Biodiversity: Let’s move away from entrenched viewpoints

Perhaps for the first time, natural biodiversity became one of the prominent subjects of debate in a provincial election.

For good reason, the campaigning party leaders were being asked this summer to make their commitments to its importance. All parties, of course, were careful to agree that the natural biodiversity of the province is a high priority. It remains to be determined if the rural pushback and Biodiversity Act controversy was a deciding factor in the election, as many private landowners were deeply opposed to the proposed Liberal legislation.

Given the results of the vote, we can suppose that this topic likely did not win the Rankin Liberals an overwhelming number of rural seats. It’s likely, as well, that the other parties will have gained intelligence from this outcome and would believe that it is foolhardy to venture into this legislative minefield anytime soon.

While this appears to be a stalemate, it is also an opportunity to listen to and educate each other to make progress that will benefit future generations of Nova Scotians. Consider that biodiversity — being roughly defined as the variety of life, the communities they form, as well as the habitats they live in — is not a static reality. This includes genetic diversity, species diversity, and overall ecosystem diversity.

For example, post-hurricane Juan, our forests saw many natural diverse changes, most beautifully the abundance of various bird species attracted to the insects which had reduced the fallen trees to soil.

In considering the amount of protected lands as a protective biodiversity measure, there already is considerable protected land area in proximity to the city centre of the HRM. Mapping shows that east of Halifax, from Waverley to Tangier, there are numerous, large tracts of provincially designated protected land. West of Halifax, there are protected lands as well and active considerations to add more. These are great accomplishments.

It’s true that human activities, both innocent and deliberate, can have unmitigable consequences for richly biodiverse areas.

It is also true that the feared outcomes associated with specific developments are not inevitable, given the ability and mandate to plan for them. Parks Canada, for example, has excellent expertise and practices in building roadway corridors through biologically sensitive areas. The natural gas pipeline constructed over 20 years ago across New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and which crosses over 600 watercourses, is barely noticeable on the landscape. The royalties from that development have contributed over $1 billion to the provincial budget, offsetting health care, social services and debt servicing requirements over that period.

Nova Scotia graduates dozens of specialized life scientists and environmental engineers each year who can develop and implement environmentally aware construction practices to protect biodiversity. There is now advanced knowledge on road salt management plans, soil erosion and sediment control (including practices that have been around for at least 60 years), and construction sequencing measures to mitigate injurious effects on biodiversity for particular projects.

My point is innovative solutions for sensitive developments are available and the loss of biodiversity from development is not always inevitable.

If we have decided that we want population density in core areas of the province, we need to adequately service these areas with transportation routes designed to safeguard the biodiversity of the natural areas they traverse.

In 2021, can a golf course which has been proposed in an economically depressed area containing valued ecosystem components be developed? We can neither say a definitive yes or no to this question with a locked-in mindset on what to accept and what to reject on biodiversity. But we can have the discussion.