Southern Ontario’s Forests: Problems on the Landscape?
Contents |
Introduction
Southern Ontario has had a long history of intensive land settlement and deforestation. Much of the land in this part of the province is held privately or by municipalities. Today, a substantial amount of the forest cover in southern Ontario exists because private landowners maintain woodlands, and municipalities and Conservation Authorities maintain forested sites. The provincial government holds less property in the area lying south of Algonquin Park than in any other part of the province. It has, however, provided financial and technical support to many municipalities to establish forest sites. Site ownership, however, usually rests with the municipality.
Consequently, one of the most effective means for the provincial government to maintain forest cover in southern Ontario has been to work with private landowners, Conservation Authorities, municipal governments and non-governmental agencies to ensure support and incentives are available for good forest management. Indeed, provincial support for afforestation and woodland management in this part of the province has existed for nearly as long as the Province of Ontario, starting with An Act to encourage the Planting of Trees along Highways in 1871. Numerous Acts passed by the Ontario Legislature between the 1920s and 1960s continued to create an increasingly significant role for the province in forest management in southern Ontario. (For more details, see the Supplement to this report, pages 361-362.)
There are many reasons why afforestation and woodland maintenance are important – prevention of soil erosion, dust and snow suppression along roadways and rural aesthetics, as well as habitat, shelter and food supply for wildlife. Woodlands perform important ecological and hydrological functions, but are also subject to numerous stresses.
| Southern Ontario Woodlands: Their Relation to Current Environmental Issues |
|---|
.
|
In this reporting year, the ECO reviewed two programs of the Ministry of Natural Resources that have affected forest retention in southern Ontario: the Agreement Forest Program (AFP) under the Forestry Act, and the Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program (MFTIP). The former program helped to create forested areas on municipal lands in southern Ontario, while the latter provides an incentive for proper forest management on private lands.
Agreement Forests
In southern Ontario, many tracts of forest were established through agreements between the provincial government and another party, normally a municipal government or Conservation Authority, usually on municipally owned lands, and often with the financial or managerial support of the province (i.e., the Ministry of Natural Resources). Typically, agreement forests were started to reclaim land that had been cleared for agriculture but which was not being used nor was ideally suited for this activity. Some of these lands were abandoned and had associated environmental problems, such as soil erosion and flooding. According to MNR, the Agreement Forest Program included management planning, marking, marketing, and other duties to ensure effective rehabilitation of the lands.
The province has been actively setting up agreement forests for over 75 years. Under the AFP, MNR established contracts with 28 municipalities, 26 Conservation Authorities, a federal commission, and a publicly incorporated company. The agreements encompassed approximately 130,000 hectares of land and resulted in the planting of approximately 147.5 million trees in southern Ontario overall. Assistance from the province included monetary incentives for planting trees and free nursery stock, and later, help with managing the growing forests. According to MNR, the program’s reforestation activities have contributed to restoring biological diversity on these lands. However, in 1994, MNR gradually began to return responsibility for agreement forests to the respective landowners, and at this point, the ministry is no longer entering into these agreements with municipalities.
Many of MNR’s AFP partners have adopted the responsibility of managing these forests and have the expertise to carry out proper forest management. However, the ECO is concerned that some municipalities may face situations in the near future that could place these forests in jeopardy. Budget pressures could limit the ability of a municipality to tend properly to a forest. Municipalities could receive tempting offers from land developers, since many forests would make attractive residential or recreational settings. The Forestry Act includes the provision that if a provincial grant was used to obtain the land for an agreement forest, then permission must be sought from the Minister of Natural Resources for its sale. If and when these grant lands are sold, at least 50 per cent of the proceeds of the sale must be directed to the local municipal or conservation authority and the balance to the province. Even with these checks in place, sales could still proceed.
There are signs of development pressures and other threats to the integrity of agreement forests. For example, in eastern Ontario in 2003, planning was under way for a tourism- related theatre facility within the Larose Forest, an agreement forest. The ECO has also received expressions of concern from environmental organizations that smaller municipalities may not be able to manage or protect these forested sites properly. In a central Ontario regional municipality, staff noted that in the years preceding MNR’s withdrawal from agreement forest management, some of the area’s agreement forests suffered neglect. The same regional staff noted concerns such as the need to remove hazard trees and risks associated with mountain-biking at one site. In general, municipalities would like agreement forests to be financially self-sustaining. Although some revenue can be derived from appropriate and selective harvesting, many municipalities could face new costs – for instance, signage, maintenance and consulting fees – by adopting agreement forest responsibilities.
In the long run, MNR’s retreat from the management of agreement forests may not bode well for these forests, especially for their ecological attributes. MNR’s retreat also represents a significant shift in the province’s approach to forest management in the history of Ontario.
Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program
In January 1997, the Minister of Natural Resources announced a property tax reduction system for eligible forest properties called the Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program (MFTIP). According to MNR, the essence of MFTIP was to ensure that forests that are actively managed by their landowners, and that are more than four hectares (10 acres) in size, would be assessed as equivalent to farm land and taxed at the rate of 25 per cent of the municipal tax rate for residential properties. The changes, which began with the 1998 tax year, were meant to encourage landowners to be good managers, or stewards, of private forest land. MNR indicated that MFTIP would take the place of the Managed Forest Tax Rebate Program, which had been canceled in 1993 and then reinstated in February 1996. MNR’s media release at the time said that the reinstatement of the Managed Forest Tax Rebate Program was a temporary measure and that long-term financial incentive measures for managing private forests would be provided through MFTIP. The program currently provides protection to over 720,000 ha of forests on more than 10,400 properties.
At its core, MFTIP was designed to provide managed forest owners with a 75 per cent reduction in property taxes on eligible managed forest properties – the very same reduction that is applied to agricultural lands. Identical treatment is essential to prevent a taxation disparity between forestry and agricultural land use, which would give owners an incentive to remove trees from the land in order to have the land taxed at the agricultural rate.
In fall 2003, the ECO received an EBR application requesting that the Ministry of Natural Resources undertake a review of the MFTIP program. The application outlined managed forest owners’ concerns about the program, particularly certain problems that began to intensify between late 2002 and early 2003. The applicants alleged that at that time, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), a municipally funded, not-for-profit corporation that assesses the value of property in Ontario for taxation purposes, began changing its methods of assessing the value of managed forest properties such that landowners were being required to pay substantial increases in property taxes. The changes in 2003, according to MPAC, were made at the direction of the Ministry of Finance, which has authority over the Assessment Act, used by MPAC for property tax assessment. According to MPAC, it was directed to “determine the assessed values of managed forest properties based on sales of managed forest properties from one managed forest property owner to another.” MPAC advised MNR, the Ontario Forestry Association (OFA), and the Ontario Woodlot Association of this revision in methodology.
According to OFA, the effect of changes to MPAC’s property value assessment methodologies will result in the demise of the MFTIP program. If many MFTIP-participating landowners do not receive taxation treatment equivalent to that for agricultural land, then forested lands in southern Ontario could undergo clearing and transformation of land use. OFA wrote a number of letters to the Minister of Finance and met with staff of that ministry between late 2002 and the end of 2003. The Ministry of Natural Resources also wrote to the Ministry of Finance, largely supporting the concerns of OFA, noting that:
- . . . MPAC’s most recent valuation procedures (April 2003) are contrary to the government direction for MFTIP. The procedures indicate that farmland productivity values will not be used in the assessment of properties in the MF property class. Rather, assessment of eligible properties will be determined by sales comparison. This is of particular concern for land located near urban and/or
recreation areas where woodland values are elevated because of market forces.
The Minister of Finance wrote to OFA in June 2003, responding to many of the concerns the association had raised over the preceding six months. However, OFA’s reply to MOF in July 2003 indicated that managed forest property owners were still facing key issues that were undermining the goals of MFTIP.
In autumn 2003, meetings were held between representatives of MPAC, MOF and MNR to deal with issues arising over the assessment of managed forest properties. Then, at the end of December 2003, MNR notified the ECO that the ministry would be undertaking the EBR application for review of the MFTIP program filed with the ECO earlier that fall. Early in 2004, some managed forest landowners became concerned that their assessment issues would not be resolved by March 31, 2004, in time for the next tax year and assessment. Some landowners who had in past provided free public access to their lands for snowmobiling purposes closed their trails for snowmobile access in early 2004. Free public access to private forest lands has often been granted by managed forest owners since they are receiving public support in the form of a tax reduction to manage the forests.
| Recommendation 2:
The ECO recommends that MNR ensure that the Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program does not provide a financial incentive to clear forested tracts of land in southern Ontario. |
MNR’s review of the MFTIP program was slated to take 90 days to complete, and the
ministry anticipated a response by late April 2004. MNR wrote to the ECO, explaining
that more time was required to prepare a response and that it would not arrive until May,
and then June 2004. This dispute remains unresolved as of May 2004.
Southcentral Region Forest Strategy
In 2003, MNR finalized its Southcentral Region Forestry Strategy, which covers roughly all of the area in Ontario south of Algonquin Park. The strategy states that MNR’s priorities for this region are the following: MNR will manage forest information, provide landscape planning leadership, strengthen strategic partnerships, promote sustainable forest management practices, recognize the forest sector of the economy, provide leadership in developing and transferring knowledge, engage in forest awareness, provide client services, and act as responsible stewards of Crown forests. These priorities are likely to be helpful to private or municipal foresters. The strategy does not, however, resolve the key issues of managed forest owners, nor does it involve MNR in any further intensive management of agreement forests. It should also be noted that there is very little Crown forest in southern Ontario, which limits the amount of direct involvement by MNR in forest management in this area.
Summary
The importance of woodlands, agreement forests and other forms of forested tracts of land in southern Ontario has long been recognized by the province. A century of provincial legislation, programs and efforts have been dedicated to afforestation and woodland preservation in this part of the province. The outcome of these measures – hundred of thousands of forested hectares – is a significant legacy indeed.
The ECO is greatly concerned about the future of agreement forests and the pressures faced by municipal and private forest managers. The province’s current policy approaches are creating the financial incentive to remove trees from lands in southern Ontario. There is a continuing need for strong and effective measures to protect and enhance the forested landscape of this region. In the case of MFTIP, the provincial bodies involved need to demonstrate greater resolve to ensure the program continues to achieve its goals.
| This is an article from the 2003/04 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2004. "Southern Ontario's Forests: Problems on the Landscape?." Choosing our Legacy, ECO Annual Report, 2003-04. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 29-34.
