Environmentalists question 'routine clarification' of Nova Scotia's wetlands policy

Environmental advocates are raising concerns about what they say are changes by the provincial government that weaken its wetlands policy.

But officials with the Environment Department say they've simply provided clarity to staff on how the policy should be used.

In documents shared with CBC, officials with the Environment Department say that, effective immediately, the designation of wetlands of special significancewould be limited to:

• Wetlands known to support threatened and endangered species only, and exclude vulnerable/special concern species (for which there are no prohibitions to harm).
• Only a portion of a wetland directly supporting species at risk, as determined by a qualified expert.
• The portion of wetlands that overlap with a designated Ramsar site (sites of international importance), provincial wildlife management area, provincial park, nature reserve, wilderness area or lands owned or legally protected by non-government charitable conservation land trusts.
• Wetlands where a proponent at the time of their application, through their own fieldwork, has included an observation of a species at risk in the wetland and the wetland meets the habitat requirements of that species. Databases ofhistoric occurrences of species at risk willno longer be considered.

Environment Minister Tim Halman was not made available for an interview Friday.

A 'routine clarification' for staff

In a statement, a spokesperson for the Environment Department said no changes have been made to the wetlands conservation policy. They said what's been shared with staff in the Environment Department and Natural Resources Department is a "routine clarification" to ensure a full understanding and consistent use of the wetlands policy.

"Government policies are one of many tools used to guide the work of staff in departments and it is important that everyone understands the policies they work with," according to the statement.

But Mike Kofahl, a lawyer with East Coast Environmental Law, said it seems a stretch to suggest there have been no changes in the policy.

"What stands out is that they're using the word 'limit' a lot, which to me seems to indicate that they're narrowing the approach that they've previously taken," he said.

'I think it's disgraceful'

Kofahl said it's also problematic fora proponent to be responsible for identifying species at risk without allowing any kind of reference to a database of past occurrences.

"Even if there is entirely good will on behalf of an applicant, an applicant may not be able to identify species because they don't have the expertise. It may not be the right time of year [or] they may not be following appropriate procedure," he said.

"I mean, that's part of the reason to go to databases to see [if there] has been species at risk in the past in these areas."

Mimi O'Handley, the wetlands and water co-ordinator for the Ecology Action Centre, also thinks the government's clarification amounts to a change and not in a positive way.

"I think it's disgraceful," she said.

O'Handley said the lack of public awareness is "reflective of the fact that the government probably knows that this isn't good and that what they're doing is not OK."

Definition of 'necessary public function'

The wetlands of special significance designationamounts to a "no-go zone" for other activity, she said.

"If a wetland was designated to be a [wetland of special significance],it meant that wetland couldn't be touched, it couldn't be altered in any way. And now that's been significantly weakened."

In determining whether an application to alter a wetland is approved, consideration is given to what's called necessary public function.

The information shared with government staff says that the determination of whether a wetland can be altered "will acknowledge changing circumstances and priorities since the policy was developed," and that the definition of necessary public function can also include "housing, commercial/industrial, renewables, etc."

O'Handley said this seems like "a short-term economic decision to develop land and to push big industrial projects through for short-term economic gain."

It leaves her wondering why the policy clarification was required and who it's serving.

"They should be going in the opposite direction of clarifying to make it stronger, not weaker."