Governments must act now to protect birds

Actions in 1917 provide template, write Savannah Carr-Wilson, Calvin Sandborn and Stephen Hazell.

Migratory birds lend beauty to our lives. From the heron silently stalking fish at dawn, to the haunting call of the loon, to the majestic glide of swans to pond, these birds enrich us.

They also benefit us in practical ways. They control insects that damage farms and forests, and disperse seeds and pollinate plants. They are central to the diet and culture of Indigenous groups. Bird watching and waterfowl hunting contribute billions to Canada’s economy.

But the birds are in deep trouble. A shocking UBC study recently found that seabird populations have declined 70 per cent since the 1950s. Canadian shorebird, grassland bird and aerial insectivore populations have plunged 42 to 64 per cent since the 1970s. In fact, one third of North America’s bird species risk extinction.

The good news is migratory birds faced a similar crisis a century ago — and we protected them then. With effort, we can do it again.

One hundred years ago, populations of migratory birds such as the trumpeter swan, whooping crane, brant goose and wood duck declined dramatically. City dwellers saw fewer songbirds, and farmers saw insect-eating birds disappear from fields. This decline was caused by overhunting — and the slaughter of birds to provide decorative feathers for women’s hats.

Audubon Societies were formed across North America to stop the senseless killing, and in 1916 the U.S. and Canada signed the Migratory Birds Convention. The 1917 Migratory Birds Convention Act successfully met the threat to birds and controlled the hunting.

But a century later, the law fails to protect birds from two key modern threats — incidental destruction caused by industrial activities, and loss of habitat. The act fails to protect the millions of birds, nests and eggs inadvertently destroyed by industries and activities such as farming and forestry, roadside mowing and collisions with skyscrapers. Ottawa knows this “incidental take” of birds is a major problem. Government started drafting laws to regulate it — but shut down the reform work in 2010.

Furthermore, the act offers little habitat protection — even though habitat destruction is the chief threat that birds face. For example, the Roberts Bank port expansion in Delta could devastate habitat in an area where 80 to 85 per cent of the global population of western sandpipers migrate.

There are also problems with the special “Migratory Bird Sanctuaries” established under the act. These sanctuaries were created to provide a safe refuge for migratory birds — it is theoretically illegal to carry on unauthorized activities harmful to migratory birds, eggs, nests, or habitat there. Yet intensive industrial and marina development has badly compromised sanctuaries like Sidney’s Shoal Harbour Migratory Bird Sanctuary and Victoria Harbour Migratory Bird Sanctuary.

It is questionable whether governments ever properly authorized such destructive development.

In addition, there is surprising confusion between Ottawa and B.C. over which government is legally responsible for enforcing the Migratory Birds Convention Act in certain sanctuaries. As a result, neither government is doing much protective enforcement in “sanctuaries” such as Shoal Harbour.

Clearly, we need to strengthen the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Concerned citizens can help by calling on the federal government to:

Resume its 2010 efforts to regulate “incidental ■ take” of birds, eggs, and nests — focusing on key industries;

Scientifically identify key habitat outside of

■ current sanctuaries — and fully protect those areas. For example, new parks could fit with the federal goal of conserving 17 per cent of Canada’s land and freshwater in protected areas by 2020;

Clarify with B.C. which government is

■ responsible for enforcement in migratory bird sanctuaries — and get somebody to start enforcing the law there;

In addition, governments need to revamp

■ permitting policies for new developments in bird sanctuaries. The law should bar such new development until proper environmental assessments are conducted.

A century ago, Canada helped solve an urgent crisis by implementing an effective law.

If we act decisively, our great grandchildren will thank us for this grace and beauty. Savannah Carr-Wilson was articled student and Calvin Sandborn is legal director of the UVic Environmental Law Centre; Stephen Hazell is director of conservation at Nature Canada