Dear Editor,
As I understand, the Bowen Island Conservancy is offering to buy the parcel of land that is at the centre of the Metro Vancouver park proposal. I think that is a bad idea, and I will explain to you why.
MV has painted itself into a corner with its ill conceived $40 million proposal which is not supported by our community. It is their problem. We have zero responsibility in their financial and public relations blundering. We have zero reason to appease to soften their financial pain. So let’s keep that $30 million of the table and first draw up our own plan and act from a position of strength. Without our community support MV’s park proposal is a no-go.
What we need is a long-term plan for the whole island, including all lands, waters, wildlife, human habitation and human economics.
The reason why we are at this point of trying to fend off something thrown at us is because we lack such a plan.
What we have is the Official Community Plan, which spreads human habitation all over the island with ever-longer transportation and energy routes, resulting in a growing maintenance burden on our municipal coffers. It is unsustainable without some ideas to better our financial position. We also have the Islands Trust’s provisions, which came to rescue recently, even for some who have been propagating against the island’s inclusion in the Trust. Not to rub it in, but to show that we all have more in common than previously thought.
In essence the OCP only explains where we allow residential and economical activity, the Islands Trust provisions are about preservation, but together they don’t talk about what the role of the island on the doorstep of a metropolitan area is, in a rapidly changing world.
With the effects of climate change becoming increasingly serious, mitigation measures will become so too. The MV park proposal is a sign of this. When we discourage recreational air travel, there is a growing need in MV for local recreation options. When we encourage public transportation within MV, there is a growing need for local recreation options. The whole of the biosphere reserve will have to play a role in this.
So what will the role of this island be?
Clearly, the MV proposal for a campground has set off a process, one of resistance. Not necessarily bad, it is always good to know what you don’t want. But, it doesn’t tell us how we see the island 20 years from now.
To me it also doesn’t make sense to spend money on land in a location that will be the first to fall victim to the effects of climate change. What makes more sense is to focus on the whole island. Only its totality, all its watersheds can sustain us in the long term.
So can the island’s “Crown Land” effectively First Nations’ land be bought? Or better, can the money be used as a donation and operational fund to enter into a stewardship agreement with those First Nations?
I bring up stewardship, because what we see is an exploitative model the province is using for the lands. For an example: When walking in our forests I see too much deadwood = fuel for forest fires = a massive risk especially during drought periods.
What can this island be in 20 to 30 years without being crushed under too much tourism? Can we do camping on the island, and where would that be done best? Can we provide employment opportunities in stewardship of the forests? Can we offer silviculture vacation – work in the forest - packages?
- Anton van Walraven
