Ontario’s ‘pay to slay’ policy threatens species and habitat protection

Again and again, we have seen the government opt to weaken environmental laws and policies

One learns to read between the lines after years of working on policy issues in Ontario.

For example, when the government makes an end-of-Friday announcement, it’s a clear signal it’s hoping to avoid timely scrutiny and negative media coverage. And when the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks claims it is “streamlining authorizations,” it’s typically to make things easier for industry and development to proceed more quickly, at the expense of what’s perceived to stand in the way.

A case in point: the government’s lateafternoon announcement on Sept. 17 about the establishment of a new “Species Conservation Action Agency,” under the Endangered Species Act. Though it sounds promising, the agency is the first step in “streamlining authorizations” for activities that negatively affect species at risk.

It’s all part of implementing the new “Species at Risk Conservation Fund,” another nice-sounding euphemism for what conservation advocates have aptly dubbed “pay to slay.” With the fund, those proposing harmful activities will be able to pay up front rather than undertake actions to more than compensate for the damage done, as is currently required.

Ontario’s ESA was built with flexibility in mind. It allows for harmful activities to proceed, but only with adequate safeguards in place. Operators must take steps to ensure that species will be better off than before the harm occurred. If habitat is damaged or destroyed, it must be restored or replaced.

The overall benefit standard was designed to facilitate species recovery, and not just soften the blows of habitat loss and degradation, the main driver of species decline. But the fund eviscerates the standard, allowing operators to make a payment and then walk away, free of further responsibility or liability.

With this new model, there will be no direct link between the harm inflicted to a particular species and the remedy provided through the fund. Payments are to be pooled and used to benefit any species under the fund, not necessarily the one harmed. Depending on political priorities or the availability or convenience of compensating activities, it’s possible that populations of some species, or parts of their range, will be sacrificed while others benefit.

Further, the activities the fund supports need only be “reasonably likely” to benefit the species harmed. In other words, it offers certainty for proponents but not for the plants and animals the ESA is intended to protect. Nor for affected communities.

No doubt the fund will shorten authorization timelines and increase certainty for proponents, as the government claims. It will be cheaper and quicker to get permission for harmful activities.

Biodiversity is declining at rates unprecedented in human history and yet in Ontario there seems to be no appetite for the transformative change required to stem the loss.

Biodiversity loss is ranked as a top five risk to economies over the next decade, because of the inestimable benefits that nature provides. However, again and again, we have seen the government opt to weaken environmental laws and policies. Is it too much to ask that the government uphold and strengthen protections for our most endangered plants and animals rather than cater to its buddies in business?