FINAL Nathan Adams - Technical Policy Analysis

Nathan Adams | Student Number 1003599144 | Technical Policy Analysis

1

The Role of Incentive-Based Mechanisms for Conservation Efforts in Ontario

Introduction

Environmental policy and regulation in Canada are fundamentally composed of three

different regimes presented below (Field and Olewiler, 2011). Ranked in order of

increasing opportunity for conservation success, incentive-based policy (also referred

to as ‘market-based regulation’) promotes the most innovative practices to conserve

the environment (Field and Olewiler, 2011):

i) Suggested Guidelines

! Voluntary approach to reduce environmental impact

ii) Command-and-Control

! Use of coercion by enforcing penalties for non-compliance

iii) Incentive-based Policy (Market-Based Instruments)

! Use of the market to influence behavior

The rationale behind this incentive based policy is that if the benefits offset costs,

private landowners will be more inclined to conserve, sustainably use and manage

environmental resources as stewards (Armsworth et al., 2016). As a result, economic

incentives are used to assist landowners in maintaining and enhancing biodiversity

values on privately owned land (Ontario Biodiversity Council, 2015). Nevertheless,

the command-and-control approach in Canadian environmental policy is significantly

more prevalent than the use of incentive-based policy (Field and Olewiler, 2011).


2

Acts have the highest resources for enforcement and severity of legal consequences

for non-compliance, in comparison to plans, strategies, agreements, conventions and

regulations. Additionally, the conservation of private land through financial

incentives is critical to support the protection of vital ecosystems through stewardship

(Farmer et al., 2016). Nevertheless, the Species at Risk Act (last amended on May

15, 2015) only makes reference to the use of incentives to provide legal protection to

species at risk only once in Chapter 10 (Stewardship Action Plan) (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Excerpt from the Species of Risk Act mentioning the use of incentives to support stewardship actions for conservation efforts.

Source: Minister of Justice (2015) Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c.29)


3

The following market-based instruments are predominantly implemented to achieve

conservation success in Ontario:

" Biodiversity Offsetting

! Compensation for the damage resulting from development projects through offset providers to restore, create and manage habitats for species elsewhere (Ontario Nature, 2016)

" Conservation Easements

a) Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program

! Provides 100% property tax exemption for land that has important natural heritage features (Government of Ontario 2010; Government of Ontario, 2016a)

b) Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program

! Landowners who classify their property as ‘Managed Forest’ pay only 25% of the municipal tax rate set for residential properties (Government of Ontario, 2016b)

" Habitat Stewardship for Species at Risk

! Offers $12.2 million a year to projects that conserve and protect species at risk and their habitat. Administered by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change and managed cooperatively with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Parks Canada Agency. (Government of Ontario, 2016c)

" Natural Areas Conservation Program

! Accelerates the rate of private land conservation through funding from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (Nature Conservancy Canada, 2016)


4

Policy Analysis Report: Objectives

The aim of this technical policy analysis is to qualitatively determine whether or not

the national strategy (Species at Risk Act) has successfully instigated the

aforementioned incentive-based approaches for conservation efforts through land

stewardship in Ontario.

The objectives of this policy analysis report are:

c) To qualitatively assess whether the use of incentive-based approaches toward

conserving biodiversity in Ontario has been effective.

d) To discuss the extent at which market-based incentives are utilized for

conservation efforts in Ontario.

Methods

A literature review was conducted in order to quantify the effectiveness of the use of

market-based instruments in Ontario’s conservation efforts.

The following search words were used in multiple search engines including:

Google Scholar

University of Toronto Library Database

Science Direct

*Canada, *market-based instruments, *conservation, *policy, *incentive, *land stewardship act, *species at risk act, *Ontario, as well as variations of the words and combinations of the words.


5

The area of land and number of participants/projects subscribed to the aforementioned

incentive-based conservation programs was collected in order to qualitatively assess

the effectiveness of Ontario’s land stewardship conservation efforts. The change in

the amount of land area and number of participants/projects between 2002-2015 was

also documented in order to assess the extent to which market-based mechanisms are

employed for conservation efforts in Ontario. Government and technical reports in

addition to peer-reviewed literature were examined to juxtapose data showing the

extent to which different incentive programs are used in Ontario.

Data from the following documents were summarized to qualitatively assess the

effectiveness of different market-based instruments employed to conserve

biodiversity through land stewardship in Ontario:

Conservation Response – The State of Ontario’s Biodiversity (Ontario Biodiversity

Council, 2015)

This report depicts the proportion of private lands in Ontario that are managed for

biodiversity under the Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program (2002-2013) and

Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program (2002-2013). It ascertains that substantial

progress has been made towards increasing the amount of lands with stewardship and

lands acquired for conservation through conservation easements.


6

Biodiversity Offsetting in Ontario: Issues, accomplishments and future directions.

Summary of Ontario Nature’s 2014-2016 Project (Ontario Nature, 2016)

This report describes transactions between development proponents and offset

providers by means of market-based mechanisms in Ontario between July 2014 and

June 2016. It provides case studies of offsetting in Ontario and offers policy

recommendations.

Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk (Environment and Climate

Change Canada, 2016)

This report describes how the Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk (HSP)

funding is provided to protect species at risk through land stewardship at the national

level. Since 2000, funding equivalent to approximately $12.2 million a year were

supplied to the following six regions: Pacific, Prairie, Northern, Ontario, Quebec and

Atlantic. The HSP is designed to help implement the Species at Risk Act.

Natural Areas Conservation Program: Eighth Annual Progress Report (Nature

Conservancy Canada – Government of Canada, 2015)

This report describes the responsibility of the Nature Conservancy Canada to allocate

$245 million from the Government of Canada to significantly increase the amount of

land conservation, as well as the rate at which results are achieved across Canada.


7

Results:

Conservation Easements

Between 2002 and 2013, the area of property participating in the Managed Forest Tax

Incentive Program (MFTIP) decreased from 700,000 ha to 650,000 ha whilst the

number of properties enrolled in the MFTIP increased from 10,000 to 15,000 (Figure

2). There was a decrease of approximately 178,000 ha of property due to the sale of

large pieces of lands to American owners who are ineligible to participate in the

program (Ontario Biodiversity Council, 2015a).

Figure 2. Land area and participation in the Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program 2002-2013

Source: Ontario Biodiversity Council (2015a)

Between 2002 and 2013, the area of property participating in the Conservation Land

Tax Incentive Program (CLTIP) increased from 200,000 ha to 250,000 ha whilst the

number of properties enrolled in the CLTIP increased from 14,000 to 18,000 (Ontario

Biodiversity Council, 2015a) (Figure 3).


8

Figure 3. Land area and participation in the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program 2002-2013

Source: Ontario Biodiversity Council (2015)

Biodiversity Offsetting

The ‘Biodiversity Offsetting in Ontario: Issues, accomplishments and future

directions – Summary of Ontario Nature’s 2014-2017 Project’ (Ontario Nature, 2016)

report provides three case studies of biodiversity offsetting in Ontario.

Case Study 1: Couchiching Conservancy and the Kingston Solar Project

Summary: The land trust ‘Couchiching Conservancy’ initiated a project to offset the

loss of 154 ha of habitat for two grassland birds at risk (bobolink and eastern

meadowlark) due to the construction of a 100-megawatt solar project by Samsung

Renewable Energy. The solar project covers 324 ha, however, only 154 ha were

requested to be offset by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.


9

Case Study 2: North Oakville

Summary: Approximately 3,000 ha of land were developed in North Oakville in

order to home over 55,000 residents. From this area, 4.1 ha of boblink (grassland bird

at risk) habitat were identified to be destroyed and were offset by restoring 5.1 ha of

the Natural Heritage System expanse in North Oakville.

Case Study 3: Nature Conservancy of Canada and Ontario Power Generation (OPG)

Construction activities at the OPG Darlington Nuclear Generating Station site resulted

in the loss of 6.0 ha of eastern meadowlark habitat (grassland bird at risk). In order to

offset the resulting habitat loss, 25.0 ha of grassland habitat were restored in

Northumberland County by the Nature Conservancy of Canada.

The data collected from the abovementioned case studies are compiled in Table 1.

Assessing the effectiveness and the extent at which biodiversity offsets are used to

reach conservation goals in Ontario was not possible due to the deficiency of data

available.


10

Table 1. Analyses of data provided by the Ontario Nature (2016)

Natural Areas Conservation Program (NACP)

In the 2014-2015 period, the NACP conserved approximately 393,200 ha, providing

habitat for 194 COSEWIC-assessed species at risk (Table 2) (Nature Conservancy

Canada, 2015).

Area of habitat

lost to project

(ha)

Area of habitat

offset elsewhere

(ha)

Difference in destroyed

habitat and offset habitat

area (ha)

Percentage change

in habitat area

Case

Study 1

154 154 0 0

Case

Study 2

4.1 5.1 1.0 24.39

Case

Study 3

6.0 25.0 19.0 316.67

Total 164.1 184.1 20.0 12.19


11

Table 2. Cumulative Change in sightings of COSEWIC-Assessed Species at Risk by Species Type (2007-2015) on Nature Conservancy Canada properties secured under the NACP

Source: Nature Conservancy of Canada, 2015

Furthermore, the aforementioned 393,200 ha conserved land (Table 3 and Figure 6)

are reported by the Nature Conservancy Canada (2015) to be ‘ecologically significant

conservation lands’

Table 3. Cumulative Summary of Securement Achievements against Objectives (2007-2015) of the NACP

Source: Nature Conservancy of Canada, 2015


12

Discussion:

Figure 1 portrays that there is no direct use of economic incentives for biodiversity

conservation and environmental improvement through the SARA at the federal level

(Field and Olewiler, 2011). This is a characteristic of a bureaucratic federal

government, acting as an inhibitor to the introduction of incentive-based policies for

conservation and environmental protection (Field and Olewiler, 2011). In response to

this, Shogren et al. (1999) stress two reasons why market-based instruments are

crucial for successful conservation efforts:

• Human behavior and economic parameters help determine the degree of risk

to a species

• Economic incentives are crucial in changing human behavior, and

consequently the recovery of species.

Conservation Easements

Due to the fact that several of Ontario’s significant natural areas are situated on

private property, the need for private landowner incentives through conservation

easements has been recognized as integral for biodiversity conservation (Ontario

Biodiversity Council, 2015). The use of market-based mechanisms provides

economic incentive for landowners to actively preserve and enhance biodiversity

values on private property (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2016; Ontario

Biodiversity Council, 2015).

The Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program (MFTIP) and the Conservation Land Tax

Incentive Program (CLTIP) are tax incentive programs facilitated by the Ministry of

Natural Resources and Forestry. The MFTIP is designed to increase landowner


13

awareness about forest stewardship whilst offering a 25% property tax reduction of

the local residential tax rate (McKay, 2014; Ministry of Natural Resources, 2012).

Moreover (with stricter criteria), the CLTIP is designed to offer a 100% property tax

exemption on lands identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry as

‘Conservation Lands’ in exchange for long-term commitment to land stewardship

(Ministry of Natural Resources, 2010). Both programs are conservation easements

that provide incentive to owners of private land depending on the following criteria

(McKay, 2014; Ontario Biodiversity Council, 2015):

• Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program

! Portions of private land are assigned to the ‘Managed Forest property’

class and only taxed at 25% of the local residential tax rate

! Landowners are required to own at least 4 hectares of forested land to be

eligible

! 5-year progress reports and multi-year forest management plans are

required

! Objectives must be to protect the environment or wildlife habitats

• Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program

! Allows for 100% property tax relief on private land identified by the

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry as ‘Conservation Lands’

! Landowners are required to own at least 0.2 hectares of ‘Conservation

Land’ to be eligible

! A new application is required to be produced annually


14

Collectively, these programs provide tax-based incentives to support the long-term

private stewardship of biodiversity in Ontario (Armsworth et al., 2012; Ontario

Biodiversity Council, 2015).

As a requirement of Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy, the Ontario Biodiversity Council

is responsible for reporting on the state of Ontario’s biodiversity every five years. In

this report, progress regarding achieving Ontario’s fifteen biodiversity targets is

described. The proportion of private land in Ontario that is managed by means of the

CLTIP and MFTIP is used as an indicator for Target 11, which aims to enhance

Ontario’s biodiversity resilience (Ontario Biodiversity Council, 2015). More

specifically, Target 11 reads:

‘’By 2015, the proportion of private lands in Ontario that are managed for

biodiversity is increased’’ (Ontario Biodiversity Council, p. 3, 2015).

The same report ascertains that substantial progress has been achieved with regards to

Target 11 (Figure 4):

Figure 4. Targets 10-14 of Ontario’s Biodiversity Conservation Efforts 2010-2015

Source: Ontario Biodiversity Council. (2015).


15

Whilst the number of applicants participating in CLTIPs and MFTIPs has increased,

the total area of land conserved under the CLTIP has increased and the total area of

land conserved under the MFTIP has decreased (Figure 5) (Ontario Biodiversity

Council, 2015).

Figure 5. Indicators, Related Targets, Status and Trends of Ontario’s Biodiversity Conservation Efforts 2010-

2015

Source: Ontario Biodiversity Council, 2015

On closer inspection of the data provided by the Ontario Biodiversity Council (2015),

it is evident that although the percentage of properties enrolled in both programs has

increased between 2002 and 2013 by 37.50%, the total area enrolled in the program

plateaued at 900,000 ha throughout the 11-year term (Table 4). Although the amount

of private land area enrolled in under the CLTIP increased by 25.00%, the decrease of

7.14% of MFTIP enrolled private land area counterweighed it. This is because the

minimum area requirement to classify under the CLTIP (0.2 ha) is considerably

smaller than that of the MFTIP (4 ha).


16

Area

enrolled in

2013 (ha)

Number of

properties

enrolled in 2013

Percentage change

in enrolled area

since 2002

Percentage change in

number of properties

enrolled since 2002

MFTIP 650,000 15,000 -7.14 +50.00

CLTIP 250,000 18,000 +25.00 +28.57

Total 900,000 33,000 0.00 +37.50

Table 4. Analyses of data provided by the Ontario Biodiversity Council (2015)

Biodiversity Offsetting

Considerable quantitates of data were not readily available to make a qualitative

assessment on whether biodiversity offsetting has effectively facilitated conservation

efforts in Ontario. However, the case studies referred to insinuate that there are

attempts to reflect the value of ecosystem services in Ontario’s market processes for

biodiversity conservation. These attempts show that there are, in fact, policy

responses set in place to offset the loss in ecosystem services and habitats by an

equivalent or increased gain in other regions. The case studies also portray that

Ontarian landowners have payment incentives to participate in offsets by ‘’creating’’

ecosystems to compensate for impacted ones through development projects (Noga

and Adamowicz, 2014).

Whilst controversial, biodiversity offsetting is a market-based mechanism that is

gaining momentum to incentivize conservation in Ontario (Ontario Nature, 2016).

Controversy arises due to development proponents compensating for negative impacts

on the property of landowners (and its associated biodiversity) by creating, restoring


17

or enhancing biodiversity elsewhere (Ontario Nature, 2016). Essentially, this

mechanism accepts environmental harm on the condition that it is counterbalanced

elsewhere (Habib, Farr, Schneider and Boutin, 2013).

The inherent trade-off in biodiversity offsetting is accepting certain losses for

uncertain gains (Ontario Nature, 2016). Although the aforementioned case studies

resulted in a 12.19% increase in grassland bird at risk habitat in compensation for the

loss of 164.1 ha of grassland bird at risk habitat elsewhere, there is yet solid proof of

conservation benefits (Ontario Nature, 2016).

Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk

The HSP is a funding program that addresses the recovery of species at risk that are

listed on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA). Circa $12.2 million of

federal funds are annually distributed by Environment and Climate Change Canada

(cooperatively with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Parks Canada Agency) to

private lands, provincial Crown lands and Indigenous lands (Environment and

Climate Change Canada, 2016). The HSP objectives are (Austen, 2012):

1. To secure important habitats and to protect species

2. Mitigate threats to species caused by human activities

3. Support the implementation of priority activities in recovery strategies or

action plans

The HSP supports both the recovery of species at risk and their associated habitats

(Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2016). This is done through partnerships


18

between non-governmental organizations, private landowners and the

federal/provincial government by means of the provision of scientific information,

technical assistance and economic incentives to conserve biodiversity on private land

(Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2016).

Since 2000, over $151.5 million have been contributed to protect approximately 2400

local species at risk conservation projects, compensating for 200,00 ha across Ontario,

British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland (Environment and Climate

Change Canada, 2016). In 2009, the HSP funded 118 projects (Langrish, 2009) and

now presently funds 125 projects in Ontario (Government of Ontario, 2016d). Data

specific to the land area covered by the HSP in Ontario could not be obtained.

Natural Areas Conservation Program

The NACP is a partnership between the Nature Conservancy of Canada, Ducks

Unlimited Canada and other Qualified Organizations that aims to significantly

increase the amount of conserved land in Canada (Nature Conservancy Canada,

2015). The NACP partnership achieves this through an incentive-based approach by

means of federal funding through Environment and Climate Change Canada (Nature

Conservancy Canada, 2015). Nature Conservancy Canada competes on the open

market against other buyers to purchase land that is of conservation value (Nature

Conservancy Canada, 2015) (Figures 6-8).


19

Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8.

Figure 6. NACP Areas Facilitated by Nature Conservancy of Canada in Ontario 2015

Figure 7. NACP Areas Facilitated by Ducks Unlimited Canada in Ontario 2015

Figure 8. NACP Areas Facilitated by Other Qualified Organizations in Ontario 2015

Source: Nature Conservancy of Canada. (2015).

Moreover, the total area of conserved land increased by 340.94% from the year 2007

(89,178 ha) to 2015 (393,224 ha) (Figure 9). The NACP presently possesses 393,224

ha of ecologically significant land that is managed for conservation purposes

throughout Canada. The NACP presently accounts for 23,377 ha of conserved land in

Ontario (Nature Conservancy, 2015)


20

Figure 9. Area of Land Conserved (ha) through the NACP nation-wide between 2007-2015

Results Accumulation

Collectively, conservation easements and private land enrolled in the NACP

compensate for approximately 923377 ha of land in Ontario (Table 5). Furthermore,

there is presently a total of approximately 33,125 conservation easement and HSP

projects collectively in Ontario (Table 5).

Total area (ha) in

Ontario

Number of Projects in

Ontario

Conservation Easements 900,000 33,000

Biodiversity Offsetting Data Deficient Data Deficient

HSP Data Deficient 125

NACP 23,377 Data Deficient

Table 5. Comparative analysis of the area of land and number of projects that fall within the remit of different incentive-based approaches to conservation efforts in Ontario


21

Trends in the increased utilization of different market-mechanisms to encourage

conservation efforts in Ontario were identified in the government reports analyzed

(Table 6).

Becoming more prevalent

in Ontario

Comments

Conservation

Easements ✔

Data shows increase in total

MFTIP/CLTIP applications

(Table 4)

Biodiversity

Offsetting Data Deficient

Only three case studies

(Table 1)

HSP

✔

Number of projects increased between

2009-2016

(Discussion)

NACP

✔

Area of conserved land continuously

increasing

(Figure 9)

Table 6. Qualitative analysis of the prevalence of the discussed market-mechanisms for conservation efforts in Ontario


22

The use of incentive-based instruments in the SARA is restricted because the services

of biodiversity conservation and environmental protection valued by society do not

presently rigidly exist within widespread economic markets (Gibbons et al., 2011).

However, the results indicate that there is increasing recognition that further

investment in economic mechanisms is required to ensure that continuing supply of

ecosystem services through biodiversity conservation is maintained.

Limitations:

The limitations of the different market-mechanisms previously discussed involve the

difficulty in the integration of economics and ecology. Additionally, the currently

imposed laws of the economic market are presently incapable of recognizing the

value of maintaining biodiversity (especially in the case of biodiversity offsetting)

(Bourdages, 1996; Noga and Adamowicz, 2014). Moreover, difficulty presently lies

in conducting cost-benefit analysis for the financial gain of species conservation

through tax incentives (Bourgades, 1996; Noga and Adamowicz, 2014). Although

gaining popularity (Figure 4), biodiversity maintenance presently exists outside of

widespread economic markets (Gibbons, Nicholson, Milner-Gulland and Jones,

2011).

Furthermore, there great deal of limitation in the amplification of use of market-based

mechanisms in conservation policy is two-fold. This is because of both bureaucracy

and issues in the design of payments for ecosystem services to encourage landowners

to conserve biodiversity (Gibbons et al., 2011).


23

A supplementary limitation of the use of market-mechanisms to promote conservation

efforts in Canada is the fact that the SARA is generally a command and control

framework that does not generally provide market-based incentives for conservation

(Bourgades, 1996). Although the SARA open-endedly encourages the use of

incentive-based policy for conservation efforts, the SARA chiefly provides for

penalties to punish offenders rather than proposing directions on how to encourage

landowners to protect species at risk (Bourdages, 1996).

Conclusions:

The first research question of this technical policy analysis is addressed in part by

Table 5. Data from government reports on the use of different incentive-based

approaches to conservation efforts in Ontario were juxtaposed to provide an image on

whether or not they have been effective.

Concurrently, Table 6 partially addresses the second research question of this

technical policy analysis. It is evident that conservation easements, HSPs and NACPs

are becoming more frequently used in the province of Ontario.

The creation of markets in public environmental goods for biodiversity conservation

can be an efficient and equitable method of maintaining natural environments.

Significant progress has been made on this issue (Figure 4) and market-based

instruments offer opportunities for increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of

conservation efforts. However, there has been little formal exploration of the use of

incentive-based policy in Ontario. This is because there are significant scientific,

financial and policy-related challenges that need to be addressed before reaching the

full potential of market-based instruments to conserve Ontario’s biodiversity

(Gibbons et al., 2011; Noga and Adamowicz, 2014).


24

References:

Armsworth, P.R., Acs, S., Dallimer, M., Gaston, K.J., Hanley, N., & Wilson, P. (2012). The cost of policy simplification in conservation incentive programs. Ecology Letters, 15(5), p. 406-414. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01747.x

Austen, M. (2012). Species at Risk in Ontario: A Dynamic and Evolving Approach to Species Recovery. Retrieved from http://www.nfwcc.com/presentations/presentations/89_Madeline_Austen.pdf

Bourdages, J. (1996). Species at Risk in Canada. Retrieved from http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp417-e.htm

Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2016). Habitat Stewardship Program (HSP) for Species at Risk. Retrieved from http://www.ec.gc.ca/hsp-pih/default.asp?lang=En&n=59BF488F-1

Farmer, J.R., Ma, Z., Drescher, M., Knackmuhs, E.G., Dickinson, S.L. (2016). Private Landowners, Voluntary Conservation Programs, and Implementation of Conservation Friendly Land Management Practices. Conservation Letters. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12241

Field, B.C. & Olewilier, N.D. (2011). Environmental Policy in Canada. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Q7EA7oLt4csJ:www.sfu.ca/~wainwrig/Econ400/Olewiler-Field_3rd-ed/Field%25203Ce%2520Final%2520MS%2520Ch15.doc+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Gibbons, J.M., Nicholson, E., Milner-Gulland, E.J., & Jones, J.P.G. (2011). Should payments for biodiversity be based on action or results? Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(5), p. 1218-1226. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02022.x

Government of Ontario. (2016a). Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/conservation-land-tax-incentive-program

Government of Ontario. (2016b). Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/managed-forest-tax-incentive-program

Government of Ontario. (2016c). Land Stewardship and Habitat Restoration Program guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/land-stewardship-and-habitat-restoration-program-guidelines

Government of Ontario. (2016d). Species at Risk Stewardship Program projects. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/species-risk-stewardship-program-projects

Habib, T.J., Farr, D.R., Schneider, R.R., & Boutin, S. (2013). Economic and Ecological Outcomes of Flexible Biodiversity Offset Systems. Conservation Biology, 27(6), p. 1313-1323. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12098


25

Langrish, I. (2009). Protecting Species At Risk and Their Habitats. Retrieved from http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/protecting-species-at-risk-and-their-habitats-537779251.html

McKay, F. (2014). Making the Most of Provincial Tax Incentive Programs. Retrieved from http://olta.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Making-the-Most-of-Provincial-Tax-Incentive-Programs-Fiona-McKay-MNRF.pdf

Minister of Justice. (2015). Species at Risk Act S.C. 2002, c.29. Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/S-15.3.pdf

Ministry of Natural Resouces. (2012). Ontario Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program (MFTIP) Guide. Retrieved from https://dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net/documents/2720/mnr-e000245.pdf

Ministry of Natural Resources. (2010). Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program: Community Conservation Lands Guide. Retrieved from http://www.web2.mnr.gov.on.ca/cltip/CLTIP_Community_Conservation_Lands_Guide.pdf

Nature Conservancy Canada. (2015). Natural Areas Conservation Program: Eight Annual Progress Report. Retrieved from http://www.natureconservancy.ca/assets/documents/nat/Natural-Areas-Conservation-Program-AnnualProgressReport-2007-2015.pdf

Nature Conservancy Canada. (2016). Natural Areas Conservation Program. Retrieved from http://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/what-we-do/conservation-program/?referrer=https://www.google.ca/

Noga, W., & Adamowicz, W.L. (2014). A Study of Canadian Conservation Offset Programs. Retrieved from http://www.sustainableprosperity.ca/sites/default/files/publications/files/Noga%20Adamowicz%20Conservaton%20Offsets%20Oct%202014.pdf

Ontario Biodiversity Council. (2015). State of Ontario’s Biodiversity. Retrieved from http://sobr.ca/_biosite/wp-content/uploads/Indicator-Participation-in-Provincial-Tax-Incentive-Programs_May-19-2015.pdf

Ontario Nature. (2016). Biodiversity Offsetting. Retrieved from https://www.ontarionature.org/protect/habitat/offsetting.php

Shogren, J.F., Tschirhart, J., Anderson, T., Ando, A.W., Beissinger, S.R., Brookshire, D., Brown, G.M., Coursey, D., Innes, R., Meyer, S.M., & Polasky, S. (1999). Why Economics Matters for Endangered Species Protection. Conservation Biology, 13(6), p. 1257-1261. DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98414.x

Documents

FINAL Nathan Adams - Technical Policy Analysis