Yukon Protected Areas Strategy Under Review
When some Yukon business and industry groups recently boycotted protected area meetings, they hurt their credibility and surprised many of their own members. Such an action serves no useful purpose in a civil society. Only two years ago, these same groups helped produce the Yukon Protected Areas Strategy (YPAS) – now lauded as one of the most progressive conservation strategies in the country.
A made-in-the-Yukon strategy, its goal is to protect a representative example of natural habitat in each ecoregion in the territory. YPAS is an important part of a national and international effort to conserve wilderness and the variety of life on earth.
We note that the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (who have publicly endorsed the Yukon Protected Areas Strategy), the Yukon Tourism Industry Association, Wilderness Tourism Association, Mineral Advisory Board, Fish and Wildlife Management Board, Yukon Association of Communities, Guide-Outfitting Association, and Yukon Trappers Association among many others, remained at the YPAS meeting.
Yukoners from all walks of life support conservation and know that our future economy and way of life depends upon respect for the lands and waters that are our home. Everyone agrees these initiatives need to work in concert with the economy – it’s about jobs and the environment, a debate that was settled many years ago.
In the early 1990s, the Parliament of Canada and all provinces and territories, agreed to complete a protected areas network. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce supported the national Endangered Spaces campaign to establish protected areas. In the Whitehorse Mining Initiative, the mining industry agreed to the importance of a protected areas network free of resource development. This boycott of the public planning process in the Yukon by a few groups aims to dismantle the consensus and destroy progress already made on conservation.
Let’s set the record straight on the campaign of distortion:
Is YPAS unfair to industry? No. Industry and business organizations helped to develop YPAS and agreed to the outcome in 1998. Government made compromises at that time to meet the demands of industry. For more than 100 years, the mining industry has enjoyed unfettered access to the land through the free entry mining system. Land claims agreements, new mining regulations, the Environment Act and YPAS are a few of the tools we have to level the playing field. The Strategy is fair to all Yukon interests, and many checks and balances are built into the decision-making. No protected area will be established through YPAS before the public has been consulted and resources have been fully assessed.
Will protected areas hurt the economy? Protected areas will help diversify and strengthen the Yukon economy, producing jobs in natural resource management, research and education, outdoor recreation, retail businesses, guiding, trapping, tourism and related services. A completed network of protected areas will give both resource and tourism industries more certainty. And jobs are not everything; these areas will continue to provide country food and clean water.
Will YPAS result in protected areas being rushed through? No. In fact, establishing protected areas is a very slow and thorough process. Each new protected area will take almost two years from initial planning to final designation. Protected areas have never happened in a hurry in the Yukon. It took 25 years to establish Tombstone Park. The Vuntut Gwitchin first proposed protecting the Fishing Branch about 50 years ago, and through their land claim agreement and YPAS, the park became a reality in 1999.
Is it an arbitrary process? Many groups are involved with establishing new protected areas, including First Nations, communities, Renewable Resource Councils, a variety of government departments, non-government organizations and the public. The rigourous assessment and consultation process is far from arbitrary. YPAS is based on the best available science and local ecological knowledge. But in the end, our elected governments must make the final decisions.
Is the Yukon Protected Areas Secretariat biased? All government agencies are given a mandate. The Secretariat provides technical planning support for protected areas, along with many other government departments. The Oil and Gas Branch is no less biased, except that they have a different mandate. It is the elected government’s responsibility to coordinate the Yukon’s conservation and development agenda. Local Planning Teams set up under YPAS recommend protected area boundaries to government.
Is mining appropriate in parks? No. Mining and other forms of industrial development are not compatible with protected areas. All Canadian jurisdictions, the mining industry and conservation organizations agreed to this principle in the 1994 Whitehorse Mining Initiative. YPAS does not and never did support the notion of “multiple industrial use” in parks. Such a move would negate the entire purpose of protected areas. Hunting, fishing, trapping, wilderness tourism, subsistence harvesting, and outdoor recreation are all uses that would be compatible with protected areas established under YPAS or land claims agreements.
Will protected areas be established where there are valuable minerals or forests? Protected areas will not be set up until assessments have been made of mining, oil and gas, forestry, tourism and energy along with conservation values. Where possible, resource conflicts will be avoided, but Yukoners have every right to decide that protection is more important than development on some lands. Who would want to see logging and mining in the magnificent Rocky Mountain National Parks, even though we know there are minerals and merchantable forests there.
Are Yukon protected areas too big? As a rule, small protected areas don’t work for large mammals, but size is best determined on a case-by-case basis. The optimum size depends on the type of ecosystem and wildlife species present. Recent scientific studies show that 500,000 hectares is a minimum, not maximum rule of thumb for representative areas in northern ecosystems. Yukon parks fit right in with the size of other protected areas in northern Canada.
How much land should be protected in the Yukon? Alaska has protected 35% of its lands, with close to 25% in core areas closed to development. Alaska also has a robust resource industry. The Yukon has approximately 11.8% protected, a small part of the 75% still classed as wilderness. We have set aside representative examples of 7 out of 23 ecoregions. In fifty years, will we be in a desperate struggle to save the last remnants of wildlands with free-ranging caribou and grizzly bear? All Yukoners – including First Nations, communities, industry and the public – will decide how much land needs to be protected to conserve wilderness and enjoy a sustainable economy.
How do Special Management Areas (SMA) fit in with YPAS? The Umbrella Final Agreement enables First Nations to negotiate SMAs through land claims agreements. An SMA may be a territorial park, watershed protection area, Habitat Protection Area or other type of designation. It may also remain as a stand-alone SMA, such as the Old Crow Flats SMA, with no other over-lapping designation. SMAs will contribute to completion of the Yukon protected areas network. SMAs are fully compatible with YPAS, and the public will review management plans.
For more information, please contact:
Juri Peepre
Executive Director
CPAWS-Yukon
Telephone: 867-393-8080
|
