The “Big Picture Protected…

The “Big Picture Protected Areas Strategy for Ontario’s Carolinian Zone” developed in 2018-2019 with the involvement of over 60 different government agencies, First Nations and NGOs would address many of the challenges identified in the “10th Year Review of Ontario's Endangered Species Act (ESA) Discussion Paper”. The strategy’s recommendations would also help the Province of Ontario meet international protected area targets (17% protected by 2020) signed by the federal Conservative government along with 193 other United Nations members in Aichi, Japan in 2011.

Ontario’s Carolinian Zone (from Toronto to southern Lake Huron south to Lake Erie) is home to at least 165 different species at risk – that’s over 70% of Ontario’s total. Many of these species are found nowhere else in Canada and are critically endangered. Why are there so many species at risk in Ontario's Carolinian Zone? Primarily because of habitat loss. Right now only 16% of the Carolinian Zone is natural. Widely accepted guidelines recommend 30-50% natural for healthy landscapes.

The key to reversing the trend of habitat loss and biodiversity decline in southern Ontario is to invest in expanding the protected areas network and to develop and implement changes to policies and incentives that effectively create a balanced and secure economic environment for the business sector, while protecting and conserving healthy natural assets and ecological goods and services. The fact is: robust, healthy, functioning ecosystems (“natural infrastructure”) do much more than protect biodiversity and species at risk. Healthy, robust ecosystems mitigate against flooding and severe weather events, sequester carbon, provide cooling in summer, reduce erosion, improve soil quality, provide clean air, clean drinking water, support a robust tourism and recreation economy, improve mental and physical health, and improve the ability of young people to learn.

If the following proactive recommendations were adopted by the Province of Ontario and integrated with an updated ESA, species at risk recovery rates would be greatly enhanced, fewer species would be newly listed, costs to effectively protect and regulate them would level off and decline, and greater clarity and reduced approval costs would contribute to expanded yet sustainable economic opportunities across Southern Ontario:
• Undertake major financial investments (e.g., >$250M/yr, in collaboration with federal and private sector) combined with appropriate legislative and policy changes (below), to protect or permanently conserve as natural habitat at least 30% of each ecodistrict in Southern Ontario through land securement, conservation easements and/or stewardship agreements by 2035.
• Develop legislation and establish provincial land planning policies that provide long-term certainty in land use. Specifically, expand “Greenbelt” concept to all of Ecoregion 7E (the Carolinian Zone of Ontario), but consider re-naming and adapting the expanded plan area in such a way that is welcomed by the primarily rural Southwestern Ontario communities it impacts.
• Establish a mechanism for tax breaks for farmers and other rural landowners to set aside portions of their properties for ecological restoration.
• Revise Provincial Planning Statement and any other relevant legislation to allow and encourage conservation severances (i.e., simplify process to allow landowners to sell natural or restorable habitat portions of their properties to land trusts, conservation authorities, etc.). Promote the use of conservation severances to municipalities.
• Update the Drainage Act to ensure that it does not contribute to further wetland loss, nor the degradation of habitat in protected or otherwise ecologically-significant areas. Specifically, explore opportunities to use the Drainage Act to fund and implement ecological stream channel restoration projects in degraded or hardened systems.
• Provide robust financial support to stewardship and restoration incentive programs.
• Create, legislate and apply a thoroughly-researched, evidence-based, fair payment formula for Ecological Services mechanism that is revenue-neutral, in which Ecological Services beneficiaries (e.g., mostly urban residents) pay Ecological Services suppliers (i.e., mostly rural landowners). Note: There would be little or no Ecological Services “expense” payment for sites under public ownership (i.e., if the network of protected areas on public land is sufficiently large, there is zero Ecological Services cost to taxpayers, and everybody wins).
• Develop and sustain a standardized accreditation program (in collaboration with private sector NGOs) that defines and monitors eligibility for payment for Ecological Services and tracks land protection and conservation programs.
• Ensure that municipalities establish natural heritage systems in their Official Plans that conserve functioning ecosystems -- not just isolated or fragmented “environmentally significant areas” -- that are vigorously enforced through land use planning, zoning, bylaws and monitoring processes.
• Develop and implement outreach and education strategies that are rural- and farmer-friendly. Farmer-to-farmer outreach typically works best.
• Support existing partnerships that are in place between the agricultural communities and conservation communities including funding programs.
• Build on existing efforts to establish a strong, lasting partnership between the conservation and agricultural sectors that demonstrates an understanding of farmers’ perspectives, particularly in relation to difficult issues (e.g., the Endangered Species Act).
• Promote the economic benefits of maintaining portions of a farm in a natural state. Work with existing farm-oriented groups to develop and share outreach materials.
• Encourage agribusiness to employ precision agriculture techniques to identify unprofitable portions of farm properties, and to work with conservation groups to restore such portions to habitat that supports native biodiversity, with conservation agreements or easements in place.