Exploring Conservation Authority operations in Sudbury, northern Ontario: constraints and opportunities.

Abstract

This research explores how the Nickel District Conservation Authority (NDCA), in Sudbury, northern Ontario was affected by provincial restructuring through a survey of budget data and programs from the period of existing data (1980-2002). Previously identified hinterland characteristics are considered in relation to the NDCA to explore how land base and socio-economic attributes influence operations. Since provincial reforms began in 1992, results show a general decline in NDCA revenues, with a steep decrease in provincial funding by 78.5%, while municipal funding has increased by 22%. Mean annual resource and conservation program spending have decreased 57% and 77% respectively. Conservation, education, and recreation programs accounted for 5% of total program spending from 1996 to 2002. Taken together, existing policy and context challenge the NDCA as an agent of environmental conservation, and highlight the need to develop strategies to address regional issues. The Conservation Authority (CA) founding principles are used to frame the discussion of results and implications for the NDCA. The conclusion provides a brief summary and outlines key areas for further research. Research addressing 1) resident perceptions of and support for CAs, 2) cost-sharing and service alliance assessments, 3) feasibility assessments for user fee generating recreation facilities, and 4) regional quantitative analyses of contextual land base and socio-economic factors affecting CA performance are needed. Satisfying these research needs, among others, will broaden local and regional understanding of Ontario CAs and advance provincial conservation initiatives.

Les auteurs de cette recherche analysent la maniere dont le Office de protection de la nature du District du Nickel (OPNDN) de Sudbury, dans le nord de l'Ontario, a ete touche par la reorganisation provinciale, en faisant un releve des programmes et des donnees budgetaires de 1980 a 2002. Les caracteristiques de l'arriere-pays degagees precedemment y sont examinees afin d'etudier la maniere dont les caracteristiques du territoire et les caracteristiques socioe-conomiques influent sur le fonctionnement de l'OPNDN. Depuis le debut des reformes provinciales en 1992, les resultats indiquent un declin general des revenus de l'OPNDN, avec une importante diminution du financement provincial de l'ordre de 78,5 p. 100, alors que le financement municipal a augmente de 22 p. 100. Les ressources et les depenses annuelles moyennes ont augmente de 57 p. 100 et 77 p. 100 respectivement. Les programmes de conservation, de sensibilisation et de loisirs ont compte pour 5 p. 100 des depenses totales de 1996 a 2002. Ensemble, la politique et le contexte actuels mettent l'OPNDN au defi a titre d'agent de conservation environnementale et mettent en lumiere le besoin d'elaborer des strategies visant a traiter des problemes regionaux. On utilise les principes fondateurs des offices de protection de la nature pour encadrer l'analyse des resultats et des consequences pour l'OPNDN. La conclusion presente un bref sommaire et donne un apercu des principales questions necessitant des recherches plus approfondies. II faut effectuer des recherches sur les sujets suivants : 1) la perception des residents des offices de protection de la nature et le soutien qu'ils leur offrent; 2) des evaluations sur le partage des couts et sur l'alliance de services; 3) des etudes de faisabilite d'installations recreatives generant des frais d'utilisation; 4) des analyses quantitatives generales des facteurs lies au territoire et des facteurs socioeconomiques influant sur le rendement des offices de protection de la nature. Repondre a ces besoins en matiere de recherche permettra, entre autres, de mieux comprendre, aux echelles locale et regionale, les offices de protection de la nature de l'Ontario et de faire progresser les initiatives provinciales de conservation.

Keywords

Conservation Authorities, funding, Nickel District Conservation Authority, northern Ontario, Sudbury

Introduction

Pioneers of the Ontario conservation movement realized that managing the natural environment required the sound organization of human activities. In turn, Conservation Authorities (CAs) were established to deal with the mismanagement of land use activities resulting in deforestation, flooding, and soil erosion (Richardson 1960). The 1946 Conservation Authorities Act permitted the formation of local management agencies, each supported by a broad mandate to "establish and undertake, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, a program designed to further the conservation, restoration, development, and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, and minerals" (R.S.O. 1990, c C.27, s. 20). Consideration for relevant economic, institutional, and ecological factors was embodied in founding principles providing flexibility and stability (Table 1). These principles are believed to have foreshadowed sustainable development and the ecosystem approach and are considered crucial to the success of CAs (Mitchell and Shrubsole 1992).

Despite great success, Ontario CAs endured provincial policy and funding changes during the 1990s that significantly constrained agency operations and programming. Considerable variation in function, form, and context across CAs (Mitchell and Shrubsole 1992) suggests that each may have responded differently according to local conditions. Previous discussion of the implications of restructuring has focused on urban and rural CAs in southern Ontario (e.g. Shrubsole 1996, OWPIPMC 1997, Fehl 1997, Krause et al. 2001, Ivey et al. 2002). This underscores an ongoing disparity between CA research focused on southern Ontario (e.g. Richardson 1960, 1974, Powell 1981, Hale 1988, Thomson and Powell 1992, Shrubsole 1990, Mitchell and Shrubsole 1992, Shrubsole 1996, Fehl 1997, Krause et al. 2001, Ivey et al. 2002) versus northern Ontario. There is agreement that regional land base and socio-economic attributes influence the viability of CAs (OSCCA 1967, Thomson and Powell 1992, Mitchell and Shrubsole 1992). Thus, gaining an understanding of how CAs in outlying jurisdictions (e.g. northern Ontario and non-core rural areas in southern Ontario) have responded to the mid-1990s reforms is necessary.

This exploratory research describes how the Nickel District Conservation Authority (NDCA) in Sudbury, northern Ontario responded to provincial policy and funding changes during the mid-1990s. It is a step towards future comparative research on contextual influences and CA operations throughout Ontario. The study investigates the dynamics of NDCA funding and programming for the period of available data (1980-2002) to profile temporal differences in funding and program diversity. Previously identified hinterland characteristics are considered in relation to the NDCA to explore how land base and socio-economic attributes influence operations. The CA founding principles are used to frame the discussion of the changes and implications for the NDCA (see Shrubsole 1996).

Context

Key Funding and Policy Changes

CAs receive funding from local taxes levied from watershed municipalities, provincial transfer payments through the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), federal grants, and "other" monies gathered mainly through recreation user fees, consultation and permit fees, land sales and leasing, private partnerships, and charitable donations. The importance of each revenue source has varied over time according to shifting provincial policies, individual CA initiatives, and external factors. Focusing on the 1990s, this section outlines key funding, policy, and geographic issues to contextualize the current research. (1)

The 1987 Review of the Conservation Authorities Program was followed by major changes that seriously affected CA operations and programs. At the time of the 1987 Review, 13 CAs were receiving full grants totalling 80% to 85% of annual revenues; thus, provincial reforms were meant, in part, to change the balance of the provincial-municipal partnership.

1) In 1991, the OMNR announced the introduction of core and non-core programming to focus CA funding and responsibilities. Flood and erosion control, conservation areas, and conservation information were retained as funded core programs, while outdoor education and awareness programs were considered non-core.

2) Cost-sharing partnerships were also adjusted. Provincial supplemental grants (once 5% to 30% of annual revenues) were phased out and new standard grant rates were set for capital programs (50%) and operating programs (50% to 70% based on watershed populations and assessments). CAs in northern Ontario were to receive enhanced grant rates for capital (60%) and operating programs (75%).

3) In 1992 the provincial government introduced sweeping funding cuts due to economic recession in Ontario (Shrubsole 1996). Total provincial funding to CAs decreased by about $10 million from 1992 to 1993 (OMNR 1997).

4) In 1995 a new provincial government and budget imposed further substantial cuts. From 1995 to 1998 the OMNR experienced a 42% budget reduction (Winfield and Jenish 1999). Since CAs are based in the OMNR, total provincial funding to CAs dropped from $38 million in 1995 to $10 million in 1997 (OMNR 1997, cited in Fehl 1997). The provincial changes outlined above combined for an 87% reduction in total provincial funding to CAs from 1992 to 2004 (Conservation Ontario 2004a).