[Previous] [Contents] [Next]

Alternatives

The future of public policy in Banff National Park, and indeed in all of Canada's national parks, now depends on the integration of the new EI mandate into the management protocols and operational practices of the new Parks Canada Agency. The same power of definition that saw "Wilderness" legislated into being in the US, is intended to take place through the interpretation of "Ecological Integrity" as a tenet of national park management. The most recent definition has come from the EI Panel: "An ecosystem has integrity when it is deemed characteristic for its natural region, including the composition and abundance of native species and biological communities, rates of change, and supporting processes." The actual regulatory meaning of each of the key terms in this definition is to be established by environmentalists fluent in the conceptually flexible scientific discourse to which we have previously directed the reader's attention. Perhaps more important, as EI Panel Chair Jacques Guérin noted in his testimony to the House Committee considering Bill C-27, the amendments to the National Parks Act are to transform the principle of ecological integrity from a declaratory clause (as in the Bill's predecessor, Bill C-70) to a binding action clause.¹⁵⁸ The change ensures that EI is to be interpreted not simply as a principle of conservation and good stewardship, but rather as a proactive mandate for restoration, and ultimately for the rewilding, of areas brought under the jurisdiction of a committed minister and crusading officials within a reinvigorated Parks Canada Agency.

While Bill C-27 is in form a consolidation of previous amendments to the National Parks Act, in substance it is a reflection and legislative embodiment of many of the trends manifest in the policy review process over the past several years. The characteristic attribute of recent policy trends is the ease with which centralized bureaucratic authority and ministerial control have been abused to the detriment not merely of commercial operators in the parks, but of all Canadians. No one would argue against the maintenance of ecological integrity in the common sense understanding of the term as an important priority for parks management. But what has been consistently demanded by environmentalists is that ecological integrity, understood in a highly technical way that only environmental experts can grasp and turn into policy and regulations, should be the only priority in the management of these public lands. The implications for human use and enjoyment and for local economics are not addressed. Indeed, as was indicated in the previous section, the review of such issues is considered inappropriate when national park issues are under discussion. The Panel on Ecological Integrity has resoundingly sided with the preservationists and restorationists on this point.

Rent hikes and increasing personal and economic costs of compliance with a centrally-managed but micro-regulatory regime have undermined the ability of existing commercial operations to compete, particularly the destination ski hills. The result has been to stimulate investment in winter recreation facilities in Golden, Revelstoke, and Fernie, BC. There is, of course, nothing wrong with investors seeking to develop recreational markets wherever they see an opportunity for a return.¹⁵⁹

It is, however, false and misleading to assert that tourism operations within the national parks have proceeded with no sense of restraint. Following the release of the BBVS, CP Hotels, for example, voluntarily withdrew its proposal for a golf course expansion at the Banff Springs Hotel. Considering the strict limits already placed on development in Banff, further restrictions are bound to have an enormous negative effect on the Canadian tourist industry. In 1998, the expenditures of visitors in the Alberta's Rocky Mountain Parks (Banff, Jasper and Waterton) had an economic impact of over a billion dollars, and resulted in 28,000 person years of employment. Taxation revenues of $401 million accrued to all levels of government, over half going to Ottawa. The provincial share was $135 million, and local government received $55 million.¹⁶⁰ The economic impact of ski area development and operations in the National Parks (Skiing Louise, Sunshine Village Ski Area, Marmot Basin and Mt. Norquay) was $351 million in 1999. Skiing created 9,200 person years of employment, and generated over $133 million in taxation revenues across the three levels of government (federal share $71 million, provincial share $44 million, local share $18 million).¹⁶¹

These impressive sources of revenue will have to be replaced as the closures and restrictions on tourism and recreational opportunity in and around Banff National Park gradually remove human beings from the park. By progressively narrowing a technical definition of ecological integrity, environmentalists whose agenda we have examined in this report have succeeded in undermining the multiple use philosophy that gave Canadians Banff National Park in the first place.

One of the conclusions to which the preceding analysis leads is hardly news to political science: a centralized approach to policy-making, including environmental policy, provides an inviting target for small, highly focused and aggrieved groups. With respect to discussions and analyses of the past, present, and future of Banff National Park, conflicts in moral outlook and ideology as well as disagreement over facts has polarized debate and turned parties to a conversation over the future of the parks that belong to all Canadians into a conflict between advocates for or against a particular view of the natural environment. It is worth bearing in mind that the social and economic costs of Canada's traditional command-and-control approach to park management are the result of political choices, not moral imperatives or biological necessities. In the same way that governments are beginning to look for innovative ways of providing better and more effective health and social services, there is growing recognition that if Canadians truly value their parks and wildlife, new revenue generation mechanisms are going to be needed. Canadians must be presented with some sensible alternatives to the heavy-handed and ideologically-driven regulatory approach to wilderness conservation.

Letting parks pay

While the full-fledged privatization of national parks is probably not feasible nor perhaps even advisable, there are many market solutions that can be harnessed to the environmental cause. Lessons can be learned from comparisons of American federal and state parks. Many state parks in the US, for example, have preferred to charge park users directly, rather than close facilities. The contrasting situation of US federal parks that have rejected market mechanisms is instructive.¹⁶² The new administrative structure of the revamped Parks Canada Agency at least makes revenue retention feasible through its revolving fund. However, much of this potential revenue is being diverted into questionable "science" projects, rather than to the repair and restoration of existing facilities, services, and infrastructure within the park. In other words, the creation of the Parks Canada Agency provides an opportunity to rethink many of the highly questionable regulatory assumptions governing parks management. It would be regrettable if the result of this administrative change resulted simply in more of the same kind of research and a prolongation of an acrimonious and highly unsatisfactory situation.

Moreover, there are conservation benefits to be gained by using market mechanisms to protect Canada's parks, not just economic ones. Revenue from user fees can also be used to mitigate environmental damage from overuse. The decline in park visits, it is worth noting, was accompanied by an increase in entrance fees and a change from charging per vehicle to charging per person. To the extent that Banff Park is "overused," a fee increase is an obvious way to reduce visits. In short, rather than imposing unnecessary restrictions and further closures within the park, a simple measure such as park user fees can go a long way toward regulating use.

Environmental entrepreneurship

There is strong evidence from the US that, as incomes increase, environmental amenities increase, because environmental entrepreneurs use market incentives to obtain environmental benefits. As demand for unique wilderness experiences grows, willingness to pay for such quality experiences also increases.¹⁶³ In order to be able to finance such environmental innovations, commercial operators must be able to initiate the requisite improvements to existing operations. Allowing private industry to stay competitive, even while operating within the parks, is a win-win situation: while continuing to drive the Alberta economy, they will be able re-invest in the environment and the community.

The historical record in both Canada and the US bears out the economically sound observation just made. We have already noted the complimentary relationship between the CPR and the park. Railway interests were also behind nearly all major western parks established in the US in this era: Glacier (Great Northern Railroad), Mount Rainier National Park (Tacoma Eastern Railroad), Crater Lake (Southern Pacific Railroad), Grand Canyon National Park (Santa Fe Railway).¹⁶⁴ There is no reason to think that what worked well in the past cannot work well today. Indeed, the private sector still plays an important role in the protection of Canada's wilderness.

Private tourism interests, for example, responded to the BBVS proactively, with the Heritage Tourism Strategy. The Heritage Tourism Council was subsequently established to provide direction, information and tools to tourism organizations and operators in the Banff area, in order to further the Strategy goals. It provided a principled vision for future discussions on land use planning and management in Banff National Park. The council initially included Parks Canada, the Towns of Banff and Canmore, the Banff/Lake Louise Tourism Bureau, the Banff/Lake Louise Hotel and Motel Association, the Banff Centre, the Whyte Museum, and Ski Banff/Lake Louise.¹⁶⁵ The purpose of the strategy is to "sustain our mountain parks and park communities by encouraging tourism experiences that confirm the role played by local knowledge and shared appreciation of the unique nature, history and culture of our World Heritage destination." One result has been that Chateau Lake Louise was recognized as a world leader in environmental performance by being awarded a five "green leaf" rating by the Hotel Association of Canada.¹⁶⁶ Outside the national parks system, BC's Whistler ski resort operators have initiated a "Habitat Improvement Team," a corps of managers and employees who assist local conservation groups restore habitat for fish, wildlife, and plant species in Whistler Valley. They have also committed $1.5 million over 5 years to "Operation Green-Up," a program for watershed restoration on its lands.¹⁶⁷ Market forces can provide positive incentives for the care of Canada's national parks when markets are able to come into being and are allowed to operate. The well known dangers of public land management through bureaucratic regulation—the aptly named "tragedy of the commons," for example—can obviously be overcome by ever more stringent regulation. The end point towards which regulation tends, however, is a no-use wilderness, or rather, a wilderness that is enjoyed only by the regulators whose task it is to keep everyone else out.

The obvious alternative would be to institute a regime of stable property rights and positive incentives that make environmental protection an opportunity and a responsibility, not merely conformation to regulatory necessity. Again, the administrative reorganization of Parks Canada Agency is an opportunity for innovation.

Private stewardship

Private stewardship is one of the most valuable strategies for conservation. A recent example of this is the all-volunteer Crowsnest Forest Stewardship Society, which is helping to implement an access management plan for the mountainous area around Kananaskis Country. An alliance between provincial conservation officials and the society's 2,000 volunteers and supporters, the group fulfils an educational and political role, as well as actively working towards maintaining the environment.¹⁶⁸ Responsible environmental behaviour need not be inspired by an "ecocentric ethic," nor enforced by a centralized management and regulatory regime. This is evident from the environmental entrepreneurship demonstrated by the Heritage Tourism Strategy, and other private initiatives based on "best practices" geared towards the promotion of environmental awareness within the public, and responsible ecological stewardship among operators.

[Previous] [Contents] [Next]

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: August 23, 2000.