The Impact of Provincial Policies Changes on Conservation Authorities The Changing Role of Conservation Authorities in Environmental Protection? By: Daniella Molnar

Purpose of the Research Paper Previous joint CIELAP and York University (Liquid Assets) showed: declining involvement of the Provincial Government in water quality monitoring and reporting BUT, some C.A.s conducting watershed studies, etc, despite funding cuts, was this an overall trend in C.A.s?

Research Questions How have provincial policy decision affected C.A.s abilities to carry out their mandates to protect their watershed? Four perspectives: Institutional changes Legislation changes Funding changes Program and service changes

“Environmental protection in Ontario teeters on the brink “Environmental protection in Ontario teeters on the brink. As the province withdraws from the delivery of services, municipalities and their Conservation Authorities are left holding the bag. This downloading coincides with provincial funding cuts to both C.A.s and municipalities, which threatens our capacity to continue former levels of service with what is left of old funding structures.” (Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, 1996)

MAIN FINDING ALL CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES HAVE DIFFERENT CULTURES AND REACT DIFFERENTLY TO CHANGES, THUS, AN OVERALL TREND IS VERY DIFFICULT TO APPLY. LIMITATION: only looked at 9 Conservation Authorities

Findings: Institutional Changes The funding cutbacks have caused most C.A.s to re-organize and re-set priorities Lay-offs have occurred The loss of the Provincial Board members did not affected C.A.s

Findings: Funding Changes

Findings: Funding Changes

Findings: Funding Changes  MNR and MOE when combined reduced its funding by 80% from 1993/94 to 1997/98, causing a lot of distress on C.A.s Municipalities have increased their contributions in most cases User fees/authority generated funds are the main source of funding for most C.A.s The success of user fees/authority generated funds depend upon the geographic location of C.A.s (e.g. if located to a touristy areas, better chance of raising more revenue)

Findings: Funding Changes Federal Government has played an increasing role in financial contribution Private corporations have increased C.A. Fundraising Foundations have been relied upon more, in some cases for operational costs too.

Findings: Programs and Services MNR only funds a partial portion of the operational costs of flood control and warning program C.A.s prioritize water management and conservation lands management Many C.A.s have conducted Watershed Management Strategies, Watershed and Sub-watershed studies, Watershed Report Cards Some programs have decreased – even disappeared (e.g. environmental education)

Findings: Programs and Services Alternative programs have emerged with the help of Federal Government, municipalities, and other provincial ministries (e.g. CURB) C.A. have overtaken provincial and federal programs (e.g. Septic system permits and Section 35 of Fisheries Act) Participating in monitoring (e.g. groundwater monitoring network) More project based programs Unless donated, land acquisitions have suffered

Conclusions Land acquisition needs to improve Environmental education Funding structure needs to become more long-term PROVINCE HAS TO COME BACK AS A PARTNER! A general feeling that there is only so much that C.A.s can take before they devolve to simple flood control.

Final Note Overall, C.A.s have shown to be resilient and continued to create goals in order to protect the environment. Thus, their role has not changed. - Full potential to protect the environment is suppressed because of funding constraints