CLOSE
This journal
Advanced searchCitation search
Suggested Terms:
Skip main navigation

Search Result

Anywhere
1 - 4of4
per page:
Relevance
Filters

You do not have any saved searches

  • OPEN ACCESS
    Informing Canada’s commitment to biodiversity conservation: A science-based framework to help guide protected areas designation through Target 1 and beyond
    FACETS • Vol. 3 • No. 1 • pp. 531 - 562
    Biodiversity is intrinsically linked to the health of our planet—and its people. Yet, increasingly, human activities are causing the extinction of species, degrading ecosystems, and reducing nature’s resilience to climate change and other threats. As a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Canada has a legal responsibility to protect 17% of land and freshwater by 2020. Currently, Canada has protected ∼10% of its terrestrial lands, requiring a marked increase in the pace and focus of protection over the next three years.Given the distribution, extent, and geography of Canada’s current protected areas, systematic conservation planning would provide decision-makers with a ranking of the potential for new protected area sites to stem biodiversity loss and preserve functioning ecosystems. Here, we identify five key principles for identifying lands that are likely to make the greatest contribution to reversing biodiversity declines and ensuring biodiversity persistence into the future. We identify current gaps and integrate principles of protecting (i) species at risk, (ii) representative ecosystems, (iii) intact wilderness, (iv) connectivity, and (v) climate refugia. This spatially explicit assessment is intended as an ecological foundation that, when integrated with social, economic and governance considerations, would support evidence-based protected area decision-making in Canada.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    Cross-sectoral input for the potential role of science in Canada’s environmental assessment
    FACETS • Vol. 3 • No. 1 • pp. 512 - 529
    Since being elected in 2015, Canada’s federal Liberal government has taken steps to overhaul major environment-related laws and policies, including federal environmental assessment (EA) and regulatory processes. During 2016–2017, a government-appointed panel toured Canada and received >1000 suggestions from diverse sectors of society regarding EA reform. Yet, different sectors of society may have different views concerning scientific components of EA. We analyzed written submissions during public consultation (categorized into five sectors) regarding five key scientific components of EA: (1) openly sharing information, (2) evaluating cumulative effects, (3) scientific rigour, (4) transparency in decision-making, and (5) independence between regulators and proponents. On the whole, submissions from Indigenous groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals/academics supported strengthening all five components. In contrast, most contributions from industry/industry associations, and, to a lesser extent, government bodies or agencies, suggested that there was no need for increased scientific rigour or increased independence. These findings indicate that there is cross-sectoral support for strengthening some scientific aspects of EA. However, the degree to which the Government of Canada strengthens the scientific rigour and independence of EA will indicate whether environmental decision-making in Canada is aligned with preferences from industry or the rest of Canada.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    Towards linking environmental law and science
    FACETS • Vol. 3 • No. 1 • pp. 375 - 391
    Gaps between environmental science and environmental law may undermine sound environmental decision-making. We link perspectives and insights from science and law to highlight opportunities and challenges at the environmental science–law interface. The objectives of this paper are to assist scientists who wish to conduct and communicate science that informs environmental statutes, regulations, and associated operational policies (OPs), and to ensure the environmental lawyers (and others) working to ensure that these statutes, regulations, and OPs are appropriately informed by scientific evidence. We provide a conceptual model of how different kinds of science-based activities can feed into legislative and policy cycles, ranging from actionable science that can inform decision-making windows to retrospective analyses that can inform future regulations. We identify a series of major gaps and barriers that challenge the successful linking of environmental science and law. These include (1) the different time frames for science and law, (2) the different standards of proof for scientific and legal (un)certainty, (3) the need for effective scientific communication, (4) the multijurisdictional (federal, provincial, and Indigenous) nature of environmental law, and (5) the different ethical obligations of law and science. Addressing these challenges calls for bidirectional learning among scientists and lawyers and more intentional collaborations at the law–science interface.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    Protecting biodiversity in British Columbia: Recommendations for developing species at risk legislation
    FACETS • Vol. 4 • No. 1 • pp. 136 - 160
    British Columbia has the greatest biological diversity of any province or territory in Canada. Yet increasing numbers of species in British Columbia are threatened with extinction. The current patchwork of provincial laws and regulations has not effectively prevented species declines. Recently, the Provincial Government has committed to enacting an endangered species law. Drawing upon our scientific and legal expertise, we offer recommendations for key features of endangered species legislation that build upon strengths and avoid weaknesses observed elsewhere. We recommend striking an independent Oversight Committee to provide recommendations about listing species, organize Recovery Teams, and monitor the efficacy of actions taken. Recovery Teams would evaluate and prioritize potential actions for individual species or groups of species that face common threats or live in a common area, based on best available evidence (including natural and social science and Indigenous Knowledge). Our recommendations focus on implementing an adaptive approach, with ongoing and transparent monitoring and reporting, to reduce delays between determining when a species is at risk and taking effective actions to save it. We urge lawmakers to include this strong evidentiary basis for species recovery as they tackle the scientific and socioeconomic challenges of building an effective species at risk Act.