On page 48 of the…

On page 48 of the Environment Plan the Government says:
“We will protect and enhance our natural areas, support conservation efforts, continue to conserve species at risk, develop adaptation strategies, and promote the importance of healthy natural spaces for future generations to use and enjoy.”
The previous government talked the talk, but did not walk the walk. I trust this government will do what it says in its Environment Plan. However, given the discussion questions in the Discussion Guide, I am not so sure that it will.
For example, page 2 of the Guide suggests there are modern and innovative ways to protect species at risk. I am unaware of any nor does the Guide provide a source for this assertion. This is troubling.
The Provincial Government should be promoting strong adherence to the ESA’s original purpose to protect species at risk; should be removing the exemptions to Ontario Regulation 242/08 introduced in 2013; and should be implementing the policies of the ESA in a timely fashion. It should not be further weakening the law. Many of the “activities” referred to in the Discussion Paper pose threats to species at risk by allowing their habitats to be damaged or destroyed.

FOCUS AREA 1
There are promising ideas behind a landscape approach to conservation. These can be costly as they require restoration and exclusion. It is unclear where in Ontario, particularly the heavily settled southern portion, this could take place. It may be appropriate in the north, but the south may require a different approach. One size may not fit the entire province.
In addition, the ESA (c. 6, s.13; and c.6, s.14) already provides for landscape-level planning, in its multi-species recovery strategies, for example. Therefore, no change to the ESA is required. The fine-scale of species-specific status assessments, listings, and protections is essential in the law.

FOCUS AREA 2
Regarding notice and listing it is troubling to read that there are concerns about notice. Perhaps the issue is that in this age of distributed media, there is no one place for the government to advise the public. All of us desire to be notified personally of matters that affect us, but at a certain point, we have a responsibility as citizens to look for information. Having said that, perhaps when notice of license renewals are made citizens can be directed to a government web site that has public notices. A single “411” web site might work not just for this Act but for other government measures.
Regarding the science, I am troubled to read that there is a suggestion of doubt placed in the independent scientists on the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario. If you do not trust the independent body, why would you trust a partisan body acting on behalf of someone or an organization with a financial interest?
And if you do not provide automatic protection for a threatened or endangered species and its habitat, what is the value of the Environment Plan’s statement that it will protect and enhance our natural areas and continue to conserve species at risk? The point of automatic protection is to avoid a situation where a delay would allow a bad actor to destroy the species or its habitat before the protections took hold.
Much of this focus area if implemented would greatly weaken the Act.
FOCUS AREA 3
Right now, species of special concern have no habitat protection and the province is years behind in developing and implementing recovery plans for threatened and endangered species. This area of focus does nothing to improve that problem. If general habitat protection was added for species of special concern, it would be an improvement. However, it would still not address the lack of progress on recovery strategies. Given very few Response Statements have been developed within nine months, a longer timeframe would do nothing to benefit the species at risk. It would only deflect criticism that the government is not following its own rules.
• The required five-year reporting on progress is reasonable and is needed for transparency and accountability. It is necessary for assessing effectiveness, and contributes to learning and adaptive management. Therefore, retain this reporting requirement.
• Additional reporting requirements to propel ongoing action and monitoring beyond the first five years would make sense, and should be legislated. Therefore, consider a longer monitoring period.
• No change to the law is required to delay the development of, or to not proceed with, a habitat regulation, as the ESA permits the Minister to take these actions.

No changes should be made to the legal provisions for habitat regulations; they give extra certainty for ESA implementation and enforcement. They afford a significant opportunity for protection and recovery efforts to be extended beyond areas where species at risk are currently found
FOCUS AREA 4
It is my understanding that exemptions have become numerous under the previous government. If this practice is to continue, it will be difficult for the government to achieve the goal of conserving species at risk set out in the Environmental Plan. There should be a clear set of criteria for when the Act can be overridden and when it should not be. It would be best again if an independent panel or independent experts were consulted. There are many at Ontario universities and Conservation Authorities. Any action that has an adverse impact on a species at risk or its habitat must come with compensatory mitigation that will benefit the species and its habitat (Overall Benefit permit comes to mind) or the exemption should not be granted.
• The requirements for permits for projects that “result in a significant social or economic benefit to Ontario” and will not “jeopardize the survival or recovery of species in Ontario” should be retained and the permits should be issued only in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, retain the current authorization requirements for sec. 17(2)d permits.

Make the requirements for exemptions through regulation more stringent by amending the law to ensure that exemptions are based on providing an overall benefit to species at risk and cannot harm their survival or recovery.
• Give enforcement officers the authority to inspect exempted activities routinely to ensure compliance with legal requirements.
• Transparency and accountability need to be improved. Therefore, amend the exemption regulation (242/08) to require all proponents of harmful activities to submit their mitigation plans and annual reports to the government, and make sure that these are available to the public.
• The ESA does not need to be changed to to harmonize it with other legislative or regulatory frameworks as the ESA already provides a means to do this.

The government can do more by setting aside lands whether through conservation easements or through donations to the Crown that would provide landowners with a financial benefit and incentive to conserve. More work can be done with organizations like the Nature Conservancy of Canada and with the Federal Government to make this possible.
Finally, some enforcement could be assigned to municipalities or to Conservation Authorities. Right now, the Ministry does not have sufficient enforcement staff for a province the size of Ontario. This could be tried on a trial basis particularly in the southern part of the province.
No protection, no securement, no enforcement is a bad recipe for Ontario.