Re: ERO #013-4143 10th Year…

Re: ERO #013-4143 10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act: Discussion Paper
Biodiversity in general, and the protection of species at risk and their habitat in particular, are critical to maintaining healthy ecosystems across the province’s wilderness and other natural areas. Therefore, a strong and properly implemented provincial Endangered Species Act should be a governmental priority.
The 2007 Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been a major step towards protection and recovery of species at risk of extirpation from Ontario, or extinction. However, since that time the Act’s function has been seriously impaired, as in 2013, with the introduction of the permit-by-rule system with exemptions from the prohibition on harming species at risk or their habitat for many industries and developers.
In 2013 the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO) addressed the new permit-by-rule system in a report: Laying Siege to the Last Line of Defence: A Review of Ontario’s Weakened Protections for Species at Risk. The Commissioner was concerned about reduced protection for species at risk, lack of enforcement and reduced public consultation.
In 2017 the ECO issued a report, Good Choices, Bad Choices. Environmental Rights and Environmental Protection in Ontario, examining the ESA’s effectiveness. She concluded that the “Survival of Ontario’s species at risk has been greatly compromised by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s (MNRF) expediting of its ESA approvals. Instead of individual permits requiring “overall benefit” to species. The MNRF now allows harmful activities under the permit-by-rule system requiring only that proponents minimize (not eliminate or compensate for) harm. The MNRF tends to ignore whether proponents comply with the weakened provisions. Meanwhile it is difficult to hold the Ministry to account, as it does not disclose what activities it allows to harm species at risk.” The Report concludes that, though the ESA is sound, MNRF “utterly failed to implement the law effectively” and fails “to not just protect species at risk… but also to lead effective recovery programs”, and “the ministry’s compliance monitoring and enforcement actions… are deficient”.
The David Suzuki Foundation, Ontario Nature and Ecojustice issued a joint 2017 report: Without a Trace? Reflecting on the 10th anniversary of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, 2007, it describes how the regulatory exemptions fundamentally change how MNRF approaches harm to species at risk. Exemptions allow activities without review or approval, as long as development proponents register online and meet conditions set out in regulation. There is no requirement to provide an overall benefit to the species harmed. The report concludes that “MNRF has chosen to put the interests of industry first, over the recovery of Ontario’s most imperilled species”.

The ECO’s most recent (2018) Environmental Protection Report, titled Back to Basics, issues a warning that “Ontario’s species are under tremendous pressure from habitat destruction, invasive species, overexploitation, pollution, disease and parasites, and climate change”.
Thus the fundamentally effective ESA has been seriously compromised by the recent exemptions, by lack of proper implementation by MNRF, and inadequate compliance monitoring and enforcement. The deficiencies raised by the various authors and NGOs cited above should be addressed.
I support the purposes of the Act: Identifying species at risk using scientific and traditional knowledge, protecting these organisms and their environments to promote their recovery, and engaging in stewardship.
Unfortunately, the Discussion Paper accompanying the ERO posting focusses on fundamentally undermining the ESA. It does this at a time when over half the world’s wildlife has been lost in a few decades, and when the pace of destruction of our ecological support system in Ontario is accelerating massively. The discussion paper promotes the interests of developers and the reduction of protection for designated species at risk in the Act. It promotes elimination of science-based procedures for designating species at risk, it extends timelines for producing recovery strategies and it further simplifies the permitting process at the expense of our community’s natural environment. These changes will be deleterious for the species at risk and for our province.
Turning to the foci of the discussion paper:
Focus 1 – Landscape Approaches
As the former chair of an Ontario ministerial panel on Caribou conservation, I support recovery strategies that are aimed at both the landscape (or ecosystem) level and the individual species level (both of while are available in the present ESA). A landscape approach can help many species by, for example, helping to maintain or increase habitat connectivity. An approach aimed at the needs of individual species is also critical if they are to survive and recover, as in the case of many insects. The landscape and species approaches complement each other.
Focus 2 – Listing Process and Protections for Species at Risk
The current timeline for listing species at risk is too lengthy, thus threatening their recovery, and it should not be extended.
The Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) currently determines listing through a rigorous scientific process. Any change toward making these decisions political will strongly tend to the arbitrary and will be focussed on the wishes of vested interests.
Focus 3 – Species Recovery Policies and Habitat Regulations
Recovery Strategies and Government Response Documents are currently often delayed for years at a time, so harming species at risk. The timelines should not be increased. Rather sufficient resources should be available to ensure timely completion.
The reviews of progress produced every 5 years are critical to assessing each species’ recovery and to timely identification of problems with the recovery strategy. These review timelines should not be extended or eliminated.
Focus 4 – Authorization Processes
The requirements of overall benefits for subject species are foundational in protecting species at risk. Developers should not be permitted to pay into a fund as compensation for harming species at risk or harming or destroying their habitat.
The proposals to simplify the process for obtaining authorizations will harm species and their habitats.
Compliance monitoring is inadequate, as discussed in the ECO’s 2017 Environmental Protection Report. Monitoring and enforcement should be made more effective.

Recommendations:
The current review should incorporate the following principles to protect the growing list of species at risk in Ontario.
• Exemptions for forestry, hydro, mining and other industries that were enacted in 2013 must be eliminated. They are inconsistent with the aims of the Act to protect and restore endangered species and their habitat.
• The science-based COSSARO listing process should be retained, and must not be replaced with political ministerial discretion.
• The COSSARO review and listing process should not be lengthened
• Time lines for development of Recovery Strategies and Government Response Documents are critical to species at risk recovery, and should not be lengthened. Current documents are often years late, and more resources must available to meet the deadlines.
• The 5-year Review of Progress schedule should be maintained, so as to understand the success or failure of a recovery program.
• Mandatory protection of habitat for threatened and endangered species must be maintained, and must not become an arbitrary ministerial discretionary area.
• Current requirements for overall benefits for species at risk must be retained, and developers must not be permitted to pay compensation for harming species at risk or their habitats.
• Strategies must be developed and resources allocated to address the currently inadequate implementation of the ESA, to ensure adequate compliance monitoring and enforcement, and to increase public consultations.