Spring has sprung and that means new updates for the “Advancing Municipal Natural Asset Management through Monitoring and Engagement” research project! As I discussed in my last update, all interviews have now been completed and I have officially shifted to data analysis and writing. Even though I was unable to visit the municipalities due to the COVID-19 pandemic, staff were gracious enough to provide plenty of time for online interviews and resources to get an excellent lay of the land. One of the most fascinating points for me during this interview process was the variety of reasons municipalities had for implementing a municipal natural asset management approach. This is something I want to explore a little more as it gives some context for some of the early patterns we are starting to see across municipalities. As I move into the last few months of my research, much of my focus will be on writing my thesis, preparing a report to publish for the Municipal Natural Assets Initiative (MNAI), and starting a transition into the professional world.
I am also happy to announce that if you are reading this early enough, I will be presenting at two upcoming conferences: the Canadian Network of Asset Managers Virtual Conference in May and The Society for Ecological Restoration 9th World Conference in June. Trying to boil down what will end up being close to 20 months of research into a 30-minute talk has been challenging, but it has been exciting to see all this work culminate together into a finished product. I am also excited to speak to these two conferences in particular because I believe they encapsulate this merging of two worlds that is essential to municipal natural asset management: municipal service delivery and ecosystem restoration. It’s often a fine line to walk, with critiques from both sides, but by appropriately framing natural asset management as a nature-based solution, you can address very real municipal issues. One of the critiques we have been hearing is on the validity of the ecosystem services concept. However, this research addresses two gaps that are a part of ecosystem service critiques. These gaps are the lack of long-term monitoring of ecosystem services projects and the effectiveness of policies in addressing biophysical underpinnings. At this time, the work being done in these communities is still relatively new. It will be some time before we will be able to see concrete changes in biophysical metrics due to the restoration or rehabilitation of natural assets. However, through the monitoring and evaluation framework established, it does create a roadmap for municipalities to get to a place where positive changes in key biophysical categories is not only common, but necessary as a part of the program. While I respect the critiques levied against the concept of ecosystem services, this research shows that the present socio-political and economic context almost necessitates the need for a concept like ecosystem services and the various valuation methods that come along with that. As I’ve mentioned in other blog posts, Canadian municipalities are cash-strapped. Their infrastructure is starting to fail. If we can encourage the creation of policies and programs like municipal natural asset management that addresses these concerns while also creating ecology-first mindsets in financial departments, accounting departments, asset management departments, engineering departments, etc. through the concept of ecosystem services, we are creating the kind of integration necessary to effect real change, at least at the local level. While still early, we are starting to see those changes now, especially when it comes to changes in zoning bylaws, official plan objectives, project funding, and other implementation indicators. In my last post, I also discussed some of the difficulties Canadian municipalities are facing right now due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Well, the Government of Canada has made several announcements that are steps to address these difficulties. In their Fall 2020 Economic Statement for “Building Back Better: A Plan to Fight the COVID-19 Recession”, the Government of Canada announced “$631 million over 10 years, starting in 2021-22, to Environment and Climate Change Canada to restore degraded ecosystems, protect wildlife, and improve land and resource management practices.” This is exactly the kind of funding commitment that could push municipal natural asset management as a nationwide practice. In related news, President Biden announced a near-$2 trillion Infrastructure Plan, just a few weeks ago. While budget reconciliation proceedings will make compromises inevitable, there are a few provisions for conservation action, including 250,000 jobs plugging abandoned oil and natural gas wells and reclaiming abandoned coal, hard rock, and uranium mines. While there isn’t anything in the plan that concretely points to municipal natural asset management practices in the U.S., I am hopeful that climate activists and progressive Democrats can make nature-based solutions a real focus. In local news, the Town of Gibsons recently announced the world’s first-ever staff position of Natural Asset Technician! Similar to an Engineering Tech, a Natural Asset Tech works as a member of the Infrastructure Services department but is focused on natural assets. The Town of Gibsons continues to be a champion for municipal natural asset management and this move represents a firm commitment that natural assets cannot just be seen as part of environmental work, but should take the same priority as roadways, bridges, and other forms of built infrastructure. That level of consideration is a critical part of moving municipalities from just setting the foundation for natural asset management towards action. So, where does this work go from here? Well Dr. Drescher and I have been in discussion with MNAI about how to transition this monitoring and evaluation framework into the long-term. One of the ways to do that is by introducing biophysical indicators and benchmarks. These will become increasingly relevant as more municipalities start to restore and rehabilitate key ecosystems. Another question to consider is who monitors? Do the municipalities use this framework themselves to check their own progress? Or do third parties take up this framework? As mentioned, these conversations are ongoing. I plan to post another blog entry later in the summer months and I will be sure to include any updates on that front there. Lucas Mollame
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
The BarkA blog about natural resources, conservation policy, environmental planning and management. Archives
September 2020
Categories |