Is there a case for putting an economic value on nature? The Town of Gibsons is probably our closest example of doing so.
A few years ago, Gibsons started to include its natural assets in its asset management plan. It did this because its water supply depends upon an aquifer, and an aquifer needs to be replenished.
It began taking care of the watershed for the aquifer, preserving both wetlands and forest, to reduce the likelihood of Gibsons running out of water in the foreseeable future. It is also protecting its shoreline, thereby protecting the town from extreme weather events.
Powell River is not in the same situation regarding our water supply. The town is fed through water from Haslam Lake, and Haslam is fed by seasonal snowpack. However, feeling comfort from this is not to remove the attention from protecting our watersheds.
The drainage system around all of our natural wetlands and watercourses needs to be preserved from human interference. This includes neighbouring forestland and our shoreline.
Within our Powell River region, there is hardly any protection of natural areas. Without protection, local governments have little legal objection to development. Two examples come to mind.
Picture the old Townsite golf course. Yes, it is an area changed by human interference years ago, but there is a socio-cultural value to this land.
The trails are enjoyed by many of us as a natural connection between communities and it is a key area for songbirds, which are disappearing worldwide.
Yet the whole area is zoned light industrial. Consideration, careful planning and conservation could preserve natural assets in this area.
In a recent Peak article, the waterpower pumped hydroelectric storage project for Goat Island was described. This 2,000-megawatt-generating project, if allowed to develop, would permanently change the two small lakes on top of the island, run transmission lines through the Haslam Lake watershed and the Lang Creek watershed and through our community forest.
In all, the lines could affect over 4,600 hectares, a huge strip cut through forest, rock and bluffs, to exit around the Thunder Bay area. Will this community receive sufficient benefit from this development to compensate for the loss of natural assets?
In order to bring more economic development into the city, or in order to pump more electricity into the grid, we stand to lose natural habitat.
Unless a financial figure is drawn up to show the loss of our natural assets, as opposed to the financial gain of human-created assets, there can be no fair contest. Nature will always lose out unless the playing field is levelled.
I am uncomfortable putting a financial figure on nature. Doing so drags nature into the corporate boardroom. However, to level that playing field means understanding how to play by the same rules, and for a long time nature has not been given a seat. Through natural economics, a clearer picture of our interference can be seen.
Natural assets must be considered as an essential part of economic development.
Janet Southcott is a local naturalist and involved with a study looking at species at risk within the Coastal Douglas Fir ecosystem.
