FYI...
Stefanie Rixecker
ECOFEM Coordinator
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE WIDELY TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.
In the message that follows you will find an urgent STATEMENT OF
CONSERVATION CONCERN that has been prepared by a group of conservation
biologists in Ontario, Canada.
THE ISSUE: An Ontario government land use planning process called
"Lands For Life" is about to make a decision on how much land to
permanently protect across a landbase spanning 45 MILLION hectares (an
area larger than California or twice the size of Britain), 40 million
hectares of which is PUBLIC land. ALL LAND not protected will be
tenured to the forestry and mining industries.
A final consolidated report prepared by public roundtables dominated
by industry representatives was released on October 30, 1998. The
government has now given the public only 30 DAYS to respond before it
makes its final decision!! The report recommends that only 1.6% of
this land base be added to the protected areas system (6.6% is
currently protected). The remaining 92% of this massive area will be
made available to the forestry and mining industries who are currently
seeking legal tenure agreements that will last in perpetuity.
Despite the fact that a primary goal of Lands For Life was the
completion of a representative protected areas system, the Round Table
report fails to do this.
***What is Needed From the International Scientific and Academic
Communities***
We are requesting that scientists who share our conservation concerns
in this urgent situation sign on to and help circulate the attached
STATEMENT OF CONSERVATION CONCERN to the Government of Ontario. To
assist you in deciding whether to sign the Statement, we have provided
a Summary and Backgrounder that provides you with greater detail on
this issue (located in this message after the statement).
To sign on, please e-mail or FAX your NAME and INSTITUTIONAL
AFFILIATION to Kevin Kavanagh at World Wildlife Fund Canada. A
response by November 30th would be most helpful.
We URGE you to forward this statement to other colleagues and request
that they, too, add their names to this statement.
e-mail address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FAX: (416) 489-3611
*What we plan to do with the statement and signatures.*
We will coordinate and facilitate the presentation of the statement to
the Ontario government and the media at a briefing to be held in early
December, 1998. We will also use the list of names to advise the
Ontario public of the strong support from the scientific and academic
communities for increasing the amount of protected lands in Ontario.
******************************************************
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
******************************************************
A COLLECTIVE STATEMENT OF CONSERVATION CONCERN FROM THE SCIENTIFIC
AND ACADEMIC COMMUNITIES REGARDING LANDS FOR LIFE
ONTARIO, CANADA
Whereas conserving biodiversity is of importance to maintaining the
natural state of the Earth's biosphere and in turn the quality of life
for humankind;
Whereas establishing protected areas systems is fundamentally
important to society in providing humankind with a source of natural
capital upon which to build a greater diversity of environmental
options for future generations;
Whereas the principal cause of wildlife extinction and population
decline are loss and fragmentation of wild habitat by widespread
industrial development;
Whereas industrial mining, forestry and hydroelectric development are
incompatible with maintaining the natural integrity of a significant
portion of wild habitats;
Whereas a representative, permanent protected areas system is
necessary to help maintain diverse genetic resources and for the
ongoing function of providing benchmark sites for the evaluation and
improvement of surrounding industrial management practices:
Whereas current forest management practices in Ontario, Canada
are still experimental with respect to the maintenance of
biodiversity, and in court have recently (October 1998) been shown to
be in non-compliance with Ontario's own Crown Forest Sustainability
Act;
Whereas the Lands for Life Consolidated Report from the Round
Tables only recommends protection of an additional 1.6% of the land
base within the Lands For Life planning area, bringing the total
protected land base to 8.2%, a figure inadequate to sustain ecological
integrity and the long term health of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
populations and ecosystem types:
Resolved:
We, the undersigned, wish to convey our collective dismay that
Ontario's Lands for Life Round Tables have been unable to bring
modern science to bear on the urgent issue of ecosystem protection and
failed to recommend completion of a permanent protected areas system
representing Ontario's landscape diversity.
Accordingly, we call on the Government of Ontario to reject the
Round Tables' recommendation to permanently protect only an
additional 1.6% of the planning area. Rather, we urge the Government
of Ontario to complete, as promised, a protected areas system that is
fully representative of Ontario's diverse ecosystem types. Such a
system must utilize accepted scientific principles of protected areas
design and accepted precautionary principles which, we believe, will
require that at least 20% of the planning area be permanently
protected.
It is our opinion that to do anything less will lead to the further
decline and loss of native habitats, wildlife species, and genetic
resources that underpin the ecological integrity of a significant part
of the Ontario and Canadian landscape, and forecloses opportunities
for recreational, cultural, spiritual and economic development on a
truly sustainable basis.
--end of public statement--
******************************************************
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
******************************************************
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ONTARIO'S LANDS FOR LIFE PROCESS
Summary
The Ontario government launched a massive land-use planning exercise
called Lands For Life in February, 1997. Covering a land area of
nearly 40 million hectares (an area twice the size of Britain or equal
in size to the entire state of California), this process was mandated
to achieve three primary goals: (1) complete Ontario's system of parks
and protected areas, (2) recognize the land use needs of
resource-based tourism and (3) provide greater certainty on the
intervening landscape for the forest industry. Later, other resource
goals were added to explore enhanced opportunities for outdoor
recreation, including hunting and fishing, and consider the land-use
needs of the mining industry.
On October 30, 1998, the Ontario government publicly released a
consolidated report from three Advisory Round Tables concerning
allocation of public lands in this large area. In addition to proposed
land use designations, this report includes 242 recommendations to the
Ontario government. Currently, 6.6% of the planning area is protected
from major industrial activity through national and provincial parks
and conservation reserves. The report recommends that an additional
1.6% be added to the protected areas system for a total of 8.2%,
leaving many natural regions without significant protected areas. The
provincial round tables themselves admitted failure to achieve parks
targets.
Among the 242 recommendations to the provincial government, are
recommendations to:
- Permit mineral exploration and mining in conservation reserves;
- Permit logging in conservation reserves;
- Consider deregulation of areas protected for natural heritage
values if there is found to be existing mineral potential
- Consider completing the parks and protected areas system using
"floating reserves"
The forest industry is seeking long-term tenure for those public lands
not permanently protected as provincial parks or conservation
reserves. The forest industry is on record as requesting that it be
granted compensable tenure in perpetuity across a majority of the land
base. Draft reports by industry and the provincial government have
advocated tenure in perpetuity.
The joint conservation science team of the Partnership For Public
Lands (World Wildlife Fund Canada, Federation of Ontario Naturalists
and the Wildlands League, a chapter of the Canadian Parks and
Wilderness Society) believe that these recommendations fall far short
of long-standing commitments to move towards completing a protected
areas system in Ontario, and threaten biodiversity conservation in
Ontario and Canada. Further, this set of protected areas decisions
will likely be the last that can be made before all remaining lands
are handed over to the forest and mining industries.
A coordinated public response is needed from the scientific community
that rejects the Round Table recommendations and encourages the
Ontario government to permanently protect at least 20% of these public
lands to better meet the Lands For Life goals related to biodiversity
conservation and maintaining the ecological integrity of the
landscape.
ECOSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PLANNING AREA
General Description of the Study Area
The Lands For Life Planning area covers approximately 46 million
hectares of Ontario stretching from the Quebec border westward nearly
1,500 km to the Manitoba border. Nearly 40 million hectares are
publicly owned "Crown" lands and represents the area directly impacted
by the Lands For Life decision-making process.
Much of the planning area consists of hilly topography characteristic
of the Canadian Shield. Towards the northeast, the topography becomes
much gentler in the ancient lake-bed clay belts and the James Bay
lowlands. The entire area was glaciated and soils are often thinly
deposited over acidic bedrock, although their are large areas of
deeper alluvial, fluvio-glacial and lacustrine deposits.
Mixed hardwood forests stretch from southern Georgian Bay east to the
Ottawa valley and west to the eastern shores of Lake Superior. Here
are found some of the most extensive old-growth white and red pine
stands remaining in the world. Places such as the Lower Spanish River,
Temagami and the Algoma Highlands contain significant stands. As one
moves northwards through the planning area, forests transition into
mixed hardwood-boreal forests and finally, boreal forests and northern
wetlands that extend from the James Bay lowlands along the Quebec
border westward to the Ontario-Manitoba border. Wild fire was
historically the dominant force of forest renewal in the boreal
forests of the area. Fire suppression is now practiced throughout the
planning area, even in most protected areas. Fortunately, in some of
the larger protected areas, discussion of fire management is now
beginning to occur.
A diversity of wetland types, including fens, bogs, marshes and
forested swamps are distributed throughout the planning area. Aquatic
systems are also well represented, and extensive and diverse shoreline
communities are present along the north shore of Georgian Bay and Lake
Superior.
Current Status of the Landbase
The majority of this land base has already been accessed for
industrial development, principally forestry. Of the 46 million
hectares, only 40 roadless areas are larger than 20,000 hectares. A
few of these are protected in existing national and provincial parks
but most are vulnerable to the rapid encroachment of industry.
The widespread nature of human impact across Ontario's landscape was
referenced in the most recent annual report (April 1998) from the
environmental commissioners office, where it was stated that the
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) should use the "precautionary
principle" when it establishes the extent and size of land designated
to protect Ontario's natural heritage features (recommendation #9). In
other words, protected areas should tend towards larger rather than
smaller sizes. The ecological integrity of the intervening industrial
landscape across the planning area is a major concern of conservation
biologists in Ontario. The methods used by the MNR to select large,
representative protected areas assume that large sizes are not
required in the planning area since the good forest industry
management practices in the surrounding landscape can support and
conserve Ontario's biodiversity. The above notation by Ontario's
environmental commissioner and additional evidence presented below
regarding industrial land management suggests that this a dangerous
assumption.
Wildlife Issues
Most of Ontario's wildlife species are still present, but significant
contraction and fragmentation of the ranges of several large-bodied
animals are well documented. Eastern cougar and wolverine are believed
to be virtually extirpated from this entire planning area. Gray wolf
populations have contracted across the southern portions of the
planning area. Within the past year, genetic studies of wolves in the
eastern portions of the planning area have shown that these are, in
fact, red wolf populations that were thought to be extirpated in the
North American wild. The range of woodland caribou has retracted
significantly northwards with remaining populations are centered
primarily within and around existing protected areas.
Populations of most wildlife species are not consistently monitored by
the Ontario or Canadian governments. This is evident from the report
of the Auditor General for Ontario that was issued in early November,
1998. With respect to the MNR, which has a mandate to manage wildlife,
the report stated that "the Ministry had not developed proper
effectiveness measures to assess success in achieving sustained
development of the province's fish and wildlife resources and lacked
the information necessary for identifying areas requiring corrective
actions." The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario's Annual Report
for 1997/98 assessed the Quality of Reporting - Wildlife Inventory
Databases as "poor". For example, the report stated that "MNR manages
a [black] bear hunt which harvests about 7,000 bears annually.
Although MNR has put out news releases estimating the Ontario bear
population at 75,000 to 100,000 individuals, the ministry has not
publicly released any reports on bear population numbers."
A lack of enforcement of sustainable industrial activities.
It has been clearly documented that the Ontario government is not
effectively monitoring or enforcing sustainable use of the province's
forest resources by industry. In October, 1998, the Ontario court of
appeal upheld a February, 1998 decision brought forward by
environmental groups against the government of Ontario that it was in
violation of its own Crown Forest Sustainability Act. The judges
condemned the government for failing to abide by its own requirements
to provide for the habitat needs for sensitive wildlife species such
as American marten and pileated woodpeckers (both of which succeed
best in areas with mature forests.) The government was also found in
violation of planning requirements necessary for the long-term
sustainability of the forest.
Recent reports prepared with the participation of the forest industry
and senior MNR management have advocated long-term tenure on public
lands for industry, in fact suggesting that compensable tenure in
perpetuity would be desirable.
Where we are at today?
Contrary to the precautionary principle, the Lands For Life Round
Tables have suggested only slight increases to Ontario's protected
areas system, and have used points consistently raised by industry
representatives to support their position. Present forest management
and Round Table recommendations suggest the following erroneous
assumptions about conservation biology:
X Ecologically representative protected areas that are off-limits to
commercial forestry and mining are not necessary to conserve
biodiversity. The only protected areas that are necessary are very
small sites to protect unique or rare values (such as heronries, eagle
nests, shorelines of coldwater streams etc.)
X Industrial manipulation of forest cover under increasingly intensive
harvest regimes will mimic natural disturbance patterns over the
entire forest landscape.
X Modern/current industrial harvest methods duplicate fire, insect
outbreak, wind throw and disease.
X Industrial clearcutting will perpetuate high quality wildlife
habitat.
X Landscape, species, genetic and stand structural diversity will be
maintained through large area clearcutting, (the harvest method used
in 95% of forest harvesting in Ontario (MNR Annual Report, '94-'95)
X Secondary impacts of logging such as a permanent road access
network, over fishing, over hunting and erosion are not thought to be
significant negative impacts on biodiversity.
X Industrial uses such as mining and large scale hydo-electric
development have insignificant impacts on biodiversity.
X It was recommended that the total landbase be available to industry
and that the concept of floating (or rotating) reserves be used to
complete the protected areas system. This designation involves
creating a park, and then removing it if industry requires it for
logging or mining operations.
In keeping with these opportunistic, unsubstantiated claims, the Round
Tables recommended the following new protected areas as a percentage
of the total planning area:
Proposed new Provincial Parks 272,385 ha. (0.6%)
Proposed new Conservation Reserves 430,506 ha. (1.0%)
Total: All areas 702,891 ha. (1.6%)
This includes 72 Provincial Parks and 199 Conservation Reserves
for a total of 271 areas with an average area of 2,257 ha. More than a
dozen proposed parks in one of the planning regions are smaller than
100 hectares.
Other Disturbing Aspects of the Round Table Recommendations
Five members of the Round tables refused to sign the
recommendations. Their letters and reasons for not signing were
excluded from the consolidated report released on October 30th. The
only reference to their concerns is found at the end of Section 2.5
where they are referenced as "exceptions to consensus". Although it is
not stated, the reason that several of the members did not sign is
because the Round Tables did not keep to their mandate to complete a
protected areas system.
There are no recommendations to increase the level of protection
standards for provincial parks or conservation reserves, only to
weaken them.
The Round Tables admit that they failed to achieve the goal of
completing the parks and protected areas system (Section 6.1) as
required by the Provincial government.
The Round Tables admit that they failed to identify areas that will
be used for intensive or enhanced forestry.
Included in the 242 recommendations to government are the following
additional issues of conservation concern:
It is recommended that protected conservation reserves (like the
Ranger North old growth pine area in the Algoma Highlands and the
Kaladar Jack Pine Barrens on Highway #7) be made available for mining.
It has been recommended that commercial trapping be used to "control
populations and combat disease" in provincial park wilderness zones
and nature reserves.
It is recommended that the lakes in parks be intensively managed to
produce more fish for anglers.
It is recommended that hunting be "enhanced" in conservation
reserves through "proactive habitat and game population management."
We hope that this brief summary has provided you with sufficient
background information to add your signature to the Statement of
Conservation Concern. For more information, please contact:
The Partnership For Public Lands
Phone: 1-888-371-LAND
Website: www.web.net/wild
The consolidated Round Table report is available from the
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources website:
www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/lfl
Sincerely,
Kevin Kavanagh
Senior Manager, Conservation Science
Endangered Spaces Campaign
World Wildlife Fund Canada
90 Eglinton Ave. East, Suite 504
Toronto, Ontario
M4P 2Z7 CANADA
(416) 489-4567 ext. 262 (Tel)
(416) 489-3611 (FAX)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shealagh Pope
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project Coordinator
Conservation Ecology
Algonquin to Adirondacks
Biology Department
Carleton University
1125 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6
Phone (613) 520-3657
Fax (613) 520-4497
************************************
Dr. Stefanie S. Rixecker
Division of Environmental Management & Design
Lincoln University, Canterbury
PO Box 84
Aotearoa New Zealand
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fax: 64-03-325-3841
************************************
