A common question that is asked is "How is the Endangered Ecosystems Alliance different from all those environmental organizations out there? Why not just support those groups that exist now?"
The answer is that our mandate has some vital differences from what is done so far by the status quo of the conservation movement - differences we believe that build on the existing necessary work of the movement, but constitute a vital niche for us that must get filled.
First, our goal is to fundamentally expand environmentalism to really engage “non-traditional allies” (businesses, unions, diverse faith groups, scientists, multi-cultural outreach, outdoor recreation groups), that is, to heavily engage outside the existing, limited environmental movement in order build sufficient political clout.
Typically, 98% of the public engagement efforts of most environmental groups is to engage their own kind of people - that is, nature-lovers inclined towards advocacy and politics. This is a necessary group to mobilize of course (likely you are one of them! we certainly are...) - but it's just not enough. We can't win with just the small population of highly-conscious core environmental advocates, which maybe constitutes 7% or 8% of Canada.
Building a lobby of businesses, unions, faith groups, and outdoor recreation groups who are predisposed to helping protect native ecosystems (because, for example, protected areas attract and create new businesses and jobs, support scenery and outdoor recreation, provide clean water and habitat for fishing, are an expression of one's responsibility to creation, etc. etc.) but are currently unengaged is a major game-changer in the politics of environmentalism. Politicians won’t be able to stick with the anti-environmental status quo then.
Secondly, we are setting up a fund that will help protect public lands (ie. Crown and First Nations unceded lands). Almost all conservation funds of environmental groups are designed solely for buying private lands. But private lands constitute only 11% of Canada, while public lands constitute 89% (in British Columbia, only 5% is private and 95% is public) which cannot be bought. A public lands conservation fund would support key communities linked to saving ecosystems, such as Indigenous Protected Areas proposals by First Nations across Canada (by helping finance land use planning, protected areas management and stewardship like Guardians programs, and help support conservation-based economies - while leveraging federal and provincial funds to do the same) - the primary way protected areas are being expanded across Canada, as well as to buy-out certain resource-rights as a precursor to protection.
Thirdly, we believe ultimately that there must be all-encompassing legislation, an Endangered Ecosystems Act, where science determines how much and where native ecosystems must be protected and restored - similar to an Endangered Species Act, but for all ecosystem types. Such an approach is needed to scale-up protection quickly - Earth has no time left for us to have to battle it out on a species-by-species basis among the millions that exist, much as we need species-level legislation of course.
Fourthly, massive public awareness and mobilization is a central feature of how we believe social change happens - a rising tide lifts all boats. On the national conservation scene, frankly little is being done to engage and mobilize Canadians on a large scale about the greatest opportunity to expand protected areas in Canada's history - the UN Biodiversity Conference in October of 2020 where a new international target for protecting nature will be negotiated by all nation states (except the US). If we had the resources, we would make the massive awareness and engagement of Canadians on saving nature a central priority during the greatest window in our history, when a combination of heightened public environmental concern and the national/ international political processes for protecting nature are aligned - for now.
Fifth, regarding the previous point, our goals tend to be more ambitious. Currently, Canada sits at about 11% protection of terrestrial ecosystems and our national/ international target for the end of 2020 is 17%. For 2030, all political parties and most environmental groups are aiming for 30% protection. But the science says we need to keep at least 50% of Earth in natural areas by 2030. That is our goal.
And these targets must be based on ecosystems, which they currently are not. Otherwise, the vast majority of protected areas targets will be and are being met by locating protected areas in the lowest productivity ecosystems with the least resource conflicts - glaciers and ice caps, Arctic and alpine tundra, subarctic muskeg, and in hotter nations, desert landscapes. These are all important native ecosystems to protect, but their protection (to reach percentage targets with the least conflict with industry) can be at the expense of not protecting richer temperate forests (coniferous and deciduous), grasslands, wetlands, and other biologically diverse ecosystems where most endangered species exist due to agricultural conversion, logging, and urban sprawl. We need ecosystem-based targets, and to do so must create the movement with some of the levers outlined above, to bring those protected areas into the biologically richer, most contested temperate zones of Canada.
These are not all the differences, but they are key ones. Environmental groups across Canada are all doing great and necessary work - but the Endangered Ecosystems Alliance will fill a key niche that we firmly believe MUST be filled.
These are the needed game-changers to go from 11% protection now to 50% by 2030 in Canada.
If you want to make a big difference, please donate this New Year! Go to:
https://www.endangeredecosystemsalliance.org/donate
Thank you most generously!!
Ken Wu and Celina Starnes
Endangered Ecosystems Alliance