Impact assessments, fisheries protections and species-at-risk legislation are not administrative inconveniences; they are safeguards designed to manage environmental risk before damage occurs. (Fengkai Liu/Unsplash)The Canadian government is proposing sweeping changes to accelerate industrial development and reduce environmental oversight. These proposed legislative, regulatory and policy reforms could significantly diminish the government’s capacity to assess environmental impacts and weaken protections for fish habitats and species at risk.This sits uneasily alongside Canada’s recent conservation commitments. Earlier this year, Canada’s government committed billions of dollars toward biodiversity protection, species recovery, Indigenous stewardship and climate resilience. This includes the government’s $3.8 billion Strategy to Protect Nature, commitments to protect 30 per cent of lands and waters by 2030, and renewed investments in salmon recovery through the Pacific Salmon Strategy Initiative.In 2005, Canada adopted one of the world’s most ambitious conservation frameworks for commercially exploited species: the Wild Salmon Policy. The policy promised a conservation-first approach grounded in monitoring, science-based risk assessment and proactive intervention before salmon populations reached crisis levels.Yet many Pacific salmon populations continue to decline and fisheries are increasingly constrained. There is insufficient data for nearly half of conservation units — distinct groups of spawning populations used to assess status and guide management — to reliably assess extinction risk. Even where sufficient information exists for at-risk populations, governments have repeatedly failed to implement timely protections.As colleagues and I recently argued, biodiversity policies fail because governments lack the safeguards, accountability mechanisms and political commitment needed to implement them consistently. Canada has no shortage of conservation policies or biodiversity commitments. The challenge is implementing them consistently and effectively.Importance of environmental regulationsCanada’s government argues that environmental regulations and project approval processes must be streamlined to improve efficiency and economic competitiveness.However, environmental laws exist because large industrial projects can cause significant and sometimes irreversible ecological harm. Impact assessments, fisheries protections and species-at-risk legislation are not administrative inconveniences; they are safeguards designed to manage environmental risk before damage occurs. Preventing ecological damage is far less costly than restoring ecosystems after they’ve been damaged.The Canadian government’s proposed changes to the Species at Risk Act (SARA) are especially concerning. Current proposals would allow the government to override provisions intended to prevent activities that jeopardize the survival or recovery of at-risk species.Nowhere are these risks more visible than northwest British Columbia, one of the last regions in North America with relatively intact wild salmon ecosystems. However, major mining, energy, pipeline and infrastructure projects are being developed, while federal monitoring and assessment capacity for salmon erodes.Pacific salmon populations already exist in legal limbo under SARA. The legislation contains timelines for federal listing decisions, but those timelines only begin once listing recommendations are formally sent to cabinet.Two decades ago, two salmon populations assessed as endangered were denied legal protection because of socio-economic considerations, and they remain critically endangered. Since then, governments have stalled on protections for an additional 45 populations, despite repeated scientific warnings of extinction risk.The proposed policy changes may also be used to authorize projects that impact species such as the southern resident killer whale — one of Canada’s most endangered animals — through port expansions or increased oil tanker traffic along B.C.’s coast.These governance failures raise questions about the effectiveness of Canada’s investments in biodiversity conservation. Effective conservation depends on long-term monitoring and precautionary decision-making. Canada once maintained one of the world’s longest-running monitoring systems for exploited species, but that capacity has declined to its lowest level in more than 70 years. As monitoring weakens, conservation becomes less precautionary.Pacific Salmon StrategyThe first phase of the Pacific Salmon Strategy represented a substantial public investment in salmon stewardship and rebuilding. Yet restoring the monitoring systems needed to track populations and assess extinction risk was not a central priority.The challenge facing the Pacific Salmon Strategy Initiative is whether governments are willing to restore the foundations required for effective biodiversity protection. Doing so would mean restoring long-term monitoring programs, strengthening cumulative-effects assessments, and supporting regional planning and stewardship in partnership with First Nations. The Canadian government must ensure investments in conservation are supported by the institutions needed to protect salmon and their habitat.This is not simply a fisheries or salmon problem, nor is it unique to Canada. Around the world, ambitious biodiversity commitments are being undermined by weakened scientific capacity, accelerated project approvals and reduced regulatory oversight. Achieving conservation goals will require empowering the institutions responsible for implementing them.Pacific salmon face immense pressures from climate change, commercial fisheries, warming oceans and habitat degradation.Their recovery depends on maintaining the scientific, legal and regulatory institutions needed to monitor populations, avoid harm and implement precautionary management. Without those institutions, even the most ambitious biodiversity commitments are unlikely to deliver the conservation outcomes they promise.This article was co-authored by Nikki Skuce, Executive Director of Northern Confluence, and Anna Johnston, a lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law.Michael Price does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.