Letter to the Editor: A Conversation in Biodiversity Off-setting

Recently, The Brock Press published an online article related to biodiversity offsetting. Although the article highlighted some of the issues discussed at a Jan. 27 public information meeting, the author inserted significant editorial comment. We welcome the opportunity to provide the readers of The Brock Press an alternative view of the meeting associated with facts.

biodiversity

 

What is “Biodiversity Offsetting”?

On July 27, 2015, the Government of Ontario posted on the Environmental Registry a document entitled “Wetland Conservation in Ontario: A Discussion Paper”. Within this discussion paper, the province defined biodiversity offsetting as “There are many definitions of the concept of no net loss, sometimes also known as ‘biodiversity offsetting’. For wetlands, the term no net loss usually refers to the goal of balancing unavoidable wetland losses from development with wetland restoration so that there is no overall loss of wetland function on the landscape. Net gain is a similar concept however this approach ensures that the replacement ratio for wetlands lost and gained is greater than 1:1.” Within the posting, the province provided a three-month deadline and asked the public and stakeholders to provide a response to the Discussion Paper. The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) responded to the discussion paper – and in regards to biodiversity offsetting – included the following:

  • The Provincial government should explore the concept of ‘no net loss’/’net gain’. Staff suggest that the Province consider ‘net gain’ because there are always losses of biodiversity, ecosystem complexity, maturity and function when a man-made wetland replaces a naturally formed wetland. Any policy change should focus on protecting existing wetlands and reserving the option of wetland compensation for unique situations that are in the public interest.
  • Integrated Watershed Management Plans, Watershed Plans or Subwatershed Plans should be completed in advance of the consideration of wetland compensation in order to target areas suitable for wetland loss and compensation. Any wetland compensation policy should ensure a robust set of guidelines or regulations which will ensure that wetland creation provides meaningful results.
  • Partnerships with the scientific community (colleges, universities, etc.) to ensure science-based targets/criteria/goals of wetland compensation.

As a brief summary, the NPCA responded that the concept of Biodiversity Offsetting could be implemented in the watershed allowing science (not emotion) to determine if such projects are viable in balancing the protection of wetlands and addressing the socio-economic needs of the community.

As watershed management agencies, conservation authorities are responsible for water and related land management in partnership with Ontario’s municipalities and the Province of Ontario. The mandate of Conservation Authorities is to ensure the conservation, restoration and responsible management of Ontario’s water, land and natural habitats through programs that balance human, environmental and economic needs.

NPCA is an open and transparent organization:

When some local environmental leaders requested a meeting with the NPCA to discuss Biodiversity Offsetting, the NPCA fully welcomed the opportunity. At this meeting, local environmental leaders suggested that they had several questions in regards to biodiversity offsetting and requested the NPCA provide more information. In response, the NPCA suggested it host a follow-up meeting to outline the “concept” of biodiversity offsetting and some of the science involved. By word of mouth and social media, the meeting transformed into a public information session.

At the information session, NPCA’s Special Projects engineer Jayme Campbell presented some of the science and data currently being collected by the NPCA related to groundwater. Understanding the behaviour of the ground water is important to comprehend the structure and classification of certain wetlands. Thereafter, NPCA’s Water Resources engineer Steve Miller spoke about the generally poor quality of surface water in the watershed. He outlined how the NPCA continuously monitors local groundwater and surface water in order to understand its impact on people and the environment – including wetlands. This presentation was followed by NPCA’s Manager of Restoration Jocelyn Baker who described how her team creates wetlands… Yes, the NPCA has built over 100 hectares of wetlands – primarily on private lands via willing landowners. (Note: The photo illustrates EC Brown Conservation Area – a private land transformed into an NPCA wetland). After this information, NPCA’s Supervisor of Watershed Biology, LeeAnn Hamilton presented a brief overview of the Province’s methodology for delineating and evaluating wetlands across Ontario, as well as some of the changes in the Niagara landscape over the last 80 years when her presentation was disrupted by individuals who wanted to shout out their opinions, rather than learn from the expert knowledge of staff on how the NPCA addresses wetlands in their watershed.

At the request of several audience members, NPCA revised the meeting format to allow for questions before completing the planned presentations. The consequence was not including a presentation on the legislative framework by NPCA’s Manager of Regulation and Reviews, Suzanne McInnes. The audience would also have heard NPCA’s Director of Watershed Management Peter Graham describe the process NPCA would follow in more detail.

The issue of biodiversity offsetting is complex. It is unfortunate that members of the audience could not contribute to a meaningful conversation rather than vilify and accuse NPCA of evil intentions. To view all presentations from the information session, click here.

How we manage wetlands:

There is sufficient scientific knowledge of the many benefits of wetlands, which include: fish and wildlife habitats, flood control and water quality improvement. Just over 12 per cent of NPCA’s watershed is wetlands. 80% of these wetlands are classified as swamps that are continuously encroached upon and threatened by other land uses.

NPCA is aware that re-creation of a slough forest is not easily or quickly achieved, likely taking on the order of centuries. NPCA is fully aware that the current policy framework allows for development around wetlands within a 30 m buffer (that at times, the buffer can be reduced with a proponent-led study). Development of lands surrounding wetlands can potentially “choke” the connectivity of the wetland complex and thereby destroy the wetland.

NPCA’s goal is to protect and increase the total area of wetlands and thereby improve the water quality within the watershed while providing habitat for species that are threatened or endangered. Biodiversity offsetting could assist in achieving this goal by connecting wetlands via corridors.

If the province affirms biodiversity offsetting as an option, NPCA will propose a “pilot project” to partner with local academic institutions (such as Niagara College and Brock University) in a study, and share the results with other jurisdictions. To reiterate the response to the province, the NPCA recommends “…Partnerships with the scientific community (colleges, universities, etc.) to ensure science-based targets/criteria/goals of wetland compensation”.

Finally, the NPCA welcomes the continued conversation on biodiversity offsetting. It has tuned-in the community on the issue of wetlands and how important they are to our cultural and environmental values. Establishing scientific evidence would be the best way for policy makers to implement informed decisions over the long term.

-NPCA Staff

Pin It

One thought on “Letter to the Editor: A Conversation in Biodiversity Off-setting

  1. These comments are in response to the article above. More than 250 residents of Niagara showed up to attend this meeting. All of these people believed that the meeting would allow members of the public to address their serious concerns about biodiversity offsetting in Niagara. The sense was that Board members and senior staff tried to pass the participants off as the radical environmentalists, rather than who they were, Niagara citizens from different organizations or who were attending for their own personal reasons.
    Also we wanted to question why NPCA is spearheading initiatives for biodiversity offsetting for development. This is not their mandate. They are in fact paying a lobbyist, Marc Kealey and Associates to push the provincial government to pilot such projects in Niagara. So at meetings and in emails NPCA senior management is telling us that they are waiting on the province for direction. Yet they are paying a lobbyist with tax dollars to actively seeking excuses to destroy provincially significant wetlands for development. This is the kind of development that only puts money into the pockets of developers and harms the community by costing residents more in infrastructure and increased taxes. Once insurance companies stop taking responsibility for increasing and more damaging weather events, local residents will also find their personal costs and municipal taxes skyrocketing if we lose wetlands, which can help to mitigate expensive climatic events such as what happened in Burlington and Toronto recently.
    During the meeting, the audience was provided with information that the Restoration Team at NPCA creates open water marshes but most of the remaining wetlands in Niagara are forested swamps. Science clearly states that for forested swamps, it will be impossible to have no net loss in terms of biodiversity offsetting.
    Everyone at the meeting would welcome another meeting if it is productive. We would like to know relevant information and the next steps and how the community could have input. Unfortunately Carmen D’Angelo CAO of the NPCA has not responded to our request.
    The comment about how “unfortunate that members of the audience could not contribute to a meaningful conversation rather than vilify and accuse NPCA of evil intentions” is entirely misleading. For the first 1 ½ hours there wasn’t a conversation. I think everyone appreciates the knowledge that the NPCA staff have, but some of the talks were not relevant to this issue. After waiting for such a long time to voice their concerns people were frustrated by the obvious attempt to sideline any discussion.
    I don’t think that the NPCA was vilified. There are many fine people who work there. However there are some people who work at NPCA and some members of the Board who have no knowledge of conservation. They should be listening to their educated staff and local residents, especially the local politicians.
    It seems to me we should be protecting our natural wetlands to the fullest extent; creating more and larger buffers around our wetlands and increasing the number of wetlands. All of this can be done without biodiversity offsetting. Trading something priceless for a few non-sustainable jobs seems a giant step backwards in terms of economic development for Niagara. We need sustainable jobs without destroying agricultural and natural areas to put more money in the hands of developers. It seems to me that the Board and senior management of NPCA are grossly overstepping their primary mandate to conserve, restore and responsibly manage Ontario’s land and natural habitats.
    Marcie Jacklin

Leave a Reply to Marcie Jacklin Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>