I am writing today to…

I am writing today to provide comments about the “10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act: Discussion Paper”. I have read the discussion paper and feel that there are some serious issues presented. My primary concern is that this discussion paper suggests changes that would make it easier for industry and developers to destroy the habitats of our most vulnerable plants and animals – rather than protecting them, which is what the ESA is supposed to do.

I have structured my comments to reflect the different parts of the discussion paper.

Area of Focus 1: Landscape Approaches

Although I support the management of recovery actions at a landscape level or for multiple sets of species, the listing process must remain as a species-specific process. The data collected for each species is important for identifying trends, habitat needs and recovery actions. This step must continue to be done on a case-by-case basis.

In some cases recovery strategies are written for multiple species if they share habitats and threats. Once recovery strategies are completed, I would support the grouping of multiple species based on habitat regulations to enable recovery at a landscape level.

I am not clear what is meant by:
“For species that depend on habitat across wide ranges, a landscape approach that enables planning and authorizing activities at a broad scale may be preferred.”
Authorizations should remain a species-specific process to ensure each species is recognized as being affected by damaging activities.

Area of Focus 2: Listing Process And Protections For Species At Risk

The challenges identified here deal entirely with positive outcomes for BUSINESSES, not SPECIES AT RISK. The goal of the Endangered Species Act is to protect vulnerable species that have to a great extent already been impacted by poor decisions and various business practices. The current standards of making decisions that are evidence-based by an independent committee of science experts (COSSARO) for listing and protection must be upheld. We do not ask our business people or government officials which medications will help our medical conditions, so we should not ask those people which species need to be listed and what their habitat needs are. The experts are there for a reason, they know what they’re talking about.

By the time species are listed they are already in steep decline and in trouble. Allowing any extra delays in listing could seriously impact their recovery. Automatic listing and habitat protection must be upheld. Any delays would simply be allowing more time for damage to be done. This contradicts the purpose of the legislation.

Area of Focus 3: Species Recovery Policies And Habitat Regulations

I would not support a longer time frame for developing government response statements in general. I would support the addition of an option to request an extension in extenuating circumstances (e.g. where recovery strategies are complex, additional consultation is required) on a case-by-case basis.

Reviewing progress within 5 years may be too soon, especially if little action is taken as is often the case. My concern is that if the government response statements are delayed than how long is it before a review is conducted after the species is listed? Perhaps a review should be based on a time limit related to the listing, rather than the government response statement. In that case anything from 5-10 years would be appropriate.

Regarding habitat regulation (from https://www.ontario.ca/page/how-species-risk-are-protected#section-3):
“A habitat regulation replaces general habitat protection. It provides a more precise definition of a species’ habitat and may describe features (e.g., a creek, cliff, or beach), geographic boundaries or other unique characteristics.
Regulated habitat may be smaller or larger than general habitat. It may include areas where the species isn’t currently found. These areas may have been previously occupied by the species or could be occupied in the future.”
It is clear that the habitat regulation, which is formulated after the recovery strategy is completed, is a more effective and accurate description of the species needs. It also includes important protections for locations where the species used to be or could be reintroduced. Skipping the habitat regulation would not be an effective way to guide recovery of species at risk. Developing habitat regulations is an important aspect of the ESA and must be upheld.

Area of Focus 4: Authorization Processes

There are already plenty of authorization tools for exempting harm and habitat destruction of species at risk. We do not need any other “tools” to help business activity damage species at risk. We should instead be asking, “what additional tools could help protect species at risk from harm done by business activity?”. WHY SHOULD DAMAGING HABITATS AND SPECIES IMPORTANT TO ONTARIANS BE EASY? WE ALL DEPEND ON THESE HABITATS FOR OUR QUALITY OF LIFE. This should not be sacrificed for the economic benefit of the few. Businesses need to file the paperwork, or better yet, adapt their practices to minimize harm and reduce the need for authorizations.

I oppose any changes to make it easier for businesses to harm species at risk. The first three discussion points in this section are not acceptable changes to the ESA.

I support the investment by the Ontario government in increased staffing of enforcement officers to ensure compliance with the ESA.

In conclusion, I am concerned that the primary purpose of this discussion paper is to weaken the Endangered Species Act, rather than improving it. Yet at the start of the paper I see this statement:
“The government is committed to ensuring that the Endangered Species Act provides stringent protections for species at risk”.
I urge you to keep that commitment and strengthen the ESA.

I leave you with the following comments from an expert. Please consider these words before you make changes that will impact all Ontarians now and in future generations.

“The world is now experiencing an extinction rate that is 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than the natural background rate. Reports flow in every day about this growing biodiversity crisis, from the decimation of insect populations to jaw-dropping declines in songbird populations. These reports are more than an economic inconvenience. They are flashing lights warning us that we are racing toward a cliff (and picking up speed).

Unravelling complex ecosystems by removing one piece after another is, frankly, a recipe for disaster. We don’t even fully understand all the roles and relationships within ecosystems that keep our natural systems functioning — our air and water clean, breathable and drinkable, our crops growing and fish swimming — yet we feel free to treat them as capable of bearing any burden we place on them or, even worse, too expensive and inconvenient to make room for.

Instead of worrying so much about maximizing short-term economic opportunities, we must start focusing on long-term ecosystem damage. Yes, people need jobs and Canada still relies heavily on resource extraction for economic growth. But the last thing we should be doing is shying away from making hard decisions about limits because that may entail valuing natural wealth over simple GDP.

In fact, it is in our direct interest to pay attention to the long view for the simple reason that it is far more costly to restore the natural environment once we have learned that it’s actually important. So when it comes to taking care of our province’s species at risk, we need to work a lot harder on finding new paths — whether it is much more rigorously tailoring resource operations to the actual tolerances of species, transitioning to a less resource intensive (and consumptive) economy, or helping people find good work that restores rather than diminishes the natural world.

I know that is not a task that lends itself to a simple slogan or “streamlining.” But it is not just the survival of wildlife that is at stake here — it is ours as well.”

Dr. Justina C. Ray is President and Senior Scientist of Wildlife Conservation Society Canada
https://ipolitics.ca/2019/01/31/ontarios-review-of-endangered-species-a…