Sustainable Livelihoods: Different Rules for Different People?

The Oak Ridges Moraine is a landform unique to southern Ontario. One of the province’s largest Moraines, it is highly valued as wild habitat for many plants and animals, as a source of recreation for the community and for the integral role it plays in storing and purifying drinking water. The Moraine’s importance was legally recognized by moraine-specific legislation in 2001 followed by the release of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan in 2002. This legislation was intended to designate and protect the ecological and hydrological integrity of the Moraine.

A recent stakeholder survey undertaken by the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation as part of the Measuring Success project revealed that a majority of people saw the Plan as being good public policy and furthermore that it was a landmark plan that set the bar for environmental protection.

This same survey revealed that the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan is seen as too prescriptive and intrusive when it comes to a number of “micro-planning” issues that some see as best dealt with on a community level. Some of these include: prohibitively narrow definitions of home business and home occupations; residential accessory uses such as garages, decks, etc.; and no opportunities in 62% of the moraine for amenities to support recreational and tourism opportunities. These are concerns for a number of reasons. One reason is a question of equity whereby rural landowners are being disadvantaged from continuing to live and make a living on the Moraine. In the current economic climate rural landowners are finding it difficult to maintain their lands as viable farm operations. Another concern is that any legislation is only as strong as the desire of people to continue to support it. Municipalities also have to make efforts to build stronger local economies to offset the loss of traditional revenues gained from property assessments.

Increasingly, we are hearing from landowners (farmers and non-farmers) that the Plan’s policies are too severe and that they actually block innovative solutions to better land stewardship. There is also a concern that the policies prohibit people from enjoying their land.

While we collectively must proceed cautiously about providing more flexibility in the Plan’s policies, it is imperative that we not shy away from having these conversations and taking steps to address concerns.

Next: Transitional Development >