See letter attached

18 March 2022

Public Input Coordinator
Landscape Species Recovery Section
Species at Risk Branch
Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Park
435 James Street South, Ground Floor
Thunder Bay ON
P7E 6T1
borealcaribouconservation@ontario.ca

SUBJECT: PROPOSED CONSERVATION AGREEMENT FOR BOREAL CARIBOU IN ONTARIO

We are pleased to provide this letter as the input of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Canada in response to the opportunity to comment on the Conservation Agreement for Boreal Caribou in Ontario provided through the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO no. 019-4995).

FSC Context

FSC is a global pioneer of third-party forest certification, with almost 30 years of experience in developing and implementation of standards that provide assurance of high-quality stewardship of managed forests. Globally almost 2,000 forests are certified to FSC’s nation-specific forest management standards in 82 countries. Canada has more certified forest area than any other country, with 57 forest management certificates issued and over 50 million certified hectares.

FSC standards are developed through a chamber-balanced process. In most countries FSC members are represented in three chambers – Economic, Environmental, and Social. Canada’s chamber structure is unique in that it includes an Indigenous chamber to represent the interests and values of Indigenous Peoples in fostering sustainable forest management. The comments provided in this letter consider the diverse interests of our members.

Canada’s FSC Forest Management Standard contains over 200 indicators that each address a particular aspect within one of the Standard’s 10 Principles:
1. Compliance with Laws;
2. Workers’ Rights and Employment Conditions;
3. Indigenous Peoples’ Rights;
4. Community Relations;
5. Benefits of the Forest;
6. Environmental Values and Impacts;
7. Management Planning;
8. Monitoring and Assessment;
9. High Conservation Values; and
10. Implementation of Management Activities.

The present version of FSC’s National Forest Stewardship Standard has been in effect since 2020. In Canada’s Standard, several topics have very high profile that reflect the values of FSC’s members. Among these topics are the rights of Indigenous Peoples related to Free, Prior and Informed Consent, contributing to a Conservation Areas Network, and the conservation of woodland caribou.

The inclusion of an indicator unique to a single species, such as our woodland caribou indicator, is very uncommon across FSC’s global standards and is indicative of the importance that FSC members and Canadians ascribe to the conservation of woodland caribou. Through the period of implementation of the Standard, we have been co-ordinating with FSC’s Certificate Holders, interested ENGOs, and Indigenous People’s regarding key aspects of implementation, and so are well positioned to portray their interests and concerns.

In Ontario there are approximately 6.9 million ha of caribou range in nine FSC Certified forests, and another approx. 7.5 million ha of caribou range in forests that are not yet FSC Certified . Across Canada there are more than 16.4 million ha of caribou range in FSC Certified forests. Adherence to the requirements of FSC’s Standard, therefore, has the potential to be a very important delivery mechanism for progressive management of caribou habitat.

FSC’s Caribou Indicator

In the development of the caribou indicator, FSC’s Standard Development Group (the chamber-balanced body responsible for development of the Standard) believed that the indicator should have a strong scientific basis and be nationally-focused. This led to the decision to integrate some important measures identified in the Federal Recovery Strategy (FRS) and the Scientific Assessment that preceded it. Chief among these measures was the use of a disturbance benchmark of 35%,that could only be deviated from based on sound scientific rationale.

FSC Canada’s caribou indicator provides options - three alternate pathways to achieving conformance – 1) through the implementation of a range plan that is consistent with ECCC’s Range Plan Guidance for Woodland Caribou ; 2) through an objective risk-management approach that requires increasingly stringent habitat management measures based on population status and extent of habitat disturbance; and 3) through a hybrid approach that, based on the use of best available information, permits disturbance levels other than the 35% benchmark in exchange for validation of an alternate benchmark’s scientific credibility, and increased involvement of Indigenous Peoples and stakeholders.

Comments on Use of Thresholds in the Conservation Agreement

With the context described above of establishing the use of high-quality, well-researched science as a basis for FSC’s caribou indicator, we wish to express concern at the absence of explicit inclusion of ECCC’s own very-well-regarded science in the Conservation Agreement with Ontario. The 65% critical habitat threshold is mentioned in the Context portion of the Conservation Agreement as is the statement that the “management of cumulative disturbance within each range will be an important consideration for Canada and Ontario, one that follows through on the goal of the Federal Recovery Strategy…”. However, the recognition of the importance of the 65% critical habitat threshold does not feature in the substantive portions of the Conservation Agreement relating to Planning and Management (Conservation Measure 3.1). In those portions only provincial direction is referenced – primarily the Boreal Landscape Guide (BLG) and the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA). While the BLG is a thoughtful document, its direction related to management of caribou habitat (through coarse-filter concepts and the use of a Dynamic Caribou Habitat Schedule (DCHS)) does not have the benefit of detailed scientific analysis from a wealth of data that the FRS critical habitat benchmark does. There are appealing concepts in the DCHS methodology, but it is not as well-reconciled with habitat use and recruitment data as is the FRS science.

We understand that the DCHS approach is engrained in Ontario’s caribou management paradigm, being based on management approaches from the 1990s , but we believe, and advocate, that the development of the Conservation Agreement should incorporate and be forward-looking to newer science rather than further entrenching a somewhat dated approach. We suggest that the Conservation Agreement should facilitate transition to management using the FRS science-based approach in forest management planning in Ontario. FSC Canada, in coordination with certificate holders, ENGOs and Indigenous Peoples would be pleased to participate in, or even facilitate discussions with Ontario and Canada in identifying mechanisms to support this transition.

Comment on Conservation Measure 2.2 Protected Areas Initiative

This Conservation Measure includes “exploration of opportunities to increase protection of boreal caribou habitat through expanded and new protected areas”. The Conservation Measure meshes extremely well with the Conservation Area Network (CAN) Criterion of FSC’s Standard which requires certified forests to identify and protect representative sample areas of native ecosystems and work with their spheres of influence to move them to full legal regulated status. Until they achieve regulated status, they are protected voluntarily by FSC certificate holders. Certified forests in Ontario have identified approximately 950,000 ha of these candidate protected areas (referred to as Designated Conservation Lands, or DCLs). The identification of these DCLs has already undergone significant stakeholder and Indigenous engagement as required by FSC’s Standard. Many of these areas are in caribou ranges and could help address the Conservation Measure’s goal to “enhance protection of boreal caribou habitat through protected areas using a range-scale approach”. Given that these identified DCLs have been accepted by the forest industry, stakeholders and Indigenous Peoples, they seem promising candidates to be considered in addressing this Conservation Measure.

Comments on General Elements of the Agreement

FSC Canada is pleased to see that elements of the agreement reflect FSC’s principles. Key among these are:
• Working in collaboration with Indigenous communities and organizations, and the use Indigenous Traditional Knowledge as reflected in the use of best available information;
• Seeking opportunities for engagement with stakeholders;
• Use of best available information, including scientific technical data and community knowledge. This approach is integral in our caribou indicator as described above; and
• Use of a risk-based approach. Although this is identified as a General Element of the Agreement, given the concerns that we expressed above regarding the absence of FRS science in the present version of the Conservation Agreement, we suggest that thoughtful examination of the risk-based approach that led to the recommendation of the FRS, that a 35% disturbance threshold be adopted.

Comment on Conservation Measure 1.1 Boreal Caribou Monitoring

FSC is pleased to see the recognition of the need for monitoring in the Conservation Agreement. The FSC Standard recognizes the importance of monitoring in the process of implementing and understanding the effectiveness of the caribou indicator. It will also be important in establishing updated baseline conditions, particularly since there has been no monitoring of boreal caribou populations in Ontario for almost a decade, and no survey-based estimates of caribou habitat for a long period as well .

We note that no actual surveys are planned to begin until 3 years after the conservation agreement is put in place. Given the lack of population data, we suggest that it would be better to begin population monitoring without delay. Survey techniques and priority ranges are well known, so monitoring could begin immediately

Comment on Conservation Measure 5.1 Strategic Partnerships

The goal of this measure is to “Support implementation of projects that contribute to maintenance and recovery of self-sustaining local caribou populations (…)” through the implementation of strategic projects.

We would be very pleased to discuss with Canada and Ontario the ways in which FSC could figure into partnerships in assisting with the implementation of the Conservation Agreement, and ways in which the FSC Standard and the Conservation Agreement could be mutually supportive.

Comments on Time Frame

ECCC’s Amended Recovery Strategy for Boreal Caribou , describes the threat of habitat alteration as a result of human land use activities as continuous with high severity, and ascribes an urgent priority for recovery planning and implementation. A number of other recent publications concur with this assessment . The timeframe for some activities in the Conservation Agreement seem at odds with the noted urgency of action. The need for more immediate onset of monitoring is described above, but this also applies to:
• Conservation Measure 1.3 – Habitat Restoration Assessment Initiative
o According to this Conservation Measure, the assessment of effectiveness will not take place until Year 5 at which time the results will be “used to inform policies”.
o There are a number of effective restoration measures already known (e.g. access closures), and their implementation and integration into policy need not wait until further study before being broadly applied;
• Conservation Measure 3.3 – Lake Superior Coast Range Management Plan.
o In March of 2018, MNRF sought public advice on management of the Lake Superior Coast Range . In the four years since that input was sought, there has been no discernible progress in the development of a management approach. The five-year performance measure is identified as “Finalization and Implementation of a management approach for the Lake Superior Coast Range….”. Given that Ontario has had public input for four years and the management needs of the range are well known, is it reasonable that a management plan would need a further five years to develop?
• Conservation Measure 4.2 – Updating of federal and provincial policy frameworks
o Parties to the agreement are only required to “consider” the adoption of relevant information as it becomes available. If information is relevant to conservation measures, shouldn’t it be integrated promptly rather than merely considered?

Summary

In our review of the Conservation Agreement, we have identified several aspects that we believe should be revised. These have great potential to provide alignment between the province’s and Canada’s priorities and FSC’s Standard. Improved alignment will be to the benefit of forest companies that are already certified, and those that will seek certification in the future, and most importantly, to the benefit of woodland caribou. Foremost among the opportunities for refinement is stronger incorporation of ECCC’s own science regarding the relationship between range disturbance and caribou recruitment as manifested in the critical habitat threshold identified in the Federal Recovery Strategy and required in ECCC’s Range Plan Guidance. In addition to this we believe that the progress made to date by FSC certified companies in identifying candidate protected areas presents an excellent opportunity to make significant advances in addressing the Protected Areas Initiative Identified in the Conservation Agreement.

As described in earlier content in this letter, we also believe it will be important to address ongoing Indigenous Peoples’ involvement, revisit the Conservation Agreement’s plans for caribou population and habitat monitoring, and the rate of progress identified for some initiatives.
FSC Canada would be most pleased to play an on-going role in the refinement of the Conservation Agreement. We would be happy to participate and to be involved in future consultations and /or in any initiatives to make this collaboration a success.

With warm regards

François Dufresne
President
FSC Canada