Natural Capital Policy Review: A review of policy options to protect, enhance and restore natural capital in B.C.'s urban areas CLICK ON LINK BELOW FOR THE COMPLETE REPORT
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/reports/2011/natural-capital-policy-review-a-review-of-policy-options-to-protect-enhance-and-/Click here for the Suzuki Overview: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/natural-capital-ambassadors/
Province needs a 50-year vision to protect wilderness and
wildlife
By James Walker, Times Colonist July 24, 2011
The province's auditor general has highlighted the need for improvement in the monitoring of environmental assessment projects and much more due diligence.
Even with such improvements, questions remain about the credibility of the assessment process.
The "elephant in the room" for many is still the impact projects create by their physical presence in pristine areas or high-value habitats for wildlife. The assessment process assumes that development is good as long as the project design and operation are technically sound.
British Columbians are realizing that even a "good" technical project can have a negative impact if it is in the wrong place. If an unsuitable development were suggested for a residential neighbourhood, many people would oppose it, their arguments usually dealing with impacts on lifestyle, neighbourhood ambience and community values, not technical issues.
Resource developments may be sited anywhere on Crown land, and such values are rarely considered even if the environmental and wilderness quality are extremely high. And while we may have technical ways to handle construction procedures and pollution abatement, we just assume that wildlife will adapt to change.
Whether it is a pipeline, salmon farm or independent power project, many British Columbians do not want all the remaining pristine areas accessed and the wildlife disturbed, no matter what the economic benefits or technical assurances. Government seems unable to comprehend that many want the few remaining pristine areas left in their undeveloped, "super natural" state.
How can a technically sound project be bad for wildlife?
Development always means increased access, and not just for the developer. With oil and gas extraction, a successful project will usually mean more expansion on the site or ancillary development on adjacent lands.
Even when a development has outlived its useful life, the area may be opened up for subdivision, resort development, etc. It becomes easily accessible for recreationalists and even such legitimate uses, if excessive, can pose problems. Control of problem animals around a work site can also result in excesses.
Individually, these are not disasters and separate impacts may be small and manageable. But cumulative impacts may add up to a level of disturbance such that an area is no longer viable habitat. At one time the Okanagan was prime habitat for grizzlies, wolves and other wilderness species - largely gone now, even in the remaining "outback" of these areas.
We need resource development, and we all realize how heavily the province depends on it and that the reasonable demands of humans must always come first. But if we continue with the "open season" on development, we have to stop the pretense that this province will always be "Super, natural B.C." and a paradise for wildlife.
We are facing an ecological crossroads. If you are satisfied with black bears, deer, raccoons, Canada geese and other adaptable species, don't worry. But if your image of British Columbia conjures up of millions of salmon along with healthy populations of grizzly bears, cougars, wolves, caribou, spotted owls and other wilderness species, be concerned.
The 2010 Olympics would not have been the success they were without the millions spent on up-front planning. And yet government has largely abandoned the type of land-use planning required to keep British Columbia and its wildlife super and natural.
The government seems to wait until things go wrong and then comes up with just enough money to get it through to the next audit, task force or election.
Money is rarely allocated up front to avoid the problem in the first place. We wait until 1,500 species are at risk and then we wring our hands because by then, only heroic and costly measures will suffice. It is poor ecology, poor economics and poor government stewardship.
"Super, natural B.C." needs a provincial grand vision for what wilderness and wildlife should look like in 50 years. Knowledgeable people are exploring this concept, but government seems disinterested.
Improvements will only come with adequate inventory and planning similar to the now-defunct Land and Resource Management Planning of the 1990s, and with decision process that considers wilderness values, public aspirations and cultural concerns, not just technicalities.
We need an ongoing dialogue with the public through social media about what the province should look like in 2061. And when we have that vision, we have to move intentionally and purposefully to implement it, rather than leave our future to the whims of developers and the limitations of the assessment process.
James Walker was formerly assistant deputy minister in the provincial Ministry of
Environment, and before that director of wildlife.
©
Copyright
Report puts price tag on environment By CBC News CBC News October 19, 2010 The economic cost of ignoring environmental degradation is far greater than the costs needed to fix it in the long run, a groundbreaking report published with the support of the United Nations said Tuesday. The report, entitled "Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature" was written by Pavan Sukhdev, a banker who heads the UN's green economy initiative. It found that nature provides trillions of dollars in "free" services to the global economy every year, and having to account for all of those services being removed would significantly reduce the world's economic output and cost far more. "From an economic point of view, the flows of ecosystem services can be seen as the 'dividend' that society receives from natural capital," the report said. "Because we get nature's services for free, we tend to use them wastefully," said Prof. Stewart Elgie, chair of think-tank Environmental Prosperity, which contributed to the UN's report. "Like a tenant that doesn't pay for electricity, [we tend] to leave the lights on." Taking an economic perspective, the report proposes that economic instruments can be used to incentivize sustainable environmental practices, and was full of global examples of that in action. Reducing forest loss by half would generate $3.7 trillion worth of greenhouse gas reductions, the report found, and the largest 3,000 companies in the world cause $2.2 trillion in uncounted environmental costs - the equivalent of more than a third of their annual profits. 'Like a tenant that doesn't pay for electricity, he tends to leave the lights on'-Prof. Stewart ElgieFifteen years ago in New York State, Elgie notes, officials had to replace a water treatment plant. A man-made facility would have cost between $6 and $8 billion US, plus between $300 and $500 million annually to maintain. "Instead they paid a bunch of landowners and farm owners in the Hudson river watershed to restore forests ... it cost them about $1 billion US," he said, "[and] water rates in New York were 80 per cent lower than they would have been otherwise." In Canada, the report found that Canada's northern boreal forest is worth $191 billion a year, for all of the services it provides, from storing greenhouse gases, to filtering water. And the greenbelt that surrounds the Greater Toronto Area contributes $2.6 billion annually worth of flood control, waste treatment, and clean air - roughly $3,487 per hectare. The emerging carbon market will make the boreal forest more valuable as a carbon sink than for its timber, Elgie says. And once people see nature's true price tag, they might be careful what they buy, he hopes. A recent OECD report ranked Canada 29th of 33 countries in creating economic incentives to reduce pollution and conserve nature. Aside from progress such as recent expansion of national parks and protected marine areas, Liberal Environment critic Gerard Kennedy says Canada is an environmental laggard. "[Canada] needs to do more than simply put nature in a museum in a restricted area," Kennedy said. "Outside of those parks, Canada's nature is in distress."
Statistics Canada
Just how green are we?
Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:14am
Dear Client,
So, just how green are we? You can turn to Statistics Canada for answers.
Get the facts on Canada's environment and the economy
Statistics Canada invites you to visit our website pages dedicated to helping you navigate the complicated terrain of environmental information. Use it to support your research, inform your decisions or just get a better idea of Canada's "green" temperature. The information is reliable and free of charge.
EnviroStats is a quarterly bulletin on the latest Canadian indicators and short articles that link Canada's economic activities to the environment. These are just some of the important topics covered in EnviroStats.
* Are Canada's glaciers melting?
* How much greenhouse gas emissions are households responsible for?
* What are the barriers that prevent households from using public transit?
* How do households deal with special wastes?
Human Activity and the Environment is an annual publication that collects statistics from many sources for an in depth statistical portrait of Canada's environment. In 2010, Human Activity and the Environment focused on freshwater supply and demand in Canada.
* Is our supply of freshwater decreasing?
* What is our freshwater used for?
Statistics Canada's environment portal offers a full range of environmental information. You will find our product catalogue and data tables as well as recent survey reports on topics such as households and the environment, waste management, environmental protection expenditures, drinking water plants and agricultural water use. Information is also available on water supply and demand, land use, energy flows, greenhouse gas emissions and natural resources.
We welcome your questions, comments and requests for more information. Please send an e-mail to environ@statcan.gc.ca, or use the coordinates below.
Sincerely,
Doug Trant
Environment Accounts and Statistics Division
Subscribe to our RSS feed and select Environment.
Have you used StatCan's environment statistics?
If yes, you can help us improve them by participating in our next Environment Statistics Program evaluation. Sign up now for our upcoming environment evaluation by sending us your name, email address and daytime phone number using this email link: environment statistics evaluation.
Statistics Canada
100 Tunney's Pasture Driveway, Ottawa ON K1A 0T6
Infostats@statcan.gc.ca
Telephone 1-800-263-1136
Facsimile 1-877-287-4369
We value your privacy.
Privacy Policy: Statistics Canada will not sell, distribute, trade or transfer client information to other government departments, businesses, organizations or individuals outside the Agency for commercial or any other purposes, unless required by law. If you do not wish to be contacted again for promotional purposes, please tell us here.
Environmental Questions for Leadership Candidates Organizing for Change has sent this list of environmental questions to all six BC Liberal leadership candidates and all six BC NDP leadership candidates. If you're attending any leadership events, for either party, be sure to raise one or more of these questions -- let them know British Columbians want our prospective leaders to make creative and positive commitments that the environment will be a policy priority! 1. BC has taken several important steps towards a lower carbon economy. What would you do to help the province achieve its targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33% by 2020 and to position BC for the challenges and opportunities of a low-carbon economy? [ For more information] 2. In 2012, the province will be generating 3% of its revenue from the carbon tax, which will be a $1.1 billion incentive annually for investments in clean energy solutions. How would you support increasing the effectiveness and fairness of that incentive over time with tools like the carbon tax and cap and trade? [ For more information] 3. While BC is home to more than 1900 species at risk, it is one of only two provinces in Canada without legislated protection of those species or their habitat. What would you do to protect endangered species and their habitat in BC? Would you consider stand-alone legislation to achieve this? [ For more information] 4. BC has nearly completed land use planning across the province, but almost none of those plans considered the impact of global warming on a host of environmental and resource values. How will you provide additional conservation measures to protect the carbon storage capacity of BC’s forests while providing more chances for BC’s fish and wildlife to adapt to their changing environment? [ For more information] 5. Many communities in BC and elsewhere across Canada have banned the use of cosmetic pesticides. Three provinces have banned their sale as a result. How will you work towards a BC-wide prohibition of the sale and use of chemical pesticides for lawns, gardens, and non-agricultural landscaping? [ For more information] 6. BC is in the process of modernizing its outdated Water Act. How much weight do you think protecting fish and wildlife should be in managing freshwater flows, as do more than 90% of British Columbians? [ For more information] 7. BC’s precious coast is at growing risk daily from more oil tankers in the south, new proposals in the north, and increasing shipping traffic of all kinds throughout the coast. How will you protect BC’s fragile coastal ecosystems from oil spills, both large and small? 8. Infrastructure is rapidly aging. Some infrastructure is requiring repairs and some of that urgent and neccessary repairs. A huge liability exisits at present as money is simply not av...ailable to do these repairs yet we continue to build and create the same forms of infrastructure with no built in long-term costing for repairs, maintenance and replacement. This is a receipe for disiaster. How will you, if elected, create life-cycle funding for infrastructure, find and use alternate forms (i.e. "green" infrastructure) and/or create change in the way we provide service delivery?
Do you care about the Northeast Woods in Comox?
What: Attend the Comox Valley Conservation Strategy’s Celebration of the Northeast Woods When: Wednesday, February 23rd at 7PM Where: Highland Secondary School (750 Pritchard Road, Comox) multi-purpose hall (follow the signs) What: What is planned for the woods? Can they be saved from residential development? Guest Speakers include; Jack Minard
KerryDawson
Will Marsh
Mayor, Paul Ives
MLA, Don McRae (not confirmed)
Surprise musical guests A stunning multi-media slide show of the NE Woods For more information Click Here or call Kerry Dawson at 339-1029
Nature Without Borders was endorsed by all jurisdictions in the Comox Valley. That means the Village of Cumberland, The Town of Comox, the City of Courtenay anf the Comox Valley Regional District all agreed that the ecosystem losses in the Valley had to stop; we need to protect what's left and grow our community in those areas that do not contain these last, few, sensitive areas.
One of the first tests of this type of thinking came up during the Town of Comox's OCP renewal process. The mature treed area known as the North East Woods (DL 194) was slated for development with a new road slicing through the incredibly sensitive hydrology that feeds Hilton Sprong, active farmland and eventually into Lazo Marsh. It was touted by planners and politicians as the next expansion of the Town.
It took over 300 letters from residents to remind Council and the planning department that this is an area that should be conserved for many reasons.
Kudos to the Town and to Mayor Ives for moving decisivly to acquire this land though a land grant from the Province and make it parkland therby conserving it's environmental and recreational values. I wish the Town all the best of luck in weaving this land grant request through the Provincial bureaucratic process. You have the vast majority of residents' support on this.
It needs to be pointed out however that it took the public outcry to mobilize the conservation effort. Council and planners were preparing to develop this land even though they had endorsed a document that suggests areas like this be conserved for the future health and well-being of both humans and the natural world.
Next, along comes a development proposal for the Vanier Oaks property (still owned by School District #71) to the City of Courtenay planning department.
The Vanier Oaks property is on a fairly steep hillside that is home to a unique Gary Oak forest, a closed canopy fir forest and the headwaters of Towhee Creek. Just the fact that three sensitive and locally rare ecosystems exist on this property shoould motivate Council and the planning department to do everything in their power to discourage development on this property.
But no, Council does the opposite. They make it easier for this development proposal to go forward by passing a motion to allow the subdivision of the land before an approved plan is in place. The City does not even have a plan as to how they will service this development let alone had a complete application presented to them for development by the proponent.
Of course, in all scenarios, mitigation of impact to the ecosystems is possible. We know however, that mitigation not only does not work well; the ecosystems always suffer and eventually fail and there is absolutely no follow-up monitoring or accountability for proving the mitigation worked.
The economic argument presented by SD#71 is a good one. The School District is suffering from a lack of sustainable funding from the Province and has been encouraged to sell off redundant assets such as the Vanier Oak property. The funds from this sale will, as described by the Superintendent of Schools Sherry Elwood, provide an upgrade to the flagship school in the district, G.P.Vanier Senior Secondary School, that will only provide the type of education we expect our schools to be providing!
One of the most serious lost lessons here is that we need to protect these last few remaining ecosystems. By developing this land we send the wrong signals to everyone.
So far, here are two examples of a continuing loss of important, rare and sensitive ecosystems brought on by Councils allowing development to occur as a natural couse of events and without a thought to the committments made when endorsing NWB, The CVSS, the RGS and even common sense.
The NE Woods may be saved but the possible destruction of Towhee Creek and a loss of mature forest seems inevitable. I am worried about the Garry Oak ecosystem as well but there is protection for this grove in place and the proponent seems to see the value in protecting it and even expanding it and keeping the footprint of the development well away.
What is next? Conservation means we look at each development proposal, each subdivision request with an eye to the future and we find the courage to discourage developments on senstive land and we work together as a community to find trades and swaps and other creative schemes to allow developers to build while we set a new course in protection and conservation of those systems that give us life itself.
|
RSS Feed