Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

‘High profile’ endangered species to receive new protections in B.C. nature agreement: internal docs

News Feed
Wednesday, December 7, 2022

By Sarah Cox The B.C. government appears poised to announce new protections for “high profile” species at risk of extinction, including boreal caribou and spotted owls, as part of a long-awaited nature agreement with the federal government, according to documents obtained by The Narwhal through a Freedom of Information request. One document suggests the B.C. government’s decision to sign a nature agreement with Ottawa is motivated by a desire to sidestep potential federal interventions to protect at-risk species and their habitat. Details of the nature agreement have not yet been announced but speculation is it will be released any day to coincide with COP15, the United Nations biodiversity conference that opened Nov. 6 in Montreal.  Get The Narwhal in your inbox! People always tell us they love our newsletter. Find out yourself with a weekly dose of our ad‑free, independent journalism. Get The Narwhal in your inbox! People always tell us they love our newsletter. Find out yourself with a weekly dose of our ad‑free, independent journalism. Federal Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault recently said the federal government will step in if B.C. and other provinces fail to protect habitat for at-risk species such as caribou, telling provinces “the party is over.” Under a rarely used provision in Canada’s Species at Risk Act, Ottawa has the right to override provincial land use decisions, such as whether to issue logging permits, if a species faces imminent threats to its recovery. “Advancing a nature agreement is one strategy to reduce the risk of federal intervention in provincial land use,” says an April 29 briefing note to Lori Wanamaker, then deputy minister to former B.C. Premier John Horgan.  A draft briefing note for Josie Osborne, B.C. Minister of Lands, Water and Resource Stewardship, says B.C. and Canada are looking to establish a “path forward” for the recovery of “high profile” species, listing boreal caribou and spotted owls as two examples. The April 13 note says the nature agreement will position B.C. and Ottawa to “work more collaboratively to achieve shared recovery goals” for species at risk of extinction.  B.C.’s southern mountain caribou herds are so highly endangered that the provincial government has invested in penning projects for pregnant females. Caribou are one species mentioned in freedom of information documents that indicate the B.C. government is poised to make a nature announcement focusing on ‘high profile’ species at risk of extinction. Photo: B.C. FLNRO Funding for the agreement will be shared equally between B.C. and Canada, while the agreement will “maintain provincial jurisdiction,” according to the briefing notes. As one example, Osborne’s briefing note says B.C. will “proactively” demonstrate “effective protection and piloting planning for species not yet listed like the fisher and western bumblebee.”  The term “not yet listed” refers to vulnerable species that have not yet been listed under Canada’s Species at Risk Act, which could potentially trigger federal interventions aimed at preventing local or global extinctions. Charlotte Dawe, conservation and policy campaigner for the Wilderness Committee, said the strategy to deal with at-risk species in B.C., as outlined in the briefing notes, will not fundamentally change the trend of species extinction in B.C., which has more at-risk species than any other jurisdiction in the country and no stand-alone legislation to protect them.  “This signals to me a way for the B.C. government to get the federal government off their backs,” Dawe said. “They’re going to be basically protecting a few species and continuing with business as usual, in the habitat of the rest of the 1,900 species at risk of extinction in B.C.” “This isn’t the system change that we need. It’s just more incremental steps to sort of appease the federal government and appease the public and hope that they can get away with just doing this — the bare minimum.” Ecojustice law reform specialist Victoria Watson said the environmental law charity has been concerned for some time that the nature agreement will focus on a few high-profile species and areas “while doing little overall to protect and restore interconnected ecosystems.” “In our view, the key measures of a good federal-provincial nature agreement are, first, how much habitat for at-risk species do Indigenous knowledge holders and scientists say we need to protect? And second, how much of that determined habitat is genuinely protected through the agreement or other measures?” Watson said in an emailed statement from Montreal, where she is attending the COP15 conference.  She said Ecojustice also sees “some good reasons for hope” because the freedom of information documents help show the importance of Indigenous-led conservation and stewardship initiatives. B.C.’s best shot at tackling the biodiversity crisis is a new law to protect the province’s biodiversity, Watson added.   Three B.C. First Nations have unilaterally declared Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas, including the Mamalilikulla who are now protecting 10,00 hectares of land and ocean on the southern coast. Photo: Taylor Roades / The Narwhal Concerns B.C. nature agreement won’t include long-term protections The briefing note for Wanamaker also says  several conservation initiatives underway in B.C. — as yet unannounced — “will make use of protection measures that do not include establishment of a park.” Old-growth management areas, ungulate winter range designations and wildlife habitat areas “are likely to be used for species at risk and for old-growth management,” the note says.  Dawe pointed out such designations do not confer long-lasting protection. “I’ve stood in the forest of an ungulate winter range and wildlife habitat area, [and] old-growth forest, and I’ve stood in it after it was clear cut,” she said. “So these do not offer permanent protection. And I think that’s exactly why the government is relying on these rather than legal protection through something like a park, or something like law reform, which would limit companies from logging in [at-risk species] habitat in the first place.” The nature agreement was first announced almost two years ago, in response to a petition the environmental law charity Ecojustice sent to federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change Steven Guilbeault on behalf of the Wilderness Committee. The petition demanded the federal government issue an emergency order under Canada’s Species at Risk Act to protect the three remaining spotted owls in B.C., which rely on old-growth forests for their survival. (Since then, two owls have died, leaving only one wild-born spotted owl in the Canadian wild.) Only vague information about the nature agreement was released at the time.  In an emailed statement in response to questions, the B.C. Ministry of Lands, Water and Resource Stewardship said the province is committed to working with the federal government to ensure “we manage and maintain” B.C.’s biodiversity. The ministry said negotiations on the B.C.-Canada nature agreement are ongoing and the government will provide an update “in the near future.”  Josie Osborne, B.C.’s Minister of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship, was briefed about the impending B.C.-Canada nature agreement. freedom of information documents obtained by The Narwhal indicate the agreement will include protections only for “high profile” species such as caribou and spotted owls. Photo: Melissa Renwick / The Narwhal According to the briefing notes, topics covered in the nature agreement include: ecosystem and habitat conservation, protection, restoration and stewardship; species at risk recovery and protection; Indigenous conservation-based leadership and partnerships; and ecosystem knowledge and information. The briefing note to Wanamaker says the commitment to develop the nature agreement arose as part of addressing Ecojustice’s legal petition “seeking federal intervention for spotted owl habitat protection” under the Species at Risk Act. The note described the Act as a “safety-net legislation” designed to “assert federal control over provincial interests if provinces fail to implement effective conservation actions.”  It goes on to call the Act “a powerful and highly prescriptive legislative framework for [species at risk] recovery that forces relatively inflexible planning and process requirements.”  It also states that the federal legislation “treats all listed species as equal” and puts primary emphasis on the identification and protection of critical habitat to meet recovery objectives. Dawe questioned the sincerity of the B.C. government’s stated commitment to protecting species at risk. “The fact that we have environmental groups and law groups that have to legally take the government to court in order for them to do anything to halt extinction in the province is just not the way it should be,” she said. “The onus should not be on the public and organizations to force the government to do what they’re supposed to do.” Victoria’s owl-clover, an endangered plant that grows in endangered Garry Oak ecosystems is not a “high profile” species and may receive no protections in an upcoming nature agreement. Photo: Brian Starzomski Smoker’s lung lichen, in the rare inland temperate rainforest, is a species at risk of extinction. The lichen is not “high profile” and may also be overlooked in the soon-to-be announced B.C.-Canada nature agreement. Photo: Eddie Petryshen / Wildsight B.C. lacks legislation to protect endangered species B.C., along with three other provinces and the Yukon, lacks stand-alone legislation to protect at-risk species, despite a 1996 commitment to enshrine legal protections. Canada’s Species at Risk Act applies automatically only to species on federal land, about five per cent of the country, meaning that most at-risk species in Canada have few, if any, meaningful protections.  The B.C. Ministry of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship said it is engaged in a number of processes and initiatives aligned to halt biodiversity loss and support the recovery of at-risk species. In addition to the nature agreement, the ministry said they include the implementation of all 14 recommendations made by an old-growth strategic review panel, the implementation of a strategy called Together for Wildlife and “assessment of conservation policy tools and statutes,” including planning for an update of species at risk legal lists.  The ministry also said “new legislation and improvements to existing legislation and policies are being considered.” The B.C. cabinet approved the nature agreement to be scoped as a bilateral agreement, with “check-ins” with key Indigenous partners and “some strategic engagements with Indigenous leadership focused on shaping B.C.’s position on Canada’s protected area targets,” the briefing note to Osborne says.  Wanamaker’s briefing note discusses criticism by Ecojustice and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, which take umbrage with B.C.’s claim that it has protected four per cent of the provincial land base through a mechanism called “other effective area-based conservation measures.”  Other effective area-based conservation measures are areas that contribute to the conservation of species, habitats and ecosystems outside of protected areas. The two groups argued such areas, included in B.C.’s protected areas tally, do not meet all of the federal criteria and fail to prevent activities incompatible with conservation from occurring, according to the briefing note. The following half-page is redacted, while a summary of land conservation initiatives is completely redacted.  The Narwhal received a 19-page document. Eight pages were partially redacted, and 11 were fully redacted. Redactions were made on the grounds that the information was subject to cabinet and local body confidences, that they contained policy recommendations and that disclosure could be harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations or to the financial or economic interests of a public body.  The briefing note to Osborne says the nature agreement “provides a new mechanism for coordinating B.C.’s natural resource sector collaboration with the federal government to promote the stewardship of a range of values and effective protection and recovery for species at risk.” It says federal funding will be aligned with cross-ministry provincial priorities. “This coordinated approach has the potential to improve the strategy and effectiveness of B.C.’s natural resource sector relations with the federal government,” the document notes.  

By Sarah Cox With plants and animals rapidly disappearing, B.C. and the feds are close to a new agreement to protect nature. But some environmentalists question just how strong protections will be

Spotted Owl Logging BC Jared Hobbs

The B.C. government appears poised to announce new protections for “high profile” species at risk of extinction, including boreal caribou and spotted owls, as part of a long-awaited nature agreement with the federal government, according to documents obtained by The Narwhal through a Freedom of Information request.

One document suggests the B.C. government’s decision to sign a nature agreement with Ottawa is motivated by a desire to sidestep potential federal interventions to protect at-risk species and their habitat. Details of the nature agreement have not yet been announced but speculation is it will be released any day to coincide with COP15, the United Nations biodiversity conference that opened Nov. 6 in Montreal. 

Get The Narwhal in your inbox!
People always tell us they love our newsletter. Find out yourself with a weekly dose of our ad‑free, independent journalism.
Get The Narwhal in your inbox!
People always tell us they love our newsletter. Find out yourself with a weekly dose of our ad‑free, independent journalism.

Federal Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault recently said the federal government will step in if B.C. and other provinces fail to protect habitat for at-risk species such as caribou, telling provinces “the party is over.” Under a rarely used provision in Canada’s Species at Risk Act, Ottawa has the right to override provincial land use decisions, such as whether to issue logging permits, if a species faces imminent threats to its recovery.

“Advancing a nature agreement is one strategy to reduce the risk of federal intervention in provincial land use,” says an April 29 briefing note to Lori Wanamaker, then deputy minister to former B.C. Premier John Horgan. 

A draft briefing note for Josie Osborne, B.C. Minister of Lands, Water and Resource Stewardship, says B.C. and Canada are looking to establish a “path forward” for the recovery of “high profile” species, listing boreal caribou and spotted owls as two examples.

The April 13 note says the nature agreement will position B.C. and Ottawa to “work more collaboratively to achieve shared recovery goals” for species at risk of extinction. 

Caribou relocation
B.C.’s southern mountain caribou herds are so highly endangered that the provincial government has invested in penning projects for pregnant females. Caribou are one species mentioned in freedom of information documents that indicate the B.C. government is poised to make a nature announcement focusing on ‘high profile’ species at risk of extinction. Photo: B.C. FLNRO

Funding for the agreement will be shared equally between B.C. and Canada, while the agreement will “maintain provincial jurisdiction,” according to the briefing notes. As one example, Osborne’s briefing note says B.C. will “proactively” demonstrate “effective protection and piloting planning for species not yet listed like the fisher and western bumblebee.” 

The term “not yet listed” refers to vulnerable species that have not yet been listed under Canada’s Species at Risk Act, which could potentially trigger federal interventions aimed at preventing local or global extinctions.

Charlotte Dawe, conservation and policy campaigner for the Wilderness Committee, said the strategy to deal with at-risk species in B.C., as outlined in the briefing notes, will not fundamentally change the trend of species extinction in B.C., which has more at-risk species than any other jurisdiction in the country and no stand-alone legislation to protect them. 

“This signals to me a way for the B.C. government to get the federal government off their backs,” Dawe said. “They’re going to be basically protecting a few species and continuing with business as usual, in the habitat of the rest of the 1,900 species at risk of extinction in B.C.”

“This isn’t the system change that we need. It’s just more incremental steps to sort of appease the federal government and appease the public and hope that they can get away with just doing this — the bare minimum.”

Ecojustice law reform specialist Victoria Watson said the environmental law charity has been concerned for some time that the nature agreement will focus on a few high-profile species and areas “while doing little overall to protect and restore interconnected ecosystems.”

“In our view, the key measures of a good federal-provincial nature agreement are, first, how much habitat for at-risk species do Indigenous knowledge holders and scientists say we need to protect? And second, how much of that determined habitat is genuinely protected through the agreement or other measures?” Watson said in an emailed statement from Montreal, where she is attending the COP15 conference

She said Ecojustice also sees “some good reasons for hope” because the freedom of information documents help show the importance of Indigenous-led conservation and stewardship initiatives.

B.C.’s best shot at tackling the biodiversity crisis is a new law to protect the province’s biodiversity, Watson added.  

Mamalilikulla territory, where an IPCA has been declared. Landscapes taken between Port McNeill and Hoeya Sound in Knight’s Inlet
Three B.C. First Nations have unilaterally declared Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas, including the Mamalilikulla who are now protecting 10,00 hectares of land and ocean on the southern coast. Photo: Taylor Roades / The Narwhal

Concerns B.C. nature agreement won’t include long-term protections

The briefing note for Wanamaker also says  several conservation initiatives underway in B.C. — as yet unannounced — “will make use of protection measures that do not include establishment of a park.” Old-growth management areas, ungulate winter range designations and wildlife habitat areas “are likely to be used for species at risk and for old-growth management,” the note says. 

Dawe pointed out such designations do not confer long-lasting protection.

“I’ve stood in the forest of an ungulate winter range and wildlife habitat area, [and] old-growth forest, and I’ve stood in it after it was clear cut,” she said. “So these do not offer permanent protection. And I think that’s exactly why the government is relying on these rather than legal protection through something like a park, or something like law reform, which would limit companies from logging in [at-risk species] habitat in the first place.”

The nature agreement was first announced almost two years ago, in response to a petition the environmental law charity Ecojustice sent to federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change Steven Guilbeault on behalf of the Wilderness Committee. The petition demanded the federal government issue an emergency order under Canada’s Species at Risk Act to protect the three remaining spotted owls in B.C., which rely on old-growth forests for their survival. (Since then, two owls have died, leaving only one wild-born spotted owl in the Canadian wild.) Only vague information about the nature agreement was released at the time. 

In an emailed statement in response to questions, the B.C. Ministry of Lands, Water and Resource Stewardship said the province is committed to working with the federal government to ensure “we manage and maintain” B.C.’s biodiversity. The ministry said negotiations on the B.C.-Canada nature agreement are ongoing and the government will provide an update “in the near future.” 

Minister Josie Osborne stands at First Street dock in Tofino, B.C., Tla-o-qui-aht territory
Josie Osborne, B.C.’s Minister of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship, was briefed about the impending B.C.-Canada nature agreement. freedom of information documents obtained by The Narwhal indicate the agreement will include protections only for “high profile” species such as caribou and spotted owls. Photo: Melissa Renwick / The Narwhal

According to the briefing notes, topics covered in the nature agreement include: ecosystem and habitat conservation, protection, restoration and stewardship; species at risk recovery and protection; Indigenous conservation-based leadership and partnerships; and ecosystem knowledge and information.

The briefing note to Wanamaker says the commitment to develop the nature agreement arose as part of addressing Ecojustice’s legal petition “seeking federal intervention for spotted owl habitat protection” under the Species at Risk Act. The note described the Act as a “safety-net legislation” designed to “assert federal control over provincial interests if provinces fail to implement effective conservation actions.” 

It goes on to call the Act “a powerful and highly prescriptive legislative framework for [species at risk] recovery that forces relatively inflexible planning and process requirements.” 

It also states that the federal legislation “treats all listed species as equal” and puts primary emphasis on the identification and protection of critical habitat to meet recovery objectives.

Dawe questioned the sincerity of the B.C. government’s stated commitment to protecting species at risk. “The fact that we have environmental groups and law groups that have to legally take the government to court in order for them to do anything to halt extinction in the province is just not the way it should be,” she said. “The onus should not be on the public and organizations to force the government to do what they’re supposed to do.”

B.C. lacks legislation to protect endangered species

B.C., along with three other provinces and the Yukon, lacks stand-alone legislation to protect at-risk species, despite a 1996 commitment to enshrine legal protections. Canada’s Species at Risk Act applies automatically only to species on federal land, about five per cent of the country, meaning that most at-risk species in Canada have few, if any, meaningful protections. 

The B.C. Ministry of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship said it is engaged in a number of processes and initiatives aligned to halt biodiversity loss and support the recovery of at-risk species. In addition to the nature agreement, the ministry said they include the implementation of all 14 recommendations made by an old-growth strategic review panel, the implementation of a strategy called Together for Wildlife and “assessment of conservation policy tools and statutes,” including planning for an update of species at risk legal lists. 

The ministry also said “new legislation and improvements to existing legislation and policies are being considered.”

The B.C. cabinet approved the nature agreement to be scoped as a bilateral agreement, with “check-ins” with key Indigenous partners and “some strategic engagements with Indigenous leadership focused on shaping B.C.’s position on Canada’s protected area targets,” the briefing note to Osborne says. 

Wanamaker’s briefing note discusses criticism by Ecojustice and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, which take umbrage with B.C.’s claim that it has protected four per cent of the provincial land base through a mechanism called “other effective area-based conservation measures.” 

Other effective area-based conservation measures are areas that contribute to the conservation of species, habitats and ecosystems outside of protected areas. The two groups argued such areas, included in B.C.’s protected areas tally, do not meet all of the federal criteria and fail to prevent activities incompatible with conservation from occurring, according to the briefing note. The following half-page is redacted, while a summary of land conservation initiatives is completely redacted. 

The Narwhal received a 19-page document. Eight pages were partially redacted, and 11 were fully redacted. Redactions were made on the grounds that the information was subject to cabinet and local body confidences, that they contained policy recommendations and that disclosure could be harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations or to the financial or economic interests of a public body. 

The briefing note to Osborne says the nature agreement “provides a new mechanism for coordinating B.C.’s natural resource sector collaboration with the federal government to promote the stewardship of a range of values and effective protection and recovery for species at risk.” It says federal funding will be aligned with cross-ministry provincial priorities.

“This coordinated approach has the potential to improve the strategy and effectiveness of B.C.’s natural resource sector relations with the federal government,” the document notes.  

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Toyota SUV adverts banned in UK on environmental grounds

Advertising Standards Authority says Hilux poster and video condone driving that disregards ‘impact on nature’The UK advertising watchdog has banned two Toyota adverts for condoning driving that disregards its environmental impact in a landmark ruling, stating that the SUV ads had been created without “a sense of responsibility to society”.It is the first time the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has blocked an SUV advert on the grounds of breaching social responsibility in an environmental context. Continue reading...

The UK advertising watchdog has banned two Toyota adverts for condoning driving that disregards its environmental impact in a landmark ruling, stating that the SUV ads had been created without “a sense of responsibility to society”.It is the first time the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has blocked an SUV advert on the grounds of breaching social responsibility in an environmental context.The regulator barred two ads, first released in a 2020 campaign: a poster and a video shown on social media, where dozens of Toyota Hilux cars drive across off-road terrain, including a river, while a voiceover describes the scene as “one of nature’s true spectacles”. The vehicles then join a road and drive through an urban area, before a lone car enters a driveway, with the voiceover continuing: “Toyota Hilux. Born to roam.” The poster shows two SUVs in the foreground, followed by a swarm of others traversing a rocky terrain over a cloud of dust.The complaint was lodged by Adfree Cities, a network of groups trying to get advertising out of public spaces. They argued, in partnership with the UK campaign group Badvertising, that the adverts condoned environmentally harmful behaviour, and are calling for an end to advertising of high-carbon products and services.The ASA ruled that the adverts “condoned the use of vehicles in a manner that disregarded their impact on nature and the environment … they had not been prepared with a sense of responsibility to society”.A poster showing two Toyota Hilux SUVs followed by a swarm of others. Photograph: Advertising Standards Authority/PAVeronica Wignall, a co-director at Adfree Cities, said: “These adverts epitomise Toyota’s total disregard for nature and the climate, by featuring enormous, highly polluting vehicles driving at speed through rivers and wild grasslands.”Wignall said there was a disconnect between the way SUVs were advertised – with campaigns often depicting them in rugged environments – and the reality of where they were largely driven. Research has shown that three-quarters of new SUVs in the UK are registered to people in urban areas. “It’s a cynical use of nature to promote something incredibly nature-damaging.”She said: “This ruling is a good moment to think about the limitations of what the regulator can do,” noting that the body relied on civil society to monitor ads for potential harm. “The ASA can only act on adverts that are environmentally damaging through breaches of advertising codes … But the harms caused by high-carbon advertising go much deeper than that.“Advertising for SUVs is pushing up demand for massive gas-guzzling, highly polluting cars in urban environments, just when we want streets that are safer and cleaner and an [accessible] low carbon transport system,” Wignall said, adding that the situation was similar for flights, meat and dairy.She called for the government to “stop high-carbon advertising at source” with a tobacco-style ban. “Similarly, climate breakdown is increasingly damaging health in the UK, as well as obviously across the world where impacts are felt more severely.”Toyota defended the Hilux campaign by arguing that the vehicle was designed for the toughest environments, with those working in industries including farming and forestry having a genuine need for off-road vehicles. It did not depict any such workers in the commercial, but it said it should not have to.In 2021 the regulator announced plans for a series of investigations into environmental advertising claims and practices. In a submission to the House of Lords that year, the ASA noted that it received few complaints related to social responsibility, describing it as “an area that we believe will require greater regulatory scrutiny in future”.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Business TodayGet set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morningPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionThe ASA has previously issued a draft ruling banning adverts for a Land Rover Defender off-roader in 2021 on social responsibility grounds, before overturning it.A Toyota spokesperson said: “Toyota does not condone behaviour that is harmful to the environment. In fact, over the course of the past three decades, not only has Toyota been one of the leaders in the automotive field in terms of carbon emissions reduction across its vehicle offering, it has shared hundreds of royalty-free licences, allowing others to use its electrification technology.“As part of its wide range of global vehicle offerings, Toyota caters for customers who require a mobility option for reliable use in the harshest of terrains – those people who operate in off-road and remote settings.”The spokesperson said footage in the advert had been shot on private land abroad, a non-UK location, with permission and “in a non-ecologically sensitive environment”, adding that the poster ad used computer-generated imagery and so had “no environmental impact”.While the definition of an SUV varies, the vehicles have surged in popularity in recent years in the UK to account for almost a third of vehicles sold. In Europe, the share of SUVs in new car registrations hit a record 51% this year.The effect of rising sales of SUVs, and the fact they tend to be heavier than the traditional models previously bought, means the average conventional-engined car bought in 2023 has higher carbon emissions than its 2013 equivalent, according to the climate campaign organisation Possible.

At the Portrait Gallery: ‘Forces of Nature,’ for good and ill

National Portrait Gallery show features subjects who have helped advance — and, in some instances, resisted — environmental stewardship.

The term for a likeness that captures a person in her or his defining home or workplace is “environmental portrait.” There are many of those in the National Portrait Gallery’s “Forces of Nature: Voices That Shaped Environmentalism.” But nearly as common are pictures such as the show’s oldest entry, an unknown artist’s small rendering of Henry David Thoreau, circa 1863, in which the “Walden” author looks as if he’s dressed for afternoon tea.Of course, he might have been. Thoreau’s celebrated haven in the woods was a short walk from the home of the property’s owner, Ralph Waldo Emerson, the author’s close friend. “Walden” remains influential for people who seek a return to nature, but Thoreau didn’t venture nearly so far into the wilderness as other 19th- and early-20th-century Americans pictured in this survey focusing on scientists, politicians, writers, artists and others who have helped advance — and, in some instances, resisted — environmental stewardship.Carl Everton Moon’s 1909 photograph of author and naturalist John Burroughs and Sierra Club co-founder John Muir shows them together at the Grand Canyon. Underwood & Underwood’s 1903 stereoscopic photo of presidential outdoorsman Teddy Roosevelt and a group of companions (including Muir) was made at the base of a giant sequoia. Gifford Pinchot, the first head of the U.S. Forest Service, also traveled far into the West, but Pirie MacDonald’s 1909 photo of him is no wilder than that of Thoreau.The museum owns more than 2,000 artworks originally made for the cover of Time magazine, so it’s hardly a surprise that some of them are included in this show. Mathias Klarwein’s 1970 illustration splits the face of ecologist and professor Barry Commoner between full color and reversed black and white, keyed to landscape backdrops that are, respectively, utopian and catastrophic. Also made for Time are Raul Vega’s 1980 photograph of cosmologist Carl Sagan standing in the surf fully clothed, and another split image that’s not technically a portrait: “Toxic Wastes,” James Marsh’s 1985 acrylic-on-board painting in which an anonymous man’s head turns skeletal below the surface of an apparently corrosive body of water.Two other pieces of Time cover art may come as thematic surprises. Mark Hess’s 1982 painting depicts James Watt, Ronald Reagan’s first secretary of the interior, depicted in front of a stylized rendering of the United States — whose public lands he appears ready to sell off. Dixy Lee Ray, the pro-development and pro-nuclear-power governor of Washington state from 1977 to 1981, is portrayed with her head grafted onto the body of an American goldfinch (the state bird) in David Palladini’s 1977 drawing in crayon, gouache and ink. Both former officials might be classified as forces against, rather than for, nature.The inclusion of Watt and Ray isn’t really explained, but the show is not divided equally between those who would preserve the planet and those who, for whatever reason, are not concerned about that. The only other subject who might be classified as an anti-environmentalist is Freeman Dyson, a physicist who in his final years became a critic of climate-change scientists, in a Francis Bello photograph.The show does feature portraits of people who are not known — or at least not known primarily — for their environmental campaigns. Among these are Prentice H. Polk’s photo of agricultural scientist George Washington Carver; Rudy Rodriguez’s photo of Dolores Huerta, the organizer of migrant farmworkers; and an unidentified picture of American Indian Movement activists Dennis Banks and Russell Means, depicted together by an unknown photographer during the 1973 armed occupation of Wounded Knee, S.D. But each of those subjects was concerned with the state of nature, even if indirectly.Coincidentally, all of the three-dimensional likenesses are of women. Two are bronze busts of authors: Rachel Carson (“Silent Spring”) by Una Hanbury, and Mary Austin (“The Land of Little Rain”) by Ida Rauh. The third is a small 3D print: a full-body color scan of Vietnam Veterans Memorial designer Maya Lin, who is now overseeing a different sort of memorial: a multimedia project about environmental and climate crises, “What Is Missing?”Among the most contemporary pieces are large paintings that exemplify a trend toward less formal and more playful portraits reflected in the museum’s recent acquisitions. Evolutionary biologist Edward O. Wilson communes with ants, a longtime interest, in Jennie Summerall’s 2006 painting, and tropical hues and cartoonishly outlined forms characterize Hope Gangloff’s 2019 painting of Julie Packard, the executive director of the Monterey Bay Aquarium. The contrast between these approachable images and the more solemn one of Thoreau demonstrates a notable development over the last 160 years. But that change is in art, which will probably prove less significant than the changes Mother Earth is undergoing.Forces of Nature: Voices That Shaped EnvironmentalismNational Portrait Gallery, Eighth and F streets NW. npg.si.edu.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.