Thank you very much.
Thank you for the invitation.
As was said in the introduction, my name is Scott Findlay and I'm a professor of biology at the University of Ottawa. One of my areas of expertise is conservation biology. For the last few years I've been working with my colleague, Professor Stewart Elgie, of the Faculty of Law, in doing an assessment of SARA's performance to date.
Before we begin with the substance, I'd like to make a parenthetical comment. The first comment I would have is simply that, as a scientist, I regard SARA, like any law, as an experiment, and the purpose of the exercise is to evaluate that experiment and then use the evaluation to suggest ways in which the subsequent experiment can be improved. So the tenor of my comments is to try to see what we have done so far and to suggest ways of improving this particular piece of legislation.
Let us see how we've done so far. If you look at my brief, you will see figure 1. I think it tells the real story about SARA. If you look at the proportion of species we have thus far had available for listing, for subsequent production of recovery strategies and for critical habitat identification, it's fairly clear: we start off with 380 species that could have gone the full route of that process thus far and we're left with six for which we've thus far had complete critical habitat identification. I think it's fairly clear from these numbers that we have a little way to go in terms of the design of the instrument.
The first problem relates to listing. About 85% of species recommended for listing have indeed been listed. If you look at the ones that have not been listed and contrast those with the ones that have been listed, some patterns emerge.
The first is that the species that have not been listed tend to be those for which the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is the responsible authority, tend to be species that are harvested either commercially or for subsistence or through bycatch, and tend to be northern species. These are three general findings that tend to differentiate species that have been listed from those that have not
In regard to what we call the responsible agency effect, it seems to be fairly clear that with respect to listing, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, and Parks Canada Agency are using different processes for listing. In particular, it would appear that they're using socio-economic analysis at the listing stage to support listing decisions in a different manner. So we have this difference between the institutions that are responsible under the act for listing.
The second problem occurs at the recovery planning stage. The bottom line is that about one third of the species that ought to have had recovery strategies by now have indeed had recovery strategies, but very few of those were completed within the legislated timeframe.
So we have two problems: one being that recovery strategies are not being produced on time, certainly not within the timeframe mandated under the act, and the other that, thus far, relatively few of those that ought to have been produced have indeed been produced.
The third problem we've identified in our analysis involves critical habitat identification. As I showed in that first figure, to date, very little critical habitat has been identified. Most critical habitat that has been identified has been identified within existing protected areas. If you compare those species for which we have critical habitat identification in recovery strategies versus those for which we don't, it's fairly clear that there are some patterns that emerge.
Those patterns are shown in the third figure in my presentation. It looks to be the case that if you're a species that's found in a protected area, you're much more likely to have critical habitat identified, and if you're found on lands that are municipally owned or for which urbanization is considered an important threat, you're less likely to have critical habitat identified. In particular—and this is very interesting—in terms of the schedule of studies, which is a mandated component of recovery strategies under the act, landowner consultation is often an important element in the schedule of studies for those species that have not had critical habitat identified, so it appears that critical habitat identification is being held up because of the need for consultation.
Finally, there is the problem associated with timelines. Under the act, we have the possibility of the minister allowing for extended consultation before the recommendation is forwarded to the Governor in Council. It seems fairly clear that many species are being held up at this stage of the process. What happens is that you have species stuck in what amounts to listing purgatory for years, up to four or five years, before a decision is actually made.
Based on this analysis of SARA's performance, we have a number of specific recommendations.
The first recommendation is that, regardless of the responsible authority, they should all be following the same process for listing decisions. It shouldn't matter whether you are a bird or a reptile or a fish or a mammal; the process should be the same for all species.
The second is that there be explicit timelines imposed for extended consultations. Certainly the way this extended consultation is occurring now is not in keeping with the spirit of the act, particularly section 27, which imposed, at least notionally, a nine-month consultation period.
When the GIC proposes not to list a species, we suggest that this trigger a well-informed and transparent evaluation process and consultation process.
We recommend that the recovery planning process adhere closely to statutorily mandated timeframes.
We suggest that SARA include a specific timeline for implementation of recovery strategies—that is, action plans, for which there is no timeline within SARA now.
Sixth, we recommend that the predisposition to identify critical habitat at the recovery stage under SARA, which takes as its justification the precautionary principle, both in the preamble and in section 38, be comprehensively implemented. This has not happened up until now.
Finally, we recommend that critical habitat identification be based solely on biological criteria. Our analysis suggests that there are other factors working into that decision, and we would recommend that critical habitat identification be based solely on biological criteria.
In the final part of my brief, Professor Elgie has communicated from Papua, New Guinea, where he is now, unfortunately, and has provided some specific wording recommendations for amendments to the act that are in keeping with these recommendations.
Thank you.