For the past decade, the…

For the past decade, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 2007, has provided formal means of protecting Ontario’s 243 at-risk species and their habitats. At the Huron Stewardship Council (HSC) we work to recover populations and protect habitat for several species at risk, in a manner that promotes long-term resilience. Since the inception of the ESA, we have provided valuable information that has assisted with listing decisions and the development of recovery strategies for multiple species. While we support ongoing and unbiased review of any legislation, many of the questions presented in this discussion paper strongly imply that the ESA is a burden and point to weakening protections as the way forward. We urge the reviewers to uphold their mandate to protect Ontario’s land, air, and water, as a means of building “healthier communities and economic prosperity” and maintain a science-based approach to assessing species at risk.

Area of Focus: Landscape Approaches
We agree that adopting a landscape approach is a reasonable means to obtain multi-species benefits. However, this should be seen as a compliment to existing recovery strategies and habitat protections rather than an alternative, as a landscape approach requires detailed knowledge of individual species habitat needs and populations. By developing a detailed understanding of habitat requirements for individual species, we can model these requirements and prioritize areas where they intersect for multiple species. If a landscape approach is adopted, it should also mandate buffering existing species at risk populations with large, well connected, natural corridors.

Recommendation: Implement a landscape approach to species protections as a compliment (rather than alternative) to existing protections, focusing on large, well connected natural area networks.

Area of Focus: Listing Process and Protections for Species at Risk
Increasing transparency and public notice in the listing process may benefit businesses in their ability to manage risk and uncertainty but may further imperil many species. As a worst-case scenario, this decision could potentially lead to persecution of species considered for listing in an effort to avoid future costs associated with protection. Additionally, there is no reasonable case in which a minister should have discretionary power over the application or removal of protections. To allow this would be incredibly shortsighted and would set a dangerous precedent for the ESA to only be applied where it is convenient.

Recommendation: Automatic protections for species at risk should remain, and the minister should absolutely not have discretionary power to remove or delay these protections.

Area of Focus: Species Recovery Policies and Habitat Regulations
Lengthening the time for species listings with no formal protection in the interim would hamper recovery efforts. We know that monetary costs for recovery efforts are often high. With longer timeframes for assessment and no formal protection in the interim, there will undoubtedly be further declines in populations. In turn, this will lead to even higher recovery costs, and in some cases, will make recovery unattainable. In all cases, additional data collected over a timeframe longer than 5 years would help with effective reviews of progress. If the province truly has interest in gathering long term data on species at risk to contribute to more thorough review, funding for species at risk research or monitoring must immediately be reinstated and expanded. We believe it is reasonable to expand timeframes if 1) funding for long-term data collection is established, and 2) protection for SAR habitat is increased to prevent further decline before a statement can be prepared.

Recommendation: Longer timeframes for statement development are reasonable, with the caveat that immediate protections should apply in the interim. Additionally, funding for species at risk research and stewardship must be reinstated and expanded to allow for effective and long-term data collection.

Area of Focus: Authorization Process
The wording of the discussion questions here indicate that this government intends to allow businesses to circumvent the ESA and be able to conduct activities with direct and measurable, negative impacts for species at risk provided they pay into a conservation fund. A conservation fund is decidedly not an appropriate alternative to protections for individual species. Setting guidelines for individual species habitat protection combined with better funded enforcement should supersede short term interests of businesses.

Recommendation: A conservation fund is not an appropriate alternative for individual species protections but could be combined with protections to create landscape-level protected area networks.

We urge you to please avoid favoring short term economic benefit over our natural environment and strengthen protections for species at risk, while establishing landscape-level network of protected spaces.