Recovery of Species at Risk: Government Responses Inadequate
The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is required to publish a document summarizing and prioritizing the recovery actions the Ontario government will take for each endangered or threatened species listed under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). These “government response statements” comprise the government’s response to science-based advice provided by independent species experts (see Figure 3.2.1).
Figure 3.2.1. Government response statements in the framework for protection and recovery under the Endangered Species Act, 2007.
In November 2010, MNR published government response statements for 13 endangered or threatened species:
- American badger (Taxidea taxus) – endangered
- barn owl (Tyto alba) – endangered
- deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum) – threatened
- eastern flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) – endangered
- eastern prairie fringed-orchid (Platanthera leucophaea) – endangered
- Engelmann’s quillwort (Isoetes engelmannii) – endangered
- few-flowered club-rush (Trichophorum planifolium) – endangered
- Jefferson salamander (Ambystoma jeffersonianum) – threatened
- Ogden’s pondweed (Potamogeton ogdenii) – endangered
- peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) – threatened
- redside dace (Clinostomus elongatus) – endangered
- spotted wintergreen (Chimaphila maculate) – endangered
- wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) – endangered
Contents |
Government Response Statements
must be considered prior to entering into agreements, issuing permits or instruments under the Act. As the 13 response statements are among the first prepared, they set the stage and serve as the template for those that will follow in the future. (The first government response statement, the Caribou Conservation Plan, was released in 2009. For additional information, see the ECO’s 2009/2010 Annual Report.) At least 118 additional government response statements for endangered or threatened species are required to be prepared by March 30, 2014.
MNR used a standard format for the 13 government response statements, which included: an overview of government response statements in the context of the ESA; the government’s recovery goal for that species; a list of government-led actions; a prioritized list of government-supported actions; and notes on implementation of actions for each species.
Government-Led Commitments
In each of the 13 government response statements, the government made six specific commitments:
- Collaborate with and educate agencies and planning authorities on the requirement to consider the species and its habitat in planning activities and environmental assessments;
- Encourage the submission of species data to MNR’s Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC);
- Undertake communications and outreach to increase public awareness of species at risk;
- Protect the species through the ESA and [develop and] enforce the regulation protecting the species’ habitat;
- Support partners in activities to protect and recover the species; and
- Establish and communicate annual priority actions for government support.
In 4 of the 13 statements, the government has made additional commitments. For the wood turtle, peregrine falcon, redside dace and Jefferson salamander, the government also commited to ensuring that “appropriate timing windows for undertaking activities in and around [species’] habitat are considered in the application of the ESA.” For peregrine falcon and redside dace, the government made further commitments, including to “continue to participate in province-wide population surveys every five years” as part of a national peregrine falcon survey and to develop urban development guidelines for development within redside dace habitat.
Government-Supported Commitments
The government response statements state that species recovery is a shared responsibility and that “no single agency or organization has the knowledge, authority, or financial resources to protect and recover all of Ontario’s species at risk.” To this end, each of the government response statements contain a list of actions (recommended by recovery strategy authors) that the government “endorses” as being necessary for the protection and recovery of each species, but will not directly undertake.
Some listed actions are noted as being “high” priority. The government states these “will be given priority consideration for funding or for authorizations under the ESA,” and that government support will be focused on these actions over the next five years. However, the government’s specific rationale for listing particular actions as “high” priority was not included in the response statements.
Implications of the Decision
For most of the 13 species, the government has made only broad commitments for recovering species at risk that would be expected responsibilities under the ESA. For example, the commitment to “protect the species through the ESA and enforce the regulation protecting the species’ habitat” appears to be a re-statement of legal obligations MNR already has under the ESA.
It is not clear how ministries outside of MNR might be given defined responsibilities for species recovery under any of the government’s commitments, or what their involvement (if any) might have been in developing the government response statements.
Dependence on Third Parties for Recovery Activities
The government has listed specific recovery activities recommended by recovery teams that it will support or “endorse,” but not lead or develop. It appears that these actions are expected to be undertaken by individuals or groups outside of government. However, it is unclear what the government will do if third parties are not available to undertake high priority (or any) activities. For example, if no third party is available to “conduct research to identify threats, evaluate their impacts and develop potential approaches to mitigate them” for spotted wintergreen, it is not clear whether the government would step in to fill this research gap.
Further, the majority of the listed recovery activities are not considered “high” priority and, therefore, it is unclear whether these activities will be eligible for government support over the next five years. Some of these lower priority activities comprise basic monitoring activities and would be required to fulfil the government’s recovery goals. For example, a monitoring program to observe population trends, threats and habitat condition for Ogden’s pondweed is not considered high priority, but would likely be required to reach the government’s goal to “ensure the persistence of populations where they exist in Ontario” and, ultimately, be necessary to down-list or de-list the species.
Reliance on NHIC as Central Data Repository
Each of the response statements indicates that submission of species data to MNR’s Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) will be encouraged. However, the NHIC currently has a backlog for data entry, and information submitted may not be incorporated quickly enough to facilitate collaborative species at risk research. The NHIC will require additional capacity if it is to effectively take on this crucial role. Further, the push to require groups to report to NHIC may indicate a movement away from government-led monitoring, to dependence on third parties for gathering information on species’ status.
Annual Prioritization of Actions
The response statements indicate that the government will establish priority actions for support on an annual basis. However, it is not clear what methods the government will use to prioritize actions or communicate these priority actions to the public. The lack of clarity raises some concern that the government may unilaterally change relative priorities for actions, support additional recovery actions, or remove particular recovery actions from access to government support.
Five-Year Reviews
Reviews are required to be conducted five years after a government response statement is issued. These reviews will examine the progress achieved toward the protection and recovery of the species and could act as an important accountability mechanism under the ESA. However, these reviews will not be able to gauge progress effectively, as the ministry has not set measurable targets or timelines for recovery activities within the government response statements. Lack of progress towards recovery may not be apparent; as no targets or benchmarks for either stewardship actions or environmental outcomes have been provided, it is unclear how the five-year reviews will measure success or failure of the recovery activities undertaken. Further, with the large number of government response statements MNR is required to prepare over the next three years, it is questionable whether the ministry will have the capacity or the funding to carry out these five-year reviews.
ECO Comment
The stated purpose of the ESA is to both protect species at risk and promote the recovery of species at risk in Ontario. It would appear that the government is not taking direct responsibility for the second component – species recovery – which ideally leads to species being de-listed from the ESA. In 2009, the ECO urged MNR to ensure that its response statements to recovery strategies are “robust, effective, and defensible and that its commitments are fully implemented in a timely fashion.” Instead, the commitments the government has made for species recovery are weak, vague and arguably redundant, reiterating the responsibilities the government already has under the ESA. In effect, there has been no real government “response” to recovery strategies for these 13 species; key elements that would provide accountability, transparency and a long-term commitment are conspicuously absent. The ECO is gravely concerned about the implications of these insufficient government response statements for the future recovery of Ontario’s species at risk.
As written, the statements do not create clarity for those who need it. The ECO believes that government response statements should clearly articulate the actions that will and will not be taken to recover species at risk, to alleviate the uncertainties that have been created for all stakeholders. The government responses require difficult, but legitimate, decisions to take or not to take particular actions recommended by recovery teams. The government should have no shame in stating what it cannot do – this should be clearly stated, with a rationale. The ECO believes an open and honest statement of the government’s intent would provide the opportunity for outside groups to identify gaps and take on urgent, but unfunded, recovery activities. However, in the current response statements it is difficult for stakeholders to decipher what or how specific recovery activities will be undertaken.
MNR has created a scenario in which the on-the-ground recovery of species at risk in Ontario has been off-loaded to external, voluntary programs. If no external group is able to do the needed recovery work, there is no assurance that the government will take the lead. The ECO understands the value of stewardship programs and the importance of community and stakeholder involvement in species at risk recovery activities. However, if the government does not take a leadership role, it may be unlikely that programs will have staying power over the long term. At the very least, the government should ensure that basic monitoring is in place for all listed species at risk.
The responsibilities for protecting and recovering species at risk extend to the entire Ontario government, not just to MNR. The ECO is disappointed that the response statements have not included explicit roles for other government ministries in species protection and recovery. In the past, lack of direction for other ministries has led to confusion on the part of non-MNR government staff as to their responsibilities under the ESA (for more information, see pages 45 and 46 of the ECO’s 2009/2010 Annual Report). There is little to no evidence that ministries other than MNR assisted in the development of government response statements, or are aware of their possible responsibilities under the statements – contrary to what a “government” response statement should entail as directed by the ESA. This issue is of particular concern for species for which extensive inter-ministry co-ordination will be required. For example, in the case of redside dace, municipal planners require provincial guidance, likely in co-ordination with both MNR and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
The ECO has previously noted that government response statements are “one of the most critically important aspects of the new law. [Each statement] will detail what actions the Ontario government will take to actually protect and recover a given species at risk.” The government response statements need to provide clarity, direction and measurable targets and benchmarks; they should not be reduced to an empty bureaucratic exercise that merely parrots the government’s legislative responsibilities.
The ECO urges the government to re-evaluate its approach for the numerous government response statements still in preparation, and to set measurable targets for species recovery when possible. The ECO also urges MNR to ensure that the annual prioritization of government actions is completed in an open and transparent manner that is in accordance with the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993.
| Recommendation 2:
The ECO recommends that MNR ensure that government response statements clearly articulate the actions that the Ontario government will and will not take to protect and recover species at risk. |
For a more detailed review please refer to Section 4.13 of the Supplement to this Annual Report. For ministry comments, please see Appendix C.
| Previous section: Missing in Action: Ontario's oversight of cage aquaculture |
| Next section: Snapping Turtles: To Hunt or Protect? |
| This is an article from the 2010/11 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2011. "Recovery of Species at Risk: Government Responses Inadequate." Engaging Solutions, ECO Annual Report, 2010/11. Toronto: The Queen's Printer for Ontario. 34-38.
