Comments on Endangered…

Comments on Endangered Species Act Review

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. My comments on the discussion document follow:

Government’s commitment
• “The government is committed to ensuring that the Endangered Species Act provides stringent protections for species at risk, continuing to work with stakeholders and Indigenous peoples to improve its effectiveness, and modernizing the program based on best practices in other jurisdictions” (p 2)
• This is a vital commitment: vital, extensive and diverse species represent a socio-economic asset that Ontarians cannot afford to lose (species being key to innovative technologies based on study of their natural abilities, agriculture, pollination, tourism; recreation, health, fishing, hunting, clean air and water, etc.)
• As well, the commitment to working with stakeholders and Indigenous peoples and to drawing on other jurisdictions’ best practices in protecting species are both valuable
• It would be good to set this commitment in the global context – the rapid world-wide loss of species being a serious contemporary problem shared by all countries

Species diversity
• There is recognition (p 1) of the Province’s “incredible diversity of more than 30,000 species of plants, insects, fish and wildlife”
• This is the pivotal point of the Endangered Species Act: other considerations (business opportunities, timing for assessments and authorizations, exceptions, public information, etc.) should be secondary to this one

Economic development
• The Government is looking for “ways to streamline approvals and provide clarity to support economic development” (p 2)
• The economic development that occurs in areas crucial to species survival must be based on cutting-edge technologies (construction and operational designs that ensure a zero or near-zero ecological footprint)
• The Government should undertake an review of the ESA provisions created in 2013 to allow forestry, hydro, quarry, drainage, mining and wind-power activities in sensitive ecosystems – this with a view to ensuring the application of development approaches that give priority to species protection

Recovery strategies
• 243 species are listed at risk, but there are only 140 recovery strategies (p 1)
• Why not 243 recovery strategies?

Scientific basis of decisions
• One desired outcome of the review is to “ensure species assessments are based on up-to-date science” (p 2)
• Plus the document asks whether we should be able to “request an additional review and assessment in cases where there is emerging science or conflicting information” (p 4)
• Yet the document states (p 1) that “COSSARO is an independent committee with up to 12 experts that use best available scientific and Traditional Ecological Knowledge to assess native plants or animals that may be at risk, and to provide a classification”
• If COSSARO somehow does not have access to up-to-date science (surprising if true), we need measures and funding provisions to ensure that happens

Landscape protection
• The document asks, “Are there existing tools or processes that support managing for species risk at a landscape scale that could be recognized under the Endangered Species Act?” (p 3)
• It’s not really clear what is meant by ‘landscape protection’, but it seems best to allow both intensive and extensive land designations to protect species
• In “Protecting not-so-wild places helps biodiversity,” Faisal Moola, Jessica Lukawiecki and Robin J. Roth note that a “recent global synthesis of conservation studies shows that even small habitat patches are important for biodiversity and should no longer be neglected for conservation” (https://news.uoguelph.ca/2019/02/protecting-not-so-wild-places-helps-bi…)

Notification process
• The document asks whether there should be “longer timelines before a species is listed” (p 4)
• It would depend on how urgent the situation is and how long it has taken to reach the designation stage
• If there is a problem with notification, provisional/interim protections can be put in place

Ministerial discretion
• The document contemplates “ministerial discretion on whether to apply, remove or temporarily delay protections for a threatened or endangered species, or its habitat” (p 4)
• This should not occur if it goes against available scientific advice and the primary commitment to protect the Province’s endangered species

Other statutes
• “The Act adds duplication and delay for activities that are subject to other legislative or regulatory frameworks, like forestry under Ontario’s Crown Forest Sustainability Act” (p 7)
• If one of the Province’s other statutes provides measures that will serve to protect species, they could be used – there’s no need to duplicate administrative requirements (e.g., multiple permits)
• But we need to ensure that those companion measures can be relied upon to achieve ESA objectives – we need to make sure all the measures in play serve the purpose of species protection

Conservation fund
• The document raises the prospect businesses could circumvent species protections in one area by “paying into a conservation fund dedicated to species at risk conservation” (p 7)
• This seems to defeat the ESA objective of protecting endangered species – how can we sacrifice the individual habitats of species that are teetering on the edge of extinction? We need as wide a margin of error as possible

Conservation banking
• The document asks whether to “allow conservation banking to enable addressing requirements for species at risk prior to activities” (p 7)
• There should be an explanation of what is intended by ‘conservation banking’:
- if it’s about pooling multiple mitigation resources into a larger reserve, it sounds good
- if it’s about a ‘no net loss’ calculation, the precariousness of these species makes any loss
or trade-off unacceptable

Conservation agreements
• Organizing local conservation agreements would have some merit if they allow all local players an opportunity to buy into a shared plan to protect species of importance to the local community and local economy
• These agreements would take time at the front-end to set up, but would provide more effective protection over the long run (e.g., lower costs for inspection and compliance)

Inspection and compliance powers
• “In what circumstances would enhanced inspection and compliance powers be warranted?” (p 7)
• Where the species are in serious trouble