Co-sponsors:

&

Contents:

1. Introduction
2. Agenda and links to Power Point Presentations
3. Summaries of Breakout Sessions
4. Results of Participant Survey
5. Executive Summary and Recommendations from the OHI

Follow the links or see the PDF of the Executive Summary and Recommendations

 

1. Introduction

Integrated Watershed Management in Ontario was developed to expand the discussion amongst multiple stakeholders following a two-day symposium held in 2009 called IWM: Navigating Ontario’s Future.

The 2009 event, coordinated by Conservation Ontario, brought together practitioners from across Ontario to hear leaders on IWM from Canada, the US, Europe, and Australia, with all the presentations available at www.iwmsymposium.ca.

Following the 2009 event, and recognizing Ontario’s enviable legacy of leadership in watershed management, the 2010 Symposium posed the following question:

“As increasing population and development pressures converge with a changing climate, emerging sophistication in the natural sciences, and the need for increased agency collaboration, is Integrated Watershed Management a next logical step for Ontario?”

Ninety-six people gathered to discuss this question, which featured a welcome from Ontario Minister of Natural Resources Linda Jeffery, four key-note speakers, a five-person panel of experts, and significant time for Q&A, breakout group discussions, and a closing plenary.

Participants from key sectors included:

• 31 people from 16 conservation authorities and Conservation Ontario;
• 24 people from 21 community organizations
• 21 from 5 provincial ministries and the office of the Environmental Commissioner;
• 12 people from 7 universities; and
• 8 people from other organizations including First Nations, business, a federal agency, and a municipality.

 

2. Agenda and links to Power Point Presentations

Introduction and Welcome

• Welcome and Introduction to the Day
Andrew McCammon, Ontario Headwaters Institute

• Greetings
Linda Jeffrey, Minister of Natural Resources

Current Conditions

• Collaboration on the Provincial Water Agenda
Jennifer Keyes, Manager, Great Lakes and Water Policy
Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources

• Observations on Ontario’s Culture of Watershed Management
Don Pearson, General Manager, Conservation Ontario

Questions and comments included: The challenge between run-of-river power generation under the Green Energy Act and other regulatory initiatives or obstacles; the need to protect biodiversity and embrace both the precautionary principle and Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge; the importance of the review of the Provincial Policy Statement as a means of ensuring greater watershed protection; the need for expanding conservation authorities and/or ensuring adequate watershed protection in areas where there are no CAs; opportunities and challenges for First Nations with respect to sovereign territory vis-à-vis collaborative, provincial approaches; the benefit of community-led stewardship initiatives and (non-CA) watershed report cards.

Key Challenges

• Climate: Are Changes to the Hydrologic Cycle the Key Driver for IWM?
Dr Isobel Heathcote – Principal, Wyndham Research Inc, author of Integrated Watershed Management, and former professor of Environmental Science and Environmental Engineering, University of Guelph

• Managing the Great Lakes and their Contributing Watersheds
Rick Findlay – Consultant and Vice-chair, Canadian Water Network. Past positions include: Director, Water Program, Pollution Probe; Chief, Climate Change team at Environment Canada; and Director, Ontario Round Table on the Environment and Economy

Questions and comments included: The need for greater collaboration based on the challenge climate change poses to our watersheds; that a regional framework for the Great Lakes Basin should also have a global context for both GHG reduction and IWM; an observation that farm-based stewardship is being partially undermined by the intrusion of access roads, towers, and hydro lines on agricultural land under the Green Energy Act; a question about how the proposed Water Opportunities Act might impact water management outside of major centres, particularly vis-à-vis run-of-river power generation; and how the speakers felt Great Lakes’ issues could be translated into community-driven goals for local watersheds.

Existing Strengths and Future Goals: Where are we on IWM, and where do we want to go? Thoughts from and Q&A with an Expert Panel

IWM, Canada, First Nations, and the CCME
Nancy Goucher, Program Coordinator, Forum for Leadership on Water

IWM, Conservation, and Pollution: Using a Cumulative Impacts Approach
Les Stanfield, Fisheries Habitat Specialist, MNR

IWM and Drinking Water Source Protection (No PPT Available)
Ian Smith, Director, Source Protection Programs Branch, Ministry of the Environment

IWM, Biodiversity, and Inland Waters
Jack Imhof, National Biologist, Trout Unlimited Canada

IWM, Conservation Authorities, and Sustainable Communities (No PPT Available)
Mike Walters, Director, Watershed Management, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority

 

3. Summaries of Breakout Sessions

3.1 Ontario’s Collaborative Culture

• Ontario has many positive experiences with collaboration on lands and waters, at many levels, with most being agency-to-agency, informal, and/or oriented to outreach at the on-set of issue discussion
• Less positive experiences noted include poor communication on the sharing of science data, agency power-sharing, and transparency and accountability
• Examples of new models of collaboration are emerging with respect to the Moraine Conservation Plan, Source Water Protection, and the Lake Simcoe Plan
• Extending this to other areas will require greater provincial leadership, multi-ministry participation/support, resources, and dialogue with non-agency stakeholders
• IWM can enhance collaboration if agency terms and roles are defined, there is greater engagement and more partnerships with all sectors, especially municipalities and community organizations

3.2 Is Climate Change the key driver for IWM?

• Participants noted that on-going uncertainties associated with CC impacts, such as the volume and timing of precipitation and watercourse temperature, will require an iterative process
• This process should include new approaches to science, access to data, governance, stakeholder involvement, and on-going reviews as things change
• Concern was expressed about the lack of effort / creativity in delivering the message and getting the public involved, with CC impacts and terms like resilience and adaptive management poorly understood
• One way to potentially improve public knowledge and link GHG emissions and CC to local impacts might be through higher profile for regular Source Water Protection and Watershed reports
• Participants agreed that IWM could be an invaluable tool in addressing CC in a localized framework, ensuring access to data, and engaging all sectors

3.3 Managing the Great Lakes and their Contributing Watersheds

• Participants praised Ontario’s leadership in developing watershed-based approaches and progress achieved through local expertise, actions, and some inter-agency cooperation, but cited concerns including significant short-falls in resources for science, the availability of data, implementation, governance, and greater inter-agency and municipal cooperation
• One term agreed upon was "the big disconnect" – for both the lack of an integrated approach for watersheds, wetlands, groundwater, the near-shore, and open water in the Lakes and the need for more science-driven policy development
• In contrast, it was also noted that the historic silo approach seems to be diminishing, citing new sustainability agreements (eg – the Lake Ontario Biodiversity Conservation Plan) and regional models (eg – the Rouge River Watershed Plan)
• Future actions envisioned included more science research, better understanding of coastal zones, monitoring the GL through watershed-by-watershed management objectives and targets, more support for RAPS and Public Advisory Committees,, better cooperation from municipalities, and extending source water protection to full watersheds
• The breakout reached a clear consensus on the need for basin and lake-level management, setting near-shore targets, and integrating the activities of support agencies in contributing watersheds

3.4 National Issues, First Nations, and the CCME

• Participants expressed strong desires for a high-profile Canadian water ethic, with an updated Federal Water Policy, progress on a national vision and standards through forums such as the CCME, and a recognition of the fiduciary responsibility of governments to protect water resources
• Support for First Nations included action on Indigenous rights, positioning with respect to federal / provincial jurisdiction, and funding. There was a general consensus that the lack of access to safe drinking water for many First Nations is an injustice that requires immediate action
• A lack of cross-jurisdictional accountability was a concern (eg - pollution from the Alberta Tar Sands impacting ecological and human health downstream, as far as the Arctic Ocean)
• It was noted that Canada used to be a world leader in water resource management; that the current downturn in federal performance may be tied to a lack of public engagement; and that effective management might benefit from improved processes
• IWM is clearly needed to sort out federal, provincial, and First Nations’ roles and responsibilities, national standards, and cooperation, but participants strongly noted a need for public involvement

3.5 Using a Cumulative Impacts Approach

Huge apologies: notes were lost in a personal move following the Symposium.
Any contributions from participants would be appreciated and this section might eventually be updated

3.6 IWM, Biodiversity, and Inland Waters

• Big issues include linking the a-biotic to the biotic and identifying key aspects of regional ecosystems, as we cannot protect everything
• IWM can play a role but must embrace terrestrial habitat and be applied more broadly when land-use planning crosses multiple watersheds
• All sectors of society need to become more engaged as government cannot do it all. Education and cooperation are a key to future success. Schools can involve neighbourhoods; landowners and businesses need to adopt BMPs; developers and practitioners can design more sustainable projects
• Protection, conservation, and restoration must be embraced, and decision-makers need to loosen the pursue-strings
• While the first two cost less in the long run, restoration is urgently needed in some situations because we haven’t done a good job on the first two

3.7 IWM and Drinking Water Source Protection

• Current efforts under the Clean Water Act provide a logical bridge to IWM or similar types of more comprehensive watershed management
• The development of increased local expertise under the CWA should translate well into IWM or similar approaches
• Climate change and population growth are two key aspects that should be integral to the development of additional SWP/watershed planning initiative
• Key challenges for the future include:
  • The inherent difficulty of mixing the mandatory approach of the CWA with the aspirational goals of an IWM-type program
  • Sorting out agency roles - ie: leading versus sharing power, and
  • Better commitment/adherence from municipalities on watershed management

3.8 IWM, Conservation Authorities, and Sustainable Communities

• The natural heritage aspects of documents such as the Provincial Policy Statement, the ORMCA, and the Greenbelt Act are varied, have loopholes on natural heritage protection, and tend to favour development over ecological sustainability
• Watershed planning, low impact development, and green development standards must be enshrined in the municipal planning process
• Sustainable communities must include sustainable agriculture
• The OMB should be abolished or transformed into a driver of sustainable communities
• CAs need a stronger mandate, more funding, and a different relationship with their municipal members. Collaborative work under the Lake Simcoe Protection Act may serve as a model
• Communications and public education are key. CAs offer a great model of public engagement on stewardship that could be expanded to embrace a broader commitment to regional sustainability
• The current mandate of CAs to address valley corridors needs to be extended or replicated in another agency in a full IWM framework in order to address lands beyond the top of bank and encourage development that is sustainable
  

4. Results of Participant Survey

Evaluations were based on the following scale:

Disagree	Acceptable	Excellent
1  2  3	4  5  6	7  8  9

# of Responses

Ave Score

The facility was easy to find and suitable to the event.	26	7.3
The MNR presentations provided an informative description of Ontario’s collaborative approach on the province’s water agenda.	24	6.5
Conservation Ontario’s presentation provided an informative description of Ontario’s culture of watershed management.	24	7.5
There was enough time for Q & A for these two speakers.	24	7.4
The keynote presentation from Isobel Heathcote provided insight into a key reason Ontario should embrace Integrated Watershed Management.	28	8.1
The keynote presentation from Rick Findlay described the benefits of applying IWM to the Great Lakes and its watersheds.	28	7.1
There was enough time for Q & A for these two speakers.	25	7.1
The Expert Panel provided helpful insights into where we are on IWM and where we need to go.	27	7.1
There was enough time for Q & A with the Expert Panel.	26	7.1
The breakout session was a valuable opportunity to discuss my core interest in IWM amongst people with similar interests.	27	6.8
Reports Back and Discussion provided a broad perspective on common themes discussed across the breakout groups and throughout the day.	22	6.7

Selected Comments

“Some time should have been devoted to updating the audience on the results of the symposium held last year”

“Some talk sounded like political speeches. I would have liked to get to the gaps”

Re Isobel Heathcote: “Excellent, organized, informal”

RE: Rick Findlay: “Nice to hear a presentation with a vision”

“Good variety on the expert panel”

Comments on the breakout session mentioned an overlap between the expert panel and the breakouts; unfamiliarity with the breakout topic and the need for a handout on the topic; and more time for the breakouts

Comments on the plenary included an appreciation for the short breakout summaries; that most comments were too high level without having identified gaps in current IWM practices; and that Ontario should consider identifying 3 top IWM strategies to implement.

 

5. Executive Summary and Recommendations from the OHI

Executive Summary

Key messages heard during the Symposium included:

• From Jennifer Keyes, that MNR addresses complex, basin-wide responsibilities, sometimes involving federal and US agencies, in a manner that can only be described as one of high-level policy integration. The list of programs described was almost over-whelming, extending from the Great Lakes St Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Waters Agreement and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement through LAMPs, RAPs, and COA, to Source Protection, Species at Risk, and Biodiversity initiatives;

• From Don Pearson, that Ontario’s conservation authorities have been in the forefront of developing a watershed-based approach that addresses both land and water-related resources; that CAs are using IWM and/or Adaptive Environmental Management to set priorities, secure budgets, and influence municipal and provincial decision makers; and that an evaluation of current science and policy gaps indicates that there are strong rationales to pursue IWM in Ontario;
  

Don Pearson also brought hot-off-the press copies of an IWM Summary Report from Conservation Ontario. This document distils findings from three efforts pursued in conjunction with CO’s 2009 symposium on IWM: Integrated Watershed Management in Ontario; A Water Management Framework for Ontario; and A Water Budget Overview for Ontario. All four documents are available at: http://www.conservationontario.on.ca /watershed_management/integrated_watershed_management.html

• From Isobel Heathcote, about the uncertainties that a changing climate will bring to Ontario and how IWM offers an opportunity to: expand the current focus on drinking water to include water allocation, recreation, navigation, and ecological goods and services; pool agency, academic, and community resources and through those partnerships begin to address chronic shortages of field data, and; develop more nimble decision-making that will be multi-disciplinary, inclusive, and consultative;

• From Rick Findlay, that the Great Lakes and Saint Lawrence River Basin is a unique ecological, social, economic, and cultural community; that it suffers from significant environmental challenges but represents significant economic strength rivaling that of many nations. It has benefitted from many bi-national, national and provincial and state-level initiatives but that we need to manage the full region with a fresh, regional, integrated, watershed-based approach based on social, environmental, and economic stewardship, and; that one way to perhaps advance a sustainable vision would be to consider the region a bi-national park, and manage it accordingly;

• From the Expert Panel and the breakout sessions, that;
  • Canada would benefit from a new national water policy and/or actions through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment focused on watershed management, conservation, better management of water quantity and quality issues, and climate change
  • The state of water for First Nations must be addressed, with increased ability for First Nations to be decision-makers and not just stakeholders
  • That Ontario needs to do better on cumulative water data management, regardless of the debate about whether we have enough data, the data is in too many varied formats and places, or if the data is just not being made publicly available in a timely manner
  • Current Drinking Water initiatives under the Clean Water Act are widely respected, especially vis-à-vis Source Water Protection, but need to be expanded into broader and more integrated watershed planning initiatives
  • The long-term protection of Ontario’s biodiversity cannot be relegated solely to parks and preserves. It requires new tools, an integrated vision, and the integration of both science disciplines and governance processes. Whether we call this IWM or adaptive management, it will require data, data, and data, especially as the climate changes;
  • Key implementation measures to protect watersheds and Ontario’s biodiversity may include shifting from a regulatory approach to enabling legislation with both policy and technical guidelines as well as desired outcomes, and
  • The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, with their respective requirements to protect areas in natural heritage and involve a new degree of provincial/municipal/conservation authority cooperation on water quantity and quality, may represent the closest approach Ontario has taken toward embracing integrated watershed management; and,

• From general questions and comments throughout the day, many attendees noted:
• Some disconnect between aspects of the province’s water policy agenda and funding for science, data, implementation, monitoring, and engagement. Examples cited included:
  • Conflicts between the protection of areas in natural heritage, agriculture, and even in watercourses against provisions in the Green Energy Act
  • Conflicts between Permits to Take Water and de-watering permits against water allocations, water for ecological goods and services, and lower water levels “elsewhere”, and
  • The impatience of small communities to obtain the benefits of the Clean water Act
• That Canada and Ontario must improve its engagement with and funding support to First Nations with respect to water
• That sustainable communities include sustainable agriculture
• That CAs need a stronger mandate, more funding, and a different relationship with their municipal members, and,
• That perhaps the OMB finally, really ought to be re-vamped, replaced, and/or augmented with an entity with a mandate to drive the development of sustainable planning.

Recommendations from the OHI

Beyond the confines of May 11, the Symposium marked an interesting step in Ontario’s dialogue on IWM. The context for that includes:

• Tangible work being done in MNR, MOE, and various CAs to support emerging deliverables for the Clean Water Act, such as Water Budgets and the mapping of significant groundwater recharge areas, to fix deficiencies in the Low Water Response initiative, and to address problems under Permits to Take Water
• The continued leadership of Conservation Ontario on IWM and the on-going innovation in progressive CAs on IWM, adaptive management, natural heritage systems, low impact development, sustainable buildings, etc
• Ontario’s signature on the October 29, 2009 Canada-wide Vision for Water, from the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, and,
• Discussions on IWM in a committee of Ontario’s Water Directors.

Given this context, broad discussion on IWM appears to be just gelling.

For example, while there were few questions asked of presenters at Conservation Ontario’s 2009 symposium, the OHI heard vociferous concerns about the need for IWM during our seven workshops held from Elora to Peterborough in the spring of 2010. This included comments also heard on May 11 on the need for more data, better inter-agency cooperation, a stronger role for CAs in regional planning, meaningful opportunities for public consultation, and deep concerns about the Provincial Policy Statement, the need to better protect agriculture, the leeway given aggregate extraction, and the role of the Ontario Municipal Board.

May’s OHI Symposium presented a nice compromise between the two, and perhaps points to a simple reality: Ontario appears to have solid Director-level integration for policy management, including budget allocations, but also appears to be experiencing problems in science funding, data management and accessibility, program implementation, monitoring, and governance.

So, does Ontario need “capital P” IWM Policy commitment, or “small p” IWM program implementation?

Here are our recommendations.

1. On the policy front, Ontario should ensure significant discussion on IWM, involving the appropriate provincial ministries, Conservation Ontario, municipalities, interested organizations, academia, and the public. The discussions should be launched in the fall of 2010, coinciding with associated efforts on the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the Clean Water Act, the review of the Provincial Policy Statement, and the expected release of the CCME’s business plan for the Canada-wide Vision for Water, and;
   
2. On the program front, MNR, MOE, and Conservation Ontario should conduct a gap analysis of current implementation deficiencies in Ontario’s framework for watershed management, also with input municipalities, interested organizations, academia, and the public.

Pursuit of these recommendations should assist Ontario in determining if, how, and where IWM might help improve the delivery of the province’s commitment to hydrologic integrity, watershed management, and the maintenance of the ecological goods and services upon which our social well-being rests.

In conclusion, the OHI perceives that the implementation of Integrated Watershed Management, or elements of it, could result in significant improvements to Ontario’s management of this precious resource, move the province further along in its culture of conservation and stewardship, and increase civic engagement in water governance and social accountability.

We thank all the supporters, speakers, and participants in the 2010 symposium and urge all Ontarians to pursue the dialogue on the best ways to ensure that we manage our water for a sustainable future.