Christopher Woodall’s Post

I think we need to seriously consider implementing in Ontario what I call an “ecosystem loss for municipal green infrastructure credit system” to account for the greenland lost as a result of Bill 23 and Highway 413. We have a solid methodology to calculate the fee to proponents / developers for ecosystem service . The revenue should go to municipalities to pay for the necessary upgrades to green infrastructure that is required to manage the additional climate related flood and heat risk amplified by poor planning decisions.

This is a great step forward in quantifying the multi-layered benefits that diverse ecosystems can provide.

Destroying nature shouldn't be free. Forestry companies, developers, mining companies and fossil fuel companies have been getting a free ride for too long. They aren't paying a fair price for the resources they extract. For example, when there's an oil spill the corporation pays for cleanup but not for the long term damage. Multi-million dollar salaries, bonuses and stock options to executives are being paid for by the elimination of ecosystems at no cost. Zero value is placed on all the services nature provides humanity. And we've been letting them get away with it. #ecosystem #biodiversity #services #ecosystemservices

This is important especially given the source. “This guidance represents OMB’s recommended best practices for ecosystem services analyses in agency benefit-cost analyses.… When regulations alter ecosystem services, these changes can and should be assessed within the same analysis as other costs and benefits, using the same steps.” A great precedent for all governments to consider.

It's slowly happening! "Considering ecosystem services, broadly defined, in benefit-cost analyses will help agencies understand relevant tradeoffs or complementarities among different ecosystem services as well as with other costs and benefits. It will also help agencies avoid situations in which certain ecosystem services are implicitly given no weight or disproportionate weight in an analysis." "The guidance describes the similarities between ecosystem service effects and other effects of regulation while also outlining some unique considerations when including ecosystem services in an analysis".

Powerful guidance from the good folks at OIRA!

Water quality management presents ongoing challenges for regulatory bodies. As Member States strive to maintain and improve the health of water bodies, they increasingly turn to advanced analytical methods to inform their decisions. Learn how geospatial modelling can support the efforts to achieve good water quality standards across the EU in our latest news article https://lnkd.in/des7nsj9

Personalized Insights for Smarter Farming! Our self-assessment tool helps you evaluate your farm's financial health and offers personalized recommendations for improved efficiency. Use our Financial Assessment to gain valuable insights into your operations. https://hubs.ly/Q02RVHyj0

This rule is complicated…We need more time to analyze the impacts that are already in place with NOAA’s electronic monitoring policies which appear to: 1) allow fishermen to contract directly with a private EM provider; 2)allow fishermen to be their own EM provider; 3)allows them to review the date BEFORE NOAA has a chance to see it; 4)Allows them to delete the data that is NOT IN NOAA’s CONTROL in as little as a year following the trip. There are so many unspoken implications to this rule and, in combination with what they are already practicing, I fear it will have some devastating consequences to public access to fisheries observer data and information, making it harder for analysis on fisheries impacts. We need MORE transparency, not less.