SUZUKI – Protecting the complex web of life should be the priority

Caribou. (Image: Yukon Govt)

NEWS THAT ENVIRONMENT and Climate Change Canada is considering “priority threat management” to assess endangered species is troubling. The method is often used to inform a “triage” approach in which some species are abandoned to focus resources on others ranked higher priority. The federal government is legally required to oversee recovery of all species at risk, not just those it chooses to prioritize.

It makes sense to model recovery measures at an ecosystem scale and forecast budgets accordingly, in part to determine the most cost-effective ways to advance recovery efforts. But economic models shouldn’t be used to determine that it’s “too expensive” to save some species.

The decision about whether or not to manage landscapes to recover imperilled wildlife is, ultimately, not economic but societal; it reflects the values that we, the public, embrace, and to which we hold our elected officials accountable. We need to be clear that if we let a species go, it’s because we’re choosing other values over its survival.

Many things can’t feed into an economic model, including wildlife’s intrinsic value and the cultural worth of a species to Indigenous Peoples. It’s also difficult to conceive how a model can take into account the complex relationships between species when we still don’t fully understand those relationships.

It’s hubris to decide that we can afford to protect prey but not its predators, when we still know so little about how predator-prey relationships influence a landscape. What if a species that doesn’t make the cost-effective recovery list is an umbrella species, such as caribou, which safeguards less-studied species with which it shares habitat? What if a species we think is too costly to save proves to be an ecosystem linchpin?

One thing is certain: We don’t fully comprehend the components of ecosystem functionality, so we don’t know what we lose when we lose a species. Research shows, though, that biodiversity and ecosystem resilience are connected.

The model underpinning priority threat management involves estimating the probability of recovery despite the fact that the science is so new that we don’t yet know what measures work for many, if not most, species at risk.

It also assumes that resources are constrained but doesn’t take into account government investments in industry or the billions of dollars in royalties and profits that provinces and industries have raked in and continue to rake in through activities that destroy habitat species need to survive.

Recent articles on the triage approach note it is getting “huge buy-in” from industry. This isn’t surprising. It provides a perverse incentive to industrial players that drive species to the point at which they are deemed “too costly” to save. If species are abandoned, so are requirements for habitat protection and restoration that many industries see as limiting to their bottom line.

Interestingly, industrial players and their allies have invested significant effort and resources into the narrative that species are too expensive to save by arguing that conservation will shut down the economy. Often they reference unpublished economic models or grossly exaggerate economic impacts of species conservation.

For example, a group of six northern Alberta municipalities predicted an economic impact of $36 trillion, extending 200 years into the future, if caribou were conserved. (For reference, the total value of output for the Canadian economy in 2017 was $1.7 trillion and 200 years ago, the oil and gas industry didn’t exist.)

Society needs transparent, explicit decision-making around how public money is spent to reduce risk to species. Yet the main challenge for species recovery in Canada is far greater than the need for tools to prioritize limited funds. In essence, it’s our failure to put sufficient limits on human activity and prioritize wildlife persistence over status quo business operations.

We have tough choices, including how to make decisions about the future of wildlife in Canada. Will we call for limits on how much humans can encroach on the space wildlife needs to survive?

Will we hold those who profit from habitat destruction accountable for its protection and restoration? Will we use existing science and traditional knowledge to ensure our landscape management policies sustain the ecosystems that support natural processes, wildlife and humans alike? It’s up to all of us to decide.

David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Ontario Science Projects Manager Rachel Plotkin. Learn more at

About Mel Rothenburger (9237 Articles) is a forum about Kamloops and the world. It has more than one million views. Mel Rothenburger is the former Editor of The Daily News in Kamloops, B.C. (retiring in 2012), and past mayor of Kamloops (1999-2005). At he is the publisher, editor, news editor, city editor, reporter, webmaster, and just about anything else you can think of. He is grateful for the contributions of several local columnists. This blog doesn't require a subscription but gratefully accepts donations to help defray costs.

2 Comments on SUZUKI – Protecting the complex web of life should be the priority

  1. Ian M MacKenzie // October 10, 2018 at 4:18 PM // Reply

    We grow so soon old and so late smart

  2. Tony Brumell // October 10, 2018 at 2:35 PM // Reply

    I think the greatest example of re introducing an umbrelle species is the re-introduction of the wolf in Yellowstone park. the neco system of the park was deteriorating in many unexplained ways when they got the idea to bring back the wolf (Mostly from the Canadian Magic pack ) and even with thranchers out side the npark vowing to exterminate any wolf they saw .the eco system in the park began to rebound in many unexplained ways that seeminglynhad nothing to do with wolves.
    The politicians cannot prioritize or triage the damage that they have allowed and use that to decide what they are going to save.The ecosystem is a wholistic system that needs all of it’s parts to function together.
    When I see things like the recent gas line explosion near Prince George BC and the oil refinery explosion in the east coast it makes me want to rage at the people who allowed it and will do nothing to prevent it from happening again.How many more gas line / fracking explosions will Horgans LNG / Fracking cause or the K/M pipeline and the devastation caused by the construction at site C?
    What would happen if $ 40,000,000,000 was spent on producing solar or wind or tidal power. We would be far better off in the long run.Having enough elecricity to run the continent without the tragic consequences of gas and oil.
    We must pay now or we will pay later, when we find out just how the interwoven ecosystems work together to make this earth habitable.You cannot prioritse between water or air of food.We need them all or life begins to deteriorate..It has already started and only a fool would allow it to continue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: