Transcript October 22 2012 Session B Sustainability

SUSTAINABILITY
ASSESSMENT AND
CLIMATE CHANGE
OCTOBER 22, 2012
OVERVIEW
• Limitations of Environmental
Assessment
– Climate Change as example
• Sustainability Assessment (The
Gibsonian Approach)
• Sustainability Assessments by CEAA
Panel Reviews
• CEAA 2012 and Sustainability
Assessment
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT LIMITATIONS
• Narrow focus on significance of adverse
environmental effects
• Inattention to major environmental issues
such as climate
• Ineffective cumulative effects assessment
• Failure to learn from experience
• Weak political commitment
• Trend to restrict application, scope and
openness under the guise of streamlining
EA LIMITATIONS: CLIMATE
CHANGE AND GHG EMISSIONS
• Kearl Oil Sands Mine $5 - 8 billion
project by Imperial Oil
• 3.7 million tonnes of CO2 per year
(comparable to 800,000 cars annually)
• 0.5% of Canada’s GHG emissions
• Joint Panel Review: GHG emissions
would have no significant adverse
effects on global climate
• Federal Court required Panel justify
how an emissions-based regulatory
approach would address GHGs issue
EA LIMITATIONS: CLIMATE
CHANGE AND GHG EMISSIONS
• Other panel reviews (Joslyn North,
Mackenzie Gas) have adopted same
approach and reached same
conclusion
• Project GHG emissions have no
significant adverse effects on global
climate
• Does this approach miss the point?
• Mackenzie Gas Project Panel took
analysis further, applied sustainability
approach to GHG emissions
SUSTAINABILITY CHALLENGE
• Humans using 50% more of biosphere’s
carrying capacity than can be sustained
• Demands on biosphere still rising
• 1 - 2 billion humans lack material basics
for reliable nutrition, health, opportunity
• Most benefits are going to the already
comfortable
• These problems deeply interconnected
SUSTAINABILITY CHALLENGE
WWF Living Planet Report 2010, p.7
SUSTAINABILITY CHALLENGE
Number of Undernourished People in World
SUSTAINABILITY CHALLENGE
“Human and ecological well-being are
effectively interdependent. Under all the
layers of artifice and ingenuity, humans
are ultimately and unavoidably dependent
on biospheric conditions that are friendly
to human life” Robert Gibson p. 173
OBJECTIVES OF
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
• Decisions must aim to avoid trend
toward deeper unsustainability
• Projects, plans, policies, programs must
make net positive contribution to a
desirable and durable future
• Must exceed merely avoiding and
mitigating adverse environmental
effects
BASIC INSIGHTS OF
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
• Comprehensive, including socio-economic
and biophysical, short and long-term
• Precaution because systems are complex,
predictions uncertain, surprise likely
• Minimizing negative effects not enough;
positive steps to community, ecological
sustainability is essential
• Corrective action woven together to serve
multiple objectives
BASIC INSIGHTS OF
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
• Recognition of ecological limits and
opportunities for innovation
• No to balancing, presuming compromises,
trade-offs; yes to multiple reinforcing gains
• Universal but context-dependent - local
ecosystems, institutions, preferences
• Means and ends intertwined, open-ended
process with no end state to be achieved
CORE CRITERIA FOR
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS
• Socio-ecological system integrity
• Livelihood sufficiency and opportunity
• Intragenerational equity
• Intergenerational equity
• Resource maintenance and efficiency
• Socio-ecological civility, democratic governance
• Precaution and adaptation
• Immediate and long-term integration
TRADE-OFF RULES
• Seek maximum net gains
• Place burden of argument on trade-off proponent
• Avoid all significant adverse effects
• Protect the future (do not displace negative
effects to future generations)
• Provide explicit justification
• Use an open process
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
LINKS TO FEDERAL LAWS
• Investment Canada Act s.16.(1) “Net benefit to Canada”
test for foreign investment seeking control of Canadianowned business
• National Energy Board Act s. 52 Board may issue
certificate for pipeline where it “is and will be required by
the present and future public convenience and necessity”
having to regard to considerations such as availability of
oil/gas, existence of markets, economic feasibility,
finances and “(e) any public interest that in the Board’s
opinion may be affected by the granting or the refusing of
the application
• Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, CEAA 2012
CEAA, CEAA 2012 AND
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
• Were CEAA legal obligations limited to identifying and
mitigating significant adverse environmental effects of
projects?
• Or did CEAA call for or require consideration of broader
sustainability issues in decision-making?
• Is the argument for consideration of sustainability issues
weaker in CEAA 2012?
• Preamble; assessments of need, purpose, alternatives to
project; and capacity of renewable resources to meet
present and future needs dropped from CEAA 2012
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS
BY CEAA PANEL REVIEWS
• Voisey’s Bay Nickel Mine and Mill Joint
Panel Review (1999)
• White’s Point Quarry and Marine Terminal
Joint Panel Review (2007)
• Mackenzie Gas Project Joint Panel Review
(2010)
• Lower Churchill Dam Joint Panel Review
(2011)
VOISEY’S BAY
• Nickel mine and mill project on north
Labrador coast proposed by Inco Ltd.
• Innu and Inuit traditional lands
• Multi-jurisdictional governance regime
(Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador, Innu
Nation, Labrador Inuit Association)
• Environmental assessment review by joint
panel with formal EIS and public hearings
VOISEY’S BAY
VOISEY’S BAY
“It is the Panel’s interpretation that progress
towards sustainable development will require
the following:
• preservation of ecosystem integrity, …
• respect for right of future generations to
sustainable use of renewable resources; and
• attainment of durable and equitable social
and economic benefits.”
VOISEY’S BAY
“Therefore in reviewing the EIS and other
submissions, the Panel will consider:
• the extent to which the Undertaking may
make a positive overall contribution towards
the attainment of ecological and community
sustainability, both at the local and regional
levels;…”
WHITE’S POINT QUARRY AND
MARINE TERMINAL
• Proposed basalt quarry and shipping
terminal on Digby Neck, Bay of Fundy
• 50-year project life, about 30 direct jobs,
little public revenue
• Canada/Nova Scotia joint panel, hearings
• March 2005 guidelines adopted
sustainability test with ecosystem approach
and precautionary principle
• Panel recommended against project
approval, governments agreed
WHITE’S POINT QUARRY AND
MARINE TERMINAL
WHITE’S POINT QUARRY AND
MARINE TERMINAL
• Implications for sustainable community
futures for Digby Neck and coastal Nova
Scotia
• Implications for Bay of Fundy shipping,
endangered species protection, fisheries
• Implications for provincial mining policy
(e.g. royalties)
• NAFTA appeal
MACKENZIE GAS PROJECT
• Natural gas, gas liquids pipelines, gathering
system, three natural gas anchor fields
• 1220 km - Mackenzie Delta to northern
Alberta
• Estimated cost $16.3 billion, 2-3 years
construction, 20-50 years operation
• Aboriginal participation in pipeline
consortium
• Review by joint panel - CEAA, MVRMA, IFA
MACKENZIE GAS PROJECT
“In preparing for public hearings, the
Proponent, Interveners and other
participants should be aware that the Panel
will evaluate the specific and overall
sustainability effects of the proposed project
and whether the proposed project will bring
lasting net gains and whether the trade-offs
made to ensure these gains are acceptable
in the circumstances.”
– JRP Determination on Sufficiency 18 July
2005
MGP SUSTAINABILITY
ASSESSMENT
Five key issue categories
• Cumulative biophysical effects
• Cumulative socio-economic effects
• Equity effects
• Legacy and bridging
• Cumulative impacts management/
preparedness
Plus interactions, trade-offs
MGP SUSTAINABILITY
ASSESSMENT
• Project could contribute to sustainability if
176 recommendations carried out
• Must anticipate and pre-empt adverse
cumulative effects
• Must manage pace, scale of development
• Must maximize lasting gains (use direct
revenues from depletion of non-renewable
resources for use as bridge to more durable
future)
MGP CLIMATE CHANGE AND
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
• Panel: GHG emissions are important
component of Project’s contribution to
sustainability
• Findings
– Direct Project GHG emissions
– End Use of Gas, Life-cycle Impacts
– Project Contribution to Sustainability
MGP - DIRECT PROJECT
GHG EMISSIONS
• NEB require as certificate condition GHG
emissions reductions targets if federal
regulations not in place Rec. 8-6
• NEB require that GHG emissions be
included in Project monitoring program with
annual reporting against targets Rec. 8-7
• Canada should develop laws reducing GHG
emissions to meet or exceed targets in
Climate Change Plan for Canada Rec. 8-8
MGP - END USE OF GAS,
LIFE-CYCLE IMPACTS
• End use of gas (e.g., fuel tar sands,
displace coal-fired generating) relevant to
Panel’s mandate, such as life-cycle impacts
• Use of gas for carbon-intensive fuels is
“undesirable”, “squanders valuable
attributes of natural gas as transition fuel”
• Unpersuaded MGP gas to fuel oil sands
• Did not require offsetting of GHG
emissions: needs comprehensive approach
MGP – CONTRIBUTION
TO SUSTAINABILITY
• Mandating carbon neutrality, intervening in
market to specify end uses not resolvable
project-by-project
• Canada adopt implementation strategy that
optimizes natural gas as transition fuel and
ensures gas is preferentially used to replace
carbon-intensive, polluting fuels Rec.8-9
• Agency develop GHG emissions guidance
document in which sustainability is overarching objective Rec.8-10
FEDERAL RESPONSE TO MGP
PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
Federal government and NEB rejected
virtually all of the Panel’s forward-looking
recommendations, including those on
• anticipating cumulative effects
• managing pace and scale of induced
development
• directing revenues from depletion of nonrenewables as a bridge to more durable
future
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:
SQUELCHED BY CEAA 2012?
• Environmental effects limited to “federal”
effects
• Consideration of purpose, need for, and
and alternative means deleted from
CEAA 2012
• Consideration of capacity of renewable
resources to meet needs also deleted
CEAA 2012 AND
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
• CEAA Purposes broader than just “significant
adverse environmental effects”
– “Ensure that designated projects” … “are considered in
a careful and precautionary manner to avoid significant
adverse environmental effects” s.4.1(b)
– “Encourage federal authorities to take actions that
promote sustainable development in order to maintain a
healthy environment and a healthy economy” s.4.1(h)
– Government authorities to “exercise their powers in a
manner that protects the environment and human
health and applies the precautionary principle s.4.(2)
CEAA 2012 AND
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
• Environmental effects include “with respect to
aboriginal peoples, an effect … of any change
that may be caused to the environment on (i)
health and socio-economic conditions, (ii) physical
and cultural heritage, (iii) the current use of lands
and resources for traditional purposes . . .”
s. 5.(1)(c)
• Factors to be considered include “environmental
effects of malfunctions or accidents” s.19.(1)(a)
and “comments from the public” s.19.(1)(c)
CEAA 2012 AND
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
• Decision-maker (Minister, NEB, CNSC) required
to issue decision statement regarding likelihood
and significance of adverse environmental effects
of designated effects ss. 52 - 54
• Cabinet may decide that designated project
having significant adverse environmental effects
is “justified in the circumstances” s. 52.(4)
• Decision-making under CEAA 2012 is broader
than just adverse environmental effects
CEAA 2012
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
• Is it plausible to argue that purposes of CEAA
2012 are met only if decision-makers consider
more than whether project is likely to cause
significant adverse effects?
• Do review panels still have two functions (for
CEAA 2012 as for CEAA) ?
– Determine whether project is likely to cause significant
adverse environmental effects
– Advise government (based on sustainability
assessment) whether to exercise discretion to make a
decision that allows project to proceed