A Review of Ontario's Land Acquisition Program
Contents |
Introduction
Land set aside and kept reasonably free from human disturbance is a critical element for the health and protection of many ecosystems. Protected land can help ensure the survival of sensitive or rare species, allow forests to mature, and permit a host of other natural functions to occur. For these and many other reasons, the Province of Ontario, in conjunction with conservation groups, municipalities and the public, is using a number of approaches, including land acquisition, to set land aside for ecological or scientific purposes. For ecosystem protection, the shape and connectedness of a land area, and its proximity to other natural features such as lakes, cliffs and rivers, are critical. Ecosystems rarely fit the rectangular property boundaries that have been imposed on the natural landscape by humans. Plants and animals often require a variety of topographical, hydrological and biological features for nesting, feeding or migration purposes.
Conserving appropriately sized, ecosystem-based land masses is still a manageable undertaking in northern Ontario, where most land is still owned by the Crown. A practical method for protecting important natural heritage in this region is to establish parks and conservation reserves, which for the most part exclude resource extraction. In central Ontario, a great deal of land is also in Crown ownership, and park development or expansion has also taken place there. However, central Ontario is increasingly subject to a number of land use pressures, including forestry, mining, recreation, agriculture and urban growth. Recently, Ontario’s Lands for Life process established or expanded 378 parks and conservation reserves in northern and central Ontario, after extensive public consultation (see “Ontario’s Living Legacy – Land Use Strategy” in the 1999/2000 ECO annual report)
In southern Ontario, where most land is privately owned, establishment of protected areas is much more difficult. Land use planning is for the most part under municipal control, but municipalities face intense pressure to rezone natural areas to permit development. When municipalities try to protect natural areas by limiting development, their decisions are likely to be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (see Protecting the Oak Ridges Moraine and Marshfield Woods). Direct acquisition of natural areas is also difficult because land in the urban shadow is typically very expensive. Nevertheless, the province is committed to a goal of protecting 12 per cent of its lands and waters, as a signatory of the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy. This commitment is repeated in the Ontario’s Living Legacy (OLL) initiative, and has been achieved in the parts of the province covered by OLL. However, the Ministry of Natural Resources has not articulated how this goal applies to the landscape of southern Ontario, where only 2 per cent of the land mass is currently protected. Protecting natural areas in southern Ontario takes on a special importance for two reasons: First, it is one of the most biodiverse regions of Canada. Second, few of its natural areas remain because its land mass has been extensively developed for urban, agricultural and transportation purposes.
Regrettably, the extent of development in southern Ontario has led to a great deal of ecosystem fragmentation, in which small parcels of an ecosystem are separated from similar landscape. Protecting these remnant parcels is now the only natural means available for preserving southern Ontario’s biodiversity, as the majority of these ecosystems have already been lost. This is particularly true for the deciduous forest region – the southernmost forest zone in Canada – which contains the provincially rare Carolinian flora. Protecting the remaining small fragments of ecosystems in southern Ontario deserves the attention of provincial protection strategies, along with assembling and protecting larger, more notable sites.
EBR Applications
In March 2000, the ECO received two applications for review that cited the need for a strategy to protect the Oak Ridges Moraine. Among other things, the applicants requested creation of a provincial land acquisition program to purchase key properties along the Oak Ridges Moraine. Partly in response to issues raised by this application, the ECO has begun a review of Ontario land acquisition programs that are designed to protect significant natural areas, especially in southern Ontario.
Program Review
Our preliminary review of four natural heritage land acquisition programs currently in place in Ontario has produced some initial observations:
Natural Areas Protection Program (NAPP)
NAPP is a program launched in April 1998 by the Ministry of Natural Resources that grew out of the previously existing Niagara Escarpment Land Acquisition and Stewardship Program (NELASP). Lands near or on the Niagara Escarpment, and near or adjoining Rouge Park and Lynde Marsh (both just east of the City of Toronto), are currently the focus of this program. To disperse NAPP’s land acquisition funds of $5 million annually (for four years), MNR enters into agreements with partner organizations, e.g., conservation authorities, preferably on a matched-funding basis. Before entering into an agreement involving land acquisition projects, MNR evaluates applications against the program’s guidelines (which are available on its Web site). Ten per cent ($500,000) of NAPP’s annual budget is directed to small-scale capital projects (e.g., trail markers) on public lands.
When NAPP replaced NELASP, MNR expanded its focus beyond the Niagara Escarpment to include the Rouge and Lynde Marsh areas because these areas were considered to be threatened by development and were viewed as being critical for protection. The program’s new directions were not subject to public consultation under the EBR because MNR considered the decision to be part of the provincial Budget Statement, and thus exempt from EBR public comment provisions. MNR now appears to be remodeling the program as the Ecological Land Acquisition Program (ELAP). MNR is also indicating that land acquisitions under NAPP/ELAP are somehow part of the Ontario’s Living Legacy program, even though the extensive planning and public consultation for OLL was only for Crown lands, not private, and was restricted to northern and central Ontario. And it is unclear what changes, if any, have been made to NAPP/OLL as a result of these new directions. Finally, MNR indicates that a policy proposal for the new $10 million Ecological Land Acquisition Program (ELAP), which is to replace the Natural Areas Protection (NAPP), will be posted on the Environmental Registry for comment when available.
Community Conservancy Program (CCP)
The goal of CCP is to secure lands to a total value of $6 million. At least half the lands are to be provincially significant in nature. Begun in 1999, the program operates until March 2002 under a Memorandum of Understanding between MNR and the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC). In pursuit of the program’s goal, MNR provides NCC with $300,000 annually for land securement, which is expected to be matched on a 6:1 basis. The funds are employed by NCC primarily to enter into conservation easements (see The Role of Conservation Easements in Preserving Natural Heritage). A small amount of this funding is also directed to a network of local land trusts. MNR’s funding for this program comes from the sale of Crown lands through a program known as the Strategic Lands Initiative (SLI).
The ECO is not aware of public consultation that specifically evaluated the Community Conservancy Program. Neither the CCP nor the SLI were the subject of an EBR policy proposal posted on the Environmental Registry for public comment purposes, although information notices on SLI have been posted by MNR on the Registry.
Eastern Habitat Joint Venture (EJHV)
MNR and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs are partners in the Eastern Habitat Joint Venture, which is one of 14 regional partnerships of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, an agreement between Mexico, the United States and Canada to conserve, restore and enhance wetlands and to restore waterfowl populations to 1970s levels. Other partners include federal agencies and non-governmental organizations. To secure and enhance habitat under this program, MNR has transferred from $250,000 to $500,000 annually for at least 15 years to the non-governmental organizations of the partnership, which use their own, plus federal contributions, as matching funds to obtain U.S. funding. As MNR is only one of the funding agents in the partnership, the ministry’s funds help leverage other contributions, enlarging the total funds available. According to MNR, its contribution over 15 years of participation has amounted to $5 million, while the total value of partnership projects in Ontario over the same time was estimated to be $65 million.
The ECO was unable to ascertain what portion of EHJV funding contributes specifically to land acquisition, only that EHJV partners have decided to purchase outright only certain properties with very high ecological values. For other properties, the partners apply a range of stewardship approaches, supported by legally binding conservation agreements with owners. To date, partner meetings have been held on the overall direction of the initiative, and some specific projects under the partnership have been posted on the Environmental Registry.
Ontario Parks Legacy 2000 (OPL 2000)
In 1996, Ontario Parks, the agency within MNR that manages Ontario’s network of provincial parks, contracted the Nature Conservancy of Canada under the five-year Ontario Parks Legacy 2000 program, to acquire ecologically significant areas “to help complete a system of parks and other protected areas in Ontario in celebration of the new Millennium.” Funding of $1.5 million for this program also comes from public land sales through MNR’s Strategic Lands Initiative. Most of the sites selected, which will be classed Provincial Nature Reserves, are found in southern Ontario. Ontario Parks will be responsible for the protection and management of all sites. However, under a special custodial agreement, NCC may retain title of some properties.
Snapshot of Four Land Acquisition Programs
| Program | Principle Targets |
|---|---|
| Natural Areas Protection | Niagara Escarpment, Rouge Park, Lynde Marsh |
| Eastern Habitat Joint Venture | Water fowl habitat province-wide |
| Community Conservancy Program | At least 50% of lands acquired to be provincially significant |
| Ontario Parks Legacy 2000 | Ecological areas targeted on a scientific basis. Sites are mostly in south-central Ontario, and include ANSIs, wetlands. |
Recent Announcements
In November 2000, the province announced $102.55 million in funding under the banner of the Ontario’s Living Legacy program to be spent on a number of mostly existing, park-related programs. This announcement included a $20 million funding commitment for land acquisition in the province – $10 million under the Natural Areas Protection Program to cover 2000 to 2002, previously announced in 1998, but also a new $10 million commitment under NAPP’s successor program, ELAP, to run from 2002 to 2004. It appears that the remaining components of this announcement do not involve land acquisition directly, nor do they include any new funding dedicated to land acquisition. Also in 2000, MNR came out with a new procedure for identifying areas of natural and scientific interest (ANSIs) that may have implications for land acquisition processes (see page 39 for more information on this topic). ANSIs are among the program targets of Ontario Parks Legacy 2000 and NAPP. The new procedure will help MNR staff decide which lands and habitats will be selected for this designation in the future in Ontario.
Summary
The ECO’s preliminary review has found that MNR either leads or is involved in a number of land acquisition programs, with diverse histories and a variety of goals, processes and criteria. These programs acquire or protect lands through purchase, agreement, establishment of conservation easements and other methods. While programs exist, representing many habitats and ecosystems, we note that gaps also exist in the delivery of this overall program area – notably, in consulting the public about the programs and in terms of coverage of ecosystems.
Public consultation on most of these programs has been quite rudimentary. The reasons for this are not clear but may stem from the fact that MNR usually shares program management with partners such as environmental non-governmental organizations and conservation authorities. As a result, these programs are not widely publicized nor understood by the public. Further, none of the programs developed after April 1995, when the proposal notice requirements of the EBR began to apply to most ministries, was posted on the Registry as a regular policy proposal for public comment.
As for gaps in program coverage of ecosystems, Ontario’s Living Legacy does not extend into southern Ontario, and NAPP notably excludes the Oak Ridges Moraine, virtually all areas of Carolinian flora and many other parts of southern Ontario. Furthermore, it appears that the programs do not adequately capture the lands and habitat identified in the natural heritage policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, particularly threatened species habitat, fish habitat, significant woodlands and valleylands, and significant wildlife habitat. Given southern Ontario’s rich biodiversity and extreme development pressures, it seems particularly important to clarify how the goal of protecting 12 per cent of lands and waters applies to southern Ontario.
A coherent, province-wide, scientifically sound framework explaining the rationale and direction of each program would help to clarify this topic and assist the public in comprehending it. Furthermore, such a framework would permit comparison of the programs, and illuminate the relationship of one program to another (e.g., the Natural Areas Protection Program and/or Ecological Land Acquisition Program and their relation to Ontario’s Living Legacy program). The framework would also clarify how each program applies to lands with provincial, regional or local significance, and allow the ministry to measure and report on progress.
Land acquisition on its own is not sufficient to protect the natural heritage of acquired properties. Land and its flora and fauna can be susceptible to many kinds of damaging impacts, even simply by accidental intrusion by humans into sensitive landscapes. For these reasons, MNR and its partner organizations should ensure that sufficient resources are allocated to ongoing monitoring and stewardship of acquisitions.
The ECO recognizes that other tools beyond outright land acquisition to protect privately owned natural areas also exist, including conservation easements and tax incentive programs. We also observe that Ontario ministries are involved in a multi-year program to sell off a substantial amount of provincial land holdings that are deemed to be surplus to provincial interests. The ECO will continue to monitor how MNR manages its land acquisition and disposition programs.
| Recommendation 14:
The ECO recommends that MNR create a cohesive framework for land acquisitions programs in order to clarify how these programs will protect the ecosystem and natural heritage features of the landscape. |
| This is an article from the 2000/01 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2001. "A Review of Ontario's Land Acquisition Program." Having Regard, ECO Annual Report, 2000-01. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 171-176.
