Part of the reason for the…

Part of the reason for the consolidation is that the current 36 conservation authorities follow different policies, have different fees, and employ different numbers of personnel. To support a successful transition with positive outcomes, rather than simply re-working the current system to remove these variances between conservation authorities, the reasons why the variations exist ought to be carefully considered. In my opinion, the current proposal aims to establish equal ground across all conservation authorities, but an equity approach would be more appropriate. To have successful outcomes, employees should be encouraged to offer permits on a case-by-case basis rather than follow general rules that often aren’t applicable.

A potential benefit of the consolidation may be seen in increased opportunity for collaborative work between previously separate conservation authorities. The consolidation may also give employees more opportunities for work in general, as the proposed uniform policy would mean workers could travel farther in the new jurisdictions to assess sites/offer permits. This may lead to eventual layoffs, however, and increase the workloads of remaining personnel.

The proposed consolidation also mentions the implementation of a board that would provide leadership and oversight to all conservation authorities. The best leaders are those with the most experience in the work. Therefore, the board should be made of 37 members, including one representative from each of the current conservation authorities and an individual from the MECP to ensure there would be no ties in a vote. This way, the reasons for the current variance in policy/fees could be explained and considered prior to any further action or policy change.

Since fees range for a variety of reasons, maintaining a transparent and consultative budget is quite complicated, especially if the goal of the proposal is to make costs the same across the province. A potential means of creating equality in fees across the province while taking natural cost fluctuations into account would be to set specific prices for permits, plannings, and reviews for property owners, and have a funding pool provided by the government to make up any difference. Some owners would pay less than they should, and some would pay more, which would also contribute to/remove from the pool. I don’t think this is necessarily fair for the people paying for these services, but I think most people would accept such a system.

To maintain and strengthen relationships with local communities and stakeholders, the unique needs of those communities need to be considered. The key to this is not to create new, specific policies for every conservation authority to follow. Instead, the key is to create a policy that offers conservation authorities across the province the power to offer services to each community and stakeholder based on their unique needs, which are in turn based on the surrounding environment's unique conditions. The natural world does not conform to any law or legislation, and this must be taken into account when creating or changing policy related to the environment.