Identifying habitat that is essential to the recovery of species at risk, known as critical habitat, is a major focus of species at risk legislation, yet there has been little research on the degree to which these areas are protected. Here, we first review the provisions for protecting critical habitat on non-federal lands within Canada's Species at Risk Act (SARA). Next, we use the declining southern mountain population of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in British Columbia, Canada as a case study to show that identification of critical habitat does not guarantee its protection on non-federal lands. Our analyses show that 909 km 2 of critical habitat identified on provincial lands were logged in 5 years after it was legally identified under SARA. Existing provincial legislation and policies have provided incomplete protection of caribou critical habitat, and Canada's federal government has yet to exercise authority under SARA that could protect these areas. In the absence of nondiscretionary protection under provincial legislation, a combination of alternative mechanisms, involving all levels of government, Indigenous people, and industry, will be essential to protect critical habitat and help recover species at risk.

British Columbia has the greatest biological diversity of any province or territory in Canada. Yet increasing numbers of species in British Columbia are threatened with extinction. The current patchwork of provincial laws and regulations has not effectively prevented species declines. Recently, the Provincial Government has committed to enacting an endangered species law. Drawing upon our scientific and legal expertise, we offer recommendations for key features of endangered species legislation that build upon strengths and avoid weaknesses observed elsewhere. We recommend striking an independent Oversight Committee to provide recommendations about listing species, organize Recovery Teams, and monitor the efficacy of actions taken. Recovery Teams would evaluate and prioritize potential actions for individual species or groups of species that face common threats or live in a common area, based on best available evidence (including natural and social science and Indigenous Knowledge). Our recommendations focus on implementing an adaptive approach, with ongoing and transparent monitoring and reporting, to reduce delays between determining when a species is at risk and taking effective actions to save it. We urge lawmakers to include this strong evidentiary basis for species recovery as they tackle the scientific and socioeconomic challenges of building an effective species at risk Act.

This article examines Alberta's Wildlife Act and the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) to assess the legal protection of endangered species in Alberta. Most of the discussion relates to provisions contained in SARA, as there is comparatively less to discuss under the Wildlife Act. The fact that legal protection for endangered species in Alberta consists primarily of federal statutory rules is unfortunate, as wildlife and its habitat are by and large property of the provincial Crown, and it is a general principle of constitutional law that the federal government cannot in substance legislate over provincial property under the guise of a regulatory scheme. The legal protections in SARA are, thus, for the most part restricted to species found on federal lands and to species that fall under federal legislative powers. This article demonstrates that the Alberta government has chosen to govern species at risk almost entirely by policy and discretionary power. The limited application of federal protections to provincial lands and the absence of meaningful protection in the Wildlife Act leads the authors to conclude that, despite a perception of legal protection for endangered species, such protection does not exist in Alberta.Cet article examine la Loi sur la faune de l'Alberta et la loi fédérale intitulée Loi sur les espèces en péril dans le but d'évaluer la protection juridique des espèces en danger en Alberta. La plus grande partie de la discussion concerne les dispositions contenues dans la Loi sur les espèces en péril étant donné qu'il y a moins de matière à discussion dans la Loi sur la faune. Le fait que la protection juridique des espèces en péril en Alberta consiste essentiellement en des règles en vertu de lois fédérales est malheureux étant donné que la faune et son habitatreprésentent surtout la propriété de la Couronne provinciale et que c'est un principe général du droit constitutionnel que le gouvernement fédéral ne peut en substance légiférer la propriété provinciale sous l'apparence d'un plan de réglementation. La protection juridique de la Loi sur les espèces en péril se limite donc, pour la plus grande partie, aux espèces que l'on trouve sur les terres fédérales et aux espèces régies par les pouvoirs législatifs fédéraux. Cet article démontre que le gouvernement de l'Alberta a choisi de gouverner les espèces en péril presque entièrement par politique et pouvoir discrétionnaire. L'application limitée des protections fédérales aux terres provinciales et l'absence de réelle protection dans la Loi sur la faune amènent l'auteur à conclure que, malgré la perception d'une protection juridique pour les espèces en péril, une telle protection n'existe pas en Alberta.

This article examines the right to public participation in resources and environmental decisionmaking in Alberta. The only reasonable conclusionfrom the analysis in the paper is that there is currently no legal right to public participation in resources andenvironmental project decision-making in Alberta.Project decision-makers have no obligation to hear organized public interest groups or members of thepublic at large who are unable to demonstrate how aproject may personally affect them. The public interest character of resource development decisions has thus far had no identifiable impact on the consideration of participatory rights by Alberta courts. Resources and environmental project decision-making is thus not necessarily subject to public scrutiny and it becomesmore difficult to hold officials exercising public power over resource development legally accountable for their actions. The role of public participation as anaccepted means to influence the exercise of state power over matters concerning the public interest deserves more critical and focused attention from Albertacourts.

The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board is increasingly asked to consider the broad social, economic and environmental implications of energy exploration in Alberta. Tins article argues that s. 3 of the Energy Resources Conservation Act requires the AEUB to seriously consider these broad socio- ecological implications and challenges the Board's reluctance to undertake these considerations. article also highlights the fact that this reluctance the Board's narrow view of its s. 3 authority have yet to be assessed by the Alberta Court of Appeal.