Before the Yukon government made a decision to suspend work on protected areas, the territory had a progressive, scientifically based, and forward looking Protected Areas Strategy designed to conserve northern wilderness and wildlife. The approach to protected areas was based on extensive community consultation as well as international and national commitments to conservation.
Tri-Council Statement of Commitment on Protected Areas
The Yukon Protected Areas Strategy (YPAS) principles are based on the 1992 federal, provincial, territorial agreement to complete a network of protected areas in Canada. This agreement is known as the Tri-Council Agreement on Protected Areas made by the Ministers of Environment, Wildlife and Parks from across the country. The Yukon signed on to the agreement, which states that each jurisdiction is committed to complete a network of representative protected areas in each natural region. All jurisdictions in Canada support the agreement. Yukon is the only jurisdiction to abandon its commitment to completing a network of protected areas, even though the Yukon Party supported the Agreement in their election platform.
Convention on Biodiversity
The Yukon, as a government within Canada, is also obligated to uphold the International Convention on Biodiversity, and is therefore responsible for implementing its part of the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy. Completion of a network of protected areas is fundamental to conserving biodiversity.
Whitehorse Mining Initiative
In 1994, the Whitehorse Mining Initiative was signed by the mining industry, governments and environmental organizations from across Canada. The accord set out the scientific principles of completing a protected area network free of industry. The Yukon Government signed the Accord. The Yukon Protected Areas Strategy closely reflected the WMI principles, yet the Yukon Chamber of Mines continues to advocate that mining in parks is acceptable.
Back to top
A Short Political History of the Yukon Protected Areas Strategy
YPAS was 10 years in the making. The Tony Penniket NDP government agreed to the principles of the national Endangered Spaces campaign in 1989, which was in turn based on the goal of establishing at least one protected area in each of 23 natural regions in the Yukon. The 1992 Yukon Party government under John Ostashek made virtually no progress on a protected area policy, although it did sign the Tri-Council Statement of Commitment to complete a network of protected areas (see above). During the NDP administration of Piers McDonald, the first and now widely acclaimed version of YPAS was approved by cabinet, based on several years of extensive research, consultation, and peer review. All of the stakeholders, including ENGOs, Renewable Resource Councils, business and industry groups signed on to the agreement. Then the mining industry withdrew its support after the fact, and the government offered to renegotiate some fundamental elements of the strategy, against the advice of the Public Advisory Committee. The consensus rapidly degenerated, and the next Liberal government under Pat Duncan decided to review the YPAS policy. During the one-year review period, many of the business and industry groups walked away from the table because their demands to change the fundamental principles of YPAS were not acceptable to the 17 remaining members of the Public Advisory Committee.
The Liberal government then made some unilateral changes to YPAS, and went against the written advice of the Public Advisory Committee who wanted to honour the commitments to consultation. The government converted the policy from a community-based policy consistent with First Nations land claims agreement principles, into one that was directed in large measure by the territorial government. This led to the loss of support from some First Nations, Renewable Resource Councils and the environmental community. To their credit however, the government did try to start a planning process whereby all the areas of interest for conservation would be identified in a one-year period, to help let industry know what areas were likely to be considered for park designation. Even though industry had asked for certainty, they rejected this approach. In the end, the plan was too ambitious and strained the capacity of the government staff.
The Liberal government put a hold on YPAS for one year, and now the Yukon Party government has suspended the Strategy altogether, citing economic reasons, but providing no defensible explanation on how YPAS is affecting the economy.
The mining exploration industry in the Yukon depends mostly on metal prices, not whether or not there are protected areas. Many jurisdictions have extensive protected lands and a robust mining industry – such as Alaska. Canceling protected area planning will increase uncertainty for all types of resource industries, but also wilderness tourism, trapping, guide-outfitting will be vulnerable.
After More Than 10 Years of Work
The YPAS development process took an enormous amount of time, energy and commitment from most of the participating organizations over a period of several years. The consultations were exhaustive. Government staff dedicated a huge amount of time and money to the project.
YPAS principles meet national standards for protection, are based on the most current conservation biology knowledge, and include full evaluation of each candidate protected area. The resource values of each area of interest are carefully weighed. It is a state of the art conservation strategy, widely acknowledged as one of the best in the country.
Back to top
Other Approaches to Protected Area
Land Use Planning
Land use planning is a useful tool to help identify important conservation lands and waters. However, in the Yukon approach to planning, Land Use Planning Commissions can only recommend areas for conservation, they do not have the tools to formally designate parks. We still need a process such as YPAS to carry out the scientific work, establish boundaries, and legally protect areas.
First Nations Agreements
First Nations rights are protected through the constitution, court decisions, and Final Agreements. The Yukon Protected Areas Strategy is consistent with these provisions and in particular respects traditional hunting, fishing, trapping, and other forms of harvesting in parks. YPAS was designed to apply only to those traditional territories where land claims have been settled, and where there is First Nations consent to new protected areas. Local economic benefits would be built into any park agreement.
First Nations Final Agreements will result in more protected areas, known as Special Management Areas. Some SMAs may be parks, others will be Habitat Protection Areas. SMAs and HPAs will contribute towards meeting the Protected Areas Strategy objectives. But these land claims agreements alone will fall short of meeting Yukon's overall conservation needs, since each First Nation is limited in the amount of land it can negotiate for conservation purposes. We still need to have a public process such as YPAS, in conjunction with land use planning, to meet the goal of completing a network of protected areas, and to meet our obligations under various national and international agreements.
Back to top
Some Common Questions
The Politics of Size
Representatives of resource industries have often been quoted as claiming that protected areas such as Fishing Branch and Tombstone are too large. What is the scientific, ecological or economic basis for these statements? Maintaining the ecological integrity of landscapes is one of the key objectives of protected areas. Representative protected areas across Canada typically range in size from 100,000 ha to more than 1,000,000 ha. The size of each protected area must be based on a careful evaluation of both scientific information and traditional ecological knowledge. There is no justification for an arbitrary determination of what might be "too large" or "too small." It is no coincidence that the largest protected areas in the world have the greatest ecological and economic impact. What contribution to ecological integrity or the regional economy would a tiny Denali, Yellowstone or Jasper National Park make?
The weight of scientific evidence does not support the reduction of protected areas to suit a perceived need to “balance” by allowing only “small” protected areas. Neither will wilderness tourism be a viable industry in Yukon's future if government policy results in the creation of a patchwork of unsustainable protected areas.
Hunting, Fishing and Trapping
The Yukon Protected Areas Strategy allows for the continuation of both traditional hunting, fishing and other harvesting as provided for in the Umbrella Final Agreement, but also does not prohibit these activities by non-native residents. Provisions of the Wildlife Act apply to territorial parks and protected areas just as they do everywhere else. Where there is a conservation reason to restrict hunting, fishing or trapping, the normal Wildlife Act provisions of consultation and management would apply in protected areas. Protected area management plans, developed by local people and approved by government, would guide activities in parks.
Back to top
