Aug. 29, 2012 - Issue #880: LP
Political Interference
Science loses again
New policy on Lower Athabasca Region offers little improvement to environmental protection
Public policy can be complicated. Thick documents packed with promises, commitments, technical language, and rhetoric can make it difficult to figure out exactly what a policy does, how it differs from the status quo, and what interests are actually being served.
When this happens, it can be very helpful and enlightening to look around at how the various groups and individuals that have been involved in consultations on the policy, or that will be directly impacted by it, are reacting to the policy in question. A positive reaction from a particular sector will indicate that they feel their voices have been heard and their interests served. A negative reaction will mean the opposite.
Unfortunately, it's rarely that black and white. Although there are always winners and losers, all public policy is based on some level of compromise and balancing of interests. This can make it a bit more complicated to figure out whose interests are primarily being served, but not impossible.
Last week, after three years of work and three rounds of consultations—which included thousands of people—the Alberta Government finally released and approved its Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (LARP). LARP is the first of seven regional land-use plans to be developed and implemented. The goal behind these plans is to lay out development, infrastructure and environmental frameworks for all regions of the province. The LARP covers the important and contentious area in northern Alberta that is home to the province's bitumen deposits and has been a source of such grief domestically and internationally for the provincial government.
In a nutshell, the plan increases the size of protected areas in the region; considers cumulative effects of development on air, water and biodiversity; sets limits on air and water quality; lays out an urban development strategy for Fort McMurray; and commits to engaging aboriginal communities in tourism and economic diversification. It also makes a commitment, over the long term, to the development of tailings management, biodiversity, and surface water quantity frameworks.
According to the government's own press release, the plan "sets strong environmental limits, conserves sensitive lands, provides certainty to industry, diversifies the economy, and offers numerous recreational opportunities in the Lower Athabasca region."
Public reaction to the plan, however, would seem to indicate that the government has not been as successful as it claims in balancing all those goals.
Environmental groups have acknowledged that it is an improvement over the status quo and even over previous versions, but suggest that there are still serious gaps in the plan. They point, for example, to the fact that only 22 percent of the region is protected, that CO2 emissions are not addressed, that there are no limits on the pace and scale of development, and that the majority of land that has been protected is land in which the oil industry has expressed no interest at all. They are also concerned that the plan puts off dealing with tailings and with establishing hard limits on water withdrawals.
The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation has outrightly expressed that the plan completely fails to address any of their concerns or needs and is entirely inadequate in terms of protecting treaty lands and rights. They are currently exploring their legal options, but have also suggested that they will do whatever is necessary to stop the plan from being implemented if their concerns are not addressed.
The most telling reaction of all, however, has been that of the oil industry in the province. It has mused publicly about the land leases that are to be revoked and the potential cost of that move to the government, but they have not actually criticized the plan in any significant way. In fact, their reaction has been quite the opposite. A spokesperson for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) highlighted for the Globe and Mail that for the most part, industry in the area is already operating under the environmental thresholds that were set. So the limits won't really have an impact on their operations in that sense
He also pointed out that CAPP is very happy with the public relations potential the plan offers and their hope that it will dispel the myth that Alberta is lax on environmental stewardship. Overall, he characterized the plan as a "good piece of legislation that strikes the balance."
Of course, there have been other mixed reactions from stakeholders and politicians, but if the main objectives of the plan are environmental protection and bitumen development, and the oil industry thinks the government got it right and environmental groups and first nations think they did not, then it's clear who's won and who's lost in this particular policy.
Yes, public policy is complicated, but there are always winners and losers, and LARP is no different. Although there are some small gains for the environment and the region in LARP, overall the real winners are the oil industry who, if nothing else, now have one more piece of inadequate legislation to wave around as part of their public relations campaigns locally and internationally. And once again, the loser appears to be the prospect of ever getting any genuine science-based environmental protection in the lower Athabasca region. The policy itself may not be that black and white, but what it reveals about this government's priorities certainly is, and from this perspective they've still got it wrong.
More stories in front »
vueweekly.com comments: powered by DisqusPrivacy Policy:
Vue respects your privacy. We will not forward your personal information to any other organization except as required by law, and will use your e-mail address only to respond to your comments. We reserve the right to edit and remove comments for length, clarity and/or if they are illegal or inappropriate. Your email address is never shown to visitors to vueweekly.com. Read the whole policy at: http://vueweekly.com/privacy
Comments policy
Comments go online directly without first being seen or reviewed by editors at Vue. Don't personally attack people, don't be defamatory, don't be spam-atory, don't hawk your band, don't pretend to be someone else, be clear, be on topic, be nice. Read our extended comments policy here. »
We use Disqus for our comments system. What's that all about?
We found that managing the comment community at Vue was easier to do with a system like Disqus. If this isn't straightforward to you, get help here.