Critical habitat designation for Canadian listed species: Slow, biased, and incomplete. Issue 71 (May 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bird, Sarah C.; Hodges, Karen E.
• Is Part Of: Environmental science & policy. Issue 71(2017:May)
• Page Start: 1
• Page End: 8
• Publication Date: 2017-05
• Subjects: Critical habitat -- Canada -- Species at Risk Act -- Threats -- Endangered species -- Recovery strategies; Environmental policy -- Periodicals; Environmental sciences -- Periodicals; Environnement -- Politique gouvernementale -- Périodiques; Sciences de l'environnement -- Périodiques; Environmental policy; Environmental sciences; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 363.70561
• DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.01.007
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1462-9011

Abstract

Highlights: Environmental laws are only as good as their implementation. Canada's Species at Risk Act requires Recovery Strategies with Critical Habitat. Many listed species still lack both Recovery Strategies and Critical Habitat. There are biases in which species have obtained their legally mandated protections. For this law to be effective, much stronger implementation is needed. Abstract: Although endangered species legislation can be a powerful tool for protecting species, such laws are only as good as their implementation. Under the Canadian Species at Risk Act, Critical Habitat is designated in a Recovery Strategy as the habitat required for the recovery or survival of a listed species. We examined the finalized Recovery Strategies for 234 species and we found poor implementation of Critical Habitat designation for Canadian species. Most listed species (62.9%) lack Critical Habitat; only 11.8% have full Critical Habitat. Many species with Critical habitat obtained it years later than the statutory requirements. Designation is biased taxonomically, by major habitat type, and by lead agency. These results echo findings from the US Endangered Species Act, despite differences between the laws in when designation is supposed to occur. Additional funding and expertise would likely help reduce these delays. We also strongly encourage designation even in the face of incomplete information because of the significant negative consequences that can result from failure to protect the habitat of species at risk of extinction.