Karen Wong | Planning Technician | Community Development

Isabel Gordon | Director | Finance September 2011

Sustaining our Natural Capital

in the City of North Vancouver

A Discussion Paper Prepared to Inform the Direction

of a New Official Community Plan 2021

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................. 2

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2

1.2 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 What is Natural Capital? ............................................................................................................ 3

1.4 Why Measure Natural Capital? .................................................................................................. 3

2.0 NATURAL CAPITAL – CITY OF NORTH VANCOUVER CONTEXT ............................................. 5

2.1 Applicable Policies and Goals .................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Overview of Natural Capital in the City ....................................................................................... 6

Parks, Trails and Natural Areas ........................................................................................................ 6

Creeks and Ponds ............................................................................................................................ 6

Waterfront/Burrard Inlet Shoreline ..................................................................................................... 7

Urban Forests and Street Trees ........................................................................................................ 8

2.3 Relevance of Natural Capital for the Upcoming OCP ................................................................. 8

Energy and Emissions ......................................................................................................................... 8

Park Planning for All Ages ................................................................................................................ 9

Local Food Systems ......................................................................................................................... 9

Parks and Trail Systems ................................................................................................................. 10

Financial Sustainability ................................................................................................................... 10

3.0 APPLYING NATURAL CAPITAL TO CNV ................................................................................... 11

3.1 Policy Options and Tools for Conserving Natural Capital ......................................................... 11

3.2 Economic Instruments and Payments for Ecosystem Systems (PES) ...................................... 11

Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) ....................................................................................... 11

3.2 User Fees ................................................................................................................................ 13

3.3 Environmental Footprint – Based Taxation .............................................................................. 16

3.4 Tree retention .......................................................................................................................... 16

3.5 Carbon Offsetting ..................................................................................................................... 18

4.0 LOOKING FORWARD................................................................................................................. 18

4.1 Challenges for the City ............................................................................................................. 18

4.2 Limitations of Environmental Valuation .................................................................................... 19

4.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 19

5.0 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 20

6.0 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................... 21

7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 23

1 | P a g e

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This background report introduces the emerging concept of natural capital and provides an overview

of the opportunities and constraints of various policy options related to natural capital. Specifically,

this report assesses Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES), user fees (water, garbage), tree

retention and carbon offsets. By identifying and valuing natural capital, the aim is to ensure that the

value of ecosystem services is not underestimated and depleted, but is taken into account for

community, business, and government decisions. The City of North Vancouver has a wealth of

natural capital within its borders; therefore, it is essential that it promote an ecologically and

economically healthy future by remedying adverse impacts where possible, and ensuring that natural

capital is used more sustainably in the future. This research seeks to inform future direction for the

upcoming 2012 Official Community Plan and to act as a preliminary study for a subsequent report

that will quantify the natural resources within the City’s boundaries.

2 | P a g e

1.0 BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction

Given the City of North Vancouver’s unique setting

as a compact, highly densified urban area

surrounded by the waterfront to the south and

numerous green spaces and natural features

throughout, protecting and enhancing the natural

environment has been a core sustainability

component in the City’s mission statement. Our

parks and natural areas are ecologically diverse

and are fundamental to our daily lives. They supply

numerous benefits, including regulating our

climate, cleaning and filtering our water and air,

and providing recreational and aesthetic opportunities. From a municipal perspective, maintaining a

healthy ecosystem can help enhance the quality of life for our citizens, provide for a resilient city, and

reduce municipal costs. The City’s current Official Community Plan and the 100 Year Sustainability

Vision recognize that in order to become more sustainable, the City must consider the impacts of its

built environment on a local scale, as well as on the surrounding area and the region beyond the

City’s borders.

However, in day-to-day decision making, the importance of natural attributes and their benefits are

often overlooked and undervalued, resulting in the further depletion of the earth’s resources (Wilson

2010). As climate change impacts and the threat of diminishing natural capital become ever more

evident, it is necessary for the City to more fully account for its ecosystem services, both to help

restore the natural environment and to ensure its continuity.

As one of the first municipalities in British Columbia to investigate the feasibility of meeting

greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and carbon neutrality by 2107, the City of North

Vancouver has been at the forefront of environmental protection and stewardship innovation (City of

North Vancouver 2007). The City continues to take a leadership approach in environmental

sustainability initiatives by investing to strengthen the resilience of its ecosystems. While natural

capital valuation is a relatively new concept, consideration of this methodology is prompting the City

to explore more specific strategies to identify and retain its natural capital, potentially for

incorporation into the 2012 update to the Official Community Plan.

1.2 Purpose

This report introduces the emerging concept of natural capital valuation to the City of North

Vancouver as an option for protecting the City’s ecosystems and natural areas. The aim of this

conservation method is to highlight the value of natural capital systems in economic terms so that

their benefits may be factored into business, governmental, and political decision making. The study

also discusses the opportunities and constraints of various policy approaches used to retain,

3 | P a g e

enhance, and quantify the value of natural capital. This research is intended to inform future

discussion for the upcoming Official Community Plan. It will also act as a preliminary study for a

potential subsequent report that will identify the distribution of ecosystem types and land cover

within the City and estimate the value of these ecological goods and services in order to measure the

economic benefits they provide.

1.3 What is Natural Capital?

Natural Capital Natural Capital Natural Capital Natural Capital is defined as Earth's “natural ecosystems...that provide resources and flow services"

(Wilson 2010) and refers to the earth’s land, water, atmosphere, and resources. The natural

environment and its ecosystems, which consist of our creeks, trees, urban parks, and forests, play a

critical role for life on earth and urban communities. Ecosystems provide a number of life-

supporting, essential services such as fresh water, climate regulation, local food production, soil

formation, erosion control, and natural risk management (TEEB 2009).

Natural ecosystems also generate multiple services, thereby supplying additional valuation benefits

such as carbon values (storing and providing habitat through the form of forests, wetlands, and

soils); air quality protection value (two trees can provide enough oxygen for a family of four);

pollination value; biodiversity value; and recreation value (Wilson 2008).

1.4 Why Measure Natural Capital?

Natural capital is of interest to the City for a variety of reasons. There is a growing international effort

by organizations such as Ducks Unlimited Canada, David Suzuki

Foundation, and “NatCap” (Stanford University, University of

Minnesota, Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund) to

protect the environment by assigning a monetary value to natural

capital (Moir 2011). A study conducted for BC's Lower Mainland

estimated the value of its natural capital as $5.4 billion (Wilson

2010).

It is essential to identify, monitor, and quantify the value of natural

capital because it is often overlooked, or considered only in terms of

aesthetics. However, the natural world is not a ‘nice to have’

lifestyle addition, although in the past, traditional municipal

spending emphasized playing fields and landscaped areas which

might have suggested this was the case. While we live in a highly

urbanized setting, we are entirely dependent on the services nature

provides. Our dependency on nature is more visible in regards to

agriculture, fish, and forests; it is less visible for other functions

such as producing the clean air that we breathe, lowering summer temperatures, increasing

recreational activity and value of the city, increasing air quality, and decreasing the amount of

flooding after heavy rain (TEEB 2010). Traditional economic measures such as GDP treat these

services as ‘free’ and without value. However, replacing these services, if that was even possible to

4 | P a g e

do, would be very costly. Assigning a value to natural capital emphasizes its importance, and

highlights its preservation and enhancement as a greater priority in decision making. Alternatively, if

the true costs of natural capital depletion are not considered, economic decision making will likely

continue to be skewed in favour of the built environment, with adverse natural capital impacts taking

place at an accelerated rate.

While our natural assets are essential to our economic and environmental well-being and provide us

with essential services, they are not included in the ‘traditional’ economic equation (Wilson 2010).

Land is only seen as valuable when it is built on and when it is extracted from (Moir 2011); forests

are worth money only when they become lumber or pulp. As with other natural assets, they are often

not considered valuable if left intact.

However, the depletion of natural capital can result in substantial impacts that can threaten health,

food production, climate stability and basic needs such as clean water. A study conducted by the

United Nations indicated that over the last 50 years, nearly two-thirds of the world’s ecosystems

have been degraded to the point where impacts on human health and well-being can already be

seen (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Moreover, the full effects related to the loss of

natural capital are not fully known (TEEB 2009). It is urgent that these trends be reversed if

possible. Being aware of and placing a market value on our ecosystem services could be a significant

step towards using resources more efficiently and sustainably.

Valuation can also help determine where enhanced eco-system services, such as storm drainage,

can be provided at a lower cost than man-made alternatives. Such assessments could address one

of the key challenges for local governments which is to enhance the quality of life for citizens with

limited resources (TEEB 2010). For instance, the City of New York secured a source of drinking water

by purchasing and restoring the Catskill watershed for

USD $2 billion, rather than investing in and constructing

a pre-treatment plant which would have cost $7 billion

(TEEB 2010). The restored watershed also provides

habitat for many species, and acts as a carbon sponge,

cleaning the air. The New York case study exemplifies

how natural infrastructure is able to perform many

services simultaneously while delivering these services

in more efficient and cost effective ways. Similarly,

trees decreased annual heating and cooling costs by

$1.2 million in Mississauga, Ontario (TEEB 2009).

It is also essential to account for nature in terms of economic measures because the environmental

and social benefits that result from natural capital reinforce its economic value. Empirical evidence

suggests that naturally designed park systems can economically benefit cities (Harnick and Welle

2009). As one report argues, property values increase with proximity to parks and the quality of the

park. Green spaces beautify the city, which makes it more attractive to purchasers. Parkland also

reduces storm water management costs by capturing precipitation and/or slowing runoff on pervious

5 | P a g e

systems. Studies have also monetized recreational activities which nature provides for ‘free’ such as

picnicking, walking, and cycling, and estimated a savings for each activity.

Furthermore, the economic burdens for being nonnonnonnon-active can be taken into account. It is well-known

that availability of natural areas influences both the type and quality of recreational activities

undertaken, with natural areas being conducive to more active pursuits. Conversely, a sedentary

lifestyle often means that more money is spent on medical costs; active people with good health may

have additional savings due to fewer medical bills.

2.0 NATURAL CAPITAL – CITY OF NORTH VANCOUVER CONTEXT

2.1 Applicable Policies and Goals

Conserving and improving our natural attributes is consistent with principles and goals set out in

provincial, regional, and municipal documents and policies:

Provincial:Provincial:Provincial:Provincial: The British Columbia Ministry of Environment states in the Greenhouse Gas Reductions

Target Act that the Province is committed to establishing BC greenhouse gas (GHG) emission targets

for various years/periods. In 2011, the Ministry announced its intention to become carbon neutral.

Regional: Regional: Regional: Regional: Metro Vancouver’s Ecological Health Action Plan Draft 2011 acknowledges the link

between human health/wellbeing and the health of the natural environment. As a result, regional

efforts focused on integrating ecological health into goals, strategies, and actions. The City’s efforts

on natural capital complies with Metro Vancouver’s goal to “protect regional landscapes, biodiversity

and heritage features” and “develop a connected network of ecosystems, natural features, and

corridors that enhance recreational connectivity and ecosystem functions through a collaborative

approach” (Metro Vancouver 2011).

Local/Municipal: Local/Municipal: Local/Municipal: Local/Municipal: The City of North Vancouver’s 100 Year Sustainability document identifies several

objectives including “fram[ing] future development around green space” and “improv[ing]

connections between natural areas” (City of North Vancouver 2009d). Another goal in the Planning

document is to investigate the potential of achieving 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050,

and net-zero greenhouse gas reduction by 2107. The

Official Community Plan (OCP) focuses on “proactively

and progressively increas[ing] biodiversity and habitat

values in public and private projects in the City through

Environmental Protection Program initiatives” and

“protecting and enhancing the remaining public forested

areas of the City.” Some of the guiding principles of the

Parks Master Plan are to achieve financial sustainability

by taking an asset management approach to parks

planning and funding; to promote healthy lifestyles; and

to develop a decision making framework that prioritizes

6 | P a g e

the needs and allocation of scarce resources to reflect the environmental, social, and economic

needs of the community.

2.2 Overview of Natural Capital in the City

The City has significant environmental resource values associated with remnant forest areas, creek

systems, and marine foreshore. Our vast resources not only play an essential role for our economic,

environmental and social well-being, they are also relevant in relation to priorities identified for the

upcoming OCP. This section provides an overview of some of the natural capital identified in the City,

the benefits it provides, and the relevant 2012 OCP priorities associated with it. While the list of

natural capital is not comprehensive, it can provide a starting point for future research.

Parks, Trails and Natural Areas

The City has 135.5 hectares of park space, which includes natural areas and city-wide and

community parks (City of North Vancouver 2010b). Of the 135.5 hectares, 81.8 hectares are

forests, defined as environmentally sensitive areas (such as steep slopes and riparian areas). Also,

11.4% of the City is Park and Open Space, which is a high supply of parkland in relation to other

municipalities in the region (City of North Vancouver 2010b). Based on the 2008 population of 47,

733 citizens and the total Parks and open space of 149.7 hectares, there are approximately 3.14

hectares of park land/ open space per 1000 people.

The Urban Forest Management Plan identifies 14 parks that are managed as natural areas,

including significant portions of Heywood Park, Mahon Park, and

Mosquito Creek Park. The report also “provide[s] clear and

prioritized recommendations for managing these areas in both the

short and long term” (2007). An assessment of natural capital

should consider this information.

In terms of natural pathways, “Schedule F” in the 2002 OCP

includes an ambitious greenway plan with a network of multi-use

trails that will provide connections within the City and to

neighbouring municipalities. The North Shore Spirit Trail is an inter-

municipal, multi-use trail which will eventually run from Horseshoe

Bay to Deep Cove. 6.5km of the trail runs through the City of North

Vancouver. The Green Necklace will be a 7km multi-use trail that

circumnavigates the urban core of the City. The first leg of the Green

Necklace was constructed in 2005 and extends 1.5km along Keith Road, from Jones Avenue to St.

Andrews Avenue.

Creeks and Ponds

The City is home to several salmon bearing creeks that are surrounded by parks and run from the

North Shore Mountains to the Burrard Inlet. The most significant creeks are Mackay, Mosquito,

7 | P a g e

Mahon, Mission, Lynn and Wagg Creek (HB Lanarc 2004). These creeks offer stormwater and

habitat values. A more in-depth inventory is provided in the Urban Forest Management Plan.

Mahon Park is the largest park in the City at 26.4 hectares. It is an environmentally sensitive area

surrounded by urban development which has resulted in erosion of the park’s ravines and the loss of

stabilizing plants. The Park is undergoing ongoing rehabilitation through the Mahon Park

Stewardship Project, an initiative comprised of local volunteers (the Mahon Park Stewards) and

created in partnership with the City of North Vancouver, Evergreen and the Environment Canada

Action Fund. As of 2010, 8196 native plants have been planted and 561 cubic metres of invasive

plants have been removed.

Heywood Park is the second largest park in the City at 16 hectares and is located near Mackay

Creek, with the District of North Vancouver to the north. The park is multi-functional with trails,

forests, playgrounds, a grass field, a soccer field, and a wildlife sanctuary which provides habitat for

songbirds and salmon. Due to urban development, only a portion of the original flora and fauna

remain from the MacKay Creek watershed, most notably the District’s upper Mackay Creek and

Murdo Fraser Parks, and the City’s Heywood Park (City of North Vancouver 2010a). Along with

Mahon and Mosquito Creek,

Heywood Park makes up the last of ravine ecosystems between Capilano and Lynn Creek watershed

(City of North Vancouver 2010a).

Mosquito Creek Park is an 11 hectare linear park that travels the length of Mosquito Creek from

Marine Drive and contains trails bounding the creek on both sides. Mosquito Creek is one of the few

urban fish bearing streams in Vancouver that still supports pacific salmon. While only its lower

reaches are located within the City, these areas are the

most important spawning and rearing areas for Coho

and chum salmon in the watershed.

Waterfront/Burrard Inlet Shoreline

The City’s most iconic area is the waterfront, which is

located along the southern boundary. The Burrard Inlet,

an 11,300 hectare area, hosts an abundance of fish,

wildlife and human activity. The City participates in an

inter-municipal task force for the Burrard Inlet

Environmental Action Plan (BIEAP) which is mandated to protect and improve the environmental

quality of the Inlet. Its activities include the development of a habitat inventory, which is currently in

progress. Stantec conducted a study of the Burrard Inlet shoreline in 2009 to investigate apparent

habitat loss based on high watermarks. The research examined shoreline changes from 1930 to

2005 and concluded that the overall loss of natural shoreline in Burrard Inlet was 52.85 km, with a

loss of 363 ha at the inlet area (Stantec 2009), Developments in the City over this 75 year period

have certainly played a role in this loss.

8 | P a g e

However, more recently, there have also been examples of shoreline habitat restoration in the City.

The ecological restoration of lower MacKay Creek in 2006 was provided to support juvenile salmon

before they returned to sea and a healthy beaver population, provide nesting opportunities for birds,

and enhance native vegetation (Washington Marine Group 2010). The Creek’s flowing channel was

diverted off the shipyard property and onto the City’s property, where it historically ran. The project

has been so successful, 50,000 pink salmon fry have been released into the Creek.

Urban Forests and Street Trees

The City parks are identified as Dry Maritime Coastal Western Hemlock Subzone (WHDm) in the BC

Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification system and are dominated by Western Hemlock and

Western Red Cedar (City of North Vancouver 2010a). Most of the native trees in the City are conifers

located on municipal and private properties and in ravines. In 2004, the existing inventory of street

trees as identified in the Street Tree Master Plan estimated 5415 trees; in 2011, this number should

be roughly 6000. Trees modify the local microclimate and conserve building energy use through

shading, wind speed reduction, and transpiration. Shade from large urban trees over city streets has

been found to reduce infrastructure repair costs by approximately 50% (HB Lanarc 2004).

2.3 Relevance of Natural Capital for the Upcoming OCP

The OCP update has identified several key priorities that may be addressed. Natural capital pertains

to the issues raised by these priorities and provides cost-effective opportunities to meet policy

objectives.

Energy and EmissionsEnergy and EmissionsEnergy and EmissionsEnergy and Emissions

“Actions in building, transportation and infrastructure reduce greenhouse gas emissions and

prepare the City for climate change impacts, such as sea level rise and storm events.”

Climate change will affect ecosystems and compromise their ability to function and supply services

such as water supply, flood control, and pollination. While there is great uncertainty regarding the

specific impacts that climate change will have on the City, the risks from natural hazards are

expected to increase. The OCP Discussion Paper Towards Climate Resilience references several

impacts that should be anticipated including an increase in temperature which will lead to increased

pressures from invasive plant and animal species, and extreme weather events that can impact local

biodiversity. There may also be additional stress on our energy supply, which is derived almost

entirely from hydroelectric resources, and a rise in sea level that will negatively affect

drainage/sewerage systems and impact existing and future waterfront development.

One of the key challenges for the City is to accommodate growth while reducing our carbon footprint

and mitigating GHG emissions. The 100 Year Sustainability Plan exemplifies the City’s intent to

reduce these emissions. Having a higher ecological resilience will facilitate greater coping ability to

minimize adverse and costly outcomes of climate change impacts (City of North Vancouver 2009f).

With the pending Official Community Plan, the opportunity exists to incorporate goals and strategies

to mitigate and adapt to the anticipated impacts of climate change. The City has already

9 | P a g e

implemented mitigation strategies such as GHG reductions, and compact communities, as well as

adaptation strategies for landslide slope stability and forest stand management.

While our natural resources are susceptible to natural and human impact, our urban forests and

natural areas will play a critical role in adapting to the effects of climate change. The retention and

enhancement of natural capital can assist in achieving the ecologic goals set out by the City.

Natural capital and its ecosystems provide a vast number of benefits particularly within an urban

context. Biodiversity assists ecosystem services, which are inextricably linked to climate change

objectives. It also supports healthy soil and forests which allow for the sequestration of carbon,

modification of microclimates, flood protection, carbon storage via forests, trees, and soils, and

water filtration services (TEEB 2009).

Park Planning for All Ages

“The needs of all residents are met when planning for the future.”

Green spaces in cities such as urban parks, forests, and creeks result in a healthier and happier

society and promote social and psychological benefits (City of North Vancouver 2010a). By

encouraging individual or group based recreational physical activities, healthcare costs can be

reduced while contributing to community living (Martin – Downs 2011). Benefits of parks and other

natural capital can be difficult to measure, but some studies do exist which illustrate the link

between time spent outdoors and an improved sense of well-being (Gordon 2011). An annual report

from “Active Healthy Kids

Canada” suggests children who spent more time outside tend to be more active, and outdoor activity

is linked to better health outcomes for all age groups. Quantification of avoided health costs due to

provision of well maintained parks promoting an active lifestyle is possible. A goal could be to ensure

that City parks are programmed for populations of all ages, similar to the multi-generational park at

St. Andrew’s.

Local Food Systems

“Healthy, safe food supplies most of the City’s daily needs,

is sustainably grown, processed and packaged in the City,

in surrounding agriculture areas, and in the Metro area.”

Ecosystem services are highly relevant to the production of

local food. About 80% of all flowering plant species are

dependent on pollination, making it critical to the overall

maintenance of biodiversity. Insect pollination in

particular is necessary for most fruit and vegetation

including annual crops such as tomatoes, peppers and

strawberries, and tree fruits such as apples and peaches

(Wilson 2010). BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands estimates the value of bee pollination in the

province at $267.3 million per year (Wilson 2010). Diverse habitats such as those found in forests

encourage a wide variety of pollinators. The City encourages urban bee-keeping through the Hobby

10 | P a g e

Bee Keeping Bylaw, which was introduced in 2009. This Bylaw facilitates a maximum of two apiaries

(where bees are kept) in single family zones for hobby purposes and in public use zones to provide

educational opportunities on urban apiculture.

There are three Community Gardens in the City: Lower Lonsdale garden, which has almost 50 garden

plots for growing vegetables and flowers and the Charros Community Garden with 42 plots. The

Queen Mary Community Garden has a total of 62 plots, with 4 dedicated to the school and 6 fully

accessible plots. A small community garden is planned for City Hall with 24 plots. There is also an

urban agricultural pilot project at Loutet Park on Rufus Avenue and East 14th Street. Through these

programs, citizens have more opportunities to participate and learn more about local food systems,

food security, and food production.

Parks and Trail Systems

Community members have access to open space, a multi-

use pathway and trail system and the waterfront.

Biodiversity thrives in the City’s urban environment,

including urban forests, public and private green spaces.

The health of the community is connected to the health of

the environment.

Urban green spaces (trails, conservation areas, playgrounds and backyards) contribute to better

health through relaxation, exercise, vitamin D, and alleviating stress (TEEB 2010). Parks and trails

are widely used for a diverse range of activities in the City. From April 27

to July 7, 2011, Moodyville West received 7,242 visitors and the newly constructed Harbourside

OverPass resulted in 11,242 visitors from June 9 to July 7, 2011. The completion of the overpass

provides a good example of the value of connectivity; as use of the trails is greatly enhanced by

providing connections, making each trail a part of the greater system. This is relevant to ecosystem

services in that it enhances the value of the entire network.

Financial Sustainability

The City manages its finances to meet identified community goals and objectives, both now and in

the future.

One challenge for municipal governments is allocating resources to climate change adaption, and

other ecological goals such as trail construction, in an already limited fiscal situation. In order to

incorporate natural capital within the City’s policies, innovative strategies and methods will need to

be developed to conserve our ecosystems and emphasize their economic importance. The key is to

realize that the value

that ecosystems provide can result in significant savings from a financial standpoint. The next

section of this report will explore different policy options to retain and enhance natural attributes.

11 | P a g e

3.0 APPLYING NATURAL CAPITAL TO CNV

3.1 Policy Options and Tools for Conserving Natural Capital

As the concept of natural capital becomes more prevalent, initiatives and tools have been developed to

address the challenge of retaining our natural wealth. While a plethora of policy instruments exist, this

paper looks specifically at the impacts and implications of Economic Instruments (EIs) such as

Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES), user fees (water, garbage), tree retention regulations and

incentives, and carbon offsets.

3.2 Economic Instruments and Payments for Ecosystem Systems

(PES)

Economic instruments (EIs) are cost-effective “market-based instruments used by policymakers to

achieve environmental goals” (Sustainable Prosperity 2011a). They generally work in concert with

regulatory regimes to provide rationales to retain ecosystems and their services in a cost-effective

manner and to assist in re-evaluating our relation to the natural environment. EIs alter market

prices, cap or alter the quantities of a good, improve the function of a market or create a market for

a good or service that previously did not exist. They range from incentives, through specially designed

fees, to eco-charges of various types. Many systems use a combination of all three types of EI’s (a

so-called ‘carrots and sticks’ approach). Three forms of EI that might be used by the City of North

Vancouver are Payment for Eco-system Services (PES), User Fees incorporating environmental

considerations, and Environmental Footprint-Based Taxation. These are described in general below,

and then considered in more detail as they might apply in a City of North Vancouver context.

Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES)

Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) is an incentives-based approach that rewards conservation

measures and habitat restoration, and enforces the notion that those who utilize ecosystem services

should compensate those who provide them. These programs offer incentives to private landowners

in exchange for managing land to provide an ecological service (as broadly defined). Participation in

such programs is generally voluntary on the part of the landowner, though the charges may be

imposed on users either directly or through taxation. PES can be applied to various services such as

water flows, carbon sequestration and storage, biodiversity protection, preservation of landscapes,

and soil erosion prevention (TEEB 2010). Currently the majority of PES schemes worldwide are used

for protection of watershed services (sediments and salinity control, and flow regulation), and for

climate change mitigation and biodiversity protection.

12 | P a g e

The following table from TEEB (2009) illustrates some financing schemes for PES Programs:

Schemes for financing PES Programs

Type of scheme Location How it functions

Voluntary contribution

Mexico (Coatapec Municipality Veracruz)

Domestic and commercial users voluntarily contribute one Mexican dollar on their water bill which finances watershed conservation. This recognizes the link between deforestation and water scarcity

Share of water charge

Japan (Aichi Prefecture and others)

Citizens pay one Japanese yen per m3 of water usage for the city run ‘Toyota city tap water source’ conservation fund for forest management.

Watershed protection fee from industry

South China (Xingguo County)

The household responsibility system requires that the industry pays a share of their sales revenue to support treeplanting and management for soil conservation.

Source: TEEB 2010 (Figure 8.1)

PES financing schemes can be public, private, or non-profit; current Canadian PES derive mainly from

direct governmental subsidies and grants. For instance, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s

“National Farm Stewardship Program” is an example of a cost sharing program that provides funding

and technical support to interested landowners who demonstrate approved practices such as

wetland restoration (Ducks Unlimited 2008).

To be effective, PES schemes must consider the form of payment and how to disperse them, the size

of the payment, and how programs will evaluate cost effectiveness (TEEB 2010). PES schemes must

also, at a minimum, cover opportunity cost,

because if the payments are too low, they will

not be effective in encouraging landowners to

adopt socially desirable practices. On the other

hand, overpayment is also problematic because

financial resources are limited.

Greater environmental outcomes are achieved

when PES are combined with traditional

regulations. 'Cap and Trade' is a now widely-

used form of PES program in which maximum

levels of usage are set for an environmental

degradation activity such as water use, with an

13 | P a g e

ability for users to trade off usage rights among themselves beyond a certain level. Such schemes

are useful for regulating commercial impacts, because businesses often respond better to a

combined regulatory and trading framework than to regulation alone, and government saves money

by creating a market for emissions rights, rather than solely using regulation. Using such a scheme,

for instance, the US Acid Rain emissions trading program saw a 25% greater than expected

emissions reduction, occurring at 50% of the cost to government, of enforcement of traditional

regulations (Sustainable Prosperity 2011a).

The drawback to PES is that it infers that a "trade-off can be made between monetary payment and

negative environmental consequence" (Sustainable Prosperity 2011a). It has also been argued that

while PES schemes are an incentive to improve poor environmental practices, they fail to provide

incentives for those who already practice good environmental practices (Sustainable Prosperity

2011a). Moreover, it can be difficult to monitor the benefits following the implementation of PES, as

well as to determine that all players are abiding by the rules of the system. Rigorous monitoring can

overcome some of these difficulties, but can also drive up costs to government. In any situation

where PES is proposed, a determination must be made of whether straightforward regulation and

enforcement would be more efficient. Finally, it is always difficult to know what the impact might

have been without the PES, so programs must be designed with close attention to aligning desired

behaviour with incentives provided.

PES schemes and conservation banking are newer policy conservation instruments that need to

have transparent, credible governance; flexibility; appropriate incentive based structures; monitoring

and enforcement; and community engagement (Sustainable Prosperity(a) 2011).

PES schemes are considered effective if they lead to an increase in the ecosystem service or a

decrease in environmental degradation (TEEB 2009), but succeed only if payments can be sustained

over the long-term. This success depends on funding availability from implementation and operation

to the cost of program maintenance, including continued payments to service providers. Given this

caveat, a PES scheme at the municipal level is only likely to be implemented using a taxation policy

to reward desired land uses for preservation of natural capital. This power is granted under section

225 of the Community Charter for ‘eligible riparian property’, and, with Provincial support, this

section could be broadened to include other desirable uses.

3.2 User Fees

A second form of EI involves a re-consideration or expansion of the use of traditional user fees to

include the preservation, enhancement, use or depletion of natural resources and ecosystem

services as one of the factors to be considered in setting the fee. Careful consideration of user fees

can potentially provide for better resource allocation, because these fees provide pricing signals to

consumers of services. Prices are the fundamental way that consumption is regulated in a

consumer-based economy; they compel people to place an “explicit value on the benefits they get

out of a service” (Muller 2003). If the fees reflect the true cost of the use, including costs arising

from impacts on natural capital, they may provide a strong incentive for consumers to be more

14 | P a g e

thoughtful in their decision to consume. Therefore, the user fee is a powerful tool for behaviour

change, which can be used by government to bring such change about.

Markets generally operate so that supply and demand set prices, but governments typically have

monopoly power over their services, and thus, are able to use pricing to achieve other socially

desirable goals. The government can also intervene in the market through surcharges. Charging

more for a good or service can be used to discourage use (for instance, surcharging cigarettes and

alcohol); charging less, conversely, can encourage use (for instance, subsidizing children’s swimming

lessons by providing them below cost). Applying this thinking to ecosystem services, if environmental

impacts can be related to individual behaviours, user fees/surcharges can be a part of the solution

to modify related behaviour. The so-called ‘gas tax’ in the Lower Mainland is an example of such a

user fee surcharge, because it is paid directly by users, at the point of consumption, in direct relation

to the amount of gasoline consumed. One

desirable result of this is to make consumers

more conscious of the amount they consume,

leading to actions such as driving less. Another

anticipated result is that a market will be

created for fuel-efficient alternatives, leading

industry and commerce to offer consumers

more eco-friendly technologies and practices.

Some people are likely to simply pay the user

fee if the benefits surpass the fee; therefore,

education and monitoring form a key part of

any user fee program which hopes to impact

behavior. Conversely, if some citizens are

unable to pay, they may be inequitably barred from any consumption of the service. Care must be

taken not to create a situation where the ability to pay becomes more important than the

achievement of the environmental goals. The issue of equity can be problematic, as those who are

less affluent may not have access to essential services (Muller 2008). Cash transfers provide an

option to compensate lesser income earners but another issue arises with the low to middle income

earners who earn more than the income support programs but would be disproportionately affected

by increased taxes and fees. Providing special rates/discounts to promote lower-income

accessibility may be effective, but is difficult to administer, and may create resentment in the sense

that other users have to make up for the subsidy. Moreover, it overlooks many nuances that exist

with regards to financial situations. Thus, when designing a fee, consideration should account for

equity concerns.

User fees can only effectively apply to goods or services where consumption can be measured.

Examples of municipal services typically subject to user fees include water, garbage, and other

utilities, recreation and cultural services, building permits, and parking fees. Natural capital impacts

could be built into these fees, and this has already been done in some areas. For instance, the

recycling area provides several examples of user fees that encourage desired behaviours in the form

of refundable deposits to discourage littering, and garbage can pick-up limits with a tagging system

15 | P a g e

for additional pick-ups, which encourage a reduction of garbage through diversion to blue boxes and

bags. Another option is to measure stormwater discharge based on effective impervious area of a

property, which may provide a good incentive to increase tree canopy cover on private properties.

A Council report submitted on June 17, 2008, explored the concept of using EI, particularly user fees,

to encourage environmentally practices.

The report indicates that an environmentally based user fee needs to be a consumption-based

revenue to be effective, but this would make the revenue levels less predictable, which could

mitigate against any rate/tax reduction. However, reduced consumption could be beneficial for the

taxpayer in the long run if environmental effects are mitigated and future costs are avoided. The

report recommended that levies based on external factors could fund “new projects, such as climate

change mitigation and adaptation strategies aimed at long term sustainability in the City” (City of

North Vancouver 2008). Some of these principles have since been incorporated into certain City

fees, for instance, equity and environmentally sound use principles have begun to be built into the

City’s water and sewer charges, based on consumption.

A similar set of principles was evaluated for litter collection, with the result forming the basis for the

City’s new Eco-levy, which coincides with the City’s refuse and recycling efforts. Street litter can be

targeted with specific reduction efforts, enhancing natural capital by reducing litter impacts in the

City and in the region.

Another way to tie refuse charges directly to use of the system considered in the City’s EI report is by

instituting weight-based charges. However, such a change to more environmentally-based refuse and

recycling fees may have both undesired impacts as well as beneficial ones. Initial increases in illegal

dumping, privacy concerns, and costs for weighing collected refuse are cited as some of the

associated implementation challenges to a weight-based refuse collection system. Although

implementation of a weight-based system would require additional up-front investment and staffing,

similar programs have been implemented in certain European cities. The report recommends that a

consultant further investigate the impacts of this proposal. Additional issues need to be explored

such as the impacts and implications to various industries (social/business/industrial/commercial);

contrasting impacts of levies to renters versus owners; and cost to implement the changes.

The City could also consider using its permit fee system, in combination with its regulatory zoning

powers, to encourage ecosystem preservation. Charging lower fees to developers who conform to

certain desirable practices is an option. The City is already using bonusing to enhance building

energy performance, and could explore further use of this tool as well.

Resistance to differential user fees may occur during the introduction of the scheme; however, in

response to this potential protest, governments can either “build broader consensus around the

need for change such as drawing on communication tools that integrate insights on benefits, or

decide to partially buffer the distributive impacts by using tools such as compensation for a defined

period” (TEEB 2009).

16 | P a g e

3.3 Environmental Footprint – Based Taxation

Environmental Footprint-Based taxation (EFBT), also known as “polluter-pays”, is based on the

principle that those who damage ecosystems should “pay the cost of remediating such damage

through fines, taxes, offsets, or full-clean-up costs” (Muller 2003; Sustainable Prosperity 2011a).

This is common when damage has been done in the past, with effects only now recognized (i.e., soil

remediation costs). Imposing a fee for damage may also lead to reduced instances of damage in

future, as businesses and citizens become unwilling to incur liabilities and pay the full cost. An area

where the City has considered using a type of EFBT is in charging for storm drainage. The City

currently collects a storm drainage levy based on property value to fund the Storm Drainage Utility,

but has considered instead assessing the ratio of permeable surface area to impermeable area of

each property as a proxy for storm drainage use. There has been no decision to move forward with

this proposal as of yet, as a reliable source of obtaining data about each property is not yet available.

However, if the BC Assessment Authority could be required to include such data in its property

description, the measure could be used as a direct incentive for property owners not to pave unless

absolutely necessary, and may encourage the use of permeable paving solutions.

3.4 Tree retention

Tree retention is a key area where many municipalities are already using EFBT principles combining

regulation, fines and charges, and replacement requirements to encourage alternatives to tree

removal by developers and landowners. Urban forests play a key role in a sustainable future and

street trees can provide cost-savings for municipal governments.

Substantial research is available in regards to City street trees (trees located on public land) (HB

Lanarc 2004; City of North Vancouver

2010b). The Street Tree Master Plan, which

was done in 2004, used the computer

program STRATUM (Street Tree Resource

Analysis Tool for Urban Forest Manager) to

measure the benefits and costs of the city's

existing street trees. In 2004, CNV’s 5,414

street trees provided an estimated

34.1MWH in energy-savings annually and

426.2Mbtv of gas annually which is

equivalent to energy use of approximately 12

homes in CNV. This results in a savings of

$6514/year, in addition to any contribution that the trees may provide in terms of avoided

maintenance costs.

Close proximity between trees and buildings tend to decrease heating and air-conditioning demands

which results in a decrease to carbon dioxide emissions. The Street Tree Master Plan report

estimates that the trees in the City sequester 1, 264, 752 pounds carbon dioxide per year, and

release 334, 379 pounds of carbon dioxide per year through decomposition and maintenance

17 | P a g e

activities, which results in a net reduction of 934, 933 lbs of carbon dioxide per year. This is

equivalent to the carbon dioxide emitted by 78 lightweight vehicles per year, at a savings of $9366

per year.

In terms of air quality, the trees remove 1013 lbs of ozone, nitrous oxide, particulate matter and

sulphur dioxide from the air. By intercepting run-off, trees contribute to storm management as a

typical street tree reduces runoff by approximately 2000 litres per year. In North Vancouver City

overall, trees intercept over 2 million litres of rainfall per year, which is enough to fill 20 backyard

swimming pools. Thus, City street trees provide $66,362 in savings per year for storm water

management.

The overall annual benefits of CNV’s street trees are $501,000 per year, or $94 per tree per year,

which would be $25 million in benefits over 50 years. The annual maintenance cost associated with

these trees is $94,000 in 2003. An updated inventory with more current information would be

beneficial for further tree retention.

The Street Tree Planting program in 2004 cost $24,750; however, the program provides potential

revenue of $35,300 (HB Lanarc 2004), which does not include the benefits such as air cleaning,

carbon sequestering etc. A suggestion for encouraging tree retention on private property may be to

allow developers the opportunity to contribute to a “tree bank” which would then be used to plant

trees on/protect the trees on City lands. The following table summarizes initiatives to expand the

number of trees in municipalities around the globe.

Table 3.4.1 Tree Planting Programs

Location Function How it functions

Calgary Co-sponsors for tree planting program

The City of Calgary Forever Green program is cosponsored by BC Canada, Golden Acre Gardens, Sentres, Calgary Health Region and CPR.

Canberra, Australia

Tree Planting 400,000 trees were planted in the city which not only made the city greener, but also cooled the city, decreased pollution, improved urban air quality, decreased energy costs for air conditioning, stored and sequestered carbon, and beautified the city. The trees have provided an estimated $10 million in benefits and cost savings between 2008 to 2012 (TEEB 2009). This amount is expected to increase over time.

Montreal, Quebec

Tree Planting The City of Montréal has introduced a ’One baby, One Tree’ program where families have the opportunity to plant a tree on private property to mark the celebration of their newborn/adopted baby (TEEB 2010). A tree planting program in the City could provide similar benefits as there is available space for trees in boulevards.

Curitiba, Brazil

Green space/tax break Curitiba increased green space per person from less than 1 m² per capita to 52 m² per capita. Local residents planted 1.5 million trees and tax breaks were given to building projects that include green space.

Source: City of Calgary; TEEB 2009; TEEB 2010; Ville de Montréal

18 | P a g e

3.5 Carbon Offsetting

Carbon offsetting is an economic development transaction where adequate compensation (habitat

restoration, creation or enhancement) is provided to other areas. In other words, “credits can be

generated by restoring, creating or enhancing habitat elsewhere” (TEEB 2010). Increased amenity

values to an area simultaneously facilitate the conservation of biodiversity and economic

development.

Carbon offsetting delivers a number of benefits such as fostering an improved relationship between

local communities and developers. However, carbon offsetting may not be appropriate for unique

and irreplaceable areas and would be better used for sites where the proposed development has a

‘lower’ value (TEEB 2010). TEEB (2010) also suggests that offsetting provides ‘better use of land’ in

the sense that areas with greater conservation priorities can receive funding.

Like most EI’s, carbon offsetting is relatively new, so substantial research has not been done on its

overall effectiveness. Good in theory, it may prove to be less than effective in practice. For instance,

uptake of offsetting credits is subject to market activity, i.e. supply and demand. Developers are less

likely to engage in habitat restoration and conservation activities if the economy is not strong. For

this reason, offsetting may work best in combination with other tools. For example, in Australia, the

New South Wales Dept of Environment and Climate Change established Biobanking which combines

biodiversity banking and an offsets scheme. A portion of the revenue from credits is deposited into

the Biobanking Trust Fund. This money is then used to pay the Biobanking site owners for the

management of their areas (TEEB 2010).

4.0 LOOKING FORWARD

4.1 Challenges for the City

One of the challenges the City may face is in trying

to retain natural capital while simultaneously

continuing to deliver cost-effective municipal

services. Giving natural capital priority in decision

making may run contrary to immediate imperatives

and impact limited financial resources that are

currently diverted to other priorities. Moreover, the

value of the environment may be “sidelined due to

development strategies [that] focus on economic

growth without recognizing the role of functioning natural systems for local well-being” (TEEB 2010).

The City will thus need to emphasize the economic value of our natural capital to Council and the

public so that its value will not continue to be misunderstood and overlooked.

19 | P a g e

4.2 Limitations of Environmental Valuation

Ecosystems can still be costly despite the fact that environmental valuation can help determine the

appropriate price for a fee, tax, or payment and provide adequate levels of redress as those who

cause damage to the environment must pay. In addition, qualitative and quantitative research is

difficult since our understanding of ecosystems is limited. Valuation techniques are not yet

standardized and thus, different techniques result in different values (Sustainable Prosperity

2011a). Quantifying natural capital remains an approximation as measuring natural capital is

relatively new and no method is perfected.

Moreover, expected benefits, even when they are more easily valued ( such as freshwater provisions

or waste treatment) can take time to materialize and can require significant upfront investment. This

can deter private investment (TEEB 2009). Therefore, it is vital that governments and public budgets

play a role in supporting and coordinating with stakeholders.

4.3 Recommendations

The following recommendations are provided to elaborate and facilitate further study.

Further investigation relating to the concept of natural capitalFurther investigation relating to the concept of natural capitalFurther investigation relating to the concept of natural capitalFurther investigation relating to the concept of natural capital that would illustrate the distribution of

ecosystem types and land cover within the City and provide an assessment of ecosystem benefits in

economic terms. This work would require extensive research and resources but would be beneficial

in the long term. This study should also identify the City’s key natural features (street and public

trees, environmentally sensitive areas, foot paths, municipal parks and trails).

Collaborate with various levels of government and other stakeholdersCollaborate with various levels of government and other stakeholdersCollaborate with various levels of government and other stakeholdersCollaborate with various levels of government and other stakeholders. Implementing policies that

effectively protect and conserve ecosystems and biodiversity requires collaboration between local

and regional government, organizational bodies, and other stakeholders. It also ensures consistency

and sound management in regards to resource and land-use planning. For example, a river should

be managed as a whole, from the source upstream to downstream where wetlands or delta reside

(TEEB 2009).

Stewardship and Public Awareness.Stewardship and Public Awareness.Stewardship and Public Awareness.Stewardship and Public Awareness. Having a successful natural capital restoration program will

depend, to a large extent, on local stewardship and knowledge. Small and incremental lifestyle

changes by the local community can significantly impact the ecosystem. For example, stewardship

could play a large role in the provision of additional trees in the City, as one of the biggest challenges

for the enhancement and retention of trees on municipal land is the lack of staff resources for

maintenance and watering of the individual trees.

20 | P a g e

5.0 CONCLUSION

Numerous opportunities exist for protecting and enhancing the natural environment, even in a highly

urbanized area such as the City of North Vancouver. Maintaining a balance between the built and

natural environment is achievable. Market tools provide an option to ensure that future

development employs innovative technologies that respond to local conditions and adapt to our

natural areas, and that citizens understand and value the ecosystem services they provide. The new

OCP has enormous potential to secure and enhance natural capital and incorporate the associated

benefits into City policy for a sustainable and healthy future.

21 | P a g e

6.0 APPENDIX A

Ecosystem services: Description and Examples

The following table is derived from Table 1: Ecosystem categories and types relevant to cities found

in TEEB (2011), which differentiates the services provided by ecosystems (Provision services;

Regulating services; Habitat or Supporting services and Cultural services). This table summarizes

ecosystem functions, processes and corresponding services as found in the City.

Provisioning ServicesProvisioning ServicesProvisioning ServicesProvisioning Services: “Material or energy outputs from ecosystems”

Ecosystem Service Service Description Example

Food production Provision of food Community gardens (Charro, Lower Lonsdale and Queen Marry Community Garden) and urban farm (Loutet Park)

Regulating Services:Regulating Services:Regulating Services:Regulating Services: “Regulating the quality of air and soil”

Ecosystem Service Service Description Example

Local climate and air quality regulation

Maintaining air quality and climate through trees and green space

The Street Trees Master

Plan (2004) notes that City trees removed 1013 lbs of ozone, nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, and particulate matter from the air

Carbon sequestration and storage

Regulating global climate by storing greenhouse gases.

City trees sequestered a net reduction of approximately 934, 933 lbs of carbon dioxide per year (HB Lanarc 2004). The City is also abundant in Parks and forests.

Erosion prevention and maintenance of soil fertility

Vegetation cover provides a regulating service to prevent soil erosion.

City trees and parks contribute to stormwater management as land cover mediates climate processes

Pollination Pollination of wild plant species and crops

Hobby Bee Keeping Bylaw

22 | P a g e

Habitat or Supporting Services:Habitat or Supporting Services:Habitat or Supporting Services:Habitat or Supporting Services: Providing living spaces for plants and animals and maintaining

biodiversity.

Ecosystem Service Service Description Example

Habitat for species Food, water and shelter for animals and plants

City parks and creeks, and Burrard Inlet.

Cultural Services:Cultural Services:Cultural Services:Cultural Services: Opportunities for aesthetic and psychological benefits.

Ecosystem Service Service Description Example

Mental and physical health, and Recreation

Social, health, and psychological benefits and nature as a source of inspiration.

Urban parks, trails, forests and creeks.

Tourism Economic benefits via ecosystems and biodiversity.

Burrard Inlet/waterfront, urban parks, and tourism potential of Mahon Park.

23 | P a g e

7.0 REFERENCES

City of North Vancouver – Blue + Green Design Studio. (2010a) Heywood Park Master Plan. North Vancouver. City of North Vancouver City of North Vancouver - Catherine Berris Associates Inc. (2010b) Parks Master Plan: Activities and Diversity. Vancouver. City of North Vancouver - Cecchetto, Julie. (2010c) OCP Discussion Paper: A Healthy Planet. City of North Vancouver - Design Centre for Sustainability. (2009d) 100 Year Sustainability Vision. City of North Vancouver – Diamond Head Consulting. (2007) Urban Forest Management Plan Technical Report. Vancouver. City of North Vancouver - Hysop, Adam. (September 2009f) OCP Discussion Paper: Towards Climate Resilience in the City of North Vancouver. City of North Vancouver - Jackson, Caroline and Irwin, Janice. (June 17, 2008) Council Report: Environmental Footprint-Based Taxation Ducks Unlimited Canada (2008). “A Strategy for Conserving Canada’s Natural Capital.” Accessed August 18, 2008 at http://www.ducks.ca. Federation of Canadian Municipalities (Prepared by Sheltair Group). (2001) Green Municipalities: A Guide to Green Infrastructure for Canadian Municipalities. Gordon, Andrea. (Jun 4 2011) “Doctors Write ‘Park Prescriptions’ to get Patients Moving.” Available at http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/542860--doctors-write-park-prescriptions-to-get-patients-moving. Harnick, Peter and Welle, Ben. (2009) Measuring the Economic Value of the City Park System. Trust for Public Land, Washington DC. HB Lanarc. (2004) Street Tree Master Plan. Martin – Downs, Deborah. (2011) Ecosystem services. The Living City Report Card. Metro Vancouver. (July 12, 2011) Ecological Health Action Plan: Working Towards a Sustainable Region – Draft. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being, Summary for Decision Makers. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Moir, John. (August 8, 2011). “An Economist for Nature Calculates the Need for More Protection.” Accessed August 17, 2011. New York Times.

24 | P a g e

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/science/09profile.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share&pagewanted=all Montreal Economic Institute – Muller, Paul Daniel. (December 2003). “The Pros and Cons of Public Service User Fees.” Stantec (2009) Burrard Inlet Shoreline Change – Baseline Assessment. Sustainable Prosperity - Kenny, Alex et al. (2011a) Advancing the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Canada. Environment Canada Sustainable Prosperity – Wesanko, Jennifer. (2011b) Export report says Canada’s ‘Natural Capital’ worth Billions, is being depleted. TEEB - The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2009). TEEB Manual for Cities: National and International Policymakers. Available at: www.teebweb.org TEEB - The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2010). TEEB Manual for Cities: Local and Regional Policymakers. Available at: www.teebweb.org. TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2011). TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management. Available at: www.teebweb.org. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2009) Yearbook 2009: New Science and Developments in Our Changing Environment. Nairobi, Kenya. Washington Marine Group. (2010) News Release: WMG Wins City of North Vancouver Environmental Stewardship Award. Vancouver. Wilson, Sara J. (2008) Ontario's Wealth Canada's Future: Appreciating the Value of the Greenbelt Eco—services. David Suzuki Foundation Wilson, Sara J. (2010) Natural Capital in BC’s Lower Mainland: Valuing the Benefits from Nature. David Suzuki Foundation