Thank you, Sarah. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee members.
I'm going to be talking about recovery planning challenges.
Strict, mandated timelines are imposed for the preparation and posting on the SARA public registry of recovery strategies and management plans for listed species. As of December 31, 2008, completed and posted recovery strategies were required for 278 species at risk. In addition, management plans were due for 56 species of special concern. In total, recovery strategies for 106 species were completed by that date.
The identification and consequent protection of critical habitat are necessary to the recovery and/or survival of most listed species. The purpose of identifying critical habitat is to ensure that human activities are managed in a way that is consistent with maintaining the biological functions of the habitat necessary to ensure the survival or recovery of the species. Effective protection guidelines can be used to define appropriate management activities.
SARA states that “to the extent possible” the identification of critical habitat must be included in all recovery strategies and in all action plans “based on the best available information”. Of the 106 recovery strategies posted to date, critical habitat has been identified for 22 species.
SARAC strongly urges that the federal government dedicate adequate financial and human resources to clear the backlog of incomplete recovery strategies as expeditiously as possible. An effective approach must be developed in concert with interested parties to clear the backlog. This approach should also ensure the timely development of recovery strategies upcoming in the future. The finalization of the numerous policy and operational guidance documents that are being developed in consultation with partners will be instrumental in moving forward on this initiative.
SARAC strongly emphasizes that the composition of recovery strategy teams include both governmental and non-governmental experts. In this regard, SARAC believes that recovery teams would benefit from more proactive and inclusive composition of teams. More focused and consistent mandates for recovery teams are essential.
At times, recovery strategies suffer from disjointed, all-inclusive approaches that seem to have been patched together by several authors. The quality and usefulness of recovery strategies would be improved through independent scientific review and through posting the results of those reviews.
I am now going to talk about action plans.
SARA states that a timeline for the completion of each action plan must be specified in each recovery strategy. Core departments have fallen short of the deadlines specified by the act for the preparation of recovery strategies, thus impeding the completion of action plans. To date, there are very few action plans in development, due in part, it would appear, to the lack of human and financial resources available to complete the recovery strategies and the guidance documents needed for their development.
Finally, I'm going to touch on ecosystem approaches.
Recovery planning efforts to date have focused primarily on individual species approaches. SARAC urges a review of the recovery planning provisions in the act, as well as implementation policies, to allow for the more effective use, in appropriate circumstances, of ecosystem, multi-species, and species assemblages approaches as part of the recovery planning process. To this end, the core departments, in concert with non-government experts, need to finalize and implement uniform working definitions for the terms “ecosystem approach”, “species assemblages approach” and “multi-species approach”.
I'm now going to turn you over to my colleague, Mr. McGuinness.