The City of London supports…

The City of London supports ensuring positive outcomes for species at risk as the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) reviews the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA).

Protection, management and enhancement of the environment is central to all of the planning that we do in London. Consistent with the environmental policies of our new Official Plan, The London Plan, we support upholding the current law for positive outcomes for species at risk, including:

• science-based listing that includes Indigenous Traditional Knowledge,
• mandatory habitat protection, and
• legislated timelines for planning and reporting.

Area of Focus 1: Landscape Approaches

A landscape approach is already in place in some instances, for example when two or more species are represented within a single recovery strategy to improve efficiency and address the needs of multiple species at risk.
• Morris, T. J. and M. Burridge. 2010. Recovery Strategy for the Northern Riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana), Snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra), Round Pigtoe (Pleurobema sintoxia), Mudpuppy Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) and Rayed Bean (Villosa fabalis) in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. ii + 4 pp+ Appendix viii + 76 p.
• McCracken, J.D., R.A. Reid, R.B. Renfrew, B. Frei, J.V. Jalava, A. Cowie, and A.R. Couturier. 2013. Recovery Strategy for the Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) and Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. viii + 88 pp.

Agree that landscape approaches are important for species recovery noting more could be done to address (and remove barriers for other groups and levels of government to address) invasive species across the Province. Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy, 2011 identified that after habitat loss, invasive species are the second biggest threat to biodiversity in Ontario.

Area of Focus 2: Listing Process and protections for Species at Risk

A different or alternative approach to automatic species and habitat protections could delay implementation of the recommendations of COSSARO, and the posited approach of “longer transition periods or ministerial discretion on whether to apply, remove or temporarily delay protections for a threatened or endangered species, or its habitat…” would not be consistent with the stated desired outcomes of the ESA review to both provide certainty and make the process more efficient while enabling positive outcomes for species at risk.

Prefer that COSSARO’s current species listing process is retained, “based on the best available scientific information, including information obtained from community knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge” (ESA, section 5 (3)).

Area of Focus 3: Species Recovery Policies and Habitat Regulations

The stated desired outcomes of the ESA review to both provide certainty and make the process more efficient while improving outcomes for species at risk could be improved by reducing the timelines for developing Recovery Strategies after species listing. Many Recovery Strategies are already delayed (as of June 13, 2017, recovery strategies for over 40 species have exceeded the timelines in the Act) and do not meet the current timelines set out in the Act. As the Government Response Statements are to be published up to 9 months after the development of Recovery Strategies, the timelines are in effect already extended, and extending them further would cause additional delays and increase the uncertainty in implementing the recommendations of COSSARO.

The development of a habitat regulation for each species that is endangered and threatened already aligns with the desired outcomes of the ESA review (to both provide certainty and make the process more efficient while improving outcomes for species at risk) as 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, and may be smaller or larger than general habitat.”

Area of Focus 4: Authorization Process

The 10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act: Discussion Paper identifies that; “Under the Act, the government can issue different types of permits or other authorizations for activities that would otherwise not be allowed. There are a variety of different provisions under the Endangered Species Act that would enable activities otherwise prohibited by the Act.”

The discussion paper identifies 8 current provisions including a “Significant social or economic benefit permit” that allows activities otherwise prohibited by the Act, noting Section 57 (1) 1 of the ESA already provides a number of exemptions. It is unclear how adding additional authorization tools or approaches to authorizations could further enable economic development while also providing positive outcomes to species at risk.

The stated desired outcomes of the ESA review to both provide certainty and make the process more efficient while improving outcomes for species at risk could be improved by reducing the timelines for processing authorizations, while also enhancing the consistency of inspection and enforcement powers.