Taking a Broader Landscape Approach

A Policy Framework for Modernizing Ontario’s Approach to Natural Resource Management

Spring 2013

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

ii

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

iii

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1

Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 2

2 Context ..................................................................................................................... 3

Ontario’s Current Approach ....................................................................................... 3

The Case for Change ................................................................................................. 4

3 Strategic Direction ................................................................................................... 7

4 A Proposed Framework for Moving to a Broader Landscape Approach ............ 8

Goals ......................................................................................................................... 8

Elements of the Proposed Framework ....................................................................... 8

Element 1: Manage at Appropriate Scales ....................................................... 10

Element 2: Integrate and Coordinate ............................................................... 13

Element 3: Assess, Manage and Mitigate Risk ................................................ 16

Element 4: Focus Science and Information Resources ................................... 20

Element 5: Manage Adaptively ........................................................................ 23

5 Path Forward .......................................................................................................... 25

Endnotes ...................................................................................................................... 26

Table of Contents

iv

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

1

1 Introduction Ontario’s natural resources are at the heart of the outstanding quality of life and wellbeing of those who live here. In addition to their intrinsic value, these resources support industries such as forestry, mining, tourism and recreation. They provide irreplaceable ecosystem services such as clean air and water, and crop pollination, and they produce renewable resources, including energy and food.

As our population and economy grows, we demand more from the province’s resource base, creating pressures that are felt across Ontario’s vast land and water systems. Our natural environment is under stress from a range of threats, including: climate change, habitat alteration, land use changes, and invasive species.

Whether these threats occur at a broad-scale or accumulate from small-scale occurrences, ultimately their influence has an impact on Ontario’s ecosystems across the landscape. At the same time, the effects we can most easily see in our day to day lives are the ones that occur at the local level. Resource managers must find efficient and sustainable management approaches that address broad-scale influences and impacts, and that also provide consistency in managing important smaller scale issues and components, so that positive outcomes are generated at all levels.

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR or the ministry) manages the province’s forests, lands, waters, fish and wildlife, aggregates, salt, oil and protected areas on behalf of all Ontarians, with a focus on:

• Conserving the diversity of plants, wildlife, fish and their habitats

• Protecting natural areas

• Supporting the sustainable development and use of resources

• Protecting people, property and communities from forest fires, flooding, and other natural hazards

As announced in the 2012/13 provincial budget1, MNR is moving forward with a transformation plan to continue to evolve and modernize the way Ontario’s natural resources are managed. The goal is to carry out the ministry’s core business, programs and services in more efficient and sustainable ways. The plan has four main components:

1. Streamlining Approvals Processes, modernizing approvals including changes to regulations and legislation

2. Operations Delivery Transformation, re-designing some programs, improving the efficiency of operations throughout the province

3. Stewardship and Partnership Funding Alignment, taking a more strategic approach to partnerships, with transfer payment funding aligned to core ministry business and priorities

2

4. Science and Information Rationalization, shifting focus from species to broader ecosystems and re-aligning key science functions

This document proposes a framework to help the ministry deliver on this transformation plan. It emphasizes the importance of taking broader landscape approaches, which means implementing management actions in an integrated way, over larger areas of land and water, and over longer time periods than may currently happen in management systems or policy.

The transformation will strengthen MNR in its natural resource management role. As the ministry reviews its programs and services to become more efficient and sustainable, MNR will work to integrate and coordinate programs and policy, set priorities based on the risk to natural resources and the public, and seek economies of scale. The transformation will also look to focus and strengthen the ministry’s work with other levels of government, other government agencies, Aboriginal peoples, non-government organizations, university researchers, industry and the general public.

In making these changes, MNR is building on its own experience and the experience of other agencies from around the world who are working on landscape management approaches. MNR believes that a landscape-scale perspective promotes better understanding of how natural systems work and how they are affected by human activities. Reducing overlap and providing clear policy direction makes good sense. The result is a more integrated, effective, efficient and sustainable framework for managing Ontario’s natural resources for the ecological, social, cultural and economic benefit of both present and future generations.

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to present a framework for modernizing the ministry’s approach to managing natural resources, and to invite input from the public, Aboriginal peoples and stakeholders on this proposed approach.

The paper discusses reasons for adopting a broader landscape perspective and discusses how this approach is consistent with MNR’s mandate. It also sets out the elements of a framework for moving to broader scales of management, and outlines considerations that can be used to guide program-level change. The final section asks for your input on the proposed approach so that your insights can be understood and considered.

This framework will assist individual programs (e.g. the management of forest fires, wildlife or protected areas) as they continue to initiate efforts involving broader landscape approaches. As appropriate, there will be opportunities to comment on individual program changes as proposals are developed. This paper is the beginning of a dialogue that the ministry hopes will be fruitful and engaging. We invite you to be part of that conversation.

3

2 Context Ontario spans more than 1,000,000 square kilometres of diverse landscapes, wetlands, lakes and rivers. These are dynamic ecosystems, continually changing and responding to global influences such as climate, regional disturbances such as fire and flooding, and local changes such as urbanization and land use change.

Almost 20 percent of the province is fresh water: more than 250,000 lakes, 500,000 kilometres of rivers and streams, and portions of four of the five Great Lakes. The remainder of the landscape consists primarily of a diverse mix of forests, from rich broadleaf deciduous forests in the south to vast boreal forests in the north. These forests are interspersed with wetlands, including the third-largest wetland in the world located in Ontario’s Far North.

Comparatively, a small part of Ontario is made up of urban areas and agricultural lands. The vast majority of the province’s population is concentrated in southern Ontario in close proximity to the Great Lakes, but there is also widespread settlement in many other parts of the province, with many communities located near and directly benefiting from Ontario’s natural resources.

Managing the land, water and resources associated with this complex mosaic is a great responsibility. The approach requires perspectives and strategies that extend beyond a specific site or species, encompassing larger land and water areas or even entire ecosystems. Aboriginal communities, a wide range of stakeholders and many types of organizations and levels of government have an interest in natural resources management, requiring integration and coordination with a range of partners for implementation to be effective.

Ontario’s Current Approach

Government has an important role in managing Ontario’s natural resources in a sustainable manner for the public good, both now and into the future. MNR works with other ministries of the Ontario government that have responsibilities in managing Ontario’s natural resources.

Crown land (and water) covers about 87 percent of Ontario. On Crown land, the ministry is responsible for the management of resources and works with a variety of stakeholders including industry and non-government organizations. In some parts of the province, especially in the south, a larger percentage of the land is privately owned. MNR pursues its mandate in areas of private land directly through its legislative responsibilities and indirectly through the work and responsibilities of others. In these areas, the ministry collaborates with private landowners, organizations and municipalities. The ministry works with Aboriginal organizations and communities across Ontario, and in the Far North2, works with First Nation communities in land use planning and integration of traditional knowledge.

4

MNR’s natural resource management functions include:

• Maintaining healthy and biologically diverse ecosystems

• Developing and reviewing policy (e.g., legislation, regulations, strategies)

• Developing, reviewing and implementing land use and resource management plans (e.g., protected area plans, Far North community-based land use planning, forest management plans, fisheries management plans)

• Allocating and authorizing the sustainable use of natural resources (e.g., access, permits, recreation, harvest quotas)

• Monitoring compliance and enforcing legislation

• Providing public safety and emergency services and support (e.g., aviation, forest fire fighting, dam management, flood response)

• Conducting research on species, ecosystems and human interactions with them

• Monitoring and reporting on the state of resources and ecosystems

• Managing and sharing data and information

The objectives and scale of these programs currently vary widely, depending on the particular resource or issue. Some programs have been designed to manage individual species (for instance, white-tailed deer or lake trout), individual sites (such as a particular forest stand or lake), or specific resource sectors (for instance, aggregates).

In many instances, the current approaches serve Ontario well. In others, programs have identified the benefits of a broader perspective and have adopted or will be considering strategies which take a broader landscape approach.

This paper includes some examples of how the ministry has already started making these changes.

The Case for Change

MNR’s business has expanded to encompass new responsibilities, such as land use planning in the Far North and the use of Crown land for green energy projects3. At the same time natural resource management is also becoming more challenging: Ontario’s population is growing, its climate is changing, human activities from both within and outside of Ontario continually alter our land and water systems, and patterns of resource use are driven by global economic forces and societal trends. The conflicts and competing uses created by these pressures steadily increase and accumulate.

In working to address local issues and impacts, some resource management strategies have tended to focus on smaller land areas, specific sites, or specific populations. While there are benefits to site-specific and fine-scale management approaches developed to address localized issues and requests, this approach can be labour intensive, costly and

5

inefficient. Site-specific management can also lose sight of patterns and processes across the broader landscape and lead to duplication of effort or increasingly complex policy. Ecological considerations and fiscal realities1 require us to reassess the best scales for the ministry’s natural resource management activities.

Managing at broader scales repositions resource management decisions within a larger environmental, social and economic context. A broader-scale perspective can help to reveal differences and commonalities in the perspectives and interests of diverse partners and stakeholders. New or different approaches may be required to balance resource demands, coordinate activities and understand the implications of management actions across a broader landscape, providing the opportunity for increased transparency in accomplishing shared management goals.

There is widespread support for this kind of approach, both in Ontario and elsewhere. Many jurisdictions have concluded that biodiversity conservation, sustainable resource management, and reconciling potentially conflicting resource uses or objectives, are best accomplished using ecosystem or landscape-based management4 (see text box below). The ministry can draw upon and learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions, as well as local experience from Ontario. MNR has already made significant progress with implementing broader landscape approaches, expanding its knowledge through research efforts and hands-on experience with programs such as forests5 and fisheries6 management.

Aboriginal communities and organizations have also expressed interest in ecosystem approaches to landscape management, with most traditional harvesting areas identified by communities being based on watershed landscapes and incorporating traditional knowledge.

It is important to realize that broader-scale management does not mean a “one size fits all” approach. Like agencies elsewhere in the world, the ministry recognizes that finer-scale management effort is still necessary and appropriate within a broader management approach. The key is to identify those kinds of situations and strive to address them in a consistent fashion. Effective landscape-scale management provides the guidance to allow finer-scale management to be nested within a broader strategic vision.

For consistency of application, the ministry has prepared the practical framework described in this paper to guide implementation of broader landscape approaches across a wider range of MNR’s programs and activities.

Example: Broader Landscape Approaches in Other Jurisdictions Jurisdictions throughout the world are adopting broader-scale approaches to natural resource management. In Ontario and elsewhere in the world, management units are now often based on natural patterns (e.g., soil type; vegetative cover; drainage basin or watershed) or function (e.g., natural fire regimes, water levels and flows). Approaches include managing ecosystem conditions within their natural range of variability (e.g., within natural water level variation); attempting to mimic the effects of natural disturbance regimes, such as fire; and strategies based on the needs or uses of key species (e.g., those of particular economic, cultural, or ecological importance, or those requiring special management efforts). Broad ecosystem types and key processes can also provide the basis for selecting and designing protected areas, as they do in Ontario.

Within Canada, the Scientific Framework for Alberta Parks identifies 16 Natural Landscape Types, and establishes broad conservation targets for each. Detailed analysis is then used to identify unique landscape

6

features, species or communities, or species at risk, that are not adequately captured in broader conservation planning (see http://www.albertaparks.ca/albertaparksca/management-land-use/building-the-parks-system/scientific-framework.aspx). British Columbia’s Ministry of Forestry advocates the use of landscape-level planning for conserving biological diversity, noting that “understanding the principles of landscape ecology can improve a manager’s ability to exercise professional judgement…[and] enhance the exchange of information.” The system includes consideration of natural disturbance ecology, spatial patterns, and connectivity of habitat (see http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/en/en07.pdf).

In the United States, there are many examples of broader-scale approaches. For example, Landscapes Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) (http://www.fws.gov/landscape-conservation/lcc.html) have been set up across the country as applied science partnerships that provide support for conservation research and planning at landscape scales. LCCs provides a forum for multi-stakeholder, multi-agency groups of partners to work together to define shared conservation goals and help identify how their individual organizations can contribute to broader conservation efforts. This initiative is reflected in many state programs. For example, Wyoming’s Landscape Conservation Initiative (http://www.wlci.gov/) is a long-term science-based program that assesses aquatic and terrestrial habitats at a landscape scale and brings together partners in support of geographically-based management teams. Similarly, California’s Conservation Lands Network (http://www.bayarealands.org/about/) is a five-year science-based study by over 125 organizations and individuals aimed at identifying landscapes important for the conservation of biodiversity. The program has assessed more than 4.3 million acres of habitat and over 1,000 conservation management targets.

Australia has adopted a Regional Natural Resource Management system (http://www.nrm.gov.au/about/nrm/regions/index.html) with 56 management regions based on watersheds (catchments) or biological regions. Through a system of national and state partnerships, the program provides a framework for coordinating national and state programs, funding, and management of high priority natural resource issues.

South Africa has used landscape-level planning to manage a biologically diverse but highly fragmented region, the Agulhas Plain. In that system, managers have found that a combination of approaches is effective in maximizing biodiversity conservation while minimizing cost and resources. Broad-scale assessments are used for relatively similar areas, while fine-scale measures are used for less similar regions with a higher level of habitat fragmentation. (Source: Rouget, M. 2003. Measuring conservation value at fine and broad scales: implications for a diverse and fragmented region, the Agulhas Plain. Biological Conservation 112 (1-2): 217-232.)

In June 2011, Great Britain published a Natural Environment White Paper presenting a 50-year vision for managing the country’s natural resources on a landscape scale. The paper notes that a landscape-based approach facilitates the recognition of ecosystem services such as pollination, flood control and climate mitigation, which are often undervalued in planning. It emphasizes the importance of healthy ecosystems in supporting the national economy, society, conservation concerns and individual health and wellbeing. A multi-stakeholder group, including government agencies, landowners, agricultural interests and conservation organizations, wrote a response to the white paper entitled ThinkBIG, formally endorsing it and adding their support for “more, bigger, better and joined” places in nature. (White paper available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/natural/whitepaper/;ThinkBIG available at http://www.eauc.org.uk/theenglandbiodiversitygroupthinkbig

7

3 Strategic Direction MNR’s mandate is outlined in a number of places, including legislation and statements of policy and strategic direction. The ministry’s overarching strategic direction outlines a vision for Ontario of healthy ecosystems enabling sustainable development. It makes a commitment to the conservation of biodiversity and associated management of natural resources in a holistic and sustainable manner. The framework described in this paper is consistent with and is guided by these existing commitments and mandate. It will not change MNR’s core business, but will transform the way the ministry accomplishes that work.

A broader landscape approach also aligns well with other Ontario strategic policy and is consistent with management trends seen elsewhere in the world (see text box page 5). Many of Ontario’s and MNR’s guiding strategies and plans emphasize the value of managing natural resources over broader landscapes and longer time periods in helping to achieve healthy and resilient ecosystems that support Ontarian’s prosperity and quality of life. For example:

• Climate Ready: Ontario’s Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan outlines the Ontario government’s response to the report of the Expert Panel on Climate Change Adaptation. Goal 2 in Climate Ready is “Take reasonable and practical measures to increase climate resilience of ecosystems.” Goal 3 is “Create and share risk management tools to support adaptation efforts across the province.”

• Biodiversity: It’s in Our Nature sets out the actions and activities that Ontario’s ministries are committed to in implementing the Ontario Biodiversity Strategy 2011. Action 16 in Biodiversity: It’s in Our Nature is “Promote landscape-level conservation planning.”

• Ontario’s Invasive Species Strategic Plan notes that the province’s invasive species problem is the result of a complex combination of economic, social, geographic and environmental factors, causing impacts that extend across ecosystems, human communities and the industries and businesses that depend on affected ecosystems.

• Strengthening Forestry’s Future: Forest Tenure Modernization in Ontario outlines a plan and objectives for forest tenure modernization. The document notes that use of appropriately-sized management areas can result in economies of scale while encouraging competitive wood prices. The new management models also provide opportunities for local and Aboriginal community involvement.

All of these documents underscore the growing complexity of Ontario’s natural resource management challenges. They demonstrate that resource management issues involve multiple sectors and interests, and often cross political borders. They highlight the need to coordinate action across the range of partners and involve stakeholders effectively. They also provide clear direction to the ministry to adopt a modern landscape management approach, working over larger areas and longer time frames, to focus efforts on the highest natural resource management priorities.

8

4 A Proposed Framework for Moving to a Broader Landscape Approach

Goals MNR has established two goals to guide the implementation of a broad-scale approach to natural resource management in Ontario. Both are consistent with the ministry’s mandate and the strategic guidance discussed in Section 3. The goals are:

1. Adopt a modern and sustainable approach to managing Ontario’s natural resources over broader areas and longer time periods.

2. Support, enable and advance ecosystem-based, landscape management approaches in Ontario over time.

In the short-term, the ministry’s emphasis will be on Goal 1: Adopt a modern and sustainable approach to managing of Ontario’s natural resources by managing over broader areas and longer time periods. This work will centre on identifying the best opportunities to begin developing and implementing a broader landscape approach, in order to better address the resource management challenges we face today. It will include re-assessing the size of management units, finding opportunities for coordinating and aligning programs, setting management priorities based on the risk to natural resources and the public and seeking economies of scale. Some of this work is underway.

The ministry will build on this foundation to help achieve Goal 2: Support, enable and advance ecosystem-based, landscape management approaches in Ontario over time. This goal articulates the ministry’s commitment to the long-term advancement of such approaches across its range of management programs.

Elements of the Proposed Framework To achieve these goals, MNR proposes a framework of five management elements and related considerations. The elements are:

1. Manage at appropriate scales 2. Integrate and coordinate 3. Assess, manage and mitigate risk 4. Focus science and information resources 5. Manage adaptively

9

Overview of Proposed Framework The table below provides an overview of the proposed framework, including goals, elements and a checklist of considerations to be used in applying management approaches to broader landscape

The following sections discuss the framework’s elements and considerations in more detail and demonstrate how they can be applied to guide implementation of program-level change as the ministry moves to broader scales of management across a wider range of programs and activities.

GOALS FOR MOVING TO A BROADER LANDSCAPE APPROACH 1. Adopt a modern and sustainable approach to managing Ontario’s natural resources by managing over broader areas and longer time

periods. 2. Support, enable and advance ecosystem-based landscape management approaches in Ontario over time.

ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSED FRAMEWORK

Element 1: Manage at appropriate scales

Element 2: Integrate and coordinate

Element 3: Assess, manage, and mitigate risk

Element 4: Focus science and information resources

Element 5: Manage adaptively

CONSIDERATIONS

I. Where appropriate, use ecological functions and structures (e.g. natural disturbance patterns, watersheds, species distribution) to help identify ecologically meaningful scales of management

II. Seek economies of scale in management effort and cost

III. Coordinate and integrate across programs and align resources relative to natural resource management priorities

IV. Ensure clear policy and legislative guidance

V. Leverage and coordinate with the work of others

VI. Use risk assessment techniques to prioritize management efforts

VII. Use a standard risk management framework to assess, manage and mitigate risk

VIII. Recognize that finer-scale, more detailed management effort may sometimes be necessary within a broader management approach

IX. Focus research and monitoring priorities on supporting management efforts at appropriate scales

X. Effectively manage and utilize science and information, including expert and traditional knowledge

XI. Continue to develop and use tools to support decision-making at larger scales

XII. Review the effectiveness of management strategies over time

XIII. Identify knowledge gaps and uncertainties

10

Element 1: Manage at Appropriate Scales

The concept of scale in resource management encompasses space, time and level of biological organization (for example, genes, species or ecosystems). It can include the size of an area or a period of time and relate to the detail or frequency at which various program decisions occur, such as monitoring frequencies or harvest quotas.

In the short-term, the ministry will work toward Goal 1 by:

• Continuing to evolve resource management, where appropriate, to broader spatial or biological scales and over longer time periods; and

• Coordinating and integrating functions such as compliance, enforcement, science, monitoring, planning and policy across larger management units and administrative areas.

Over the longer term, the ministry will extend these efforts to achieve Goal 2 by: • Implementing approaches that build on the knowledge base of effective

management strategies used throughout the province and in other jurisdictions.

The following considerations should be used to guide program-level change.

Consideration I: Where appropriate, use ecological functions and structures (such as natural disturbance patterns, watersheds or species distribution) to help identify ecologically meaningful scales of management.

The scales at which management planning and implementation occur should be ecologically meaningful – a measure that can vary across time and space in different situations. Depending on the management objective in a given situation, appropriate time scales could range from months or years to decades or even centuries. Spatial scale also depends on management objectives. In some cases, management at the level of a particular site may be warranted; in others, a perspective spanning hundreds or thousands of square kilometres may be necessary.

Landforms and water systems are also useful in determining appropriate management scales. For example, Ontario’s Ecological Land Classification (ELC) System7 identifies ecologically similar areas based on geology, climate and topology, and provides a robust framework for some broader-scale management initiatives (see text box on page 11). Watersheds and sub-watersheds are natural hydrological landscapes that can be used as the basis for water management at larger scales8.

Social and economic factors also play an important role in determining the scale at which management occurs. For example, the boundaries of Ontario’s 20 Fisheries Management Zones are based on a combination of ecological factors, such as watershed boundaries and climate, and social factors including fishing pressure and road access. The text box on page 21 describes Ontario’s Ecological Framework in more detail and provides a map illustrating the Fisheries Management Zones.

11

Another example of how MNR has evolved a management system to consider the broader-scale landscape is the creation of nine Cervid Ecological Zones as part of Ontario’s Cervid Ecological Framework9. For each zone, the Framework contains broad guidance about how Ontario’s cervid species (moose, deer, caribou and elk) should be managed in relation to each other across a given landscape. Cervid Ecological Zones build from existing Wildlife Management Unit boundaries but incorporate additional information about landscape-level climate and habitat variation from the ELC system, species distribution and species abundance.

EXAMPLE: ONTARIO’S LANDSCAPE GUIDES – FOREST MANAGEMENT ADDRESSING BROADER LANDSCAPES OVER MEANINGFUL TIME PERIODS Landscape Guides for forest management provide broad-scale guidance on landscape patterns and ecosystem diversity to guide management decisions at smaller scales.

Ontario’s Landscape Guide Regions are based on ecoregions and ecodistricts under the Ecological Land Classification System and within the context of the administrative realities of existing forest management units. Forest management guides use estimates of natural processes, such as fire regimes, within a Guide Region to estimate natural levels of forest composition, structure and pattern.

These estimates are then used to set 10-, 20- and 50-year targets for forest management within each Forest Management Unit. The guides series also use large landscape patches (1,000’s to 10,000’s of hectares) over long time periods (100+ years) as a framework to emulate natural disturbances.

Note: The Forest Management Guide for Great Lakes-St Lawrence Landscapes was completed in 2010. The Forest Management Guide for Boreal Landscapes is currently under development.

Consideration II: Seek economies of scale in management effort and cost.

There are benefits and risks associated with any management scale. In many cases, performing management activities over broader scales can result in greater financial and administrative efficiencies as well as better ecological outcomes than traditional site-by-site or species-by-species approaches. Broader-scale approaches encourage managers to be consistent in communicating with stakeholders and partners across the managed landscape. They can also reveal opportunities to coordinate and integrate activities and highlight areas where more intensive effort may be needed.

12

However, managing at too fine or too large a scale can have negative consequences for the ecosystem10 and the resource being managed, become too costly or overload human and technological resources. In some cases, cost-benefit analysis may be helpful in determining an appropriate scale. Consideration must also be given to existing land and resource use, access patterns, and to sustaining or enhancing social, cultural and economic values and benefits to communities, industries and Aboriginal peoples.

As needed, the ministry reviews and adjusts the scale of its management areas to increase operational efficiency, enhance ecological outcomes and improve understanding of broader landscape processes. For example, in recent years the ministry has been working to amalgamate Forest Management Units (FMUs) to facilitate planning and management at larger scales. This effort has achieved significant economies of scale, both for government and for license holders and associated companies, while enabling forest management planning at a scale that is more representative of forest ecosystem dynamics (see text box below).

EXAMPLE: FOREST MANAGEMENT UNIT AMALGAMATIONS IN ONTARIO

Ontario’s Crown forests are divided into geographic planning areas, known as forest management units (FMUs). Forest management plans must be prepared for each FMU, at a cost of approximately $1 million per plan. In the past, however, the size of these FMUs was often too small to allow for economies of scale in production and planning. In some cases, smaller management scales made it difficult to understand and evaluate ecosystem health. In response to these concerns, MNR began to investigate opportunities to amalgamate FMUs into larger, more ecologically appropriate management units. Since 1996, the ministry has reduced the number of FMUs by 51 percent while increasing their average size by 53 percent. This has resulted in more favorable economies of scale for both government and industry. It has also allowed forest management planning and operations to be conducted at scales that are more consistent with the scale of at which forest ecosystems operate. Ministry staff continue to evaluate the appropriateness of FMU boundaries as they explore the potential for ecological benefits and cost savings that can be achieved by larger scales of forest management, with consideration for other factors such as current land and resource use commitments, economic development potential and local and Aboriginal community input.

13

Element 2: Integrate and Coordinate

Managing over broader scales and longer time frames can reveal patterns and trends that may not be apparent at smaller scales. It can help to identify duplication of effort and suggest opportunities to coordinate and integrate management activities across the landscape.

As the ministry works toward Goal 1, it will integrate and coordinate activities where appropriate by:

• Identifying opportunities to improve efficiency by integrating across programs and management functions, including policy, services, operations, and the science, research and monitoring programs that support them;

• Looking for ways to integrate or coordinate with the work of other agencies (government and non-government) involved in natural resource management, to find efficiencies and ensure sustainable management approaches; and

• Ensuring that management decisions are informed through opportunities for meaningful engagement of the public, stakeholders and Aboriginal peoples.

Over time, the ministry will work toward achieving Goal 2 by:

• Continuing to engage the public, stakeholders and Aboriginal peoples, across broader landscapes where appropriate, to continually improve management approaches and policies and ensure environmental sustainability and the continuation of social, cultural and economic benefits and values; and

• Continuing to integrate and coordinate the work of the ministry and of agencies, organizations and other groups across broader landscapes, encouraging efficient and sustainable management practices.

The following considerations should be used to guide program-level change.

Consideration III: Coordinate and integrate across programs and align resources relative to natural resource management priorities

Taking a broader-scale approach includes understanding the influence of multiple uses and multiple stressors across a landscape. It is important to coordinate management efforts across the managed area to promote ecosystem health and maintain social and economic benefits. Broader coordination of this kind helps in determining management priorities and focus resources and efforts accordingly. Where conflicting resource uses or objectives exist, a broader-scale perspective can help identify shared interests and work towards resolving those conflicts.

Research and monitoring programs, policy and compliance and enforcement strategies may need to be modified to support a more integrated management approach across broader landscapes. Program objectives should therefore be reviewed periodically to

14

ensure they are still practical and relevant, and to investigate opportunities for integration with other functions.

Consideration IV: Ensure clear policy and legislative guidance

A well-integrated framework of laws and policies is an important foundation for effective broad-scale resource management. Evidence-based policy, informed by sound science and information, is a cornerstone of MNR’s natural resource management philosophy. This standard will continue to be applied when managing over broader landscapes.

In some cases, however, new policy guidance will be needed to support planning and management activities at broader landscape scales. Reviews are important to ensure that policy evolves as management strategies improve and intended outcomes are achieved. Reviews also help to identify opportunities to reduce duplication and make policy direction clearer and easier for users to implement.

The Far North Land Use Planning Initiative, described in the text box below, provides a good example of an integrated and coordinated, broader-scale policy approach supported by clear policy and legislative guidance.

EXAMPLE: FAR NORTH LAND USE PLANNING INITIATIVE

The Ontario government is committed to protecting the unique environmental systems of the Far North, while ensuring that its resources contribute to a more prosperous, healthy and sustainable future for its people and communities. To that end, the Far North Act, established in 2010, provides a legislative foundation for joint land use planning involving First Nations and Ontario. Land use planning decisions must recognize the social, environmental and economic interests of First Nations and the province. First Nation communities initiate and lead land use planning, working with the province through a joint planning team that prepares community based land use plans. These plans are approved by both the First Nation community and the Minister of Natural Resources. Advisors from MNR program areas and key ministries are available throughout the process to ensure coordination and integration across provincial programs.

The Far North Land Use Strategy, when developed, will provide the tools and framework to support and inform joint planning teams in the development of community based land use plans. The strategy will be the foundation of policy and information that provides the big-picture, broad-scale land use interests to support community based land use planning.

Consideration V: Leverage and coordinate with the work of others

Managing natural resources across broader landscapes includes evaluating resource condition, development pressures and associated issues across larger geographic areas and longer time frames and setting clear resource management objectives. Stakeholders (including private landowners) and Aboriginal peoples contribute important knowledge and ideas to this process.

At broader scales, more organizations and levels of government are likely to be involved in natural resources management. A broader landscape perspective can help to reveal opportunities to leverage and coordinate with the work of others and ensure sustained, long-term ecological, social and economic benefits to communities and industries.

15

The ministry currently works to identify and build on opportunities for this coordination and must continue moving towards a more strategic approach to partnerships. As an example, the ministry participates in the Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre, a virtual organization through which groups across the country pool resources and collaborate in wildlife health research and monitoring. The recently-established Invasive Species Centre in Sault Ste. Marie is another example of multi-agency coordination. The Centre is a joint initiative funded by the federal and provincial governments, created to facilitate collaborative research and information sharing on invasive species issues in Ontario and the Great Lakes region.

In some areas, such as the Great Lakes, coordination must extend across provincial and even national boundaries. For example, bi-national Fish Community Objectives for each of the Great Lakes11 define lake-wide fish community goals and objectives that are achieved through management programs (such as stocking and regulations) developed and implemented by individual jurisdictions. In southern Ontario, where a large percentage of the land is under private ownership, coordination of management effort across the area involves municipal and other planning authorities and agencies. Through the provincial One-Window Planning Service led by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, MNR maintains a strong role in municipal land use planning under the Planning Act and closely related legislation including the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and the Greenbelt Act. The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) under the Planning Act is a key part of Ontario's planning system. The PPS provides direction for planning at the municipal level across Ontario and many of the policies under the PPS pertain to MNRs mandate12. The development of complementary policy and guidance13 by MNR for areas of the ministry’s responsibility and the provision of resource data by the ministry informs municipal planners and decision-makers and influences resource protection.

16

Element 3: Assess, Manage and Mitigate Risk

Risk is a combination of two factors, the likelihood of an occurrence and the impact of that occurrence. Both likelihood and impact are estimated based on the best scientific and expert information available. The quality of this information should be considered when estimating risk, providing an opportunity to identify where additional information or research may be required.

Risk assessment and mitigation has always been a key component in the protection and management of Ontario’s natural resources. For example, the ministry assesses risk in setting priorities for compliance monitoring and enforcement. This ensures that efforts are focused on the activities that address the greatest risk to natural resources, public safety or the economy.

MNR currently evaluates risk associated with natural resource management, including risk to public health and safety, the status and use of natural resources and a variety of other social and economic factors14. Risk assessment is used as a basis for making wise choices among options.

In working toward Goal 1, the ministry will continue to:

• Use a common assessment approach, to evaluate the ecological, social and economic risks of an activity over the short and long term, with recognition of other activities occurring on the landscape;

• Use risk assessment to inform management strategies, ensuring efforts are focused where there is the greatest risk to natural resources, public safety or the economy; and

• Manage and mitigate risk to ecosystems, resource uses and management systems.

Over the long-term, the ministry will progress toward Goal 2 by:

• Building a body of knowledge and experience with using risk assessment to manage natural resources over broader areas and longer time frames, and refining risk management approaches based on lessons learned.

The following considerations should be used to guide program-level change.

Consideration VI: Use risk assessment techniques to prioritize management efforts

Risk assessment is a valuable tool in setting resource management priorities. Where management occurs over longer time frames or larger spatial scales, changes in risk must be assessed and carefully managed; both short and long term risks must be identified, with consideration of other activities occurring on the landscape. This includes risk to ecosystems, communities, Aboriginal peoples, economic interests and management systems. Social and economic values must therefore be considered along

17

with ecological considerations in setting management priorities and managing associated risk.

Ontario’s Invasive Species Strategic Plan recommends assessing the risk of potential pathways to determine which geographic areas are most vulnerable to invasive species, and risk assessment has also been used to determine the best management approaches to controlling invasive species such as sea lamprey15 and Asian carp16.

Other examples of where risk-informed approaches are currently used to set priorities include wildlife-health related issues. “Hot spots” of rabies activity are mapped and used to focus management activity to reduce potential public health impacts. Wildlife managers also use risk-informed techniques to conduct surveillance for Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in Ontario, using risk factors such as proximity to jurisdictions with CWD, number of cervid farms in the area and the density of wild cervid populations.

Consideration VII: Use a standard risk management framework to assess, manage and mitigate risk

Risk assessment and management are important tools in the management of Ontario’s natural resources. For example, fire risk (and associated risk to public safety) can be evaluated by estimating the likelihood that a fire will grow or spread and the likely extent and potential level of impact of a potential fire event. Fire management activities can then be directed to areas of highest risk. From an organizational perspective, risk management can include actions such as issue-focused stakeholder engagement or strategic deployment of staff.

Many of MNR’s program areas have significant experience in assessing and managing risk, which can be drawn upon as the ministry continues to use risk assessment and risk management techniques across its range of activities and natural resource management functions. For example, the ministry’s Surface Water Monitoring Centre plays the lead role in the province in assessing and mitigating the risks of flood and drought hazards in Ontario (see text box below).

EXAMPLE: PROVINCIAL FLOOD FORECASTING AND LOW WATER MONITORING

As the lead agency for flood and drought management in Ontario, MNR is responsible for protecting human life, property and natural resources through forecasting and warning about flood and drought.

The ministry’s Surface Water Monitoring Centre (SWMC) fulfills this mandate at provincial and landscape scales. The SWMC works with Environment Canada, Conservation Authorities and regional MNR staff to cost-share and manage Ontario’s Hydrometric Network, which consists of over 720 stations throughout the Province providing data of surface water levels and flows in Ontario’s lakes and rivers. The hydrometric network assists in providing water managers with the best information In order to mitigate risk associated with flood and drought hazards in Ontario. Current and real-time hydrometric data supports flood and drought forecasting and ongoing decision-making regarding the management, use and sharing of our water resources.

Key functions of the Surface Water Monitoring Centre are: • collecting, monitoring & analyzing water flows, levels, and climate data;

18

• calculating indices and generating maps in order to identify sensitive and risk prone areas throughout the province;

• creating conditions reports, map products, low water notifications and flood advisories in order to support local water managers such as conservation authorities, municipalities, power generation companies, dam managers and water control boards;

• supporting decision making for provincial programs: Flood; Low Water/Drought; Great Lakes water takings; dam safety; Emergency Response; and

• providing flood forecast messages to conservation authorities, MNR district offices and municipalities to enable them to prepare for, track and manage local flooding.

Consideration VIII: Recognize that finer-scale, more detailed management effort may sometimes be necessary within a broader management approach

Within a broader landscape approach it is sometimes necessary to give more focused attention to specific features, geographic areas, species or issues by performing certain functions or activities at finer-scales (for example, through management, research and monitoring efforts or in associated policy).

These measures can be warranted for ecological reasons, or public health and safety reasons. For example, special measures might be needed to conserve uncommon or socially important species. They may also be needed to mitigate adverse effects of management actions on individual species, certain ecosystem components or social and cultural values17. At others times, the rationale may relate to legal requirements, incorporation of natural resource interests in the business of other provincial ministries or a range of other economic, cultural or social drivers.

Typical approaches to these kinds of decisions involve two levels of analysis or management. The first produces generalized guidance, targets and priorities for a broad area or program. Then a second level of analysis identifies elements that were not adequately addressed in the generalized guidance and develops additional, more detailed direction for them. The figure to the right illustrates this process.

One tool that can be used to make these kinds of decisions is a “coarse-filter/fine-filter” approach18. The coarse-filter is applied and premised on the assumption that a representative array of ecosystems (terrestrial or aquatic) will contain the majority of species in a region. The system acknowledges that application of the coarse-filter is not enough and that rarer and more sensitive species might require more specific management. Consequently, a fine-filter is applied that acknowledges and takes care of species that fall through the coarse-filter (e.g., rare and endangered species). Coarse and fine filters are applied at the same scales or can apply at different scales. Forest

Figure: Identifying elements that require specialized management efforts

19

management in Ontario has evolved over the past decade to an ecosystem approach that relies on the application of the coarse-filter/fine filter (see text box on page 19).

Management of invasive species provides another useful example of where more detailed management efforts may be necessary within a broader management strategy. Asian carp are highly aggressive invaders that are not established in the Great Lakes or Ontario’s inland waters. Broad landscape management of fisheries might set broad goals for the conservation of native species but not address absent species, like Asian carp. Yet the serious threat this species poses to aquatic ecosystems and has warranted more detailed and specific management efforts, including comprehensive prevention strategies coordinated with other agencies19. Effective prevention of Asian carp through focused management efforts is far more cost-effective than trying to manage or eradicate this destructive species once it has become established.

EXAMPLE: APPLICATION OF THE COARSE-FILTER/FINE-FILTER APPROACH IN ONTARIO FOREST MANAGEMENT

Ontario’s Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA, 1994) requires that public forests be managed in a way that … emulate[s] natural disturbances and landscape patterns [the coarse-filter approach] while minimizing adverse effects on plant life, animal life, water, soil, air and social and economic values, including recreational values and heritage values [the fine-filter approach].

Ontario’s Forest Management Guide for Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Landscapes directs forest management to maintain the amount of different ages and types of forest that would occur in a natural forest landscape. The guide also directs forest management to ensure that these forest types are arranged across the managed landscape similar to a natural landscape (i.e., pre-European settlement). In other words, Ontario is designing forest management practices that will maintain the natural range or gradually change the forest condition to resemble more closely what would occur naturally. By doing this we are providing for the amount, type and arrangement of the forest that has naturally developed. At the coarse level, this provides for the habitat condition for the species that have evolved to live in these forested ecosystems.

However, there may be sensitive habitat features or ecosystem requirements that are not covered by the coarse filter. To address this need for fine filter consideration, Ontario’s Forest Management Guide for Conserving Biodiversity at the Stand and Site Scales includes direction for sensitive sites.

As an example, the Forest Management Guide for Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Landscapes provides for the type, amount and arrangement of a forest on the landscape necessary to support a wide range of bird species. However, certain bird species may be sensitive to disturbance during the nesting period. Consequently, direction is included in the Forest Management Guide for Conserving Biodiversity at the Stand and Site Scales to restrict forest operations near occupied bird nests during breeding periods. The hierarchical application of these forest management guides using the coarse-filter/fine-filter approach ensures that the integrity of Great Lakes-St. Lawrence ecosystems and biodiversity are conserved.

20

Element 4: Focus Science and Information Resources

Science activities play important roles in a broad-scale resource management system. Examples include assessment of risk and uncertainty, informing the development of management options, monitoring ecosystem status and trends and monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions. MNR has always recognized the value and necessity of a strong science presence and has a long history of collaborating with other organizations in research that helps inform policy and management decisions.

As the ministry works towards the achievement of Goal 1, it will continue to:

• Focus science and monitoring programs so that they appropriately support broader-scale management approaches within the ministry and by other organizations;

• Where possible, use the best available technology to streamline or replace intensive, inefficient processes, share information and report on resource condition; and

• Collaborate with and leverage the work of scientists in other agencies and the broader scientific community, natural resource industries and other stakeholders.

Over the longer term, the ministry will work toward achievement of Goal 2 by:

• Continuing wherever possible to use the best science, expert knowledge and traditional knowledge to help inform broad-scale management of natural resources;

• Maintaining and implementing effective systems and processes to collect standardized data, and to share and integrate information and analyses across program areas and functions; and

• Sustaining strategic collaborations with stakeholders and others.

The following considerations should be used to guide program-level change.

Consideration IX: Focus research and monitoring programs on supporting management efforts at appropriate scales

Research and monitoring programs can be designed to support the transformation to a broader-scale management approach. While it is essential to monitor the effectiveness of any management strategy, what is monitored and the nature and timing of that monitoring will depend on the objectives and scale of management. When managing at broader scales, it is important to ensure that research and monitoring data is collected in a standardized manner across the province and in stored in compatible formats to enable coordination and integration between program areas.

21

In some cases, it may be possible to take advantage of technologies such as remote sensing to monitor over larger areas or longer timeframes, often at the same level of precision and at lower cost than traditional methods.

Science is also exploring new field monitoring techniques aimed at broader-scale assessment, using a variety of measures to assess the overall health of an ecosystem20. Ontario’s Ecological Framework for Fisheries Management, and the broad-scale monitoring program that supports it, is a good example of how scientific principles and stakeholder input can be used to refocus the question from “how is my site doing?” to “how is my zone doing?”21. The text box below describes this framework in more detail.

EXAMPLE: ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Historically, recreational fisheries management in Ontario focused on individual lakes and rivers. This approach led to the proliferation of individual lake-based regulations and failed to recognize broad-ranging stressors such as climate change and invasive species, and the mobility of anglers. In 2008, Ontario implemented a new approach to managing fisheries that takes a landscape, rather than a lake-by-lake, approach to fisheries planning, management and monitoring. The Ecological Framework for Fisheries Management (EFFM) is designed to increase public participation, simplify fishing regulations and help the ministry better manage fisheries for the future. Under EFFM, 20 Fisheries Management Zones (FMZs), based on ecological factors (watersheds, climate) and angler use patterns (fishing pressure, road access), replaced the former 37 Fishing Divisions. Higher-risk fisheries or those with significant social, economic or ecological importance (for example, Lake Simcoe, Lake Nipigon and Lake Nipissing) are still managed on an individual lake basis within the context of the broader FMZ in which they occur. An associated Broad-scale Monitoring program evaluates the health and population size of five indicator species (walleye, lake trout, brook trout, northern pike and smallmouth bass), plus general assessments of biodiversity, lake chemistry and angling effort, using results to “diagnose” the condition of lakes within a zone and inform strategies for the next management cycle.

22

Consideration X: Effectively manage and utilize science and information, including expert and traditional knowledge

Sound science and the best expert and traditional knowledge are an essential foundation for supporting broader landscape approaches and for setting management and monitoring priorities as part of a risk-based approach.

The ministry has a wealth of diverse information resources and is continually collecting more through a variety of programs and methods. Collecting and managing this information in a way that allows integration and analysis across programs, and over larger areas and longer timeframes, can be a challenging task. It requires the application of consistent standards and the development and use of effective management processes and systems. MNR must also consider the role it plays in ensuring other provincial ministries have access to relevant data. This allows MNR’s natural resource considerations to be integrated with their work, such as municipal or other planning activities. Land Information Ontario22 is an example of provincial initiative that supports the sharing of geospatial data within MNR and with external partners.

In the Far North, First Nations and Ontario are working together on developing community-based land use plans. A key aspect of this joint planning process is the Far North Information Knowledge and Management (IKM) Plan. One of the main goals of the plan is to build and maintain strong relationships with First Nations. Many First Nation communities are collecting their traditional knowledge of the land to contribute to community based land use planning in the Far North. Through funding agreements, MNR has been supporting communities as they collect and document this knowledge.

Through a variety of collaborative projects, the IKM plan has advanced key resources including information about Far North topography, land cover and disturbance patterns, geology and water resources. Attention has also been given to focusing science and information resources in addressing climate change, species at risk, natural heritage and biodiversity surveys. Together, this revised data and improved understanding provides the building blocks for land use planning in the Far North. The aim is to ensure the best information is available to support broad-scale land use interests and community based land use planning needs.

Consideration XI: Continue to develop and use tools to support decision-making at larger scales.

There is a wide variety of tools that can support decision making when managing over broader landscapes. Such tools range from best management practices that provide specific strategies and techniques while ensuring consistency with a broad landscape approach to technical spatial analytical tools which are used extensively in landscape management to predict landscape change, compare management scenarios and inventory ecosystems. Many useful decision-support tools already exist and are being used within and outside of MNR, but in some cases tools may need to be adapted or new tools will be developed. For example, it can be challenging for resource managers to understand the potential impacts of climate change on ecosystems and the people who rely on them. To address

23

this need, in 2011 MNR assembled a suite of vulnerability and risk assessment tools and techniques to create A Practitioner’s Guide to Climate Change Adaptation in Ontario’s Ecosystems. The guide includes a framework to support broad-scale adaptive management in a rapidly-changing climate. The ministry has also developed two interactive climate change mapping tools that illustrate a variety of possible future climate scenarios to help resource managers understand potential impacts at broader landscape levels. Conceptual and simulation models that mimic the behaviour of natural systems give managers a way of exploring “what if?” scenarios. This kind of analysis is essential for evidence-based policy development, allowing managers to investigate the impact of management alternatives before policy direction is decided. For example, MNR’s Landscape Fisheries Model23 simulates individual angler behaviour based on accessibility, fishing quality, individual angler preferences and other social, economic and ecological factors, and predicts the distribution of angling pressure and resulting changing aquatic ecosystem health over a landscape of lakes. Statistical techniques can also be helpful in providing insight into the relationships between different landscape elements or processes.

Ontario’s Landscape Tool (OLT) is another example of a decision-support tool that can be used to support management at broader scales (see text box below)24. Developed from field data, simulation results and other inputs, OLT helps users test model inputs, assumptions and results before management direction is finalized.

EXAMPLE: A BROAD-SCALE LANDSCAPE LEVEL DECISION-SUPPORT TOOL

Ontario’s Landscape Tool (OLT) is a multi-scale, large landscape tool containing the biodiversity information (e.g., estimates of forest composition, structure and pattern) that was used to develop Ontario’s Landscape Guide series. OLT provides forest managers with the capability to compare harvest scenarios at different scales and in different regions in order to help make informed management decisions. OLT has been used at broad-scales in forest management planning and also by other program areas including moose management, implementation of the Caribou Conservation Plan and the Madawaska Highlands Land Use Plan project. The system is open and publicly available for all to download and use. Many stakeholders from across Canada have downloaded OLT and used it to query landscapes, test and validate habitat models, estimate disturbance rates, compare the current landscape to the natural landscape and similar analyses.

24

Element 5: Manage Adaptively

Adaptive management involves monitoring and assessing systems and management actions over time. It recognizes that natural and human systems are uncertain and that management strategies may need to be adjusted periodically as understanding of the managed system improves or the level of risk to the resource changes. For that reason, the adaptive management process provides a strong evidence base on which to formulate policy and make management decisions.

Adaptive management also improves the inclusiveness and transparency of decision-making by demanding close collaboration between researchers, resource managers, and policy makers and encouraging regular dialogue with stakeholders and partners.

In its efforts to work toward Goal 1, the ministry will continue to:

• Review and improve the effectiveness of management approaches, and strive for ongoing improvement of management systems and outcomes; and

• Identify and adopt best practices for improvement of management strategies over time.

Over the longer term, the ministry will build on these efforts to achieve Goal 2 by: • Continuing to revisit and adjust management decisions and associated policy

as knowledge of the managed system improves, or shifts in the level of risk to the resource are observed.

The following considerations should be used to guide program-level change.

Consideration XII: Review the effectiveness of management strategies over time

Adaptive management implies a commitment to the continuous improvement of policies, management strategies and outcomes over time. It takes into account the variety of perspectives of diverse users in achieving sustainable social, economic and ecological outcomes.

Measures of ecosystem health, cost-effectiveness or other objectives can be used to track the success of management strategies and determine whether adjustments are necessary. Input from stakeholder, the public and Aboriginal peoples is important in the review of results and the development of objectives for the next management cycle.

Consideration XIII: Identify knowledge gaps and uncertainties

In an adaptive management system, knowledge gaps and uncertainties – about social and economic systems, ecosystem health or the condition of a particular resource – are identified as part of the normal review cycle. These kinds of reviews help resource managers revise research and information priorities for the future and identify opportunities for improvement across the entire management cycle. They can also help foster collaboration with other agencies and stakeholders with common interests.

25

5 Path Forward The next few years will be a time of change as the ministry examines its programs for opportunities to consider broader landscape approaches throughout its areas of business. Our path forward will mean proceeding with care and checking as we go to make sure that outcomes – for ecosystems, for Ontarians and for the ministry – are as intended. MNR is committed to showing leadership in this process. The elements and considerations described in this paper provide a practical framework for implementing broader landscape management approaches in specific program areas.

In the short term, the ministry’s focus will be on reviewing its core programs and services to become more efficient and sustainable. This includes identifying key opportunities to take a broader landscape approach by managing over larger scales or longer timeframes, coordinating and partnering with other organizations and agencies and working to find ways to improve the integration of MNR’s full range of resource management functions. Transitioning to broader landscape approaches will be more straightforward in some program areas than in others. Over the longer term, the ministry will build on this foundation by implementing ecosystem-based landscape management approaches across a wider range of programs.

Managing over broader scales will help to keep MNR’s focus on its core priorities and result in greater integration of programs and functions. This will position the ministry to better address the resource management challenges we face today.

Broad input is critically important moving forward. We want to hear from stakeholders, the public and Aboriginal peoples. As the ministry’s transformation proceeds, there will be additional opportunities for comment about specific program-level change. The ministry welcomes your input and invites you to be part of this ongoing dialogue.

26

Endnotes 1 For more information on the Ontario Budget 2012-13 please see: www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2012/

2 Information about community based land use planning in the Far North is available online at http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/FarNorth/2ColumnSubPage/266509.html

3 The ministry’s expanding mandate has been noted in several reports, including those by the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario and the Commission on the Reform of Ontario Public Services (i.e., “The Drummond Report”).

4 See for example Noss, R. F. 1987. From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: a look at the Nature Conservancy (USA). Biol. Conserv. 41:11-37

Hunter, M.L. et al. 1988. Paleoecology and the coarse-filter approach to maintaining biological diversity. Conserv. Biol. 2:375-385; Poiani, K.A. et al. 2000. Biodiversity conservation at multiple scales: functional sites, landscapes, and networks. Bioscience 50:133-146; Wong, Carmen and Kristi Iverson. 2004. Range of natural variability: applying the concept to forest management in central British Columbia. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 4(1): 1-14; Everett, R. L. and J.F Lehmkuhl. 1999. Restoring biodiversity on public forest lands through disturbance and patch management irrespective of land-use allocation. Pages 87-105 in Baydeck R.K. et al. eds. Practical Approaches to the Conservation of Biological Diversity. Island Press, Wash. D.C.

5 See for example, the ministry’s Forest Management Guide for Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation; available online at http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Forests/Publication/MNR_E000509P.html

6 See for example, information about the Fisheries Management Zone Advisory Councils and Fisheries Management Zone Planning available online at http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LetsFish/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_166745.html

7 Crins, William J., Paul A. Gray, Peter W.C. Uhlig, and Monique C. Wester. 2009. The Ecosystems of Ontario, Part I: Ecozones and Ecoregions. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough Ontario, Inventory, Monitoring and Assessment, SIB TER IMA TR-01, 71pp.

8 A number of Ontario policies already recognize the watershed as an appropriate basis for land use planning. Examples include policy statements such as Land Use Planning on a Watershed Basis http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/programs/3109e.htm; Subwatershed Planning http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNRE002320.pdf; Integrating Water Management Objectives into Municipal Planning Documents. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNRE002321.pdf; An Evaluation of Watershed Management in Ontario http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/programs/3513e.pdf; and Section 2.2 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), which states: “Planning authorities shall protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water by using the watershed as the ecologically meaningful scale for planning.” 9 OMNR, June 2009. Cervid Ecological Framework. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 18pp. Available online at http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@fw/documents/document/263997.pdf

27

10 See for example Folke C., Carpenter S., Walker B., Scheffer M., Elmqvist T., Gunderson L. & Holling C.S. 2004. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 35, 557-581; and Groffman P., Baron J., Blett T., Gold A., Goodman I., Gunderson L., Levinson B., Palmer M., Paerl H., Peterson G., Poff N., Rejeski D., Reynolds J., Turner M., Weathers K. & Wiens J. 2006. Ecological thresholds: The key to successful environmental management or an important concept with no practical application? Ecosystems, 9, 1-13.

11 DesJardine, R.L., Gorenflo, T.L., Payne, R.N., and Schrouder, J.D. 1995. Fish-community objectives for Lake Huron. Great Lakes Fish Comm. Spec. Pub. 95-1. 38 p.

Horns, W.H., Bronte, C.R., Busiahn, T.R., Ebner, M.P., Eshenroder, R.L., Gorenflo, T., Kmiecik, N., Mattes, W., Peck, J.W., Petzol, M., and Schreiner, D.R. 2003. Fish-community objectives for Lake Superior. Great Lakes Fish Comm. Spec. Pub. 03-01. 78p Eshenroder, R.L., Holey, M.E., Gorenflo, T.K., and Clark Jr., R.D. 1995. Fish-community objectives for Lake Michigan. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Pub. 95-3. 56p Ryan, P.A., Knight, R., MacGregor, R., Towns, G., Hoopes, R., and Culligan, W. 2003. Fish-community goals and objectives for Lake Erie. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Publ. 03-01. 56p Stewart , T.J., Lange, R.E., Orsatti, S.D., Schneider, C.P., Mathers, A., and Daniels, M.E. 1999. Fish community objectives for Lake Ontario. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Special Publication 99-1.

12 Information about the Provincial Policy Statement is available at: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page215.aspx 13 See for example, the Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005, available online at: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@lueps/documents/document/289522.pdf 14 Ministry of Finance. 2001. A How-to Guide for Risk Management in the OPS.

15 Haeseker, S.L., Jones, M.L., Peterman, R.M., Bence, J.R., Dai, W.J., and Christie, G.C. 2007. Explicit consideration of uncertainty in Great Lakes fisheries management: decision analysis of Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) control in the St. Mary’s River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 64: 1456-1468.

16 Asian carp are a group of large and aggressive invaders that are widespread in the United States but not established in the Great Lakes. Ontario is working closely with neighbouring jurisdictions and the federal government to prevent the introduction of Asian carp into the Great Lakes and inland waters. MNR’s fact sheet on Asian carp is available at http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@biodiversity/documents/document/stdprod_088924.pdf. Information about bi-national Asian carp management strategies and associated use of risk assessment techniques is available at http://www.glc.org/announce/12/07risk.html. 17 See for example the Forest Management Guide for Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest Landscapes (Landscape Guide), available online at http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Forests/2ColumnSubPage/258507.html

OMNR. 2010a. Forest Management Guide for Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Forests. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 57 pp. OMNR. 2010b. Forest Management Guide for Conserving Biodiversity at the Stand and Site Scales. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 211 pp.

28

18 Hunter, M. L. 1990. Wildlife, Forests, and Forestry: Principles of Managing Forests for Biological Diversity. Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Haufler, J.B., et al. 1996. Using a coarse-filter approach with species assessment for ecosystem management. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 24:200-08.

19 See note 14.

20 Numerous papers in the literature speak to this point. See for example Rempel, R. S., J. Baker, G. Brown, J. Churcher, M. Gluck, B. Naylor. 2011. Guide Effectiveness Monitoring: Strategic Direction. Information Paper CNFER IP-006. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada; Bergeron, J. A. Colin, F. Guillaume Blanchet, John R. Spence, and W. Jan A. Volney. 2012. Ecosystem classification and inventory maps as surrogates for ground beetle assemblages in boreal forest. Journal of Plant Ecology 5(1): 97-108; Caro, T. 2010. Conservation by Proxy: Indicator, Umbrella, Keystone, Flagship, and Other Surrogate Species. Island Press, Washington D.C.; Andleman, A. J. and W. F. Fagan. 2000. Umbrellas and flagships: Efficient Conservation Surrogates or Expensive Mistakes? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97:11, 5954-5959.

21 Lester N.P., T.R. Marshall, K. Armstrong, W.I. Dunlop, and B. Ritchie. 2003. A broad-scale approach to management of Ontario’s recreational fisheries. N. Am. J. Fish. Mngt. 23:1312–1328.

22 For more information on Land Information Ontario please see: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LIO/index.html

23 Hunt, Len M., Rob Kushneriuk and Nigel Lester. 2007. Linking agent-based and choice models to study outdoor recreation behaviours: a case of the Landscape Fisheries Model. For. Snow Landsc. Res. 81, 1/2: 163–174 (2007) 163. Available online at http://www.issw.ch/dienstleistungen/publikationen/pdf/8190.pdf

Hunt, Len M., Robert Arlinghaus, Nigel Lester, and Rob Kushneriuk. 2011. The effects of regional angling effort, angler behavior, and harvesting efficiency on landscape patterns of overfishing. Ecological Applications 21:2555–2575.

24 Elkie, P., A. Smiegielski, M. Gluck, J. Elliott, R. Rempel, R. Kushneriuk, B. Naylor, J. Bowman, B. Pond, Derek Hatfield and Sean Heringer. 2009. Ontario’s Landscape Tool. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Forest Policy Section. Sault Ste. Marie Ontario.