Thanks for the opportunity…

Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the proposed boundary changes to the Conservation Authorities. I have had interactions with CLOCA over more than 3 decades so my observations are based on considerable experience. Some of the things that I appreciate about CLOCA is the direct communication with staff members on a variety of issues and the excellent research and advocacy they conduct to increase the biodiversity and general health of conservation areas.

I believe that having more local conservation authorities facilitates their nuanced interventions, facilitates working with local partners and allows their 'clients' to more readily avail themselves of face to face meetings. With the proposed change of boundaries to the conservation authorities I would be on the south western corner of the conservation area and potentially be a couple of hundred kilometers from the regional office as opposed to the 10 or so kilometers I am currently from the local office.

I think the current, smaller local conservation authorities boundaries allows their staff to more intimatley know and understand the conservation areas and conservation region as a whole. I have been extremely impressed by the millions of dollars they have accessed from different levels of government and private organizations to make dramatic improvements over the local conservation areas and have longer term plans for further improvements.

Some of the hopes and goals indicated in the information provided for the proposed changes could be met by different strategies or may actually be met more effectively in the current structure. For instance, wanting faster turnaround times for permits may or may not be achieved by a more centralized bureaucracy. Current conservation authorities could be mandated to make decisions within a certain time frame depending on the complexity and scope of the permit application. Being able to meet face to face with local staff can help the applicant understand conservation authorities concerns and how to amend applications in a way that expedites the process and increases the likelihood of the application being successful. The new proposal for 7 conservation authorities highlights the importance of collaborating with local partners but I suspect having larger geographical areas undermines the personal contact that facilitates collaboration.

Of note your report complains of inconsistency between conservation authorities which can be both a positive or negative attribute. If one conservation authority, say like CLOCA, has excelled at fund raising and more than most other conservation authorities, that is an inconsistency but one that we applaud rather than criticize. Having fewer conservation authorities does not guarantee that the incidents of excellence will be maintained or extended.

I am not sure how the current conservation authorities interact with each other but I think collaboration between authorities can bear many positive results. There may also be some benefit in having a centralized body that conducts research on issues that cross many conservation authorities: efforts to mitigate invasive species such as emerald ash borers or phragmites.

Thanks for your attention to the above matters.