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.

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.

What's threatening Alberta's protected areas? The law, actually...

UPDATE:

Since posting this story just hours ago, we've learned that Bill 29, the proposed "Alberta Parks Act", has been officially withdrawn from debate. Cindy Ady, Alberta's Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation, has also agreed to conduct a public consultation on the proposed legislation, responding to urgent requests from concerned citizens and conservation organizations, alike. You can read more in the Edmonton Journal and in the Sierra Club of Canada's related press release.

We thank all Canadians - particularly Albertans - who spoke out in favour of the province's iconic protected areas system! We look forward to results of upcoming public consultations and hope that conservation remains the number one priority in Alberta's protected spaces!

******************************

On Tuesday, Nature Canada, the Sierra Club of Canada (SCC) and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) submitted a joint letter to Alberta Premier, Ed Stelmach, asking him to immediately withdraw Bill 29, the proposed "Alberta Parks Act". This Bill threatens to redefine the management priorities in Alberta's parks and will reclassify the province's existing Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves and Wildland Parks. These and other changes could threaten the ecological integrity of 1 existing and 1 nominated World Heritage Site in Alberta, in addition to risking new external pressures on 2 other World Heritage Sites in the province.

In a substantial step backward for the province's protected areas system, Bill 29 proposes to "balance" conservation objectives with recreation and tourism. In our view, conservation should be prioritized over other activities in a system that effectively "...conserves unique and representative land within Alberta’s natural regions for present and future generations..." (cited from s.2(1) of the Bill).

Astonishingly, there was no public consultation on Bill 29 prior to members of Alberta's Legislative Assembly debating and voting on it. As detailed in a joint press release issued November 23rd by Nature Canada, the Sierra Club of Canada and CPAWS,

The [Bill] removes prescriptive laws specifying what can and cannot happen inside parks, opens all parks to tourism development and off-road motorized recreation, and leaves all decisions between development and protection inside parks to Ministerial opinion. That includes Dinosaur [Provincial Park], Áísínai'pi [Writing-on-Stone Provincial Park], and the parks contiguous with Wood Buffalo, Banff and Jasper [National Parks].

What's more, if Bill 29 passes into law it could affect the ecological integrity of numerous Important Bird Areas (IBAs) that coincide with provincially protected areas throughout Alberta. As BirdLife International's Canadian co-partner in implementing the IBA program, alongside Bird Studies Canada, we're concerned about what this could mean for birds and their habitats - especially Alberta's grassland birds. Nature Canada estimates that the proposed changes to Alberta's protected areas system would affect 5 nationally significant IBAs, 4 continentally significant IBAs and 35 globally significant IBAs. Visit the IBA Canada website to learn more about these and other IBAs across Canada.

Bill 29 has already passed its second reading by members of Alberta's Legislative Assembly (MLAs) and could rapidly become law after its third reading. But the government of Alberta needs to hear what Albertans and Canadians think of this draft Law before it's too late!

Our colleagues at CPAWS and the Sierra Club have organized letter-writing campaigns to help the public voice concerns over Bill 29 and the way it has proceeded. You can find them here:

Alberta's new Parks Act puts parks at risk
and
Alberta's Parks Need You

Help to safeguard Alberta's protected areas - for current and future generations of all Canadians.

Photo 1: Bighorn Sheep, Alberta's provincial mammal
Photo 2: Suffield National Wildlife Area, SE Alberta (A. Teucher)