Jul 14, 2003 - Data presented on the Ontario Parks (2003) Website ... In the planning section, however, the Website stated that there was a total .... Hosted by.
PLANNING IN THE WIND: THE CURRENT PLANNING STATUS OF ONTARIO’S PROVINCIAL PARKS Paul F. Wilkinson, York University Christopher J. A. Wilkinson Introduction Protected areas are an important in situ component of a jurisdiction’s approach to conservation issues. They can represent significant natural regions, protect important habitat for native flora and fauna, and maintain key ecological processes. Protected areas may be understood as “a geographically defined area which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives” (Article 2, Convention on Biological Diversity). Protected areas may also serve as ecological benchmarks where populations, ecosystems or ecological processes can be studied in a relatively undisturbed state (Arcese and Sinclair 1997, Nudds 1999). The changing perceptions of parks, including protected areas, have a long history in Western culture (Worster 1996). In North America, parks were often historically created for the purposes of tourism and recreation (Killan 1993). However, the federal and provincial governments assert that these areas conserve Canada’s biodiversity (Environment Canada 1995, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 2001; Federal-Provincial Parks Council 2000). The most significant threats to biodiversity are the cumulative impacts of industry, farming, forestry, mining, fishing, urban sprawl, and transportation corridors (United Nation Environment Programme 1997, 2000, 2002). Biodiversity may also be seriously affected by pollution, climate change, and the introduction of exotic species. Given these impacts, including the impacts of leisure and recreation, protected areas “require sound planning and on-going management” (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario 2004). Ontario’s Provincial Auditor (2002) states that “the Ministry of Natural Resources is responsible for managing provincial parks and protected areas in support of the Ministry’s vision of sustainable development of natural resources and its mission of managing such resources for ecological sustainability.” Logically, one would assume that such management would involve the preparation of a management plan for each provincial park; however, under the Provincial Parks Act, “the superintendent [of a park] need not follow any approved plan. The creation, implementation, and review of management plans for provincial parks are not currently required in the Act” (Wilkinson and Eagles 2001:335). Nevertheless, in addition to calling for interim management statements, “Ministry policy requires that park management plans be prepared for each provincial park and reviewed and updated every ten years” (Provincial Auditor 2002). In recommendations designed to improve this policy, the Lands for Life Round Tables, a conservation planning process for northern and central Ontario completed in 1999, argued that management plans be prepared for all provincial parks; management plans and major amendments be approved by regulation; and plans be regularly reviewed (Michels et al. 1998). The question arises, therefore, of the current status of Ontario provincial parks with respect to planning (i.e., whether parks have interim management statements or management plans and whether existing management plans are under review).
The goal of this research project was to document the exact number of provincial parks in Ontario and the planning status of each park. The research questions, therefore, were: • how many provincial parks are there by class and operating status? • which new parks have interim management statements? • for those new parks without such statements, when will a statement be developed? • which established parks have management plans (or the earlier master plans)? • for those established parks without such plans, when will a plan be developed? • which established parks have management plans not reviewed in the last ten years? • for those established parks without a reviewed plan, when will a review take place? • which established parks have implementation plans and of what kind? Research Findings In an authorised history marking the centennial of provincial parks in Ontario, Killan (1993:ix) states that “by 1989, there were 261 [provincial parks].” Current published sources list various figures for the number of parks in a small time period between 1998 and 2001: 272 in 1998 (Kirik 2000), “around 270” (Swaigen 2001), and 277 (Wilkinson and Eagles 2001). Data presented on the Ontario Parks (2003) Website were also quite confusing: in 1985, there were 220 provincial parks; in 1999, the Ontario’s Living Legacy program identified 61 new parks (of a total of 378 new protected areas, including 45 park additions); and in 2001, there was a total of 280 provincial parks, presumably including both established and new parks. The Ontario Parks Website went on to list 103 “operating” parks and 169 “non-operating” parks, for a total of 272. In the planning section, however, the Website stated that there was a total of 261 provincial parks, including: 9 wilderness class parks; 56 natural environment class parks; 37 waterway class parks; 88 nature reserve class parks; and 71 recreation class parks. No number was given for historical class parks; presumably, there were 11 to make up for the difference between 272 and 261. There was no information available on the Website as to each park’s planning status. It did state that an interim management statement is required for each newly regulated and recommended park; a management plan is required for each established park (“Plan is reviewed every 10 years”); and implementation plans are required for certain activities related to park resource management, operations, and development. There were 33 “planning projects” listed (many of the “projects” having multiple parks linked in one proposal) as per the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) Registry. An examination of a sample of the projects listed showed that at least some deal with planning. For example, the Charleston Lake Provincial Park project (EBR Registry Number PB01E3007) noted that the park’s 1978 master plan (an earlier term) needs to be replaced by a new management plan. That proposal was posted on the Environmental Registry on March 6, 2002 with a 45-day comment period; however, despite the fact that the Website had been last modified on July 14, 2003, no further information was provided as to the current status of the planning process for that park. It would appear, therefore, that many established parks either have an out-dated master plan or park management plan or do not have a plan at all. The Living Legacy Website did not note whether the proposed new parks have interim management statements. It was of interest to know whether there is a difference between operating
(i.e., parks which have permanent staff and facilities) and non-operating parks and among classes of parks with respect to the planning process. Currently, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is not meeting its mandate concerning park planning. This research makes it evident that not only is the MNR failing to update park management plans, but, as noted below, only 40% of parks have management plans; of the remainder, 48% have interim management statements and 12% have neither. Obtaining accurate and consistent facts, such as the number of provincial parks and protected areas, the class of a provincial park, whether it is an operating or nonoperating park, and whether it has a management plan was often a convoluted and confusing process. In particular, figures often varied between the MNR Website, Ontario Parks Website, and figures obtained directly from the MNR staff. According to MNR staff, there are 314 regulated provincial parks (Pers. comm., March 17, 26 and 31, 2004). Of these, 125 have management plans, 151 interim management statements, and 38 neither a management plan nor an interim management statement. There are 104 operating parks: 86 have management plans; 18 have interim management statements, with 6 of these parks currently being in a park management planning process; and there are no operating parks without either a management plan or an interim management statement. On the Ontario Parks Website, however, 167 non-operating parks are listed (but whether or not they have interim management statements or management plans is not listed). It is not clear why this number is different from the 210 non-operating parks stated by MNR staff: 39 have management plans, 133 interim management plans, and 38 neither a management plan nor an interim management statement. It was not possible to document when individual parks without an interim management would get one, when individual parks with an interim management statement but without a management plan would get a management plan (with the exception of six parks as noted above), or when individual parks with a management plan that is more than ten years old would implement a review of that plan. Based on these numbers, it would appear that MNR has approved management plans for only eight provincial parks in the last two years. If this rate of approvals were to continue, it would take approximately another 47 years for management plans to be approved for the remaining 189 parks currently lacking a plan. If additional parks are created, it would take even longer to approve plans for all of the parks. As noted above, management plans are supposed to be reviewed every ten years, but MNR staff noted that “Ninety [of the 125] management plans have approval dates older than 1993.” For example, there is no indication on the MNR (2003) Website that the management plan which was approved in 1985 for Schreiber Channel Provincial Park, has been revised since that time. Note that the Crown Land Use Atlas covers only the area included under the Ontario’s Living Legacy program; therefore, provincial parks and conservation reserves north and south of that area are omitted. This also means that it was not possible to specify the planning status of all provincial parks by class (i.e., wilderness, natural environment, waterway, nature reserve, and recreation). In 1999, the Ontario’s Living Legacy (OLL) program was announced by the MNR (2004), with the intent of protecting 378 new provincial parks and conservation reserves, totalling 2.4 million hectares. The MNR Website states that there were 214 protected areas (185 provincial parks and 29 conservation reserves) prior to OLL and that
332 protected areas (61 provincial parks and 271 conservation reserves) were added as a result of OLL, for a total of 546 protected areas in Ontario. According to MNR staff, however, a total of 301 protected areas (271 provincial parks and 30 conservation reserves, all of which were regulated) existed prior to OLL, which added 247 new protected areas (43 parks and 204 conservation reserves), for a total of 548 protected areas (Pers. comm., March 17 and 26, 2004). The reason for the differences in these figures is unclear. Five years after OLL was announced, planning for the new protected areas has moved slowly. According to MNR staff, of the 234 conservation reserves after OLL, 154 have approved statements of conservation interest (the equivalent of an interim management statement for a provincial park) (Pers. comm., March 26, 2004). Therefore, 80 conservation reserves do not have a statement of conservation interest. Similarly according to MNR staff, the 26 additions to existing parks are regulated, all of the 43 new provincial parks are regulated, none of the new parks are operating parks, and only one has a management plan (Pers. comm., March 31, 2004). Conclusion A number of conclusions are clear based on this research. For reasons that are not clear, much of the basic data on Ontario’s provincial parks (and conservation reserves) is difficult to find and, when found, often inconsistent. Approximately two-thirds of the provincial parks existing prior to OLL and none of the new parks are operating parks. Over half of the provincial parks existing prior to OLL and all but one of the new parks are without management plans. The pace of implementing interim management statements and management plans is extremely slow, as is the process of up-dating existing management plans. Anecdotal evidence suggests a very simple reason for this state of affairs: government cut-backs in recent years have led to severe staff and funding shortages for the MNR in general and Ontario Parks in particular. The problem has been exacerbated by the fact that OLL added a large number of new protected areas without adding any staff or funding. Ontario Parks lacks not only an effective management planning process, but also sufficient staff and funding to undertake adequate and up-to-date research on both natural science and social science issues related to such plans, to implement them, and to monitor and evaluate them. The result is Ontario Parks is, to a large degree, a “paper park” system (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario 2004). The implications of this finding merit research. In particular, what are the impacts on natural systems in and around Ontario’s provincial parks, on the facilities and services provided in the parks, and on the use of the parks? A publicly-accessible, Web-based list of all provincial parks (and conservation reserves) should be created which states such matters as location, size, year founded, additions, planning status, and contact information. The planning status should include dates for the implementation of an initial or expected interim management statement, management plan, and management plan review, and any information related to an Environmental Bill of Rights Review. As statements and plans become available in electronic format, they should be made available on the Website.
References Arcese, P. and A. R. E. Sinclair. 1997. “The Role of Protected Areas as Ecological Baselines,” Journal of Wildlife Management, 61, 587-602. Environment Canada. 2001. Canada’s National Report to the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Draft 2. Ottawa: Earth Summit 2002 Canadian Secretariat. 1998a. Caring for Canada’s Biodiversity. Canada’s First National Report to the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. 1998b. Caring for Canada’s Biodiversity. Annex to Canada’s First National Report to the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Inventory of Initiatives. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. 1997. Implementing the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy: Protected Areas. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. 1995. Canadian Biodiversity Strategy. Canada’s Response to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2004. Choosing Our Legacy. Environmental Commissioner of Ontario 2003/2004 Annual Report. Toronto: Queen’s Printer. Federal-Provincial Parks Council. 2000. Working Together: Parks and Protected Areas in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Parks Ministers’ Council. Killan, G. 1993. Protected Places: A History of Ontario’s Provincial Parks System. Toronto: Dundurn Press and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Kirik, M. 2000. “Management effectiveness in the provincial park system as measured in areas of Northern Ontario. Unpublished Senior Honours Thesis, Department of Geography, Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo. Michels, R.; B. Thib-Jelly; and B. Gray. 1998. Lands for Life: Consolidated Recommendations of the Boreal West, Boreal East and Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Round Tables. Toronto: Queen’s Printer. Nudds, T. D. 1999. “Adaptive Management and the Conservation of Biodiversity,” in R. K. Baydeck, H. Campa and J. B. Haufler (eds.), Practical Approaches to the Conservation of Biological Diversity. Washington, DC: Island Press, 179-193. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2004. Ontario’s Living Legacy. crownlanduseatlas.mnr.gov.on.ca/policylists/pp.html (accessed January 20, 2004). 2003. Crown Land Use Atlas. crownlanduseatlas.mnr.gov.on.ca/policylists/pp.html (accessed November 10, 2003). Ontario Parks. 2003. Ontario Parks. www.ontarioparks.ca/english/welcome.html (accessed September 20, 2003). Provincial Auditor of Ontario. 2002. Annual Report. www.auditor.on.ca/english/reports/en02/307e02.pdf (accessed January 25, 2004). Government of Ontario. 1990. Provincial Parks Act R.R.O. 1990 www.elaws.gov.on.ca:81/ISYSquery/IRLB464.tmp/1/doc (accessed October 15, 2003). Swaigen, J. 2001. “Parks legislation in Canada: a comparison of the new Canada National Parks Act and Ontario’s existing Provincial Parks Act,’ Journal of Environmental Law and Practice, 10, 223-236.
United Nation Environment Programme. 2002. Global Environmental Outlook 3. Past, Present and Future Perspectives. London: Earthscan. 2000. Global Environmental Outlook 2000. London: Earthscan. 1997. Global State of the Environment Report 1997. London: Earthscan. Wilkinson, C. J. A. and P. F. J. Eagles. 2001. “Strengthening the conservation of biodiversity: reforming Ontario’s Provincial Parks Act,” Natural Areas Journal, 21, 330-337. Worster, D. 1996. Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Appreciation is extended to Jeff Rezansoff for his assistance with this research.
ABSTRACTS of Papers Presented at the Eleventh Canadian Congress on Leisure Research May 17 – 20, 2005 Hosted by Department of Recreation and Tourism Management Malaspina University-College Nanaimo, B.C. Abstracts compiled and edited by Tom Delamere, Carleigh Randall, David Robinson CCLR-11 Programme Committee Tom Delamere Dan McDonald Carleigh Randall Rick Rollins and David Robinson
Copyright © 2005 Canadian Association for Leisure Studies ISBN 1-896886-01-9
