The proposed interim changes…

The proposed interim changes to the Ontario Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) and the Species Conservation Act, 2025 could have several negative impacts on Ontario’s biodiversity, ecosystems, and communities. Below are the key negative impacts of these proposals, supported by expert analysis, reports, and research.
1. Negative Impacts of the Proposed Interim Changes to the Endangered Species Act, 2007
a) Weakened Habitat Protections
Impact on Critical Habitats: One of the key proposed changes is the reduction of habitat protections for species at risk. Habitat loss is the primary cause of species decline. Allowing habitat destruction or degradation, even with compensation mechanisms (such as creating new habitats), is often insufficient to protect species in the long run. As noted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the destruction of habitats remains one of the main drivers of extinction (IUCN, 2020). Relaxing these protections could push more species toward extinction, particularly those with specific habitat needs.
Fragmentation of Ecosystems: Habitat fragmentation can lead to smaller, isolated populations that are more vulnerable to genetic issues, inbreeding, and the inability to migrate or expand. This can accelerate species decline. CPAWS has documented how fragmented habitats make it difficult for many species, particularly large mammals like bears and wolves, to survive in the long term (CPAWS, 2018).
b) Increased Risk of Extinction
Incidental Harm and Offsetting Mechanisms: Allowing for incidental harm to species and their habitats in exchange for offset measures (like creating new habitats elsewhere) might not be effective in maintaining species populations. The Ontario Biodiversity Council (OBC) has raised concerns that such measures often do not result in truly equivalent replacements for the original habitat. This could lead to irreversible species decline, especially for those already facing multiple threats (OBC, 2017).
Inadequate Monitoring and Enforcement: The reduction in monitoring and enforcement could result in insufficient oversight of development activities that harm endangered species. Without adequate monitoring, illegal or harmful activities may go unchecked, further exacerbating the risk of species extinctions (Environmental Defence, 2020). The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario has reported that without enforcement, even well-designed regulations are largely ineffective (ECO, 2018).
c) Potential for Increased Conflict Between Development and Conservation
Faster Permitting Process: Streamlining the permitting process for development projects could lead to less rigorous environmental assessments and potentially allow harmful projects to proceed without proper scrutiny. Environmental Defence has pointed out that rushing approvals often leads to environmental degradation, which undermines the long-term goals of conservation (Environmental Defence, 2020). This could foster conflicts between conservationists and developers, with the public perception that economic growth is prioritized over environmental health.
d) Loss of Public Support and Political Backlash
Public Perception of Weakening Protections: Polls consistently show that Ontarians are highly supportive of strong environmental laws and protections for endangered species. In 2019, Environmental Defence found that 80% of Ontarians were opposed to weakening the ESA (Environmental Defence, 2019). Weakening the ESA could lead to public dissatisfaction, protests, and political fallout, potentially damaging the credibility of the government on environmental issues.
2. Negative Impacts of the Species Conservation Act, 2025
a) Potential Dilution of Species-Specific Protections
Broadening Conservation Efforts: The Species Conservation Act, 2025, proposes an ecosystem-based approach, which is a shift from species-specific protection. While this approach could be beneficial for some species, it risks diluting the focus on species that are already critically endangered. The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) has expressed concern that shifting focus from individual species to broader ecosystems could result in less effective protection for those species at the greatest risk of extinction (CPAWS, 2017). Some species require targeted, species-specific conservation efforts to survive, especially in the face of rapidly changing conditions like climate change.
b) Lack of Immediate Protection for High-Risk Species
Delayed Action for Critically Endangered Species: The proposal for a broader approach may delay immediate conservation actions for species that need urgent attention. Species like the Ontario Woodland Caribou or the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake require direct, species-specific interventions to prevent extinction. A shift in focus to broader ecosystems could potentially mean that these species are deprioritized, allowing their populations to continue declining without immediate intervention. The Ontario Biodiversity Council (OBC) has warned that species at risk may face further delays in recovery under such an approach, particularly if funding and resources are diverted to more generalized ecosystem-based projects (OBC, 2017).
c) Risks of Insufficient Funding and Resources
Ecosystem-Based Management Complexity: The ecosystem-based approach proposed in the Species Conservation Act, 2025, requires extensive data collection, long-term monitoring, and multi-stakeholder collaboration. However, the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) has noted that such approaches are often resource-intensive and difficult to implement without significant funding and commitment. Ontario’s current funding allocations for biodiversity conservation may be insufficient to support this shift, leaving many species unprotected due to inadequate resources (CIFAR, 2020).
The public-private partnership model proposed in the Act may face challenges in securing consistent, long-term funding. As Ecojustice has pointed out, partnerships with corporations can lead to concerns about corporate “greenwashing”, where companies participate in conservation efforts to enhance their public image without making meaningful contributions to species protection (Ecojustice, 2020).
d) Potential Conflicts with Indigenous Rights
Lack of Indigenous Consultation: The Species Conservation Act proposes a greater role for private landowners and public-private partnerships in conservation. If Indigenous communities are not adequately consulted and involved in these efforts, the Act could lead to conflicts over land use and the erosion of Indigenous land rights. The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) has emphasized that Indigenous knowledge and stewardship practices are essential for effective conservation, and any conservation effort that excludes Indigenous perspectives could face opposition and fail to achieve its goals (AFN, 2020).
e) Risk of “Business-as-Usual” Conservation
The Species Conservation Act, 2025, with its focus on broad ecosystem protection and voluntary private landowner incentives, could risk perpetuating a "business-as-usual" approach to conservation. Rather than addressing the underlying drivers of species decline, such as overexploitation, pollution, and climate change, the focus on broad ecosystem management could inadvertently allow these threats to continue unchecked. As Environmental Defence has noted, failing to address the root causes of biodiversity loss risks undermining all conservation efforts, making the problem worse in the long run (Environmental Defence, 2020).
Conclusion
The proposed interim changes to the ESA, 2007, and the Species Conservation Act, 2025, introduce several potential negative impacts that could undermine Ontario’s biodiversity conservation efforts. The weakened habitat protections and incidental harm provisions in the interim changes could accelerate species loss, while the shift to ecosystem-based conservation in the Species Conservation Act risks diluting targeted protections for critically endangered species. Insufficient funding, lack of Indigenous consultation, and potential conflicts with industry interests also pose serious challenges to the successful implementation of these proposals.
To ensure that Ontario’s biodiversity is effectively protected, the provincial government must carefully consider these risks and ensure that strong species-specific protections, adequate funding, and meaningful consultation with all stakeholders, including Indigenous communities, are maintained.
References:
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (2020). Global Biodiversity Outlook.
Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS). (2017). Protecting Biodiversity in Ontario.
Environmental Defence. (2020). Ontario’s Biodiversity Crisis.
Ontario Biodiversity Council (OBC). (2017). State of Biodiversity in Ontario.
Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR). (2020). Ecosystem-based Management and Biodiversity.
Ecojustice. (2020). Corporate Responsibility and Environmental Laws.
Assembly of First Nations (AFN). (2020). Indigenous Knowledge and Conservation.