WWF defines protected areas as legislatively established sites that prohibit industrial activities such as logging, mining, development of hydroelectric dams and oil and gas drilling, and they must be large enough to maintain ecological integrity. This definition has been widely accepted across Canada. WWF's analysis of performance on meeting the national Endangered Spaces program goals has included the following criteria:
The following chart (not included) illustrates Alberta's progress by indicating the level of representation of protected areas according to Alberta's 20 natural subregions, based on the performance assessed using WWF criteria. Ten of the twenty natural subregions have little or no representation, while another 5 have only partial representation. Therefore, three-quarters of all Alberta's natural subregions are grossly under-represented within protected areas. The following map of Alberta illustrates those ecological regions where there are significant gaps in representation of protected areas.
What proportion of the above 19,000 km business plan target, amounting to <3% of Alberta, will apply to protected areas versus industrial use sites versus primarily recreation areas?Alberta Environmental Protection's 1997/98 business plan states that 67,855 km2 is now designated as parks and natural reserves, implying progress of 5,855 km2 . This is simply not true. Not all this land base is parks and natural reserves and no reputable organization would recognize all that land base as parks and natural reserves (e.g., Castle Forest Land Use Zone).
Even if all the <3% were directed to apply to protected areas, this is a very low performance target for a wealthy province with such a magnificent natural heritage. A higher target should be set so that Alberta can be a leader in protected areas. It is important to set the targets at a sufficient level to get the job done and to communicate those targets both to government agencies and to public consultation processes.
Are the coarse targets in Special Places Report 3 maximum or minimum targets or simply guidelines for protected areas site selection?The scientists who prepared the background information from which Report 3 was prepared have repeatedly stated they must be considered minimum targets and guidelines only, while Alberta Environmental Protection has inappropriately promoted them as maximum targets. As a consequence, any scientific credibility in the program has disappeared over the last four years. If the guidelines continue to be considered as maximum targets, they amount to only <1.4% of Alberta, an amount inadequate to secure a representative system of protected areas.
It is important to have a defendable basis grounded in good science for the selection of protected areas. This is the common ground between industrial sectors and environmental groups and is what is highly supported by the public - it allows for a level playing field.
The lack of direction, poor communications and moving goal-posts regarding intents and targets of Special Places have caused enormous confusion to participants in the various Special Places consultation processes. Leadership in clarifying both these issues is desperately needed.
Irrespective of how assessments of performance are conducted, there are three bottom lines, regarding the progress of Special places and the state of Alberta's protected areas system, as follows:
For example, Premier Harris and Minister Snobelan recently announced 25,000 km2 of new protected areas in Ontario in which "forest harvesting, mining and hydroelectric power development will not be permitted." Despite some concerns over the mining issue, the Ontario initiative is sweepingly progressive. This announcement is in addition to previous accomplishments, such as the 4,755 km2 Wabakimi Park and many others. Last year, British Columbia announced the protection of 10,300 km2 plus an additional 33,000 km2 Special Management Zone in the northern Rockies known as the Muskwa-Kechika. This is also in addition to a large number of new protected areas over the coarse of the Endangered Spaces program.
In comparing Alberta's progress with other Canadian jurisdiction, only Alberta has scored an F, grade three times over the coarse of WWF's grading and only New Brunswick averages a lower total score.
The introduction last March of Bill 15, the proposed Natural Heritage Act, has put into serious question the Alberta Government's intent to protect our natural heritage. Although Premier Klein recently stated that "Our destination is a province with the most pristine environment in North America. We cherish the natural blessings of this province, its wildlife and mountains and varied terrain, People from all over the world flock to our province because of its natural beauty," the proposed Natural Heritage Act will legally allow industrial developments to occur in some of the most highly valued pristine areas in our province. Likely many Albertans agree with Ian Tyson when he said, as quoted in the February 15 1999 issue of Maclean's magazine 'if Alberta loses its wilderness, I don,t think there is much to recommend it.'
Legislative uncertainty has compounded the problems of the Special Places program for years and certainty is required in at least the following areas:
The Government of Alberta signed the 1992 Statement of Commitment to Complete Canada's Network of Protected Areas, in which Alberta and all Canadian jurisdictions committed to "complete Canada's networks of protected areas representative of Canada's land-based natural regions by the year 2000" and "accelerate the identification and protection of Canada's critical wildlife habitat."
Premier Klein in the 1995 Special Places 2000 Policy and Implementation Plan stated: "I look forward to the not too distant future when our system of protected areas is complete."
Alberta Environmental Protection's 1994/95 (i.e., the year Special Places was announced) annual report and business plan stated that 62,000 km2 had been designated as parks and natural reserves and set a goal of 81,000 km2 by the year 2000, leaving 19,000 km2 (i.e., <3% of Alberta) left to be achieved during the next five years.
Special Places report titled Report 3: Alberta Protected Areas System Analysis (1994) - Revised Edition lays out coarse guidelines, partially based on science, for each of the 20 natural subregions within Alberta's 6 natural regions.
The map (not included) shows the locations of the Top 50, core areas of crown land. These core areas were selected based on landscape and biological diversity, including key wildlife species, and based on conservation biology principles such as ecological integrity. These areas need to receive Alberta's maximum protected area legal designation, management and, in some cases, restoration.
A particularly pressing issue is the Chinchaga site. The Chinchaga Local Committee has recently recommended only 700 km2 for protection because of the heavy commitments to other industrial uses on the land base. This is only the size of Edmonton (i.e., 698 km) or Calgary (i.e., 723 km). This recommended size represents <0.75% of the Foothills region and there is only ~0.5% already protected in the Foothills.
Even with the establishment of other Foothills sites such as the Local Committee's Sheep River boundary, the Clearwater and Wapiabi areas, without a significant anchor, at Chinchaga, the ability to achieve a system of protected areas that represents Alberta's Foothills is greatly diminished, if not impossible. A 700 km2 protected area at Chinchaga is simply too small. Based on science-related information, WWF is recommending a 5,000 km2 protected area at Chinchaga.
Alberta Lands and Forests Service needs to be directed to develop some tools, to assist in removing forestry conflicts, using the surplus timber or unallocated productive timber land base - they have been reluctant to make such tools available to date. As Minister Lund had last fall wrote that only one-half of the productive forest land was used for timber harvesting and timber harvest levels were well below the annual allowable cut, there should be sufficient flexibility to resolve timber conflicts on important sites such as Chinchaga and Cache Creek-Wolverine.
These commitments are not written in legislation and are unlikely to be tested in the courts. Instead, as public policy they are simply declarations of intent, a handshake agreement between present leaders and future citizens of our country, a promise we have made to ourselves. Therefore, how we act is nothing more or less than a test of our characters: Are we good as our word? For example, when we proclaim our environmental leadership to the world, as we do regarding meeting the goals of Endangered Spaces, are we really keeping our word when industry and governments here at home loudly protest the designation of new protected areas and seek industrial access to existing protected areas.
Some promises are harder to evade than others because the consequences are so evident and lasting. This is especially true for promises we make regarding the homeplace on which we all depend for survival as individuals and as a nation. There will never be any more wild country than we now have. What we fail to protect will always remain lost. And we can see those losses steadily mounting across the land as the millenium clock winds down.
With eighteen months to go, the question now is: Will Alberta be a promise keeper?