Susta ina b le F unding fo r Wa te rshe d He a lth: Go ve rna nc - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Susta ina b le F unding fo r Wa te rshe d He a lth: Go ve rna nc e a nd No nPro fits

No ve mb e r 15, 2017 T a ra L ynne Cla pp, PhD Rura l L e a rning Co mmo ns Po lic y F e llo w Sr Ma na g e r, Co lumb ia Ba sin Wa te rshe d Ne two rk

Wa te rshe d ste wa rdship re q uire s ne two rke d a nd pa rtne re d e ffo rt in de c isio n-ma king a nd funding

 Wa te rshe d ste wa rdship re q uire s sig nific a nt inve stme nt in a pub lic , o r

c o mmo n g o o d

 Give n the re g ula to ry fa ilure s o f the la st two de c a de s, a nd the inc re a sing

c o nflic ts a nd pre ssure s o n wa te rshe ds, we ne e d to se e k inno va tive fra me wo rks tha t b ring ne w pa rtne rs a nd a llo w ne w fo rms o f c o lla b o ra tio n to the ta sk o f wa te rshe d ste wa rdship.

 Wa te rshe d ste wa rdship a nd wa te r pro te c tio n a g e nda s c a n b e – a nd a re

b e ing – c o mb ine d with q ua lity o f life , utility a nd infra struc ture , a nd pub lic he a lth a nd sa fe ty

 T

he se va lue -b a se d pa rtne rships c a n suppo rt the kind o f inve stme nt a nd e ffo rt tha t a re re q uire d to se c ure he a lthy a nd suffic ie nt wa te r fo r a ll purpo se s

Outline

 Pub lic g o o ds: disinve stme nt a nd unde rinve stme nt,

a nd la c k o f fa ith in g o ve rnme nt invo lve me nt

 E

nviro nme nta l pro te c tio n: a re we g e tting e no ug h?

 T

he impo rta nc e o f the no npro fit se c to r in re pre se nting no n-c a sh va lue s

 Susta ina b le funding a nd no n-pro fit ste wa rdship

g ro ups: po lic y a nd the third se c to r

 Wha t is susta ina b le funding ? wa te rshe d re sto ra tio n wa te rshe d func tio n

Wa te rshe ds a nd the ir func tio ns a re typic a lly tre a te d a s a pub lic g o o d

 Pub lic g o o d: a g o o d ‘ o wne d b y e ve ryo ne ’ whe re if a ny o ne individua l

g a ins une q ua l b e ne fit o r suffe rs une q ua l ha rm, the re is no re c o urse

Who pays? How muc h? Be ne fit of ste war dship

Pub lic (pro vinc e ) Re duc ing $$ Sma ll a nd/ o r no t a ttrib ute d to wa te rshe d Re so urc e se c to r Sig nific a nt L

• w, pa st sha re ho lde r ho rizo n

Co mmunity wa te rshe d Va rie s Hig h, huma n he a lth a nd sa fe ty L

• c a l g o ve rnme nt

I nc re a sing $$ Hig h, ta x b a se , re ve nue s Do wnstre a m re side nt T ypic a lly ve ry little Diffuse , va lue -de pe nde nt, lo c a tio n- de pe nde nt

Pub lic inve stme nts in wa te rshe d ste wa rdship

 Wa te r is re g ula te d

 As a re so urc e (drinking wa te r, hydro e le c tric wa te r)  As a po llutio n sink (e fflue nt limits to stre a ms)  I

n so me c a se s a s a n e nviro nme nta l va lue

Wa te r Susta ina b ility Ac t will se t c rite ria , pro te c t ha b ita ts

 BUT

mo st re g ula to ry pro te c tio ns re duc e d o r a b a ndo ne d & no t ye t re sto re d

 F

e de ra l pro te c te d wa te rs, fe de ra l fishe rie s e nfo rc e me nt

 Pro vinc ia l mo nito ring re duc tio ns  BC pro vinc ia l re g ula to ry a ppro a c h tha t re q uire s ma na g e me nt

b y o b je c tive no t fully imple me nte d

 Dire c t pub lic inve stme nts in wa te r re g ula tio n a re re duc e d

Wa te rshe d Ste wa rdship: a re we g e tting e no ug h?

 E

c o no mists do no t typic a lly like pub lic g o o ds, b e c a use the y do no t pro mo te ‘ so c ia lly e ffic ie nt’ de c isio n ma king

Unde r-inve stme nt in wa te rshe d ste wa rdship Ove r-inve stme nt in wa ys to priva te ly c a pture the

• the rwise ‘ pub lic ’ g o o d

Ove r inve stme nt in re so urc e de ve lo pme nt So me o f c o sts o f de ve lo pme nt e g to wa te rshe ds o r

wa te r q ua lity a re b o rne b y pub lic no t de ve lo pe r

 We la c k wa ys to c hoose to pro te c t wa te rshe ds thro ug h ‘ a

ma rke t’

Wa te rshe d he a lth

 F

re shwa te r q ua lity, q ua ntity a nd e c o lo g ic a l he a lth a re no t b e ing susta ine d

 I

ndic a to rs:

F

ish he a lth a nd a b unda nc e lo we r o ve r time

Nutrie nt a nd po llutio n le ve ls hig he r o ve r time Hydro e le c tric de ve lo pme nt impa c ts … so me

unme a sure d, b ut the a sso c ia te d impa c ts c o ntinue to wo rse n a s re duc tio ns to b io dive rsity ta ke pla c e

Wa te rshe d Ste wa rdship Po lic y a nd No nPro fits

 Pub lic se c to r inve stme nts a re re duc e d  Priva te se c to r c o st pre ssure is do wnwa rd  Pub lic / priva te re so urc e de ve lo pme nt pa rtne rships a re we ll

e sta b lishe d

 T

hird se c to r, o r no npro fits

I

de ntify wa te r ste wa rdship prio ritie s

Advo c a te fo r pub lic suppo rt fo r inve stme nts a nd ste wa rdship Offe r a lo we r c o st ste wa rdship a lte rna tive to priva te o r pub lic

se c to r ste wa rdship

 Cre a te a ‘ c ho ic e ’ – via ma rke t, do na tio n, o r o the r me c ha nism,

thro ug h whic h we c a n inve st in wa te rshe ds

Ho w a re no n-pro fit g ro ups funde d ?

 Do na tio ns (individua l, so c ia l va lue s)  Gra nts Go ve rnme nt (thro ug h tra ditio na l po lic y) Priva te fo unda tio ns (info rma l g o ve rna nc e ) I

ndustry se c to r g ro ups (info rma l g o ve rna nc e )

 F

e e fo r se rvic e / so c ia l e nte rprise

 Ho w do no n-pro fit g ro ups de ve lo p a nd ma inta in

susta ina b le a nd se c ure funding to a ddre ss lo ng te rm mo nito ring , re sto ra tio n pro je c ts, a nd a c hie ve g o a ls?

Gra nt funde d o rg a niza tio ns

 T

he g ra nting pro c e ss is whe re no npro fits inte ra c t with fo rma l a nd info rma l g o ve rna nc e … whe re prio ritie s a re se t b y o the rs

 I

ssue s a nd pitfa lls:

 Gra nt funding : prio ritie s o f g ra nting o rg a niza tio ns, ma y no t b e sa me a s

lo c a l prio ritie s

 Se ldo m fund pro je c ts o f mo re tha n 1 ye a r dura tio n  Hig h de ma nd / hig h le ve ls o f c o mpe titio n  Gra nto rs ma y se e k to distrib ute funds o ve r a re g io n mo re tha n re a c h

pe rfo rma nc e g o a ls

 I

nc re a sing ly, ne e d mo re tha n o ne g ra nt a t a time

Wha t funding is ne e de d fo r g o o d wa te rshe d ste wa rdship?

 Wa te rshe d a sse ssme nt, va lue s ide ntific a tio n, ‘ ma pping ’ -

invo lve me nt

 I

de ntifying c o nflic ts b e twe e n pro po se d va lue s a nd o r use s - invo lve me nt

 Re se a rc h ne c e ssa ry in risk, mitig a tio n, suppo rt fo r b io dive rsity  Se t pr

ior itie s a nd g a in a g re e me nt with a ll pa rtie s a nd

pa rtne rs

 I

nve st in re sto ra tio n, so urc e pro te c tio n, use mitig a tio ns, a nd/ o r

 F

und wa te rshe d re se rve s whe re ne c e ssa ry

De fining ‘ susta ina b le funding ’

 Susta ina b le funding wo uld suppo rt the g o a ls o f wa te rshe d

ste wa rdship o ve r a time fra me tha t re fle c te d g o a ls

T

e n ye a r minimum inve stme nt (Re e ve , 2005)

 Susta ina b le funding wo uld b e inve stme nt in wa te rshe d

issue s a t a le ve l tha t

I

s a de q ua te to e nsure tha t the q ua lity, q ua ntity, flo w o f wa te r a nd he a lth o f wa te rshe ds do e s no t de g ra de o ve r time

re fle c ts the va lue a nd c o ntrib utio n o f wa te rshe ds to q ua lity o f

life , huma n he a lth a nd sa fe ty, a nd pro pe rty va lue a nd the e nviro nme nt

E xa mple : Do na tio ns fo r c o nse rva tio n

 So lic it do na tio ns to fund pro te c tio n a nd c o nse rva tio n  T

ypic a lly wo rks b e st fo r ‘ c ha risma tic ’ e nviro nme nts a nd spe c ie s with a e sthe tic o r c ultura l a ppe a l

 E

xa mple s inc lude Jumb o , Va lha lla Wilde rne ss, Gre a t Be a r Ra info re st

 An o rg a niza tio n pro vide s a wa y fo r a c o ntrib uto r to pa y

to e xpre ss the ir pre fe re nc e fo r pro te c tio n o r c o nse rva tio n

Value Who shar e s this value ? Mar ke t for value Me c hanism: How do gr

• ups ge t $$

Pro te c tio n / a e sthe tic / spiritua l E nviro nme nta lists’ Do na tio n o ppo rtunity to sha re in a dvo c a c y Gra nts, vo lunte e r Wa te r q ua lity / a q ua tic he a lth Drinke rs, fishe rfo lk, sc ie ntists Vo lunte e r o ppo rtunity, do na tio n, e ng a g e me nt Gra nts, vo lunte e r Qua lity o f life Re side nts Vo te fo r ta x Gra nts Drinking wa te r Wa te r use rs L

• we r tre a tme nt c o st,

pro te c t q ua lity & pro pe rty va lue T a x/ fe e , c o ntra c t, se rvic e g ra nt F ish a nd wildlife Hunte rs, fishe rfo lk, pe o ple tha t like b io dive rsity F ish a nd wildlife use r fe e s, vo lunte e r, lic e nse s F ish a nd wildlife g ra nts Sa fe ty fro m flo o d / fire Citize ns/ I mpro ve me nt Distric t / L

• c a l o r

Pro vinc ia l Go ve rnme nt / I nsure rs He a lth a nd sa fe ty, pro pe rty va lue , lo we r insura nc e c o st (a vo ide d c o sts) T a x o r to ll, a g re e me nt Re c re a tio na l use E c o to urism, Cha mb e rs o f Co mme rc e , a c c o mms Hig he r va lue e xpe rie nc e Use r fe e , ta x o r to ll, c o ntrib utio n o r tip

Ne w a ppro a c he s to funding wa te rshe d ste wa rdship

 1. Utilitie s a re pa ying fo r fo re stry/ g ra zing b e st pra c tic e s in upstre a m

wa te rshe ds to lo we r c o sts in drinking wa te r, wa te r tre a tme nt a nd flo o d c o ntro l

 2. L

• c al gove r

nme nts  ‘ g re e n infra struc ture ’ inve stme nts in fo re sts, ripa ria n a re a s, we tla nds to slo w runo ff, c le a n wa te r, a nd e ve n tre a t wa te r

 So me time s c a lle d e c o syste m se rvic e s

 ‘ e c o -a sse t’ a c c o unting fo r na tura l c a pita l ro le in pro duc ing ‘ inc o me ’ fo r q ua lity

• f life , e c o no mic de ve lo pme nt, a nd pro pe rty va lue s

 4. Ste war

dship gr

• ups a re o rg a nizing ‘ pa yme nts fo r e c o syste m se rvic e s’

b e twe e n do no rs o r b e ne fic ia rie s o f c o nse rva tio n pro g ra m

 5. Pr

ivate c or por ations a re pa rtne ring with fo unda tio ns to purc ha se ‘ wa te r

• ffse ts’ to pro te c t a nd re sto re wa te rshe ds

F uture dire c tio ns

 Pra c tic a l e xa mple s in wa te rshe d pa rtne ring  Wo rking with lo c a l g o ve rnme nts a s pa rtne rs, c o ntra c to rs,

a nd o n va lue s e ng a g e me nt

 Gra nto r to no n-pro fit re la tio nship b uilding  Re duc e o rg a niza tio na l c o st o f g ra nting  Cre a te hig h q ua lity, hig h trust a nd lo w c o st o ppo rtunitie s

to b ring mo re do lla rs o n sha re d inte re sts

“Creating Sustainable Funding for Ecosystems and Watersheds” Webinar

• Nov. 2017

Photo: Dr. James Thorsell

Juliet Craig

Program Manager, Kootenay Conservation Program

Local Conservation Fund: A Unique Partnership in Canadian Conservation

2

Introduction

Photo: Nature Conservancy

• f Canada
• What is Local

Conservation Fund?

• Why and how was it

established?

• How does it work?
• What has been

accomplished

• Model for other

regions

What is Local Conservation Fund?

Photo: Lyle

Why established?

Photo by Jeremy Baxter

Photo: Larry Halverson

Value quality of life

5

Why established?

Important habitats like dry forests, grasslands, and riparian ecosystems 6.7 % of Kootenays is private land Private land contains this % of the BCG in the Kootenays:

 24% dry moist Interior Douglas Fir  25% dry hot Ponderosa Pine

Map: Michael Proctor and Nature Conservancy Canada

8

Species at Risk on Private Land Conservation

6.7 % of Kootenays is private land SAR occurrences on private land*:

 Central Kootenay >71%  East Kootenay > 89%

* From Ministry of Environment report in prep (based on 2015 data) Photo: Internet

Why established?

Photo by Jeremy Baxter

To coordinate and facilitate conservation efforts on private land, and to generate the support and resources needed to maintain this effort

10

Needs for Private Land Conservation

Photo: Richard Klafki

11

How established?

• Is it Realistic?
• Is it Acceptable?
• Is it Possible?
• Do you have the

commitment of partners and collaborators?

Step #1 Feasibility Research

Feasibility Assessment

• Quantitative Research –

Telephone Polling

• Qualitative Research –

Focus Groups

• Local Values and

Priorities are Critical to success

Step #2 Public Opinion Polling

How to assess your most valuable assets:

• Who needs to be

involved?

• What do you want

your partners to do?

• Who are your allies

and opponents?

Step #3 Coalition Building

Who is best positioned to be the proponent?

• Working with Local

Government – the roles of Board and Staff

• Timing

Step #4 Public support

Referendum or Alternate Approval process

• Public Opinion

Leaders

• Campaign Cabinet –

Engaging Volunteers

• The Message –

What do you want people to support

• Elected Officials
• Voter Contact

Step #5 The Campaign

17

Columbia Valley Local Conservation Fund

18

Columbia Valley Local Conservation Fund

• Columbia Valley (RDEK)
• Electoral Areas F & G
• Invermere, Radium Hot

Springs, Canal Flats

• $20/parcel/year
• ~ $230,000 available for

allocation

• Protection of our quality
• f life
• Conservation &

restoration of fish and wildlife habitat

• Conservation of

watersheds

• Conservation of open

space & farm land

• Based on Local Values

and Priorities!

Local Conservation Fund Themes

20

Kootenay Lake Local Conservation Fund

November 15, 2014

21

Kootenay Lake Local Conservation Fund

• Kootenay Lake (RDCK)
• Electoral Areas A, D & E
• $15/parcel/year
• ~ $130,000 available for

allocation

22

South Okanagan Conservation Fund

23

Innovative Leadership

“demonstrate innovation, leadership and collaboration in sustainable land use in BC”

Real Estate Foundation of BC Photo: Larry Halverson

24

Future of the CVLCF

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF EAST KOOTENAY BYLAW NO. 2083

A bylaw to establish a Local Conservation Fund Service WHEREAS the Board of the Regional District of East Kootenay wishes to establish a service for the purpose of establishing a Local Conservation Fund in the Columbia Valley by collecting up to $20 per parcel of land annually 1. This Bylaw may be cited as “Regional District of East Kootenay – Local Conservation Fund Service Bylaw No. 2083, 2008 2. The Regional Board hereby establishes a service for the purpose of establishing a Local Conservation Fund in the Columbia Valley.

• 9. This bylaw shall expire on December 31, 2018

25

How LCF functions

Photo: Larry Halverson

26

How LCF functions (KCP’s role)

27

Local Conservation Fund Administration

28

Local Conservation Fund Media

What has been accomplished?

Photo: Dave Hillary

• 9-year Granting History
• 60 Projects Supported

between 2010-2017

• Over $1,600,000

pledged or granted by RDEK

• Wide Diversity of

Projects and Initiatives Supported

Columbia Valley Local Conservation Fund

Photo: Jim Thorsell

• 2-year Granting History
• 10 Projects Supported

between 2016-2017

• Over $108,000 granted

by RDCK

Kootenay Lake Local Conservation Fund

Photo: Pat Morrow

• Nature Conservancy

Canada and The Nature Trust of BC

• Acquiring properties

fee simple for conservation or covenants

Property Acquisition

• Grassland/Open Forest

Restoration

• Urban/Wildland

Interface Protection

Ecosystem Restoration

Habitat Restoration

• Lake Windermere Rod and

Gun Club

• Stream restoration for fish

habitat

Photo: Ben Mitchell-Banks

35

Wetland stewardship

• Wildsight Invermere
• Boardwalk over

wetland

Photo: Pat Morrow (top); KCP (right)

Species at Risk stewardship

• Northern Leopard Frogs;

Bats; Grizzly Bears; Western Toads; Osprey

Photos: Jakob Dulisse; Penny Ohanjanian

• Windermere and District

Farmers Institute

• Pilot Project – Provincial

Expansion

• Change In Management

Practices

• Payment For Services

Ecological Goods and Services Project

Photo: Dave Zehnder

• Control of high priority

invasive species

• Neighbourhood Invasive

Plant Program (NIPP)

• Protect range,

agriculture and ecosystems

Invasive Plant Management

39

Water Quality Monitoring

• Lake Windermere

Ambassadors; Columbia Lake Stewardship Society; North Kootenay Water Monitoring Project

• Early detection of water

management issues

• Community engagement in

water quality and quantity monitoring

Photo: Lindsay Proctor

Cumulative Impacts

• Each project on its
• wn is small, but

there is a cumulative effect that has a large impact on conservation

Photo: Richard Klafki

41

Local Government Benefits

“Support the protection, rehabilitation and enhancement of wetland and riparian areas”. - Lake Windermere OCP “Property owners and occupiers are required to control and manage noxious / invasive plants …” - Lake Windermere OCP “Protect and enhance agricultural

• perations” -Fairmont Hot Springs Area OCP

Retain critical wildlife habitat, wildlife corridors and ungulate winter range”

• Toby Benches OCP

“Protect the wildlife and habitat values surrounding the plan area by supporting conservation efforts in important natural areas and wildlife corridors” - Steamboat Jubilee OCP

42

CVLCF Investment

• $1.65 million from

2008 to 2016

$0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000 Fund

CVLCF Investment

CVLCF Other

43

Economic Benefits

• $10 to $16 million in

additional partner funding to these projects

• “First in” fund to

demonstrate local support

$0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 $18,000,000 Fund

CVLCF Leveraged Dollars

CVLCF Other

44

Economic Benefits

Natural Resource Professionals

Foresters Agrologists Biologists NGO Coordinators

Other Professionals

Graphic designers Sign printers Excavator drivers Carpenters Herbicide applicators Boat drivers Native plant nurseries

Materials and Supplies

Culverts and pipes Fencing and gates Herbicide Boat rentals Fuel

• Exploring opportunities

to expand the fund in the RDEK

• Exploring opportunities

to expand the fund in the RDCK

• Helping others help

themselves – other Areas interested

Local Conservation Fund Expansion

• Guidebook for

establishing Local Conservation Fund is available online

• Guidebook is currently

being updated and new edition will be available this fall

• www.soscp.org

Local Conservation Fund Expansion

47

For more information

Photo: Larry Halverson

www.kootenayconservation.ca

48

CVLCF – Video 2013