How Is the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador Performing under Its Laws Designed to Protect Species at Risk?
June 28, 2024
The global biodiversity crisis is widely recognized as a threat to human survival and wellbeing, and Canada is among the members of the international community that are working actively to implement laws, policies, and programmes designed to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. At the most recent Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, which took place in Montreal in December 2022, representatives of countries around the world came together to recognize the urgent nature of the crisis and establish an updated framework for global response.
Laws designed to identify and protect species at risk are among the primary tools used by the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces and territories to address the biodiversity crisis. Although laws like this cannot address the biodiversity crisis completely and comprehensively, they play a crucial role by facilitating the identification of individual species that are most at risk, implementing some automatic protections for such species once they have been identified, and setting timelines and binding obligations for measures designed to support species management and recovery.
Active and well-resourced implementation of species at risk legislation can help us halt and reverse biodiversity loss in Canada. By the same token, failing to meet timelines and crucial commitments under these laws jeopardizes our efforts to protect imperilled species.
Since 2015, East Coast Environmental Law has been assessing and reporting on provincial protections for species at risk in Atlantic Canada. More specifically, we’ve been evaluating how provincial governments in Atlantic Canada are performing under their own laws designed to protect species at risk. We’ve been asking: Are species being assessed and designated as being in need of protection? Are timelines and obligations for management and recovery planning being met? Are species’ habitats being protected? Time and again, we’ve found that the governments are failing to meet all of the requirements they committed to meeting under their own laws. That’s why we named our reporting series Protected on Paper Only. Although we recognize and appreciate that the governments are meeting some of their legal obligations to protect species at risk, the global biodiversity crisis demands that we do better.
Today, we published the sixth installment in our Protected on Paper Only series—our first evaluation of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador’s performance under its Endangered Species Act. In it, we find that the provincial Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture is doing a great job of regularly assessing species’ statuses, identifying species in need of protection, and designating species under the Act. However, we also find that several management and recovery planning obligations under the Act have not been met, which means that important components of species protection are being delayed.
Under the Endangered Species Act,
· 24 species are designated as being “vulnerable”,
· 19 are designated as being “threatened”,
· 28 are designated as being “endangered”, and,
· sadly, 1 is now designated as being extinct.
The provincial Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture carries the legal responsibility for meeting most of the timelines and legal obligations imposed by the Act.
For the 24 species that are designated as vulnerable, our report finds that the Minister has fulfilled their obligations for 10 species but has failed to meet their obligations for 4. For the remaining species, the Minister’s obligations are not yet due.
For the 19 species that are designated as threatened, our report finds that the Minister has fulfilled their obligations for 7 species but has failed to meet their obligations for 9. For the remaining species, the Minister’s obligations are not yet due.
For the 28 species that are designated as endangered, our report finds that the Minister has fulfilled their obligations for 13 species but has failed to meet their obligations for 15.
Taken together, our findings indicate that 28 species designated under the Act are waiting for legal obligations to be met—in particular, for the development and publication of management and recovery plans identifying measures that are needed to support species conservation and recovery.
In light of these findings, our report calls on the Minister to meet their unfulfilled obligations under the Act, in particular by releasing all overdue management and recovery plans without delay.
It’s important to be clear that although the Minister is the person who carries the legal responsibility for most requirements under the Act, in practice the Minister is the representative of many people who work together to support species conservation and recovery—including departmental staff, members of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Species Status Advisory Committee, and members of provincial species recovery teams. As we note in our report, when we call on the Minister to fulfill their legal obligations under the Act, we are really calling on the Minister to facilitate—and devote adequate resources to—work that must ultimately be done by many hands.
We have no doubt that work under the Act is taken seriously by the province—the diligent work of regularly assessing species’ statuses, identifying species in need of protection, and designating those species under the Act is one of several testaments to the commitment of those who work in this sphere. But, as our report shows, some species are still falling through the cracks. Our hope is that our evaluation will inspire discussions between the Minister’s office and departmental staff so that resourcing needs and other barriers can be identified and further progress can be made.
Interested in seeing the other titles in our Protected on Paper Only series? Check out:
Tina Northrup
Staff Lawyer
Research, analysis, and writing by East Coast Environmental Law staff to prepare this report were enabled by a project grant from the Law Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador. We gratefully acknowledge and thank the Law Foundation for its support.