The year of the radical

If at the beginning of 2012 you had asked me to list a few words to describe myself, I might have chosen words like “wife”, “aunt”, “godmother”, “environmental advocate”, “news junkie” and “theatre lover”, to name a few.  But I can tell you that nowhere on this list would you ever have seen this one word – “radical”.

But come the end of January that was the word being attached to my work as an environmental advocate, and to all those who work tirelessly to ensure that protection of our air and water isn’t an afterthought, but is a foundation of our social and economic health.  We were also being called “enemies of the state” for our views, another descriptor you would not have found on my list.

As I look back on this year and see the devastation left behind by a federal government that sees the environment – and its protection – as an impediment to an economy they believe should be solely built on resource extraction, I’m left wondering – who exactly are the radicals here?

Canadians have consistently indicated that they place a high priority on the protection of our environment.  From a commitment to parks to tackling climate change, Canadians value a healthy environment and see it as fundamental to our identity.  Most recently, an Ipsos Reid poll found that over 4 in 5 Canadians (85%) say federal laws protecting species at risk are crucial to the diversity and abundance of wildlife.

Yet today, environmental assessment has been weakened and our oceans and rivers – and all the creatures that call them home – have less protection than ever before.  And we all know the carnage isn’t over.  It seems that our government is out of sync with Canadians and it is they who are acting in a radical way.

Now, the de-regulation of environmental protection in Canada is frightening enough, but that those who would disagree with government policy become the target of inflammatory attacks from a democratically elected government should all give us pause.  The government's decision to provide Canada Revenue Agency with additional funding to audit charities at a time when cuts to scientific research and environmental monitoring have been slashed underscores this strange reality we live in.  The current environment is so concerning that Pen Canada, an organization who works with others to defend freedom of expression as a basic human right, at home and abroad, has voiced its concerns.  This is an organization that is often flagging human rights violations in countries with few democratic rights, which says a lot about what they see happening in Canada.

Through all this, what I have found even more mind-boggling is the accusation that environmental groups have a secret agenda.  That sounds scary until you realize that our agenda is quite transparent, it’s just that it is beyond the understanding of our government and its supporters.  What we want is to build a different world than the one the oil and gas industry has decided we should live in.  We care about our communities and strongly believe we can have strong environmental health and a strong economy – we just have to start doing things differently.

This has been a year like no other in my time at Georgia Strait Alliance, but I’m actually feeling quite hopeful because I see a lot of good has come out of this “annus horribilis”.  What heartens me most is that these attacks have resulted in a more galvanized and cohesive social justice community.  Charities of all types have come out in support of environmental groups and voiced loudly their concern about a government that believes disagreement should be quashed.  In effect, the results have been not a quieting of opposition but a more thoughtful and emboldened movement because when you are being attacked for your right to speak out, this is not time to be silent.  And I can assure you as we go into 2013, we will not be.

Thanks to all of you who have supported Georgia Strait Alliance and other environmental groups during this past year.  We are your voice in these terrible times and by making a charitable donation, you allow our voice to be stronger – as we will need to be in the year ahead.  

Pipelines and Public Relations

"Information Session". Now isn't that a friendly, non threatening term. And indeed that's exactly what the Kinder Morgan Information sessions on their proposed new pipeline to bring Alberta Tar Sands crude to the coast to load onto tankers were for the most part.  These are almost over, with just one left in this region on Salt Spring Island in January.

 I attended the one in Nanaimo and saw nothing but overt good cheer and intentions from the full spectrum of opinions that we all know this project has. Apparently there were some minor kefuffles in Hope and Victoria but not having been there I can't give a perspective. Kinder Morgan seems to know they cannot just ram this project through as perhaps once was the case and have developed a strategy that is all about public relations at this stage.

When I got there quite a few people had already gathered awaiting entry. When the doors opened I was one of the first in and was asked if I wanted to sign in. I presented my card and asked if I could speak to the main PR person expecting someone from Vancouver or Calgary. I was surprised to find they actually have someone based in Victoria. This means they are taking this PR stuff very seriously.

Lots of opposition at the Nanimo info session

Looking around the room the essence of slick PR professionalism was everywhere. From the many members of the young fresh faced PR team to the few experienced company, port and response representatives. The comprehensive, very professional looking information signage covering almost every conceivable aspect of the project including the inevitable environmental and socioeconomic concerns of course and the general layout of the room which allowed for the one-on-one discussion method to be most effective.Having been a somewhat serious student of the martial arts for almost 30 years I recognize this strategy of drawing your opponent in.

However a large number of the folks who were there seemed to be highly informed about the project already and were not letting themselves be drawn in. In fact many stayed outside the room singing songs and handing out  information from a different perspective. There were all sorts of signs in opposition and many blue drops (a sign of solidarity for clean water).



I let myself be drawn in order to tell the main PR guy very clearly and firmly that Georgia Strait Alliance does not support this project or any that would increase the risk of a major spill in our sensitive waters or significantly contribute to climate change. The environmental, social and economic consequences are just not worth any risk! Prepared to extract myself from a conversation geared to convince me to the merits of the project if necessary, I was pleased but not overly surprised to be told that he would not try to dissuade us from our position (another tactic I'm familiar with).

What I was surprised at however was a cheerful, though perhaps unintended, admission that there was really no point in me trying to convince him of our position either. I understand some of these folks are not just about growth or short term gain and they actually believe this is a good project, but I guess I'd call that a a bit of a PR disaster.
I thought they wanted to hear from us. Well maybe they do but they certainly didn't seem to want to actually listen.

In martial arts, a strategy following the drawing in, is a reversal of your opponent's energy to use it against them. I'm curious if Kinder Morgan will try this next? And will it work if they cannot actually draw people in? Another option of course would be to actually listen to the community concerns, in fact be part of the community - not opponents at all, and be prepared to pull out of the project if it is not supported, rather than forge ahead regardless.

There's more than tankers out there!

Anyone who spends time traveling around or gazing out on Georgia Strait will see ships here there and everywhere in the region. The anchored ships in English Bay, Vancouver are a world renowned spectacle for tourists, travelers  and business visitors alike. Personally I love to see them and greatly appreciate how they bring many of the goods that my family and I need to this part of the world.

In the Port of Metro Vancouver there are well over 3000 ships entering and exiting each year and that does not include BC Ferries. Nanaimo sees over 200 and Victoria the same once again not including all the ferry trips.  While many of the ships look similar they perform a wide range of functions. From ferries to oil tankers, bulk carriers to container vessels, military vessels to large pleasure craft and cruise ships to break bulk. More information about ships in Georgia Strait is available on our main website.

Excluding tankers, an average ship is over 2 football fields in length and carries over 1.5 million litres in fuel oil. Add in oil tanker traffic and that's a lot of hydrocarbons floating around our waters. For the most part, the shipping industry is very conscientious and usually gets  them in and out of here without incident. However there have been accidents and oil has been spilled here. Just like the increasing tanker traffic that has had so much media attention lately, the more other ships we have transiting our waters, the more risk we have of a hydrocarbon spill.

So in order to keep those risks at an acceptable level it behooves us as a society to ensure that those shipping trips are necessary and that the goods that are being shipped are needed. Ninety percent of world goods are transported by ships and unfortunately some of those goods are just satisfying consumer wants and/or perceived needs.  I suspect that the production, transportation and use of some products could do more harm than good when you look at the bigger picture of world environmental and socioeconomic sustainability. Oil and coal might come immediately to mind but there are many other examples. What would it take to ensure all products shipped fit into a world view of sustainable development as outlined by the Bruntland Commission Report way back in 1987?

"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". It contains two key concepts:

• the concept of "needs", in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and
• the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs."

Your respectful thoughts are welcome.

Time to help protect the southern Georgia Strait

Have you written your letter to Parks Canada about moving the feasibility process along to create permanent protection for the incredible, amazing, unique and essential marine environment of the southern Strait of Georgia?  Here's some help in making it happen! (With thanks to Canadian Parks and Wilderness Committee!)

Feel free to copy and paste parts of this letter to make it easier to write your own. Yours can be as brief and to the point or as long and elaborate as you like.

You can compose and post your letter here.

The Georgia Strait will love you for it!

Subject: Southern Strait of Georgia Marine Conservation Area (NMCA)

To whom it may concern:

I am writing this letter to show my strong support for the establishment of the proposed National Marine Conservation Area in the southern Georgia Strait.  The body of water that lies within the current proposed NMCA boundary is very special to me because… (I live there, I visit there, I take the ferry across all the time, I have watched whales there, I take visitors there, I have a cabin ... (you get the point). I love the ocean, I value the ocean ecosystem, I care about the marine species... I want my children, grandchildren to be able to experience this amazing environment, etc..  For some reminders, see our website. www.georgiastrait.org)

I support the proposed NMCA because it will protect and maintain the integrity of the marine environment in the most threatened ecosystem in Canada. It will also ensure that the multitude of ongoing marine activities are managed in an ecologically sustainable manner.

I support the primary goals of the NMCA proposal stated by Parks Canada as 'conservation, public understanding, appreciation, and enjoyment" (Parks Canada, Project Update 2012).

See 10 benefits of an NMCA

In addition to my support for its establishment, I would like to add:

(Add as many as you would like)

• The NMCA should be as large as possible in order to facilitate the appropriate zoning for bothconservation and sustainable use. 
• I urge the inclusion of the large rectangular area just off Galiano and Valdes Islands that is 'cut out' of the current proposed boundary. 
• The NMCA should extend up to the high tide line and include important near-shore ocean habitats. 
• The NMCA should encompass areas adjacent to existing provincial parks (these areas are currently excluded) to ensure effective management of the entire marine area. 
• Parks Canada should assume management responsibility for the entire NMCA upon establishment, as opposed to the proposed “phased implementation” plan.  I am concerned that a phased implementation approach will leave important marine areas without protection and fragment the integrated management of the area.
• I support the need for a network of core 'no take' areas  to be included in the NMCA.  Prominent scientists and marine experts have recommended that at least 30% of  each Canadian marine bioregion should be zoned as 'reserves' or 'no take' areas in order to achieve conservation and fisheries benefits. (CPAWS,2011, Science Based Guidelines for Marine  Protected Area and MPA Networks in Canada). In the Southern Strait of Georgia NMCA, a network of 'no take' areas will act as nurseries to increase the number of fish, prevent habitat damage, allow depleted species to recover and allow for a diversity of life to flourish and serve as educational and recreational resources.

Thank you for taking the time to consider the above feedback and your continued efforts to protect the southern Strait of Georgia marine ecosystem.

Sincerely,

[your name]

• (Thanks from all of us who love the Georgia Strait too!)

Cohen said...

It seems everyone has found quotes in the final report from the Cohen commission to back up their established position on open net cage salmon farms. The industry claims that he found no problem with the farms and people who have been concerned about the farms for years are calling for their immediate removal.

Who’s right? What’s the real story? What does this report really say?

The report is quite daunting, 1100+ pages of testimony and documentation. Judge Cohen did a remarkable and thorough job of investigation and sifting of information to come up with 75 recommendations regarding a number of factors that seem to be impacting the health and well being of the Fraser River Sockeye.

From the very beginning of the Inquiry, salmon aquaculture has taken centre stage and continues to do so. British Columbians long for this issue to be resolved. We care deeply about this amazing fish and have little tolerance for threats to its well being.

Here’s my summary interpretation of Judge Cohen’s assessment of the part that salmon aquaculture has played in the decline of Fraser River Sockeye:
• Disease from the open net pen farms appears to be a major and potentially irreversible risk to Fraser River Sockeye.
• The data required to actually verify the degree of risk was not collected or interpreted adequately by DFO.
• This lack of transparent verifiable information is a result of DFO’s conflicting mandate to promote the industry.
• Siting criteria for open net farms should include proximity to migrating Fraser River Sockeye and farms not adhering to these criteria should be removed.
• The Discovery Island area open net pen farms are in the migration path of the Fraser River Sockeye.
• Production increases in the Discovery Island must not be permitted unless risk can be proven to be minimal.
• Fraser River salmon are important enough to British Columbians that we will not accept anything more than a minimal risk to them.
• DFO has to prove that there is no more than a minimal risk in order for the farms to continue after 2020 and they can only act on this once the conflicting mandate is removed.

This is what I understand, but I suggest you look for yourself. The whole report might be daunting, but the summary is manageable and a good read and Judge Cohen made some interesting comments and observations about our care and protection of this beloved BC fish. I highly recommend you read it and tell us what you think!
For more interpretation of the Cohen recommendations see our website:  http://www.georgiastrait.org/?q=node/1090 and http://www.georgiastrait.org/?q=node/56