• Protecting Water and Farmland in Simcoe County

Ontario Government’s Actions Threaten the Protection of Endangered Species

In Uncategorized
Nov 8th, 2013

ECO news release November 6 2013
Toronto, November 6, 2013 &endash; In a special report to the legislature, Laying Siege to the Last Line of Defence, Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner warns that new regulation changes under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) threaten the protection of the province’s species at risk.

The ESA prohibits the harming, harassing or killing of endangered and threatened species, or the destruction of their habitat. Now, the regulation exempts proponents of many activities from the requirement to have a permit before they harm endangered species or their habitats; instead, they only need to follow rules set out in the new regulations. “The full protections of the law no longer apply to activities such as forestry operations, aggregate pits and quarries, hydro-electric dams and infrastructure construction &endash; activities that historically contributed to species becoming threatened in the first place.”
“By eliminating the permit process, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has shed its ability to say ‘no’ to a proposed activity, no matter how harmful it may be to an imperilled species,” says Commissioner Miller.
“And since proponents don’t have to file any monitoring reports with the ministry, MNR will be blind to the effectiveness of its new rules.”
The Environmental Commissioner says that MNR has been evading its responsibilities since the ESA came into effect in 2008. “The Ministry had five years to ensure that 155 recovery plans were completed for species at risk, but nearly half of them have been delayed, often with dubious explanations. Rather than doing its job, MNR brought forward new regulations that strike at the very heart of the law.”
Miller says it’s wrong to blame the law for the failure of species protection in Ontario. “The fault lies entirely with the Ministry of Natural Resources. MNR has been stalling recovery strategies, delaying habitat protection, mismanaging the permitting process, and deliberately ignoring public participation.”
The Environmental Commissioner says the public has lost its rights as well. “Proposals to harm endangered species or their habitats will no longer show up on the Environmental Registry, so the public won’t have any ability to know or comment.” When MNR posted its proposal to change species protection in Ontario, more than 10,000 Ontarians responded.
Miller says Ontario’s efforts to protect species at risk must be guided by three core principles: the Ministry of Natural Resources must actually take responsibility for improving the protection of species at risk; decisions should ultimately lead to the recovery of species; and MNR must genuinely engage the public.
“MNR’s regulatory amendments fail on all accounts,” says Miller, “and undermine what the Ontario legislature set out in law.”

Full report

Overview of the report
Overall benefit concept

The Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) prohibits the harming or harassing of an endangered and threatened species, or the destruction of their habitat.
215 species or species populations are currently listed under the SA as endangered, threatened, of special concern or extirpated.
On July 1, 2013, a series of regulatory amendments came into force creating broad exemptions from the ESA’s requirements to obtain a permit or agreement prior to harming a species at risk or its habitat. Instead of requiring permits or agreements, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) now allows companies to follow rules set out in regulation. This is generally called a permit-by-rule system.
The following industries no longer require permits or agreements before harming a species at risk or its habitat: Crown forestry operations, most hydro-electric generating stations, many aggregate pits and quarries, certain ditch and drainage activities, most early exploration mining activities, wind facilities and certain development and infrastructure projects.
99 species are endangered, facing imminent extinction or extirpation. They include the American Badger, the Eastern Foxsnake (Carolinian population), the Small White Lady’s-slipper and the Wood Turtle.
56 species are threatened, and likely to become endangered if no steps are taken. They include the Polar Bear, the Rainbow Mussel, the Massasauga Rattlesnake and the American water-willow.
45 species are of special concern and may become threatened or endangered because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. They include the Woodland Vole, the Snapping Turtle, the Peregrine Falcon and the Blue Ash.
15 species are extirpated, which means they no longer live in the wild in Ontario. They include the Greater Prairie-Chicken, the Eastern Tiger Salamander, the Paddlefish and the Spring Blue-eyed Mary.
Under many of the new exemptions, proponents of many activities only need to take steps to “minimize the adverse effects” of their activities, rather than provide an “overall benefit” to the affected species.
Under the amended regulation, eligible proponents are automatically given an exemption provided they follow the prescribed rules. MNR has given up its power to say “no” to any project, regardless of the ecological importance of the area or the possibility there will be damaging cumulative impacts on the species at risk or its habitat.
Although proponents are generally required to document the measures they will take to minimize “adverse effects” on species, proponents almost never have to submit the documentation to MNR. MNR will therefore have no ability to know whether the permit-by-rule system is actually protecting species at risk.
Since the original ESA came into effect in 2008, MNR has failed to ensure the preparation of nearly half of the recovery strategies for the 155 endangered and threatened species in Ontario.
The government is required to prepare a response statement to each recovery strategy for threatened and endangered species. MNR has delayed the delivery of seven response statements, despite the fact that it has no legal ability to do so.
MNR received 10,034 comments in response to its proposal on the Environmental Registry to make these regulatory amendments. This is more than twice as many public comments as all other policy, act and regulation decisions combined as posted on the Environmental Registry in 2013.

Leave a Reply

Commenters must post under real names. AWARE Simcoe reserves the right to edit or not publish comments. Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *