I'm going to speak briefly on critical habitat and consultation.
The identification of critical habitat has been a slow and very contentious process. Currently, it has resulted in our having 16 species with partially or completely identified critical habitat listed on the SARA registry. This inability to identify critical habitat has led to delays in the recovery of listed species, uncertainty for entities operating on the land base, and delays of projects.
There is no guidance provided on the process for defining critical habitat or the activities that destroy it. This has resulted in inconsistent approaches by the various recovery teams, Environment Canada, and DFO. The current approach to critical habitat does not result in the most cost-effective solutions to protect species at risk and allow for their survival or recovery. This is inconsistent with the preamble of SARA, which states: “community knowledge and interests, including socio-economic interests, should be considered in developing and implementing recovery measures”.
The definition of critical habitat is resulting in dramatically different interpretations today. In the extreme, the draft critical habitat for the Sprague's pipit, a prairie bird, included all areas with a 10% or better probability of being occupied by that bird in a specific part of its range. If this approach were taken throughout the range, it would result in the identification of most of the prairies. It is hard to understand how this is compatible with a view that this is essential to the recovery or survival of the species. A similar approach was taken for the boreal caribou. The socio-economic impact of these decisions is significant and was not considered in determining critical habitat.
SARA must be amended to clearly state that the purpose of identifying critical habitat is to ensure that human activities are managed in a way that is consistent with maintaining the functions of the habitat necessary to ensure the survival or recovery of the species. This means that human activity will not, in every case, be completely prohibited in an area. Critical habitat must only be the habitat that's actually essential to the survival or recovery of the species or ecosystem. Thus, in some cases critical habitat is not the way to effectively protect a species or an ecosystem.
CAPP recommends an amendment to SARA whereby habitat, as opposed to critical habitat, is identified at the recovery strategy stage, along with a specific plan to manage, monitor, and assess the habitat for the purposes of identifying critical habitat or other ways of effectively protecting the species at the action plan stage.
A number of CAPP's member companies that are directly affected parties have not been asked to participate in the recovery teams or to participate in any manner in the recovery planning efforts. As a result, recovery strategies have been developed over long periods of time, with many person-hours and dollars spent, with no input from directly affected companies. Companies are potential sources of valuable resources and scientific information on the species located in the lands where they operate. For example, recovery strategies for the tiny cryptanthe and Sprague's pipit were drafted with no meaningful consultation from our sector. The strategies indicated that oil and gas activities were a threat to these species. So there was an awareness that there were directly affected parties, and yet no consultation occurred.
CAPP recommends that SARA be amended to incorporate a definition of directly affected parties and that a regulation be created for one transparent, collaborative process to be followed at all stages of SARA.
In conclusion, a command and control approach is the opposite of what we need to have; we need a collaborative, cooperative approach. Minor changes to the act are all that are required to enable this approach. CAPP looks forward to working with the federal government to find ways of effectively amending and implementing SARA to meet all of our needs.
Thank you.