CLOSE
Advanced searchCitation search
Suggested Terms:
Skip main navigation

Search Result

1 - 6of6
per page:
Relevance
Filters

You do not have any saved searches

  • OPEN ACCESS
    Open government data and environmental science: a federal Canadian perspective
    FACETS • Vol. 5 • No. 1 • pp. 942 - 962
    Governments worldwide are releasing data into the public domain via open government data initiatives. Many such data sets are directly relevant to environmental science and complement data collected by academic researchers to address complex and challenging environmental problems. The Government of Canada is a leader in open data among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, generating and releasing troves of valuable research data. However, achieving comprehensive and FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) open government data is not without its challenges. For example, identifying and understanding Canada’s international commitments, policies, and guidelines on open data can be daunting. Similarly, open data sets within the Government of Canada are spread across a diversity of repositories and portals, which may hinder their discoverability. We describe Canada’s federal initiatives promoting open government data, and outline where data sets of relevance to environmental science can be found. We summarize research data management challenges identified by the Government of Canada, plans to modernize the approach to open data for environmental science and best practices for data discoverability, access, and reuse.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    Fixing the Canadian Species at Risk Act: identifying major issues and recommendations for increasing accountability and efficiency
    FACETS • Vol. 6 • pp. 1474 - 1494
    Since the implementation of the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) in 2003, deficiencies in SARA and its application have become clear. Legislative and policy inconsistencies among responsible federal agencies and the use of a subjective approach for prioritizing species protection lead to taxonomic biases in protection. Variations in legislation among provinces/territories and the reluctance of the federal government to take actions make SARA’s application often inefficient on nonfederally managed lands. Ambiguous key terms (e.g., critical habitat) and disregard for legislated deadlines in many steps impede the efficacy of SARA. Additionally, the failure to fully recognize Indigenous knowledge and to seek Indigenous cooperation in the species protection process leads to weaker government accountability, promotes inequity, and leads to missed opportunities for partnerships. New legislative amendments with well-defined and standardized steps, including an automatic listing process, a systematic prioritization program, and clearer demands (e.g., mandatory threshold to trigger safety net/emergency order) would improve the success of species at risk protection. Moreover, a more inclusive approach that brings Indigenous representatives and independent scientists together is necessary for improving SARA’s effectiveness. These changes have the potential to transform SARA into a more powerful act towards protecting Canada’s at-risk wildlife. (The graphical abstract follows.)
  • OPEN ACCESS
    The state of Canada’s biosecurity efforts to protect biodiversity from species invasions
    FACETS • Vol. 6 • pp. 1922 - 1954
    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
    Assessing a proponent-driven process for endangered species threat mitigation: Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, American Eel, and hydropower
    FACETS • Vol. 7 • pp. 153 - 173
    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
    Revisiting the challenge: perspectives on Canada’s freshwater fisheries policies three decades after the Pearse Report
    FACETS • Vol. 7 • pp. 912 - 935
    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
    Assessing species at risk legislation across Canadian provinces and territories
    FACETS • Vol. 9 • pp. 1 - 18
    Canada’s provinces and territories govern species at risk across most of Canada, with the federal Species at Risk Act generally covering only aquatic species, migratory birds, and species living on federal land. More than a decade after a 2012 report by the environmental law charity Ecojustice on species at risk protection in Canada, we use the same criteria to evaluate the current state of provincial and territorial species at risk legislation, and we provide updates on changes in each jurisdiction since 2012. These criteria are as follows: whether at-risk species are being identified, whether these species are being protected, whether their habitat is being protected, and whether species recovery plans are being created and implemented. We find that there is considerable variation across jurisdictions, with shortcomings that result in inadequate protections for at-risk species, as well as strong components that should be adopted by all jurisdictions. We recommend seven key areas for improvement: dedicated and harmonized legislation, limited discretionary power, increased embrace of scientific and Indigenous knowledge, appropriate timelines for actions, reasonable exemptions to protections, habitat protection across land ownership types, and transparency throughout the process. We urge policymakers to address current shortcomings as they work toward meeting Canada’s biodiversity conservation commitments.