Ontario's Endangered Species Act Under Review

Jackie Fraser, Executive Director, AGCare

In August, 2006, the Endangered Species Act Review Advisory Panel released its report, recommending sweeping changes to Ontario’s outdated Endangered Species Act (ESA). The nine-member ESA Review Advisory Panel, made up of individuals with experience and expertise
related to species at risk and recovery planning, was asked to provide advice to the Minister of Natural Resources on improving the ESA.

In December, stakeholder representatives from groups ranging from agriculture to forestry, urban development, the aggregate industry, and environmental activists were invited to meet with the panel members to discuss their recommendations.

The old ESA had changed very little since it was passed in 1971. It was simplistic and harsh - an “all sticks and no carrots” approach – it prohibited any activity that affected an endangered species, completely ignoring the important roles of landowners and voluntary stewards. The focus was entirely on rigid enforcement, with no recognition of stewardship and no flexibility whatsoever.

Not surprisingly, this approach led to perverse outcomes. With such draconian legislation, why on earth would anyone ever report the presence of an endangered species on his or her property? How would property values be affected? Farmers lived in fear of what might happen to their ability to farm if an endangered species decided to take residence on their property.

While working as an environmental consultant, I was involved in a project on Pelee Island where the habitat of an endangered snake had been mapped. Many affected landowners were furious and we heard tales ranging from killing the snakes to keep them from being found on their
property, to hiding them in the basement. It became obvious to me that the ESA was not effective – it created fear and anxiety amongst landowners while ironically threatening the endangered snake population it was supposed to be protecting.

The Panel’s recommended changes to the ESA are definitely moving in the right direction. They are proposing flexibility through exceptions and recognition of landowner stewardship. The Panel recommends the use of voluntary tools such as conservation easements and tax incentives. “Safe Harbour” restoration agreements and plans, which protect landowners undertaking stewardship practices from legal liability arising from enhancing habitat, are recommended. The ESA should include a new stewardship fund and adequate resources must be made available to ensure the new Act is effective. Incentives need to play a role.

The government has agreed to the Panel’s recommendations in principle and plans to introduce the new legislation in March.

What we need is an Endangered Species Act that works to help endangered species recover to the point that they are no longer endangered. Over the past 35 years we have learned that we can’t do this without the people who own and manage our land and resources. We need to involve these crucial stakeholders throughout the ESA process – from assessing and designating a species as threatened or endangered (listing) to protection and recovery, through the proper set of flexibility tools, incentives, and science. Landowners and managers need to feel pride in being part of endangered species recovery, not fear.

Stakeholders began to work on some details during two meetings in December and hopefully the dialogue will continue as the legislation continues to be drafted. Anything is better than what we had and I am cautiously optimistic.

For more information visit www.mnr.gov. on.ca/mnr/speciesatrisk/input.html.