Alberta-Pacific Environmental Impact 3/4 Assessment Review Panel
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE Northwest Territories represents the people who inhabit the downstream half of the river basin affected by the developments before this panel. The Mackenzie Basin is of national importance, reaching from Canada's Rocky Mountains and prairies through our boreal forest heartland to the Arctic Ocean. It is a northern ecosystem entrusted to the federal government, three provincial, and two territorial governments on behalf of present and future generations. The Mackenzie constitutes one of the largest drainage basins on the continent and supports the living environment and economy of northwestern Canada.
When considering matters such as those before this panel, it is easy to be lulled into a false sense of well-being by taking a short-term, narrow view of the environmental and economic issues. It is also all too easy to slip into a seemingly endless call for more studies and more data upon which to make project-specific decisions. These decisions are important, but only in the context of the more fundamental policy decisions that have yet to be made.
The basic information upon which to make these fundamental policy decisions in the Mackenzie Basin is readily available. It comes from the traditional knowledge of the people who have used these lands and waters since time immemorial. It comes from the application of common sense, from recommendations arising from recent Mackenzie Basin studies, and from the hard-earned experience gained in the Great Lakes/St Lawrence Basin and elsewhere. Decades of intense work and billions of dollars spent on science and remedial actions in the Great Lakes have led to approaches that should be the starting point for our work here. The Great Lakes have been an expensive lesson-something that the federal departments of Environment and Fisheries and Oceans know well. In essence, the lesson is that it is far cheaper and easier to prevent degradation of an ecosystem than to restore it. We must learn from the past.
In a disturbing and all too literal sense, we are in danger of losing sight of the forest for the trees. The proposed Alberta-Pacific Forest Products Inc. (AlPac) pulp mill is obviously central to this panel's mandate and important to vested interests in Alberta. However, there are larger basin-wide issues also before the panel, including cumulative and downstream effects, that have serious federal, provincial, territorial, and aboriginal implications. If not dealt with effectively by this panel, these issues may have to be resolved in more adversarial and potentially less constructive forums.
This panel has an opportunity to make a major contribution to the establishment of a framework for sustainable development throughout the Mackenzie River Basin-to consider development as if the future really matters.
Costs and Risks
First, it must be pointed out that the developments which are proposed for northern Alberta will provide no economic benefits to the Northwest Territories. They do, however, pose environmental risks that have unacceptable biological, social, and cultural implications for northerners. In addition, there are significant obligations imposed on the territorial government and other northern organizations in assessing the impacts and dealing with the consequences of these developments. These costs are all imposed upon us by upstream developments over which we have no control and little influence, and from which we derive no offsetting benefits.
The proposed AlPac pulp mill would be only one more source in a complex system of contaminant loadings which already affect the Northwest Territories. There are three mills on the Peace River, in addition to the three existing and two proposed mills on the Athabasca River. Oil sands developments, the Bennett Dam, pesticides and fertilizer runoffs, and the long-range transport of air pollutants from the South and over the pole all contribute to the burden of contaminants in the Northwest Territories. These cumulative effects and downstream impacts continue to be overlooked. This is unacceptable.
In the Northwest Territories, we are finding that our natural resources are being steadily degraded by activities beyond our borders. With each development it is argued that there will be "insignificant impact". By only addressing these incremental impacts without regard to cumulative effects, legitimate downstream concerns are ignored. This also is unacceptable.
How can we now consider allowing additional developments to proceed when we do not know the true extent of damage to our waters, lands, and living resources from existing upstream developments? How can we agree to any further developments when there is no mechanism to address the risks and costs to northerners?
Accountability and Responsibility As the downstream users of the waters of the Mackenzie River system, residents of the Northwest Territories are primarily at risk as a result of the actions of upstream provinces. The current upstream loading of wastes and toxic materials, of which the AlPac proposal is only the most recent example, has already moved beyond the ability of any one agency to control or manage. The federal government finds itself in an awkward position in its role as the quasi-provincial water and lands manager for the Northwest Territories and, at the same time, having a national role in a host of environmental matters from fisheries to toxic substances. Only a basin-wide, ecosystem approach provides the conceptual framework through which these types of impact can be addressed. Thus, the institutional response through which management and control are effected must focus at that level.
None of this is new. It is an approach firmly established in the federal water policy and developed from hard-earned experience in the Great Lakes/St Lawrence Basin. The need for an institutional framework in the Mackenzie Basin is not new either. In 1981, ministers representing Canada, Alberta, the Northwest Territories, and the other Mackenzie River system jurisdictions accepted the final report of an intergovernmental Mackenzie River Basin Study Committee. The first recommendation was:
The approach to developing these agreements is complex. It requires seven bilateral agreements among Mackenzie Basin jurisdictions as well as a master agreement. The intent is to deal with both quality and quantity.
Based on the experience elsewhere in negotiating similar agreements, how soon can we expect results? It took 30 years to establish the Prairie Provinces Water Board. That agreement dealt only with allocation-or water quantity. Discussions on Mackenzie Basin transboundary issues began in 1983. In the six years since, the governments have yet to achieve consensus on format and content! It is our government's position that this rate of progress is unacceptable, particularly given the increasing pressures and risks we are facing in the basin.
We have reached a crisis point. Measurable levels of toxic substances have been documented in our fish. We have good reason for concern. Cumulative downstream impacts must be addressed now on a basin-wide level. Narrow, sector specific or jurisdictionally oriented analyses of development proposals have been shown time and again to be inadequate. Worse still, such approaches ignore the larger issues and diffuse the public accountability for the decisions which result in environmental degradation.
Our government's view is that a coordinated basin-wide, ecosystem management initiative must come from the federal Department of the Environment. Focusing on AlPac and calling for more baseline studies and more information might have some short-term benefit, but it misses the point. Strong national leadership is necessary. For example, the Minister of Environment already has the tools he needs. The Canada Water Act, in Section 11 provides the authority to establish management mechanisms when the water quality of interjurisdictional waters is a matter of urgent national concern.
The federal Minister of Environment must set a strict timetable for progress on a Mackenzie Basin Agreement. If the provinces, the federal Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, and the Government of the Northwest Territories cannot agree within that time-frame, the Minister of Environment should act. The people of the Northwest Territories have a right to clean, safe waters, wildlife, and fish. The time for action on basin-wide management is long overdue.
Principles to Guide the Panel
The AlPac proposal and other upstream developments can only be considered within a framework of basic, basin-wide principles. These principles should also form the basis for a Mackenzie River Basin Master Agreement.
Based on what we already know about the Mackenzie Basin and drawing on the experience gained in other basins like the Great Lakes, the Government of the Northwest Territories submits that the deliberations of this panel must take into account the principles listed below:
1. Activities within the basin must be managed from an ecosystem perspective and not as separate water, land, or air issues nor as sector-specific or project-specific matters.
2. The basic commitment from all levels of government, from industry, and from the public resident in the Mackenzie River Basin must be to maintain, and where applicable, restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the basin ecosystem.
3. The Mackenzie Basin Ecosystem must be viewed as part of a national and international system, subject to global factors such as climatic change and global airborne transport of pollutants.
4. The jurisdictions sharing the Mackenzie Basin must develop and adopt common ecosystem objectives that recognize public health, environmental, economic, social, cultural, and spiritual values. This could begin with a listing of beneficial uses, such as no health restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption. The ecosystem objectives would become the basis for more formal interjurisdictional agreements, enforceable standards, and ecological criteria to complement existing legislative requirements.
5. The federal government, three provinces, and two territories within the Mackenzie Basin must govern activities within their respective jurisdictions, such that they shall not pollute on either side of a shared boundary so as to risk health or property in the other jurisdiction.
6. The basin management issues to be addressed are those of the human use and abuse of the ecosystem. It is human activity, not the environment, that is managed.
7. The discharge of wastes to public waters is not a right, but is a privilege permitted by society on a selected and limited basis. The emphasis must be on preventing damage rather than on reacting to adverse impacts. That is, pollution prevention and waste minimization and recycling must be given priority within the basin, including the elimination of production processes and products that harm the environment.
8. More particularly, all jurisdictions within the Mackenzie Basin shall take specific steps to virtually eliminate the input of persistent toxic substances. The philosophy adopted for the control of such substances shall be zero discharge. Control shall not be based upon such narrow and ecologically insupportable perspectives as "limits of detection", "assimilative capacity", or "no observable effects level". It is principles such as these that must provide the framework for considering developments like pulp mills.
Conclusions
In examining the AlPac proposal, the Government of the Northwest Territories has assembled technical and scientific data which have led to a number of important conclusions:
1. Based on existing information about persistent organic contaminants in northern and western Canada and other regions, there are scientifically supportable grounds for concern about the hazardous nature of downstream impacts caused by the proposed AlPac project.
2. The Government of the Northwest Territories has a special concern because of the dependence of northern peoples on the region's fish and wildlife for basic dietary needs. There is no alternative food source for most of these people. For a large number of residents of the Northwest Territories, the land-based activities related to fish and wildlife are also vital for their economic, cultural, and spiritual wellbeing.
3. Despite the evidence put forward by the proponent and the Government of Alberta, the form and longevity of hazardous effects on biota, humans, and the ecosystem in general in downstream areas is uncertain.
4. Based on experience elsewhere with the pulp and paper sector, it is clear that persistent chlorinated organic substances in general, and dioxins and furans in particular, constitute a significant risk to the natural resource base and the people who depend on this resource. At a minimum, there should be zero discharge of dioxins and furans and virtual elimination of all other persistent chlorinated organic substances. There is no other long-term solution.
5. The consequences of mistakes made now could be enormous and long-lasting, and essentially irreversible.
6. Contaminants associated with existing pulp mill operations are traceable for considerable distances downstream using existing detection methods.
7. The Environmental Impact Statement, provided by AlPac, is incomplete, and major aspects of the proposed plant, such as effluent treatment systems, have recently been changed. An adequate environmental review should assess existing and proposed developments within the Mackenzie Basin, and sufficient time must be allowed to collect and interpret required data.
8. From evidence available on the Peace-Athabasca and Slave river systems, the entire biological resource could be at risk as a result of bioaccumulation of persistent organic contaminants. The region is already subject to measurable loadings of a wide range of persistent contaminants derived primarily from the long-range transport of air pollutants.
9. Downstream resources, and the ecosystem generally, are at risk, and it is essential that the full, cumulative impact of upstream developments be assessed. In particular, this means full accountability by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment in their mandates under the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. In the view of the Government of the Northwest Territories, none of the concerns related to cumulative environmental impacts downstream have been adequately addressed by AlPac or any of the government agencies with a mandate in the region.
10. There is ample evidence in other parts of North America that fish and wildlife populations are being directly and significantly harmed by toxic chemicals. The basic biological processes, especially those related to the capacity of organisms to reproduce, are generally similar throughout the animal kingdom. Indeed, there is alarming evidence that the children of mothers who consumed fish from the Great Lakes have been directly and measurably affected by exposure to toxic chemicals.
11. The impacts of pulp mill operations extend far beyond the immediate toxic effects in the aquatic environment, to include the atmospheric transport of contaminants, increased sedimentation, increased nutrient loads, elevated BOD [biological oxygen demand], and habitat loss. These matters have not been properly addressed by AlPac, nor are the government monitoring or regulatory mechanisms in place to properly identify and respond to problems as they emerge. Recognizing that monitoring programs are but one part of comprehensive management, we are tabling the report of the June 27-28, 1989 Slave River monitoring workshop co-sponsored by the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal departments of Environment and Indian and Northern Affairs which provides the basic structure for such a program.
The Bottom Line
For the Government of the Northwest Territories, these conclusions mean that the AlPac pulp mill proposal should not proceed as planned. We believe that there has been a lack of federal leadership in the development of essential transboundary water management agreements. The Government of the Northwest Territories recommends that no federal or provincial approvals be issued for this project until a formal transboundary water agreement or a detailed interim memorandum of understanding has been signed by the federal, provincial, and territorial governments. Approval of any new upstream developments must be contingent upon the completion of an assessment of cumulative effects and establishment of a comprehensive monitoring program.