Biodiversity is intrinsically linked to the health of our planet-and its people. Yet, increasingly, human activities are causing the extinction of species, degrading ecosystems, and reducing nature's resilience to climate change and other threats. As a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Canada has a legal responsibility to protect 17% of land and freshwater by 2020. Currently, Canada has protected ∼10% of its terrestrial lands, requiring a marked increase in the pace and focus of protection over the next three years.Given the distribution, extent, and geography of Canada's current protected areas, systematic conservation planning would provide decision-makers with a ranking of the potential for new protected area sites to stem biodiversity loss and preserve functioning ecosystems. Here, we identify five key principles for identifying lands that are likely to make the greatest contribution to reversing biodiversity declines and ensuring biodiversity persistence into the future. We identify current gaps and integrate principles of protecting (i) species at risk, (ii) representative ecosystems, (iii) intact OPEN ACCESS

No abstract

Gaps between environmental science and environmental law may undermine sound environmental decision-making. We link perspectives and insights from science and law to highlight opportunities and challenges at the environmental science-law interface. The objectives of this paper are to assist scientists who wish to conduct and communicate science that informs environmental statutes, regulations, and associated operational policies (OPs), and to ensure the environmental lawyers (and others) working to ensure that these statutes, regulations, and OPs are appropriately informed by scientific evidence. We provide a conceptual model of how different kinds of science-based activities can feed into legislative and policy cycles, ranging from actionable science that can inform decision-making windows to retrospective analyses that can inform future regulations. We identify a series of major gaps and barriers that challenge the successful linking of environmental science and law. These include (1) the different time frames for science and law, (2) the different standards of proof for scientific and legal (un)certainty, (3) the need for effective scientific communication, (4) the multijurisdictional (federal, provincial, and Indigenous) nature of environmental law, and (5) the different ethical obligations of law and science. Addressing these challenges calls for bidirectional learning among scientists and lawyers and more intentional collaborations at the law-science interface.

No abstract

No abstract