GreenPolicyProf

George Hoberg

July 23 2010

I had the opportunity several weeks ago to speak to the annual meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology in Edmonton at a symposium on “Bridging the Science-Policy Gap in Implementation of Critical Habitat under the ESA and SARA.” I was pleased that a group of conservation scientists reached out to a political scientist interested in the role of science in policy making and the impact of different political institutions on governance and policy.

From my perspective, the underlying problem in this case is the following:  Why don’t governments act to conserve species when science demonstrates significant risks to species viability? There are at least three different kinds of constraints on government action: 

1.       Inadequate science, or inadequate communication of science to policy makers

2.       Political resistance

3.       Institutional design

This post covers the second and especially the third of these three constraints. My bottom line is that inadequate species protection is not a failure of science, or of policy makers’ failure to pay attention to science. It is a failure of policy makers to take actions costly to influential constituents. This failure of political will is in part a characteristic of the policy problem, but can be aggravated by institutional design. The contribution of institutional design to the impact of political motivations can be illustrated by comparing the different laws for the protection of endangered species in Canada and the United States

The Science of Politics

 The first step in understanding the science-policy gap is an awareness of who makes policy decisions: in most cases, it is elected politicians or their direct delegates. One thing we can glean from the “science” of politics, such as it is, is the axiom that politicians are unlikely to take action unless the political benefits of action outweigh the political costs. Policy is made by politicians acting according to political motivations. Conservation biologists, like scientists in other domains, may find this an uncomfortable reality, but it is reality nonetheless. Actions to protect endangered species usually impose costs of some sort, frequently concentrated costs on specific actors whose economic behaviour jeopardizes the species. Unless a politician sees significant political benefits from acting, species protection is likely to be thwarted by resistance from negatively affected interests.

Comparing the ESA and SARA:  Design and Implementation

There are two very significant differences between the US and Canadian federal endangered species acts: the scope and the protective actions forced by the legislation.

Under the US Endangered Species Act, critical habitat is supposed to be designated when the listing decision for a species is made. The ESA provides exceptions under certain circumstances (if critical habitat designation is “‘not prudent’ and ‘not determinable’), but even in those cases there is a hard requirement that it be designated within a year. Agencies have frequently delayed acting, but when challenged, courts have ordered them to act. Once listed, the scope of protection is very broad, preventing “taking habitat” on federal, state, private land.

Since its enactment in 1972, 1375 species have been listed. Recovery plans are in place for 83% of those species, and critical habitat is designated for 43% of them.

Under Canada’s Species at Risk Act, the scope if much narrower and the most critical implementing actions are not covered by time-limited requirements. The listing of a species triggers requirement of the Minister to undertake recovery planning (ss.37-46) and recovery plan implementation (“action planning”) (ss.47-64). The first stage is a more general process. It is only in the “action planning” stage that specific protections for species are implemented. There are specific deadlines on the first “recovery planning” stage. SARA states that recovery plan must include critical habitat “to the extent possible, based on the best available information.”

But here is where the dramatic difference in scope emerges. Critical habitat designation only triggers protection on federal land. The effects of this limitation on scope are quite significant, because unlike the American West, Western Canada has very little federal land. In British Columbia, federal land constitutes only 1%, and it only somewhat higher in Alberta. In contrast, federal land ownership in Alaska is 70%, for Oregon 53%, for Washington 30%, and for California 45%.

Protection on provincial land or private land occurs only through provincial actions as part of the second “action planning” stage, or some other process. And here is where the difference in actions forced by the legislation comes in:  there are no deadlines on action planning. SARA does provide a “safety net” mechanism (Sec. 34) for the federal government to intervene if it determines that “the laws of the province do not effectively protect the species,” but this mechanism in the Act has yet to be used.

The implementation of SARA has been woeful. Agencies have deliberately avoided including critical habitat in recovery plans until the Federal Court has ruled in 2009 that it is illegal not to do so. Recovery planning and critical habitat designation have been very slow. Of the 176 species listed as threatened or endangered prior to SARA coming into full effect in 2003, 40% have recovery strategies, and only 10% have critical habitat identified (Mooers et al 2010). A presentation by Scott Findlay of the University of Ottawa reported more recent results. As of March 2009, for the 322 species currently listed, only 99 (31%) have final recovery strategies. Of those 99 species with final recovery strategies, only 6% had complete critical habitat designation, and an additional 13% has partial critical habitat designated (Findlay et al, “Recovery Strategies and Critical Habitat Identification under Canada’s Species at Risk Act,” under review).

But remember, these actions only directly affect protection on federal land. For the stage of the process that might affect provincial and private land, recovery action planning, there is only one action plan in place in the nation of Canada. That is for the Banff Spring Snail, which exists only in Banff National Park.

The only fully implemented plan under SARA to protect species at risk in Canada is for a snail in a National Park.

The US ESA has been in place much longer than SARA, but the difference in the level of implementation remains striking. The comparative record of the US and Canada suggests that institutional design contributes the divergence in implementation outcomes. In particular, the limited scope of the Canadian Act means that the federal government depends on provincial governments to act. The absence of a legislative deadline for the most important stage of implementation means that reluctant governments, federal or provincial, can get away with inaction. Unless forced by statutory requirements or strong political pressures, governments are unlikely to act to protect endangered species even when the scientific case is strong.

There is currently a Parliamentary Review under way of the Species at Risk Act. This review is an opportunity to strengthen the Act to address the weaknesses of the Act that contribute to this dismal record of implementation.

July 14, 2010

George Hoberg

Yesterday, the Globe and Mail reported that Bill Bennett, BC’s Minister of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources referred to environmentalists campaigning to turn the Flathead Valley in the southeastern corner of the province into a National Park as “eco-facists” (sic). The minister (who recently replaced Blair Leckstrom who resigned over the HST) explained afterwards that he did not author the email. He stated that it was sent out by a new staffer who was not sufficiently familiar with the office’s review policies.

Even if the Minister was not the author of the email that went out under his name, the incident raises two interesting questions. The first is about the relationship between constituency politics and cabinet duties. Bennett’s portfolio of energy and mines would be directly involved in any decision about the fate of the Flathead. Do cabinet ministers normally engage in such blatant attack politics on issues so close to their portfolio? According to the Vancouver Sun, Bennett apologized for the use of the word fascist (although not, apparently, its misspelling), but not for the content or tone of the message. Here’s an extract from the message reported by the Sun:

“These ‘protectors’ of the earth will use whatever legal, political, dishonest means they can muster. They are like the colonizers of history. They love to add another chunk of their favourite colour to the map of the world. We either stand strong together against the loss of the Flathead Valley to the eco facists [sic], or we will lose the Flathead.”

Even deleting the misspelled f-word, that is pretty harsh rhetoric for someone who needs to have an effective working relationship with the environmental community, not only on the Flathead, but on a broad range of challenging and divisive energy and mining issues facing the province.

The second question raised is whether the email reflects a new rhetorical turn for the BC Government. The email incident got me thinking about some other signature moments in the history of the Government of BC’s rhetoric on environmentalists. In the mid-1990s, when environmentalists launched their campaign to protect the Great Bear

Rainforest, NDP Premier Glen Clark denounced them as “enemies of BC.” That characterization was enormously hurtful to many environmentalists and represented a significant setback in personal and political relations between the government and the environmental community. A decade later, when he announced the government’s plan to protect the Great Bear Rainforest in February 2006, BC Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell shared the stage with

Premier Campbell congratulating the Sierra Club's Lisa Matthaus for her contributions to the Great Bear Rainforest agreement in 2006

leading environmentalists, and during his remarks, he made a deliberate point of referring to leaders of Greenpeace, ForestEthics, and the Sierra Club as his friends and he thanked them for their contributions. While that may have been a rare moment of consensus in a long history of confrontation, I nonetheless understood it to be recognition of the futility and corrosiveness of incendiary political rhetoric from the Government.

That is why I find Bennett’s email so troubling, whether or not it used the f-word and whether or not an inexperienced staffer typed it. It may be a signal of heightened combativeness on behalf of the Government. History has shown that is unproductive politically and environmentally.

George Hoberg

March 17, 2010

Updated statistics compiled by BC Stats on electricity trade are now available for 2009, providing additional evidence that BC has moved into a situation of being a net importer of electricity.

In the continuing controversy over BC electricity policy, the question of whether the province is a net importer or exporter continues to play a surprisingly large role. In a recent comment on BC’s self-sufficiency policy, NDP energy critic John Horgan claimed that the government has created an artificial panic over the need for new power. He states: “Over the last eight years, B.C. has been a net exporter of electricity.” In response, Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom states “Many British Columbians are surprised to learn that BC Hydro is a net importer of electricity to keep our lights on. Despite what Horgan would have you believe, BC Hydro has imported more electricity than it has exported in eight of the last 10 years.” Given that data on trade flows, while complicated, are readily available, this persistent factual disagreement is perplexing.

We attempted to sort through some the methodological and conceptual issues involved in a post last year. The biggest difference underlying the apparently conflicting claims is whether one is examining just BC Hydro or the entire province – there are electricity producers in the province other than BC Hydro. But even that can’t account for Horgan’s mistaken interpretation of the situation.

In 2009, the province consumed 5.8% more electricity than it produced. This means that BC was a net importer of electricity for four out of the past six years. There are many important and challenging issues in BC electricity policy. We should save our intellectual and political energy for a reasoned discussion of them, and move beyond the false debate about whether BC is a net importer or exporter.

A table and chart are included below with a summary of the data. The trade data is reported at BC Stats. The data on BC generation and consumption were provided directly to me by BC Stats.

George Hoberg

October 15, 2009

Today is Blog Action Day for climate, and we at GreenPolicyProf wanted to add our support.

We’ve been blogging about climate action issues over the past year. Our analysis of the political dilemma of climate action shows why a massive political mobilization is necessary to change the political behavior of the politicians who are making the critical decisions about climate policy. We emphasize the political dilemma that the costs of action are here, now, and relatively certain, but the benefits of action are global, distant in time, and highly uncertain. To internalize the externalities created by greenhouse gas emitting activities, politicians have to raise energy prices, imposing costs on voters and powerful interest groups.  Yet politicians have been reluctant to do so, because the benefits are globally diffused, long term, and highly uncertain. They won’t take action unless they are forced to by political pressure.

We see particular hope in youth action on climate change. In our post on the emerging youth climate movement, we argue that a youth movement promises to reshape the temporal, inter-generational component of the dilemma. If a youth movement could succeed in making adults place greater weight on the consequences of their actions (and inactions) for children, it would prove to be powerful political catalyst for meaningful climate action in Copenhagen and beyond.

350.org and many affiliated organizations are working to create a massive event on October 24. Here is an opportunity to demonstrate to politicians that there is massive public support for vigorous climate action. Please get out and participate in your local event. And if you have them, take your kids with messages designed to reframe the thinking of adults – politicians but also all polluters — to focus on the consequences for their kids and grandkids of their inaction.

 Our local event in Vancouver is Bridge to a Cool Planet, starting on the Cambie Bridge at noon. I hope to see you there!

George Hoberg

October 12, 2009

GreenPolicyProf wants to send a major shoutout to Elinor Ostrom, the co-winner of this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics.

Ostrom’s award is notable for several reasons. First, she is the first woman to win the prize in economics. Second, while a number of previous Nobel prize winners were given their awards for their contributions to the understanding of political behavior (e.g., Buchanan), she is the first recipient of the economic prize to actually be a political scientist by training.

Most importantly, she was given the award for her contributions to governance for sustainability. Her most influential work has explored the conditions under which local users of natural resources can develop effective mechanisms for ensuring sustainability. According to the Nobel committee,

Elinor Ostrom has challenged the conventional wisdom that common property is poorly managed and should be either regulated by central authorities or privatized. Based on numerous studies of user-managed fish stocks, pastures, woods, lakes, and groundwater basins, Ostrom concludes that the outcomes are, more often than not, better than predicted by standard theories. She observes that resource users frequently develop sophisticated mechanisms for decision-making and rule enforcement to handle conflicts of interest, and she characterizes the rules that promote successful outcomes.

The Nobel committee’s provides descriptions of her work designed for the public and for specialists,

photo from Vancouver Sun

We’ve created a special resource on environment and natural resource issues in the 2009 BC election.

Follow the topic pages on the upper right of the page.