,
- Fikret Berkes,
- Steven Bernstein,
- Nathalie Bleau,
- Alain Bourque,
- Bryson Brown,
- Sarah Burch,
- James Byrne,
- Ashlee Cunsolo,
- Ann Dale,
- Deborah de Lange,
- Bruno Dyck,
- Martin Entz,
- José Etcheverry,
- Rosine Faucher,
- Adam Fenech,
- Lauchlan Fraser,
- Irene Henriques,
- Andreas Heyland,
- Matthew Hoffmann,
- George Hoberg,
- Meg Holden,
- Gordon Huang,
- Aerin L. Jacob,
- Sebastien Jodoin,
- Alison Kemper,
- Marc Lucotte,
- Roxane Maranger,
- Liat Margolis,
- Ian Mauro,
- Jeffrey McDonnell,
- James Meadowcroft,
- Christian Messier,
- Martin Mkandawire,
- Catherine Morency,
- Normand Mousseau,
- Ken Oakes,
- Sarah Otto,
- Pamela Palmater,
- Taysha Sharlene Palmer,
- Dominique Paquin,
- Anthony Perl,
- André Potvin,
- Howard Ramos,
- Ciara Raudsepp-Hearne,
- Natalie Richards,
- John Robinson,
- Stephen Sheppard,
- Suzanne Simard,
- Brent J. Sinclair,
- Natalie Slawinski,
- Mark Stoddart,
- Marc-André Villard,
- Claude Villeneuve, and
- Tarah Wright
This perspective documents current thinking around climate actions in Canada by synthesizing scholarly proposals made by Sustainable Canada Dialogues (SCD), an informal network of scholars from all 10 provinces, and by reviewing responses from civil society representatives to the scholars’ proposals. Motivated by Canada’s recent history of repeatedly missing its emissions reduction targets and failing to produce a coherent plan to address climate change, SCD mobilized more than 60 scholars to identify possible pathways towards a low-carbon economy and sustainable society and invited civil society to comment on the proposed solutions. This perspective illustrates a range of Canadian ideas coming from many sectors of society and a wealth of existing inspiring initiatives. Solutions discussed include climate change governance, low-carbon transition, energy production, and consumption. This process of knowledge synthesis/creation is novel and important because it provides a working model for making connections across academic fields as well as between academia and civil society. The process produces a holistic set of insights and recommendations for climate change actions and a unique model of engagement. The different voices reported here enrich the scope of possible solutions, showing that Canada is brimming with ideas, possibilities, and the will to act. - OPEN ACCESSAlthough a diversity of approaches to wildlife management persists in Canada and the United States of America, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (NAM) is a prevailing model for state, provincial, and federal agencies. The success of the NAM is both celebrated and refuted amongst scholars, with most arguing that a more holistic approach is needed. Colonial rhetoric permeates each of the NAM’s constituent tenets—yet, beyond these cultural and historical problems are the NAM’s underlying conservation values. In many ways, these values share common ground with various Indigenous worldviews. For example, the idea of safeguarding wildlife for future generations, utilizing best available knowledge to solve problems, prioritizing collaboration between nations, and democratizing the process of conserving wildlife all overlap in the many ways that the NAM and common models of Indigenous-led conservation are operationalized. Working to identify shared visions and address necessary amendments of the NAM will advance reconciliation, both in the interest of nature and society. Here, we identify the gaps and linkages between the NAM and Indigenous-led conservation efforts across Canada. We impart a revised NAM—the Indigenizing North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (I-NAM)—that interweaves various Indigenous worldviews and conservation practice from across Canada. We emphasize that the I-NAM should be a continuous learning process that seeks to update and coexist with the NAM, but not replace Indigenous-led conservation.
- OPEN ACCESSAccounting for ecosystem services (ES)—the ways in which society and people directly benefit from ecological processes and functions—is crucial for developing sustainable landscape management approaches that consider the interrelationship between people and nature. Previous research has produced models that estimate the provision of potential ES by landscapes to help inform policy and stakeholder decision-making. However, most modelling efforts do not consider the delivery of ES to specific human populations or communities, making it difficult to evaluate any possible human welfare implications from alternative land use planning scenarios. In this paper, we first explore the recent state of science of ES modelling from the perspective of ES provision and delivery to the people that benefit from them. Second, we propose the addition of some essential aspects of complexity using the classic social–ecological system framework, crucial for developing models to inform pragmatic decision-making. Our propositions are illustrated using simplified examples inspired by sea otter conservation in the seascapes of British Columbia. Integrating these concepts in future ES models should serve as a baseline for future management approaches that more adequately capture the important implications of landscape scenarios on human well-being.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Connor H. Reid,
- Emma J. Hudgins,
- Jessika D. Guay,
- Sean Patterson,
- Alec M. Medd,
- Steven J. Cooke, and
- Joseph R. Bennett
Invasive alien species (IAS) pose threats to native biodiversity globally and are linked to numerous negative biodiversity impacts throughout Canada. Considering the Canadian federal government’s commitments to environmental stewardship (e.g., the Convention on Biological Diversity), the successful management of IAS requires an understanding of how federal infrastructure, strategies, and decisions have contributed to previous outcomes. Here, we present an analysis of current efforts by the federal government to prevent IAS establishment in Canadian ecosystems and the unique challenges associated with Canadian IAS management. We then examine historical and current case studies of IAS in Canada with variable outcomes. By drawing comparisons with IAS management in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, we discuss how the Canadian government may refine its policies and practices to enable more effective responses to IAS threats. We conclude by considering how future interacting stressors (e.g., climate change) will shape how we address IAS threats, and list six lessons for successful management. Most importantly, Canada must regard biodiversity impacts from IAS with as much urgency as direct economic impacts that have historically garnered more attention. Although we focus on Canada, our findings may also be useful in other jurisdictions facing similar challenges with IAS management. - OPEN ACCESS
- Dirk A. Algera,
- Kate L. Neigel,
- Kerri Kosziwka,
- Alice E.I. Abrams,
- Daniel M. Glassman,
- Joseph R. Bennett,
- Steven J. Cooke, and
- Nicolas W.R. Lapointe
American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) were used as a case study to assess whether Ontario’s Endangered Species Act proponent-driven regulatory approach resulted in successful imperilled species management outcomes. American Eel observation databases and proponent-prepared mitigation plans and monitoring data were used to assess whether: (i) facilities within the distribution range were registered, (ii) effects monitoring protocols were adequate to evaluate adverse effects of facilities, (iii) proponents implemented mitigation actions that followed best management practices (BMPs), and (iv) effectiveness monitoring designs were adequate to evaluate effectiveness of mitigation actions. Less than half of the facilities (8 of 17) within the extant species range were registered. Few eels were observed at each facility, precluding proponents from effectively evaluating the facilities’ effects. Mitigation actions following BMPs were only implemented for eel out-migration at three facilities. Half of the registered facilities implemented effectiveness monitoring, but experimental designs did not follow best practices and standards. To improve this proponent-driven approach, regulators could reduce ambiguity in regulation language and provide clearer, quantitative requirements for facility registration, effects monitoring, mitigation actions, and effectiveness monitoring. Proponents could improve monitoring efforts to establish species occurrence and generate baseline data to measure facility effects and mitigation action effectiveness. - OPEN ACCESS
- Morgan L. Piczak,
- Jill L. Brooks,
- Brittany Bard,
- Christian J. Bihun,
- Andrew Howarth,
- Amanda L. Jeanson,
- Luc LaRochelle,
- Joseph R. Bennett,
- Nicolas W. R. Lapointe,
- Nicholas E. Mandrak, and
- Steven J. Cooke
A seminal report by Peter H. Pearse (1988; Rising to the Challenge: A New Policy for Canada’s Freshwater Fisheries, Canadian Wildlife Federation, Ottawa) outlined 62 policy recommendations focused on the management of Canada’s inland fisheries. Over three decades later, freshwater ecosystems and inland fisheries in Canada are still facing similar challenges with many emerging ones that could not have been foreseen. Here, we reflect on the contemporary relevance of the Pearse Report and propose recommendations that policy makers should consider. Broadly, our recommendations are: (1) manage fishes, fisheries, and habitat using a holistic co-management framework, with clearly defined fishery jurisdictions and partnerships with Indigenous governments; (2) engage in transparent, inclusive, and agile research to support decision-making; (3) facilitate knowledge co-production, involving interdisciplinary projects with diverse groups of actors and sectors including Indigenous Peoples, anglers, policy makers, scientists/researchers, governments, and the public; (4) embrace technological advances to support freshwater fisheries stock assessment and management; and (5) align policy and management activities in Canada with global initiatives related to increasing the sustainability of inland fisheries. We advocate for an updated comprehensive report such as the Pearse Report to ensure that we embrace robust, inclusive, and sustainable management strategies and policies for Canada’s inland fisheries for the next 30 years. It is time to again rise to the challenge. - OPEN ACCESS
- Christopher J. Lemieux,
- Karen F. Beazley,
- David MacKinnon,
- Pamela Wright,
- Daniel Kraus,
- Richard Pither,
- Lindsay Crawford,
- Aerin L. Jacob, and
- Jodi Hilty
The first draft of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) includes an unprecedented call for states that have ratified the treaty (Parties) to implement measures to maintain and enhance ecological connectivity as urgent actions to abate further biodiversity loss and ecosystem decline. Considering the challenges that lie ahead for Parties to the CBD, we highlight the ways in which effective and equitable connectivity conservation can be achieved through four transformative changes, including: (1) mainstreaming connectivity retention and restoration within biodiversity conservation sector and influencing sectors (e.g., transportation, energy, agriculture, forestry); (2) mainstreaming financial resources and incentives to support effective implementation; (3) fostering collaboration with a focus on cross-sector collective action; and (4) investing in diverse forms of knowledge (co-)production and management in support of adaptive governance. We detail 15 key actions that can be used to support the implementation of these transformative changes. While ambitious, the transformative changes and associated key actions recommended in this perspective will need to be put in place with unprecedented urgency, coherency, and coordination if Parties to the CBD truly aspire to achieve the goals and targets of the forthcoming Post-2020 GBF in this new decade of biodiversity. - OPEN ACCESSThis perspective essay examines the role of conservation law in contributing to biodiversity decline by exploring how current conservation laws exacerbate the challenges Canada faces. We contend that there are three intertwined foundation-setting functions of conservation law: they codify priorities and values, define and influence acceptable conservation behaviour, and drive the establishment of the institutions, programs, and governance arrangements of today’s conservation regime. We describe these functions and then assess whether conservation laws in Canada are adequately fulfilling the functions. We find that the federal conservation law regime is sub-optimal and likely incapable of halting and reversing the negative biodiversity trends. Based on this, we suggest a set of conservation legislative principles capable of catalyzing change and supporting the transition to a more sustainable conservation future.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Nicolas Mansuy,
- Diana Staley,
- Sharlene Alook,
- Brenda Parlee,
- Alexandra Thomson,
- Danika Billie Littlechild,
- Matthew Munson, and
- Fred Didzena
Wilderness and national parks play a fundamental role in defining Canadian identity, yet Indigenous Peoples have historically been excluded from conservation decisions, resulting in systematic dispossession and oppression. In this article, we collaborate with Dene Tha'First Nation to discuss the recent paradigm shift towards Indigenous-led conservation and propose guiding principles to advance and assert the critical role of Indigenous Peoples in conservation. We begin with a brief history of Indigenous Peoples in conservation, followed by the concept of Indigenous protected and conserved areas (IPCAs). Our analyses show that IPCAs have gained momentum recently, driven by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Canada's commitment to global conservation goals. With one of the largest landmasses and Indigenous populations in the world, IPCAs in Canada have the potential to make immense contributions to environmental and cultural conservation rooted in an intrinsic relationship to the land. Despite this biocultural diversity, as of 2022, less than 1% of Canada's landmass is declared as Indigenous-led protected areas. However, more than 50 Indigenous communities across the country have currently received funding to establish IPCAs or to undertake early planning and engagement that could position Canada as a global leader in Indigenous-led conservation. As the Government of Canada aims to designate 25% of the territory as protected space by 2025 and 30% by 2030, embedding Indigenous rights, knowledge, and values in the national conservation strategy will be essential to simultaneously honoring the commitments to reconciliation and meeting the ambitious targets stipulated in the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. - OPEN ACCESSDespite some progress, successful co-management in Canada has remained the exception rather than the rule, and especially so in jurisdictions not covered by a comprehensive land claims agreement. As such, our aim in this perspective is to identify and describe some of the primary factors that may impede more rapid progress toward successful co-management and to explore why they persist, with particular attention to fisheries and marine contexts. Specifically, we outline several institutional conditions that are likely to impede broader adoption of co-management approaches in Canada, including (1) antiquated and incomplete legislative arrangements; (2) a co-management policy vacuum that has not grappled with emerging expectations for co-governance; (3) relative absence of the knowledge co-production systems needed to create the precursors for successful co-management initiatives; and (4) financial and human resource capacity limitations. Such conditions must also be situated in a dynamic context that includes the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ongoing reconciliation processes, and shifts in the ownership and use of fisheries and other marine resources. We offer, finally, some suggestions to augment co-management efforts and ultimately achieve its promise.
- OPEN ACCESS
Can fisheries be “regenerative”? Adapting agroecological concepts for fisheries and the blue economy
Regenerative design, in which agricultural practices are organized to work with nutrient cycles and successional processes, is increasingly being explored in food systems research and practice. In this commentary, I explore whether regenerative design concepts can be adapted to marine contexts, given increased global interest in the potential of marine ecosystems to support sustainable development, i.e., the blue economy. There are numerous fundamental ecological differences between terrestrial and marine ecologies that make it difficult to directly translate regenerative farming's focus on managing the nutrient cycle. However, building on a framework for regenerative food systems that focuses on how production activities are organized rather than the specific practices and technologies in use, I find multiple useful parallels to familiar patterns in the fisheries literature, specifically, fishing down the food web, poverty traps, and portfolio-based fishing. I conclude with a discussion of directions for research on regenerative fisheries and concerns regarding the potential for greenwashing under the banner of a regenerative blue economy. - OPEN ACCESS
- S.J. Cooke,
- J. Vermey,
- J.J. Taylor,
- T. Rytwinski,
- W.M. Twardek,
- G. Auld,
- R. Van Bogaert, and
- A.L. MacDonald
Assisted migration is increasingly being considered as a potential climate change adaptation tactic even though it also comes with potential risk to ecosystems and society. When implementing conservation actions that involve risk, it is prudent to have policies and guidelines to ensure that such actions are conducted in ways that conform to regional standards and consider risks. Here, we report on a policy scan focused on assisted migration in the context of climate change adaptation originally as a protected areas tactic only, but then broadened to ecosystems in Canada beyond those boundaries. Policy scans are a useful strategy for understanding the evolving policy and regulatory landscape for a given topic and can guide the development of such policies in other jurisdictions. Our scan focused on Canada, where multi-scalar governance systems exist relevant to biodiversity and environmental management. Our comprehensive policy scan (involving scans of legislation, policies, and guidelines found online and through direct inquiries with government bodies) revealed major gaps in the assisted migration policy landscape with very few provincial/territorial or federal policies in Canada. A more rudimentary scan in the United States revealed a similar pattern. There was evidence that some jurisdictions anticipated need for such policies and even a few examples of very specific policies (e.g., seeds) that had already been developed, but there were not comprehensive policies or frameworks. Governments and other relevant bodies/organizations may wish to consider working collaboratively toward the development of robust, evidence-based policies for assisted migration given that we anticipate this conservation intervention becoming more popular as climate change impacts on ecosystems become more evident and dire.