For my environmental impact assessment course, we had to review the PNW LNG project and it’s recent approval for our midterm. There were two questions we had to answer and could spend 400-600 words on each. Below is my submission:
QUESTION 1: Does the federal environmental assessment of the PNW LNG facility demonstrate acceptable levels of public participation? Make an argument in response to this, supporting it with examples of participation (or lack thereof) in one or several of the steps of the overall assessment process for the project. Connect these with the topics we have covered in class on the principles and critiques of public participation (potentially including Aboriginal engagement, though not necessarily).
The Pacific Northwest Liquefied Natural Gas project, in my opinion, has shown acceptable levels of public participation, including Aboriginal consultation and public participation. However, this does not necessarily mean meaningful participation. The proponent made tremendous efforts to show public participation which has included open houses, commentary, funding, and ongoing participation through their website. On the other hand, this project has failed to gain “consent, and not simply consultation, [that] is required where Aboriginal title is proved” (Hanna, 161). The project boundaries, specifically Lelu Island, is within five overlapping Aboriginal land rights and titles. These five nations have not all granted their consent to the project even though they have been consulted, and therefore they have not meaningfully participated in this project (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 148). Across Canada, First Nations “right to use and control the land and enjoy its benefits” (Hanna, 162) has not been fully respected, and this is just one more example.
Public participation was encouraged through more than $360 000 of funding to First Nations and an additional $94 200 to the public and interested groups (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 21, 24). I believe that this amount of funding is very encouraging for public participation, and the proponent and agency did a good job funding for participation across the board.
The agency, and especially the proponent, held an acceptable amount of public hearings and meetings with interested parties regarding their views on the project. Following a design change, the project notified the public, First Nations, and agency, and held additional hearings for feedback on the changes. In total, the proponent held 12 months of Aboriginal consultation periods between February 2013 and March 2016 that reviewed the project description, EIS guidelines, the EIS and draft EA report (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 22). To further First Nations participation there was the opportunity for the two most affected groups to participate in the archaeological surveys and geotechnical investigation programs on Lelu Island. Further surveys and studies incorporated the five affected First Nations directly through participation on Lelu Island as well as in reviewing the findings (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 23).
The Agency held two public opportunities to review the documents and the proponent held six open houses and over 50 meetings with interested business and groups. Furthermore, the proponent made two storefront locations available for the public (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 24). In addition, in September of 2014, the proponent announced a 45-day extension on the review process to allow for “additional public consultation with First Nations and local communities” (Pacific North West LNG). Other means of contact included phone calls, emails, a toll free phone number, comment cards, an interactive and easy to follow website, newsletters and print materials.
Regrettably, one of the ways in which this project denies public participation is through its emissions. A group of scientists, including many professors at the University of British Columbia, have found that the project will emit 11.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, not including the downstream emissions This amount of emissions annually will make it significantly more challenging for not only British Columbia, but Canada as a country to reach its reduction targets. For this reason, public participation in reducing emissions has been taken away from us (International Climate Change Scientists and Climate Policy Experts).
In these ways the agency and the proponent have done a very good job in engaging with, and giving opportunity for community members and First Nation groups to participate in the Environmental Assessment process and beyond. The proponent has encouraged participation through funding and ongoing relationships and participation outside the obligatory timeframes of an environmental assessment. Their straight forward and interactive website is an excellent public resource and a great first start for everyone to participate, rather than those directly affected by the proposed project. However, this good example of public participation does not guarantee that the projects denial or approval will be in the publics’ best interest.
Word Count: 612
References:
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. (2016, February). Draft Environmental Assessment Report – Pacific North West LNG. Retrieved from http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/document-eng.cfm?document=104785
Hanna, K. S. (2009). Environmental impact assessment: Practice and participation (3rd ed.). Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University Press
International Climate Change Scientists and Climate Policy Experts. (2016, May 26). Unjustified adverse greenhouse gas impacts of the Pacific Northwest LNG proposal. [Letter to Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change.].
Pacific North West LNG. (2014, September 14). EA Review Extension Allows for Additional Consultation [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.pacificnorthwestlng.com/media-center/news-releases/ea-review-extension-allows-for-additional-consultation
QUESTION 2: The mandate for the minister and cabinet in assessing a project is to decide whether there are likely to be significant adverse effects (taking into account appropriate mitigation measures), and if so, whether they are justified in the circumstances. Very recently, the federal government issued an approval for the PNW LNG project. Do you agree with this decision? Make an argument supported by your reading of the documents, your knowledge of the environmental assessment process (for example: principles, objectives, role in decision-making etc) and your own personal perspective.
I do not agree with the decision to move forward with the Pacific North West LNG project. Although I believe that the environmental assessment was generally well done, I do not agree with the Minister of the Environment and the Governor in Council’s decision to justify the resulting significant adverse effects of the proposed project. Although this project contributes to the Canadian economy, it will be detrimental to our pledged emissions reductions and another example of “the practice of consultation and accommodation” rather than consent for First Nations holding land rights and/or title to areas affected (Hannah, 162).
In the draft environmental assessment report, 11 valued components were identified locally and regionally. Significant residual effects include an increase of greenhouse gas emissions and increased mortality and behavior changes for the federally considered at risk species of harbor porpoise (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 178). Furthermore, numerous articles by showing independent studies conclude that the assessment did not put enough weight on the harmful effects to juvenile wild salmon. The Skeena watershed is the second largest river in Canada to host salmon, and the LNG project would effect salmon not only surround Lelu Island, but upstream as well (Li). In addition, the agency’s analysis of the project concludes that upstream and direct emissions from the project are “high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent” (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 39) which is a stark contrast to the general condition to “promote sustainable development” in the decision statement signed by the Honorable Catherine McKenna (McKenna).
This project threatens all Canadians in numerous ways, and should not be approved to move forward. First, studies show that “long-term energy security of Canadians may be compromised” due to current declining production, LNG price decreases, and overestimated export promises (Hughes, 46). Second, the projected revenues for this project “are very unlikely to be realized”. Our “Prosperity Fund” ideal from this project is threatened because the “long-term supplies of gas at low prices are by no means assured, hence neither are the profits necessary to reimburse the very large capital investments required”. Similarly, LNG prices have decreased as well, affecting the projected revenues revenues (Hughes, 46). Third, this project represents global greenhouse gas emissions that should not be overlooked by potential economic opportunity. This project alone would increase provincial emissions by 8.5% and national emissions by 0.75%. Our country has pledged to reduce our overall emissions by 17% by 2020 (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 35), and this facility alone threatens our goal, let alone the cumulative of the 12 LNG terminals the National Energy Board has already approved (Hughes, 45). The government’s justification of this project does not support the best interest of Canadians and should not justify the significant environmental effects based on projected economic revenues.
In addition to threatening energy security, endangering our emissions reduction targets, and significantly effecting the environment, the project’s approval once again limits First Nations “the right to use and control the land” (Hanna, 162) that they have rights and title to. Although the environmental assessment shows adequate First Nations and public participation, the project does not have the full consent from all affected First Nation groups that hold rights and title to the area. This has led to “First Nations and environmental groups [planning] to file lawsuits … against the federal government … and oil firm” (Global News).
The federal government’s decision to approve the Pacific North West LNG project is not a good example of our nation’s climate goals, and should not have been justified by economic means. This project is another example of “Canada and British Columbia [adopting] a de facto strategy of liquidating [our] resources as quickly as possible in the name of the economic prospects of the government of the day” (Hughes, 46). Canadians should be outraged and stand together to show the government what we want as citizens for our country.
Word Count: 615
References:
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. (2016, February). Draft Environmental Assessment Report – Pacific North West LNG. Retrieved from http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/document-eng.cfm?document=104785
Global News. (2016, October 27). First Nations to sue federal government over Pacific NorthWest LNG project. Retrieved from https://reportca.net/2016/10/first-nations-to-sue-federal-government-over-pacific-northwest-lng-project/
Hanna, K. S. (2009). Environmental impact assessment: Practice and participation (3rd ed.). Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University Press
Hughes, D. (2015, May). A Clear Look at BC LNG. Retrieved from http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC Office/2015/05/CCPA-BC-Clear-Look-LNG-final_0_0.pdf
Li, W. (2016, November 13). LNG project could threaten young salmon more than previously thought: Study | Metro News. Retrieved from https://cdnpoli.net/links/lng-project-could-threaten-young-salmon-more-than-previously-thought-study-metro-news-357469