Irony, or does the left hand not know what the right is doing?

The Endangered Henslow's Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) is one of the rarest birds in Ontario. During the Atlas of Breeding Birds of Ontario 2001 to 2005, there were only 8 possible records of the species in the entire province. For years, a breeding population of this tiny sparrow has persisted in upper New York State, not far from Prince Edward County, near the east end of Lake Ontario. The New York population could well be the “source” population for re-colonization of nearby areas like Prince Edward County.

Henslow’s Sparrow just happens to be one of a few Endangered Species identified by Stantec as a priority for their preconstruction surveying for Gilead Power Corporation. Gilead is applying to build a wind energy plant with nine 140 metre tall turbines in the Ostrander Point Crown Land block in Prince Edward County, Ontario. In the Environmental Review Report of 2009, Stantec reported the following:


An assessment of the Study Area for potential Henslow’s Sparrow breeding habitat was completed. No optimal habitat was identified (Section 3.5.3 of Appendix C1). Three relatively small patches of marginal habitat for the Henslow’s Sparrow were the subject of playback surveys. No Henslow’s Sparrows were detected. The species has experienced significant decline in Ontario, and it should be considered absent from the Study Area.

On the surface, this seems like a reasonable conclusion right? I’m not so sure.



Potential Henlow's Sparrow habitat at Ostrander Point
could become site for 140-metre tall wind turbines. Photo: Ted Cheskey

 In 2010, Gilead applied for a permit to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources – the Ministry responsible for management of the Crown Land Block – to “kill, harm and harass Blanding’s Turtle and Whip-poor-will as well as damage and destroy habitat of Whip-poor-will” as part of their operational plan for the wind plant. As objectionable as this seems, I question why Henslow Sparrow was not on this list also. Here is why.

In the conservation plan that William Wilson and I wrote for the Prince Edward County South Shore Important Bird Area, with the support of a strong local committee, including the local Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources District Ecologist, I learned that a restoration plan for the Henslow's sparrow was written for Ostrander Point Crown Land Block that included brushing and prescribed burning in the late 1990s. It was never made clear if the plan was implemented or not at the time.

It was not until very recently, when reading through the Recovery Strategy for Henslow's Sparrow from Environment Canada that I learned that Henslow's Sparrows were present on Ostrander Point in 1999 and 2000 as a direct result of the implementation of this recovery action! In the Recovery Strategy, this example was used to illustrate how restoration activities could lead to positive results. The MNR supported this restoration work on their land!

Something stinks about a process when we have a government agency, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, invest in successfully restoring the habitat of an endangered species, then turn around a few years later and offer up its habitat for a small and unnecessary industrial wind plant. Why is this process moving forward? Why has it gone this far? Why was it even conceived of in the first place?
 
The turbines are not built yet. Once they are, no longer will this be Henslow's Sparrow habitat, or Whip-poor-will habitat, or Blanding's Turtle habitat, but it will be a serious risk to all birds, including the river of hawks, owls and songbirds that stream through Ostrander Point every fall.


Over this Christmas period, my wish is that the Province or the developer recognizes that this is the wrong place to build a wind farm, and withdraws it before it goes any further. Wind energy should be about good ideas in good places, and this isn't it.

IBA Caretakers: A Social Network

Anne Murray, Boundary Bay-Roberts Bank-Sturgeon Bank IBA

Last week we heard from Gaston Déry, an IBA Caretaker for Iles-aux-pommes IBA, Quebec. In this post, we return to British Columbia to speak with Anne Murray, IBA Caretaker for the Fraser River Estuary: Boundary Bay-Roberts Bank-Sturgeon Bank IBA.

After speaking with Anne, I was struck by the similarities between the IBA Caretaker Network and the online social networks that are increasingly a part of our everyday lives. The concept of spreading a message through a social network is quite simple. Engage one person with influence and you inform and engage their entire network of friends.

The Important Bird Area Caretakers Network works in much the same way. An IBA Caretaker is someone with ties to the people in their community who care about nature and have an interest in protecting it. Through the Caretaker Network, they connect their community with communities across Canada that care for and protect birds and their habitat.

“It’s like any social network in an organization. We can reach more people that way.” said Anne Murray, past president of BC Nature, “Caretakers are the local people at an IBA who can regularly be in contact with regional and national coordinators of the Important Bird Area program. They’re also the people who spread awareness about the IBA in their community.”

Canada’s IBA Program is a cornerstone in science-based, site-specific conservation for birds and biodiversity. Co-delivered by Nature Canada and Bird Studies Canada, the program has been in place since 1996. Acting with regional conservation partners, Nature Canada has built an exhaustive IBA database, finalized almost 100 site conservation plans and helped communities implement more than 150 local projects.

In 2006, after successfully launching the IBA program in British Columbia with financial assistance from Nature Canada's Communities in Action Fund, BC Nature took the lead in pushing the program even further. Anne Murray, who was on the Board of BC Nature at the time, helped launch the IBA Caretaker Network in British Columbia.

“We wanted to ensure that the Important Bird Areas program was sustainable in the long term and one of the ways I could see of doing that was to set up a network of volunteers who knew the sites and were close to the sites,” said Anne, “The idea was that BC Nature and the other partners would provide Caretakers with information, advice and guidelines on how to monitor, promote and protect an IBA – then we’d let them run with it.”

Nearly six years later, there are close to 200 IBA Caretakers across Canada. This year, with the addition of Caretakers in Ontario and Quebec, there are now Caretakers in every province in Canada. The network’s expansion has been possible with the support of the IBA Caretaker Network’s national sponsor, TransCanada Corporation, who in 2009 committed $1 million over five years.

Anne (third from right) goes birding with the Casual Birding group of the Delta Naturalists Society. Photo: Delta Naturalists Society

Over the years, the network’s success in effectively protecting birds and their habitat comes from the collective efforts of Caretakers across the country.

“People already involved in their site are given help and capacity to do more. That’s what’s been really good about the program,” said Anne, “The regional and national partners of the IBA program provide support, organize meetings with government and get other people involved – that really helps to build the capacity of the program. Being a part of that is very valuable. You’re much more effective when you are part of something bigger than if you’re on your own.”

For Anne, joining the Caretaker Network was a natural next step in her conservation work – she was already actively advocating for the protection of the Fraser River Estuary when the network launched.  As one of the Caretakers for Boundary Bay-Roberts Bank-Sturgeon Bank Important Bird Area, Anne is involved in everything from conducting bird surveys to giving public presentations on IBAs. Her public outreach includes publishing books on the ecology of the Lower Mainland and writing columns on timely conservation issues affecting the Fraser River Estuary in the Georgia Straight, a widely circulated local paper.

Not surprisingly, the proximity of the Boundary Bay-Roberts Bank-Sturgeon Bank IBA to the city of Vancouver presents a unique set of conservation issues. Urban and industrial expansion and recreational pressures threaten to degrade the ecosystems that are arguably one of the most important habitats for migrating and wintering waterbirds in Canada. Western Sandpiper, Black-bellied Plover, Dunlin, Northern Pintail, and many other species of bird and fish need the mudflats and intertidal marshes of the IBA to survive. IBA Caretakers like Anne have brought greater awareness of the challenges facing urban Important Bird Areas and the unique value they hold for wildlife.

Dunlin in flight at Reifel, part of the Boundary Bay IBA. Photo: Delta Naturalists Society

“In the past 20 years, public awareness of the environmental value of Important Bird Areas like Boundary Bay-Roberts Bank-Sturgeon Bank IBA, has slowly increased,” said Anne, “That’s due to the many caring people who advocate for their protection. I hope that my work as an IBA Caretaker helps to contribute to that awareness.”

Are you a member of a naturalist club in your community? If you are actively involved in conserving and protecting natural spaces in your area, joining the IBA Caretaker Network could give you the support and guidance to do more! You can find out more about becoming a Caretaker and explore Important Bird Areas in Canada at ibacanada.ca

Next week, we’ll hear from Josie Osborne, Caretaker for Tofino Mudflats IBA on Vancouver Island. Stay tuned!

IBA Caretakers: People Protecting Birds Across Canada - Alberta

In our last post, we heard from Important Bird Area Caretakers in British Columbia. In this post we follow Ted, Nature Canada's manager of bird conservation, to Alberta where he speaks with two Caretakers about the value of the IBA Caretaker Network.

For Judy Boyd, caring for Bearhills Important Bird Area was a good fit with her volunteer work with a young naturalist club in Red Deer, Alberta. Part of what she does as a Caretaker is monitor birds at the IBA – and counting birds is something young naturalists are more than ready to help out with!

In this video Greg Wagner, IBA Caretaker for Frank Lake Important Bird Area, talks about the special features of this IBA, which lies just 50km south of Calgary, Alberta. Greg also explains why he thinks IBA Caretakers can effectively promote bird conservation by talking to local stakeholders.

As IBA Caretakers, Greg and Judy channel their passion for nature and protecting birds by monitoring  birds, assessing habitats, and conducting conservation activities at Important Bird Areas. They are part of a larger network of volunteers that participate in the IBA Caretakers program. Their work promotes effective bird conservation in Canada.

Do you want to protect your local birds and habitat? Consider becoming an Important Bird Area Caretaker!

You can find out more about becoming a Caretaker and explore Important Bird Areas in Canada at ibacanada.ca

Next week, we’ll hear from a Caretaker in Manitoba who has been a passionate birder from a young age. Stay tuned!

IBA Caretakers: People Protecting Birds Across Canada – British Columbia

Across Canada, Canadians are engaging their communities to protect birds and their habitats by becoming Important Bird Area Caretakers.

As a Caretaker, they are part of the Important Bird Areas Caretaker Network, a nationwide initiative involving volunteers who watch over and protect natural spaces that are vitally important for breeding, migrating, staging and wintering birds.

Ted Cheskey, Nature Canada’s manager of bird conservation, recently met with Caretakers from British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

In this blog series, we follow Ted as he makes his way back east and discovers the many ways Important Bird Area Caretakers are making a difference on the ground to protect our birds.

Picking up where the last post left off, Ted pays a visit to the southern Okanagan Valley of British Columbia where he speaks with Doreen Olsen, an Important Bird Area Caretaker for White Lake IBA.

People join the IBA Caretaker Network for a wide range of reasons. For many, a love of birds and wild spaces in their communities drew them to the network and inspired them to become Caretakers. In this video, Doug Brown, a bird bander at Vaseux Lake Bird Observatory in south Okanagan Valley, briefly explains why he was motivated to become a Caretaker for Osoyoos Oxbows IBA.

Conservation of Important Bird Areas is a cornerstone of effective bird conservation in Canada and around the world. Caretakers – the eyes, ears and feet on the ground – make this important work possible. As a Caretaker, they channel their passion for nature and protecting birds by monitoring  birds, assessing habitats, and conducting conservation activities at Important Bird Areas. To date, there are Caretakers in every province in Canada.

Do you want to protect your local birds and habitat? Consider becoming an Important Bird Area Caretaker!

You can find out more about becoming a Caretaker and explore Important Bird Areas in Canada at ibacanada.ca

Next week, we’ll hear two Caretakers in Alberta talk about what makes the Important Bird Areas that they care for so special. Stay tuned!

Are you new to this blog series? Read the latest news on IBA Caretakers and watch more one-on-one interviews with Caretakers.

Important Bird Areas: "Wild Places, Full of Life"

Keith Riding is a retired surgeon who volunteers his time to monitor birds and habitats in remote coastal Important Bird Areas off Vancouver Island. In this short video, Keith joins our bird conservation manager Ted Cheskey on an overcast, windy day at the Boundary Bay Important Bird Area, where he talked about being a Caretaker in these "wild places, so full of life."



Community stewardship of local bird habitat is essential for the health of the Important Bird Area system - and for the birds. These natural spaces are vitally important for breeding, migrating, staging and wintering birds, and the conservation of these sites is a cornerstone of effective bird conservation.

Keith is part of something called the Canadian Important Bird Areas Caretaker Network. It's a nationwide initiative involving volunteers who watch over and protect these special places. BC Nature, with financial assistance from Nature Canada's Communities in Action Fund, launched the first Caretaker Network in Canada. Then in 2009, TransCanada Corporation committed $1 million over five years as a national sponsor of the network, so that today, volunteer Caretakers are in all ten provinces. Nature Canada and Bird Studies Canada co-deliver the program nationally.

Thanks Keith for being a volunteer Caretaker for not one, but four IBAs!

Sable Island is Canada's Newest National Park

Endangered Roseate Terns nest and migrate through Sable Island.

We're celebrating today's announcement of a new national park reserve on Sable Island!

Sable Island is a windswept, crescent-shaped island about about 300 kilometres southeast of Nova Scotia and its sensitive coastal landscape is a haven for migrating and nesting birds.

A national park designation signals vastly improved protection of Sable Island's fragile ecosystems and presents a renewed mandate for research and monitoring at the site. It also fulfills a January 2010 federal-provincial promise to increase protection of this remote island.

Sable Island is a globally important bird habitat that is home to the at-risk Ipswich Sparrow, the endangered Roseate Tern and many other bird species during the breeding season and the spring and fall migrations. The island is recognized as a globally and nationally significant Important Bird Area (IBA) through BirdLife International's Important Bird Areas Program, under which Nature Canada and Bird Studies Canada are co-partners responsible for overseeing IBAs in Canada.

A national park here will provide the type of permanent habitat protection we hope to see for all of Canada's IBAs. However, visitor numbers will need to be strictly limited inside Sable Island National Park to maintain the Island's sensitive sand dune systems. Recreation, tourism and declining habitat quality have been identified as key concerns for the island through our Important Bird Areas program

In recommendations submitted to Parks Canada in 2010, we advised that the national park predominantly be zoned a "wilderness area" with visitor numbers strictly controlled over time. Visitor limits will ultimately be established in the park’s management plan, which has yet to be finalized.

We were also pleased by the announcement that Nova Scotia and Ottawa will table legislation to prohibit oil and gas drilling from the surface of Sable Island and out to one nautical mile from shore. Nature Canada had also recommended that Parks Canada prevent development of any subsurface resources, like oil and gas, on Sable Island, as it typically does in National Parks and National Marine Conservation Areas.


The legislated prohibition on oil and gas development on the island's surface and immediately offshore is a very positive move. It’s also encouraging to note that the government plans to work with industry to amend significant discovery licenses to strengthen prohibitions on drilling.

Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Project Threatens B.C.’s Fragile Ecosystems and Coastal Communities

More than two decades ago, the Exxon Valdez ran aground, spilling 40 million litres of crude oil into Prince William Sound and causing irreversible damage. Now, Enbridge Inc. wants to bring the same risk to B.C.'s pristine coastal waters and rainforest with its Northern Gateway Project.

Today, Enbridge Inc. is awaiting approval of a proposed pipeline that would carry oil from the tar sands to a port at Kitimat, British Columbia. After travelling nearly 1,170km through pristine wilderness and First Nations homelands, tar sands oil would be loaded on tankers bound for Pacific markets. To get there, they must first navigate the perilous northern B.C. coast, travelling the same waters where the Queen of the North ferry sank in 2006. An oil spill in this area would:

•    Cause irreversible harm to the livelihoods of many coastal and aboriginal communities
•    Fragment the Great Bear rainforest and the boreal forest, home to birds and other wildlife, including Caribou and Grizzly Bears
•    Expose 28 Important Bird Areas teeming with marine birds, fish and other animals to oil pollution from increased tanker traffic and an impossible-to-rule-out oil spill.

Nature Canada, and many stakeholders from First Nations to Members of Parliament, oppose the project on the grounds that it poses unacceptable risks to the ecosystems and coastal communities of British Columbia’s northern coast. In collaboration with BC Nature, we are preparing for the upcoming hearings on the Northern Gateway Project that will determine whether the pipeline is built. Our primary interest is the potential impacts of the project on wildlife (including birds) and their habitats. As joint interveners in the Joint Review Panel process we will be focusing on potential impacts on terrestrial wildlife and habitat along the pipeline route, with special attention to Woodland Caribou, and on terrestrial and marine birds and their habitat along the pipeline route and in the coastal waters through which the oil would be shipped (including Important Bird Areas).

We have hired three experts with in-depth knowledge and experience on these different aspects who are helping us review Enbridge’s application in order to verify whether it has accurately assessed the potential impacts of its proposed project. Our experts have so far identified many areas where the application is inconsistent, vague or has errors and omissions.

This past August, we submitted our questions to Enbridge as part of the information request step of the process. Enbridge will respond to these requests by October 6, and following a second round of information requests, we will file our written submission with the Joint Review Panel by December 23. In that submission, we will provide our own evidence regarding the project’s potential impact on Woodland Caribou, birds and Important Bird Areas, ensuring the Panel has the information it needs to understand the potential impact of the project on the ecosystems it proposes to alter so significantly.

Further down the line, our evidence will be reviewed by the Panel and our experts may need to defend our evidence when we reach final hearings in the summer of 2012. We will keep you up to date on our progress – so stay tuned! In the mean time, you can participate in the hearings by sending a letter to the Joint Review Panel by March 13, 2012, or making an oral statement at the community hearings (registration ends October 6).

 Want to learn more about the Northern Gateway Project? Visit our website!

Bedford Biofuels Continue to Threaten Tana Delta

On 7 September we told you about the threats to Kenya’s Tana River Delta Important Bird Area from plans by the Canadian company Bedford Biofuels to establish a jatropha (biofuel) plantation. Since our post Bedford has been in touch to express their disagreement with our criticism of their project (see the comment posted). However, our concerns continue. Nature Canada has written to the Canadian government to bring our concerns to their attention and find out whether the government is supporting this project. We will let you know their response.

In the meantime, here is a summary of the latest information provided by our BirdLife partners at Nature Kenya:

At the start of this week Bedford Biofuels and Nature Kenya met in Nairobi. Bedford was accompanied by their lawyer and more than 20 people from the Delta supporting the Bedford proposal. However unfortunately despite a long (around 5 hour) and at times rather tense meeting Bedford was not prepared to recognize the concerns of Nature Kenya and others from the Delta or willing to respect the land use planning process under way.

In summary, Nature Kenya and others are worried that jatropha is untested, that Kenya has yet to adopt a biofuels policy and that 10,000 ha is too big to be a pilot. Also that the proposed project is within the very sensitive Delta floodplain and that there needs to be a land use plan for the Delta in place to provide a strategic framework before individual large-scale developments proceed. For all these reasons Nature Kenya is maintaining their challenge to the Bedford consent and hoping that the Kenyan Government will act on NEMA (the National Environment Management Authority) advice to cancel the Bedford consent.

It is very encouraging to see the land-use planning process for the Delta now firmly underway. Between 14-17 September around 65 participants took part in a high-level meeting in Malindi to discuss the need for a strategic plan for the Delta. The Kenyan Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) hosted the meeting with NEMA and Nature Kenya jointly providing the Secretariat. It was attended by representatives from key Kenyan government ministries and agencies including NEMA, the Ministries of Finance, Lands, Agriculture, Environment and Mineral Resources, Water and Irrigation, Fisheries, Kenya Forest Services, Kenya Wildlife Service, TARDA (Tana and Athi River Development Authority), together with NGOs, media and international experts in the fields of land use and delta planning and environmental assessment. The meeting included a workshop plus a field visit into the Delta to provide the opportunity for participants to see the Delta and speak to the local people to understand the issues first hand.

The meeting closed by adopting a Communiqué of the Inter-Ministerial Consultative Meeting on the sustainable development of Deltas in Kenya. This confirmed the launch of the Tana Delta planning initiative, including agreement on a road map leading to the long-term sustainable development of the remarkable Tana River Delta in ways that will provide for economic prosperity, stable social conditions and lasting environmental quality.

Specifically the meeting agreed:

• To the establishment of a local Tana Delta planning process which will be steered by a local committee (the Planning Implementation Committee) and will involve a combination of strategic planning and strategic environmental assessment (SEA)


• The output will be a long-term strategic land use plan representing a ‘truly sustainable’ future to the Delta.


• That this process will combine scientific, economic, social and environmental evaluation tools alongside extensive public participation and will be a collaborative exercise involving all relevant government ministries and agencies, counties, districts and communities, Civil Society and NGOs, International Partners and investors


• The process will take place over the next 18 months, with the support of DFID (UKAid).

Things are now moving quickly with the Inter-Ministerial meeting scheduled to meet again on Tuesday 27 September to discuss the terms of reference for the SEA. This is exciting news.

Brushing work at Ostrander upsets locals

Significant brushing and habitat disturbance began without public notice in a section of approximately 25,000 square metres of the Ostrander Point Crown Land Block last week. Ostrander Point is a highly controversial naturally vegetated block of land owned by the Province of Ontario, in the heart of the Globally Significant Prince Edward Point South Shore Important Bird Area. It is part of a candidate Provincial Area of Natural and Scientific Interest due to its rare alvar habitat. It has a unique breeding bird community and is on the flight path of hundreds of thousands of migrating birds each spring and fall. Ostrander is the home of at least two federally listed Species at Risk, and was described by an official from the Federal Government as one of the most important spots for migratory birds in Southern Ontario. In 2006, Gilead Power Corporation of Peterborough began its application process to build 12, ninety metre high wind turbine towers with 45 metre long blades attached on this public land, along with a grid of roads and infrastructure to connect them, and a transformer station to link into the provincial grid on this highly significant bird habitat. More recently they submitted their final proposal, which includes 9 turbines, some within 200 metres from Lake Ontario, and supporting studies to the Province of Ontario for an Energy Approval Permit. If granted, this permit would allow them to construct this industrial project on this highly sensitive and signficant habitat.

Last week local guardians, opposed to Gilead's industrial project, noticed workers actively brushing (destroying woody vegetation on strips of land) within the Ostrander Point Crown Land Block. Through questioning, it came out that this work is being conducted by contractors searching for and decommissioning unexploded ordinance from the Department of National Defence, which conducted training on parts of Ostrander Point about 50 years ago. Many believe that this work is really being done to pave the way for Gilead's project.

"All of this seems like too much of a coincidence," says local IBA champion Myrna Wood. "This is in the timeframe of Gilead Power’s application for a turbine project on this Crown land. It has been 50 years since this site was abandoned by the military and the South Shore has never been cordoned off from public use during that time. It seems clear that the reason for the investigation of possible unexploded ordinance is at the request of the MNR due to planned development projects."

Nature Canada, along with provincial partner Ontario Nature and the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists, has requested both the developer (Gilead), and the Province to find another location for this project which has high potential to be very damaging to migrating birds, the local breeding bird community, species at risk, and migrating bats if allowed to proceed.

Bedford Biofuels Threatens Kenya's Tana Delta

Aleksey Dorofeev via Flickr

Nature Canada is concerned that a Canadian company – Bedford Biofuels – plans plans to set up a jatropha tree plantation in Kenya's Tana Delta, an area that provides refuge for 350 bird species. When we learned of the Calgary-based company's plans last year, we contacted the company to discuss the potential impacts on biodiversity of the proposed project. The company did not respond to our letter, but recent developments make us hopeful that Bedford Biofuels will abandon this project. The latest news from our BirdLife colleagues in Kenya is as follows:

A Nairobi newspaper reports that, after consideration of the scientific evidence, Kenya’s National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) has decided to advise the Kenyan Government to halt the planting of the biofuel crop jatropha within the Coast region of Kenya. Proposed jatropha plantations would do irreparable damage to coastal Important Bird Areas (IBAs), including the Tana Delta and Dakatcha Woodlands.

The reported decision has been applauded by BirdLife Partner NatureKenya, which has been fighting a vigorous campaign against the destruction of woodland and other coastal habitats to make room for biofuel crops. NatureKenya also provided much of the evidence on which NEMA’s decision was based, especially recent research which has cast doubt on the supposed benefits of jatropha as a “green” alternative to fossil fuels. Scientific studies now recommend growing jatropha only as a hedge or living fence.

Even before NEMA’s decision, a company planning to grow oil seed crops on 28,000 hectares of the Tana Delta pulled out after consultations with NatureKenya and other BirdLife Partners, citing concerns over environmental impacts and long-term climate change effects.

In July, two directors of NEMA were suspended after accusations that they had acted irregularly in granting a licence to the Canadian company Bedford Biofuels to grow jatropha on a 10,000 hectare “pilot” site in the Tana Delta. According to the Nairobi press, NEMA’s Chairman, Mr Francis Ole Kaparo, said that the licence had been awarded in spite of mounting scientific evidence which has exposed the claims made for jatropha as false. “There is nothing to prove jatropha is viable. In fact, all evidence shows it has failed,” Mr Kaparo is quoted as saying.

NEMA has advised the Kenyan government to cancel Bedford’s licence, but the company is challenging the cancellation. Bedford’s local representatives have organised demonstrations in favour of the jatropha plantations, which have been described as an attempt to “intimidate” the authorities.

“We congratulate the NEMA Chairman, Mr Francis Ole Kaparo, the NEMA Director General Dr Ayub Macharia, and NEMA technical staff for their wise decision”, said NatureKenya CEO Paul Matiku. “NEMA is on the right path to sustainable development, by using science to avoid irreversible environmental, social and economic costs. We hope the Ministry will follow this advice and cancel Bedford Biofuel’s licence for a ‘pilot’ of 10,000 hectares of jatropha at Tana, and that this wise decision has been made clear to Kenya Jatropha Energy Limited at Dakatcha.”

He added: “Globally, biofuel crops, originally viewed as substitutes for climate-damaging fossil fuels, have replaced food crops and natural habitats, leading to rising food prices and loss of critical wildlife habitats and ecosystem services.”

The Tana Delta has long provided local communities with food and livelihoods. Its value to the nation includes ecosystem services such as water storage, shoreline protection and marine life spawning grounds. It also has huge tourism potential. But as demand for land to grow commodity crops has increased globally, the Tana Delta has become the focus of interest for international speculators and investors.

“Over the last decade, conflicts have been increasing in the Tana Delta as the demands for competing land uses, natural resources, nature conservation and community interests have intensified,” said Paul Matiku. “It is for this reason that NatureKenya and stakeholders, led by the Office of the Prime Minister, are initiating a combination of strategic planning and integrated assessment to develop a long term General Management Plan.”

Bedford Biofuels commented on September 13, 2011:

Recently, articlessuch as this, riddled with misleading errors and false accusations have beencirculating regarding Bedford Biofuels’ 10,000 ha Jatropha biofuel project inthe Tana Delta Region of Eastern Kenya. These articles were published withoutinput from Bedford. Bedford also did not recieve correspondence from NatureCanada before this post was published.

Contrary to what is being reported by Nature Kenya, Bedford’s license to planthas not been revoked. The EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) license wasissued to Bedford on May 25, 2011 by NEMA (National Environment ManagementAuthority)Kenya and remains in effect. Nursery preparations began in July andthe Jatropha seedlings will be transplanted starting in November.

Nature Kenya has also erroneously reported that Bedford intends to plantJatropha in the delta area of the Tana Delta Region, which is causing concernbecause of the delta’s biodiversity and ecological importance. First andforemost, in order to obtain its license from NEMA, Bedford had to complete anEnvironmental Impact Assessment of the Tana Delta Region which includedthorough research pertaining to the wildlife, existing flora and soilconditions. Approval of the EIA License was granted under the condition thatBedford agrees to abstain from planting in the delta.

Second, Jatropha will not grow in flood plains or areas of standing water suchas a delta, it thrives in semi-arid to arid conditions. In order to maximizeour yields, Bedford has engaged the world’s leading experts in Jatropha and hasa team of agronomists experienced in growing Jatropha to advise the optimalgrowing conditions and location for Bedford’s Jatropha project.
Lastly, Bedford is an advocate of conserving the environment and is currentlyworking alongside the Lower Tana Delta Conservation Trust to ensure that thedelta area is preserved and the local community’s standard of living isimproved.

Nature Kenya has also been vocalizing it’s skepticism about the benefits ofJatropha as a “green” alternative to fossil fuels and recommends that Jatrophashould only be grown as a hedge or living fence. This makes sense if you are atrying to prevent a Jatropha project from coming to fruition, but I am certainthe many scientists, multinational organizations and governments around theworld who have invested tens of millions of dollars into the research ofJatropha as a sustainable and viable biofuel feedstock would strongly disagree.NASA, for instance, has flown Jatropha to space to test the impact of zerogravity on its growth; the international airline, Lufthansa, is using Jatrophabased jet fuel on daily commercial flights; China has earmarked 13 millionhectares to grow Jatropha to help reduce their dependence on foreign oil;Jatropha has properties that can be used in the production of pain killers andother medications; and above all, it produces a clean oil that is superior tofossil fuel – an oil that is not derived from a food crop, but from a non-foodbiofuel. This is the evolution of biofuel.

Part of Bedford’s mandate is to educate people about our intentions to employlocals and to bring food security and improved quality of life to the region.We are doing it all by the book and we certainly don’t want to be implicated inallegations of irresponsible management and unfair practices.

Participate in Survey on Proposed Marine National Wildlife Area

Tufted Puffin

Environment Canada is asking for your participation in a survey that looks at how Canadians value the Scott Islands marine ecosystem, and their attitudes and beliefs toward marine conservation in general. The survey, conducted by a graduate student at Simon Fraser University, may also be used by Environment Canada’s Canadian Wildlife Service and its partners in their work to establish the proposed Scott Islands marine National Wildlife Area.

The proposed Scott Island National Wildlife Area is expected to encompass more than 11,000 square kilometres of ocean around the Scott Islands, a group of five small islands and numerous islets off the northern tip of Vancouver Island, British Columbia. They support the highest concentration of breeding seabirds on Canada’s Pacific coast – forty per cent of the seabirds that breed in British Columbia nest on these islands. This includes about half of all Cassin’s Auklets in the world and 90% of the Tufted Puffins in Canada, as well as 7% of the world’s Rhinoceros Auklets. The rich waters around the Scott Islands also attract five to ten million migratory seabirds every year, including globally at risk birds such as the Black-footed Albatross and the Sooty Shearwater. In Canada, two other species that depend on the Scott Islands are listed under the Species At Risk Act: Short-tailed Albatross and Pink-footed Shearwater.

Protecting this marine ecosystem, which is also an Important Bird Area, is an important part of ensuring these birds have the food and breeding sites they need to survive. By participating in this survey, you will be helping researchers better understand the value of this marine ecosystem to people and birds.

Is Cairn Energy Prepared for an Arctic Oil Spill?

We were all transfixed by the environmental destruction of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill last year. Yet, however bad the spill in the Gulf of Mexico was, almost everyone agrees a major spill in the Arctic sea would be worse. How much worse? Last November a report commissioned by the Pew Environment Group examined that question, and concluded a cleanup could take years – if it’s even possible at all. Efforts would be hampered by wintertime temperatures that can drop below minus 50 degrees Celsius, fierce Arctic storms, endless darkness and fog that shrouds the region for more than half the days of the year.


Yes, drilling in the Arctic is reckless, and dangerous – and something big oil companies are quite eager to do.

Case in point: Edinburgh-based oil and gas company Cairn Energy has plans to drill off the coast of Greenland – without making its oil spill response plan public. This is a document that an oil company has to draw up explaining how it would clean up a spill. They are nearly always made public, but Cairn is keeping its one secret.

On Thursday, Nature Canada joined 53 other international organizations – including Greenpeace, the David Suzuki Foundation, and Council of Canadians – in sending a letter to Greenland’s Prime Minister, Kuupik Kleist, expressing serious concern over the lack of transparency regarding Cairn’s operations in this unique and fragile region.

Cairn is gambling with the pristine wilderness of the Arctic. Walrus, seal, bowhead whale and polar bear habitats could be disrupted and entire remote communities wiped out if a toxic spill eliminates their means of subsistence living.

A spill in this region could be devastating to arctic seabird colonies feeding on the ice floes at Important Bird Areas along Nunavut’s northern coast, Baffin Island or as far south as Labrador. Ivory Gulls, Northern Fulmars, Black-legged Kittiwakes, Thick-billed Murres and many other seabird or water bird species would be at risk.

Our changing climate –due in large part to the burning of fossil fuels -- is melting the Arctic sea ice, changing the nature of one of the most remote, and vulnerable places on earth. It is time to place a moratorium on new offshore drilling, including the Arctic, and to end our reliance on dirty, polluting fossil fuels in favour of responsible development of clean, renewable energy.

Here in Canada, the Government should delay new off-shore drilling projects until a consistent, strictly enforced set of regulations is in place that protects the environment, oil and gas workers and coastal communities.

Even with preventive measures in place, accidents are certain to occur, so it is important to identify places of great ecological significance and permanently protect them. Establishing a comprehensive system of marine and coastal protected areas is essential before development begins, so that irreplaceable natural habitats aren't lost forever to unsustainable development projects and unforeseen accidents. Important Bird Areas and existing Migratory Bird Sanctuaries are good starting points to better protect habitats for birds that, in many cases, Canada shares with the rest of the hemisphere.

June 9: Deadline for Public Comment on Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park

Tomorrow, June 9, is the deadline for public comment on Gilead Power Corporation's proposed wind energy plant at Ostrander Point.

ACT NOW – Tell the Province of Ontario what you think about Gilead’s permit applications to destroy endangered species and their habitat.

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources has posted a proposal on the Environmental Registry for a permit under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) which “would allow Gilead Power Corporation to kill, harm and harass Blanding’s Turtle and Whip-poor-will as well as damage and destroy habitat of Whip-poor-will for the purpose of the development and operation of Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park.”

The permit application is posted on the Province’s electronic review board for comment. Nature Canada, Ontario Nature and Prince Edward County Field Naturalists do not believe that issuance of this permit will lead to overall benefit for the species.  Now is your opportunity to comment on the proposed permit through the Environmental Registry. The deadline for comment is June 9, 2011.

This video, recorded during a visit to Ostrander Point on June 1, shows Blanding’s Turtle swimming in a stream beside Ostrander Point Road. This road runs along the eastern side of Prince Edward County South Shore Important Bird Area, an area that provides habitat for many endangered species like Blanding's Turtle.

Nature Canada along with its partners Ontario Nature and the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists are in agreement with the belief that climate change poses one of the greatest risks to biodiversity. We fully support the government’s intention to expand the use of clean and renewable sources of energy through its Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009. However, in responding to climate change, we must not sacrifice biodiversity and significant habitats.  Protecting wildlife, threatened species and their habitat is vitally important if we are to buffer the effects of climate change and provide options for wildlife that must cope with predicted changes.

It commenting on this particular EBR posting, it is important to note that the ESA permitting process for the Ostrander point project goes forward separately from the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) process for the Ostrander project as a whole. We are firmly and publicly opposed to the granting of an REA for the proposed wind farm development at Ostrander Point, part of a globally significant Important Bird Area and an extremely important site for migration for birds, bats and Monarch Butterflies on the north shore of Lake Ontario.

In terms of the ESA permitting process, Ostrander Point provides habitat for many species, including Blanding’s Turtle and Whip-poor-will, both listed as threatened in Ontario. In order for an “overall benefit” permit to be issued under the ESA the following legal requirements must be met:

     (i) an overall benefit to the species will be achieved within a reasonable time through requirements imposed by conditions of the permit, and,
     (ii) reasonable alternatives have been considered, including alternatives that would not adversely affect the species, and the best alternative has been adopted, and,
     (iii) reasonable steps to minimize adverse effects on individual members of the species are required by conditions of the permit. (ESA, section 17 (2) c)

We have serious doubts as to whether these requirements have or can be met. Outlined below are our key concerns about this proposed permit.

1. Alternative locations must be thoroughly considered. With respect to the siting of the project at Ostrander Point, it is unclear whether alternative locations have been considered, including alternatives that would not adversely affect the species, and whether the best alternative has been adopted, as required by the ESA. The information provided indicates only that six different layouts of the turbines at the Ostrander site were examined. There is no evidence that this site was compared with other reasonable alternative sites. If indeed other sites outside Ostrander Point were NOT thoroughly considered (e.g., farm land where the landowners are willing, where natural cover has already been removed, and where endangered species are not present), in our view the proposed project does not meet the ESA requirement to consider reasonable alternatives. 

2. The “overall benefit to the species” has not been adequately demonstrated. The ESA sets a high standard regarding permits to damage or destroy endangered species habitat or to harm or harass a member of an endangered species: in the end the project proponent must provide an overall benefit to the species. In other words, the species must be better off than it was prior to the project going forward. In this case, the proponent Gilead Power Corporation, proposes to acquire and manage a property outside the project area. No details on what this “swap” would look like have been provided in the EBR posting. No actual sites or techniques to recreate this already highly functioning habitat have been identified.
To be clear, the benefit must be over and above what already exists if the trade off is to constitute an overall benefit. Merely acquiring other already existing habitat provides no additional benefit whatsoever. Furthermore, in the case of the Whip-poor-will, there is every reason to believe that building massive wind turbines on Ostrander Point will introduce a new and permanent risk to this declining nocturnal species which depends on areal hunting of insects. 

Risk is another critical factor that must be considered when calculating overall benefit. When destroying one habitat and replacing it with another there is a great deal of risk involved, and generally speaking established, functioning habitat is of much higher value than manufactured habitat. This means that for every key habitat feature that is rendered non-functional, a greater number of equivalent habitat features must be created, based on a ratio that takes risk of success into account; for example, a 3:1 ratio would mean that 3 habitat features would be created for every 1 destroyed. The higher the risk, the higher the ratio should be. To further address risk, created habitats should be functional prior to the destruction of established sites. The EBR posting provides no indication of how risk will be addressed. 

Given the lack of information provided to demonstrate that alternative sites have been considered and that an overall benefit will be achieved, Nature Canada opposes the granting of this ESA permit.

Make your voice heard! Let the Province know that no permit should be granted until alternatives sites to Ostrander Point have been considered and measures to achieve overall benefit have been demonstrated.
Also, please keep in mind that original responses are weighed more heavily than are form letters. We suggest that you use the points above to draft your own letter and either post it online to the link below or send a hard copy to the listed address by June 9, 2011. Be sure to reference the EBR registry number: 011-3181.

For more information and to submit comments online click here

Thanks to Ontario Nature for providing some of the content for this blog.

Ostrander Point: Local Council Endorses Naturalist Objections to Wind Farm Proposal

Last night, Prince Edward County Council voted to endorse local naturalist objections to a proposed wind power project inside an Important Bird Area. In a 13-3 vote, the Council voiced agreement with local residents who oppose plans to build and operate nine wind turbines within Ostrander Point Crown Land Block, a critical refuelling spot for birds migrating from South and Central America on their way to and from Canada's Boreal Forest.

From CountyLive.ca:

Wind turbines and birding areas do not mix.


This is the message Prince Edward County Field Naturalists members Myrna Wood and Cheryl Anderson brought to council last night.

The best wind power is offshore on Lake Ontario, said Wood, but there is a moratorium on offshore turbines. She added there are a lot of other appropriate areas in the County and other parts of the province that would not disturb significant wildlife and would have just as much wind power. “We support the Green Energy Act and wind energy but it has to be put in the right place,” said Wood. “Ostrander Point is the wrong place.”

“Prince Edward County is the penultimate refuelling refuge for birds migrating from South and Central America on their way to and from the boreal forest,” Anderson said. “In the spring they can be seen on Doppler radar massing on the south shore of Lake Ontario waiting for an appropriate time to cross over to the closest land – which is Prince Edward County. When they arrive they are tired and hungry.”

Anderson explained the data of the Prince Edward Point Bird Observatory confirms millions of birds use this flyway. “If the plans of the Ontario government and Gilead Power are allowed to go forward, millions of birds will have to confront another obstacle when they arrive at their refuge. Nine wind turbines on the Ostrander Crown Land block and a further 20 proposed turbines in the PEC South Shore Important Bird Area, part of the WPD proposal, will have to be negotiated by the already exhausted and famished birds. There is no doubt that the mortality will be significant.”

Full story is here.


Gilead Associates, the company that is applying for a Renewable Energy Approval to build and operate the wind turbines within the Ostrander Point Crown Land Block, has applied to the Province of Ontario for a permit to “kill, harm and harass Blanding’s Turtle and Whip-poor-will as well as damage and destroy the habitat of Whip-poor-will for the purpose of the development and operation of Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park.”Gilead permits to lease Ostrander Point and destroy SAR habitat. Nature Canada has been working with local naturalists to protect this Important Bird Area and halt plans for the wind project.

Sur la valeur du partage - Interview avec Marilyn Labrecque, Nature Quebec

Durant l’atelier à Port Rowan, Marilyn Labrecque, coordonnatrice du programme Zones importantes pour la conservation des oiseaux (ZICO) à Nature Québec, ainsi que moi-même, avons trouvé quelques minutes pour discuter dehors - malgré le froid - des bénéfices du partage d’expériences entre les partenaires canadiens. Cet événement annuel vise à réunir les représentants des organismes responsables de la mise en œuvre du programme ZICO dans leurs provinces respectives afin de favoriser le partage de connaissances et de planifier les actions pour l’année à venir. L’atelier a eu lieu entre le 18 et le 21 avril au siège social d’Études d’Oiseaux Canada, qui, avec Nature Canada, est responsable de la coordination du programme au niveau national

Gilead’s application for endangered species permit for Ostrander Point is posted for comment now

Gilead Associates, the company that is applying for a Renewable Energy Approval to build and operate nine wind turbines within the Ostrander Point Crown Land Block, has applied to the Province of Ontario for a permit to “kill, harm and harass Blanding’s Turtle and Whip-poor-will as well as damage and destroy the habitat of Whip-poor-will for the purpose of the development and operation of Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park.” See the breaking CBC TV story that includes an interview of local naturalist Myrna Wood.

This is an unusual step in Canada for a wind energy project, but one that appears to be an admission that the project will be impacting threatened species at the site where the turbines are to be built.
The ESA permit which allows for the destruction of habitat and harm to the species, must also demonstrate the following:

(i) the Minister is of the opinion that an overall benefit to the species will be achieved within a reasonable time through requirements imposed by conditions of the permit, and,
(ii) the Minister is of the opinion that reasonable alternatives have been considered, including alternatives that would not adversely affect the species, and the best alternative has been adopted, and,
(iii) the Minister is of the opinion that reasonable steps to minimize adverse effects on individual members of the species are required by conditions of the permit.

On the posting, the proponent’s response to these requirements is provided. I’ll only include and comment on the first sentence of the first requirement related to overall benefit.

Proponent to acquire and manage a property outside the project area (that meets appropriate criteria as defined by the Ministry of Natural Resources) for the habitat preservation, rehabilitation and/or improvement of both Blanding’s turtle and Whip-poor-will.

Unfortunately, there are no reports or documents to inform us on what this actually means. This posting begs the question of how the public, can be expected to provide meaningful comment if there are no details about where the habitat is, or how protecting and managing it would benefit the species. For example, would the acquired property be an area already occupied with breeding Whip-poor-wills that is facing imminent destruction? If it is unoccupied habitat, is Gilead claiming that it can restore and manage the habitat to attract this rapidly declining species? Is this even possible?

It is a fact is that Whip-poor-will no longer occupies much of the available habitat within its range. Both loss of habitat and declines in its food supply (mainly flying insects) are identified as the main reasons behind the species demise.

This is where the ability of this permit to have an overall benefit for the species becomes dubious at best. If both the existing occupied site where the project is proposed, and the “new” site are occupied by Whip-poor-wills, and the intent is to protect one and damage the other so that it no longer supports the species, there is net harm. A possible and worse scenario is that if Ostrander Point becomes a functioning wind energy plant, it becomes an ecological trap for the species. This would occur if individuals were attracted to the area each year, but more prone to being killed.

My conclusion is that the ESA posting is flawed as a consultation process in that it does not allow for meaningful public engagement. We simply need more detail.

My hunch is that all it will contribute to the Whip-poor-will is more hardship. Wind energy projects should be about a good idea in a good place. Ostrander Point, in my view, is a terrible location for a wind project. Powers that be, please find an alternative location, that is not as risky to birds and other wildlife.

Photo by Ted Cheskey - Whip-poor-will habitat on the upper Bruce Peninsula

Canadian and American IBA Programs Have Much in Common - An Interview with John Cecil, National Audubon

As a follow-up to Mara Kerry's post on the National Important Bird Areas meeting in Port Rowan last week, Ted Cheskey, manager of bird conservation, shares his thoughts on the meeting and speaks with John Cecil of National Audubon about the Canadian and American IBA Programs.



IBA Canada partners have been working hard to engage volunteers – called IBA Caretakers – to care for and be the "eyes, ears and feet on the ground" for Canada's IBAs. These volunteers were a focus of the National IBA meeting in Port Rowan last week. Between presentations on monitoring protocols for IBA Caretakers, and animated discussions on habitat definitions, John Cecil, Manager of the Important Bird Area Program with National Audubon sat down with me to discuss his impressions of the Canadian program and the potential of collaborating more closely on bird conservation.

John was a very welcomed full participant in the two-day workshop, held at the spectacular Bird Studies Canada headquarters in Port Rowan, Ontario. He provided us with a good overview of the IBA program history in the USA. We compared notes on challenges and opportunties, and came away feeling motivated to share more – we have much in common with our American IBA colleagues.

We had scheduled the workshop for late April, to avoid the "field season", for many of the participants from across Canada, but still take advantage of migration in this internationally famous World Biosphere Reserve and Globally significant IBA.

I really wanted to interview John outside, but Mother Nature had the last word, throwing high winds and rain at us for most of the workshop, allowing us to happily toil inside without regrets. For the interview, we were able to find a quiet spot in the excellent BSC library to chat for a few minutes.

There were some brief moments during the workshop when the weather was more accommodating. We went on a brief trip on the trail to a lookout over Long Point Bay, and saw thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands of ducks, Ruddys, Scaup, Redheads, Canvasback, Buffleheads, Mergansers, Coots, and many more species, all milling about in the bay. The build up in late April was a sign that things were still frozen much further north, where most of these birds breed. Somehow they know this. . . .

Moments like these - being fascinated and inspired by the birds and habitats like Long Point, or sharing and learning from colleagues - are what motivate us to protect our IBAs, and the birds that depend upon them and the surrounding landscapes and habitats.

Workshop attendees, including Ted Cheskey (front row, second from left), Ian Davidson, Nature Canada's executive director (front row, third from left), and Mara Kerry, Nature Canada's director of conservation (back row, 8th from left)

Double-hulled Tankers Won't Protect Northern BC Coast From Oil Spills

Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipeline Project proposes to take tar sands oil from Alberta to the northern BC port of Kitimat for export to Pacific markets. Enbridge believes petroleum products can be moved safely through the northern BC coast, in part thanks to "modern and double-hulled" tankers.

In a report released last week, Living Oceans Society takes a close look at the limitations of double-hulled tankers and concludes they're not the panacea they're touted to be.

The risk of an oil spill in the northern BC coast is one of the main objections to this project. A spill could cause irreversible harm to the livelihoods of many coastal and aboriginal communities, the area's unique marine ecosystems, the Great Bear Rainforest and 28 Important Bird Areas.

A Joint Review Panel has been established to review the environmental assessment of the project, but a date for the hearings is yet to be announced. Nature Canada plans to participate in the review, together with BC Nature. However, opposition to the project is building and a proposed legislated ban on tankers in the area could put an end to this threat. Watch spOIL for a glimpse of the wilderness at risk.