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

Another factor contributing to watershed isolation is spatial discontiguity. Contiguity is defined as "the spatial relationship of adjacency, i.e. elements that touch each other are adjacent" (Aronoff 1993: 178). Where proximity facilitates the transfer of resources, high contiguity increases the number of potential partner organizations. The NDCA shares a small section of its northern boundary with the Mattagami Region CA, yet this is in a remote area 100 km north of Sudbury where cross-boundary relations are nonexistent. The distance between these CA offices is about 290 km. In contrast, the GRCA borders 9 other CAs, which increases chances for partnerships. Visits between northern CA offices and project sites require several hours of driving time and significant transportation costs. The North Bay-Mattawa CA office is closest to the NDCA, yet it is still about 125 km distant.

Population decline must also be considered in relation to the lasting feasibility of the NDCA. The City of Greater Sudbury experienced a 6.1% population decrease (10,000 people) from 1996 to 2001 (Statistics Canada 2001). In spite of this decline, a long-term population increase of 2.4% by 2028 is projected for Sudbury; however, this is not substantial considering the costs associated with servicing an aged community (OMF 2000). In contrast, the predicted growth rate in this same period is 33.4% for Ontario and 56.7% for southern Ontario (OMF 2000), which will undoubtedly strain the network of CAs in southern Ontario. Should the municipal tax base in Sudbury not keep pace with local servicing costs, funding for all municipal services, including the NDCA, will diminish.

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

Discussion

Theoretical discussions about the CA model frequently include statements about its capabilities, attributing success to the "inherent flexibility" of the model (Hale 1988: 34) and the soundness of the founding principles (Shrubsole 1996). In practice, previous works (e.g. OSCCA 1967, Voison 1976, OMNR 1987, Mitchell and Shrubsole 1992, Ivey et al. 2002) have illustrated difficulties with local capacity, jurisdictional conflicts, low government support, variable program offerings and low public awareness--all of which are presumably examples of problems occurring in implementing the founding principles in practice. Due to variation among CAs, exploring individual CA responses to mid-1990s restructuring requires consideration of how the founding principles have been applied in relation to the CA and region in question. Results for the NDCA are discussed accordingly.

Watershed as a management unit

The NDCA resulted from amalgamation of two smaller CAs and three contiguous watersheds. Not only was this decision ecologically sound, this jurisdiction was sensible from a flood management standpoint as it included the undeveloped headwaters, Sudbury's urban core and several neighbouring towns. With regional government in 1973 it became reasonable to merge CA administration and service costs for the Sudbury area. Moreover, difficulties with municipal services linked to amalgamation of Greater Sudbury in 2001 (i.e. disproportionate costs vs. benefits) do not appear to have been a problem with watershed management as surrounding towns were already represented on the NDCA board, contributing financially and receiving services. These points give testimony to the soundness of the watershed management unit principle.

There are areas within its watershed jurisdiction where the NDCA is not active and more than half of the NDCA jurisdiction is Crown land. Yet reducing such jurisdictions to save money, focus resources and reduce overlap between CAs and OMNR (as suggested by the 1987 Review of the Conservation Authorities Program) would undermine the watershed principle by limiting the NDCA to urban Sudbury--a small portion of the actual drainage area. Despite funding constraints, the NDCA does maintain its primary function in flood control. In this jurisdiction it is appropriate for the Authority to draw on its OMNR partner to consider what level of activity and collaboration are needed to address watershed management. Although institutional and economic issues challenge the watershed principle in this part of northern Ontario, agency coordination and collaboration can help to maintain ecological and functional integration of water and land management.

Provincial-Municipal Partnership

The partnership principle supported municipal involvement and the formation of CAs where sufficient population, private land and tax revenues existed. Supplemental grants once available to smaller rural and northern CAs extended opportunities to regions across Ontario by reasonably accounting for economic variation. However, the mid-1990s restructuring to "rebalance" government partnership obligations questioned this principle as well as provincial understanding of regional variation.

Results indicate there was provincial downloading to the municipal government during the 1990s and NDCA municipal funding has not compensated for the provincial cutback. CAs that relied most on provincial assistance with the fewest immediate options for funding replacement were affected most (Fehl 1997). NDCA budget and program changes confirm this point. Measured fiscally, provincial support for the NDCA dropped significantly by 78.5% between 1992 and 2002 to account for 17% of total revenues.2 All but a few seasonal "non-core" programs were lost.

Self-generated revenues and municipal levies are now the main sources of CA funding (Shrubsole 1996, Ivey et al. 2002, Conservation Ontario 2004b). NDCA other revenues increased by 5% on average after provincial cutbacks in 1995. The manner in which this increase was achieved shows that costs are being passed down to residents and businesses and that the sale of conservation lands has become a revenue option. This illustrates the need to develop alternative sources of funding in order to avoid future land sales that threaten conservation. Short of restoring provincial funding for CAs, NDCA could call on their OMNR provincial partnership for technical support to explore options for capacity building and programming aimed at replacing provincial revenues.

Local Initiative

Local initiative stipulates that watershed communities must work together and get involved in local resource management. This principle is currently tested by the NDCA's ability to pay, which is influenced by a volatile resource economy and modest tax levy that must support a large jurisdiction requiring flood and erosion control infrastructure. The NDCA also shares dispersed settlement patterns recognized to negatively affect local awareness for watershed issues and sense of community, both of which are essential to grassroots support (OSCCA 1967, Mitchell and Shrubsole 1992). The success of the city-run Land Reclamation Program indicates that community spirit and support for local conservation initiatives in Sudbury are strong (Lautenbach et al. 1995); however, citizen support for the NDCA has not been studied.

It is curious that while the municipality has long funded regreening efforts, resources have not been channelled through the NDCA. For example, NDCA contributions to the Land Reclamation Program have consisted mainly of tree and labour donations, which amounted to less than 0.4% of project funding in 2002 (VETAC 2002). It seems that the NDCA, as a local conservation agency, should have a lead role on this project. One can surmise that the initial scale of flood management problems kept the NDCA engaged while other local groups mobilized to address other local environmental problems. Indeed, flood control was an immediate solution mandated to CAs while regreening would require more time.

Upholding agency credibility and capacity are related to strong local support. The sale of conservation lands, the abandonment of community recreation, the scaling back of education programs, and the general reduction of NDCA operations threaten to reduce ties with watershed residents. NDCA-led efforts for non-core programs in areas like habitat restoration have been modest. Necessary conservation programs have been largely complemented by the watershed community, the NDCF, and volunteer organizations. These efforts demonstrate the value of existing community links and the need for interagency collaboration so that the NDCA can continue to meet its minimum mandate requirements and establish a more visible role in conservation.

Coordination and Cooperation

As noted above, local funding/service alliances and user fees are important sources of revenue in other jurisdictions that have helped some CAs respond to provincial reductions, but these sources have not been a major source of assistance for the NDCA. Interagency collaboration for public and private interests is limited by great distances between the NDCA and other CAs, which have reduced opportunities to exchange equipment, human resources, and technical assistance. However, recent technological advances in communications, internet, and GIS could help to bridge these distances and support some technical/administrative alliances. The cooperation of the NDCA in this study suggests that there is opportunity to enhance relations with Sudbury's academic institutions. This could provide a two-way exchange of data, research, technology, and participation in support of conservation, education, and public awareness.