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.

Review of Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Begins

Photo: Tom Middleton

On July 12, 2011, Nature Canada and BC Nature officially registered to participate as interveners in the environmental assessment review of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project. As interveners, Nature Canada and BC Nature will provide information on the impacts that the project could have on birds, bird habitat and terrestrial wildlife to a panel that will ultimately decide whether the project is in the public interest.

As we've said here before, this tar sands shipping project poses unacceptable risks to the ecosystems and biodiversity of the Northern B.C. Coast. There are 28 Important Bird Areas in the Northern B.C. coast and the whole Queen Charlotte Straight is an extremely globally important area for marine birds, other marine animals and fish. This rich ecosystem would be exposed to oil pollution from increased tanker traffic and an impossible-to-rule-out oil spill. The pipeline will also fragment the pristine habitat of boreal birds and other wildlife, including Caribou and Grizzly Bears.

Over the next year or so (assuming no delays) a Joint Review Panel (JRP) will examine the application submitted by Enbridge, as well as evidence and comments from First Nations, individuals, environmental organizations, and other interested persons regarding the project and its environmental impacts. There JRP will hold hearings starting in January 2012 to decide whether the project is in the public interest. The deadline to register as an intervener today, Thursday, July 14, but there are other ways you can  participate and comment.

We hope that the Panel will not allow the project to proceed after considering the impact on wildlife and many other objections to the project, particularly from First Nations. But we're at least a year away from that decision with much work ahead. We will keep you posted!

The EnCana Trial That Wasn't

In 2007, EnCana (now Cenovus) was charged with violating the Canada Wildlife Act by building a section of a pipeline without a permit within CFB Suffield National Wildlife Area.

The trial was postponed numerous times -coincidentally, as EnCana's proposed project to drill more than 1,200 wells in the Suffield National Wildlife Area was undergoing an environmental assessment review. A year ago, the case was stayed temporarily. Now, it turns out that legally speaking it never happened.

The government has yet to make a decision on whether the Cenovus project will be approved and, if so, under what conditions.

Given that the panel that conducted the environmental assessment concluded the project would interfere with the conservation of wildlife, and set a very high bar for any approval, one could speculate that the "disappearance" of those charges are one less thing for the government, and Cenovus, to worry about.

Of course those of us concerned about the enforcement of wildlife conservation laws and the integrity of Suffield National Wildlife Area, have one more thing to worry about. Canadians need to have confidence that their government will uphold and enforce the rules intended to protect this irreplaceable wildlife habitat, including environmental assessment conditions.

Time to Say NO to the Mackenzie Gas Project

The time has come for the National Energy Board (NEB) to reject the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project (MGP). A decision by the NEB on the proposed $16 billion megaproject is expected in the coming weeks.

The Joint Review Panel (JRP) that exhaustively reviewed the social and environmental impacts of the proposed project made 176 recommendations for approving the project so that it could provide a foundation for the sustainable development of the North.

The Governments of Canada and Northwest Territories, even as they claim to accept the majority of the JRP’s recommendations, are in fact rejecting the JRP’s framework for implementing the project sustainably. In their final response, the Governments’ have only accepted 11 of the 115 recommendations directed to them by the JRP and in most cases, they have not addressed the JRP’s objections to the Governments’ proposal for changing the JRP recommendations. (Actually, despite a JRP call for transparency, the interim governments’ response was never made public and the Panel’s response to it was only available on Environment Canada’s website for a limited period of time before being taken down.)

The Panel concluded that “in the absence of implementation of its Recommendations, and in particular those Recommendations directed to the Governments, the adverse impacts of the Project could be significant and its contribution towards sustainability could be negative. In that event, the opportunity for the Project to provide a foundation for a sustainable northern future would be lost.” (Emphasis in the original.)

As we said to the NEB in our 22 November 2010 letter, proceeding with the project without implementing the recommendations of the JRP would compromise a sustainable future for the North. Therefore the project is not in the public interest and the NEB must reject it.

On December 1, 2010 Nature Canada wrote again to the NEB to bring to their attention a recent event that illuminates what the governments’ claims to accept “the intent” of a recommendation might actually mean:

Panel recommendation 11-2 calls for providing areas identified as of high conservation value through the NWT Protected Areas Strategy with interim protection until permanent protection is achieved. The governments accepted “the intent” of this recommendation. How is the Canadian government following through? On October 28, 2010 the government failed to renew crucial interim subsurface protections that had been in place for over eight years on the land beneath Edéhzhíe, leaving the area open to mining claims. Edéhzhíe is one of the most revered sites of the Dehcho and Tłicho Dene communities around western Great Slave Lake, and a candidate National Wildlife Area identified through the NWT Protected Areas Strategy (Step 5) and sponsored by the Canadian Wildlife Service.

This is one of 77 important recommendations for which the governments claim to “accept the intent”. Ten recommendations that are key for the sustainability of the project were rejected.

Sustainability should be the guiding principle for this basin-opening project. It won't be. The NEB should reject the MGP.

Governments Reject a Sustainable Approach for the Mackenzie Gas Project

This week, the Governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories released their final response to the environmental assessment of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project.

Nature Canada is gravely concerned that, despite claiming they have accepted most of the recommendations, the Governments have accepted only 11 of the 115 recommendations to government from the Joint Review Panel that studied the environmental impacts of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project.

The governments' response plainly dismisses the principles of sustainable development by rejecting recommendations on the grounds that they would constrain development. The governments’ refusal to commit to implementing all of the Panel’s recommendations creates the unsustainable conditions that the Panel warned about in an October 4 letter. “The Panel has concluded that, in the absence of implementation of its Recommendations, and in particular those Recommendations directed to the Governments, the adverse impacts of the Project could be significant and its contribution towards sustainability could be negative. In that event, the opportunity for the Project to provide a foundation for a sustainable northern future would be lost.”

Nature Canada is deeply concerned about the devastation that could be unleashed on important wildlife areas across the Northwest Territories as a result of the Government’s aggressive stance against the Panel recommendations. We are now studying the government response in more detail and will comment again soon. The National Energy Board is due to make a final decision on the project, likely before Christmas.

Looking Deeper Into Fish Lake

  

Grizzly bears are one of the
species identified by the
Prosperity Review Panel
that would be adversely affected
by development at Fish Lake.



The government of Canada made a good decision earlier this week when it turned down a proposal for an excessively damaging mine at Fish Lake, British Columbia. Nature Canada congratulated Environment minister Jim Prentice for respecting the conclusions of the federal environmental assessment of the project, and for respecting the will of First Nations about land use in their territory. Looking deeper into the context of that decision reveals some important insights and implications.

Environmental assessment works
While the process of environmental assessment may seem mysterious from a distance, Nature Canada has been up close and personal with it many times over the years and we are convinced it works. Environmental assessment allows independent panels to consider expert testimony, reach conclusions about the likely environmental impacts of a proposed project, and identify mitigation measures that could limit the damage. The resulting recommendation to the government (and it is only a recommendation) can range from approval of the project, to approval on the condition that certain mitigation measures be required, to rejection of the project as proposed.

Politics happens
The government must then decide whether or not to accept the recommendations about the studied project, and this is where the hard facts of environmental assessment meet the vagaries of politics. The government can follow the recommendations completely, partially, or not at all. But thanks to the public nature of the assessment process, we the citizens know whether or not our government is approving projects that destroy our environment. This is where the vagaries of politics meet accountability to the voters. In the case of Fish Lake, Minister Prentice deserves credit for doing the right thing for Canada, despite pressure from within his own caucus to do otherwise.

More to come
Nature Canada is very engaged in two other environmental assessments that are awaiting a response from the federal government: proposed gas drilling in the Suffield National Wildlife Area, and the proposed Mackenzie gas project.

In the case of the Suffield NWA, the environmental assessment report concludes that the proposal to drill 1,275 gas wells would interfere with the purpose of the National Wildlife Area. It also recommends that the government complete overdue work to identify the critical habitat of species at risk, and take other conservation action even if the project does not proceed. We are hopeful that Minister Prentice will accept all of this panel's recommendations too, reject the gas drilling project, and take other actions to better protect the national wildlife area.

In the case of the Mackenzie gas project, the federal government has been accused of attempting to secretly make the panel rewrite some of its recommendations. This suggests a lack of appreciation for a key feature upon which citizens depend: the independence of environmental assessment panels. We congratulate the panel for standing up for the their independence in the interest of Canada. We hope Minister Prentice will show leadership and convince his cabinet colleagues to accept the panel's report. You can help us encourage the government to stop the Mackenzie Gas Project and to instead establish protected areas in the Mackenzie Region that will be safe from development.

Changing the rules
Parliament will soon be undertaking a review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. There is cause for concern, since the government already used the budget bill to weaken the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act earlier this year. You can be certain that Nature Canada will be working to ensure the review results in a stronger act, not a weaker one.

Back to the lake(s)
The decision about Fish Lake is a good news story, and we hope it does not go down in history as a rare exception. A loophole in the law that protects fish habitat, the Fisheries Act, allows the government to exclude some lakes from the protections of the act and let mining companies use lakes as dumps for toxic mining waste. A handful of lakes has been targeted so far, including Fish Lake in BC and Sandy Pond in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are concerned that this loophole threatens pristine lakes across Canada. Now that Fish Lake has been spared, it's time to take action on the others.

Gulf Spill Lessons Not Heeded by Canadian Government

Yesterday BP and the US government announced that the oil spill in the Gulf has been tamed, more than three months after oil began gushing into the sea. Capped a few days earlier, their latest reports are that about 75% of the almost five million barrels of oil that spewed into the Gulf had been eliminated – roughly 25% was “dispersed”, 25% had evaporated and 25% was scooped up by all of those barges. That leaves only about 1.25 million barrels, about five times more than the Exxon Valdez spilled into Prince William Sound in Alaska 20 years ago.

The so-called dispersed oil is turning up in water and sand samples at toxic levels, but officials are not talking about this. It appears as if the “out of sight, out of mind” approach is taking hold. In fact, a seemingly contradictory federal report released Wednesday indicated that roughly half of the more than 200 million gallons (750 million litres) of oil that gushed from the well before it was capped could still be in the gulf environment in some form as tiny dispersed droplets, tar balls, surface slicks or oil buried in sand and ocean sediment.

Yet even as the clean-up efforts continue, it seems that Canada’s government is ignoring some of the lessons of the Gulf disaster.

Today, the Globe and Mail reports that Chevron has been awarded rights to explore a 205,000 hectare deep water parcel in the Beaufort Sea for oil by Canada’s department of Indian and Northern Affairs. This award was granted despite the National Energy Board’s hearings that have yet to start on Arctic offshore drilling, called in response to the Gulf oil disaster.

Chevron and its buddies, including Exxon and BP, were pressuring our government to further relax our already lax regulations for drilling onshore in Canada’s Arctic by removing the requirement for companies to demonstrate capacity to drill same-season relief wells. They argue that they have a new technology that makes the relief well unnecessary.

Heard this before? Can you imagine a Gulf-like leak in the Beaufort with its very small ice-free window – Mackenzie delta nearby, birds, sea mammals, fisheries, and indigenous communities that live off the sea and the land?

This is exactly the wrong approach Canada should take to development in the North.

Now is not the time to relax offshore drilling regulations. Rather than do away with the requirement to have advance plans for drilling relief wells in case of a spill, oil companies should be required to actually have relief wells in place before working wells are built. Also, blow-out preventers of the type that failed in the Gulf should be tested regularly.

Unlike the United States, Norway and Britain, Canada lacks a regulatory process governing whether or where oil and gas development can happen in the Arctic. Licenses are granted, and contracts signed with oil and gas companies before any environmental assessment by the NEB takes place.

The result: exploratory licenses exist in environmentally sensitive areas in the Beaufort Sea, where a blowout would have immediate negative effects on the delicate ecosystems there.

Strict regulations, and the will to adhere to them, are absolutely essential for safe, sustainable oil and gas development off of Canada's shores, and in the Arctic.

Changes Weakening Environmental Protection Laws Passed

On July 8, Liberal and independent senators voted for the removal of changes weakening environmental protection laws, namely the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), amongst other sections of Bill C-9 they believed did not belong in the bill. Unfortunately, yesterday, Bill C-9 was passed after a 48 to 44 vote - bad news for environmental protection because the sections, that were removed by the Senate finance committee, have now been reinstated and the bill received royal assent last night.

On a more positive note, 'turning the CEAA amendments into a public and political issue is a great achievement which demonstrates the collective influence environmental organizations are capable of' said Mr. Stephen Hazell of Ecojustice. And this work will, of course, continue!!

Liberal Senators Vote against Amendments to Weaken Environmental Protection Laws

The 2010 budget implementation bill, the Jobs and Economic Growth Act (Bill C-9), proposes changes that would gut Canada’s environmental protection laws. If passed, Bill C-9 would significantly weaken the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) in various ways - one of which allows projects to be exempted from environmental assessments!

After months of concern and efforts to remove these changes from the bill, yesterday, some Liberal and independent senators in the senate finance committee voted to remove some of the sections included in the budget. It was agreed amongst them that these sections did not belong in the bill because they are not related to implementing the 2010 budget. Besides weakening the CEAA, other sections proposed for removal dealt with Canada Post, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and how financial services are taxed.

The bill has now been passed onto the full senate for a vote that will likely take place on either Monday or Tuesday. It is likely that the Conservative senators will vote to have the removed sections re-installed. And although Liberal and independent senators outnumber the Conservatives, it seems as though they haven’t been able to get enough senators to stop the bill from being passed.

Still, these senators have given us some hope that Bill C-9 will do what it is meant to - which does not include weakening Canada's environmental protection laws. We hope that all senators will attend this vote and consider the true impacts of their decisions on our wildlife, our natural legacy and our country.

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

Mackenzie Gas Project: Final NEB Hearings Start Next Week

After approximately four years, the Mackenzie Gas Project's review is finally coming to an end this month. The National Energy Board will hear final argument from April 12th to 24th in Yellowknife and Inuvik, NWT. The NEB is then expected to make a decision this fall on whether or not to grant approval to the project.

Nature Canada will not appear at the hearings, but we will be following them closely. In addition to the many specific concerns we have about the proposed project, we are concerned by the National Energy Board's reaction to the recommendations made by the Joint Review Panel in its December 2009 report. The Panel made 176 recommendations and concluded that the project could be carried out without a negative impact to the region if all the recommendations were fully impelmented. The NEB comments on the Panel's report addressed only about half of the recommendations, arguing that the rest were not within the Board's jurisdiction, instead of committing to ensure that all of the panel's recommendations are implemented as a package.

In response to the NEB, the Joint Review Panel last week reaffirmed its conclusion the project can only be carried without a negative impact if all the recommendations are fully implemented. The stakes are very high for sustainability, as a new Pembina Institute fact sheet makes clear.

Perhaps the NEB will be convinced at the final hearing to adopt the Panel's approach to sustainability for the Mackenzie Gas Project, if it approves the project. The NEB hearing will be broadcast live on the NEB’s website in Inuvialuktun, Gwich’in, North Slavey, South Slavey, Dene Tha’, English and French. Listen in or stay tuned for an update.

Mackenzie and Suffield: Opportunities for Sustainability?

The Joint Review Panel of the Mackenzie Gas Project spent two years writing a report that optimistically and ambitiously set out the conditions under which the Panel believes the basin-opening project could be the basis for sustainable development in the Mackenzie Valley and Delta.

The report tackles the big picture issues and many of its recommendations aim to mitigate negative cumulative impacts and maintain a high standard of care for future developments. If all the 176 report recommendations were to be fully implemented, perhaps the project could be a positive thing. But the chances for that are looking slim.

The National Energy Board responded last week to the Joint Review Panel's recommendations by rejecting the integrated approach to sustainability the Panel recommended. Despite claiming in November 2009 that it's taking a sustainability approach, the NEB seems inclined to taking a narrow approach to the Mackenzie Gas Project. The NEB can still reconsider after its hearings in April and the federal and territorial governments have yet to respond to the Panel's recommendations, so a commitment to sustainability might still prevail.

Yes, I'm trying to be positive today.

Another place where an opportunity to do the right thing is waiting to be seized is Suffield National Wildlife Area, or perhaps I should say EnCana's headquarters. As readers of this blog are aware, EnCana has applied to drill an additional 1,275 gas wells within Suffield National Wildlife Area. But why does EnCana still want to drill there? In North America, proven reserves of natural gas have increased substantially in the past two years, so the time may be just right for EnCana to abandon further drilling within Suffield National Wildlife Area. Read more here. And stay tuned, we'll continue to report on both energy projects, as well as the Northern Gateway.

Image: CFB Suffield by Cliff Wallis

Biofuel Crops Raise Invasion Concerns

Concern over invasive biofuel crops has caused the IUCN to look deeper into the potential risks associated with their introduction and impacts on local livelihoods and the environment. Nadine McCormick, IUCN Energy Network Coordinator puts it this way: “Current biofuel production is based on established food crops, and while this raises other sustainability concerns, the risk of invasion is not large. However, this risk will increase exponentially as new plants – that grow fast with many seeds in pretty much any land – are cultivated for more advanced biofuels.”

Not all biofuel crops are invasive, but this new report does push for more precautionary actions to avoid any detrimental impacts on the environment and livelihoods. The invasive nature, which is not inherent, of a biofuel crop depends on the environment in which it is grown as well as the method by which it is grown.

Geoffrey Howard, IUCN Global Invasive Species Coordinator, states that “biological invasions from the introduced species themselves, as well as from the production processes, are real risks to biodiversity and livelihoods,” and goes on to say “the risks can be reduced by following the guidelines we’ve set out.”

The guidelines, a product of cooperation between the IUCN and the Roundtable on Sustainable Energy (RSE), include step-by-step recommendations for reducing the risk of biological invasions by biofuel crops.

The report can be found here:

http://www.iucn.org/?4716

I remember working on an environmental impact assessment project in 2007 for a Jatropha (a biofuel crop) plantation project in southern Egypt; beautiful Luxor and Aswan! We had not listed biological invasions as one of our concerns due to the project’s location – in the middle of nowhere without any signs of life. It would be great to go back and see what has become of this project.

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