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

5) Finally, reduced transfer payments to municipal partners, rising insurance rates, and tax increases during this same period caused additional pressure (Shrubsole 1996, OMNR 1987). These events caused an overall reduction and reorganization of Ontario CA operations.

Fehl's (1997) analysis of revenue source data (1990-1997) for 20 CAs found a three-tiered hierarchy of CAs in southern Ontario based on population size, density of development, initial dependence on provincial funding, and opportunities for revenue replacement and diversity. Further review of 5 CAs in southern Ontario indicated less dense rural CAs with a high initial dependence on provincial funding (>50% annual revenue) experienced the largest reduction of funding, staffing, and service provision. Urban CAs responded better due to lower initial dependence on provincial funding (25% average) and greater opportunities for revenue diversification and park income.

Difficulties maintaining and expanding programming, internal restructuring, reduced local capacity, and integration barriers are commonly cited challenges for CAs in southern Ontario (Shrubsole 1996, Fehl 1997, OWPIPMC 1997, Krause et al. 2001, Ivey et al. 2002). Many CAs had to drop "non-core" programs and close conservation areas. Watershed strategies, environmental education, outdoor recreation, soil conservation, environmental land use planning, habitat protection and restoration, rural landowner assistance, and wetland management programs became ineligible for provincial support--although many CAs considered them core (Ivey et al. 2002).

To combat these challenges, increasing charitable donations, property sales and rental/leasing, and user fees for parks and technical services have become common tactics (Shrubsole 1996, Fehl 1997). Funding/service partnerships with public and private groups have also emerged as proven alternatives. For example, Upper Thames Region CA's Progress Through Partnerships program helped increase other revenues by 1.6 million between 1996 and 1998 (Ivey et al. 2002). Raisin Region and Long Point Region CAs sought stream remediation funding from Environment Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund (Watelet and Johnson 1999, Fehl 1997). Since 1995, CAs in southern Ontario have built "service alliances" with neighbouring CAs and member municipalities to share technical and administrative resources (Fehl 1997). For example, Lower Thames Valley, St. Clair Region, and Essex Region CAs formed a cost/service alliance for wetland construction and protection. The Metro Toronto Region CA (MTRCA) entered a 6-way alliance with neighbouring CAs to create strategies for increasing efficiency and resource sharing.

While all CAs were affected by provincial reforms, the extent of impacts and responses of individual authorities varied across jurisdictions due to variable capacity, local contexts, and available recovery options. The next section presents some issues for CAs in northern Ontario to set the stage for analysis of changes within the NDCA.

CAs in Northern Ontario

Several factors known to limit the distribution and viability of CAs in northern Ontario are inherently linked to the region's hinterland geography. The vast size of the region and isolation of its populated watersheds limit the sharing of staff, technical, and physical resources (OSCCA 1967, Powell 1981, OMNR 1987). Low populations are associated with modest local economies that determine the municipal tax base on which CAs depend (Powell 1981). Also, large watersheds and dispersed settlement patterns create distance decay issues that can affect the sense of community and awareness that is vital to strong local support (OSCCA 1967, Mitchell and Shrubsole 1992). The preponderance of Crown land and unorganized territory in northern Ontario limits CAs to areas with more private land ownership (OSCCA 1967, OMNR 1987). However, large tracts of Crown land within and around some northern CA watersheds, and the traditional dominance of the OMNR, can complicate jurisdictional responsibilities and power relationships between government agencies (OMNR 1987, Mitchell and Shrubsole 1992). These factors have implications for CAs operating in northern Ontario and some outlying CAs in southern Ontario.

The NDCA and the Notion of Conservation in a Mining Hinterland

The NDCA provides an interesting case to consider the CA model in northern Ontario (Figure 1). Sudbury is a prime example of an extractive resource-based community with a legacy of industrial exploitation and environmental degradation. Its location and history as a mining town present a setting that contrasts with previous CA research.

The first CA in Sudbury was established in 1957 (NDCA 1980). A series of costly floods prompted municipal representatives to form the Junction Creek Conservation Authority (JCCA). As neighbouring municipalities had formed the Whitson Valley Conservation Authority, two CAs were operating in the area by 1959. These CAs later joined to become the NDCA when regional government was introduced in 1973. Amalgamation created the second largest jurisdiction among CAs, delineated by the drainage divides of the Vermilion, Onaping, and Wanapitei watersheds.

The state of Sudbury's environment was extremely poor when the JCCA assumed management responsibilities. A preliminary JCCA land use report (Revell 1959) indicated that the soils, vegetation, and aquatic environment were all severely degraded from unchecked resource exploitation and industrial pollution. Eroded and contaminated soils minimized land-based resource management for economic development. The general lack of vegetation exacerbated flooding. Primary recommendations were to focus on flood control and forming conservation areas as initial steps towards advancing conservation and resource management.

Large-scale efforts to regreen Sudbury have been ongoing since 1978. The city-led Land Reclamation Program--a partnership of, among others, governments, local mining companies, and the NDCA--has made progress towards a slow recovery. Of 20,000 ha of barren land and 65,000 ha of semi-barren land (mainly stunted birch), only 3,100 ha (3.6%) in main viewscapes have been limed, fertilized, and seeded (VETAC 2005) despite the fact that more than 8 million trees have been planted (VETAC 2004). Significant environmental concerns remain: "the lack of soil and thriving vegetation beyond this 'wall' of trees is of major concern when considering watershed health and long-term sustainability of forest ecosystems in the Sudbury area" (VETAC 2005: 5). Lack of floral diversity limits greater faunal diversity and increases vulnerability to disturbance threats. Elevated levels of heavy metals (nickel, copper, cobalt, selenium) and arsenic in soils and vegetation raise concern for human and ecological health (MOE 2001). These persistent environmental problems indicate that there is scope and justification for further conservation and restoration.

Assessing Budget and Programming Temporal Dynamics

The NDCA budget analysis involves a temporal assessment of revenues and expenditures for the period of available data (1980-2002). Data were extracted from NDCA audited financial statements and annual reports and financial data have been adjusted for inflation relative to 2002 based on Bank of Canada (2005) consumer price index data. This investigation allows assessing temporal trends and variations in total revenues and expenditures, the allotment of funding and identification of various sources of revenue, and illustrates the nature of funding arrangements between municipal and provincial bodies.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

An inventory of programs for the corresponding period is extracted from NDCA annual reports. Programs are grouped according to NDCA categories: 1) land and water resource management, and; 2) conservation, education, and recreation. Each category is also sub-classified under capital or non-capital programs. This establishes the range of NDCA programs and changes; changes in program diversity and focus that occurred in parallel with provincial reform during the 1990s are identified. Discussions with CA, OMNR, and Ministry of the Environment (MOE) officials further informed and confirmed the accuracy of this review.

Furthermore, land base and population attributes are presented to describe the hinterland character of the NDCA. The discussion section of this paper then considers the results of NDCA budget and program data analyses in relation to its hinterland characteristics and discusses implications for NDCA programming.

Results

NDCA Budget, 1980 to 2002

Budget data for the period 1980 to 2002 indicate an overall decline in total revenues (-66%) and expenditures (-71%), with some important interannual variations (Figure 2). In 1980, revenues were slightly more than expenditures at $2,813,182 and $2,812,976 respectively. Revenues reached a minimum for the study period in 2000 at $664,496, and were exceeded by expenditures in that year of $831,727 (a deficit of -$167,231). Revenues and expenditures rise slightly again to $943,280 and $821,833 in 2002. Mean annual revenues are $1,607,404.