Bedford Biofuels Continue to Threaten Tana Delta

On 7 September we told you about the threats to Kenya’s Tana River Delta Important Bird Area from plans by the Canadian company Bedford Biofuels to establish a jatropha (biofuel) plantation. Since our post Bedford has been in touch to express their disagreement with our criticism of their project (see the comment posted). However, our concerns continue. Nature Canada has written to the Canadian government to bring our concerns to their attention and find out whether the government is supporting this project. We will let you know their response.

In the meantime, here is a summary of the latest information provided by our BirdLife partners at Nature Kenya:

At the start of this week Bedford Biofuels and Nature Kenya met in Nairobi. Bedford was accompanied by their lawyer and more than 20 people from the Delta supporting the Bedford proposal. However unfortunately despite a long (around 5 hour) and at times rather tense meeting Bedford was not prepared to recognize the concerns of Nature Kenya and others from the Delta or willing to respect the land use planning process under way.

In summary, Nature Kenya and others are worried that jatropha is untested, that Kenya has yet to adopt a biofuels policy and that 10,000 ha is too big to be a pilot. Also that the proposed project is within the very sensitive Delta floodplain and that there needs to be a land use plan for the Delta in place to provide a strategic framework before individual large-scale developments proceed. For all these reasons Nature Kenya is maintaining their challenge to the Bedford consent and hoping that the Kenyan Government will act on NEMA (the National Environment Management Authority) advice to cancel the Bedford consent.

It is very encouraging to see the land-use planning process for the Delta now firmly underway. Between 14-17 September around 65 participants took part in a high-level meeting in Malindi to discuss the need for a strategic plan for the Delta. The Kenyan Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) hosted the meeting with NEMA and Nature Kenya jointly providing the Secretariat. It was attended by representatives from key Kenyan government ministries and agencies including NEMA, the Ministries of Finance, Lands, Agriculture, Environment and Mineral Resources, Water and Irrigation, Fisheries, Kenya Forest Services, Kenya Wildlife Service, TARDA (Tana and Athi River Development Authority), together with NGOs, media and international experts in the fields of land use and delta planning and environmental assessment. The meeting included a workshop plus a field visit into the Delta to provide the opportunity for participants to see the Delta and speak to the local people to understand the issues first hand.

The meeting closed by adopting a Communiqué of the Inter-Ministerial Consultative Meeting on the sustainable development of Deltas in Kenya. This confirmed the launch of the Tana Delta planning initiative, including agreement on a road map leading to the long-term sustainable development of the remarkable Tana River Delta in ways that will provide for economic prosperity, stable social conditions and lasting environmental quality.

Specifically the meeting agreed:

• To the establishment of a local Tana Delta planning process which will be steered by a local committee (the Planning Implementation Committee) and will involve a combination of strategic planning and strategic environmental assessment (SEA)


• The output will be a long-term strategic land use plan representing a ‘truly sustainable’ future to the Delta.


• That this process will combine scientific, economic, social and environmental evaluation tools alongside extensive public participation and will be a collaborative exercise involving all relevant government ministries and agencies, counties, districts and communities, Civil Society and NGOs, International Partners and investors


• The process will take place over the next 18 months, with the support of DFID (UKAid).

Things are now moving quickly with the Inter-Ministerial meeting scheduled to meet again on Tuesday 27 September to discuss the terms of reference for the SEA. This is exciting news.

Double-hulled Tankers Won't Protect Northern BC Coast From Oil Spills

Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipeline Project proposes to take tar sands oil from Alberta to the northern BC port of Kitimat for export to Pacific markets. Enbridge believes petroleum products can be moved safely through the northern BC coast, in part thanks to "modern and double-hulled" tankers.

In a report released last week, Living Oceans Society takes a close look at the limitations of double-hulled tankers and concludes they're not the panacea they're touted to be.

The risk of an oil spill in the northern BC coast is one of the main objections to this project. A spill could cause irreversible harm to the livelihoods of many coastal and aboriginal communities, the area's unique marine ecosystems, the Great Bear Rainforest and 28 Important Bird Areas.

A Joint Review Panel has been established to review the environmental assessment of the project, but a date for the hearings is yet to be announced. Nature Canada plans to participate in the review, together with BC Nature. However, opposition to the project is building and a proposed legislated ban on tankers in the area could put an end to this threat. Watch spOIL for a glimpse of the wilderness at risk.

House Passes Motion to Ban Tankers in the northern BC coast

On Tuesday, the House of Commons passed a motion to ban tanker traffic off the B.C. coast. The motion was introduced by Nathan Cullen of the NDP and was supported by the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois. It calls on the Harper government to come up with legislation banning oil-tanker traffic in B.C.'s north coast - namely, Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. A ban would clarify the questions around the exiting moratorium on tanker traffic, which the government claims is voluntary. And more importantly, a ban on tanker traffic would protect the ecosystems and coastal communities of northern BC from a potential oil spill.

Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipeline Project proposes to build pipelines from Alberta to B.C.'s Kitimat port to ship oil from the tar sands to markets in Asia. This would 1) contribute to the projected increase in tanker traffic on the B.C. coast (about 225 per year to begin with), 2) increase the likelihood of another Exxon Valdez disaster, and 3) give the Canadian tar sands (the largest carbon emitting industry in Canada) more reason to exist.

A ban on tanker traffic would stop this dangerous and unsustainable proposal.

On the same day the motion passed, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Scott Vaughan, unveiled his alarming conclusions on Canada's readiness to respond to offshore oil spills, including that:

- The government lacks the readiness needed to respond to a major oil spill;
- Both Transport Canada (the regulatory agency responsible for preparing spill responses) and the Canadian Coast Guard (the federal body that would manage the spill on-site) have incomplete or outdated knowledge on the risks of spills;- The Canadian Coast Guard hasn't evaluated its capacity to respond to spills since 2000, and doesn't have a system in place to track spills!

Have you ever wondered how many oil spills take place in Canadian waters? Well, apparently between 2007-2009 there were 4, 160. Vessels, such as oil tanker and fishing boats, were involved in 2, 000 of them.

Now that the motion has passed, what happens next?

What should happen, is that a bill is introduced and new legislation is put in place to ban oil-tanker traffic. But there isn't much reason to hope the government will act on a motion they didn't support, even if it is the will of Parliament. After all, they continue to ignore a motion they did support.

What am I talking about? 

In May this year, following the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the House unanimously passed NDP MP Linda Duncan's motion to take hard look at Canada's preparedness and fix any weaknesses. The motion read:

"That this House notes the horror with which Canadians observe the ecological disaster unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico and their call for action to prevent such an event in Canada, and therefore calls on the government immediately to conduct a thorough review and revision of all relevant federal laws, regulations and policies regarding the development of unconventional sources of oil and gas, including oil sands, deepwater oil and gas recovery, and shale gas, through a transparent process and the broadest possible consultation with all interested stakeholders to ensure Canada has the strongest environmental and safety rules in the world, and to report to the House for appropriate action".

In the long-term interests of coastal wildlife and the communities that exist along Canada's west coast, the government should take the opportunity to implement BOTH motions and move us closer to preventing a major oil spill in Canada.

Raising A Green Fledgling - Part 6 - Staying Green While Not Turning Blue...

Hello Readers!

This part of the series focuses on a very timely question - how do you stay warm when the weather starts getting colder?

Fall has descended upon Ottawa in the last couple of weeks, prompting my wife and I to dig out sweaters from the depths of our closet and to evict the patio furniture from the backyard. These and other aspects of 'hunkering down' for the winter made me think about how we and our green fledgling will stay warm during the next 6-8 months.

So how do I heat my home? Well, we have an oil furnace. Yup, oil. We live in a city where natural gas is widely available to homeowners but our home happened to be newly re-equipped for oil heat when we purchased it. Our furnace is less than 12 months old and has a high efficiency rating. We've also sought out and sealed drafts around our 50+ year old house and installed a programmable thermostat to reduce our overall energy consumption/costs for heating & cooling.

This series is all about how well my environmental values withstand the many demands - and conveniences - of modern-day parenthood. While home-heating is not a parenting issue, per se, how it is done absolutely influences one's environmental footprint. In fact, space heating in the home can contribute to 60% of residential energy consumption according to Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). After a series of posts on the things I think my wife and I are doing "well" to reduce our family's environmental footprint and connect our daughter to nature, I thought it timely to talk about something we can and should do better over time.

The Gulf of Mexico oil disaster is a poignant reminder of the risks associated with oil & gas extraction, hopefully catching the attention of anyone who heats with oil or gas, drives a vehicle, or purchases petrochemical products. Concurrent events like the Red Sea oil spill (June), China's Yellow Sea oil spill (July), the Enbridge pipeline rupture in Michigan state (July), Chevron's bid to explore offshore oil & gas in the arctic Beaufort Sea (Aug) and news of Tar Sands extraction impacts on the Athabasca River (Sept) remind us again and again of these risks.

The fuel and electricity that provides heat and hot water in my home (and possibly yours) come from somewhere, and I want to better understand their origins. That way I can make more responsible choices about how to reduce my family's environmental footprint by choosing greener, cleaner energy. Everyone should consider try this, particularly since we're using even more energy (derived from fuel combustion and other sources) in our homes over time... NRCan lists the following changes in energy consumption between 1990 and 2007 across the residential sector*:

Residential

• Water heating = 6.2% increase
• Space heating = 14.3% increase
• Lighting = 17.8% increase
• Other appliances (e.g., TVs, DVD players, personal computers) = 123.8% increase
• Space cooling = 166.5% increase

These increases can be attributed to numerous factors and don't directly reflect changes in fuel and electricity consumption. However, consumption is trending in an opposite direction than one would hope given the risks associated with how and where we get the raw energy sources from in the first place...

So here's the take-home message for this RAGF installment: How will you keep your family warm this winter? Do you know the origin of the fuel and/or electricity used to heat your home? Do you know the full environmental impacts associated with your home heating method? And if so, have you thought about how to reduce the negative impacts? Is your family interested in green energy alternatives?

For the record, there are a lot of 'greener' home heating alternatives available, including things like heat pumps, concentrated solar thermal power, geothermal energy, and energy sourcing alternatives like Bullfrog power. I won't expand on this topic for now since this discussion could be a post unto itself.

Stay tuned for the next post in the RAGF series. Check back every 2-3 weeks for new installments. And thanks for reading!


*Keep in mind that this is just a SAMPLE of all the sector-specific energy consumption stats available from NRCan - I encourage you to also check out the changes in energy consumption patterns that have occurred across the board.

Photo: A. MacDonald

Biodiversity Action: The Guardian's 'Biodiversity 100' Campaign

We learned in May that the 2010 Biodiversity Target, to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction in the current rate of biodiversity loss, had been missed.

World leaders are going to meet again in Nagoya, Japan this October and hopefully adopt a new ambitious target for 2020 and a longer-term vision for 2050. Many are skeptical of the new plans and want to see more action and less paper and ink.

The Guardian, a British national newspaper, has launched a new campaign, Biodiversity 100, to pressure governments to take more serious action towards conserving biodiversity. They’re compiling a list of 100 tasks to forward to governments and ask them to sign a commitment to action - before going to Nagoya. The tasks will address the G20 countries given that they have no excuses not to meet their obligations.

The campaign is seeking actions that are aimed at protecting ecosystems or species, backed with strong scientific evidence and that are politically costly or opposed by interest groups. The more specific the tasks the better! For example, stopping a destructive industrial project such as the Mackenzie Gas Project or the Northern Gateway Pipeline, or changing or passing law such as repealing the harmful Schedule 2 of the Metal Mining and Effluent Regulations (MMER).

They’re finalizing their list within a month so make sure Canada is represented and add your suggested actions to their simple form by the end of August. Raise your voice at home by signing Nature Canada’s pledge urging the Canadian government to take five concrete actions to conserve biodiversity during the International Year of Biodiversity.

Oil Spill in Michigan Threatens Birds, Fish

It's becoming a wearying -- and worrying -- refrain. For (at least) the third time this year, an oil pipeline has burst, birds and fish are being killed, water is being fouled, and local residents are asking, How could this happen?

The site this time: Battle Creek, Michigan, where a pipeline belonging to Calgary-based energy giant Enbridge Inc has leaked at least three million litres of oil into the Kalamazoo River.

The pipeline, which normally carries about 30 million litres of crude oil a day from Griffith, Ind., to Sarnia, Ontario, sprung a leak on Monday, but cleanup crews didn't begin work until Wednesday. Once again, initial estimates from the company of the amount of oil spilling from the pipeline were lower than reality, and once again townspeople were left surprised that a pipeline was so close to one of the state's major waterways. From the Associated Press:

"I just can't believe they allowed that to happen, and they're not equipped to handle it," said Owen Smith, 53, of Galesburg.

Sound familiar?

This is just the latest in a string of spills that have been reported this year. All of these spills, particularlythe tragedy unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico, serve as a reminder that oil production is never safe for the environment or for the communities along our coasts and waterways. Oil in the water is dangerous for fisheries, wildlife and ecosystems no matter where it happens.

This spill, harmful though it is to the area's wildlife and people, is at least smaller in scale than the BP spill. Check out how much of Ontario would be covered by the Gulf of Mexico spill!

Enbridge Insists on Pipeline Project to the BC Coast

On April 20, the world awoke to news concerning BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. Most of us, myself included, weren’t even aware that there was a oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, let alone that something had gone terribly wrong. Today, most of us have clued in on the rig and its resulting oil spill and are reminded of another tragedy, the Exxon Valdez, once considered the most devastating human-caused environmental disasters...until BP’s Deepwater Horizon.

Five weeks following BP’s Deepwater Horizon, Enbridge filed a formal application to the National Energy Board (NEB) requesting permission to build a twin pipeline system running from Edmonton to Kitimat, British Colombia and a marine terminal in the latter one.

John Carruthers, President of Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines, wrote in a recent brochure advocating the pipeline project: “I certainly appreciate the importance that local residents place on the environment and I want to encourage all affected stakeholders and Aboriginal people to continue to provide feedback on our project.” He added “feel free to email me at john@northerngateway.ca with any questions you may have.” So feel free, many already have.

On March 23, more than 28 First Nations in British Columbia called for a halt to the project. The pipelines cross traditional lands and the increased tanker traffic (200-220 tankers a year) puts the future of the coastal waters on which they depend in potential jeopardy. Mr. Carruthers must have missed their emails as two months after the First Nations called for a halt to the project Enbridge formally filed, on May 27^th, for construction of the pipelines.

Four days after the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines application, a solidarity rally was held in Kitamaat Village to protest the project. Even Amnesty International has 'piped' in, noting the project should not proceed without the free prior informed consent of the First Nations that would be affected by it. This standard was adopted in the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by 144 states. Four states voted against the declaration: Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and you guessed it...Canada.

To further spice up the mix, a rather unusual ally in the fight against the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines has emerged. Kinder Morgan Canada, owner of an existing oil pipeline from Alberta to the West Coast, stated in a news release that the Northern Gateway Project had not demonstrated adequate commercial support. Kinder Morgan believes that the better way is simply to increase the output of their own pipeline, rather than build another one. Kinder Morgan motives albeit not environmental, only add to the debate.

We at Nature Canada are opposed to the Enbridge Northern Gateway project because of the risk of an oil spill in the coast and the damage it would cause to the ecosystem and to livelihoods. We believe Greenpeace said it best, “Accidents happen. If oil tankers are brought to the Great Bear Rainforest, it’s not a question of if a spill will occur; it is a question of when, where, and how large. . . When you move oil, you spill oil. No amount of technology or process can eliminate human or mechanical error.” Just look at the Gulf!

This blog post was contributed by Nature Canada volunteer Stefan Kohut. Thanks for the insight, Stefan!

Photo by Pat Moss

Nature Canada Pipes Up Against Enbridge

Twenty-one years ago, the Exxon Valdez ran aground, spilling 40 million litres of crude oil into Prince William Sound and causing irreversible damage. Now, Enbridge wants to bring the same risk to B.C.'s pristine coastal waters and rainforest.

The proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline would carry oil from the tar sands to a port at Kitimat, B.C. Supertankers fed by the Enbridge pipeline would travel the same waters where the Queen of the North ferry sank in 2006.


Nature Canada is one of over a hundred signatories - including First Nations, businesses and prominent Canadians - to an open letter opposing the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and crude oil tanker traffic in BC's northern coastal waters. The risk oil spills pose to First Nations, communities and the environment is too great.

Add your voice and pipe up against Enbridge by sending a letter to Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel today.

The Northern Gateway: Another unsustainable proposal?

The Great Bear Rainforest; First Nations lands, livelihoods and traditions; grizzlies, wild salmon, orcas and 28 Important Bird Areas; a tanker moratorium; Climate Change... these are just but a few of the many reasons a proposed pipeline to Kitmitat, BC for exporting tar sands oil should be of great concern to all Canadians.

The project should have been reviewed through a public inquiry, but the government has instead established a Joint Review Panel under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Nature Canada recently joined 18 environmental groups in urging the government to undertake a much more comprehensive environmental assessment than is currently planned of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project.

Enbridge's Gateway Pipeline Inc. proposes to construct and operate pipelines, 1,170 km in length, between an inland terminal near Edmonton, Alberta and a marine terminal near Kitimat, British Columbia. Approximately 500 km of the pipeline will be in Alberta, and 670 km in British Columbia. The project will include an export oil sands product pipeline, an import condensate (a hydrocarbon) pipeline, terminal facilities, integrated marine infrastructure at tidewater to accommodate loading and unloading of oil and condensate tankers, and marine transportation of oil and condensate.

The scope of an environmental assessment is one of the most critical elements determining whether the review can be a meaningful exercise and contribute to sustainability. Does purporting to assess the environmental impact of this proposed pipeline without reviewing the impact of tanker traffic and of the increased oil sands production make any sense? To me, it's like calculating the harm done by a gunshot by considering the trajectory of the bullet, but not what it hits or who pulled the trigger.

A recent Supreme Court decision states that authorities conducting environmental assessments can't scope the review to avoid addressing a project's full environmental impacts. So there is perhaps some hope that Minister Prentice will decide the review of the Enbridge Pipeline will be a meaningful one.

The Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project put sustainability at the center of its assessment, released on December 30, 2009. While I have some reservations about their conclusions, their approach to sustainability should become best practice for all environmental assessments of major projects. It should be applied in reviewing the Northern Gateway project. Many don't want the pipeline at all. Stay tuned...

Photo by Tom Middleton