As I previously reported, according to the CBC, a “routine clarification” was issued by the Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Climate Change to its staff about how to apply the province’s Wetland Conservation Policy. The wording of the “clarification” omitted any mention of salt marshes, which according to the provincial policy should
Thanks for your persistence LP. This is really important, the idea they can protect (even just) SAR with small pockets of natural habitat - it doesn't take into account the dynamic nature of those habitats, especially under climate change. A pocket suitable in site A now, may shift to Site B under climate change... we need to protect both. Likewise the emphasis on minimum size of wetlands rarely addresses in practice, their connectedness, although this language is in the Nova Scotia Wetlands Conservation Policy (2019): "If a wetland is part of a wetland complex (connected by obvious water flows to nearby wetlands), the overall size of the complex will be used to determine if the policy applies."
Thank you for making these really important points, David. Yes, there is a lot wrong with government's approach to protection and its understanding of the interconnectedness of systems. Too many decisions are guided by politics, vested interests, and expedience.
All good points, however I find the changes to the WSS SAR trigger a huge distraction to a more severe issue that is occurring. I think the most concerning issue is changing the definition of Necessary Public Function (NPF) to include any development (not just public infrastructure). This significantly weakens the policy and allows any wetland to be developed.
Yes. The changes to NPF means any WSS can be altered (unless wetlands are protected by other legislation such as protected areas, critical habitat etc). WSS designation is the strongest component of the wetland conservation policy and the current government has hacked away at it.
Continue what you are doing as I can assure you many employees with NSECC are devastated with these changes.
Thanks for your persistence LP. This is really important, the idea they can protect (even just) SAR with small pockets of natural habitat - it doesn't take into account the dynamic nature of those habitats, especially under climate change. A pocket suitable in site A now, may shift to Site B under climate change... we need to protect both. Likewise the emphasis on minimum size of wetlands rarely addresses in practice, their connectedness, although this language is in the Nova Scotia Wetlands Conservation Policy (2019): "If a wetland is part of a wetland complex (connected by obvious water flows to nearby wetlands), the overall size of the complex will be used to determine if the policy applies."
Thank you for making these really important points, David. Yes, there is a lot wrong with government's approach to protection and its understanding of the interconnectedness of systems. Too many decisions are guided by politics, vested interests, and expedience.
All good points, however I find the changes to the WSS SAR trigger a huge distraction to a more severe issue that is occurring. I think the most concerning issue is changing the definition of Necessary Public Function (NPF) to include any development (not just public infrastructure). This significantly weakens the policy and allows any wetland to be developed.
Thanks for this. Yes, this is a very important issue. I do plan to address this aspect in the forthcoming post on the FOI package.
Yes. The changes to NPF means any WSS can be altered (unless wetlands are protected by other legislation such as protected areas, critical habitat etc). WSS designation is the strongest component of the wetland conservation policy and the current government has hacked away at it.
Continue what you are doing as I can assure you many employees with NSECC are devastated with these changes.
There have been a couple more posts on this subject since this one. I have a FOI package now that I will be reporting on soon as well.
Someone needs to be monitoring these bureaucratic shifts. I'm thankful that you are doing that Linda.
Wonderful work, Linda. So important, and so infuriating and disheartening.
Good work on such an important topic. This is, in equal parts, frustrating, sad, and infuriating.