Accessibility and Access Keys [0]
Federal and provincial governments must do more to protect the forests and natural ecosystems that are providing hundreds of billions of dollars in free public services, including flood prevention and water filtration, says a new study released Monday.
The research, produced by Sustainable Prosperity, a think-tank based at the University of Ottawa, was produced jointly with an international study to mark the United Nations’ World Environment Day.
“Wetlands purify water, forests prevent erosion and flooding, marine ecosystems provide food,’‘ said the report, Advancing the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Canada. “These services, which nature provides for free, can have significant value – some are priceless. And if they are degraded, it may be very costly – or even impossible – to replace them with technological substitutes.’‘
Sustainable Prosperity does research focused on market-based approaches to building a greener economy, bringing together business, policy and academic leaders together to develop recommendations and policy proposals.
The report, sponsored in part by Environment Canada, said that the federal and provincial governments are starting to introduce more economic tools to encourage protection of ecosystems, but need to do more to ensure that the economy recognizes the true value of Canada’s natural capital.
The report highlighted recent studies that have estimated the value of Ontario’s Greenbelt, a protected area around the Toronto region, at $2.6 billion per year. Other studies have estimated Canada’s boreal forests provide $703 billion worth of services per year, while natural systems around B.C.‘s Lower Mainland are worth $5.4 billion.
“Yet the value of these precious ecosystem services is not counted in market prices, in most cases, with the result that our economic and ecological signals are misaligned,” said the report. “A major part of our `balance sheet’ (representing nature’s value) is missing, leading us to use nature’s resources wastefully and unsustainably, much as a tenant who does not pay for electricity tends to leave the lights on.’‘
It suggested that part of the solution requires governments to eliminate tax incentives and subsidies that encourage businesses to launch new projects in areas that threaten local ecosystems. In an interview, Stewart Elgie, one of the report’s authors, said that subsidies to help the fishing industry pay for fuel costs in regions with dwindling fish stocks is an example of an incentive that should be cancelled.
The international report, Forests in a Green Economy, also to be released on Monday by the United Nations Environment Programme, focused on the value of managing global forests in a sustainable way to promote job creation, and to develop cleaner energy and a healthier environment.
It suggested that the world needs to invest about $40 billion per year – about 0.03 per cent of global growth domestic product – over the next 20 years to cut global deforestation in half. The recommendations, added on to an existing $64 billion in annual global forestry investments, would create millions of jobs as well as increase the planet’s capacity to store heat- trapping emissions linked to climate change by 28 per cent, the report said.
The Sustainable Prosperity report praised various initiatives across the country that offer economic incentives that recognize the value of conservation.
For example, the report said that Ducks Unlimited in Saskatchewan prompted a “reverse auction” that pays landowners for restoring wetlands in their fields.
It also recognized efforts by Ontario’s South Nation Conservation Authority to create a trading market designed to reduce water pollution at a low cost, as well as a greenhouse-gas offset system, introduced in Alberta, to reward landowners who manage their forests and farms to store additional carbon dioxide emissions while maintaining biodiversity.
Elgie, a law professor at the University of Ottawa who is also the chairman of Sustainable Prosperity, said one of the main themes of the report is explaining the link between environmental costs and economic costs of damaging natural ecosystems.
“In a sense, someone needs to send us the bill for the services that nature provides us for free,’‘ he said. ``We need to see what the real cost is in order to change our behaviour.”
mdesouza@postmedia.com
twitter.com/mikedesouza