FRONT // ENVIRONMENT
Questions remain
Environmental monitoring is on its way, but there remain missing pieces
A
fter 45 years, it appears the provincial and federal governments have taken the first steps to realizing there was never a good plan in place for developing the tar sands. With critical reports from the Royal Society of Canada, water expert and independent scientist David Schindler, and Canada's environment commissioner, the provincial government has initiated the process of finding a panel that will monitor the environmental impacts of tar sands projects. But with a recent announcement from Water and Environment Minister Diana McQueen there remain concerns over whether this panel will fulfil the repeated recommendations from those reports for scientific independence. And environmental critics are reminding Albertans to hold the applause, as monitoring is only the first step in managing the resources in the province. "We finally have taken the first step to realize, 'Okay we don't have a good plan, we don't have a system that works to assess the impacts of the development of this resource,'" says Pembina Institute's oilsands program director Jennifer Grant, an organization that has called for more rigorous monitoring since dropping its support of the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program over a
Photo of the boreal forest adjacent to Suncor's Millenium Oil Sands Mine in 2007 //David Dodge courtesy of Pembina Institute
decade ago. "There's a lot of work to be done." While McQueen's announcement in early February confirmed that monitoring of the tar sands would begin immediately, a further announcement just last week revealed there would be a six-member working group to advise on the governance of
the future panel. "A panel to create a panel" quickly became the critical phrase of the working group, composed of Transcanada Corp president Hal Kvisle, lawyer Neil McCrank and University of Alberta science dean Gregory Taylor among others. And while all of the reports released in the last year have called for a sci-
entifically independent monitoring system, that aspect has yet to be confirmed. While monitoring is an important step in understanding how development impacts the surrounding environment, it's not action on enforcement. Grant points to two
major projects that are being proposed, the Shell Jackpine mine expansion and the Shell Pierre River mine, both of which have upcoming hearings and both of which use outdated data from the now discredited RAMP monitoring system. "That data has been discredited by the Royal Society, Environment Canada and the federal environmental commission, so the question is how are they handle those applications," says Grant. "Are they asking companies to go back and re-do their sections that use flawed information? It's my opinion that they should, because how can you say that a system is flawed and then go ahead and approve a project and suggest it's in the public interest?" A recent study by University of Alberta scientists only adds to the concern over irreversible environmental impacts. Scientists in the department of biological science have found that reclamation is currently not possible—specifically with regard to the ability recover peatland and wetlands. The study states that the current reclamation plans will change necessary wetlands to upland forest. As the study states the loss of this peatland will create "a dramatic loss of carbon storage and CONTINUED ON PAGE 9 >>
FRONT // DEMOCRACY
A question of democracy
Mountain Equipment Co-op faces opposition from members over a new proposal
A
s a co-operative, outdoors supplier Mountain Equipment Coop operates as a democracy. With a nine-member board elected to three-year terms, co-op members have a say in the governance, principles and direction of the business. But this year, a growing number of members are concerned about a proposed resolution that allows the board to reject candidates for election. 2011 board candidate Dru Oja Jay is encouraging people to sign an open letter to the board stating his concern over the threat to democracy this resolution creates. The letter, currently signed by 300 people, states that MEC members believe in the co-op because they are more than consumers: "We aren't just looking for a new backpack, climbing shoes or tent—we're also there as part owners of the co-op." MEC members for a democratic co-op and Oja Jay say their concern is over the section of the resolution which states, "Any non-compliant nomination will be rejected and returned to the nominee with reasons for rejec-
8 UP FRONT
tion." It's the substantive change in the proposed resolution. "It is misleading that they have all of the other text in there because it's not the substantive change," Oja Jay says. "The change is that they can reject candidates." The opening text of the resolution and the supporting background documentation focuses on the Board's ability to recruit candidates for the specific needs of MEC as a growing organization. Tim Southam, MEC's public affairs manager, describes the board's intent behind the resolution as attempting to have greater control in the leadership ability of the organization. "It's becoming increasingly complex," says Southam, who states that MEC is now a $270 million retail co-operative that serves 3.6 million people. "In that context, the existing process was seen to be inadequate," he continues. "So the intention behind the resolution was to provide a mechanism where the desired qualifications that the board believes are needed in the organization would be facilitated by a process where the board would first
define what the needs are, then be involved in vetting nominations that come forward." The origins of this resolution, Southam explains, are from a third party review, the results of which came back eight months ago. It called for greater attention to recruitment practices. "It stated the board needed to undertake an exer-
dates may be qualified to serve the growing organization. "It comes down to the recognition on the board's part that a nominations process that would provide candidates who are willing to put their name forward, but also able to serve on the board in terms of having the kinds of skills and experience that are needed to lead a large thriving retail co-operative like MEC had
The existing open call provides no assurance that the kinds of people coming forward really have the qualifications that fulfil the second part of that qualification—that they have the skills and experience that the board needs. cise every year to ensure it was attracting people with skills to serve the needs of the organization," says Southam. Oja Jay says his concern is not over recruitment—it's a power the board originally had—but his main concern is over the ability of the board to reject candidates. Southam's response to that clause is that though candidates come forward, not all candi-
become," says Southam. "The existing open call provides no assurance that the kinds of people coming forward really have the qualifications that fulfil the second part of that qualification—that they have the skills and experience that the board needs." The concern over the change comes out of Oja Jay's commitment to the successful cooperative model
VUEWEEKLY MAR 22 – MAR 28, 2012
MEC represents. As a $270 million dollar organization, it is one of the most successful co-ops in Canada. "It shows that when you're not existing solely for profits of shareholders but to serve members with diverse interests, you can do things like reduce your environmental impact to the lowest possible level," says Oja Jay. They've done more than any other for-profit organization." Though the board has no official response to the open letter Southam says the members are entitled to express their opinions as they see fit. "I would be more surprised if there was no opposition to it. And I wouldn't want to assume that this special resolution will pass," says Southam. "The board has tried to provide a clear rationale as to why they're proposing this. The feeling is that it does provide a principled rationale as to why the changes are being proposed." Members can vote for the new members of the board and on the resolution on March 29. Samantha power
// samantha@vueweekly.com