Memorandum Background The…

Memorandum
Background
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been in place since 2007. The province recently initiated
a review of the legislation, and has released a Discussion Paper outlining the history of the Act,
how it is administered and the goal of the review. It also outlined four key areas where
comment is sought:
- Landscape approaches;
- Listing processes and protections for species at risk (SAR);
- Species recovering policies and habitat regulations;
- Authorization processes.
This memo documents comments from IO in response to these four key areas, as well as
providing input on other topics that have arisen during our work related to specie at risk.
Area of Focus #1: Landscape Approaches
The Discussion Paper raises the prospect of using a landscape approach as a new tool for
handling SAR within a specific geographic area or ecosystem where the needs of multiple SAR
can be addressed.
Currently, SAR habitat is protected case by case and is species specific. IO generally agrees that
having a second option of using a landscape approach would be useful. Situations where this
might be helpful include unique and/or rare habitats and habitats that provide a corridor for
species movement. Using the landscape approach would have the added benefit of reducing
the potential fragmentation of habitats by protecting a large tracts of land rather than much
smaller areas that result when using the species specific habitat protection approach.
If the landscape approach is pursued, the Province may pursue proactive assessments of large
scale greenspaces to better understand which areas are suitable habitat for consideration as a
protected landscape. IO manages large tracts of undeveloped land in the form of landbanks, but
does not have the resources or expertise to oversee and protect such lands. It is advisable that
landscapes targeted for protection are integrated into the existing provincial conservation
system with care and control of these lands the responsibility of the appropriate Ministry
(currently the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks).
Area of Focus #2: Listing Process and Protections for SAR
The Discussion Paper considers whether the current process of automatically protecting species and habitats when a new species is identified is clear and transparent, and appropriate given the competing interests in some habitats.
IO is not aware of any formal notification process within the Provincial government regarding the listing of new species. IO encourages the development of such a process if it does not currently exist.
Caution should be taken when considering options other automatic protections for SAR and their habitats once identified as threatened or endangered. The identification of a new SAR requires significant scientific research and such decisions are not taken frivolously. However, it is also recognized that the unexpected identification of a newly listed species can significantly impact a project’s timelines and budget. Consideration should be given to how best to balance the protection of newly identified species with the implications of such decisions on projects that are underway. For instance,
- Identifying species with a high potential for future protection to help those planning large scale projects consider the risks of future protection on implementation;
- Phasing protection measures for species that currently have healthy but significantly declining populations (e.g. avian insectivores);
- Grandfathering provisions for projects that are tendered and/or underway.
Area of Focus #3: Species Recovery Policies and Habitat Regulations
The Discussion Paper examines the timing of government responses to the identification of a new species and whether the replacement of a general habitat statement with a habitat regulation is required in all instances.
IO is engaged in the implementation of the ESA only, and the processes that lead up to the identification of a new species and its protection have little impact on its business. However, IO does recognize that the identification of specific habitat in the form of a habitat regulation can provide added certainty to IO and its clients when planning large scale developments.
Area of Focus #4: Authorization Processes
The Discussion Paper examines the burden that the current permitting and authorization processes puts on projects and proposes exploring new tools such as paying into conservation funds and using strategic or collaborative approaches, and investigating efficiencies within the existing frameworks.
In IO’s experience, the timing of review and permitting processes are unpredictable , and often time consuming. It presently can take a year or more to receive a permit once an application is made. Efforts to increase efficiencies and consistency in the review and approvals process would be welcomed. Suggestions include:
- Streamlining the application and approvals process;
- Delegating the signing of permits to a director or district manager level
- Developing performance metrics on application processing timelines could be considered to help to determine how the process can be further streamlined.
Exploring alternatives to the current permitting and authorization processes is appropriate and encouraged, but only if a monitoring component is built into the processes to determine their success in providing an overall benefit to the SAR and its recovery. Without this monitoring component, significant funds may be wasted and species put at further risk unnecessarily. Examples of alternatives that might be considered include:
- Leveraging existing organizations who engage in habitat enhancement, protection and development to implement compensation programs on behalf of others (e.g. Conservation Authorities, non-governmental organizations such as Bird Studies Canada). Providing opportunities to engage a partner that has a proven track record and expertise in the areas of habitat compensation will result in sustainable funding to those organizations and more successful compensation programming in the long run. A good example of this type of partnership is the engagement of conservation authorities in the delivery of butternut compensation programs.
- Collecting fees from projects commensurate with the level of impact on SAR and/or SAR habitat and investing that funding strategically to larger scale landscape or watershed protection or improvement projects. This could be both less costly for the applicant and more effective towards species protection and enhancement.
- Providing more options for habitat compensation. In many instances, habitat enhancement and/or creation can be completed at a significantly lower cost than protection measures. In such instances, not only are funds used more effectively but they may ultimately result in a greater overall area of suitable habitat for the target species. Completing a cost accounting comparing the level of expected outcomes vs the cost of implementing the permitting requirements could be a tool to determine support the decision to develop and apply a compensation project instead of straight protection measures.
Other:
Streamlined Approaches:
IO appreciates the streamlined approaches that have been developed for some species that are threatened and/or endangered, such as the process for altering a structure that is habitat for the barn swallow. These approaches provide a clear process to follow that allows sufficient certainty to effectively plan their budget and schedule. IO encourages these streamlined approaches to be revisited and updated regulatory based on the developing science.
IO also encourages the addition of more detail with regards to the monitoring elements of streamlined approaches. The benefit of monitoring the programs is to develop a better understanding of their success and to adapt the process accordingly. Without clear guidance on the monitoring requirements, monitoring programs implemented by different groups could result in findings that are not comparable, thus limiting the data that can be used to determine the success/failure of the program or identify ways to improve it.
Best Management Practices:
Best management practices to address impacts to species at risk are often not available or documented, especially for newly listed species. This can lead to delays in the application, review and approval processes, as well as inconsistent treatment of applications by the regulator. This can result in significant impacts to project budgets and schedules.
Ideally, best management practices would be developed and made available before a species is listed. Once established, the best management practices should be applied consistently as a means of streamlining the process. The requirements for each species should to be clear, consistent and quantifiable.
Habitat Compensation Lands:
IO manages a significant portfolio of undeveloped lands that may be suitable for habitat compensation. Where these lands are non-viable or undevelopable, there may be opportunities for the Province to work together to identify which lands may be suitable for habitat compensation and market them as such to third parties.