Absolutely.
As an example of a long-lasting change we are quite proud of, in 1971, the year we were founded, we started the first recycling program in Nova Scotia. Now Nova Scotia gets visits from international delegates who look at our recycling and composting program. Today we have a reduction of at least 50% in landfill waste. So we think things like that can tip people's behaviour and fundamentally change how people do things.
I work as the EAC marine conservation coordinator, and because of the federal jurisdiction over the marine environment through the Fisheries Act and the Oceans Act most of my experience is with national laws and policy, and more recently with international laws and commitments related to the UN fish stocks agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The work of the marine staff the EAC spans the very local, from our co-creation of “Off the Hook”, community-supported fishery, to the international, through our work at the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. We co-hosted the International Symposium on Deep-Sea Corals, which is now a biannual international conference. The reason I mention this is that we found that research and real information was really key to getting the government to take action around protection. We're now proud that Nova Scotia is home to the first deep-water coral conservation areas in Canada.
Access to a healthy environment, clean air, safe and locally produced foods, affordable and sustainable energy and transportation, intact wilderness areas, and species diversity are all parts of the good quality of life Canadians expect. Increasingly, however, these are at risk.
With regard to a national conservation action plan, I'd like to make recommendations in four key areas. I'll use examples from the work the EAC has done over the years to illustrate examples of the importance of these points.
The first one is a regulatory framework, including targets and timelines. An NCP must be developed within a strong regulatory framework that protects Canada's species and habitats and incents conservation as part of doing business in this country. Without legally binding commitments, a national conservation plan would lack accountability.
As an example, last week I attended the final meeting of the decade-long process to bring integrated management to the eastern Scotian Shelf. Despite years of work by ocean stakeholders, a collaborative plan, and moderate willingness to implement the plan, the initiative essentially did not leave the pages of the plan, largely because of a lack of a regulatory framework that ensures accountability and clear timelines for delivering on the activities.
A more positive example is Nova Scotia meeting its commitment, which is legislated, to12% protected areas by 2015 in the terrestrial environment. This requires policy, legislation, research, and public engagement to make it happen. We need the federal government to work with the provinces to achieve something similar for our rivers and rainwaters.
In addition to a strong national legislative framework, Canada is signatory to several international conventions and treaties, where we've made commitments to the protection of biodiversity. We've committed to the Aichi targets for 2011-2020, just as we committed to the World Summit on Sustainable Development targets in 2002, which included a network of marine protected areas by 2012 and sustainable fisheries by 2015.
Second, a wide range of tools is necessary. An NCP should ensure that it uses existing processes that work, in addition to new processes to develop and implement an effective plan. In addition to a regulatory framework setting aside terrestrial and marine areas for wilderness protection using market-based approaches where NCP objectives can be met is the importance of a wide range of tools. I work for an organization that's not constrained by how we achieve our change on the ground or how we effect change locally; we move it to a national level. We had the flexibility of using many different tools.
I've already given examples of a market-based approach from Off the Hook, and SeaChoice, Canada's sustainable seafood program, is working with retailers across Canada to change their purchasing and eliminate the selling of unsustainably caught seafood. Market-based approaches do need to be brought into climate change regulation as well.
Our food program is a good example of how to engage people and achieve tangible results. We held the first working farm easements in Nova Scotia, building the market for local food through working with farmers, food sellers, and restaurants. These types of programs provide meaningful engagement and skills development. They have multiple benefits, including increasing water infiltration rates, reducing stormwater runoff, and creating urban wildlife habitat. Another small example is we developed a model for a two-parking-spot greenhouse as a way to use public space in a different way. Our program for active and safe routes to school engages thousands of children in over a hundred schools in getting children outside and active, to and from school. These are all examples of how to promote lifelong appreciation of the outdoors, environmental conservation, and engagement in the community.
Third, collaboration is absolutely necessary. Everybody's facing resource constraints. There's an increasing polarization of the conservation community and economic development at a time when the green economy is the focus of next month's global environmental conference, Rio+20. There are collaborative solutions.
I spent the last six years sitting on a national committee with DFO regarding fish habitat. We came up with excellent recommendations on how to better protect fish habitat. Through the input of over a hundred ENGOs, CNGOs, and engagement with industry, common solutions were identified. I also sit on the species at risk advisory committee, where NGOs and industry advise on how to best protect Canada's habitat and species. We also liaise with NACOSAR. Making sure that we do not have polarization is extremely important. While there is not always consensus, we are able to find common ground. Again, an NCP should facilitate collaboration, and not contribute to polarization, which inevitably decreases the involvement of civil society and industry alike.
Environmental objectives cannot be met without economic development goals that recognize the value of the cost of the natural environment. We know from experience, through the Colin Stewart Forest Forum, our Nova Scotia boreal forest agreement, and our work with farmers and the fishing industry that collaboration on conservation leads to real change on the land and water. You saw on the field trip yesterday just how many jobs depend on clean water and environment, and that those who depend on the environment are willing to help protect it.
Finally, there is a need for monitoring and data collection to protect Canada's wildlife, to better inform the public, as well as for government decision-making. Monitoring and primary research are extremely important. My background is a natural scientist. I can't tell you how much we don't know about things, but also how little we use the information we do have. Examples such as the Discovery Corridor in the Gulf of Maine, which was started as part of the census of marine life, show that we still have much to learn about the species that live in our waters. Research on climate change impacts to wildlife and habitats is critical to being able to put in place meaningful and effective management measures. Monitoring and data collection is extremely important in being able to inform regulators and meet targets and timelines that should be built into the NCP. We need to plan for things that cannot be predicted, such as extreme weather events, changes in precipitation patterns, and synergistic and cumulative impacts that negatively affect the natural environment. Understanding and quantifying the role of the natural capital inherent in our ecosystems should be part of the recalibration of economic development.
Finally, we understand the need to focus on specific objectives and outcomes of an NCP. However, we feel strongly that the basic principles I outlined must be key components of a plan. In summary, we need a strong regulatory framework. We need to identify the appropriate tool for the desired outcomes. We need to facilitate collaboration and promote research and monitoring that spans economic and environmental questions. We are investing in our future, and we cannot underestimate the cost of habitat and species loss. These costs need to start being part of the cost of doing business.
Canada's natural heritage, which includes the invaluable habitat provided by three oceans, thousands of rivers, tributaries, and kilometres of coastline, must benefit from any national conservation plan. We need to protect places and processes. We can't take the environment for granted, and working with rather than against our national heritage will help put Canada back on track as a global leader in conservation. We need to protect what we have, including long-standing environmental protection through existing legislation.
This year's Rio+20 meeting will focus on a green economy. I'd like to leave with the question, how would Canada like to present itself at Rio+20, and what will we say about a national conservation plan?