Have you ever seen a swift fox on your land? How about a ferruginous hawk? You probably haven't -- most Canadian farmers haven't, and likely won't. These are two of Canada's 243 species now at risk of extinction. Although rarely seen, they are key players in the web of life. They make up ecosystems which maintain ecological functions, and provide medicines such as cancer-fighting drugs, and genes which protect agricultural crops from pests and disease.
More so than most other Canadians, farmers understand the land and the value of protecting ecosystems. While they have acted on this for a long time, the government has only begun to do so recently. Until now Canada has not had national legislation to protect endangered species. And as a result, our country has lost 20 species, and has allowed hundreds of others to move towards extinction. Now, urged on by a groundswell of public support for endangered species legislation at the national level --over 80, 000 names on a petition, and thousands of letters to Ottawa -- the government has released a draft version of endangered species legislation. Unfortunately, because of several overwhelming weaknesses, the draft bill puts Canada at risk of completely missing its goal of protecting endangered species. The bill neither protects species at risk on public lands, nor does it support farmers' important stewardship efforts.
Many people believe that Canada already has endangered species legislation because it has an official list of species at risk. The problem is that even once listed, species receive no legal protection. As Stewart Elgie of the federal Task Force on Endangered Species puts it: "That's like a hospital that registers their patients, assesses their needs, but doesn't treat them". Beyond that, only four of our twelve provinces and territories have any kind of endangered species legislation at all, and theirs are all ineffective in a number of significant ways.
The result is that efforts to protect species at risk have been on a piecemeal basis. Farmers have been the key players in many of these efforts. They have protected riparian areas, grown cover crops, and set aside critical habitat. In doing this farmers have helped to protect ecosystems and species at risk from coast to coast - from wetlands in the east, to the burrowing owl in the west.
There are two serious problems, however, with Canada's piecemeal approach to protecting species. The first is that many of farmers' stewardship efforts have been uphill struggles. Farmers' efforts have been discouraged, or even thwarted, by disincentives and the lack of positive incentives and assistance. The farmer who sets land aside for conservation purposes is still forced to pay tax on that land. Why shouldn't he or she be given a serious tax break? Policies encourage farmers to drain wetlands and to cultivate marginal lands. The farmer may benefit here (in the short term), but the environment loses, permanently. Policies that benefit both the farmer and the environment are very hard for interested farmers to find. The popular Permanent Cover Program was a good example of this kind of program.....but it has recently gone the way of the passenger pigeon.
The second problem with Canada's approach is simple: it's not
working. We're losing species far faster than we are saving them.
Since 1988, only one species -- the prairie long-tailed weasel --
has been taken off Canada's list of species at risk, and only two
have improved in status. In that time, a total of 10 species have
deteriorated, and hundreds more have been added to the
list.
What will endangered species legislation mean for farmers? It has great potential to benefit them by supporting their stewardship efforts. It can build on farmers' voluntary conservation efforts, offering them long-overdue assistance and incentives for conservation. The Canadian Endangered Species Coalition has recommended to the government that legislation could and should include:
The problem is that the draft bill completely misses
this opportunity. The bill applies only to lands under federal
jurisdiction (essentially national parks, military bases, and
oceans, not provincial or private lands). This amounts only to a
tiny percentage of Canadian land - roughly 4%. In fact, the bill
leaves both farmers and species worse off than before. It does
farmers a considerable disservice by disregarding their work as
stewards, and diverting support away from them in this role.
Farmers are again left facing formidable obstacles and
disincentives to conservation. As for species, the bill abandons
all the species which live on the other 96% of Canadian lands to
the status quo. Furthermore, even on federal lands, critical
habitat is not required to be protected. As habitat loss is the
main threat to 80% of species at risk, this omission leaves the
legislation empty of meaning. If this is not changed, then
Canadian species most likely face a dangerous decline.
Canada needs legislation that works both for farmers and for the species it is meant to protect. We have witnessed some conflict between US endangered species legislation and private landowners. This experience teaches us a very important lesson. The US has had to take a heavy-handed approach to species on private lands because it is in a "critical care" stage in terms of endangered species. It is fighting to bring back over 747 species from the brink of extinction. Canada is in a much better situation -- only 56 of our species are in that category. The danger is that if Canada enacts ineffective legislation now -- i.e. the draft bill -- that fails to protect species at risk and their habitat, then in the future we will have to take drastic "crisis management" steps like the US. The positive side is that Canada is still in a position now to create legislation that does not need to be heavy-handed to be effective. On the contrary, effective legislation for us now means assistance and incentives -- farmers meeting their needs while meeting the needs of species at risk.
What will endangered species legislation cost? Using calculations based on American and Australian experiences, it is predicted that federal legislation in Canada will cost only about 35 cents per person per year. Also, it is very interesting to note that, aside from the rare but well-publicized few cases, even in US endangered species legislation has not blocked development . Over99.9% of projects have been able to proceed with no or very minor modifications.
The record of species decline clearly indicates that Canada needs effective endangered species legislation. Furthermore, this legislation is a very important opportunity for Canadian farmers and ranchers, who have been heavily involved in the struggle to preserve species up to this point, to receive the support they deserve and need in their vital role of stewards of the land. Farmers and ranchers agree - a full 90% of Canadians living on farms and in small communities support federal legislation to protect species at risk (Angus Reid Group poll, 1995).
Unfortunately this draft legislation only pays lip service to the idea of actually protecting species at risk or helping farmers do so. There is still time to change this. If enough Canadians express support for positive legislation that supports farmers in protecting species and habitat on private lands, then the government will respond with effective legislation. If not, then everyone -- farmers, ranchers, and species included -- could be in for a pretty rough ride not too far down the road.