First in a three-part series.

(photo by flickr user arimoore)

Ontario’s ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides has made a lot of people nervous about weeds. Letters to editors of the province’s newspapers often carry laments from home owners regarding weed invasions and the despoiling of lovely green lawns, parks and sports fields. Many people are at a loss for how to cope with weeds.

The ECO would like to suggest that the solution is close at hand. The application of well-made compost, with the occasional help of a few additional organic inputs, can reduce weeds to the point where a few minutes of hand-pulling from time to time is all that is needed to maintain a green, healthy, weed-free lawn. This is not a matter of just adding compost and hoping for the best. This is science that works.

The Town of Wolfville, in Nova Scotia, provides a good example. David Slabotsky, who manages the parks, gardens, and recreational sports fields for the Town, had been using organic methods of turf management for years but was still having problems with weeds. After attending a workshop where he heard a scientist talk about the importance of beneficial fungi in turf soils, he decided to get some training in the biology of compost and soil and apply his new knowledge to his job.

Within a couple of years of introducing some new methods, weeds have all but disappeared and the soil in Wolfville’s parks and soccer fields is healthy and productive. David uses no pesticides and only a small amount of organic fertilizer. His main tool for this successful program is well made, mature compost. (Read more about this project, and more, in Compost: Appreciating Nature’s Sense of Humus from this year’s ECO Annual Report.)

With respect to weed control, it is important to realize that not all composts are created equal. In general, for a compost to provide optimum benefit, it must have high levels of microbial diversity (there are millions of different species of microbes in a handful of good compost). Properly made, well-aged composts generally meet this requirement.

For fighting weeds in lawns, however, microbial diversity is not enough. This diversity should include significant levels of beneficial fungi. But what are beneficial fungi, why are they important, and how do you know when there are enough fungi in your compost? This blog is the first of a series on how compost – your own, the municipality’s, or commercially produced product – can be used to develop and maintain a lush, healthy and weed-free lawn.

The next blog will look at the science of soil ecology and how the management of the “soil food web”Âť can provide an effective, low-cost, environmentally superior alternative to the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The third and last blog will provide some practical tips on how you can apply these principles to your own lawn.

The earth is currently losing wildlife, fish, and plants at an almost unprecedented rate. Global biodiversity has dropped by 30 per cent since 1970, according to the Living Planet Report 2010 released earlier this month by the World Wildlife Fund. Species are disappearing a thousand times faster than normal.

This global extinction is comparable to the damage done when a massive meteorite slammed into our planet 70 million years ago and wiped out the dinosaurs. But this time around, the enormous environmental change is being caused by development and climate change.

The federal government, aided by independent scientists, has listed 470 species across Canada that are at risk of extinction, from the killer whales on the West Coast to the swift fox on the prairies and the American marten in Newfoundland.  Even species that we think of as ubiquitous in some parts of Canada, like the Monarch butterfly, are under threat because of logging in their wintering grounds in Mexico, and the mistaken belief that milkweed, their host plant, must be eradicated as a noxious weed.

Right now, world leaders are meeting in Nagoya Japan, to try to halt this loss of life around the planet. And the UN Secretary General has told the delegates to the United Nation’s biodiversity summit they face a daunting task, “To tackle the root causes of biodiversity loss, we must give it a higher priority in all areas of decision-making and in all economic sectors.” Ban Ki-Moon has also challenged all governments, including Canada’s, to implement solutions:  “The consequences of this collective failure, if it is not quickly corrected, will be severe for us all.”

How well is Canada rising to the challenge?  This country’s 4th National Report to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, judged our own progress as “mixed.”  While we are doing a better job than in the past in protecting ecologically sensitive areas, trends also show that, everywhere else, there are significant declines in many species, particularly among birds and fish.

The problem is that all too often, we don’t know how concerned we should be about the state of Canada’s plant and animal species.  Long-term scientific monitoring is often subject to the whim of politics and cut-backs. But its value is immeasurable.  It is also not a luxury: the sustainable management of our natural resources depends on it. The mantra for corporate management applies equally to the environment: “You can’t change what you can’t measure.”

We can’t manage, conserve or protect what we don’t know. We also can’t detect our own failures – as a government or as a society – if we don’t know they exist until it is too late.  This creates uncertainty in a time when decisive action is urgently needed.  Without the information, public debate over what needs to done will be taken up by spurious issues, instead of the actual facts on the ground, in the air, and in the water.

Stepping back, it’s also important that everyone think about their own actions and how these may threaten species and imperil the natural environment.  One way is to look at our individual ecological footprint, the measure of how many of the earth’s resources we personally consume; that can spark an important discussion about the future we want to have.

On a per person basis, Canada has the seventh highest ecological footprint in the world.  Or to put it another way, it takes over seven hectares of land around the world to support each one of us.  In contrast, it takes only two hectares on average to support any one else on the planet.  This is neither a record to be proud of, nor one that matches the perception we have of ourselves as Canadians.

So, on the international stage this month, world leaders at the biodiversity summit urgently need to tackle this environmental crisis head-on.  At home, our provincial governments must play their constitutionally crucial role and be the stewards of our natural resources and biological diversity.  It is a legitimate question to ask all levels of government what plans they have for conserving our biological diversity.

If we care about the future for our children, our communities, and our economy, a bold vision that embraces our environment as the ultimate bottom line is needed.  Our collective security and prosperity depends on it.

Gord Miller is the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.

There has been much discussion of late, some of it emotionally charged, about the future disposition and activity in the existing industrial forest as well as what has been termed the “Far North.”  As Environmental Commissioner I have weighed in on this debate many times.  Most recently, last month I chided the Ministry of Natural Resources for not fulfilling their responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act and the Public Lands Act with regard to the forest dwelling population of woodland caribou and the unauthorized construction of airstrips and mining infrastructure, respectively.

This land we call public land, or sometimes Crown Land, is “our land.”  The land is a tremendous ecological and economic heritage of aboriginal, provincial, national and international importance.  The First Nations who have lived on these lands for centuries have a different perspective on what the term “our land” means.  Their relationship to these lands is far more longstanding and intimate and precedes  the British legal system.  However, I think all of us can agree that these are communal lands, not the property of private corporate interests.

There are two obligations on the province with respect to these lands that are clear in the Canadian constitutional and Ontario legal system (setting aside the yet-to-be-resolved  rights of the aboriginals for this discussion).  In Ontario law, the province exercises jurisdiction over public land and the province has a consequent obligation to its citizens present and future to see to its proper management.  And secondly, our Supreme Court has ruled that Ontario must engage in meaningful consultation with the appropriate First Nations in advance about the use or appropriation of such lands.  This is our law and we live by the rule of law.

So what is the role of  corporate interests?  We need private investment to develop and extract the resources that lie on and under this land in order to create wealth and employment for all our peoples, especially First Nations who want to play a leading role in developing economic opportunities in the region.   And so private companies should be encouraged and supported in their efforts.  We let mining companies stake land and bring it to lease or ownership to facilitate their development of mineral wealth.  We enter into sustainable forest licences giving forest companies stewardship over large tracts of land.  These are mechanisms of wealth creation that we have used for decades.

But there is more wealth on this land than wood fibre and minerals.  There is the cultural wealth that is the legacy of  aboriginal cultures over many generations. There is the wealth implied by clean fresh water resources tumbling off the Canadian Shield on their way to the arctic.  There is the  potential for tourist and recreational revenues in a world increasingly hungry for wilderness experiences.  There is the immense value to society of megatonnes of carbon sequestered in the forests and peat that is not active in warming our planet. And there is the immeasurable wealth of the rich biodiversity of the region, including the last remnant healthy populations of species that were once more widespread, such as woodland caribou and wolverine. It is also the essential breeding grounds for tens of millions of songbirds that migrate the length of our continent each year.

There are many values of such land.  And we must never forget that this is our land, our responsibility. With that responsibility we have obligations to all the people of Ontario, and generations yet to be born, that must be met.

Gord Miller

commissioner@eco.on.ca

As world leaders are meeting this week to discuss the future of biodiversity, Ontario needs to listen closely. Ontario is home to tens of thousands of species and vast areas of forests, tundra, and freshwater. Yet the provincial government has been unsuccessful at halting biodiversity loss within Ontario’s borders.

This year, the ECO examined several policies aimed at protecting and conserving the province’s biodiversity. Our 2009/2010 Annual Report illustrated the links between climate change and biodiversity loss, warning that Ontario’s ecology will be radically reshaped by the end of the 21st century. It also highlighted that Ontario’s biodiversity strategy from 2005, itself a five-year plan, had expired and there was no commitment by the Ontario government to address this globally significant issue in the years ahead. The ECO formally recommended that the Ministry of Natural Resources lead the development of a new and reconceived biodiversity strategy for Ontario.

The ECO reported this year on many other issues the global Convention on Biological Diversity will be discussing:

Species at risk: The ECO investigated Ontario’s mixed progress in implementing the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA).  The government is facing a steep learning curve to protect and recover species at risk.  Many policies necessary for ESA implementation, and associated public consultation, remain incomplete.

Wildlife management: Black bears will now be managed in Ontario by ecological zones rather than by human boundaries, which is a step in the right direction.  However, when it comes to bears, MNR uses the term “sustainability” only in terms of their continued harvest.

Forests: Forestry practices in the Stand and Site Guide aim to provide for wildlife habitat, but long-term research has not been completed to ensure effectiveness of its guidance.  As we lose forested habitat in some areas, renewed efforts in afforestation are required to conserve and restore the diversity of forest ecosystems in the province. One billion more trees need to be planted in southern Ontario – far more than the government’s target of 50 million trees by 2020

Parks: New guidance for managing Ontario’s parks emphasizes the importance of their ecological integrity.  However, without the necessary legal weight, guidelines will not produce the desired results.

For more information, please see the ECO’s 2009/2010 Annual Report.

Yesterday at the Convention for Biological Diversity in Japan, the largest ever study on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) was released.

The study (.pdf) found that although nature provides trillions of dollars of “free” ecosystem services that support life on earth, we as humans are not accounting for the value of these services.  This failure to place real value on our natural assets results in wasteful consumption and is detrimental to both our environment and our economy.

As noted in the ECO’s 2007/2008 Annual Report, biodiversity is “the foundation upon which human well-being depends for the services that the natural environment provides.  Biodiversity is inextricably linked with the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the fertile soils we depend upon for our food, and the lands upon which we depend for our natural resources.”

Investing in our ecological infrastructure, rather than only on built infrastructure, supports a range of policy goals – including for human health and well-being, food security, stormwater management, and climate change mitigation.

As noted in the TEEB report: “Ignoring biodiversity and persisting with conventional approaches to wealth creation and development is a risky strategy and ultimately self-defeating” – because we will lose the essential elements biodiversity provides for our own livelihood.

The report makes several recommendations, including: creating of an improved system for full-cost accounting of our natural assets; establishing positive economic incentives for protecting and providing ecosystem services; and increasing protected areas, as a cost-effective means of protecting essential ecosystem services.

Arnold Schwarzenegger? Proposition 23? What do they have to do with Ontario as we hunker down for another long, cold winter, you ask? Well, on November 2, California voters – along with voters in 35 other U.S. states – go to the polls to elect their governor in the U.S. mid-term elections. November 2 could be a watershed day for carbon markets, not only in California but also across the North American continent, if not around the world. Why? Because oil and gas interests in Texas are bankrolling something called Proposition 23 that will appear on the California ballot.

If approved by voters, Prop. 23 would force California to roll back its landmark 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act, also called Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) until the state’s current 12.4 per cent unemployment rate drops to under 5.5 per cent for four consecutive quarters (something that has only happened three times in the last 40 years). This would essentially “terminate” California’s clean energy initiatives and be a major blow to one of the few bright lights in the state’s struggling economy – the growth of green jobs and the development of a low-carbon economy through the introduction of a cap-and-trade system.

Even if Prop. 23 is defeated, the future of AB 32 is still uncertain. Its ultimate fate will depend on whether a Republican or a Democrat is elected governor. (Schwarzenegger is out of the picture as he can’t run for another term.) Both the Democratic and Republican candidates have indicated they don’t support Prop. 23. The Democratic nominee has vowed to move “full speed ahead” on AB 32 and the transformation of California’s economy, assuming he is elected and Prop. 23 is rejected. The Republican candidate has indicated she would suspend all activity on AB 32 for at least a year until the economy improves.

OK, so what do the vagaries and uncertainties surrounding an election in California have to do with Ontario? Simple. Both Ontario and California are key members of the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), a collaboration of seven US states and four Canadian provinces.

WCI’s goal is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 through a number of initiatives, the most important of which is a cap-and-trade system. Currently, two U.S. states (California and New Mexico) and three Canadian provinces (Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia) have passed the necessary enabling legislation required for the development of a cap-and-trade program. But, while Ontario has its enabling legislation in place (see Pricing Carbon: Can a Cap-and-Trade System Deliver the Tonnes from the ECO’s latest Annual Report) it has yet to publicly announce the specific design elements of its cap-and-trade program. It must do this through public consultation and the posting of its final decision on the Environmental Registry.

Losing California would be a major blow to the WCI and possibly to carbon trading systems elsewhere in North America, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord, and quite possibly to the developing international carbon market. Why? Because as California goes, so goes the rest of the U.S., the second largest carbon emitter after China and the third largest emitter of GHGs on a per capital basis (just behind Australia and, yes, Canada). Without California’s leadership, the development of a North American-wide effort to put a price on carbon would likely be delayed for years.

As shown in the first chart below, California’s GHG emissions represent just over half of those WCI members ready to launch the trading system in January 2012, with a total of just under 480 million tonnes (Mt) of GHGs. Adding New Mexico brings the U.S. tally to almost two-thirds of the five jurisdictions’ emissions. Ontario is the next largest emitter at 190 Mt. Elections will also be held in New Mexico on November 2 and indications are it may withdraw from the WCI cap-and-trade provisions, too.

Ironically, as shown in the second chart, this could leave only three Canadian WCI partners in a position to move forward in January 2012 – with Ontario representing almost 60 per cent of the remaining members’ emissions. Which begs an even bigger question: Should (or could) Ontario, B.C. and Quebec go it alone?

As the carbon analysis group PointCarbon noted recently, the three Canadian partners would need to decide if “a market without California would be liquid enough” to support carbon trading without experiencing wide volatility in carbon prices. If Ontario is forced to reconsider the timing of its participation in WCI (or its participation outright), then this has significant implications for its 2014 and 2020 GHG reduction targets as presented in its most recent Climate Change Action Plan annual report . This report, along with the ECO report Finding a Vision for Change, both noted an expected shortfall in achieving the province’s 2014 and 2020 GHG reduction goals.

The Ontario government views the development of a cap-and-trade system as a “significant factor” that could help deliver the tonnes and close the gap at 2020. So, the timing couldn’t be worse: California’s participation in the developing North American carbon market hangs in the balance pending the results of mid-term elections. Ontario’s ability to go it alone is fraught with uncertainty around timing as well: it must make public the details of its cap-and-trade design while at the same time ramping up for a provincial election next October. January 2012 is only 14 months away.

California Dreaming: stay tuned! Check back after November 2 for further commentary.

Today, 193 countries from around the world will meet in Nagoya, Japan, to begin the Convention on Biological Diversity conference of parties.

The United Nations General Assembly chose the year 2010 as the International Year of Biodiversity. It did so to raise understanding, to evaluate government actions, and to chart a new way forward.

The loss of biodiversity is a crisis of global proportions. There are now more than 3,000 critically endangered species around the world, and one third of all assessed species are at risk, according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Almost every country on the planet pledged “to achieve a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss” by 2010. Unfortunately, this goal was not met by any country, according to the United Nations. A renewed effort is unequivocally needed.

In Ontario, there is no law that specifically requires that government monitor the province’s biodiversity, let alone conserve it.

In our 2009 Special Report, the ECO recommended that the Government of Ontario establish a statutory responsibility for monitoring and reporting on the state of the province’s biodiversity.  The Ontario government has taken no action on this recommendation, informing the ECO that “a statutory requirement is not necessary at this time.”

The ECO recommended our 2009/2010 Annual Report that the province develop a new and reconceived biodiversity strategy.  Ontario’s 2005 biodiversity strategy quietly expired this year.

For more information on what the ECO has said in the past about biodiversity, please visit our website.

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has come out with a compelling poster graphic of what’s in store for Canada in the next 40 to 60 years (click to download .pdf).

Here’s what we have to look forward to in Ontario:

• Moderate to high permafrost thaw sensitivity in Northern Ontario
• More frequent disruptions to water treatment/distribution and energy generation/transmission
• Increased water shortages in S. Ontario
• Increased summer temperatures and evaporation rates
• Increased health risks related to extreme weather, heat, smog and food-, water- and vector-borne diseases
• Remote communities affected by evacuations, transportation disruptions and stressed forest-based economies

The Commissioner appeared on TVO’s The Agenda last week.

The topic:

Ontario’s green energy plan was heralded as huge step forward for the province’s green future, but is it delivering what was promised?

The panel:

Tom Adams is an independent energy and environmental advisor, and has previously served as Executive Director of Energy Probe, member on the Ontario Independent Electricity Market Operator Board of Directors, and member on the Ontario Centre for Excellence for Energy Board of Management. He blogs at Tom Adams Energy.

Paul Clipsham is the Director of Policy and Business Development for the industry and trade association, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters.

Donald Dewees is a Professor of Economics at the University of Toronto.

Joyce McLean is Director of Strategic Issues for Toronto Hydro. She is also Past Chair of the Canadian Wind Energy Association.