10-year review of Ontario…

10-year review of Ontario ESA - comments in response to Discussion Paper

The comments respond to the four areas of focus in the Discussion Paper.

1. Landscape approaches to recovery planning

It is tempting to believe that landscape approaches will deliver efficiencies but to date the experience does not appear conclusive. A quick internet scan turns up very few examples of this approach being used - a Carolinian ecosystem-level recovery approach has been taken to red mulberry and related species in southwestern Ontario and there may be others, but it is not clear how these differ from a “multi-species” approach. A clear agreed definition of “landscape approaches” for recovery planning is not easily found - it seems rather vague, although human-centred actions based on participation seem to be important for this approach.

There are examples of multi-species recovery strategies for groups of species occupying similar habitats, including in Ontario (5 mussel species in southwest Ontario rivers, the northern riffleshell and 4 others) , elsewhere in Canada , in the USA and in Australia . It seems logical and efficient to use this approach where groups of species are impacted by the same threats in the same habitats. However it seems that this is not a very common situation, many species at risk are more or less “on their own”.

At least two reviews on the internet conclude that multi-species approaches have not been as effective for species conservation as single-species approaches .

Recommendations - where several species are impacted by the same threats in the same habitats, multi-species recovery approaches should be considered; actions to support recovery of species should be the priority, so normally recovery strategies should be at the species level.

2. Listing and protections

Ontario takes the approach that species are listed based only on their biological status (without regard to social and economic circumstances) - similar to the approach in the US Endangered Species Act, but different from SARA in Canada. Most conservationists would agree that this is a good approach which gives priority to the species, so this should be retained. The option of having Ministerial discretion on listing (identified in the discussion paper) has not proved effective for species conservation in many cases under SARA (where listing decisions are made by recommendation of the Minister of Environment), notably for marine species.

However, listing on the basis of biology alone requires a very high degree of transparency and communication in the process of selecting, assessing and listing species - such that stakeholders can be aware of what is coming and get prepared. Otherwise, it can look to outsiders like an obscure scientific committee is running the world. The listing process under the US ESA is quite lengthy (1 year+) and provides extensive opportunity for input, and something like this (lots of upfront time and opportunity to understand and input) should be the goal for Ontario.

From what I can find on the Ontario web site, there is not presently a high degree of transparency and notification in the assessment and listing process - COSSARO has published simple tables of species to be assessed in future on its web site, but the latest one is for May 2017 (there is a list of assessed species from May 2018). I did not find a lot of detail associated with this list, such that stakeholders could be aware of potential implications - for example on exactly where the upcoming species are found, what might be the results of a listing, etc.

Upfront notification, communication and opportunities for stakeholder input, although requiring time and effort, can have substantial downstream benefits and save time later by ensuring that stakeholders (and also all the other government Ministries which may be impacted by a listing) know what is coming up and giving them time to prepare.

Recommendations - retain the listing process in the current Ontario legislation; significantly upgrade communications and time for stakeholder input at the assessment and listing stage.

3. Recovery policies, habitat regulations

The timelines (9 months to a response statement, 5 year cycle for reporting progress on recovery) seem reasonable from the standpoint of the species and for stakeholders. No doubt these can be a challenge for the people who have to meet the timelines, but it is not clear how increasing these would help.

Since habitat threats are so important for most species at risk, it would be important to be as clear as possible about what is/is not permitted where. This would probably require regulations - or some alternative vehicle which clearly outlines habitat prohibitions and requirements. The Discussion Paper suggests that this requirement could be relaxed but whatever approach is taken, clear statements of what is not permitted where will be essential.

Habitat regulations or prohibitions to help species at risk should be integrated with those for other conservation purposes (forestry, works in aquatic environments, mining etc) - there should not be separate regulations for species at risk and for other purposes. This also comes up under permits (pt 4) - it would surely simplify life for economic operators to deal with a single set of regulations. Perhaps this is already done but this is not apparent from easily available materials.

4. Permits, regulatory exemptions

This is obviously a very complex and potentially burdensome area, both for economic operators and for the provincial administration.

The explanations on the Ontario web site describing the various processes are clear for someone who knows the jargon (although quite complicated), but must be frustrating for non-bureaucrats. A first suggestion would be to ensure that explanations on permits and exemptions be written such that they can be easily understood by non-specialists. This would probably require that a writer with good communication skills and without specialist knowledge of bureaucracy and biology write the explanations. Also, specific points of contact for further information should be provided (not just “your local OMECP office”).

Upstream communication about what may be listed in future (see point 1) would be important to help economic operators and government officials in the full range of Ministries get ready for downstream issues (permitting, regulations etc).

It would be essential to ensure that permits, exemptions, regulations etc are integrated across Ontario government Ministries - there should not be separate permits for species at risk and for other conservation purposes under management by other Ministries. Perhaps this is already done, but that is not evident from the web site materials.

If this IS done, again, the instructions for economic operators should be written from their point of view, providing a clear picture of what they have to do to undertake activities in a given area.