Comments on proposed Species…

Comments on proposed Species at Risk Conservation Fund. (ERO notice # 019-2636)

I do not support the Ontario government’s plan to implement the Species at Risk Conservation Fund, as the priority of the government appears to be facilitation of development and industrialization at all costs, including degradation of the natural environment in general, and harm to the habitat of species at risk in particular. Without an “overall benefit” requirement, species at risk will be neither protected nor recovered. The Endangered Species Act, 2007 was considered to be a gold standard for protection of species at risk, but much of its strength has been eviscerated by regulatory exemptions passed in 2013 and harmful amendments passed in 2019. I cannot see how the proposed Conservation Fund will benefit species at risk as the Ministry suggests it will. The following comments support my decision not to support the proposed Fund.

Quote: “As part of our Made-in-Ontario Plan commitment to improve effectiveness of of the species at risk program, we are proposing regulatory changes that will offer more innovative and coordinated ways to helping species at risk impacted by development projects.”

Comments:
It appears that the proposed regulatory changes will offer more innovative and coordinated ways of helping development projects rather than species at risk, which will be impacted by the projects.
The regulations will almost certainly NOT improve the effectiveness of the species at risk program, and the opposite is more likely, viz. they will cause overall detrimental effects on the species at risk program.
How can species at risk gain any benefit from increased habitat loss and degradation caused by development, which is a major threat to these species? These species are already at risk of extinction because of threats to their habitats.
The Fund would not require an overall benefit standard and is itself a major threat to the protection and recovery of at-risk species, because it fails to account for adverse environmental, cultural and economic impacts on communities.
The agency administering the Fund is not required to share with the public information about the site-specific and cumulative harm to the habitat of at-risk species. In my opinion, the title “Species at Risk Conservation Fund” is a misnomer and a bad joke, as the overall outcome of the Fund is very likely to be “Destruction” rather than “Conservation” of species at risk. The Fund goes hand in hand with damaging amendments passed in June 2019 to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). In addition to the harmful exemptions to the ESA introduced in 2013, which threatened the overall benefit requirement of the ESA, the 2019 amendments created a variety of pathways for developers and industrialists to avoid critical protections of species at risk by giving those with short-term, vested economic interests freedom to destroy and pave over the habitats of the most vulnerable fauna and flora. One can sum this up as “if you pay a fee you can destroy a species.”

Quote: “This new option will offer an alternative way for them [municipalities, businesses and individuals] to further support and benefit species at risk over the long term, by giving them the option to have the new provincial agency pool resources and determine the best way to protect and recover select species on a province-wide scale.”

Comments:
What qualifications will the members of the provincial agency be required to have for making decisions about which species at risk should selected? Will they be required to have no vested or monetary interest in the development or industrial projects?
How will the Fund fee that has been paid as an alternative to mitigation measures with “overall benefit” for a developed site be guaranteed to be used in the interest of the particular species at risk that will be affected? The amended ESA has no link between the Fund and the provision of “overall benefit”, and there is no requirement that the benefit be proportional to or related to the impact of the damage or degradation.
What requirements will be made to ensure that there will not be significant delays between the harmful activity happening and reparative action being done?
There should be a requirement that Fund monies be used to compensate for negative environmental or social impacts in watersheds, municipalities and indigenous traditional territories where the destruction or degradation occurs. Local reparation should be provided by the Fund for the loss of ecological, cultural, economic and social values. The development proponents must not be allowed to walk away after harming a site without providing compensation for the species and communities impacted.

Quote: “Recent changes to the ESA allow for the use of a new option by proponents that are authorized to undertake activities that impact species at risk: instead of completing beneficial actions for species impacted by those activities, proponents will have the option of contributing to a fund that allows a new provincial agency to pool the resources and determine how best to implement long-term, large-scale and strategic protection and recovery activities that benefit eligible species.”

The 2013 extensive regulatory exemptions for proponents resulted in a drastic increase in the total authorizations for harmful activities (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario’s 2017 Report), suggesting that the easier it is to obtain an authorization of harmful activities, the more likely they are to occur. The damaging amendments to the ESA in June 2019 added insult to injury (see item 1V) in comments to the first quote above).
It appears that the main role of the Fund will be facilitation of authorizations to “shorten timelines, reduce burdens and provide cost certainty” for proponents, and that protection of species at risk is a low priority and development trumps this protection. I am very skeptical about the species at risk benefitting from a “strategic and coordinated protection and recovery approach, especially if Fund resources are not specifically used to help the particular species that is/are threatened by a project. I fear that this new Fund approach may be extended to all species at risk, not just the six conservation fund species, with priority given to development and industrialization at all costs, leading to eradication of species at risk.

Quote: “For each conservation fund species, the regulation would set out a formula to calculate the amount of the contribution to be made for the authorized activity, based on the degree of impact to the species and its habitat (e.g., number of hectares of habitat to be impacted). The charge would be calculated at the time of payment by the proponent.”

Comment:
The calculation of charges for the amount of benefit to be generated is based on a 1:1.5 ratio of the amount of habitat of species at risk lost to the amount of new habitat to be provided for compensation. This does not take into account the quality or ecological functions of the replacement habitat for the species at risk. There is too much uncertainty in the calculations about whether the expenses will suffice to achieve the required outcomes. Why are assessment of, and compensation for, harmful risks not factored into the proposed Fund charge formulas?

Quote: “With that in mind, it is proposed that the Agency be required to publicly communicate its focus for funding, by submitting to the ministry and publishing a plan for each conservation fund species before any funds are disbursed for the species. These plans would include direction-setting information, such as the types of activities that are priorities for the Agency to fund or the locations in Ontario where funding would most benefit the species.”

Comment:
Why is there no public consultation about the cumulative impacts of the harmful activities undertaken by proponents? Without information about the type of impact or activity, who’s responsibility for it, or the amount of area damaged or destroyed, the public will be prevented from assessing whether the actions of the Fund are in line with the amount of habitat destruction involved. The skeptic in me wonders if this lack of consultation is deliberate.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.