The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) first designated risk status to Canadian species in 1978. This paper summarises the past 21 years of COSEWIC's existence by describing the past and current structure and function of the Committee, by analysing the list of species that have been designated status, and by highlighting currently outstanding issues. COSEWIC is comprised of representatives from governments, national conservation organizations, and technical experts but operates at "arm's length" from its member institutions. Designation of risk by COSEWIC carries no legal implications. COSEWIC maintains five non-quantitative "at-risk" categories (Extinct, Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened, Vulnerable). Two other categories (Not At Risk and Indeterminate) exist but do not appear on the list of Canadian Species At Risk. Designations are made at annual meetings based upon peer-reviewed status reports usually prepared under contract by independant experts. By 1998, COSEWIC had designated status to 447 species, subspecies and populations, 307 of which occur in the five at-risk categories. Analysis of the COSEWIC list of Canadian Species At Risk suggests that its composition is influenced by pragmatic matters such as existence of scientific knowledge, availability of knowledgeable authors, funding for report preparation, and differential public attitudes towards various taxa. Accordingly, the list's primary utility is at the level of the individual species rather than as a metric of biodiversity loss in Canada. Under proposed federal endangered species legislation, COSEWIC's role is expected to be assumed by a new entity. This "new COSEWIC" will be challenged in addressing several significant issues: treatment of species with ranges barely extending into Canada (peripherals), development of quantitative guidelines for at-risk categories, and the definition of nationally significant populations eligible for designation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Christopher C. Shank (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: