It’s difficult to understand…

It’s difficult to understand how the proposed benefits actually translate into real changes as they are described.
First of all, if a major issue is the disparity of how each conservation area is being run (policies, rules, expectations, processes) wouldn’t the first step be a refining of all of those within the existing structure to determine what next levels of organizational change MAY be required? The jump step as proposed will create discontinuity at the local level and impair local responses to issues as they arise. Unnecessary bureaucracy to complicate changes appears counterproductive to the stated goals of improvements. This process increases the time between implementation and outcome measures making any evaluation of change extremely difficult if not impossible.
The design of adding in the superior North area with one at least 1,000 km away defies any semblance of logic. The proposal reiterates the importance of local responses to local issues yet this destroys any validity to the agreement for a change.
Certainly if there are inefficiencies at an operational level, work needs to be done to standardize methodologies so outcome measures can be developed so ontarians and businesses can know what to expect regardless of what conservation area is being dealt with.
Standardization is key from a policy and procedure standpoint. Overriding bureaucracy isn’t. It will be counterproductive due to clarity issues about what can be dealt locally and with who versus what level of authority does it need to go to. A structured approach is better than an all in one change.
The connections and alliances that have been made at local levels may be lost or challenged making future developments more challenging, not easier because local issues will have to be learned and nurtured all over again. Waste again, which is what these proposals are striving to resolve.
Eliminating administrative burden, downsizing local boards makes sense where it deals with policy. It still needs to exist for that connection to local municipalities and townships.
Again the superior Huron proposal makes zero sense because it breaks all the local connections and responsiveness currently in place. Breaking all connections and enthusiasm of local issues and solutions is not the direction of what regional conservation authorities should be standing for.
When you consider the province as a whole, zooming out you can see how disproportionate the proposals are. Nothing about Ontario says it’s a made in Toronto solution or a gta knows best. The intracacies of the various ecological diversity is what makes Ontario special. Trying to refine control and authority (or oversight) to someone desk distant from the local issues and challenges shows how remote the provincial government is from actually serving all of Ontario. North west and north east Ontario may represent less than 10% of the population but its land mass isn’t. Leave considerations and conservation of the local issues where it belongs, in the area of the locals. Pursue efficiencies and alignment on the administrative end. But don’t penalize or put at risk the part of Ontario that is yours to discover by creating an overbearing, overburdening, oversight board that grinds improvements and success to a halt.
Do better for Ontario