Natural asset management (NAM) is essential for sustaining the resilient and cost-effective services that are provided by healthy, well-stewarded ecosystems across Canada. NAM is based on easy-to-replicate asset management practices, a straightforward approach that could likely become a common approach for local governments.
In 2018, with support from Vancity Credit Union, NAI embarked on a research and planning process to define a realistic path to scale adoption of NAM. The resulting way forward includes creating professional tools for NAM, developing norms and standards, building a proper curriculum and training opportunities and, as always, producing more practical examples of NAM, the results of which inform everything else.
The strides made so far are encouraging:
- We’ve grown from a single project to over 160 NAM examples across multiple provinces, enriching our library of case studies.
- More tools and guidance, including professional resources, have been develops to support practitioners on their NAM journeys.
- The first national standard for natural asset inventories has been published, with others in queue.
- More funding providers now explicitly support natural asset management initiatives.
While there has been progress, challenges to a widespread uptake of NAM remain. The well-documented barriers to NAM notwithstanding, it’s important that we ask ourselves:
- Do these 160 examples represent successful practices that deliver cost-effective and reliable services based on healthy ecosystems? How can we be sure?
- How can we continue to evolve norms and standards in this field?
While many paths can lead to answers, two particular trajectories deserve our attention.
Trajectory 1: Progressing Around the Asset Management Wheel
NAM is a journey rather than a destination. There’s no defined starting point or endpoint; any organization engaging in NAM should anticipate ongoing efforts throughout the lifespan of natural systems, which could be infinite. This means that an initial step, such as creating an inventory, doesn’t mean we can cross “INVENTORY” off of our To Do List.
For instance, if we liken NAM to car maintenance, changing the oil once and driving it hard won’t ensure vehicle longevity. After establishing an inventory, the next steps should involve understanding the ecosystem services provided by nature and identifying the risks these ecosystems face. With this information, organizations can define specific service levels that a community aspires to achieve and outlining the necessary investments through a NAM plan. Then, there are a multitude of possible strategic, programmatic, bylaw or other changes that can be made to protect the health of the natural assets.
Following this trajectory means:
- Continuous progress through the natural asset management cycle is vital
- More opportunities for shared learning, as many entities at different stages often face similar challenges
- Improving on the growing body of resources and tools available for each phase of the journey
The good news is that we’re seeing more and more local governments, First Nations and other organizations moving through these stages.
- For example, the Regional District of Nanaimo (RDN) transitioned from an inventory to a detailed understanding of service risks and the role natural assets play in mitigating those risks.
- The Town of Gibsons serves as an exemplary case, consistently advancing through the asset management cycle and recently launching the Source to Sea project, which connects water management efforts from the source to the ocean. Such landscape-scale efforts likely represent the peak and logical goal of NAM efforts.
IMPLEMENT
Trajectory 2: Towards Standards
To achieve widespread adoption, natural asset management needs a base of norms and standards, even if specific projects and actions are tailored to local contexts.
Take natural asset inventories; at first, very few local governments pursued inventories. But as a small number who had were able to share their experience, lessons and best practices became clearer which led to an increased interest in inventories and ultimately the creation of a national standard, WS218.
Similarly, just a few years ago, the concept of establishing service levels for NAM was virtually nonexistent. NAI stepped in to develop guidance, which some local governments are now starting to implement. This trend will hopefully yield more examples and insights, paving the way for future standards. Our organization is attempting the same for natural asset management planning.
Progress on this trajectory means expanding efforts to create examples, followed by guidance and then norms, in more functional and professional areas of NAM. For example, NAI started working with professional planners in the Prairies to create more examples of NAM planning
Ultimately, we will move to a patchwork of assorted norms and then to a system in which there are consistent “rules for the game” allowing NAM to be comparable, replicable, and effective everywhere, which will make it easier to fund and scale this work even faster.
Connecting the trajectories
These two trajectories run parallel to one another. For the foreseeable future, many organizations will need support to move along their NAM trajectory, particularly in more novel areas for which there is currently limited guidance.
As practice areas in NAM cycle (e.g., inventories) become well-used and supported by standards, market providers will be able to support more entities with implementation, much as a firm may hire an expert to help certify a building as “green.” In time, practitioners who support entities in their NAM journeys may need an accreditation.
Accelerating Progress
How quickly we can advance along these trajectories depends on several factors, the most important being the collective effort to address the known barriers to natural asset management. Some challenges, such as governance and jurisdictional fragmentation at the watershed scale, require significant involvement from provincial, territorial, and federal governments. Others, including silo mentalities, risk aversion, and a lack of awareness, could be tackled through the establishment of a community of practice for NAM.
Relevant, up-to-date data on NAM outcomes is essential to both trajectories. There can only be learning from case examples, sharing and mobilization of knowledge if we know what is happening—to this end, NAI will, in 2025, pilot an AI-based monitoring system with funding from RBC Tech for Nature.
As NAM evolves, it demands ongoing research and development funding. While establishing standards is relatively low-cost, it still requires investment. Securing financing for ecosystem rehabilitation and restoration at scale will require collaboration between public and private sectors. Related to this, NAI and partners like Conservation Halton are fundraising for Phase 2 of an innovative financing project to be piloted in Southern Ontario’s Hamilton-Burlington area, with partial funding from Cooperators.
In conclusion, natural asset management stands at a crucial stage. By embracing these two trajectories—continuously progressing through the asset management cycle and establishing necessary standards—we can foster healthier ecosystems and ensure that all communities reap the benefits.
As we move forward, collaboration and innovation will be key to realizing the full potential of natural asset management across Canada.
