cktimes.ca Archives for Ecowrappin'
Ecowrappin'
RESOURCE BASED AGENCIES---WHAT HAPPENED?
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Resource agencies have changed. I will offer my observations and insights on three that I have been most closely involved with. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources is a mere shadow of what it once was----as an active, in-the-field minerals, forests, waters, fish and wildlife conservation and management entity with a prominent portfolio in the provincial government. Things rural; i.e., forests, farms, fish and wildlife do not hold much appeal or interest to increasingly more urban raised and bound politicians. They would rather focus, and spend money, on the urban masses and their issues and other vote buying escapades. They are more interested in, and more likely to cater to, the urban, uninformed, majority viewpoint as opposed to learning anything about that real, vibrant and essential world outside the major voting blocks.The old Department of Lands and Forests was comprised of a small administrative force and a larger, albeit far flung, field force. In western Ontario, if I remember correctly, there was a headquarters of sorts in Hespler (part of what is now Cambridge) and a lot of field staff working out of very small facilities, often their own homes, across the provincial landscape. I know that the Game Warden (now Conservation Officer) in my village always worked out of his family home. There was a lot of local familiarity, mutual respect and appreciation, and active presence on the landscape in those days. The Department of Lands and Forests evolved into the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the administrative bureaucracy formed rapidly. The numerous one or two man presence on the landscape centralized into Area, then District Offices. Several District Offices fell under the jurisdiction of a Regional Office. Several Regional Offices followed the political whims and fancies of Queen's Park. Now this was not all bad! There was still a major natural resources management presence across Ontario and most of the personnel at that time came from rural backgrounds and had considerable experience in dealing with real resources and related issues. Resource protection, conservation and management whether aggregates, fisheries, wildlife, forestry, lakes and rivers or wetlands still benefited from a knowledgeable and experienced roster of managers, biologists, technicians and officers.
But what has become of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, this once prominent and effective presence across the provincial landscape. Well firstly, it has been reduced in stature and effectiveness by those political animals mentioned at the outset. Secondly, the old guard---those experienced and knowledgeable about all manner, shape and form of natural resources, resource issues and relationships to individuals and the community at large---have retired or passed on. OMNR has since been infiltrated by a significant human resources component that is neither wise in the ways, nor caring of, the natural resources in this province. It is just a job, folks! And by the way, you really do not have to be a qualified resource technician, manager, professional or expert to sit in front of a computer and/or push paper around; process that has more to do with controlling people than with the well being and wise management of our natural resources. OMNR, like so many other control and regulate portfolios, now lives largely in office bound suburbia as opposed to where the natural resources actually exist.
Conservation Authorities, those more local and water resources based entities have followed, to some extent, the path of the OMNR. There was, at one time, close connections on funding support and partnering on local resource management opportunities. Whether the funding connection still exists to any degree, I am not aware. I am, however, certain that working together directly on local resource projects, opportunities and issues is not what it used to be.
The Conservation Authorities were formed as watershed management agencies to deal with the increasing frequency of flood events within some of the major watersheds. They quickly took on a greater variety of landscape and resource related roles. And rightly so! After all, the surface of a watershed is characterized by forests, meadows, wetlands, agriculture in many forms; roads, towns, cities, artificial drainage, etc. The extent or percentage of each of these within a given watershed has everything to do with quantity and quality of water. And Conservation Authorities were comprised of staff well tuned to their mandate and a board of directors comprised largely of local, often grassroots representation. In keeping with their water management mandate, many purchased land, often of significant acreage, thereby ensuring the protection of critical headwaters, wetlands and coldwater streams and all the resources, benefits and values that go with them.
I worked with several Conservation Authorities during my tenure as a wetland restoration and enhancement specialist with Ducks Unlimited Canada. I enjoyed these productive working relationships very much. Once it became known that I was the representative in their watershed region, Conservation Authority staff would frequently approach me to discuss the ways and means of restoring damaged or degraded wetlands. Whether these wetlands had been altered through natural processes or at the hand of man was of little consequence. The objective was to determine the potential of regaining former levels of function, vitality and diversity. Professional representation from the local or District Office of the OMNR was always a part of any restoration or enhancement project. This was working in partnership for the betterment of natural resources at its best.
The Conservation Authorities have retained some of the hands-on action and influence within their respective jurisdictions. Sadly though, much of this prior focus has been usurped by the downloading of regulatory responsibilities from provincial and municipal governments. They now are mandated with reviewing, commenting on, and approving of all manner of industrial, commercial and private development, project and enterprise within their watershed jurisdiction. When first saddled with this regulatory responsibility, many were lacking the in-house expertise to effectively and efficiently do the job. Some still are! One big factor in this new role is that they can charge the proponent for review and approval services. This is lucrative to the point of making Conservation Authorities less dependant on municipal and provincial support financing. The downside, obviously, are CA staff being largely removed from their traditional water and related resources protection and management role and they have traded field for office as a result. I suppose it could be argued that the regulatory role is still a resources protection role, but it is a reactive rather than proactive role.
I have fond remembrances of working with the field staff of the Canadian Wildlife Service. For the most part, this involved wetland restoration and enhancement projects on Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Large projects at Long Point on Lake Erie and on the eastern shoreline of Lake St. Clair come prominently to mind. The CWS staff at the field level were professional and dedicated to the ecological zones and water and wildlife resources for which they were responsible. At one time the CWS was active in critical resource acquisition, primarily coastal wetlands in Ontario. That role or activity is now considerably reduced though they remain dedicated custodians of the coastal wetlands and other properties they purchased in days gone by, largely with migratory bird permit money.
Being a federal agency, the Canadian Wildlife Service is highly influenced by political fancy and folly. Yet, from my isolated standpoint, the various levels of the CWS, from the field to the Ottawa office, retain a surprising level of autonomy in day-to-day activities and decisions as applied at the field level.
Resource based or conservation agencies have transformed from large complements of field personnel with small administrative structures to the complete reverse---large administrative bureaucracies with small field complements. I have strong doubts that our natural resources are the better for it.
I was born on the Bruce Peninsula on July 20, 1951 and raised on a farm just south of the village of Lionís Head, which is located about halfway up the peninsula on the Georgian Bay shoreline. I graduated from Georgian College of Applied Arts and Technology in Barrie in 1973 as a Resources Engineering Technologist. I was hired by Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) in April of 1975 as the first DUC employee in Ontario. Throughout almost 29 years I was involved with the implementation of more than 500 wetland projects and project complexes in southwestern and south central Ontario. Some of these habitat projects included important waterfowl and migratory bird habitat along the eastern shoreline of Lake St. Clair. Just three weeks short of completing 29 years with DUC, I accepted an early retirement opportunity effective March 31, 2004.
