The 10th Year Review of…

The 10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act: Discussion Paper states that the proposed changes to the act are to result in a number of “desired” outcomes. Desired changes to the Act should be focused on “enabling a positive outcome for species at risk” and “ensuring species assessment are based on up-to-date science”. The Endangered Species Act (ESA, 2007) is intended to protect species deemed at risk, not to “increase efficiencies in service delivery for authorization clients” or “streamline processes for those who need to implement the act.” This is not the Endangered Business Act.

In addition, this discussion paper does not make clear what the analyses were or what the process was for determining these challenges identified the paper. Has an assessment been done to show the effectiveness of the current provisions in the ESA? Where is the evaluation that demonstrates what is working and what isn’t?

Area of Focus 1 – Landscape Approaches

Both a landscape and species-specific approach are often required to adequately protect species. One approach cannot replace the other. Species-specific biological and ecological knowledge is necessary to learn about a species in order to appropriately protect it. A species-specific approach is critical for assessments and reassessments of the species, understanding the individual recovery needs, and effective monitoring.

There are instances where groups of species can be effectively protected by taking a landscape approach or multi-species approach. This is broad-scale approach is already a provision in the current act. The decision to take a species-specific approach or a more broad-scale approach should be based on the best scientific evidence available provided by research, academics, practitioners and experts in the field.

Area of Focus 2 – Listing Process and Protection for Species at Risk

Automatically listing species and protecting their habitats avoids excessive time and effort on deciding whether a species should be listed or not. This allows more time and effort to be spent on the actual recovery of the species. Delaying protection of species at risk and their habitat puts them at even greater risk, which contradicts the intentions of this Act. In addition, delaying protection of species and their habitat can allow the cause of the problem to continue and therefore increase the cost of recovery.

Challenges mentioned in the discussion paper, such as transparency and public notices, can be addressed by improving communications. The listing process and protection of species at risk is not the issue. The current process of having a third party (COSSARO) assess and recommend species listings based on the best scientific evidence available, consulting academics, practitioners and experts in the field, allows for an independent and less bias assessment. Changes to the protection of a listed species should only be based on this knowledge. Improvements could be made by further inclusion of Indigenous and Traditional Knowledge during this process. However, impacts on business, human activities, and public opinion should not be considered in this decision-making process.

Area of Focus 3 – Species Recovery and Habitat Regulation

When species are deemed at risk, there is a sense of urgency to address the causes. Instead of extending timelines, perhaps the government should invest more into being able to meet these timelines accordingly that enable recovery actions to take place. Progress should be reviewed at regular intervals, however better coordination during the process of the development of recovery strategies and government response statements could be made to ensure meaningful recovery actions.

No changes should be made to habitat regulations. It has not been used long enough to determine how effective it is as it was designed to be used. In addition, there is already discretion in the current Act for the Ministry to delay or proceed with habitat regulations.

Area of Focus 4 – Authorization Process

The authorization process should not be made easier or faster for applicants at the expense of species at risk. The Act should uphold an overall benefit for species at risk and their habitat. A “conservation fund” in lieu of activity-based requirements for businesses often delays meaningful recovery actions for species at risk, therefore hindering their recovery. Activities that may impact species at risk or their habitat require careful consideration and should be able to demonstrate that the needs of these species and their habitat are met and not compromised. Lessening this requirement weakens the Act.

In summary, Endangered Species Act (2007) is a strong and well written Act that is based on the best available science to list and protect species. However, there still remain uphill battles related to the implementation of the Act – not the Act itself. Adhering to timelines, increasing funding for species recovery and enforcing the ESA are examples of where improving implementation of the existing Act should occur.

We are experiencing a global decline in biodiversity, which humans depend upon for survival. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the primary cause for the decline in global biodiversity is habitat loss and degradation. Habitat loss and degradation is caused by the very human activities that this review paper suggests should be more easily permitted. To ensure that the Endangered Species Act protects and recovers species at risk, thereby benefiting all Ontarians, habitat protection needs to be an integral part of the solution.