Trends in Extinction Risk for Imperiled Species in Canada

Abstract

Protecting and promoting recovery of species at risk of extinction is a critical component of biodiversity conservation. In Canada, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) determines whether species are at risk of extinction or extirpation, and has conducted these assessments since 1977. We examined trends in COSEWIC assessments to identify whether at-risk species that have been assessed more than once tended to improve, remain constant, or deteriorate in status, as a way of assessing the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation in Canada. Of 369 species that met our criteria for examination, 115 deteriorated, 202 remained unchanged, and 52 improved in status. Only 20 species (5.4%) improved to the point where they were ‘not at risk’, and five of those were due to increased sampling efforts rather than an increase in population size. Species outcomes were also dependent on the severity of their initial assessment; for example, 47% of species that were initially listed as special concern deteriorated between assessments. After receiving an at-risk assessment by COSEWIC, a species is considered for listing under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA), which is the primary national tool that mandates protection for at-risk species. We examined whether SARA-listing was associated with improved COSEWIC assessment outcomes relative to unlisted species. Of 305 species that had multiple assessments and were SARA-listed, 221 were listed at a level that required identification and protection of critical habitat; however, critical habitat was fully identified for only 56 of these species. We suggest that the Canadian government should formally identify and protect critical habitat, as is required by existing legislation. In addition, our finding that at-risk species in Canada rarely recover leads us to recommend that every effort be made to actively prevent species from becoming at-risk in the first place.

Informing Canada’s commitment to biodiversity conservation: A science-based framework to help guide protected areas designation through Target 1 and beyond

“…Where species have been reassessed by COSEWIC, declines outnumber improvements by more than two to one (Favaro et al 2014). Further, one-quarter of the observed improvements were driven by increased sampling effort, not intensified conservation efforts (Favaro et al 2014). Increasing protected areas within regions where species are currently threatened is central to reducing biodiversity loss (Fig.…”

Wildlife parasites in a One Health world

“…It is beyond the scope of this paper to define 'concern'; instead we advise relying on the prevailing expertise and statutes. We emphasize the need to act quickly to address population-limiting factors such as pathogens, pollution, and habitat loss because recent findings demonstrate that -by the time a species is formally described as 'at-risk' -they rarely recover, at least in Canada [35]. In particular, harvested species and wildlife in Canada's North are among the leastlikely species to be listed under the federal Species At Risk Act, with its accompanying protection, monitoring, and action plans [35,36].…”

Missing the safety net: evidence for inconsistent and insufficient management of at-risk marine fishes in Canada

“…The lack of deadlines in the SARA listing process is a serious weakness of the Act and contrasts with the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA), which has strict deadlines throughout its listing process (Waples et al 2013). SARA's ineffectiveness is underscored by the recent finding that the probability of recovery for at-risk species in Canada was not related to the length of time they had been SARA-listed (Favaro et al 2014). …”

“…Blue lettering denotes parts of the process evaluated in this study. Symbols denote parts of the process evaluated for marine fishes in previous studies (as detailed in Table S1 1 ): ❖ = Hutchings and Festa-Bianchet 2009, Powles 2011, Waples et al 2013; ‫ء‬ = Mooers et al 2010;= Favaro et al 2014;= Prugh et al 2010; ૽ = Mooers et al 2007, Findlay et al 2009, Dawe and Neis 2012, Schultz et al 2013✓ = Vanderzwaag and Hutchings 2005;+ = McCune et al 2013, Taylor andPinkus 2013; = Office of the Auditor General Canada 2013.…”