In our last blog, we examined how
the legislation of Endangered species in Newfoundland and Labrador compares to
what’s going in the rest of North America in terms of listing terrestrial
endangered species. However, in order truly assess how this province is doing
with its listing of endangered animals, we must draw comparisons to an even
broader scale, by comparing this provinces legislation practices to those
around the world, specifically in places like Europe and Australia. So how
efficient is the European Union in listing terrestrial endangered species?
Well, it depends on where you look. There is no legislation concerning
endangered animals that pertains to the whole European Union, but rather the
recognition, designation, and conservation of endangered species is at a
country-level, where different nations have individual, and sometimes varying,
legislation in affect to protect endangered species1. This presents
discrepancies in the quality of legislation, as well as the level in which it
is enforced, between countries2, which leads to difficulties when
trying provide adequate protection and recovery opportunity for varying
terrestrial species, especially those in which their populations span over
multiple countries. Legislation for endangered species in Newfoundland and
Labrador does not run into problems like this, as there is one single, unifying
piece of legislation for the whole island. So does this make the listing
process for endangered terrestrial species in this province “better” than some
of its global, including trans-Atlantic, counterparts? Not necessarily.
Consider for instance the
legislative consequences for endangered species in Australia, which designates
its terrestrial species as endangered through a piece of legislation called The
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Australian
legislation is coupled with conservation efforts and habitat protection for
endangered species before they are officially designated a status and recovery
plan, where as in Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as federally, a species
needs to be listed first, and a recovery plan discussed and created, before a
push to protect species habitat is seen1. Sure Newfoundland and
Labrador endangered species legislation is unified and consistent throughout
the province, but what is the point of listing species as endangered in the
first place if recovery efforts are untaken so late that the probability of
species recovery is compromised? Legislation is only as powerful as the
recovery action it initiates, and in that regard, Australia has a leg up on
this province. However, the listing of endangered terrestrial species in
Australia has been questioned in terms of its credibility and completeness, as
like many other places around the world, Australia has been accused of
displaying a bias towards the listing, and therefore the subsequent protection,
of larger species that are evolutionarily closer to humans3. After
investigating the list of Australian endangered species, this bias does not
seem to exist, especially when comparing the evenness of types of listed
species compared to those in Newfoundland and Labrador. As displayed in the
figure I constructed, Australia has listed a much more proportionate amount of
each type of species, including birds, mammals, reptiles, frogs, and fish,
whereas the listing of species in this province as endangered has been limited
to mammals and birds4,5. This can be explained in part by the fact
that Australia is home to a much larger and diverse collection of species compared
to in Newfoundland and Labrador, which has very few reptile and frog species to
begin with. Nonetheless, when comparing the completeness and diversity of
terrestrial species listed as endangered in Australia and Newfoundland and
Labrador, this province’s list of endangered species pales in comparison to the
comprehensive list recognized in Australia.
Figure 1: Comparison of bias in the listing of endangered species in Newfoundland and Labrador and Australia based on type of species (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2011; Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2009)
One area in which legislation in
Australia and Newfoundland and Labrador seem to be on an even playing field is
when we consider the opportunities presented by legislation for where habitat
can be designated as protected habitat for endangered species. In both places, legislation
permits for protection of endangered species habitat to be limited to federal
land, meaning that without consent and action by the land owner, the
conservation of crucial habitat for endangered species is only applicable to
land that is not owned by someone1. This of course can lead to
inadequate and incomplete protection of these habitats, which could potentially
lead to a dramatic decrease in the probability of recovery for the species.
So as we come to the end of our
series of blogs, we can ask ourselves again, how is Newfoundland and Labrador
doing in terms of the legislation concerning terrestrial endangered species,
compared to the national and international scale? The creation and
implementation of endangered species legislation is a fairly complex and
multi-dimensional process, and it is quite difficult to actively and critically
compared multiple pieces of legislation between places, as the power and
effectiveness of the legislation is not only the goals, processes, and
regulations described within, but also how that legislation is incorporated and
acted upon. Things we know for sure are that, like the listing and protection
of endangered species in many other places, there is plenty of room for
improvement in this province, especially when it comes to action by the
Minister in responding to SSAC assessments. Have a read through our blog over
the past couple of weeks, analyze critically the multiple examples of
endangered species legislation we have been talking about, as well as others
you can find, and create your own opinions! What do you guys think?
For more information please visit:
References:
1 Ray, J.C., and Ginsberg, J.R. 1999. Endangered species legislation beyond the borders of the United States. Conservation Biology 13(5):956-958
1 Ray, J.C., and Ginsberg, J.R. 1999. Endangered species legislation beyond the borders of the United States. Conservation Biology 13(5):956-958
2 McLean, I.F.G, Wight, A.D., and Williams, G.
1999.The role of legislation in conserving Europe’s threatened species.
Conservation Biology 13(5):966-969
3 Possingham, H.P., Andelman, S.J., Burgman,
M.A., Rodrigo, A.M., Master, L.L., and Keith, D.A. 2002. Limits to the use of
threatened species lists. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17(11):503-507
4 Department of Environment and Conservation. 2011.
Species at risk. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Retrieved on April 4th
at http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/wildlife/endangeredspecies/index.html
5 Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities. 2009. EPBC act list of threatened fauna.
Australian Government. Retrieved on April 4th at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl
Is the listing process in Australia initiated by a committee who are supposed to act independent of political, economic, and social considerations (like COSEWIC here in Canada)?
ReplyDeleteMuch like here in Newfoundland, in Australia, the listing process is determined by the Australian Government Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts who, although has the final say on which species get listed, is advised by the Biodiversity Advisory Committee, the Indigenous Advisory Committee, the Interim Independant Expert SCientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Coal Mining, and the Threatened Species Scientific Committee
DeleteIs it possible for NL to impose legislation that allows species to be considered as vulnerable before they are officially designated as an endangered species at the national level?
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the listing of endangered species provincially is not necessarily linked as such to the federal as you are implying, as it depends on things such as the animals relative abundance in the province compared to in the whole country. For instance, the Wolverine is listed as Endangered in NL, but is only listed as a species of Special Concern on the national level, which is a status that suggests much less of a population crisis. A species that would be listed as Vulnerable in the province would not necessarily then be listed as endangered on the national scale. With the Endangered Species Act here in the province, species can of course be listed as vulnerable first before being re-classified as endangered, depending on how their population in the province changes.
DeleteSell and buy used and new goods.
ReplyDeletePost ads for free or get free account via Facebook Login in one click.
More details free ad posting site list without registration