Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for giving Wildlife Habitat Canada the opportunity to present some ideas for your study on habitat conservation. The details of who we are and what we do are in the speaking notes, so I'll just summarize.
We were created in 1984 by the federal, provincial, and territorial governments and conservation organizations when it was recognized that waterfowl populations across North America were plummeting. The bulk of our funding is derived from the sale of the Canadian wildlife habitat conservation stamp, which is purchased primarily by hunters to validate their migratory bird hunting permits. Through a contribution agreement with Environment Canada, we get the funds from the sale of the stamp, which we administer on conservation projects across Canada.
The first question you asked us was what types of stakeholders are involved in habitat conservation and how much this accounts for total efforts in Canada. “Stakeholder” is an interesting term. In this context it lends itself to defining those who are actually involved in doing the work necessary to conserve wildlife habitat. Stakeholders can range from groups of schoolchildren cleaning up a stream bank, to community groups working locally in their neighbourhoods, to provincial organizations such as the Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation and the Alberta Conservation Association, through to national conservation organizations such as the Nature Conservancy of Canada, Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl and, of course, Wildlife Habitat Canada.
It's important to go beyond the stakeholders we know to involve all of society. While it may sound trite, simply stated, each person has to understand that if they breathe air, drink water, and consume agricultural and natural resource products, then they are a stakeholder.
It should also be recognized that the original stakeholders who founded the conservation movement in North America and paid for the bulk of habitat conservation were the anglers and hunters. They continue to provide funds through licence and permit fees and voluntary contributions of both time and money to conservation projects and fundraising events.
It's difficult to accurately quantify the conservation work done by the range of stakeholders because so much of it is unreported. For larger groups, one can get a sense of their efforts and accomplishments by reviewing their annual reports and publications, while local efforts may be documented only in community newspapers, if at all. In the past, Wildlife Habitat Canada produced reports on the status of wildlife habitat in Canada that were used by various organizations to assist with their conservation planning.
The second question was on whether Canada has publicly available knowledge and expertise on habitat conservation, what the sources of this information are, and how it is disseminated. Canada has a large amount of information—read knowledge and expertise—on habitat conservation. One only need ask and look. There are a number of very good sources available, such as the websites and publications of the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, and the regional and national non-government conservation organizations. And many of the NGOs provide periodic updates on the work they're doing in the form of electronic newsletters. The key is that one needs to know where to look and what questions to ask. It would be helpful if there was a wider distribution of this information, perhaps through the press, especially to new Canadians.
The third question was on what the most effective habitat conservation groups or organizations are and what actions they take. All groups can be very effective. It depends on the level, scope, and geographic extent of the project undertaken and how “effective” is defined. Some define it by most acres conserved, others by return on dollars invested in habitat conservation, and others the number of people who are participating. We use all of those criteria and more.
The local cleanup projects see immediate results. They're hands-on actions. Larger groups produce multi-year plans at the regional level, such as the Prairie Habitat Joint Venture, which covers Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, or at the national level, such as the North American waterfowl management plan. These plans often include acquiring critical habitats in perpetuity through outright purchase or long-term easements, and physically modifying sites to restore vegetation, hydrology, and other ecological functions, to name a few. Other habitat conservation actions include education and demonstration projects.
Groups often use the press, Internet, and social media as community outreach tools to promote habitat work and project results while recruiting volunteers.
As to who the most effective habitat conservation organizations are, this is often expressed in terms of those groups that are able to minimize overhead while delivering on-the-ground habitat conservation projects. Some have already been named in my remarks regarding the first question.
The fourth question was how “conserved land” is defined and accounted for in Canada, and whether that definition is different from that in other countries. Within Canada there are differences of opinion regarding the definition of conserved land and how it is accounted for and reported in various databases. At Wildlife Habitat Canada, for example, we try to use a broad definition to help our conservation partners with the work they do. Habitat conservation can mean or include the acquisition, restoration, enhancement, and management of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Having worked all across Canada as well as in the United States, Mexico, and the Caribbean, I have seen that all countries use similar definitions for habitat conservation.
The point is not how habitat conservation is defined yet rather how it's achieved. At the heart of the matter is that there are a lot of good people doing a lot of good work trying to achieve habitat—and thus wildlife—conservation, no matter how it's defined.
Do we need to have a universal definition of conserved land in Canada? How much time will this take, and in the end what purpose will it really serve? I think the time has come to implement the actions we know are needed before it's too late.
The fifth question was, when it comes to recovering a species, how best management practices and stewardship initiatives compare to prescriptive government-mandated measures. Best management practices such as farm plans, biodiversity plans, and the like can be very effective on their own as long as there is a public that is willing to initiate those actions on a voluntary or subsidized basis.
While at times prescriptive measures must be part of the planning tool box, because the general public, most of whom have lost their connection with nature, often do not understand what is happening in the natural world around them, government-mandated measures, including legislation, can be very effective in guiding land use to direct conservation efforts in order to help declining species. But on a cautionary note, one has to be careful how it's done. Government programs can often be very bureaucratic and frustrating, with more money being spent on managing the bureaucratic process than actually going into on-the-ground habitat-conservation work.
The sixth and final question was on how the federal government can improve habitat conservation efforts in Canada. Simply stated, it's by completing a national conservation plan as soon as possible. In the meantime, there could be more effort directed toward public education and active involvement in habitat conservation. For example, more could be done on connecting youth with nature by promoting the immediate and long-term benefits, especially in the areas of health and education. As well, we need to develop ways of involving new Canadians in wildlife habitat conservation and educating them about the importance of being active participants.
There are tax incentives that provide some financial relief, yet perhaps more is necessary in this area when one considers the actual cash value of ecological goods and services.
We need to work on fostering a cultural shift in society that began with the advent of the blue box. The Ontario government provides an example of how this could be done. They recently published their plan to conserve biodiversity by establishing actions and activities within individual government ministries. Hopefully over time, people will take home what they are doing at work and the message will spread.
On a final note, we purposely left out the studies and statistics regarding rates of habitat loss and degradation. The fact that we are here today underscores that point, and I'm sure others will likely cover those details. In moving forward it is important that habitat conservation actions taken in the future be economically viable. Canada must move forward to improve habitat conservation but also remain cognizant of the natural resources industries upon which our society relies.
We face a future of uncertainty. As alternate sources of energy are developed, there will be new challenges on the landscape related to land use and habitat conservation. Climate change and species adaptation will likely cause shifts in the way we approach habitat planning in the future. Maintaining a healthy balance between habitat conservation and economic development will be difficult, yet we believe it can be achieved.
Thank you very much.