AIA Conference on Agriculture, Food and the Environment

LAND AND PEOPLE: AN OUTLOOK OF OPPORTUNITY OR INEVITABLE DECLINE

M Anne Naeth, Vic Adamowicz, Al Jobson, Quentin Lau

LAND AND PEOPLE: AN OUTLOOK OF OPPORTUNITY OR INEVITABLE DECLINE

Green Paper Prepared for the Alberta Institute of Agrologists

Presented at the Annual Conference of the Alberta Institute of Agrologists Banff, Alberta, 20 April 2016

Authors

Dr M Anne Naeth, PAg, PBiol Associate Dean Research and Graduate Studies and Professor Faculty of Agricultural, Life and Environmental Sciences Director, Land Reclamation International Graduate School (LRIGS) University of Alberta

Dr Vic Adamowicz Vice Dean and Professor Faculty of Agricultural, Life and Environmental Sciences Research Director, Alberta Land Institute University of Alberta

Dr Al Jobson, PAg (Retired) Adjunct Professor Faculty of Agricultural, Life and Environmental Sciences University of Alberta

Dr Quentin Lau Research Associate, Alberta Land Institute University of Alberta

Cover Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

The opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the Alberta Institute of Agrologists.

2

Land is the place where lessons are taught, where wisdom abides; where we learn lessons about life and death from the seed broken open in darkness, dying in order to come to life in a different form, and from the compost which teaches us that decay is needed for life’s richness. Land is the place where we are healed when no words can comfort or explain. It is the place where we are taught about and find community; where everything is connected to everything else, and nothing exists independently; the place where everything feeds on and depends on the other.

- Jeanne Clark

Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

3

CONTENTS

1. Introduction ...... 5 2. Land And People: A Retrospective ...... 6 2.1. Ancient connections of land and people ...... 6 2.2. Roots of agriculture: revolution or slow evolution ...... 7 2.3. Path of agriculture development ...... 8 2.4. Path of energy development ...... 9 2.5. Alberta land use history ...... 10 2.6. Alberta energy history ...... 11 3. Sustainable Land Use Challenges ...... 13 3.1. Fossil fuels and renewable energy alternatives ...... 15 3.1.1. Fossil fuels ...... 15 3.1.2. Biofuels ...... 16 3.1.3. Other renewable energy sources ...... 17 3.1.4. The future for fossil fuels and non renewable energy sources ...... 19 3.2. Carbon sequestration, greenhouse gases ...... 20 3.3. Animal versus plant protein ...... 22 3.4. Water ...... 23 3.5. Biodiversity ...... 26 3.6. Soil degradation ...... 27 3.7. Land reclamation ...... 28 3.8. Climate change ...... 33 4. Opportunities To Ensure The Future Of The Land And Its People: Triggers, Drivers, Signals To Change ...... 34 4.1. Improve sustainable land use measurements ...... 34 4.2. Enhance methods to clarify social licence and its pathways ...... 36 4.3. Construct innovative regulatory mechanisms incorporating sustainability incentives.. 37 4.4. Support innovation and technology that strive for sustainable land use ...... 39 4.5. Improve methods for evaluating land use tradeoffs and policy options ...... 40 4.6. Adapt for business as usual ...... 41 4.7. Reconnect to nature ...... 44 5. Key Messages ...... 46 5.1. Land use evolution ...... 46 5.2. The role of markets ...... 46 5.3. Thresholds and constraints ...... 46 5.4. Measurements and data ...... 47 5.5. Capacity ...... 47 5.6. Reconnecting with nature ...... 47 5.7. What to do and who should do it ...... 48 6. References ...... 50

4

1. INTRODUCTION

The land provides numerous important goods and services to earth’s people, such as agricultural products, energy resources, water, forest products, environmental spaces and wildlife habitats. These goods and services are interconnected, affecting each other, and the people who use them. The relationships between people and the land and their use of it for agriculture and energy have been particularly enduring and evolutionary. People use external energy to meet their needs that cannot be provided by the natural or local environment, such as warmth, light, cooked and preserved food, mobility and transformations from raw to manufactured products. As use and control of energy become more sophisticated, so do resulting land uses, and the evolutionary development of humans.

Most terrestrial ecosystems have been altered by continued direct and indirect interactions with human populations and land use systems for over 126,000 years. Initially the impacts were small and localized due to a small human population and lack of technology. As the number of humans increased, land use intensity and its spatial extent also increased. For many, human driven changes to the environment are raising concerns about the future of planet earth and its ability to provide goods and services to maintain viable human civilizations. Pervasive and significant human activities are now considered a global, geophysical force, equal to the forces of nature, and directing the planet into a new epoch, the Anthropocene.

Increasing pressures on the land to meet the many requirements of earth’s human population, will become even greater with projected population increases. Development of a sustainable land use strategy can benefit from a historical understanding of the dynamics of people and land use systems and their role in shaping ecosystems over millennia; from recognition of land use intensification and alteration as necessary processes to sustain the growing human population; and from recognition that decisions regarding land use and intensification have risks. Hence, as we try to balance human needs and wants with the limits of the planet on which we continue to evolve, we must address both the risks and outcomes of our decisions.

In this paper we discuss the evolutionary relationship of people and the land and present retrospective, current and prospective views of their impacts on each other. We address the challenge of sustainable land use through a discussion of the relationships and current controversies among people, agriculture, energy and the land.

Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

5

2. LAND AND PEOPLE: A RETROSPECTIVE

2.1. Ancient Connections Of Land And People

Fossil and archaeological evidence of the 15 million year evolution to Homo sapiens (modern humans), can help us understand the ancient and continuing relationship of humans and the land. Anton and Snodgrass (2012) discuss how our human ancestors improved hunting and gathering skills, leading to a more energy and nutrient dense diet from meat, which provided for development of increased brain size and language; with more efficient communication came improved foraging and hunting, social systems and information spread. They discuss how use, control and initiation of fire emerged; the first use of energy by humans, other than their own physical strength. The first cooked meat was likely from animals killed in forest fires, tasted out of curiosity. Humans came to depend on fire for warmth, as a tool to deter dangerous animals and to drive game toward favourable slaughtering locations, and to increase daylight hours for work. Increased nutritional value of cooked foods would lead to increased cognitive skills. As humans ventured into early agriculture, their numbers expanded rapidly, requiring more land clearing. Using land cleared by fire would have been obvious, and slash-and-burn agriculture could begin. All these advances led to reduced mortality risk, thus beginning the interplay of humans with the land through energy and agriculture.

With fire and agriculture, early humans were able to explore, settle and survive, even in the most challenging climates and landscapes. Homo sapiens evolved in Africa 195,000 to 160,000 years ago then spread to most habitable lands on earth (Boivin et al 2013). Recent interpretations suggest there were multiple dispersals out of Africa (Groucutt et al 2015), including much earlier than the previously suggested 60,000 to 40,000 years ago (Dennell and Petraglia 2012). Thus human evolutionary development occurred in numerous locations simultaneously.

Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

6

2.2. Roots Of Agriculture: Revolution Or Slow Evolution

Over 90 % of human history our ancestors lived as foragers (Owen 2000), yet agriculture played a pivotal role in the most recent 10 %. Agriculture was thought to have occurred as an abrupt break with hunting and gathering, although new data suggest gathering wild plants to cultivate then domesticate, occurred over many millennia (Balter 2007), rather than as a revolution (Pringle 1998). Plant domestication began 10,000 years ago, followed by a long period of low level food production, during which hunting and gathering continued, while crops were slowly domesticated (Smith 2001). New archaeological research shows plants were domesticated independently in at least ten specific centers of origin.

These transition societies are characterized by their early and broad exploration of a resource management category of human-plant-animal interaction (Smith 2001). Intriguing questions are raised on how they combined non intensive and intensive strategies of utilizing some wild plant and animal species with active management of others, developed small scale storage for food and supplies, planted domesticated seed stock and herded domesticated animals, before formal agriculture. Some suggest a climate connection, with hunter gatherers cultivating and domesticating plants to increase their yield during dramatic climate shifts in a final phase of the last Ice Age (Pringle 1998). Historians suggested complex, large scale forms of society only appeared after farming. However, Owen (2000) discusses new evidence that shows development of village based agricultural economies more than 5,000 years after the first plant domestication. He suggests a strong causal link between farming and settled village life is unlikely, as in many regions, settled agriculturalists emerged only centuries or millennia after cultivation, if at all.

Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

7

2.3. Path Of Agriculture Development

The transition period between use of wild plants and domestication provides a basis from which to understand the path to dominance of agricultural systems. Mazoyer and Roudart (2005) and Ellis et al (2013) articulately show how humans directly and significantly altered terrestrial ecosystems for over 15,000 years and the following information is derived mainly from their work. Impacts were localized and of little global significance until land use intensification with activities such as planting, clearing and food processing began to reshape ecosystems and increase productivity, setting a trajectory for the rise of agriculture. Evidence of domesticated crops appears in the Near East 13,000 years ago and in North America as early as 10,000 years ago, although wild plants were not replaced by domesticated ones until 3,000 years ago. About 9,000 years ago the earliest cultivation systems and animal breeding appeared.

Mechanization of agriculture had widespread and deep impacts on the land. Ard plows, or scratch plows, date to 8,000 years ago; with archaeological evidence of an ard plow in Sweden 5,000 years ago, an iron version 4,300 years ago in Assyria and Egypt, and a wooden version 4,300 years ago in Italy. Early cultivation practices, coupled with manure application to increase soil fertility led to early anthroposols (human made soils) 6,000 years ago in Europe and 2,500 years ago in the Amazon.

Pastoral animal breeding occurred in grass dominated areas, continuing to the present on steppes and savannas. Slash and burn cultivation extended into temperate and tropical forests over millennia continuing today in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Slash and burn cultivation led to significant large scale deforestation and hoe cultivation. Non slash and burn agriculture first occurred on fertile alluvial flats that did not require clearing. In arid regions annual floods and irrigation systems were common. Agricultural tools and implements improved; planting and harvesting multiple crops per year began. Several agricultural revolutions led to current farming systems, such as rain fed cereal cultivation with fallowing and animal herding. From the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries the first agricultural revolution yielded cereal and feed grain cultivation. These agricultural changes were often associated with desertification, increased fire frequency, faunal extinctions, species invasions and soil erosion.

Discovery voyages, and what is commonly known as the great exchange, were significantly tied to agriculture and plantations for product exports. Plants brought to the old world included corn, cocoa, peanuts, pineapple, chili peppers, tomatoes, vanilla and potatoes. Plants brought to the new world included wheat, rye, oats, coffee, oranges, lemons, cotton, sugar, tea and bananas. Pigs, cattle, sheep, goats, donkeys, rabbits and chickens were brought from the old world; turkeys and llamas were brought from the new world. The horse, that had earlier died out in the Americas, was reintroduced by the Spanish in the late 1400s.

The second agricultural revolution began about two centuries ago, coinciding with the industrial revolution. This moved agriculture beyond subsistence and into a system of providing food for thousands of people in urban centres. The third agricultural revolution, commonly called the green revolution, was a time of agricultural developments to substantially increase production, including high yield crop varieties and expanded use of fertilizer.

Chemicals and genetics (biotechnology) led to major changes in agriculture (Unsworth 2010). In the 1940s agriculture was inundated with chemicals such as DDT and 2,4-D. Although Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, Silent Spring, focused on problems associated with indiscriminate use of pesticides,

8

chemical use did not slow down. By the 1970s and 1980s herbicides, pesticides and hybrid crops for improved yield and product quality increased dramatically. Environmental harm from DDT was recognized and its use in most countries ceased. The 1990s brought a renewed focus on selectivity and environmental impacts. Post 2000 has been dominated by genetically engineered crops, and a contrasting attempt to develop an organic crop and livestock industry without antibiotics, chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides or genetically modified crops and livestock.

Photo Credit: Alberta Land Institute

2.4. Path Of Energy Development

The historical path of energy is similar to that of agriculture, with small inventions, changes and adaptations leading to large scale use. To increase energy stores, many past civilizations altered their environments in ways that contributed to their eventual downfall. Today the developed world is relatively dependent on fossil fuels, our transcendent form of wealth; contributing to a climate in flux, stagnant political and economic systems still measuring development as quarterly growth, and an approaching tipping point with a potentially calamitous outcome. Attempts to gain wealth by significant portions of the population, through more and better food, electricity, communication technology, better health or more arms and ammunitions, often meant production of commodities to sell (e.g. other cash crops), replacing traditional agriculture and often leading to accelerated environmental degradation.

Smil (1994, 1999) suggests transition periods show us the path to human dominance with energy as a main factor. He describes how human power for agriculture and industry was gradually replaced by windmills, water wheels, horse and oxen power, then coal. A critical milestone was Savery's steam engine in 1712, replaced by a more efficient one from Watt in 1763. The first solar thermal collector was developed by de Saussure in 1767, although coal use was still dominant. By 1816 coal gas for European domestic uses greatly improved air quality, perhaps the first environmental benefit directly attributable to coal. In 1839 Becquerel produced an electric current, and from 1840 to 1880 Joule, Kelvin, Maxwell, Carnot, Clausins and Boltzmann formulated theoretical heat engines, laying the basis

9

for thermodynamics. In 1859 the first oil well was drilled in Pennsylvania. Kerosene (coal oil) was distilled from product petroleum and used as lamp oil, replacing decreasing supplies of whale oil. This represents a conservation effort accidentally derived through petroleum. In 1861 an internal combustion engine using crude oil, was designed and built based on developments by Otto, marking the first use of liquid hydrocarbons for transportation. In 1879 Edison invented the incandescent electric light bulb, providing a major step in illumination.

The twentieth century marked the beginning of rapidly increasing consumption of fossil fuels in spite of progress towards alternative energy sources (Smil 1994, 1999). Electrical distribution systems were widespread based on alternating electric current developed by Tesla and commercialized by Westinghouse, and many hydroelectric dams were built. In 1938 Hahn and Strassman demonstrated nuclear fission, leading to the first nuclear plant in 1942 in Tennessee and the first commercial nuclear power plant in 1957 in Pennsylvania. The need for uranium created huge demands that left abandoned mine sites in Saskatchewan and Russia, posing ongoing environmental issues.

As the world entered the twenty-first century the focus was on energy security, energy poverty and the reality associated with future increased demands for all kinds of energy. Concerns related to climate change and increased concentrations of greenhouse gases led to the quest for a sustainable energy

future, directed to reduced use or elimination of fossil fuels.

Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

2.5. Alberta Land Use History

The Alberta history of land and people is summarized from the detailed works of Friesen (1997), Macgregor (1972) and Owram (1979), unless otherwise noted. It all began at Wally’s Beach in southern Alberta, which provides the only direct archaeological evidence of horse and camel hunting in the Americas at the end of the last Ice Age, 13,300 years ago (Waters et al 2014). Aboriginal peoples inhabited Alberta for over 11,000 years and 500 generations (Alberta Government 2013), living nomadically, hunting, trapping and foraging. Much of their recorded history starts in southern Alberta in the mid eighteenth century with bison hunting and work with trading groups. Milestones

10

include the first European settling by Henday in 1754, the first fur trading post in 1778 by Pond, the American market for bison hide robes bringing an influx of fur traders, and the emerging liquor trade in the 1850s and 1860s. The Dominion Lands Policy of 1872 created the legal framework for settling and cultivating the land, and land treaties altered relationships with Aboriginal peoples.

Earliest agriculture in Alberta involved large rangelands, with the first small herd of cattle brought from Montana to Morleyville in 1871. Cultivation of crops was on a small scale until completion of the TransCanada Railway in 1885. With the Homestead Act of 1895, rapid settlement of Alberta began, and from 1896 to 1914 millions of hectares of homestead land were broken as settlers moved west.

The Northern Alberta Railroad was completed in 1916, prompting widespread homesteading in the Peace River region. World War I increased the need for grain production, prompting breaking of several million hectares of marginal land within the Palliser Triangle. This ultimately contributed to the erosion fiasco of the early twentieth century, with the worst drought of the century from 1917 to 1920 forcing many farmers from their lands. By 1937 the entire Palliser Triangle was threatened by soil drifting and erosion, making soil conservation a major focus. Palmer promoted trash cover farming and Noble developed the Noble blade plow to reduce stubble burial. In 1935 the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA) was formed to address desertification and erosion in western Canada. In 1946 work began on an earth filled dam on the St Mary River, initiating widespread, regulated, irrigation. The discovery of oil at Leduc in 1947 began to transform Alberta's economic base from agriculture to petroleum.

Alberta’s land and agriculture focus in the twenty-first century is directed to land use sustainability. Potential increased land use for biofuel production clashes with the need to increase production of high quality food for domestic and export markets. Increased costs of farm inputs and large scale farming operations continue to be concerns. Public pressure on agriculture to address climate change, greenhouse gases, environmental sustainability, animal welfare, soil and water conservation and food safety and quality are growing.

2.6. Alberta Energy History

Alberta Energy (2016) provides a short history of energy in Alberta, from which the information was procured for this section. Paralleling this physical energy picture, is a colourful and rich documentation of regulatory responses and developments, viewed by many as forward thinking and exemplary.

The first known reference to the Athabasca oil sands was made by Captain Swan, who found gum and pitch while working with native hunters in 1715 near a river feeding the Churchill. In 1875 the Geological Survey of Canada began investigating the area, followed in 1893 with a Parliamentary bill authorizing investigations for petroleum. In 1915 bitumen was first used commercially for road paving in Edmonton by Ells. Clark developed a hot water extraction process for oil sands in 1926, followed a year later by Fitzsimmons building a small plant near Bitumont, north of Fort McMurray. The Great Canadian Oil Sands initiated the world’s first large scale operation in Fort McMurray in 1967, producing 2,500 barrels per day. Butler's development of steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) in the 1970s changed the oil sands industry by providing a method for in situ mining. This was followed by a cyclic steam injection project at Cold Lake in 1985. By 2004 Alberta’s total annual bitumen production exceeded 1 million barrels per day.

11

Coal was discovered in Alberta in 1792 by Fidler near Drumheller, although the first coal fired electric generator near Lethbridge was not built until 1874. In 1887 coal production began in Canmore and in 1911 the largest coal mine in Alberta opened at Nordegg. The first coal fired steam turbine generator was established at Genesee in 1989 with a 410 megawatt capacity.

Natural gas was first discovered in Alberta in 1883, when the Canadian Pacific Railroad was drilling for water at Alderson. By the 1890s more wells were developed in the area, producing gas for homes and factories in Medicine Hat. In 1908 the first major gas field was discovered at Bow Island, leading to construction of the first pipeline for natural gas delivery. In 1936 deep oil was discovered at Turner Valley with a rotary drill rig. making it feasible to find other deep deposits. In 1947, after 133 dry holes, Imperial Oil struck oil at Leduc.

By 1950 oil replaced coal as Canada’s largest energy source; pipelines were built to carry natural gas to eastern and western parts of Canada, with the TransCanada Pipeline system completed in 1958. The first sulphur recovery plant for sour gas was built in Alberta in 1952. By 1955 Edmonton’s Rossdale plant switched from coal to natural gas. Alberta’s first ethylene based petrochemical plant was opened at Joffre in 1979; in 2000 it expanded with the Fort Saskatchewan project to become the two largest in the world. In 2002 the first commercial production of natural gas from coal gas (coal bed methane) occurred in Alberta.

The first hydro generator in Alberta was built on the Bow River in 1893, followed in 1911 with a hydro plant. Cowley Ridge, established in 1993 near Pincher Creek, was the first commercial wind farm in Canada; that year Alberta’s first biogas system using manure produced on the Iron Creek Hutterite colony began operation.

Alberta’s energy focus in the twenty-first century, like the focus in agriculture, is directed to land use sustainability. There is considerable concern over oil prices, its supply, demand and geopolitics. Fracking and biofuel production are important developing scenarios. Issues continue to be raised regarding movement of hydrocarbons via rail and pipeline, particularly after each spill or other environmental impacting event.

Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

12

Photo Credit: Alberta Land Institute

3. SUSTAINABLE LAND USE CHALLENGES

The human population has had such a significant impact on the land that it is considered by many to be a geophysical force shaping the future of planet earth. Although not yet officially named, the current epoch is thus often called the Anthropocene (Steffen et al 2007). The Anthropocene is thought to have begun around 1800 with early industrialization and the unprecedented use of fossil fuels; others suggest it began much earlier when early humans learned how to control fire.

Although our current environmental focus often centers on climate change and fossil fuels, we are facing other serious problems, such as fresh water shortages, famines, land use for animal versus plant protein, spread of deserts through soil degradation and erosion, land reclamation priorities, biodiversity declines, greenhouse gas emissions, and perhaps most importantly, as it impacts most other issues, the rapid human population growth. The United Nations has predicted that the world population will reach 9 billion by 2050. This will be coupled with the increasingly urgent challenge to increase global food production. Recent studies suggest the world will need 70 to 100 % more food by 2050; even lowest predictions indicate we will need to increase food production by at least 50 % (The Royal Society 2009).

Estimates from sixty-five sources indicate earth’s carrying capacity is 2 to 16 billion people, with most sources suggesting 8 billion as the upper limit (United Nations Environment Programme 2012). These numbers are often quoted and used to project the dire scenario we face as the human population grows. However, earth’s carrying capacity is not simply determined by natural constraints and must include the dynamic choices we make such as those associated with economics, environment, culture and demography (Cohen 1995).

The growing concern that we will be unable to feed the projected 9 billion people is based on thinking that agriculture will reach biophysical and environmental limits that restrict increasing yields; that the need to expand and intensify agriculture will destroy forests, wetlands and their biodiversity, creating

13

even more land shortages; and that there are institutional obstacles to diffusion and adoption of innovations that could solve the problems (Sayer and Cassman 2013). Daily energy consumption per human has grown exponentially since early civilization, as humans travel more, live in larger, heated spaces and procure and process more food. Thus energy production will also need to increase.

Some suggest that food and energy production increases will not necessarily have to occur at the same rate as population growth. Some of these projections take into consideration that prices will increase with increasing scarcity of resources, and that there will be constraints and new technologies and policies to take into account. Regardless of what factors are taken into consideration and how the calculations and estimates are developed, they are much more complex than often considered. Meeting these challenges will require changes in the way food and energy are produced, processed, stored, distributed and accessed that may be as radical as those changes that occurred during the eighteenth and nineteenth century industrial and agricultural revolutions and the twentieth century green revolution (Godfray et al 2010).

Providing enough food and energy to 9 billion people is unlikely to have a simple solution. For land and people to develop sustainably, the needs of the present must be met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Land uses generate goods and services for people, including food and energy, but they can have adverse effects on other components of the biosphere. There are challenges to assessing tradeoffs associated with alternative land uses and how regulations and institutions can help reduce adverse effects. There are challenges to making food and energy production sustainable while controlling adverse effects and meeting a long term international goal of ending hunger. Many believe these challenges will require a revolution in the social and natural sciences concerned with food and energy production and breaking down of barriers between fields; that in essence it will require transformational, not incremental changes.

In this section we discuss some current and emerging issues and challenges associated with people and their land use. We do not attempt to provide specific solutions to these challenges, but discuss the tradeoffs, the constraints to action and the risks associated with the often opposite courses of action that could be chosen to address the issues.

Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

14

3.1. Fossil Fuels And Renewable Energy Alternatives

3.1.1. Fossil fuels

Fossil fuels are created by biomass decomposition over millennia and include coal, natural gas and petroleum. Fossil fuels are our main source of energy and have been a direct driver in the evolution of human history. They are available worldwide and extractable through technical processes developed and refined over time. They are efficient as they are easily combustible and generate a large amount of energy per unit mass. They are easy to transport over long distances, and generate jobs during procurement, processing and marketing. They are stable due to the carbon and hydrogen composition and thus can be stored for long periods of time. Fossil fuels, especially natural gas, serve other purposes, such as raw material for plastics and organic chemical industries.

There are negative aspects to fossil fuel use. Their massive use in the last century led to atmospheric loading of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. They cannot be renewed in a meaningful timeframe. Power stations require large amounts of coal to generate electricity, creating high transport and processing costs. Environmental damage can be incurred through oil spills from tankers and failed pipelines. Impacts of land use for energy extraction and distribution include adverse effects on wildlife and biodiversity, impacts on other commercial (e.g. forestry, agriculture) and residential land uses, and on water and air quality. Prices fluctuate widely over time making planning and investment challenging. Human health can be negatively impacted by fossil fuel burning and effects from particulate matter and other pollutants; workers in extraction operations can be at particularly at risk. In jurisdictions without reclamation requirements, land can be permanently devalued and/or rendered unusable.

Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

15

3.1.2. Biofuels

Biofuels are sources of energy produced from renewable resources. Relative to fossil fuels, they have more stable prices and are globally accessible with possible small scale production and delivery. They have low greenhouse gas and other pollutant emissions. They do have disadvantages. Large amounts of fertilizer, water and arable land are required to produce biofuels, which can increase pollution and decrease food production, as land use is directed away from food crops. Many of the most productive crops will not grow everywhere they may be needed. Water demand of some crops could put insurmountable pressure on local water resources required for drinking and irrigation. Many high producing feedstocks have high nutrient requirements, usually met with inorganic fertilizers that can pollute soil and water. The input:output energy ratio of production is a major drawback to its use.

Biofuels can be more sustainable if derived from feed stocks with low life cycle greenhouse gas emissions that do not compete with food production (Tilman et al 2009). It would be counter productive to grow biofuels on prime agricultural land or land requiring clearing. They could be grown on degraded agricultural land and industrially disturbed land (e.g. contaminated mines) that would be hugely expensive to reclaim to standards for food production. However, this raises concern that it would lead to declining reclamation standards. Forests may be sources of bio-energy production, but there are tradeoffs with biodiversity and they may not be financially viable given current technologies.

Bioethanol is used as a gasoline replacement. It can be produced from cellulosic biomass such as cereal crops, corn, sugar beet, woody plants, plant residues and municipal and industrial solid waste streams. Although agricultural crop residues are important for soil fertility and soil organic matter accumulation, some portions (straw, stover) could be removed and used for bioethanol production.

Most life cycle studies found replacing gasoline with ethanol from corn modestly reduced greenhouse gases, and substantially reduced them if from cellulose or sugar cane (Hill et al 2006). Emissions were compared from growing or mining feed stocks, refining to fuel and burning in vehicles. In these stages corn and cellulosic ethanol emissions exceeded or equaled those from fossil fuels. Since growing feed stocks removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, they can theoretically reduce greenhouse gases relative to fossil fuels (feed stock carbon uptake credit) to reduce overall emissions. Analyses often do not account for the fossil fuel required to grow the plants or costs for fertilizer manufacturing and transport, power for seeding, irrigating, harvesting and transporting biomass and power at the plant. Alternatives are less likely to be economically viable with low fossil fuel prices (Hill et al 2006).

Producing bioethanol from organic waste can avoid land use change and some emissions. To avoid land use change, biofuels must use carbon that could reenter the atmosphere without doing useful work that needs to be replaced (e.g. municipal and crop wastes). Production can be close to sorting, recycling and landfill sites so a continuous supply of raw material is available, no agricultural land is used, there is no negative energy balance and production plants can be built in modules for relocation.

An Edmonton plant operated by Enerkem uses non recyclable solid waste separated from general domestic garbage (Enerkem 2016). Waste is stripped of metallic debris, finely ground, then delivered directly to the plant, where it is gasified in a reduced atmosphere, producing hydrogen gas, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, which are converted to alcohols. Enerkem (Edmonton) plans to produce 38 million liters of ethanol by mid 2016. Expectations that this operation will succeed are currently high, although similar attempts elsewhere by others have ended in bankruptcy.

16

Biodiesel is produced from vegetable oils, animal fats or waste cooking oil, and is used as a petroleum diesel replacement. Biodiesel can cut greenhouse gases by up to 99 % as it is sulfur and benzene free (Canadian Renewable Fuels Association 2010). Fossil fuel based diesel requires 1.25 units of energy to produce a unit of fuel at the pump; biodiesel only needs 0.23 units to produce 1 unit of energy at the pump, requiring 81 % less energy to produce than fossil fuel diesel (Canadian Renewable Fuels Association 2016). Canola production is high in Canada, representing several billion dollars in economic activity. Canada exports most of its canola as seed, oil or meal and is vulnerable to trade impacts, thus canola biodiesel could potentially stabilize demand if the price is high enough. Canola biodiesel cuts vehicle emissions and reduces particulate matter by 50 %, unburned hydrocarbons by 67 % and carbon monoxide emissions by 48 % (Canadian Renewable Fuels Association 2010).

Unless biofuels are subsidized it is unlikely they will be advantageous over food production, especially with current fossil fuel prices. Most economic analysis is not optimistic about biofuels, unless costs fall and new technologies like biofuel from hybrid poplar emerge. A recent study shows that even in these cases subsidies required may be large, or large taxes on fossil fuel emissions of greenhouse gases will be required (Campbell et al 2015). For example, the subsidy support required to double current

ethanol is costly, at around $ 3 (US) / gallon.

Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

3.1.3. Other renewable energy sources

Solar energy, wind power and geothermal energy are considered abundant, inexhaustible and widely available. They have potential to provide energy services with almost no emissions of pollutants or greenhouse gases. Solar collection and electricity generation technology exists that could provide for electrical energy needs. Some suggest that too much land would be taken up by large scale solar farms. Although farms could easily be sited in areas of maximum annual sunlight, on marginal land that was not necessary for, or could not be used for, agriculture. The dependence of wind and solar energy on weather is a concern unless better electricity storage facilities can be developed. 17

Hydrogen can be produced from many sources including renewables (via water electrolysis), biomass (via gasification) and nuclear (via water electrolysis or thermochemical cycles), and is not known to be environmentally damaging (Zalosh et al 1978). Hydrogen in solid, liquid or metal hydride forms has an energy density large enough for most transport applications. Direct hydrogen fuel cells, although expensive, have been used for over 40 years. Hydrogen can be generated from a domestic electrolysis unit, stored under pressure and converted to electricity through a fuel cell. While technically feasible, the process is less efficient and more costly than the lithium ion battery route (Srinivasan 200), and poses safety issues of handling an odourless and highly explosive gas.

Hydrogen and batteries are already making small, important inroads into the transport sector (Lokey 2007). Whether it is possible to produce enough hydrogen for energy needs of an industrial country and what problems need to be overcome are not known. The main problem would be the cost of converting an energy infrastructure to handle gas. Although the hydrogen storage medium may be, for example, a solid, stable metal hydride, hydrogen in its gaseous form must be produced in at least one conversion stage. Storing and releasing hydrogen via a fuel cell has a maximum thermodynamic efficiency of less than 50 % (Lokey 2007). Thus it is highly unlikely countries could adopt a complete hydrogen economy. Iceland may be the only country where a hydrogen economy in this form might be feasible (World Watch Institute 2016).

Although nuclear reactors deliver electrical power with no obvious air emissions they pose huge environmental and human health threats when they fail (Three Mile Island due to uncontrolled heat buildup), are of poor design (Chernobyl carbon core) or are in an unsafe location (Fukushima). Spent fuel rods produced by nuclear plants must be stored into the future. Nuclear plants are expensive to build, have significant maintenance costs, a finite lifetime and huge decommissioning costs. Thus nuclear energy does not have a tiny environmental footprint. The risk associated with failure is one many countries are unwilling to accept.

Electricity can be generated centrally and locally but electrons are effectively the power source for the domestic, transport and industrial markets (Hall 2008). The main weakness of this is the current state of battery technology in energy density and recharging times of secondary batteries. The main advantage is its relative efficiency. Since energy is always stored as electrons, conversion efficiencies are always higher than for processes that involve chemical energy. Future energy storage in the form of lithium ion batteries, flow cell batteries or large capacitors is central to these developments.

Photo Credit: Alberta Land Institute

18

3.1.4. The future for fossil fuels and non renewable energy sources

What does the future hold for energy supply and use? Hall (2008) projects that by 2050 individuals will take greater responsibility for energy, generating it as needed and purchasing from various suppliers. Self generation will be through micro wind turbines and solar powered fuel cells. Large corporations or farmer cooperatives will supply energy as liquid fuels to power fuel cells for single family homes and communities. Personal transportation will be integrated into this system by hydrogen powered automotive fuel cells and plug-in batteries. Most domestic and transport infrastructures will be integrated. Public transport will require separate infrastructure, with buses run by electrochemical power; aviation will use biodiesel. Cities will purchase energy from central generating companies. Energy will come from far more diverse and distributed sources, and on scales from domestic, local and regional to national or international. Energy storage will be ubiquitous, from domestic storage to absorb electricity from photo voltaic panels or wind turbines to on-board automotive storage, likely in the form of lithium based batteries because of their superior overall efficiency, safety and cost.

Another view does not eliminate fossil fuels; specifically requiring them in the potentially lengthy transition phase to renewable energies, as renewable energies cannot be implemented at the scale needed at this time and fossil fuel prices are low. Many believe that the infrastructure needed to utilize fossil fuels is already in place and hence a huge economic advantage. With technological upgrades being developed and implemented rapidly, efficiencies of use are increasing and environmentally negative outputs, such as carbon dioxide, methane, NOx and particulate matter are being rapidly diminished. Improvements already made and implemented in coal technologies have led to increased energy efficiencies, reduced acid rain and reduced atmospheric pollution. This will need to be combined with legally binding and socially acceptable instruments (e.g. carbon pricing) and with carbon capture and storage technologies.

Photo Credit: Alberta Land Institute

19

3.2. Carbon Sequestration, Greenhouse Gases

Carbon sequestration is as simple as planting a tree and as complex as a costly carbon capture and storage system. The terms greenhouse effect and global warming, refer to the atmosphere’s role (water vapour, clouds) in keeping earth's surface warm. Current atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are trapping more heat from the earth’s surface, raising its mean temperature. Earth’s surface temperature has increased approximately 0.85 oC from 1880 to 2012 (IPCC 2013), with carbon dioxide releases from fossil fuel combustion, methane emissions from increased human activity, chlorofluorocarbon releases and deforestation contributing to the greenhouse effect. Most scientists agree there is a cause and effect relationship between emissions of greenhouse gases and global warming. Earth’s temperature may increase in the next century by 2 to 4 oC; if this occurs, sea levels could rise 30 to 60 cm before the end of the century (IPCC 2013). Crucial to discussions on averting global climate change are thorough evaluations of the costs of reducing carbon emissions.

Until three decades ago levels of carbon dioxide produced by natural systems and anthropogenic actions were assumed to be taken up by terrestrial, aquatic and marine plants by photosynthesis, a natural aquatic buffering system and by soil. We have come to better understand the limits of these

systems as atmospheric levels climb. Thus in the twenty-first century we desperately search for ways of hyperextending carbon sequestration potential of natural systems on earth, while developing commercialized technologies which will move us away from a carbon based energy economy.

According to Gentzis (2000) sequestering carbon dioxide from fossil fuels in depleted oil and gas reservoirs is a mature technology. Another option is to inject carbon dioxide in deep coal seams to sequester carbon and enhance recovery of coal bed methane. Since coal has a 2:1 sorption selectivity for carbon dioxide over methane, it could sequester considerable volumes of carbon dioxide while producing coal bed methane. There is huge interest in these technologies and an equally huge body of literature around them, fraught with controversy.

West and Post (2002) discussed whether agricultural management could increase accumulation of soil organic carbon, providing a powerful sequestering of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. They found that moving away from conventional cultivation and adopting no-till can sequester approximately 57 additional grams of carbon m2 per yr. If the crop rotation complexity is enhanced, an additional 20 (+/- 12) grams of carbon can be sequestered m2 per yr. These changes tend to peak in 5 to 10 years under dryland agricultural conditions and soil levels reach a new equilibrium in 15 to 20 years. If rotation complexity is increased, then soil organic carbon reaches equilibrium in 40 to 60 years.

Literally hundreds of papers dealing with soil sequestration of carbon can be quoted; however, proactive agricultural practices can go a long way toward restoring soil carbon and associated (critical) microbial and invertebrate communities. In so doing, green agriculture can reclaim large areas of soil, while sequestering volumes of fugitive carbon dioxide. Attempts have been made for these practices to be rewarded through carbon offset programs, with variable levels of success, often because costs of sequestering carbon, relative to the amount actually sequestered (additionality) is too high.

An engineering approach to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide is sequestration in underground reservoirs. Geo-engineering involves purposeful manipulation by humans of global scale earth processes to counteract anthropogenic environmental change such as greenhouse warming (Gentzis 2000). One proposal is based on the cooling effect of aerosols, to artificially enhance earth’s albedo by

20

releasing sunlight reflective material, such as sulfate particles, in the stratosphere, where they remain for 1 to 2 years before settling in the troposphere. Another proposed option is seeding the Pacific Ocean with iron and phosphate to create massive plankton blooms which will tie up enormous amounts of carbon dioxide and sink harmlessly to the ocean depths. Such radical options raise serious ethical questions and intense debate; a critical issue is the possibility for unintended and unanticipated side effects that could have severe consequences. Going forward, it seems most prudent to address anthropogenic fugitive greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide with systems that price greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. carbon taxes), investments in innovative agricultural and forestry practices, and adoption of all cost effective sequestration measures.

A key aspect of moving to a low carbon economy, or one less reliant on fossil fuels, is implementation of systems that charge for greenhouse gas emissions to signal adverse effects they have on climate. Canada appears to be quickly moving towards carbon pricing or trading schemes. British Columbia and Alberta have established carbon tax schemes (evolving); Quebec, Ontario and recently Manitoba have joined carbon cap and trade systems linked to California through the Western Climate Initiative (Sustainable Prosperity 2016). British Columbia’s carbon tax is viewed globally as a success story in implementation and recognition of the need to signal the importance of reducing carbon emissions.

In principle, charging for carbon or greenhouse gas emissions will reduce emissions and support efforts to develop technologies that reduce emissions. Carbon pricing will stimulate use of alternatives that reduce or eliminate carbon emissions. However, pricing is typically viewed as only part of the solution to the greenhouse gas emissions problem, and the move towards a low carbon economy. Public investments in research are required since the generation of new technologies cannot easily be captured by inventors, leading to an under provision of research effort. Policy distortions or subsidies associated with processes that emit greenhouse gases need to be assessed as they can weaken innovation and technological development (Fischer et al 2012).

Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

21

3.3. Animal Versus Plant Protein

Many believe that if meat production was limited, more food could be produced, environmental damage would be reduced and people would be healthier. The conversion efficiency of plant into animal matter is approximately 10 %, with meat based food systems requiring more energy, land and water than vegetarian based systems. Thus more people could theoretically be fed from the same amount of land if they were vegetarians (Godfray et al 2010). This issue is complex and thus without a simple solution such as reducing or eliminating meat from our diets.

The adverse environmental effects of producing meat protein vary considerably with production method and are often not considered from a life style perspective (Steinfeld et al 2006). Cattle are not all fed grain or other plant protein that could feed humans. Many are raised on grasslands that could not be converted to arable land, or converted only with great negative environmental impacts. In third world countries livestock, such as pigs and poultry, are often fed human food waste. Meat protein production requires water and fossil fuels, although much of that water would not otherwise be directed to human use. This water is used, not destroyed; after it passes through the livestock operation it returns to the hydrologic cycle like any urban centre, although it may be exported in virtual water trade. Biodiversity losses mostly occurred when land was first settled and cleared and are no greater now than if crops were used for human consumption. In rangeland scenarios, biodiversity is increased through suitable wildlife habitats shared with livestock that could not be shared with crops. Deforestation already occurred or will occur for crop production more frequently than to graze animals.

Traditional livestock wastes were usually straw based and spreading on the land did not exceed nutrient loading and utilization capacity. However, intensive livestock operations produce large amounts of liquid manure suspensions that are high in nutrients, odours, biological oxygen demand, drug residues, heavy metals and pathogens. Weights reduce cost effectiveness to transport or pump liquid manures long distances for field application; therefore, close land areas have often received overloads of nutrients (Steinfeld et al 2006). Better pumping systems and efficient commercial liquid manure hauling and injection companies are largely overcoming these problems. In developing countries, livestock serve multi purposes including plowing, transport, manure, a vital source of income, and are of huge cultural importance.

Research continues to provide management and genetic changes to reduce environmental impacts and increase production efficiency. Research continues to reduce ruminant methane gas production through genetic selection, nutritional amendments and microbial repression. Some greenhouse gases can be partially offset by using animal manure to replace synthetic nitrogen fertilizers.

Cattle bloating on damp alfalfa pastures can be dealt with by anti-bloat compounds. Thus cow calf operators can continue to use pastures for a less grain intensive diet, rotating croplands to alfalfa pasture. This will benefit cropland, sequester carbon, provide soil nitrogen, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and allow cattle to be fattened as a farm enterprise or custom beef finishing operation. Such changes in beef production could free lands currently used to grow feed grain to grow crops for food.

Similar evolutions in the swine and poultry industries are being prompted by the public. This is evident in the increasing demand for free range, brown eggs and organic chicken, and pork from hogs not confined to stalls. All of these new meats and animal products could be raised in operations that compost wastes rather than treat them as problematic liquid sludge. Fish and other aquatic products

22

are increasingly being farmed, due to wild fish stock decimation from over fishing and climate change. These intensive operations can also be run with increased efficiency and reduced environmental effects, similar to the meat industries.

Many authorities differ in their perspectives on whether humans need meat. The American Dietetic Association (2009) says plant protein can meet human nutritional requirements when a variety of plant food is consumed and energy needs are met, and that an assortment of plant foods can provide all essential amino acids and ensure adequate nitrogen retention and use in healthy adults. Others believe meat provides the most concentrated source of some nutrients and healthy fats, particularly important for young children, and is therefore necessary in human diets (Steinfeld et al 2006). Legumes are lower in methionine, and most other plant proteins are lower in lysine relative to animal proteins. Meat provides some nutrients not available in plants such as creatine and carnosine.

These changes, although already in play, will take time, will be consumer driven, and will result in some increases in food production costs. Plant based protein will continue to play a significant role in our future diets, but to eliminate livestock production and animal products such as eggs and dairy without assessing the complete picture is illogical. Consumer eating patterns will evolve and are leading to alternative food networks and movements that consider biophysical limits, such as permaculture, community supported agriculture, slow foods and environmental and ethically based diets. The key is to determine how signals, such as price or regulations, can be sent to address concerns such that consumers recognize the costs that adverse effects generate, and innovators are rewarded for adopting new technologies that reduce adverse impacts on land and water.

3.4. Water

The United Nations is predicting that demand for fresh water may outstrip supply in some parts of the world by 2025 (UNWWAP 2015). The need for clean water has long been a global problem which may force its commoditization in many countries. Less than 1 % of the world’s water supply is fresh and more than 10 % of the population has no fresh water. These issues are expected to escalate with predicted drought increases in many areas, increasing world demand for water by up to 40 % in the next 15 years and increasing occurrences of hostile conflicts over water rights in some countries.

Photo Credit: Alberta Land Institute

23

Scarcity of fresh water resources is becoming acute, creating an agricultural crisis in which water withdrawal for irrigation is 60 % of total withdrawals and up to 90 % in arid regions (Shiklomanov 1999), with profound effects on aquatic ecosystems and their dependent species and environmental balances. More importantly, irrigated agriculture accounts for a significant consumptive use through withdrawal. Visible surface fresh water sources are diminishing, with new NASA data showing rapid depletion of more than half of the 37 largest aquifers (Syed et al 2008). Major aquifers are not meeting demands from agriculture, growing populations and industries. This is a critical situation since aquifers supply 35 % of water used by humans worldwide. Aquifers can take thousands of years to fill and only slowly recharge from snow melt and rain. With drilling for water increasing exponentially, reservoirs are more stressed. A recent study attributed up to 40 % of observed sea level rise in recent decades to pumped ground water, used by humans and ending up in oceans (Gleeson et al 2012).

It is encouraging to see recognition of the situation by investigators and policy makers in Canada. A commissioned report on water and agriculture and sustainable management of water resources reached five major conclusions (Council of Canadian Academies 2013). The report stressed there are substantial opportunities for Canadian agriculture, and substantial issues including climate change, doubling food demands by 2050, rising income with more water intensive agricultural production, more demand for biofuels, future risk of agricultural impacts on water quality and quantity and access to water, land and other resources. The report indicates a need to better understand market conditions, competition for land and water and climate change to inform management decisions. Under climate change there is an increased risk of prairie drought and a need to improve monitoring to understand the water resource base and changes in hydrology to facilitate adaptive (risk) management. Rain and snow precipitation is referred to as green water; surface and ground water as blue water. In parts of the prairies, irrigation levels are at the limits of blue water, and water contamination due to agricultural runoff is a concern. A better understanding of complex interactions between land management and water resources is needed. Agriculture can affect physical environments, such as loss of wetlands through agricultural drainage. A major water quality issue is high nutrient loads creating algal blooms in water bodies. More intensive agriculture may create more impacts on water and the environment.

The report highlights needs for a more diverse agricultural sector, conservation agriculture for resilient productive landscapes and recognition of the value of non-market services such as flood control, water quality and ecological diversity. Studies are needed on impacts of cropping and tillage on runoff and water quality; the role of drainage and loss of wetlands on flood risk, drought resilience, water quality and habitat; and effects of best management practices on nutrient loads to surface and ground water. Farm scale technologies for efficient water use are needed; and a foundation of sustainability with proper governance structures, valuation techniques, economic incentives and knowledge transfer strategies. Water governance processes must be flexible since Canada is a large and diverse country, and water governance decisions will need to incorporate views and opinions of all stakeholders.

Alberta is fortunate to have abundant water resources over most of its area. River, lake and ground water resources provide an essential water resource, a source of hydroelectric power, a recreational source and a vital component of our wildlife habitat. However, Alberta is facing increasing economic development and more anticipated water use commitments. Scarcity of water is apparent in the South Saskatchewan River Basin as it is closed to new water licenses, and water scarcity is being predicted in scenarios of future climate change (Faramarzi 2016).

24

A review of the 2003 Water for Life Strategy provided new recommendations to reflect current realities and challenges for Alberta (Government of Alberta 2009). The strategy has four goals: safe and secure drinking water, healthy aquatic systems, reliable quality water for a sustainable economy, and maintenance of a knowledge base and commitment to research. These goals are integrated into other plans and policies such as the Land Use Framework. The strategy has provided advice to government and non government organizations and facilitated work for community level action to safeguard water.

A soil water assessment tool (SWAT) model is using data on surface and ground water resources in Alberta to translate climate change and land cover scenarios into hydrological responses (Gassman et al 2007). This will illustrate where and how much water the province has had in the past 30 years, before forecasting its water future. It will be applied to understand impacts of climate change on water, generate scenarios for future water demand and determine economic implications for Albertans. Initial results from the model using climate data, generated precipitation estimates from 266 to 400 mm per year in the southern and northern regions and 600 to 814 mm per year in western mountainous regions (Faramarzi et al 2015). Temperature is important in hydrological modeling as it directly affects simulation of snow fall and snow melt, contributing to stream flow. The 25 year mean temperature estimation varied from -2 to -1 Co in northern Alberta, to 5 to 8 Co in southern Alberta in the Rocky Mountain region (Faramarzi et al 2015). The estimates show a greater range than currently reported.

Alberta and Canada have several water issues. In Canada unsafe drinking water causes 90,000 illnesses and up to 90 deaths per year (Boyd 2015). Up to 1,000 drinking water advisories are in effect on any day. Nitrate concentrations exceeding drinking water guidelines occur in 20 to 40 % of water wells. First Nations have huge unsolved water issues that are difficult to address. There is not always a suitable water source, either surface or ground water, where needed. If surface water is used giardia and other bio-contaminants are best eliminated with reverse osmosis and ultra violet treatment, which in isolated areas, create a problem with service, maintenance and operation of the complex system.

Abbaspour et al (2010) report that over time, spatial and temporal changes of the hydrologic cycle have resulted in scarcity in some regions of Alberta. They suggest several factors that make water management a challenge, including knowledge gaps on water use and availability and stakeholder participation. Hence researchers are developing hydrologic models to assess the province’s future water resources and provide important information for decision makers in determining the next steps for water management. The models can assess the state of water basins and identify factors affecting their conditions, evaluate trends by examining historical changes and environmental monitoring and reporting, and predict impacts of natural or human changes to water basins (Faramarzi et al 2015).

Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

25

3.5. Biodiversity

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (2016) reports that one third of all known species are threatened with extinction, including 29 % of amphibians, 21 % of mammals and 12 % of birds. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (2016) lists 15 extinct species, 23 extirpated, 316 endangered, 170 threatened and 206 of special concern. Contrasting that to the estimated 8.7 million eukaryotic species in the world, some question the concern about biodiversity loss since extinction is a natural process in response to natural changes. Others believe human impact on biodiversity loss is unacceptable as it occurring at an unprecedented rate due to habitat loss and degradation, over exploitation and climate change. Many are concerned about biodiversity loss on the planet as it is clearly connected to the structure and function of ecosystems, which could thus be dramatically impacted by loss of biodiversity.

Cardinale et al (2012) presented the most recent consensus statements on biodiversity, reporting that biodiversity loss reduces efficiency of ecological communities and that diverse communities are more productive. Biodiversity losses can disrupt ecosystem services, make food supplies more vulnerable to pests and diseases, increase alien species invasions and create food chain imbalances. Many believe there is an ethical obligation to protect the planet's biological organisms since we dominate world ecosystems. Most biodiversity loss is attributed to habitat loss and degradation from intensive agriculture and forestry, fragmentation, environmental pollution, suburban and urban sprawl, and dams. Thus biodiversity recovery and protection can center on habitat restoration and protection.

Vanishing pollinator populations, including wild and domesticated bees, are an example of biodiversity loss with agricultural impacts. The honey bee colony collapse disorder has been associated with neonicotinoid pesticide use starting in the 1990s. While neonicotinoids are the main suspects, the pesticide may have merely provided the tipping point after tribulations from mites, paralysis virus, nosema disease and fungal infestation. Domestic bees may be suffering from poor nutrition due to loss of plant diversity in their environments, and from stress associated with being moved from crop to crop over long distances (Vanbergen 2013). Today the beekeeping industry is mostly used for commercial pollination of a variety of crops, from almonds to hybrid canola. Cessation of neonic usage, increased wild flower seeding and fewer colony moves are being implemented to rescue the bee keeping industry and the many wild bee species with dwindling populations.

There are many success stories associated with recognition of threats to a species and its subsequent recovery. The swift fox was declared extirpated from Canada in April 1978, mainly due to loss of prairie habitat to agriculture. A reintroduction program began in the early 1980s; today the population is over 650 individuals and listed as threatened. However, in any recovery plan the other impacted food chain components must be addressed. Increasing swift fox populations could potentially increase predation on two other listed species, the sage grouse and black tailed prairie dogs. Coyote and red fox may need to be reduced as they hunt swift fox. Similar issues are in play with caribou and wolves. Thus it becomes important to focus on habitat recovery rather than only manipulating the food chain.

Many challenges remain to be addressed for threatened species. Boreal caribou herds are almost all below self-sustaining levels in Alberta, and many are significantly below (Hervieux et al 2013). Moving towards self-sustaining caribou levels will require effort on habitat and population as it will take years or decades for habitat to recover to support self-sustaining populations and herd populations, will have

26

to be enhanced until habitat is adequate (Schneider et al 2010, 2012). Other species are continuing to be at risk. An emergency protection order was issued for sage grouse, the first such order under the Species at Risk Act. While these two species are often highlighted in conversations surrounding species at risk in Canada, there are several other species, particularly in prairie grasslands regions, that are also at considerable risk of extirpation.

Biodiversity is also an issue from a plant perspective. Numerous agricultural species that were brought from Europe decades ago have come to dominate the ecosystems they occupy and to migrate beyond the fences in which they are farmed, in some situations even degrading soil (Dormaar et al 1995). Species such as crested wheat grass and smooth brome are deemed by many to be beyond control on a large scale, but potentially manageable on small scales where they threaten local native plant communities (Henderson and Naeth 2005). There are grave concerns that as climate changes, some non native species (weeds) will move beyond their current occupancy and degrade protected areas, as evidenced by russian thistle now on its new habitat fringe in Jasper National Park (Antill et al 2012).

Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

3.6. Soil Degradation

Soil erosion from wind, water and tillage is considered one of the most serious threats to world food production since humans obtain more than 99.7% of their food from the land (Pimentel and Burgess 2013). Soil from agricultural areas is being lost 10 to 40 times faster than it is formed. Soil degradation may occur due to factors other than erosion, such as intensive cultivation, deforestation, intensive cropping, excess fertilizer or irrigation use, over grazing, urbanization and flooding, leading to organic matter loss, fertility and structural decline and adverse changes in salinity, acidity or alkalinity. New land will often be cleared to replace the degraded areas, further exacerbating environmental damage associated with erosion. Erosion can be dramatically reduced with cover, which led to an almost complete elimination of summer fallowing on the prairies. In developing countries, where crop residues are required for fuel for cooking and heating, there is a loss of erosion preventing cover which can further increase erosion.

27

Soil conservation techniques to reduce erosion and degradation include biomass mulches, no till (zero till), crop rotations, ridge till, grass strips, shelter belts and contour row cropping. If prevention of soil erosion and degradation is so simple why is it not practiced? Agriculture with minimal soil disturbance, permanent soil cover and crop rotation should not be too difficult to achieve. Perhaps degradation is such a slow imperceptible process that many are unaware of it occurring, as some land owners push the limits of their soil due to economic pressures and food security.

To reduce the problem we must recognize that land degradation is a socioeconomic and a biophysical problem. Land degradation and poverty are intractably linked as people living in poverty cannot provide proper stewardship to retain land quality. Smyth and Dumanski (1993) define sustainable land management basic principles as productivity, resilience, protection, economic viability and social acceptability. They suggest technologies, policies and activities integrating socioeconomic principles must be combined with environmental concerns, to maintain and enhance production, be socially acceptable, economically viable and assure access to the benefits from improved land management. To achieve this will require collaboration and partnership with land users, technical experts and policy makers, to ensure causes of degradation and corrective measures are properly identified, and that the policy and regulatory environment enables adoption of the most appropriate management measures.

Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

3.7. Land Reclamation

Reclaiming the world’s disturbed lands is one of the most pressing challenges of the twenty-first century for sustainable development of all land uses without adverse environmental impacts. Land reclamation challenges require innovative, practical, holistic, cost effective and socially viable solutions, adapted to different disturbances and locations. This should be relatively straight forward in Canada, particularly in Alberta, where operators are required to return land to equivalent capability after disturbance and have relatively clear criteria to meet. However, even though we have been using the term equivalent capability for decades, there is still uncertainty and disagreement regarding its practical interpretation.

28

Some believe a criteria basis hampers creative approaches to reclamation and land use, where we fail to recognize that what was at a site when it was first disturbed, no longer meets the needs of the current and surrounding populations. Others hold tightly to reclaiming to a past focus, since anything else is a slippery slope towards major shirking of operator responsibilities and the next step to an anything goes approach. Between these two perspectives lie many others. Thus we have numerous challenges as we move land reclamation into the twenty-first century that require us to respond to a milieu of legal, ethical, moral and spiritual obligations, values, implications and tradeoffs.

We are challenged with determining reclamation trajectories and end points directed not only by the degree of degradation of the land and the materials available for reclamation, but also by the diversity of human cultures with different expectations for disturbed lands. On some sites the goal is to restore what was there before the disturbance, including predisturbance structure, function and diversity. On other sites, human dominated, semi-natural ecosystems are built with nature as a model but not a template. On yet other sites, we build relatively novel systems such as concert venues and cheese factories in mine pits. Simply recomposing isolated and fragmented disturbances may work on small scales, but ecosystem function restoration is considered unattainable for large and mega scale disturbances, which in themselves alter much of the land around them, causing concern that we are moving to unnatural paradigms (Choi et al 2008). Land reclamation must now address the inevitable multiple trajectories and connect landscape elements within and among undisturbed, semi-disturbed, and at its most complex, totally destroyed landscapes.

Risk drives much of reclamation. This risk based approach is coupled with strong, definable criteria that must be met to reduce risk to humans and the environment to an acceptable level. It holds polluters and operators responsible for damage to the environment during their operations. Risk management has changed the way we do much contaminant remediation work, built on a scientific knowledge of contaminant movement via source, pathway, receptor models. Yet we are overly risk averse for other approaches to land reclamation. Some believe we could be much more innovative and effective in reclamation if we were not so afraid to make a mistake, to set a precedent, or to risk public disfavour. Others believe regulations need to be inflexible and prescriptive to prevent ecological disasters and to keep those disturbing the land from implementing ineffective and risky practices.

Regardless of the work we do in reclamation there are many controversies regarding the practices. For example, encapsulation of contaminated soils in large scale projects such as the tar ponds in Sydney Nova Scotia and Pier Park in New Westminster British Columbia, with long term monitoring, has been viewed as necessary, innovative, practical, economical and forward thinking. This approach has also been viewed as too risky, doomed to failure and a lowering of the bar of expectations for dealing with contaminated lands. Some believe that with the knowledge of soil formation and how long it takes to make a cm of it in geological time, that we should be long past dig and dump (haul and hide) strategies. We have the technology to remediate any contaminant. It will be expensive and it may take time. Is that not better than hauling the soil off to a hazardous landfill? Why is it more important to get it done quickly and reduce liability of those responsible? In many cases the harm and risk to the environment is higher through transporting of the materials than it is to remediate in situ or on site, and moving a problem does not solve the problem.

Many believe we could use waste materials and by products from industry and other sources in soil reclamation more frequently and effectively, rather than using clean fill and taking high quality soil 29

from borrow pits to meet regulatory requirements for topsoil and subsoil depths; in the process there could be considerable reductions in the amount of materials put into ever increasingly large landfills. We can compost and remediate almost all organic waste materials and thus they should never be diverted to a landfill. For example, drywall comprises 12 to 27 % of construction and development waste in North America and is mostly disposed of in landfills. With composting drywall waste material an be used effectively as a soil amendment for establishment of native and non native plant species on reclamation sites (Naeth and Wilkinson 2013). Similar positive responses to drilling fluid (Yao and Naeth 2015), biosolids (Gardner et al 2012), municipal and pulp mill effluents (Patterson et al 2008), fly ash (Sale et al 1997, Hammermeister et al 1998) have been shown for use in land reclamation. To use these waste materials in reclamation, requires transporting them to reclamation sites, and that could be very expensive as many are long distances from these waste materials. Should that expense drive the decision to use such waste materials? Should industry and public consumers accept those costs as a sound and responsible environmental decision?

We have made great strides requiring use of forest floor material (LFH) and woody debris in oil sands reclamation after research showed it’s potential to enhance reclamation (Mackenzie and Naeth 2010, Naeth et al 2013, Brown and Naeth 2014, Kwak et al 2015). Only a few years ago these materials were burned or pushed into the mine during reclamation. Today they are valued reclamation materials and they are required to be used by regulation for the oil sands. Such an example provides optimism for future use of organic waste materials.

Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

30

Soil building itself is controversial. Although we have long recognized the need to stop removing soil from undisturbed areas (borrow pits) for land reclamation, there are still huge concerns over using by products or remediated subsoil material from industrial disturbances to construct Anthroposols (Naeth et al 2012), mainly because of what are believed to be unknown effects to the environment and human health, and thus risks. Much research has paved the way to using materials such as mature fine tailings (Luna Wolter and Naeth 2014), processed kimberlite and gravel (Drozdowsky et al 2012), phosphogypsum (Hallin et al 2010, Jackson et al 2011) in building reclamation soils, although there is considerable reticence from the public, industry and the regulators to use them in reclamation on a field scale because the unknown presents a risk.

We desire natural or productive and intensively managed ecosystems with little concept of anything in between. However, semi natural ecosystems can be productive and rich in native flora and fauna, preserving biotic diversity and other natural values. We know this from reclamation research in Europe and other countries. In many cases we have already categorized non native plant species that do not disrupt ecological integrity of the ecosystems they occupy as naturalized. This is one small step away from accepting them in reclamation seed mixes. Native species are required for restoration work in many ecosystems; however, their commercial supply either does not exist or is very small, requiring laborious and time consuming wild collection. This was meant to be resolved through development of native species ecovars and cultivars. However, that did not work out as planned and these species have been rejected by many as they are not considered native. There is fear they may possess such dominating characteristics that they take over reclaimed areas and/or dilute the genetic pool of the native species. Some believe it is better to use cultivars to reclaim habitat for species at risk if that is the only source of the required species. Others believe it is better not to restore or enhance critical habitat for listed species if we cannot use wild collected seed.

Novel ecosystems could highly enrich the use of land, making us less likely to clear more agricultural land or forests for recreation or urban development. Thus a mine site could be reclaimed to agricultural land to grow switch grass for fuel rather than be restored to aspen forest. Is this appropriate? Is it more important to continue to value all aspects of our pristine environments without compromise since they are some of the last vestiges of those ecosystems on the planet? Some would say they are destined through evolution to change anyway and hence there is little value in spending huge amounts of money to keep them pure. Others believe they are sacred and should never be compromised.

Should there be a time line in which any disturbed site needs to be reclaimed? Should brownfields and well sites and mines and other disturbances be allowed to sit for indefinite periods of time without reclamation? Should large disturbed sites such as oil sands be expected to conduct progressive reclamation, similar to that in strip mine reclamation? Timely and progressive reclamation would lead to smaller footprints of large disturbances, with less opportunity for further environmental damage. Companies say they need the land to conduct current and future extraction operations, or that with refined technologies or a better economy, they will be able to do further extractions. Should that be an acceptable reason for continuing to have lands unreclaimed? Does it increase the likelihood that the responsible companies may go bankrupt and then not reclaim the sites at all? Many suggest spending money and time on old disturbances should be discontinued as it is not a priority. However, many old oil field and mine sites are of high risk to the environment as they were developed at times of fewer regulations and even less enforcement. Does leaving those sites unreclaimed pose too great a risk?

31

Some believe that in situ oil sands mining has dramatically reduced the environmental impacts associated with surface mining. Others believe they create more issues such as habitat fragmentation. Some believe dried tailings are easy to reclaim and reduce environmental damages relative to standard tailings ponds. Others believe they disturb even more land and hence are less environmentally appropriate. Some believe natural recovery and natural attenuation are mechanisms for responsibility shirking and that they will lead to environmental disasters. Others believe they are important ecological processes that can yield better results than standard remediation and revegetation methods in some circumstances. Some are concerned the standard of environmental work is changing with new regulatory structures, that lands are being poorly reclaimed because no one is likely to check; that the chances of being audited are low and hence worth the risk relative to paying to do good reclamation. Others believe the system works and we need to trust that all understand the importance of good stewardship and honesty. Some believe that Aboriginal people are impacted by, and will live with, the consequences of land reclamation efforts and have a vested interest in their success; that we must recognize the value they add and begin to better characterize the contribution they can make to land reclamation efforts; that we need to understand the importance of bringing spirit back to the land and promoting rededication ceremonies after reclamation. Others believe this is no more important than meeting the needs of other stakeholders.

It is obvious that we need to have better data to clearly show pros and cons of these and many other reclamation approaches, and that these data need to be disseminated in ways that are appropriate and accessible for all stakeholders. No doubt we will continue to develop better reclamation techniques to build better soils, better remediation techniques to deal with contaminants in soil and water and better revegetation techniques. However, other questions of a more philosophical and ethical nature may better direct us to do what is best for the land and its people.

Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

32

3.8. Climate Change

Many climate change scenarios indicate that the Canadian prairies will be warmer in the future. Sauchyn et al (2010) report that since the 1880s, average annual temperatures have been rising in the prairie provinces. However, they contend that warmer and wetter weather should not be expected annually. They describe the prairies as being among the most variable climates in the world. This variability will continue as global warming is superimposed on the natural variability of the region. However, climate research suggests that global warming will be amplified by short term variability, leading to a higher probability of abnormal conditions (Sauchyn et al 2010).

Prairie precipitation is exceptionally variable, where swings from large deficits to large surpluses between years and decades are common. For example, mean precipitation in Medicine Hat is 384.5 mm; 185.5 mm in 2001 to 689.3 mm in 1927 (Sauchyn et al 2010). Overall, total precipitation has increased in the last century, but certain southern regions in Alberta and Saskatchewan have experienced summer precipitation decreases and are susceptible to prolonged and severe drought. Trends suggest that western Canada is likely to get warmer. This could ultimately have an adverse effect on mid to late summer water supply, especially when considering the variable precipitation in certain regions. Warmer winters have allowed forest pests, such as the pine beetle, to explode in numbers and decimate some merchantable timber stands in western Canada.

Sauchyn et al (2010) conclude that in addition to anthropogenic global warming, future regional climate will include natural variability. In western Canada, inherent natural climate variability makes trends arising from global warming more difficult to observe. Global warming will continue to result in increased climate variability and a larger range of extreme events. Thus we must address how to reduce climate change and how to obtain food and energy under the changing climate conditions.

Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

33

4. OPPORTUNITIES TO ENSURE THE FUTURE OF THE LAND AND ITS PEOPLE: TRIGGERS, DRIVERS, SIGNALS TO CHANGE

How can we make a difference in the current trajectory of land and people? We have some excellent examples of things that have changed due to strategic actions. We have equally appalling examples of not doing enough. How can we best deal with the challenges facing us as a whole? Do some of the challenges provide opportunities to look at things differently, to not take the same old approach? In this section we address some opportunities to move towards a more sustainable land use.

4.1. Improve Measurements Of Sustainable Land Use

There is much discussion about sustainable land use and sustainability, although the definitions of these terms are often vague, and there is relatively little measurement that clearly corresponds with sustainability goals. However, there are opportunities for improved clarity in definition, and for better and more collection of data and indicators. Information on natural capital (formally measured), ecosystem thresholds and related metrics may be easier to develop given improvements in data collection technologies and availability of big data. Without measurement there is no score card regarding how well we are doing and no way to clearly assess what’s at risk. Thus we ask, what is sustainable land use and how can it be measured?

There are many views of sustainability, ranging from concepts like resilience to preservation to optimization over multiple market and non-market (environmental) values. Each of the concepts has pros and cons, and each one raises difficulty in measurement. One of the more common definitions in the social sciences is the notion that land is a form of natural capital. The wealth of an economy or society can be viewed as the sum of its capital, including human capital, constructed capital and natural capital. Thus natural capital, including land, forms a component of wealth and sustainability.

Just like other forms of capital, land can depreciate or appreciate in value. Like other forms of capital, land provides services or flows. Each parcel of land can provide multiple services (e.g. crops, scenery, wildlife habitat). Like any form of capital, land can be liquidated and invested into other sources of capital (constructed capital, human capital) or consumed (used to support general expenditures). The value of land as capital can grow if technologies improve or if the value of services derived from the land increase. Capital can depreciate if it is degraded (e.g. erosion, over grazing) or if the costs of producing services from the land increase. If land provided only one service (e.g. one agricultural crop), then measurement would be relatively easy. However, land is much more complex; it is heterogeneous in quality, meaning that it is often better suited for one use versus another. Location affects value, either through transportation costs, or because proximity to certain locations may enhance the role of land in providing amenity services. Agricultural land value can be affected by anticipated conversion to other uses like housing or urban development. Multiple values and services arising from land make it challenging to accurately measure value of natural capital.

Thus it is not surprising there have been few efforts to measure the value of natural capital in agricultural land. Canada has measurements for other forms of natural capital such as minerals, forests and energy resources and there are measures of agricultural land value, but not natural capital in agriculture directly. International agencies have attempted to measure multiple capital stocks including natural capital to generate assessment of wealth over time. Examining international

34

agency measures provides interesting insights into Canada’s wealth position. Canada’s overall capital wealth grew at by 1.41 % per year from 1990 to 2008, or 0.37 % per year per capita (UNU-IHDP and UNEP 2012). This increase was coupled with a decline in natural capital wealth of -0.21 % per year, or -1.24 % per year per capita. Over this period Canada has been substituting its natural capital for other forms of capital. Not surprisingly, much of this substitution has been extraction of fossil fuels which are also a source of natural capital. Canada remains in the top tier of countries in rate of growth of wealth as measured by capital, perhaps in part because of wealth in natural capital and substitution of natural capital into other forms of capital.

While value and productivity form part of the measure of natural capital in agriculture, quantity of agricultural land forms another important component. There has been concern about conversion or loss of agricultural land into non-agricultural uses. This conversion can be viewed as a process of changing land into higher value economic uses (agriculture to urban development). However, if non- market values are not considered, or market values do not reflect their true social value (e.g. subsidies, other market imperfections) then such conversions may not reflect changes to higher valued uses. Regardless, it is instructive to examine rate of change over time.

It is surprisingly difficult to accurately measure agricultural land use changes. Methods that use satellite imagery can differ from methods that employ land titles or other identifiers of use. Haarsma et al (2014) employed satellite images and other complementary methods to assess the rate of change of agricultural land in Alberta from 2000 to 2012. Their analysis shows a 0.82 % loss of agricultural land to non agricultural development. This figure masks that much of the loss occurred in the Edmonton-Calgary corridor, affecting the highest quality of land in Alberta. The loss of agricultural land to development in the corridor was approximately 5 % over this time period. More interestingly, the largest changes in land use were associated with a change from pasture to crop land (22 %) and agricultural land to shrub land (5.6 %).

Are these conversions of agricultural land large or small? When compared to similar changes in the United States, Alberta’s rate is quite low. Lau (2015) compares Alberta’s rate of loss with that of the United States and finds that Alberta is similar to Montana (0.09 % per year loss) and much lower than states like Utah (0.34 % per year). Conversions of agricultural land can also be evaluated by productive capacity of the land base. Losses of higher quality soils will result in reduced overall capacity, but technological change in Canadian agriculture resulted in increases in total factor productivity of about 1.5 % per year (Stewart et al 2009).

Some interesting projections of land use change over time have been produced using information on historical land use, and factors driving land use such as population growth. Stan and Sanchez- Azofeifa (2015) evaluate several scenarios, including business as usual that results in conversion of 255,000 ha in the Edmonton-Calgary corridor by 2022, with 70,000 ha, or over twice that converted between 2000 and 2012, from agricultural land.

While these estimates of land use change and natural capital provide us with some insights into the state of agricultural land, they do not capture the full value associated with land including non-market ecosystem services like pollination, aesthetics, flood control and other features. Part of the challenge of understanding land use is that much is driven by market based signals such as prices of crops, livestock, energy resources and residential property. Other services of land that are valuable are not

35

reflected in the market system and must be incorporated through regulation, planning or development of market based instruments.

The value of natural capital in land is affected by natural phenomena. For example, climate change will affect productive ability of land and its environmental benefits (e.g. biodiversity, species abundance). Schneider (2014) provides some projections of changes in ecozones as climate changes. It is unclear whether the changes are positive or negative in any location as they involve complex combinations of climate and human adaptive changes.

While there have been relatively few attempts to measure natural capital in land, and the extent to which natural capital is appreciating or depreciating, recent advances in measurement and modelling of historical natural resources uses provide some interesting insights into these measures and their implications. Fenichel et al (2016) examine the Kansas high plains aquifer as a capital asset. Their assessment shows a depreciation of this asset by about $100 M per year from 1996 to 2005. It appears that investments in other forms of capital (e.g. agricultural investments, infrastructure) did not increase as offsetting investments in the state’s wealth. Their approach provides insights into

measurement possibilities and linkages between natural capital and resource management.

Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

4.2. Enhance Methods To Clarify Social Licence And Its Pathways

Social licence is currently a very popular term, with a rather nebulous meaning for many people who use it. Technically it is the level of acceptance or approval continually granted to an organization’s operations or project by the local community and other stakeholders; it is an intangible unwritten, tacit, contract with society or a social group (Parsons and Moffat 2014). For many, social licence represents legitimacy; it is about whether a company conducts its business appropriately. Similar to reputation, it spreads through interactions with and among stakeholders; similar to social capital it is about goodwill that makes collaboration possible among people or organizations through talking, trusting and thinking. When stakeholders have high social capital among themselves, they are most able to issue an enduring social licence to a company or to a project.

36

The term was first used by large companies in the mineral industries about 15 years ago to reflect that in addition to meeting conditions of formal licences, they must meet concerns and expectations of communities they serve and society in general (Parsons and Moffat 2014). Since corporations can create meaning or perceptions of meaning, along with goods and services, they have power to shape what society and stakeholders think of them. Companies can recreate their image from one that harms the environment to one that facilitates social development and sustainability. Social licence generally means approval from a local community and other stakeholders, which can affect short and long term profits and reputation building. Gunningham et al (2004) suggest a social licence is essentially a set of demands and expectations, held by local stakeholders and society, for how a business should operate.

Social licence to operate reminds companies and communities that the people and communities they depend on for profit have collective power. Thomson and Boutilier (2011) suggest the term emerged in response to a perception that the mineral industry needed to recover its reputation in the late 1990s. Social acceptance for activities such as mining is increasingly conditional and tenuous, and the stakeholders can influence resource operations directly and indirectly. Many mining companies have mission statements to show themselves as generous and good corporate citizens while remaining motivated mainly by profit. Thus claims of a credibility gap and greenwashing in sustainability reporting are not uncommon. Banerjee (2000) says knowledge regarding stakeholders is a product of power. Since not possessing a social licence appears to be almost inconceivable, the state of possessing a social licence becomes the default position. Since a social licence is so vague and intangible, it is relatively difficult to prove its absence, and relatively easy to assert and assume that one exists.

From a land and people perspective it appears important to address the fact that there clearly is a system where citizens demand environmental, health and social outcomes from industry. How well the system reflects these concerns, and how they get transmitted among citizens, governments and companies is mixed, but worthy of consideration if we are to take opportunities presented in our quest for more sustainable land use for food and energy. Industries have embarked on these pathways with requirements for process standards (certification) from suppliers. For example, Walmart’s effort to only sell sustainably produced foods, and increasing requirements on their supply chain. McDonald’s movement to use only free run eggs is a move to address consumer interests and demands by placing requirements on suppliers. Similar processes occurred in the forest industry some years ago resulting in the forest certification systems that exist today. Are these correct responses to produce sustainable land use outcomes? What is the role of governments and regulators in clarification of social licence? There are increasing numbers of pathways for consumers and citizens to provide views on land use and efforts to clarify these and incorporate them into market and regulatory actions may be beneficial.

4.3. Construct Innovative Regulatory Mechanisms Incorporating Sustainability Incentives

Conflicts in land use, either among incompatible adjacent users or due to adverse environmental consequences, have existed as long as the human race. Most often regulatory mechanisms such as zoning and command and control approaches have been employed. While these can be successful and often form a basis for prevention or treatment of adverse outcomes, there may be insufficient rigour to establish clear signals for action. Consideration of different forms of regulation (e.g. stronger constraints with market based options) or forms of investments (e.g. financing investments in ecosys- tem services, environmental improvements) may offer opportunities to enhance these mechanisms.

37

Alberta is quite creative in its approach to land use regulation. Experts outside Alberta have lauded the principles behind the Land Use Framework including development of thresholds or triggers, and determination of land use objectives by major watershed. Such a framework, coupled with the Alberta Land Stewardship Act that encourages use of market based instruments for environmental protection, when they are suited to the task, is powerful. Naturally performance of the framework will be evaluated on its implementation and it is still too early to judge such outcomes. However, in principle strong regulatory approaches that define objectives and permit flexible mechanisms to achieve them, can be beneficial to the entire economy (Ambec et al 2013).

Innovative land use regulation may include market based instruments. Their success depends on their design, but they have been adopted by many jurisdictions and in many cases had significant positive results. Canada has lagged behind most Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries in use of markets for environmental protection, including land use, although there are signs that this may be changing. Alberta’s new wetlands policy includes a form of conservation offset; requiring funding for restoration of a wetland, or equivalent wetland services, if one is drained. In principle this sends signals about wetland scarcity and provides a mechanism for offsetting losses. However, such offset systems must be carefully designed (Noga and Adamowicz 2014, Poulton 2015). Offset programs have been proposed and in some cases piloted for wetlands, grasslands, caribou and other environmental challenges that arise from land use. In some cases, with appropriate design, they may help address significant land use challenges at least cost.

Offsets are not the only innovative form of market based instrument associated with land use. Water quantity and quality trading markets have been employed and have in some cases helped address water challenges. Payments for ecosystem services, including the Conservation Reserve Program in the United States, have helped generate signals for maintenance of grasslands and protection of highly erodible soils. Similar payment for ecosystems services programs have helped postpone listing the sage grouse in the western United States because of provision of incentives to landowners to protect habitat, and through collective action of land owners, non government organizations and governments. Recently, the South of the Divide Action Program (includes Environment Canada representation) has begun exploring use of incentive programs for improvement of habitat outcomes in a multi-species at risk area of grasslands in southwestern Saskatchewan. While such programs can provide incentives for positive land use change, they require funding and novel approaches for development of mechanisms to finance conservation efforts (Ando and Shah 2016).

Photo Credit: Alberta Land Institute

38

4.4. Support Innovation And Technology That Strive For Sustainable Land Use

Development of technology and improvements in productivity are part of an innovative, sustainable land use system. Technology is being developed where markets clearly define signals. For example, important innovations in crop varieties, drought tolerance, water use efficiency and precision farming practices provide more output per unit input and save on resource inputs. Productivity in agricultural systems, a key driver of well being, has increased by 1.5 % per year (Stewart et al 2009), although there are concerns about rates of productivity growth in the Canadian economy. Overall productivity growth in Canada has lagged behind the United States and other OECD countries. Statistics Canada reports a difference of 15 % between Canada and United States rates. Veeman and Gray (2010) describe a slowdown in productivity growth in Canadian agriculture, indicating the most significant contributing factor is decline in funding for agricultural research. This decline has occurred in Canada, the United States and other nations. While total research investments may have increased, the share focused on agricultural research has declined while investments in environmental outcomes and food safety may be substituting for production investments. This illustrates the tradeoffs and complex decisions that need to be made regarding investments in research and productivity.

A more challenging issue is development of technology for non-market or environmental services. Prices for agricultural outputs, energy resources and other market goods and services tends to act as a stimulus for research effort and investment. However, goods and services such as biodiversity, carbon, greenhouse gases, water quality and other non-priced services do not tend to have direct signals for returns to investments and thus tend to be underprovided.

Some lessons can be learned from the climate change literature and policy debate that can inform development of technology for non-market services. There is much research on green technology development focusing on greenhouse gases. That literature indicates a pricing system (e.g. carbon tax, cap and trade system) provides an important stimulus for technological change. Policies like carbon pricing are technology neutral, as they do not involve picking winners among options which is always a concern in innovation (Fischer and Newell 2008). Removal of policy distortions (subsidies) will help stimulate innovation (Fischer et al 2012), as distorting policies deflect innovations and mask the true benefits of investments in technology. There is a need for public investment because of potential positive spillovers (benefits for others beyond those who invested in the technology). Fischer et al (2012) state that less than half the value of investments are captured by originators of research and development, resulting in a decreased incentive to invest, thus the rationale for public investment. There is a need for learning by doing in sectors that will be adopting such new technologies. Learning by doing is usually focused on technological innovations but also applies to policies. For example, developing markets for ecosystem services or systems that generate ecosystem services like wetlands, requires considerable information provision and learning by individuals and communities.

Are there methods that can be deployed to enhance investments in technology that will improve productivity and environmental outcomes? Markets, market based instruments and public investments can play a significant role. However, there may be a need for more innovative approaches, including technology competitions (e.g. X-prizes) and improved mechanisms for transfer of technology to users. Benefits of such investments could be substantial. The McKinsey Global Institute (2011) constructed a global assessment of investment opportunities incorporating projections of future demands for food, fibres and environmental outcomes. Their analysis shows land use issues such as agricultural yields, 39

reduction in land degradation and improved water use techniques are among the top 15 investment categories. Their recommendations include policy for strengthening price signals and addressing market failures (environmental goods and services lacking prices). Often these approaches are adopted because they reduce costs. However, they can also improve environmental outcomes and

thus there is benefit in rewarding people for such action.

Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

4.5. Improve Methods For Evaluating Land Use Tradeoffs And Policy Options

Land uses generate goods and services (e.g. food, energy) but can have detrimental effects (loss of biodiversity and wetlands, impacts on water quality). How do we assess tradeoffs associated with alternative land uses? How do regulations and institutions help reduce unintended adverse effects?

Markets are the most influential drivers of land use and play a significant role in Alberta. The large change in land use between 2000 and 2012, in which pasture land was converted to crop land, likely arose from combined high grain prices, bovine spongiform encephalopathy affecting livestock prices and technological change in crop production (Haarsma et al 2014). Emergence of mineable oil sands, then steam assisted gravity drainage in the green zone was driven by new technologies that made unconventional oil production profitable and by high oil prices. The expansion of cities arises from population increases, housing price increases and a host of policies.

Markets alone cannot generate optimal or sustainable land use. Market failures arise because not all benefits from land are captured in markets. Adverse effects of energy activity on wildlife (e.g. boreal caribou) or wetlands are not captured directly. Drainage of wetlands in agricultural regions will occur if decisions are based on market signals alone as benefits of drainage often exceed costs (Cortus et al 2011). This likely explains the significant loss of prairie wetlands over the past decades. Market transactions alone may result in incompatible land uses adjacent each other (e.g. residential, industrial). If prices are distorted through subsidies or other interventions, they will not reflect the social value of the land use and may result in distorted land use patterns.

40

The fact that markets will not generate acceptable land use outcomes leads to a variety of regulatory approaches to address these market failures. Zoning, drainage restrictions, reclamation requirements and other regulatory approaches arise to try to address incompatible land uses and maintain beneficial but non-market services from the land. How are tradeoffs between different land uses judged? When should the regulations be implemented or made stricter? Can we predict or anticipate the challenges arising from development and market processes and prevent adverse outcomes?

Monitoring programs play a key role in identifying areas of concern and hot spots. Formal monitoring programs, like the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute or government monitoring programs and institutions (e.g. COSEWIC), and information gathered by non government organizations and citizen groups have helped inform a number of land use concerns including boreal caribou declines, losses of grassland ecosystems and others. In some cases the decline in environmental outcomes has led to no-net-loss restrictions on land use practices (e.g. wetlands), indicating that limit has been reached. However, while monitoring programs are important, attempts to look forward and anticipate potential adverse outcomes of development are necessary. With forward looking exercises we may be able to avoid finding ourselves in undesirable states with potentially irreversible consequences.

Lawler et al (2014) provide an example of a forward looking exercise with their analysis of land use change in the United States to 2051, providing lessons for Canada and Alberta. They project land use based on market drivers for two scenarios, a high crop demand and a modest crop demand. They identify increases in urban land area, and losses in grasslands and rangelands in both, and both result in significant declines in habitat for important species groups. They examine several policy options intended to address losses of important ecosystem services and wildlife species. They show that aggressive regulatory and market based policies are required to address the declines in environmental outcomes and illustrate the strength of commodity prices and market forces in driving land use change. This illustrates tradeoffs associated with achieving conservation objectives, and the opportunity to model spatial land use change patterns to help anticipate adverse outcomes.

Similar efforts have been carried out in Alberta. Faramarzi et al (2015) examined water availability and use, and land use implications to 2041. The research incorporates climate change projections into its modelling and indicates basins and time periods in which significant water scarcities are expected. Hauer et al (2016) focused on energy and forestry activity in northern Alberta in relation to boreal caribou populations. Their research outlines expected impact of economic development actions on caribou habitat and population under various conditions and policies. It shows long term implications associated with recovery of caribou (several decades) and the tradeoffs, in opportunity costs, associated with different recovery and restoration options. The research and monitoring efforts that highlight land use concerns and identify tradeoffs help inform regulatory and policy options.

4.6. Adapt For Business As Usual

Is it possible to conduct business as usual? What about adaptation? Is adaptation part of business as usual? Are there ways to improve adaptation since we are probably not fully adapting to climate change and other environmental changes? Will small or moderate modifications to business as usual make a big enough difference for sustainable land use for our food and energy and other needs? Many have been discussing this as a potential and realistic model for moving forward in the future.

41

Steffen et al (2007) present a business as usual approach to dealing with the changing environment, wherein institutions and economic systems that have driven the rise to the Anthropocene continue to dominate human affairs. The approach is based on the assumption that global change will not be severe or rapid enough to cause major disruptions to the global economic system or to other important aspects of societies, such as human health, and that the existing market oriented economic system can deal autonomously with any adaptations that are required. They also present a mitigation approach, where an alternative pathway into the future is based on recognition that the threat of further global change is serious enough that it must be dealt with proactively. The mitigation pathway attempts to take the human pressure off the earth, with the ultimate goal to reduce human modification of the global environment to avoid dangerous or difficult to control levels and rates of change, and ultimately to allow the earth system to function in a pre-Anthropocene way.

What might a mitigation model look like? Reducing pressure on the earth while supporting the human population, would need to occur through numerous processes, and be highly dependent on improved technology and management. It would need to include wise use of resources, control of human and domestic animal populations, and overall careful use and restoration of the natural environment.

Over the past several decades rapid advances have occurred in transport, energy, agriculture, and various other sectors. There are numerous opportunities for energy conservation and numerous technologies, from solar thermal and photovoltaic through nuclear fission and fusion to wind power and biofuels from forests and crops, are available or under development to replace fossil fuels. However, the need to reduce or eliminate use of fossil fuels, will require a huge transition, expected to take years to complete and to cost trillions of dollars. Cities may need redesigning and infrastructure revamping to accommodate new transportation modes, and even agricultural implements will require redesigning.

Increased food production will be critical. Horlings and Marsden (2011) present an intensive productivist model that expands the area of agricultural production and continues to increase production per hectare, especially in exporting countries, through future technological advances, as we did to deal with past food shortages. New land could be brought into cultivation. However to provide a net gain, many current factors affecting land and productivity loss will need to be addressed. Further measures would be required to reduce agricultural land loss to urbanization, desertification, salinization, soil erosion and other consequences of poor land management and an increasing human population. Losses may be exacerbated by climate change and would need to be taken into account. Production of biofuels on good quality agricultural land would reduce food production on those lands, thus we would need to address the best locations for different types of crops.

Reclaiming more land, particularly potentially highly productive land, would make an immense impact. Over half the world’s land base is not being used to capacity or is not even useable. This includes brownfields and legacy mine lands. The will to reclaim these is thwarted by the belief that someone else made the mess and reaped the benefits and we should not have to pay for their mistakes. Education to show the benefits of moving away from that mind set will require considerable effort and imagination.

Other issues to providing food and energy to the growing human population are numerous (Godfray et al 2010), and need to be addressed. For example, many biotechnologies are not trusted by the public, including use of genetically modified organisms. We need to find a way for technology to be better understood. Perhaps that requires a lot of time as many risks cannot be evaluated in the short term.

42

We have talked about food wastes for decades and have not addressed it. Approximately 30 to 40 % of food in developed and developing worlds, and 30 % in Canada, is lost to waste (AAFC 2015). In the developing world, losses are mainly attributable to lack of infrastructure for storage or transport. In the developed world losses are considerable at retail, food service and home stages of the food chain. Litigation and lack of education on food safety have led to a reliance on best before dates; a simple issue but one contributing to huge wastage of food around the world. Interestingly, the European Parliament in a February 2015 briefing suggested discontinued use of labeling with best before dates for long shelf life food, as consumers were taking these dates literally. In Europe this has resulted in 90 to 100 million tonnes of food being wasted annually. Marketing figures for Canada indicate the food wastage cost is over 31 billion dollars annually.

Other models suggest more ecologically oriented practices such a slow or reduced input farming, agro forestry, multi cropping and intercropping farming, natural systems agriculture and organic agriculture; essentially more autonomy for food producers and processors to counter corporatization of agrifood. This requires a radical rethinking of market mechanisms and organizations, new ways of setting priorities and assessing outcomes and impacts.

Although improved technology is essential for mitigating global change, it may not be enough on its own. Changes in societal values and individual behaviour will be necessary.

Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

43

4.7. Reconnect To Nature

On the path to sustainable human land use economical, biological and political knowledge based action is critical. However, it is also tied to humans and their connection to the land in less tangible ways. All of us know someone who has such a deep connection to the land that they seem to be part of that land; a grandfather, a fourth generation farmer, an aboriginal colleague. Numerous poems and essays have been written about the biology of place, earth bonding, homecoming and connections to the land. Stan Rowe (2002) eloquently discusses how we can learn much from indigenous cultures that exemplify sustainability over centuries, by living with earth in relation based ways rather than consumption based, responsibility based rather than rights based, and communal rather than individualistic. Others discuss how place is an integral part of our personal history, an intangible spiritual relationship we have with a special place, or that it is where our roots are.

Without these close connections to the land, are we so far removed we can no longer see the land as part of us and only as what it can give us? Do we lose a key driver to sustainable land use when we lose the need to protect the land because in so doing we protect ourselves? How does the history of human environment systems generate useful insights about the future? Historical tensions continue to shape human lives and the land such as the conflict between conserving nature and building cities, or between the environmental impact of technologies and economic development. If we want to protect our environment and biodiversity must we reconnect with nature?

Peter Kareiva, chief science advisor for the Nature Conservancy says that “…the fate of biodiversity and ecosystems depends on political choices and individual choice….and if people never experience nature and have negligible understanding of the services that nature provides, it is unlikely people will choose a sustainable future.” Others address the pathology of what happens to us when we disconnect, called nature deficit disorder, which leads to reduced awareness and a diminished ability to find meaning in the life around us. Even a new science of ecopsychology has developed to address the importance of immersion in the natural world for peace, joy, zest, the ability to meet life’s challenges with a positive attitude, and to see the interconnectedness of all things.

These movements foster and study the external awareness that builds from nature connection that will often lead to changes in the internal awareness of people causing them to make choices of life style and attitude that are necessary to lower the overall ecological footprint of them, their families and communities. Sandifer and Sutton-Grier (2014) state that human health and well being can be considered the ultimate or cumulative ecosystem service. This concept is further addressed with science and policy opportunities that could provide a win for human health and biodiversity conservation (Sandifer et al 2015). Nisbet et al (2009) have proposed a new construct, nature relatedness, to describe individual levels of connectedness with the natural world, distinct from environmentalism in that it includes much more than activism. They suggest that as individuals become more related to nature, they may feel more positive emotions, which could result in more pro-environmental behaviours.

We do not readily relate to the changes on the planet that early humans experienced because we look at them from archaeological distances and think they happened suddenly. However, they are now known to have happened much like the changes we are dealing with today, slow enough to dismiss or not see until it is too late. People then were part of the process, using the land and influencing its evolutionary pathway through burning, planting, harvesting and hunting. Today we are still burning,

44

planting and taking; although today there are many more of us over a much greater area. Perhaps understanding the process of humans interacting with the land over millennia will help us to see the profound impact we have and continue to have, but equally important, to help us imagine the ancient interactive process between humans and nature. As we come to know this planet more intimately from both scientific and spiritual perspectives, we will recognize that today it is not only about figuring out what to do with a warming climate, soil contaminants and a rising population, but in what we see in nature, which will help us to formulate a future. Until we are touched by the sight of wild crocuses in spring, the haunting call of migrating geese in fall, the scent of living soil, we may miss the sense of belonging to the earth that many believe is necessary for us to truly commit to effecting the changes we need today and going forward, to be loyal to the land.

When we periodically arrive at the place of thinking the earth’s survival depends on how humans relate to the land, we run the risk of over generalizing or over simplifying. Hence it is important to realize that we have much knowledge garnered from a multitude of studies that can lead us to biophysically and socioeconomically based solutions to the environmental problems we face today. If we go too often to the place of thinking that how humans relate to the land has no real or substantive role in solving our environmental problems, we run an equal risk of over generalization or over simplification. As agrologists and biologists, as farmers and ranchers, as economists and politicians, we know we never do only one thing; that one action leads to multiple consequences. Hence we need to accept that we cannot untie the connection of humans to the land, in all of its multiple facets.

Photo Credit: David S Chanasyk

45

5. KEY MESSAGES

5.1. Land Use Evolution

Land has been a source of multiple benefits for people for centuries. However, the nature of these benefits has changed over time as people change, populations grow, and our land base changes. Land use sustainability is not about keeping everything the same; it is about benefiting from services the land provides, avoiding irreversible changes that reduce our options for future beneficial uses, not degrading the land, facilitating changes in needs and preferences over time, and actively learning and innovating to address current and future land use challenges. Much learning and innovation is about our natural systems, including climate change and other dynamic processes, and how we prepare and respond to these changes. Just as important, is learning and innovation about social institutions and policies that help facilitate adaptation and technological change and aid in avoiding adverse outcomes.

5.2. The Role of Markets

Historically land use change has been driven by changes in markets and energy prices, agriculture, residential developments and others. Markets provide strong signals of scarcity and incentives for innovation. However, not all services from land are traded in markets; and market imperfections exist. A balanced approach to land use will employ a mix of markets and non-market regulatory mechanisms. New market mechanisms are emerging to address environmental scarcities, such as carbon prices and conservation offsets that help integrate economic and environmental goals. Market based approaches can be effective in addressing environmental concerns and driving innovation. However, there is need for a policy mix that includes a balance between markets, with appropriate regulatory support, investments in research and technology and planning tools and processes.

While we have relied on regulation to protect against adverse impacts on land, water and ecosystem services, there is often insufficient rigour to establish clear signals for actions. Consideration of alternative forms of regulation (e.g. stronger constraints with market based options) or investments (e.g. financing to pay for provision of ecosystem services or environmental improvements) is required.

5.3. Thresholds and Constraints

To identify scarcity, foster innovation and support market based instrument development, thresholds or constraints are needed to trigger remedial actions (e.g. market development, investments in restoration or enhancement), or to preclude actions that create irreversible or high cost impacts. For example, recent actions in the United States led to sufficient sage grouse habitat improvement that listing the species under the Endangered Species Act was avoided. In many jurisdictions thresholds are developed and continuously re-evaluated. Air quality (e.g. particulate matter, ozone), water quality and increasingly carbon emissions are associated with thresholds that trigger actions. With land use there are relatively few such constraints outside of planning measures and zoning. Many measures have been proposed directly (e.g. density of linear features in boreal forest) or indirectly (e.g. no net loss of wetlands area and/or quality), but have not been rigorously implemented. Alberta’s Land Use Framework is an experiment in designing a system of thresholds, triggers and constraints at a meaningful landscape scale. The system is relatively unique in North America and should continue to be developed to move towards establishment of constraints or targets.

46

5.4. Measurement And Data

Any sound land use management approach requires data and measurement. Identification of targets, or assessment of tradeoffs, such as those incorporated into processes like the Land Use Framework, requires data, models and interpretation. Without measurement there is no score card of how well we are doing, and no way to assess what is at risk. These data are required for biological and physical components of land use, and social and economic aspects. Of particular note is knowledge about Aboriginal perspectives on land use and traditional knowledge and the role this information can play in land use management. Data are required at a relevant spatial and temporal scale. We have significant data gaps on land use, changes in land use, human land uses and various other features of land use. In some cases these data do not exist as there have been no incentives for their collection (monetary, non-monetary), in other cases the decision making framework has not shown the need for such data and its relevance and value. With the rise of big data opportunities may arise for significant improvements in data collection and availability, although this will have to be matched with the ability to interpret, model and incorporate data into information and knowledge.

5.5. Capacity

A rising concern is the capacity of governments, non government organizations, industry, universities and the general public to analyze, interpret and deploy relevant information. With environmental issues there is a lack of extension services helping with knowledge exchange. Agencies are faced with many decisions and are time and budget constrained. How can capacity surrounding land use and land use policy be enhanced? Can new models of professional education and upgrading, including online education and hybrid approaches be used to build capacity and improve knowledge exchange? These are key issues for Alberta, and for the Alberta Institute of Agrologists!

5.6. Reconnecting With Nature

Implicit in our action plan for a more sustainable land use is the reconnecting of humans to nature. We all know that fundamentally we need the earth to survive. That knowledge should be sufficient to stimulate sustainable land use, to make the appropriate choices for food and energy. Yet we see that is it not. Hence we must address more personal triggers and drivers to change our behavior and our choices. This may, at least partially, require finding ways to see the land as more than a piece of property on which we live, to see soil instead of dirt, to see the earth as an entity that deserves our loyalty and protection. This can be physical (each person) or it can be scientific (connecting ecosystem services with human health and well being). Programs such as the Suzuki Superhero Challenge, Project Learning Tree, Earth Tomorrow, Nature Kids and Nature Connect, are a start to helping urban dwellers, particularly youths, see their connection to the land. It is not too great a step to expand and build on these programs in other meaningful ways.

Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

47

5.7. What To Do And Who Should Do It

As we address the challenges humans are currently facing and will continue to face into the future, we recommend a focus on five key actions. . Measure or improve measurement. . Invest in innovation, adaptation, learning and productivity improvement. . Set clear objectives (triggers, targets) and enforce them, with flexible regulation that allows for markets when appropriate and periodic re-evaluation of the objectives. . Build capacity in people (education, extension). . Experience the land and its uses.

There is a role for all of us on local, regional, national and international scales. Scientists, regulators and policy makers must work together to find implementable solutions and early warning signs to keep earth below tipping points (e.g. atmospheric loading, aquifer drawdown). Societies and individuals must commit to action to implement these recommendations.

Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

48

The longer you can look back, the farther you can look forward. Winston Churchill, 1944

Photo Credit: M Anne Naeth

49

6. REFERENCES

Abbaspour, KC, M Faramarzi and E Rouholahnjed. 2010. Hydrological modeling of Alberta using SWAT. Preliminary Report. On line at http://albertawater.com/hydrological-modelling-of-alberta. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 2015. An overview of Canadian food loss and waste estimates. On line at https://www.brandonu.ca/rdi/files/2014/03/Abdel-Presentation2.pdf. Alberta Energy. 2016. History of petroleum in Alberta. On line at http://www.energy.alberta.ca/ About_Us/3997.asp. Alberta Government. 2013. Aboriginal peoples of Alberta yesterday, today, and tomorrow. On line at http://indigenous.alberta.ca/documents/aboriginalpeoples.pdf. Ambec, S, MA Cohen, S Elgie and P Lanoie. 2013. The porter hypothesis at 20: can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 7(1):2-22. American Dietetic Association. 2009. Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 109(7):1266-1282. Ando, AW and P Shah. 2016. The economics of conservation and finance: a review of the literature. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics. In Press. Antill, TM, MA Naeth, EW Bork and AL Westhaver. 2012. Russian thistle (Salsola tragus L) control on bighorn sheep winter ranges in Jasper National Park. Natural Areas Journal 32:391-397. Anton, SC and JJ Snodgrass. 2012. Origins and evolution of the genus Homo: new perspectives. Current Anthropology 53(6):S479-S496. Balter, M. 2007. Seeking agriculture’s ancient roots. Science 316:1830-1835. Banerjee, SB. 2000. Whose land is it anyway? National interest, indigenous stakeholders and colonial discourses: the case of the Jabiluka uranium mine. Organization and Environment 13(1):3-38. Boivin, N, DQ Fuller, R Dennell, R Allaby and MD Petraglia. 2013. Human dispersal across diverse environments of Asia during the Upper Pleistocene. Quaternary International 300:32-47. Boyd, DR. 2015. Cleaner, greener, healthier; a prescription for stronger Canadian environmental laws and policies. UBC Press. Vancouver, British Columbia. 397 pp. Brown, RL and MA Naeth. 2014. Woody debris amendment enhances reclamation after oil sands mining in Alberta, Canada. Restoration Ecology 22:40-48. Campbell, H, J Rude, MK Luckert and V Adamowicz. 2015. Ethanol production from hybrid poplar in Canada: a general equilibrium analysis. Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology, University of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta. Canadian Renewable Fuels Association. 2016. Online at greenfuels.org. Canadian Renewable Fuels Association. 2010. Biodiesel. On line at http://greenfuels.org/wp-content/ uploads/2014/11/biodiesel-fact-sheets.pdf. Cardinale, BJ, JE Duffy, A Gonzalez, DU Hooper, C Perrings, P Venail, A Narwani, GM Mace, D Tilman, DA Wardle, AP Kinzig, GC Daily, M Loreau, JB Grace, A Larigauderie, DS Srivastava and S Naeem. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486:59-67. Choi, YD, VM Temperton, EB Allen, AP Grootjans, M Halassy, RJ Hobbs, MA Naeth and K Torok. 2008. Ecological restoration for future sustainability in a changing environment. Ecoscience 15:53- 64. Cohen, JE. 1995. Population growth and earth’s human carrying capacity. Science 269:341-346. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2016. On line at http:// www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct6/index_e.cfm. Cortus, B, S Jeffrey, JR Unterschultz and PC Boxall. 2011. The economics of wetland drainage and retention in Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 59(1):109-126. Council of Canadian Academies. 2013. Water and agriculture in Canada: towards sustainable management of water resources. The Expert Panel on Sustainable Management of Water in Agricultural Landscapes of Canada. 201 pp. Dennell, R and MD Petraglia. 2012. The dispersal of Homo sapiens across southern Asia: how early, how often, how complex? Quaternary Science Reviews 47:15-22. Dormaar, JF, MA Naeth, WD Willms and DS Chanasyk. 1995. Effect of native prairie, crested wheat- grass (Agropyron cristatum (L) Gaertn.) and russian wildrye (Elymus junceus Fisch.) on soil chemical properties. Journal of Range Management 48:258-263.

50

Drozdowski, BL, MA Naeth and SR Wilkinson. 2012. Evaluation of substrate and amendment materials for soil reclamation at a diamond mine in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 92:77-88. Ellis, EC, JO Kaplan, DQ Fuller, S Vavrus, KK Goldwijk and PH Verburg. 2013. Used planet: a global history. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 110(20):7978-7985. Enerkem. 2016. On line at http://enerkem.com/. Faramarzi, M. 2016. Predicting Alberta's water future. On line at http://www.gccir.ca/wp-content/ uploads/2015/08/Alberta-Water-Report-2015.pd. Faramarzi, M, R Srinivasan, M Iravani, KD Bladon, KC Abbaspour, AJB Zehnder and GG Goss. 2015. Setting up a hydrological model of Alberta: data discrimination analyses prior to calibration. Environmental Modelling and Software 74:48-65. Fenichel, EP, JK Abbott, J Bayham, W Boone, EMK Haacker and L Pfeiffer. 2016. Measuring the value of groundwater and other forms of natural capital. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(9) 2382-2387. Fischer, C and G. Newell. 2008. Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 55:142-162. Fischer, C, A Torvanger, MK Shrivastava, T Sterner and P Stigson. 2012. How should support for climate-friendly technologies be designed? Ambio 41(1):33-45. Friesen, G. 1997. The Canadian prairies: a history. University of Toronto Press. Toronto, Ontario. Gardner, WC, MA Naeth, K Broersma, DS Chanasyk and AM Jobson. 2012. Influence of biosolids and fertilizer amendments on element concentrations and revegetation of copper mine tailings. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 92:89-102. Gassman, PW, MR Reyes, CH Green and JG Arnold. 2007. The soil and water assessment tool: historical development, applications and future research directions. Invited review series. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 50(4):1211-1250. Gentzis, T. 2000. Subsurface sequestration of carbon dioxide – an overview from an Alberta perspective. International Journal of Coal Geology 43:287-305. Gleeson, T, Y Wada, MFO Bierkens and LPH van Berk. 2012. Water balance of global aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint. Nature 488(7410):197-200. Godfray, HCJ, JR Beddington, IR Crute, L Haddad, D Lawrence, JF Muir, J Pretty, S Robinson, SM Thomas and C Toulmin. 2010. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327:812-818. Government of Alberta. 2009. On line at http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/8035.pdf. Groucutt, HS, EML Scerri, L Lewis, L Clark-Balzan, J Blinkhorn, RP Jennings, A Parton and MD Petraglia. 2015. Stone tool assemblages and models for the dispersal of Homo sapiens out of Africa. Quaternary International. Online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint. Gunningham, N, RA Kagan and D Thornton. 2004. Social license and environmental protection: why businesses go beyond compliance. Law Social Inquiry 29:307-341. Haarsma, D, C Doll, A Bentley, F Qiu and S Jeffrey. 2014. A review of land cover patterns 2000- 2012 and land use policy. Alberta Land Institute Report. University of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta. 84 pp. Hall, PJ. 2008. Energy storage: the route to liberation from the fossil fuel economy. Energy Policy 36:4363-4367. Hallin, IL, MA Naeth, DS Chanasyk and CK Nichol. 2010. Assessment of a reclamation cover system for phosphogypsum stacks in central Alberta, Canada. Journal of Environmental Quality 39:2160-2169. Hammermeister, AM, MA Naeth and DS Chanasyk. 1998. Implications of fly ash application to soil for plant growth and feed quality. Environmental Technology 19:143-152. Hauer, G, W Adamowicz, R Schneider and S Boutin. 2016. Economic analysis of threatened species conservation: the case of woodland caribou and oilsands development in Alberta, Canada. Working Paper. Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology, University of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta. Henderson, DC and MA Naeth. 2005. Multi-scale impacts of crested wheatgrass invasion in mixed- grass prairie. Biological Invasions 7:639-650.

51

Hervieux, D, M Hebblewhite, NJ DeCesare, M Russell, K Smith, S Robertson and S Boutin. 2013. Widespread declines in woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) continue in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 91(12): 872-882. Hill, J, E Nelson, D Tilman, S Polasky and D Tiffany. 2006. Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 103(30):11206-11210. Horlings, LG and TK Marsden. 2011. Towards the real green revolution? Exploring the conceptual dimensions of a new ecological modernization of agriculture that could feed the world. Global Environmental Change 21:441-452. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Hill, J, E Nelson, D Tilman, S Polasky and D Tiffany. 2006. Environmental, economic, and energet- ic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 103(30):11206-11210. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Stocker, TF, D Qin, GK Plattner, M Tignor, SK Allen, J Boschung, A Nauels, Y Xia, V Bex and PM Midgley (eds). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom. Inernational Union for Conservation of Nature. 2016. On line at http://www.iucn.org/. Jackson, ME, MA Naeth, DS Chanasyk and CK Nichol. 2011. Phosphogypsum capping depth affects revegetation and hydrology in Western Canada. Journal of Environmental Quality 40:1122-1129. Kwak, J, SX Chang, MA Naeth and W Schaaf. 2015. Coarse woody debris increases microbial community functional diversity but not enzyme activities in reclaimed oil sands soils. PLoS One 10 (11):e0143857. DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0143857. Lau, Q. 2015. Alberta’s land use change in context: how does the rate of agricultural land conversion and fragmentation in Alberta compare to other jurisdictions? On line at http:// www.albertalandinstitute.ca/news/post/alberta-land-use-change-in-context. Lawler, JJ, DJ Lewis, E Nelson, AJ Plantinga, S Polasky, JC Withey, DP Helmers, S Martinuzzi, D Pennington and VC Radeloff. 2014. Projected land use change impacts on ecosystem services in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(20):7492-7497. Lokey, E. 2007. A critical review of the energy policy act of 2005s treatment of hydrogen. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32:1673-1679. Luna Wolter, GL and MA Naeth. 2014. Dry mature fine tailings as oil sands reclamation substrates for three native grasses. Journal of Environmental Quality 43:1510-1516. MacGregor, JA. 1972. A history of Alberta. Hurtig Press. Edmonton, Alberta. 335 pp. Mackenzie, DD and MA Naeth. 2010. The role of the forest soil propagule bank in assisted natural recovery after oil sands mining. Restoration Ecology 18:418-427. Mazoyer, M and L Roudart. 2005. A history of world agriculture: from the Neolithic age to current crisis. Monthly Review Press. New York, New York. 528 pp. Mckinsey Global Institute. 2011. On line at http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/business- technology/our-insights/big-data-the-next-frontier-for-innovation. Naeth, MA and SR Wilkinson. 2013. Can we build better compost? Use of waste drywall to enhance plant growth on reclamation sites. Journal of Environmental Management 14:25-32. Naeth, MA, SR Wilkinson, DD Mackenzie, HA Archibald and CB Powter. 2013. Potential of LFH mineral soil mixes for land reclamation in Alberta. Oil Sands Research and Information Network, University of Alberta, School of Energy and the Environment, Edmonton, Alberta. OSRIN Report No. TR-35. 64 pp. Naeth, MA, HA Archibald, CL Nemirsky, LA Leskiw, JA Brierley, MD Bock, AJ VandenBygaart and DS Chanasyk. 2012. Proposed classification for human modified soils in Canada: anthroposolic order. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 92:7-18. Nisbet, EK, JM Zelenski and SA Murphy. 2009. The nature relatedness scale linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior 41 (5):715-740. Noga, W and WL Adamowicz. 2014. A Study of Canadian Conservation Offset Programs. Sustainable Prosperity Research Paper. University of Ottawa. Ottawa, Ontario. 65 pp.

52

Owen, B. 2000. The first farmers: theories and old world evidence. On line at http://bruceowen.com/ worldprehist/3250s08.htm. Owram, DR (ed). 1979. The formation of Alberta: a documentary history. Historical Society of Alberta. Calgary, Alberta. 403 pp. Parsons, R and K Moffat. 2014. Constructing the meaning of social licence. Social Epistemology 28:340-363. Patterson, SJ, DS Chanasyk, E Mapfumo and MA Naeth. 2008. Effect of municipal and pulp mill effluents on the chemical properties and nutrient status of a coarse textured brunisol in a growth chamber. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 88:429-441. Pimentel, D and M Burgess. 2013. Soil erosion threatens food production. Agriculture 3:443-463. Poulton, D. 2015. Biodiversity and conservation offsets: a guide for Albertans. CIRL Occasional Paper #48. University of Calgary. Calgary, Alberta. 33 pp. Pringle, H. 1998. The slow birth of agriculture. Science 282(5393):1446-1450. Rowe, S. 2002. Home place: essays on ecology. NeWest Publishers. Edmonton, Alberta. 256 pp. Sale, LY, DS Chanasyk and MA Naeth. 1997. Temporal influence of fly ash on select soil physical properties. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 77:677-683. Sandifer, PA and AE Sutton-Grier. 2014.Connecting stressors,ocean ecosystem services, and human health. Natural Resources Forum 38:157-167. Sandifer, PA, AE Sutton-Grier and BP Ward 2015. Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosystem Services 12:1-15. Sauchyn, D, H Diaz and S Kulshreshtha (eds). 2010. The new normal: the Canadian prairies in a changing climate. Canadian Plains Research Centre. Regina, Saskatchewan Sayer, J and KG Cassman. 2013. Agricultural innovation to protect the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 110(21):8345-8348. Schneider, R. 2014. Conserving Alberta’s biodiversity under a changing climate: a review and analysis of adaptation measures. Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute, Edmonton, Alberta. Schneider, RR, G Hauer, W Adamowicz and S Boutin. 2010. Triage for conserving populations of threatened species: the case of woodland caribou in Alberta. Biological Conservation 143:1603- 1611. Schneider, RR, G Hauer, K Dawe, W Adamowicz and S Boutin. 2012. Selection of reserves for woodland caribou using an optimization approach. PLoS ONE 7(2):e31672. Doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0031672. Shiklomanov, IA. 1999. World water resources and their use. A joint SHI UNESCO product. Smil, V. 1994. Energy in world history. Westview Press. Boulder, Colorado. Smil, V. 1999. Energies: an illustrated guide to the biosphere and civilization. The MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts.. Smith, BD. 2001. Low-level food production. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(1):1-43. Smyth, AJ and J Dumanski. 1993. FESLM an international framework for evaluating sustainable land management. World Soil Resources Report No. 73. FAO. Rome, Italy. Srinivasan, S. 2006. Fuelcells: from fundamentals to applications. Springer. New York, New York. Stan, KD and A Sanchez-Azofeifa. 2015. Historical land cover change in Alberta and the effects of government intervention on future landscape alteration. 35th EARSeL Symposium Proceedings. Stockholm, Sweden. Pp. 126-131. On line at http://www.earsel.org/symposia/2015-symposium- Stockholm/proceedings.php. Steffen, W, PJ Crutzen and JR McNeill. 2007. The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature? Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment 36(8):613-621. Steinfeld, H, P Gerber, T Wassenaar, V Castel, M Rosales and C de Haan. 2006. Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Stewart, B, T Veeman and J Unterschultz. 2009. Crops and livestock productivity growth in the prairies: the impacts of technical change and scale. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 57:379-394. Sustainable Prosperity. 2016. Carbon pricing in Canada. On line at http://www.sustainableprosperity. ca/blog/carbon-pricing-canada.

53

Syed, T, JS Famiglietti, M Rodell, J Chen and C Wilson. 2008. Analysis of terrestrial water storage change from GRACE and GLDAS. Water Resources Research 44:1029-1044. The Royal Society of London. 2009. Reaping the benefits; science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture. The Royal Society. London, United Kingdom. Thomson, I and R Boutilier. 2011. The social license to operate. In: Darling P (ed). SME mining engineering handbook. Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration Littleton, Colorado. Tilman, D, R Socolow, JA Foley, J Hill, E Larson, L Lynd, S Pacala, J Reilly, T Searchinger, C Somerville and R Williams. 2009. Beneficial biofuels – the food, energy, and environment trilemma. Science 325:270-271. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). 2012. One planet, how many people? A review of earth’s carrying capacity. A discussion paper for the year of Rio + 20. On line at http:// na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/geas_jun_12_carrying_capacity.pdf. United Nations University International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNU-IHDP and UNEP). 2012. Inclusive wealth report 2012. Measuring progress toward sustainability. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom. 368 pp. United Nations Water. 2016. On line at http://www.unwater.org/water-cooperation-2013/water- cooperation/facts-and-figures/en/. Unsworth, J. 2010. History of pesticide use. For the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). On line at http://agrochemicals.iupac.org/index.php?option=com_ sobi2&sobi2Task=sobi2Details&catid=3&sobi2Id=31. Vanbergen, AJ. 2013. Threats to an ecosystem service: pressures on pollinators. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(5):251-259. Veeman, TS and R Gray. 2010. Agricultural production and productivity in Canada. On line at http:// www.choicesmagazine.org/magazine/article.php?article=92. Waters, MR, TW Stafford, B Kooyman and LV Hills. 2014. Late Pleistocene horse and camel hunting at the southern margin of the ice-free corridor: reassessing the age of Wally’s Beach, Canada. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 112(14):4263-4267. West, TO and WM Post. 2002. Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66:1930-1946. World Watch Institute. 2016. The hydrogen experiment. On line at http://www.worldwatch.org/ node/493. Yao, L and MA Naeth. 2015. Soil and plant responses to used potassium silicate drilling fluid application. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 120:326-333. Zalosh, RG, TP Short, PG Marlin and DA Copughlin. 1978. Comparative analysis of hydrogen fire and explosion incidents. OSTI ID: 6868081 Report number COO-4442-3. DOE Contract number EE-77-C-02-4442.

54

PHOTO CONTEST WINNERS

First Place “Two Ranchers” Arnold J Janz, PAg

Second Place Third Place “Delineating Contamination, Environmental Site “Ag-Research Cereal Plots — A Closer View” Assessment” Khalil Ahmed, AIT

55