This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Canadian Perspectives on Biodiversity
Inventory and Monitoring 1
Judy L002
Abstract-The Canadian government has committed to reporting
on various aspects of biodiversity, but, with some notable exceptions, implementation of programs to achieve such monitoring has
been problematic. Most of Canada's forest land is managed by the
provinces. Responsibility for resource inventory and monitoring lies
with the provinces as well. Coordination and resources are lacking
to ensure cohesive responses to federal information needs. Though
Canada has a national ecological land classification (ELC) system,
it is not used by all provincial management agencies. Thus the ELC
is not effective for national level monitoring or reporting. As well,
Canada lacks a coordinated vegetation monitoring system.
There are a number of noteworthy partnership approaches to
biodiversity inventory and monitoring in Canada, however. The
Model Forest Network consisting of ten working forests, which
represent the major forested ecozones across the country, provides
focal points for development of workable criteria, indicators, and
monitoring systems. Within the Canadian Forest Service, a project
known as NatGRID (National Geo-Referenced Information for Decision-makers), applies leading-edge technology to characterize and
model the biophysical environment in relation to plant and animal
distributions. Conservation Data Centers have been established in
all regions of Canada and track rare and uncommon species and
habitats. In addition, the Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), with representatives from federal,
provincial and private agencies, monitors and assigns nationally
recognized status designations to species at risk in Canada. The
World Wildlife Fund has produced a national regions map of Canada
and conducted a gap analysis to determine how well protected areas
represent ecological diversity. Efforts are underway to assess the
need and, where required, to develop gene conservation strategies
for Canada's trees at risk. In particular, status reports have been
completed for commercially important species on the west coast,
conservation work is underway in Ontario's endangered Carolinian
forest and status assessments are being carried out in the east coast
provinces.
Overview
I was asked to speak about the strengths and weaknesses
of biodiversity inventory and monitoring in Canada. I will
mention what I see as weaknesses first, then I will discuss
briefly some specific examples of noteworthy initiatives. In
particular, I will focus on a few programs having grassroots
lpaper presented at the North American Science Symposium: Toward a
Unified Framework for Inventorying and Monitoring Forest Ecosystem
Resources, Guadalajara, Mexico, November 1-6,1998.
2Judy Loo is a Research Scientist in the Biodiversity Network of the
Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada, located in Fredericton,
New Brunswick, Canada.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
or partnership origins, that will not be explained in detail by
other speakers.
The Canadian government has committed to reporting on
various aspects of biodiversity, but establishing programs to
achieve the necessary monitoring has been difficult. International and national commitments have been made with
respect to the Biodiversity Convention, Canada's Biodiversity Strategy, The National Forest Strategy, the Canadian
Forest Service (CFS) Biodiversity Action Plan, and others.
For example Canada's Biodiversity Strategy calls for development and implementation of monitoring programs to
"better understand the functional linkages in ecosystems."
The CFS Biodiversity Action Plan requires biological monitoring as well, but specifically mentions partnerships with
other agencies or interests. Canada has been very active
internationally in developing Criteria and Indicators (C&I)
of sustainable forest management, but the nationally adopted
C&I set has not yet been applied across the country, and no
special resources have been designated for this purpose.
Several factors cause difficulty in country-wide implementation of inventory or monitoring programs. First, commitments are often made by the federal government but the
provincial government has land management responsibility, so the provinces are expected to develop and carry out
programs that are required to meet federal objectives, but
without the benefit of additional financial resources. Another factor is that a number of government agencies, both
federal and provincial have an interest in the country's
natural resources. Coordination and cooperation of any
program involving various agencies are difficult, because of
the different interests involved. Cost recovery policies for
climate, digital elevation, and remote sensing data are also
problematic. Government departments charge any users,
including other government agencies for access to the data
that are required for setting up monitoring programs. Over
large areas, the costs may be prohibitive, effectively reducing the number and scope of projects. The net result is that
few new programs have been implemented and little new
monitoring activity is taking place to meet the commitments
tha t are being made.
Provinces and territories are each carrying out their own
inventory programs, at least for commercially important
resources, and in some cases information collected through
provincial programs is, or could be used to assess biodiversity, but country-wide standards and coordination for data
collection and reporting are lacking. Thus, though the capability for data collection, management and spatial representation is very high locally, the data with relevance to biodiversity collected in one part of the country may not be
comparable to that collected in a different province. In
particular, there is not a consistent ecological land classification or unified definition of forest types that is accepted
245
province-wide. Thus summarizing inventory data from across
the country is difficult. A new national inventory system is
being developed but there is no plan at present for how to
include biodiversity estimates or indicators. The Canadian
Forest Service has initiated a project to define forest ecosystems of Canada in collaboration with each of the provinces.
The aim is to produce a baseline description of the composition of Canada's forests. In the short run, this will constitute
more of a national site classification than an ecological land
classification, though the intention is to develop a full
ecological land classification for forest land eventually.
At present, Canada lacks a vegetation monitoring system.
The ARNEWS plot system could provide a means for vegetation monitoring at a coarse scale. ARNEWS is the Acid Rain
National Early Warning System, established in Canada in
1984 in response to concerns about forest health in the face
of environmental change. ARNEWS uses a common set of
measurements, including a small subset of vegetation presence/absence assessments, taken on permanent sample plots
established by the Canadian Forest Service. Plots have been
located across Canada in eight forested terrestrial ecozones.
Emphasis was placed on the commercially important tree
species. Though the infrastructure is in place to carry out
vegetation monitoring in this plot system, such monitoring
has not been implemented.
Though Canada has been active internationally in developing and promoting criteria and indicators of sustainable
forest management, the implementation of the nationally
adopted set (Canadian Council of Forest Ministers' Criteria
and Indicators) has been slow, with little application in the
provinces and no additional resources allocated to the
initiatives.
Examples of Biodiversity Inventory
and Monitoring Initiatives _ _ __
There are a number of noteworthy partnership and
grassroots approaches to biodiversity inventory and monitoring in Canada. The Model Forest Network consisting of
ten large forest areas with multiple ownerships, representing the major forested ecozones across the country, provides
focal points for development ofworkable criteria, indicators,
and monitoring systems. Each of the Model Forests is different and is following a somewhat different approach to
monitoring and inventorying biodiversity, but the present
5-year phase of the Model Forest Program focuses on local
level criteria and indicators, including biodiversity. In some
cases Canada's nationally accepted set of Criteria and Indicators (CCFM) is being used as the indicator monitoring
framework. In other cases, a new set ofindicators, with more
local specificity, is being developed. The significance of this
program is that practical approaches to monitoring biodiversity at a local scale are being developed and tested in each
forest zone of Canada.
Gap analyses provide an example of one type ofbiodiversity assessment work that has been carried out locally in
four of the ten Canadian model forests. In the Fundy Model
Forest in New Brunswick, gap analysis was conducted at a
fine scale to identify and determine the distribution of all the
unconimon plant community types, and the plant species
designated as uncommon, rare, threatened or endangered.
246
The gap analysis assessed 'whether these community types
and species were sufficiently covered by existing protected
areas. Subsequent work has been undertaken to protect
those that are not currently protected. This work covered
only a small area, but it does serve as a model for application
elsewhere. In the process of conducting the analyses, baseline
data that would be required to carry out vegetative monitoring, was collected.
Another example of a Canadian Forest Service (CFS) led
project that is expected to be very useful in biodiversity
monitoring and inventory is known as ''NatGrid'' (National
Geo-Referenced Information for Decision-makers). This
project, which is being extended across the country, applies
leading edge technology for characterizing and modeling
components of the bio-physical environment such as climate
and topography and their relationships to plant and animal
distributions, abundance and productivity. Analysis of existing site data using a Geographic Information System and
application of statistical models is an important aspect of the
work. The spatial nature of the models will be useful in the
development of criteria and indicators for sustainable forestry and will provide an empirical basis for identifying
representative locations for permanent andtemporary forest plots. The approach is also useful in predicting where
uncommon habitats are likely to be found and in predicting
species ranges.
Other relatively strong areas within the Canadian Forest
Service as well as some provincial forestry departments
include insect and fungus taxonomy and genetics. Insect and
fungus specimens including indigenous and exotic species
are housed at CFS research centres across the country and
could serve as reference collections for use in monitoring.
The collections were established by the Forest Insect and
Disease Survey (FIDS) when that program was a large
component of the work of the Canadian Forest Service, and
the focus was on insect pests and disease organisms. In
recent years, interest has broadened to address biodiversity
questions. The associated databases are as important as the
specimen collections. For example, they provide information
about the appearance of exotic insects or fungal organisms.
This information could be important in determining the
source and following the movement of such organisms.
Genetics has traditionally been a strong component of the
Canadian Forest Service and of some provincial forest research programs. Recently the focus has expanded from the
traditional purpose of supporting genetic improvement of
commercial tree species to include the evaluation of genetic
diversity in natural populations of a variety of commercial
and non-commercial species. This allows development and
implementation of gene conservation strategies for tree
species at risk. In British Columbia, Ontario, and in the
Maritime provinces some progress has been made in assessing status of tree and some shrub species as a first step in
developing gene conservation strategies for species at risk.
Periodic status assessments will require a system for population monitoring.
Conservation Data Centers (CDC) now serve all the provinces of Canada, in addition to all the states in the U.S. and
some Mexican states. Conservation Data Centers are computer-assisted inventories of biological and ecological features; primarily concentrating on species or habitats considered to be at risk. The databases provide a means for
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
monitoring the less common biodiversity features within the
jurisdiction where the center is located. The centers gener~lly employ biologists as well as database managers, providmg field assessment and interpretive capability. Conservation Data Centers are initiated by the Nature Conservancy,
and are supported by a variety offunding sources including
provincial and federal government agencies, contributions
from the private sector, and from foundations. The CDCs are
under local control, with management structure varying
from center to center, but the data is collected and stored in
a manner that is consistent across the country, and across
the continent.
Another initiative that is broad-based and not solely
dependent upon government agencies is the Committee on
the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).
COSEWIC maintains lists of species at risk including the
designations: extinct, extirpated, endangered, threatened,
and vulnerable. Designated species do not have legal protection, but because of the credible scientific evaluations, status
designations are well respected. COSEWIC's mandate covers mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, mollusks,
lepidopterans, vascular plants, mosses, and lichens. Status
reports are prepared following a consistent format, including information about population size now and in the past,
and distribution ofthe species. Changes in these parameters
over time are monitored and threats are assessed. Membership of COSEWIC consists of representatives from each
provincial and territorial government, four federal government agencies, and three national conservation organizations. Subcommittees are struck to carry out the work of the
group, consisting of knowledgeable people from museums,
universities or the above agencies.
The efforts ofWorld Wildlife Fund deserve mention as the
organization has produced a natural areas map of Canada
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
and they have used it to conduct a gap analysis for assessing
adequacy of representation of ecological features in protected areas. They continue to monitor the protected status
of ecosystems across the country, so are contributing. to the
information base about ecosystem diversity.
Conclusions
--~-----------------------
Implementation of country-wide inventory and monitoring of biodiversity is difficult, expensive and complicated by
the division offederal and provincial responsibilities. Many
plans and strategies are in place but the coordination and
fiscal and human resources to carry them out are still
lacking.
The programs and initiatives that are working well tend
to be broad-based, cooperative, and driven at least in part by
interests outside of government. It is my opinion that these
types of initiatives will continue to be important, and will
expand in scope, particularly if government funds continue
to shrink. There is a need for government agencies to
encourage and strengthen grassroots, multi-stakeholder
approaches to monitoring biodiversity, including making
greater use of naturalist groups and other volunteer networks. I expect that the forest industry will contribute more
to biodiversity monitoring and inventorying efforts as
marketplace pressures result in increased ecological
responsi hili ty.
It is i 11mbent on the federal government to provide
consisten. frameworks and formats and to establish greater
capability for collecting, maintaining and reporting on the
data generated by the various sources.
247