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).
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.
Despite the downward trend, there are three exceptions, 1982, 1983,
and 1990. In 1982 and 1983, revenues climbed to approximately
$3,500,000, peaking again at $2,943,313 in 1990. These peaks are
attributable to supplemental provincial funding for capital works
projects. For example, in 1990 $1,436,189 was allotted to land and water
resource management programs to pay for the construction of large
capital projects for erosion control (P. Sajatovic, pers. comm., January
2004). Following this isolated infusion of funds, annual revenues and
expenditures decline.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
From 1980 to 2002, NDCA revenues were provided by all levels of
government and by other sources as noted above. As experienced in other
CA jurisdictions, the relative importance of each funding source has
changed recently. Provincial funding to the NDCA has decreased sharply,
dropping 78.5% between 1992 (start of provincial reforms) and 2002,
while municipal funding has increased by 22%, closer to levels typical
during the 1980s. In 2002, provincial funding accounted for 17% of NDCA
revenues.
A historical comparison of mean revenues by source, before
(1980-1995) and after (1996-2002) OMNR cutbacks, shows that municipal
contributions accounted for almost one half of NDCA total funding
(Figure 3). In turn, the average provincial share has decreased from 56%
to 26%. Other sources of NDCA revenue have increased from 16% to 21%.
This was mainly accomplished by raising permit fees, increasing land
lease payments, and through the sale of conservation lands (NDCA 1994,
1995, Vaillancourt 2003, P. Sajatovic, pers. comm., January 2004). At
time of writing, user fees and local partnerships were not significant
sources of other revenues.
NDCA Programs, 1980 to 2002
Results show an overall trend of decline in total program
operations from the overall maximum of $2,208,109 in 1980 to $460,073 in
2002 (-79%) (Figure 4). Program spending hit its lowest point at
$399,246 during the funding transition period in 1996. A comparison of
mean program spending indicates that annual program spending for 1980 to
1995 was $1,179,368, compared to $630,916 for 1996 to 2002. This
difference represents a 47% decline in mean annual program spending.
Resource program spending has historically been more significant
than conservation program spending. There is no program spending
separation available for the period 1992 to 1995, so data for the
existing years are used to illustrate differences in program spending
before and after provincial reforms. Mean annual conservation spending
for the period 1980 to 1991 was $118,280, while mean annual resource
program spending was $1,197,483. However, for the period 1996 to 2002
mean annual conservation and resource spending was reduced to $27,324
and $513,461 respectively. This represents a 77% decrease for
conservation programs and 57% decrease for resource programs. Although
expenditures in both categories have decreased over time, conservation
spending has also decreased in relative importance to total program
spending. From 1980 to 1991, mean conservation program spending
accounted for 9% of total program spending, which diminished to 5% for
the period 1996 to 2002. It should be noted that spending reductions
were spread across all NDCA categories including administration, job
creation programs and miscellaneous expenses (e.g. travel and equipment
costs).
An inventory of programs indicates the large range of programs
offered as reported by NDCA from 1980 to 2002 (Table 2). Since 1980,
initiatives have focused on water management. During the first 25 years
of operation the NDCA completed 20 major flood control projects (NDCA
1982). By 1998, this number had grown to 36 (NDCA 1998a). From 1982 to
1998, the NDCA completed one major flood control project per year.
Alterations to stream channels and banks have been ongoing to control
flow and the NDCA has developed an automated system for flood
monitoring, forecasting and warning. Flood plain mapping, risk
assessments and flood damage reduction surveys accompanied these
projects. Flood plain regulation and enforcement has been very
important. Consultation with citizens and businesses has also been a
major task. By 1990 the NDCA was processing 450 to 500 flood plain
inquiries monthly (NDCA 1990).
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
The ability to undertake capital works projects for flood
management has decreased since the mid-1990s. The cost of building dams,
dykes and culverts once required large provincial contributions.
Currently, NDCA focuses on noncapital flood management activities (e.g.
flood monitoring) and maintaining existing infrastructure, which
requires less funding (P. Sajatovic, pers. comm., November 2003).
NDCA conservation programs include conservation area maintenance
and development, wildlife habitat improvement, environmental education
and recreation. Such programs have been very limited and now consist of
activities held at the 950 ha Lake Laurentian Conservation Area.
Originally acquired for headwater source protection in the mid-1960s (P.
Sajatovic, pers. comm., November 2003), the importance of this
conservation area to NDCA conservation programming was recognized in
1984 when the Nickel District Conservation Foundation (NDCF) was
established for its support (NDCA 1984). Outdoor education and awareness
programs have been particularly affected by the provincial introduction
of core/non-core programming. In 1996 two full-time naturalist positions
were eliminated when environmental education programs were categorized
as non-core (P. Sajatovic, pers. comm., January 2004). Consequently,
remaining programs at Lake Laurentian are now offered on a seasonal
basis. The Lake Laurentian nature centre and a children's summer
day camp are maintained by contributions from the NDCF.
As a more recent example, the NDCA rejected participation in the
Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network coordinated by the MOE (A.
Todd, pers. comm., February 2004). Of the 36 Ontario CAs, 30 had joined
the program. At time of writing none of the northern CAs were
participating due to resource constraints. For the NDCA, the decision
not to participate was dictated by a lack of resources to support this
non-core program (P. Sajatovic, pers. comm., March 2004).
Hinterland Character of the NDCA
The NDCA exhibits several land base and population attributes
linked to the hinterland geography of northern Ontario. Although the
NDCA is very large by total land area, its low population density,
annual revenue and staffing reflect the small size of operations (Table
3). Bureaucratic impediments might be reduced with only one municipal
member, yet local funding and expertise must be supplied by a single
lower-tier government and community. The City of Greater Sudbury is the
largest municipality in Ontario by total land area (3,354 [km.sup.2])
and its communities are very spread out (Wuksinic 2004). It is over five
times the size of the City of Toronto with one-sixteenth of the
population (Saarinen 2004). In addition, several small communities are
interspersed with 330 lakes and large tracts of undeveloped land within
municipal boundaries (City of Greater Sudbury 2004). Whereas ample
public space is accessible in the vast Crown lands that surround all
northern centres, there is also considerable open green space in Sudbury
and the outlying NDCA jurisdiction. Approximately 56% of the NDCA
jurisdiction is Crown land extending north of Sudbury.
A comparison of all CAs in Ontario illustrates the large extent of
the NDCA (7547 [km.sup.2]), its isolation, and low population density
(19 persons per [km.sup.2]) (Figure 5). These are limiting factors known
to reduce opportunities to generate user fees from recreation facilities
(OSCCA 1967, Fehl 1997). To illustrate, Baldin (2003) found that some
southern CAs generated very high revenues from campgrounds (e.g.
$5,131,918 for Grand River CA [GRCA] in 2000), while all northern CAs
reported no revenues from user fees because they do not operate
campgrounds. Of the five CAs accounting for 70% (4,670,017) of annual
conservation area visitors, two were heavily populated, densely
developed settings (MTRCA, Hamilton Region CA), two were centrally
located along highway 401 and close to large population centres (GRCA,
Upper Thames River CA) and one was sparsely populated but located at a
major Canada-US border crossing near a major city (St. Clair Region CA).
When surrounding populations are considered in relation to the NDCA, its
isolation becomes clear. Large unpopulated expanses between urban
centres in northern Ontario create distance decay issues, whereas CAs
near core areas of southern Ontario have access to very high populations
by proximity. Conversely, the unorganized territories that surround the
NDCA are sparsely populated and so do not hold significant revenue
potential. It stands to reason that low populations, easy/free access to
green space and isolation make it difficult to operate profitable
recreation facilities.
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.
The formation of the Timberwolf Golf Course on NDCA flood reservoir
lands is one example of how corporate partnership can contribute to NDCA
revenues and local economic development. Formal inquiry into the
feasibility and benefits of active recreation facilities may uncover
additional ways to generate revenue. Establishing new service alliances
for the NDCA is another avenue yet to be fully explored. A conference of
northern Ontario watershed representatives would provide a forum for
resource managers, researchers, government, business, environmental
groups, educators, First Nations and non-aboriginal community members to
discuss conservation issues of regional importance. An opportunity for
networking and knowledge sharing would benefit participants who may
share common challenges but have little chance for interaction.
Healthy Environment for a Healthy Economy
The notion of conservation in a mining hinterland seems somewhat of
a paradox. Industrial resource extraction has long been accepted as the
local economic driver and core of Sudbury's identity. However, as
Lautenbach et al. (1995: 109) point out, "the destructive influence
of past mining activities not only left Sudbury with a severe
environmental problem, but its 160,000 inhabitants also inherited
conditions that greatly restricted their socio-economic prospects."
The early establishment of CAs in Sudbury revealed the roots of
community and growing local willingness to transform Sudbury into a more
sustainable community.
NDCA flood management initiatives have been successful in reducing
costly floods and enabling urban development. However, recent reductions
in job-creation and the loss of non-core programs have not helped the
NDCA to support the local environment and economy. Long-term
consideration of renewable resources like timber would contribute to
regreening and complement an economy that has long focused on
non-renewable resource extraction.
Sudbury is an amalgamation of towns with longstanding ties to the
mining sector and there are several mining companies in Sudbury that
have benefited immensely from developing local resources. However, Inco
and Falconbridge contributions to municipal reclamation since 1978 (2.5%
and 1% of funding respectively) (VETAC 2005) indicate that industry
could have an expanded role in restoration. The NDCA must continue to
build bridges with community businesses and municipal partners in
recognizing the importance of a healthy environment for a healthy
economy.
Comprehensive Approach
The comprehensiveness of the NDCA has been challenged by the
cutbacks outlined above, notably, the relative absence of conservation
programming. Difficult adjustments were made to restructure NDCA
operations, and expenses have been scaled back greatly in all areas to
avoid deficit. The NDCA now focuses its resources on flood management
and maintaining aging capital works projects for flood and erosion
control. While all program spending has decreased, it is significant
that only 5% of total program spending is allotted to conservation. This
has undermined implementation of actual conservation projects for
habitat restoration, wetland rehabilitation, and tree planting, which
stand to contribute to Sudbury's environmental rehabilitation.
These appear to be essential programs for a CA located within an
environment recovering from severe industrial degradation.
Ultimately, this questions the parochial view of government in
overlooking the importance of local and regional contexts with regard to
resource and environmental policy making (e.g. Clark 2002, Mitchell
2002). Complete consideration of the problems experienced by all CAs in
Ontario should be factored into provincial policies that will affect
every CA. For instance, it can be argued that even the introduction of
supplemental grants in 1968 to assist rural CAs was insufficient in the
case of the NDCA because overall environmental degradation was not
considered in the grant formula. Subsequently, when the 1987 Review of
the Conservation Authorities Program reconsidered the suitability of
population and land base factors used to calculate the grants, the needs
of highly urbanized jurisdictions were used to rationalize change:
Arguments can be made that it is the highly developed urban areas
that require additional assistance since there are usually many more
people affected by a given flooding or erosion problem. In many
cases as well, the required solution is much more expensive to
implement (i.e. size and scope of remedial measure required, land
cost, reallocation costs for affected residents, roads and other
services, etc.) (OMNR 1987: 62).
Results show that supplemental grants to the NDCA were absorbed
primarily by capital projects for flood and erosion control--problems
related to the highly degraded state of Sudbury's environment.
Ecosystem restoration has remained peripheral due to fiscal constraint;
however, there is a strong case for habitat restoration, wetland
rehabilitation, and tree planting to be core programs. Such programs
would help to address the root of flooding and erosion problems in
parallel with current reactive management measures (i.e. flood
protection infrastructure) and contribute to the regreening of Sudbury.
Above all, the true scale of "remedial measure[s] required"
(OMNR 1987: 62) in Sudbury surpasses most other places in Ontario, yet
has not been reflected in provincial policy concerning CAs. Policymakers
need to consider resource-based, low density regions alongside rural
agricultural and densely settled urban regions so that CAs can respond
better to challenges. Comprehensive management cannot be claimed so long
as these critical and interrelated aspects of watershed management are
overlooked.
Conclusion
This research explored the NDCA's response to mid-1990s
provincial restructuring in the context of northern Ontario. Provincial
funding and program changes have placed restrictions on all Ontario CAs.
For the NDCA this means that the municipality covered one half of total
revenues (1996 to 2002), while the province accounted for one quarter.
This imbalance has compromised NDCA program diversity, narrowed its
focus and challenged the partnership principle. Only 5% of mean program
spending goes to conservation initiatives, which undermines the role of
the NDCA as an agent of environmental conservation in Sudbury. Also,
self-generated revenues have become increasingly important to
maintaining CAs; however, it appears that certain contextual influences
currently limit the potential of these revenues for the NDCA.
Specific research needs remain to address the challenges and needs
outlined herein:
1. Gauging resident awareness, perceptions, and support for the
NDCA (and all CAs) and its role in local conservation;
2. Identifying potential cost-sharing and service alliances for the
NDCA (and other CAs), including the nature and logistics of such
alliances for CAs in northern Ontario and outlying areas of southern
Ontario;
3. Feasibility assessments for user fee generating recreation
facilities (e.g. campgrounds) for CAs in northern Ontario and outlying
rural areas in southern Ontario to test long-standing assumptions about
their potential;
4. Regional quantitative analysis of contextual land base and
socio-economic influences known to influence CA performance in order to
develop theoretical and practical understanding and inform CA funding
and programming policy.
Satisfying these research needs, among others, will broaden