 |
||
 |
June - July 2003
|
 |
 |
  |
|
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
|
|
||
|
June - July 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
EDITORIAL LETTERS ENERGY CLEARCUTTING NEWS BRIEFS SUSTAINABLE OCEANS FRIENDS OF CORTES ISLAND OPINION FEATURE
EDITORIAL Did BC Hydro Blink?The fossil fuel party is almost over. Estimates of untapped deposits of oil and gas vary, as do the projected timelines when the carbon economy hits a price and supply wall. Projections of growth, whether green growth, smart growth, or unrepentant capitalist growth, do not diverge very much. They all call for between 1% and 5% annual growth in consumption. Using our Exponential Growth Rule of Thumb, (Doubling Time = 70 divided by the rate of growth) we know what that means - a doubling time which could be as much as 70 years or as little as fourteen years. Canadian governments from coast to coast and in between, like their counterparts worldwide, are still banking on fossil to deal with the daily deficit. But a wise public and some clever entrepreneurs are looking for a different light. The good news is, the party is over. The amazing and wonderful developments in human technology, from medical discoveries to computer toys, literally fuelled by fossil fuels, must now give birth to healthier ways of creating and dealing with energy. Wind farms, large and small, are springing up here and there. In England, the world's first underwater turbine is turning in the tides. San Francisco has voted for a pilot project of tidal power under the Golden Gate bridge. That's imagery to gladden a poet's heart. Meanwhile on Vancouver Island, after years of citizen opposition, holding the line, and fighting hearing by hearing, web page by web page, BC Hydro's Vancouver Island Gas Generating projects, and the proposed new Georgia Strait gas line crossing, are finally going Down. There's a fascinating mix of financial interests. The existing gas pipeline is not fully used because the company added compression last year. Three pulp mills want to co-generate power by burning wood waste, and make money doing it. The price of natural gas is way up and predicted to go higher. This is the stuff of energy politics, fascinating, interesting, and deeply entwined with green issues. The economics of it should bring this deluded scheme down, but it's the trench warfare that the citizens have fought which bought the time for those factors to emerge, and time to get off the fossil fuel gravy train before it crashes. As a side benefit, we now have a solid core of citizens on Vancouver Island who are well educated in energy politics, from gas to coal to alternatives. * Delores Broten, Whaletown BC, June 2003. See also www.squalk.com; www.marineturbines.com The Mad Cow Case in Alberta and the virtual elimination of the Canadian beef export market, at least temporarily, was no surprise to readers of the Watershed Sentinel. We called on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to end the hazard of blood contamination in an article by the Canadian Health Coaltion in April 2001. LETTERS From Our Dear Readers
We're taking a short summer recess to re-organize, access some indexing and promotional tools, give the web page a face lift, and recharge our creative batteries. Look for your next issue of the Watershed Sentinel in the mail in the last part of August. Fish stories galore are on the summer menu. Did they come back? Will they come back? Subscribers will have their subs extended by one month. In the meantime, get your new subscriptions and renewals in NOW, because the rates are going up to include GST very shortly. ENERGY OPTIONS The National Energy Board (NEB) recently produced a draft energy outlook through 2025 for Canada. In the report, the NEB projects natural gas supplies would come from existing sources (Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, East Coast Sable Field) and from new conventional projects developed in offshore Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, the West Coast, MacKenzie Delta, and the Beaufort Sea. The NEB also anticipates Liquefied Natural Gas imports into Canada, along with massive development of coalbed methane. However, even given these rather optimistic assumptions, Canada’s natural gas supply will still peak in 2010 in one case, and in 2020 in the other South of the border, the US Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects Canadian exports to grow by over 60% through 2025 (even given a 2010-2020 peak by NEB's own assumptions), and projects optimistic assessments of increased supply from the lower 48 states. The optimism of the NEB and EIA for growth in production from existing gas sources is not realistic given drilling statistics. In Canada, gas well drilling completions nearly tripled from 1996 to 2001, yet production increased by less than 10%. Reserves declined in every year except 2001, when additions barely replaced production. Reduced drilling in 2002 marked Canada's first successive decline in natural gas production, suggesting production from existing areas peaked in 2001. With a yearly decline in gas production of more than 20%, Canada needs to find reserves of more than one trillion cubic feet of natural gas each year just to keep production flat. In the US, gas well drilling completions nearly doubled from 1997 to 2001, yet there was little response in terms of increased production. This suggests that both the NEB and EIA assumptions of future supply are overly optimistic and that the current volatility in natural gas prices will continue--and probably get worse--given the forecast expansion of gas-fired electricity generation (see North American Electric Reliability Council Report, October 2002). If, as drilling statistics suggest, production from existing supply areas peaked in 2001 in Canada, there could be a supply-demand gap as early as 2004, with corresponding impacts on natural gas prices. The NEB suggests a 400+ percent increase in gas-fired electricity generation by 2025. The EIA suggests an expansion of 185% over this period in the US. What is missing here is an appreciation of the realities of gas supply. Reliability of electricity supply is on the line and must be managed with the lowest possible environmental impact while maintaining the highest degree of security possible. Some Facts From the Bottom Line
Solutions There is no free lunch. All forms of energy creation -- wind, photovoltaic, biomass, nuclear, hydro, oil, gas, or coal -- have an environmental and energy penalty. A radical reduction in consumption is the lowest-cost and most sustainable option. By their nature, however, governments are reluctant to provide the stimulus to make this happen because it could be unpopular with gas-guzzling voters. Clean coal technologies (at 60% efficiency compared to today's 32%) could provide part of the transition to something more sustainable. However, these technologies are expensive and take long lead times (7+ years) to implement relative to gas-fired plants (1+ years). If there is a supply crunch for gas, it is unlikely to be possible to switch to coal because of the lead time needed. Governments think in time frames of elections, but a longer term vision is needed to ensure sustainability. Coal is far more abundant in the world than are other hydrocarbons. Hydrates from the ocean floor cannot be considered part of the energy solution. There is no technology to develop this potential energy source; the Japanese say 12 years and Canadians say 15 years. That's the up-side; the down-side is never. Assuming that hydrates will save us is akin to planning your finances on the assumption you will win the lotto in 12 or 15 years. The promoters of hydrates quote astronomical numbers, which, in my view, is irresponsible because they simply lull those who don't understand the uncertainties into doing nothing. Nuclear energy still faces the waste issue--a 10,000+ year problem. Even if the proposed Yucca Mountain waste facility in Nevada goes ahead (at a cost of over $US50 billion), it will be completely full with just the wastes generated in the US since the beginning of the atomic age. Coalbed methane is not a panacea. It could provide a small increment to the gas supply (8% of US production after 20 years of development; essentially 0% in Canada). Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) is forecast to be about 8% of US consumption by 2025 (EIA). Problem is, you need to build $US200 million terminals that nobody wants located next door, as well as $US150 million ships that each contain about 3 billion cubic feet of gas at minus 165 C degrees. The energy used to liquefy, refrigerate, transport, and re-gasify LNG costs up to 25% of the energy produced and has the same increase in associated greenhouse gas emissions. An LNG terminal is being built in Tiajuana for export across the border to the US. LNG could come from the Middle East and the former Soviet Union, which together have about 75% of the world's gas resources. Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source. It takes energy to create hydrogen. Most hydrogen is created from natural gas, although China is creating it from coal. Hydrogen has a very low energy density by comparison to gasoline (<10%) and could be an important part of the solution. There isn't a silver bullet. The solution lies in a portfolio of options, the most important of which is greatly reducing people's expectations. One thing is certain: "business as usual" is not sustainable. * David Hughes is a geologist with more than 30 years experience studying Canada's energy resources for the Geological Survey of Canada and the private sector. For several years, he has developed a keen interest in the "Big Picture" as it relates to the longer term prognosis for continuity of energy supplies, and some of the political and environmental ramifications.
"If you want the Trees to Stand, You've got to Stand by the Trees" - Friends of Clayoquot Sound, circa 1992 While the federal and provincial governments fund market campaigns to promote Canadian forest products, and environmentalists seem to have disappeared from media existence, the cut goes on. BC's interior mills continue to turn a profit, and the topsoil still slides down steep slopes to the sea. In British Columbia last year, according to admittedly underestimated Ministry of Forests figures from the 2001-02 Annual Report, 169,000 hectares of forest were logged, and 89% of it, almost 150,000 hectares, was clearcut. Almost all (97%) of this clearcutting took place on Crown land, land owned by the government, and almost all of that forest is under land claims by BC's First Nations. The Ministry notes that, in areas recorded as harvested in 2001-02, "Harvesting on the blocks may have begun in prior years, and harvesting will also have occurred on blocks that were not completed in 2000/2001." The total amount of area logged each year has decreased a little from the early 1990s, when about 200,000 hectares per year were logged. Clearcutting as the logging method of choice has actually increased slightly, over the last ten years, from a low of 85% in 1993 to 89% last year (Source: Canada Year Book, 1999). Unlike ten years ago, however, the Ministry makes a distinction between clearcut and "clearcut with reserves," reserves being "a modifier, where individual or small groups of trees are retained during harvest for the long term, providing for other values such as habitat, biodiversity, scenic and others." In 2001-02, over 70,000 hectares were classified as having reserves, but a mere 10,500 hectares were defined as having been logged by retention or selection methods. A retention method leaves "individual or groups of trees for structural diversity, dispersed throughout a cutblock such that greater than half the total area of the cutblock is influenced by trees." Selection logging is "designed to manage the area as an uneven-aged stand, by the removal of individual or small groups of trees." As the logging trucks take the forest away, the Watershed Sentinel asked a diverse group of conservationists for the forests they remembered: "Ista on King Island." "The Klaskish Valley . . . was carried away in recent years." "Second growth immediately west of Qualicum Beach was logged in the last couple of months." "West Twin Provincial Park - about 10% of it was clearcut in the past 25 years. I believe that some of the West Twin clearcuts are in excess of 200 hectares. Right next door to it is the pristine upper Goat, slated for logging." "Bonanza Creek in the South Chilcotin Mountains." "The beautiful old growth Elaho Valley that had 2000 year old trees. Remember the Elaho? Thirty-six enviros got arrested for blocking the Elaho Valley." "Basically, all low elevation, old growth forests (outside of parks) in the southern and central interior." "Cathedral Grove, Beaufort Mountain Range." "The Prince George area in any direction for hundred of kilometres. The north is a wasteland all the way to the Yukon border. Further south, the area bordering the Okanagan - Arrow Lakes south to the border - is really gross (the Monashees)." "All watersheds around Granby park, which were unroaded 10 years ago, now have roads and clearcuts reaching right to the edge of the Park." "The Great Bear Rainforest - large scale industrial clearcut logging continues to be the norm." "The trashing of 1000-year-old cedar forests in the Walbran in 2002."
* With thanks to Ron Buechert, Jim Cooperman, Nadine Dechiron, Gavin Edwards, Roy Howard, Ingmar Lee, Edward May, David Shipway, Annette Tanner, Bill Wareham, and David White among many thousands of concerned British Columbians. * See also: Clearcutting Continues in Canada's Rainforest: www.canadianrainforests.org * For the status of logging on the BC mainland coast and Haida Gwaii: www.raincoast.org Transboundary Chicanery The latest softwood dispute, which is based on US lumber companies' claim that the timber for Canadian construction lumber is subsidized, has dragged on now for over two years without any resolution. The prevailing opinion promoted by the forest industry in Canada casts the American lumber lobby as the villain and the Canadian companies as the poor victims. Although this myth drives public policy, it mistakenly omits the impact on one key player - the public, who are the owners of our crown forests. In the past, softwood disputes resulted in policy changes that benefited the public. In 1988, thanks to our unlikely allies to the south crying "unfair subsidies!" companies operating in BC were forced to replant public forest land after logging, and stumpage was raised so our Ministry of Forests could at least break even, after a billion-dollar deficit over the previous six years. In the nineties, the Americans again cried "subsidy," so once again stumpage was raised, this time providing billions of dollars to the province. This windfall enabled the creation of Forest Renewal BC, which spent $2.5 billion on many projects that benefited our watersheds and forests (although some were not beneficial). Once again, lower stumpage rates and corporate handouts have given the Americans good reasons to claim subsidy. But this time the Americans want provincial governments to create open log markets so as to ensure that public timber is priced at market value. Meanwhile, the Americans have slapped an average of a 27 percent tariff on all softwood lumber exported to the US. In BC, the Campbell government is hoping that their recently announced "forest revitalization" plans will convince the Americans that at least BC timber is no longer subsidized. Meanwhile, the federal government is hoping that the World Trade Organization (WTO) will eventually rule in Canada's favour to force the Americans to end the tariff. However, despite its portrayal as a victory in the Canadian media, the latest WTO ruling was mixed. It found the tariff amount was inaccurately determined, but it also found that Canadian lumber could actually be subsidized. While the case will likely drag on for years at the WTO due to appeals, the Canadians have recently offered another proposal that would call for a quota system combined with an export tax that fluctuates with the price of lumber and the exchange rate. Most recently the Americans issued a policy brief that rejects the quota proposal and outlines the standards they think are required for a market-based timber sales system. Still Making Money All these negotiations and World Court cases seem to avoid the key fact that BC forest companies turned a tidy profit last year despite the tariff! Amazingly, this profit was due in part to a stumpage price that the BC government lowered to account for the tariff as well as a very low Canadian dollar. As well, companies have continued to automate their operations and lay off workers to make these profits (over 13,000 fewer workers in five years to process approximately the same Annual Allowable Cut). With the dollar higher now, these profits are evaporating, although the price of lumber has almost increased enough to make up the difference. Meanwhile, the tariff money has accumulated to over $1.5 billion, and if a softwood settlement is ever reached, the big question will be who gets to keep this money. Common sense should side with the public owners of the forests and dictate that most of the money should go into the provincial coffers. But of course the companies have argued that they should get this windfall and amazingly enough, last time this happened in the mid-nineties, they did indeed receive millions of dollars and the public lost out once again. Compensation for tenure Another indicator of how unfairly the BC government looks after the public's interest is the forest revitalization plan that includes compensating forest companies for the 20 percent take-back of tenure to the tune of $200 million for 8 million cubic metres, or about $25 per cubic metre. This payment is akin to compensating these companies for lost subsidies, as the $25 is approximately the difference between the higher price that companies pay for private timber and the lower stumpage costs plus their siliviculture costs. Of course there are solutions to the softwood quagmire that could benefit the public such as the ones proposed by The Coalition for Sustainable Forest Solutions (see www.forestsolutions.ca). Unfortunately, the Campbell government was elected with the aid of millions of dollars of campaign contributions from the major forestry corporations (see www.bcfacts.org to find out who the top donors were) and is more beholden to its corporate donors than to the public interest. At this point all the public can hope for is that the small percentage of increased cut that will go to First Nations, woodlots and community forests will result in more examples of improved levels of forest management and that the softwood negotiations will lead to more improvements in the future. * Jim Cooperman was editor of the B.C. Environmental Report and BCEN Forest Caucus coordinator for a decade. He lives above Shuswap Lake and is the president of the Shuswap Environmental Action Society. He can be contacted at jcoop@direct.ca or www.seas.ca Georgia Basin/ Puget Sound Research Conference 2003
Workshop QUEST simulator is a powerful tool for planning the future. The Georgia Basin Futures Project (GBFP) is the brainchild of the Sustainable Development Research initiative, a University of British Columbia project started in 1991 to foster relevant research on sustainable development. The GBFP is a five-year research programme that explores how, in the next 40 years, we can learn to live within the limits of natural ecosystems, while improving our well being in the Georgia Basin region on the west coast of British Columbia and Washington State. The project will engage and educate us over the next 40 years about the complex interactions between our ecological, social and economic systems and how we can think up new ways to address future problems and design a sustainable future together. The main tool of the project is Workshop QUEST, a computer simulation that enables people from all walks of life to construct alternative futures of the Georgia basin and view the trade-offs and consequences of their choices. QUEST shows each person how his/her consumer and policy preferences affect the Basin's future over the next forty years. QUEST has been tailored to the Georgia Basin but it can also be applied to other regions of the world with the appropriate amount of research done in that region. At present there is a QUEST simulator running for the Bali region in Indonesia and, as research gets completed, many more QUEST applications are planned. The Georgia Basin QUEST has been in use at Science World in Vancouver where over 33,000 visitors had the chance to play. An Internet version is currently in development and will be available around April 2004 for the general public. How does QUEST work? When I attended the workshop at the conference there were eight of us participating. First we had to decide which kind of economy we envisioned for ourselves, e.g.) free-market capitalism or social democracy. We picked the current model and direction we seem to be headed in, free-market capitalism. Our next step was to collectively decide on over 60 questions ranging from Lifestyle, Urban Growth, Neighbourhoods, Transportation, Government, Agriculture, Solid Waste, Fisheries, Climate Change, Water, Energy, Cost of living, Forestry, and a whole lot more realistic choices about our utopian common future. As Jim Fulton, Executive Director of the David Suzuki Foundation says, "I think we'll very rapidly see QUEST become part of the social decision-making process all over the planet. QUEST is probably the greatest single tool to improve governance on the planet in a generation. It will lead to much better, much more informed, much more ecologically sound decision making." Imagine...you are on a journey with a group of planners, stake holders and community members. Your group floats at 30,000 feet above your region, where you are able to see the effects of your decisions played out over a 40-year future. Picture... an interactive community meeting in which people are able to see a variety of different regional futures; futures that are simulated based on choices of the audience. Let's play, shall we? Easier said than done! In two hours we barely made it through ten questions as heated debates kept taking place amongst the participants. Fortunately our facilitator and Community Engagement Coordinator for the GBFP, Randi Kruse, kept us focused and streamlined the process. We computed all our choices and six minutes later we were shown a projection of our common future in 40 years. We scored poorly, only achieving 20 percent of the potential for sustainability in the Georgia Basin region. Randi reassured us and told us that she has had head-splitting sessions with QUEST that went on for over 10 hours with no clear consensus and even poorer results. This is the purpose of QUEST; to educate and confront the participants through a process of future visioning that includes them as contributors to sustainable change. Beyond the game simulation, QUEST provides its makers with invaluable data on community engagement and sustainability. What happens after groups and individuals have played QUEST? From here communities will be encouraged to begin implementing their vision through GBFP's other sustainability tools. STAR (Sustainable Tools and Resources) (www.sustainabilitytools.ca) are online tools and resources for individuals and organizations to help them realize sustainability projects in their communities. STAR has a database of information that will serve as a guide on how to plan and manage sustainability projects. For example on the STAR website you can create an account, set some projects in motion by entering a contacts list, set time lines, organize and plan a project from visioning to implementation, sift through examples and information on creative actions for sustainability, view others' projects, learn how to budget and so on. STAR is linked electronically to the GB Digital Library and the GBFP site. The Georgia Basin Digital Library (GBDL: www.georgiabasin.info) is a series of web services to promote community-based learning and participatory planning. The GBDL has five components, News and Information, Ideas and Perspectives, Local Stories, Library Collections, and Future Scenarios. News and Information is about sustainability-related local and international stories, Ideas and perspectives gives functional ideas and views for the region, Local Stories is a community mapping application, Library Collections collects sources on spatial data, and Future Scenarios the GBDL with QUEST scenario modelling. On the web a Bowen Island pilot project is available for viewing under Local Stories (see sidebar for web address). Climate Change Calculator (www.climcalc.net) is the last tool of the GBFP. It is advanced interactive software developed to increase awareness on our personal greenhouse gas contribution through our lifestyles and daily activities. On the website we can calculate our greenhouse gas emissions using information in seven separate categories: home heating, hot water, appliances, local travel, out-of-town, recreation and waste. This gem of a software even calculates information based on climate conditions and needs for each Canadian province and territory. * For More Information:
*Feature sponsored by Friends of Cortes Island Watershed Sentinel Fund Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Impact on Fish Stocks This story from the Georgia Basin Puget Sound research conference is quite apropos as the BC government is again contemplating offshore oil drilling off the coast of Haida Gwaii (Queen Charlotte Islands), and as our dependence on fossil fuels has seemingly increased under extreme free market experiments in BC and across the border. The various research studies surveyed here examine, on a hypothetical level, the effects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) on marine life, especially on fish around the Georgia Basin and Puget Sound area. e and Vancouver. As John Incardona, a prominent researcher on PAHs in the Northwest says, "It is important to keep in mind that there will be little change in the level of oil pollution in the sea until people start using alternatives to the internal combustion engine." (www.nap.edu/books/0309084385/html) Malformaties John Incardona, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle, has researched the effects of PAHs on zebra fish because they have respiratory and cardiac systems similar to marine fish found in our region. When exposed to PAHs, zebra fish essentially had irregular heartbeats, an inflated atrium (a chamber in the heart) a reduced ventricle (another chamber in the heart), and skeletal and muscular defects due to poor circulation. The zebra fish also had abnormal eye and jaw developmental problems. Pre-spawn mortality Gina Ylitalo and her team from the Northwest Fisheries Science Center have looked at the relationship between pre-spawn mortality in adult Coho salmon and exposure to PAHs. Over the past three years (1999-2001), high numbers of pre-spawn adult Coho salmon (Onchorhynchus kisutch) have been found dead in small streams in urban and developing areas of Puget Sound. Other species of salmonids that spawn in these streams do not appear to be dying in appreciable numbers. Their preliminary findings indicate that adult Coho from urban streams are exposed to higher levels of PAHs than adult Coho from a non-urban stream. However, caution should be used in evaluation of the level of risk posed by PAHs in adult Coho from this limited data set. These analyses focused only on exposure to PAHs, and exposure to other toxic substances or other factors may be contributing to mortality of these fish. PAHs from the water James West, Sandra O'Neil, and Daniel Doty researched the PAH contamination of spawned and ovarian eggs of Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) in Puget Sound. Herring is one of the main food sources for the wild pacific salmon. West and team measured PAHs in ripe ovaries taken from pre-spawning wild Pacific herring and from eggs and day-old spawned herring. They concluded that exposure was environmental, meaning that it didn't stem from bioaccumulation in the mother but that the exposure was from the water. These three studies show that PAHs exposure for marine life doesn't bode well for our future and that unless we reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and put our capital in clean energy projects we could be next in the complex interactions of the marine and terrestrial food chains. We could have increased exposure to PAHs. Their effects haven't been studied too well on humans except that we know they increase cancer rates. What's better, a fossil fuel economy or a healthy life? Communities don't mix with corporate pesticides About a year ago my friend, Ingmar Lee, suggested that I check out the pesticide plan proposed by TimberWest for its private lands on Vancouver Island. He knew that I had pressured this company for years, hoping to mitigate some of its ongoing logging damage in the Walbran Valley (on our public lands). Ingmar is wonderful trouble personified. He has been a genuine inspiration to folks since he successfully confronted Weyerhaeuser’s pesticide application plans in the Nanaimo area. His unrestrained enthusiasm is contagious and in a blink I found myself on the “front lines,” wallowing through stacks of papers, research articles, government reports and facing an onslaught of faxes from the Environmental Appeal Board (EAB) and TimberWest’s dreaded lawyers. The TimberWest's Pesticide Management Plan calls for the use of two aggressive herbicides in their recently replanted cut timber blocks. They want to use "RoundUp" and/or "Release" to kill broad leaf tree species, hoping to further accelerate the growth rate of their coniferous seedlings. The plots to be treated are in the watersheds of several east coast Vancouver Island communities. I wouldn't want to drink that water everyday. There were three other appellants (groups) who formally complained about the TimberWest Pesticide Management Plan: a watershed environmental organization, a Regional District, and a First Nations Tribal Council. I was in solid company. This was a comfort since I was appealing on the basis of the risk to humans and biodiversity in watersheds that I do not directly depend upon myself. It was reassuring to be joining the voices of those directly affected. So I studied, devoting time to the stack of papers that Ingmar had brought over for me and consulting with legal experts like Andrew Gage of the West Coast Environmental Law. All indications were that I would lose the case because the Environmental Appeal Board has a restricted mandate and is strongly bound by existing precedent-setting determinations. However, to my glee I discovered that TimberWest had dragged up a scientific expert who was an eighty year-old, retired veterinarian. I have an associate degree in Chemistry so I decided to challenge the "bad science" in the Plan. Ingmar said that in his opinion mine was a bad choice of strategies but encouraged me to pursue the scientific approach anyway. Two months later, after 100s of emails and just as many faxes, I found Ingmar to be entirely correct. I had presumed, rather naively, that if supplied with reasonable scientific doubts about the herbicides ("RoundUp" and "Release"), the board might be swayed to investigate further -- Not so! They hold that determining the generic safety and suitability of these toxic brews is Ottawa's job, not the EAB's. The Board's role is simply to deal with the specifics of the application permit at hand, using the industry's standard criteria, as set by federal authority. On that account, when one examines the case files of the Board one may note very few decisions against those who wish to apply pesticides. One might ask, "What use is the EAB?" Well, perhaps it has a role in cases where gross and ridiculous misuse might be averted by the existence of the Board. Otherwise, it seems to me that the BC EAB functions mainly as a legitimizing agency for the companies, pesticide producers, and the government -- and often, I think, does so at grievous expense of public health. Had I known all this beforehand, I would have been more inclined to approach the process with a more politically active strategy than the scientific one that I chose. Here are a few of the things that I would do if I could do it all over again: 1. Once the list of appellants was known, I would convene a meeting of the other appellants, where one was given the job of watching the schedule and facilitating communication amongst the others. 2. Instead of avoiding publicity while engaged in the quasi-judicial appeal process (for fear of adversely affecting the "court"), I'd call in as much press and public communication on the issue as possible. I believe that the EAB is already strongly biased in favour of the pesticide applicator so there's very little to be gained by studious diplomacy. 3. I'd build a committed group around the issue. Bring your story to your church, your soccer team, and your extended family. Draw on the resources in the community. 4. Also, I'd solicit funds to finance part of the tremendous workload demanded by the EAB process. (Honorariums are in order for volunteers who provide extraordinary service.) 5. Expect to lose at the board level: target instead to win at the political level. Given enough public pressure the companies and the government will cave in and find other less harmful and dangerous methods of dealing with their "pests." The Board, the company lawyers, the specialists, will all act like you are "out of your league." That's nonsense! It's the health of your community, your children and grandchildren that the system may be risking. And it seems that the "Authorities" have been selected for their ability to accept generous salaries while being comfortable with their ill-formed decisions. My advice to you is to make them a little less comfortable, even if it is a bit of work for you and your friends. After all, it's good work. Note: I have placed massive files on the Internet pertaining to my Pesticide Management Plan Appeal -- please feel free to download, use and distribute them -- http://100photos.250free.com/EAB_Appeal * Dan Rubin is a concerned citizen actively working with others to save what little old-growth forest we have left in Southern Vancouver Island. He is the communications clerk for Women in the Woods, the secretary for BC Pathways, Earth Editor for the Peace Earth and Justice News, and a member of the Forest Action Network. Contact: dlrubin@uvic.ca. In May, Toronto City Council introduced a by-law phasing out the use of unnecessary cosmetic pesticides, sending a strong message to other cities including Vancouver that are considering similar measures. "We are encouraged by Toronto's progressive decision," said SPEC researcher Kyla Tienhaara. " It is clear that Canadians are increasingly concerned about the use of potentially hazardous herbicides and insecticides whose primary purpose is cosmetic." Toronto's pesticide by-law was supported by Dr. Sheela Basrur, Toronto's internationally respected Medical Officer of Health. The by-law also reflects recommendations made in the ground breaking 2000 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development that made "protection of human health and the environment an absolute priority" in determining pesticide policy. The Committee recommended that "the use of pesticides must come to be regarded as a measure of last resort rather than the option of choice." Toronto's by-law follows Halifax and other Canadian cities in enacting regulations to limit or restrict cosmetic pesticides. Last fall Vancouver Council deferred a motion for a similar by law. Vancouver is expected to reconsider the matter this summer. Meanwhile other Lower Mainland municipalities including Port Moody are implementing by-laws to control non-essential pesticides. * SPEC (Society Promoting Environmental Conservation) Press Release, May 2003. For more information, phone (604)736-7732 Ten years ago this summer, Clayoquot Sound was the site of the largest peaceful blockade in Canadian history. Twelve thousand people joined the protest to stop industrial logging of Clayoquot Sound’s ancient rainforests. By the end of the summer 856 people had been arrested and charged for standing on a logging road trying to prevent the further destruction to one of the world’s most biologically rich ecosystems. 1993 was a pivotal year for Clayoquot Sound and the environmental movement. Clayoquot Summer 1993: A Day On the Road Set below a mountain decimated by clearcut logging, the “Peace Camp” was in an equally devastated clearcut called the “Black Hole,” located just south of the junction between Tofino and Ucluelet. Morning began at 4:00 am as protesters camping in the Black Hole awoke to prepare for another day on the road. After a dusty, bumpy twenty-minute drive down a logging road, protesters would arrive at the now famous Kennedy River Bridge, the site of the protests. As the summer wore on, this peaceful time of day was soon to be cherished as the calm before the storm. Anticipation and nerves grew as the morning sky brightened and the rumble of logging trucks grew in the distance. People made their way to the middle of the road intent on blocking the approaching trucks from the green cathedrals. Many others chose to stand in solidarity on the side of the road, holding signs and bearing witness to the continued destruction. A Day On the Road Set below a mountain decimated by clearcut logging, the "Peace Camp" was in an equally devastated clearcut called the "Black Hole," located just south of the junction between Tofino and Ucluelet. Morning began at 4:00 am as protesters camping in the Black Hole awoke to prepare for another day on the road. After a dusty, bumpy twenty-minute drive down a logging road, protesters would arrive at the now famous Kennedy River Bridge, the site of the protests. Once there a campfire was built for warmth and bread topped with peanut butter was passed around. The meager breakfast offered some comfort on the cold mornings as people milled about sleepily to the sound of nature waking and the ever present drumming and guitar playing. On clear mornings, the lake shone in the morning light and the sound of eagles and other birds echoed through the forest. As the summer wore on, this peaceful time of day was soon to be cherished as the calm before the storm. Anticipation and nerves grew as the morning sky brightened and the rumble of logging trucks grew in the distance. People made their way to the middle of the road intent on blocking the approaching trucks from the green cathedrals. Many others chose to stand in solidarity on the side of the road, holding signs and bearing witness to the continued destruction. The trucks stopped as they reached the first row of protesters and a MacMillan Bloedel (MB) employee holding a thick stack of paper would exit his truck and begin to read an injunction ordering protesters to move to the side of the road. He spoke firmly into his radio as two other MB employees made their way through the crowd of protesters, video taping each of the faces in the crowd. It was an act of intimidation, but protesters stood silently yet assertively, preparing for what was to come. The reading of the injunction ended with the choice that each had to make, to stand on the road, block the trucks and face arrest or to move to the side of the road and watch as they went by. For many, after a lifetime of being taught to obey the law, it was a difficult decision. Ultimately, each knew in their hearts that what was happening to the forests of Clayoquot Sound was wrong and it was up to each of them to act and speak out. It was emotional and empowering as protesters standing, sitting and lying on the ground were removed one by one. There was a sense of peace and intensity in the air. Once the last protester who blocked the road had been removed the trucks continued on their way to work and those who remained headed back to the Peace Camp to plan for the next day. As day turned to night the Peace Camp pulse would steadfastly continue with conversation, workshops, planning, music and dance. The Clayoquot Camp was always dynamic. It would become still only for a few short hours then reawaken for a new day of action. 10 Years Later Significant accomplishments have been made as a result of incredible hard work of environmental groups and the actions of concerned individuals. These include a dramatic decrease in logging and prompted experimentation with some new logging techniques. Logging giant MacMillan Bloedel folded their industrial operations in the Sound and formed a joint venture logging company in Clayoquot called Iisaak Forest Resources, which is 51% owned by First Nations and 49% by MB (now by Weyerhaeuser). Although still logging in ancient forests, Iisaak is experimenting with conservation-based forestry and has agreed not to log in the large pristine valleys within their Tree Farm License. Interfor, on the other hand, has been logging Clayoquot Sound since 1992 and continues to do so today. In their most recent logging plan, Interfor maintains logging at a high volume and displays desire to cut in some of Clayoquot's pristine areas, which are rare on Vancouver Island, an island that is over 75% clearcut. The company has also recently stated intent to log in the pristine Sydney and Pretty Girl Valleys. In the mid-1990s, a Scientific Panel made many recommendations for lessening the impact of logging in the rainforest valleys, but they are not legally binding, and are for the most part unimplemented. The recommendations have made some improvements to logging in the Sound, but certainly not to the degree that Interfor and the government would like us to believe. Globally, being designated a Biosphere Reserve is certainly an honour, but what most don't realize is that it offers absolutely no additional protection. Industrial logging of ancient forests and massive fish farming can occur within a Biosphere Reserve. The above developments have made the Clayoquot Sound issue very complicated and hard to follow. These strategic measures by government and industry create the illusion that Clayoquot Sound is essentially protected. The summer of 2003 marks the 10-year anniversary of the 1993 blockades. It's an exciting time here in Clayoquot and is a great opportunity to get active and to speak up. Clayoquot has come so far, too far to stop now. Together, let's protect Clayoquot Sound's ancient forests forever. * Feature by Lee-Ann Unger, Friends of Clayoquot Sound
by Maggie Paquet Water. It’s a simple molecule, but an extremely complex subject. It is the source of life and can be a reservoir of disease. Civilisations are built on it and whole cultures have died out from lack of it. With more than six billion people now living on our planet (1.1 billion without safe drinking water and 2.4 billion without access to adequate sanitation), water is a major concern world-wide. So much so that over 24,000 participants from 182 countries went to Japan in March to attend the eight-day 3rd World Water Forum (www.world.water-forum3.com). The Forum held 351 sessions, many focusing on how to bring safe water and sanitation to the entire world. Emphasis was placed on the responsibility of regulators and decision-makers to get rid of their preconceived ideas and start thinking about sanitation in a more integrated way, to view wastes as a resource, and stop allowing our land and water to be contaminated by sewage. One recommendation stressed the need to develop national, district, and local policies that looked at sanitation from the household perspective. A closing statement of the Forum highlighted the need for "... effective governance...adequate financing, and inclusive, community-level public participation..." (emphasis added). Concern for water resources is also very much a concern for food production. Lester R. Brown, of the Worldwatch Institute, says:
And let's not forget the huge wild card in water issues--global climate change--which is turning "normal" precipitation patterns into a dream of days past. (See www.wateryear2003.org -- the official website for UNESCO's International Year of Freshwater for more discussion on water resources and climate change.) In the face of all the challenges, how do we make sure there's enough clean water for drinking, growing food, and all the other life-sustaining reasons we need it? Globally, demand for water has tripled over the last half-century. It is not a thing we can afford to waste. Yet waste it we certainly do. One of the main ways we waste it is by using it as a place to dump sewage--mostly human wastes. Whether we live in a city or the country, most of us just pull the plug or flush the toilet without giving a second thought to what happens to the stuff after it goes down the drain. Treating effluents and then pumping them into a river, lake, or the ocean, costs us big--environmentally and financially. Yet can we even calculate the costs of disease and lost productivity caused by inadequate water quality and quantity? The importance of ensuring that effluents don't contaminate our drinking water has been brought home to all of us only too painfully since the Walkerton tragedy. So what can we do? We can unhook ourselves from our addiction to flushing and forgetting. We can learn how to deal with our wastes much as a bear recycles its own metabolic wastes created during hibernation. We can educate ourselves and our governments about better ways to deal with the waste products of our society. How do we do this? A first--and vital--step is to deal with our practice of wasting water by letting it run down the drain or by flushing it down the toilet. The second step is to achieve greater understanding and acceptance by society of the technology that will allow us to do that. Surprisingly, the chief emerging technology is low-tech, or old technology: waterless composting toilets and constructed wetlands, or other greywater recycling systems. In many cases these low-tech solutions have been improved upon by employing high-tech materials and engineering designs. They conserve water and, when married with new solar or wind technology, also conserve energy. Governments: Helpers? Or Hindrances? Most likely, the answer to this depends on where you live. It shouldn't. At local and regional levels, it seems there's a game played by building and public health inspectors with rural residents and communities stuck as monkeys-in-the-middle. While some allow composting toilets for in-house use only (no outside drain), if city sewage is available, you still have to hook into it; if you live in a rural area, you still have to install a septic system. Joan van der Goes, of Cedar on Vancouver Island, installed a Clivus Multrum toilet and a Clivus greywater system in her new home. The greywater is filtered, then pumped to a large planter and distributed. Lab tests show no fecal coliforms and fewer than 16 total coliforms/ml in the planter's runoff. By comparison, conventional septic tanks inject 200,000 fecal coliforms/ml into the ground. Her composting toilet saves 40 percent of her water and produces one bucket of fine compost/person/year. It is dehydrated by about 90 percent. Her whole system cost about 80 percent of a septic tank system. Joan's in a catch-22 situation. Local building inspectors won't give her an occupancy permit because, they say, her system has not been approved by public health authorities. They've threatened to bulldoze her house. Provincial health inspectors say she doesn't have a permit under the Sewage Disposal Regulation because she doesn't have a septic tank. Cliff Turner, a professional Environmental Health Officer living nearby, says, "In over 30 years, I've never seen a more sustainable or safer way to deal with household sanitation--it's the best system I've seen." For her part, Joan--in her 80s--has given over 500 tours but still can't live in her house. On the other hand, the Capital Regional District prepared a report, Recycling Water in the 21st Century, for their Water Advisory Committee. Faced with increasing drought episodes in the past decade, the Capital Regional District is keen to find a long term strategy to conserve water while protecting public health, the environment, and economic development. Among the report's recommendations are: expanding public education to include greywater recycling, developing a Best Management Practices Manual to assist municipal policy on greywater re-use and on composting toilets, consulting with the Vancouver Island Health Authority to develop standards for this technology, promoting water recycling in new subdivisions and rural communities, and getting a non-government organization to develop a composting toilet and greywater recycling demonstration site to enhance public education. Government has a responsibility to show leadership in health, sanitation, and water protection issues, and set quality standards to ensure that the technology people buy and install actually works. Agencies should be working with people and communities to better inform the public, instead of stonewalling or threatening people who want to move ahead in developing sustainable lifestyles. A BC government report, Environmental Trends in British Columbia 2002, discusses water quality and quantity in vague terms: "government is working to develop...groundwater legislation..." and "government plans to improve drinking water source protection..." Meanwhile, the ministry's website reports that "... industry (manufacturing, mining and aquaculture) is BC's largest user of groundwater (55%), followed by agriculture (20%) and municipalities (20%)." It's not likely this government will put many restrictions on these industrial sectors. Why are our government agencies so resistant to this technology? While they say their main concern is for public health, there is a baffling inconsistency in response from public health authorities. Cliff Turner believes the legal framework needs fixing. If a septic tank malfunctions and seeps to the surface, Public Health can order it to be repaired. But if it seeps into groundwater or a drinking water well, they do nothing, saying it's too difficult to prove where the problem is coming from. Turner believes the discrepancy in applying the regulations is due to a lack of expertise. Subdivisions get final approval by the Highways department, not by authorities who necessarily have expertise in water quality. So when contamination occurs underground, the inspectors go after individuals. Apparently road access is more important than protecting drinking water. Authorities also say they don't permit these systems because of the public's lack of knowledge and low standard of maintenance. But rather than deem them illegal, they should be working with the public to increase the level of competency and commitment. After all, septic systems also need to be maintained, so why the discrepancy? Why can BC Parks, the provincial Highways ministry, and Parks Canada use these systems in parks and highway rest stops, but residents and communities can not? Some agencies are beginning to work with the public, especially where there are extensive shellfish aquaculture operations nearby (Is it public health or commercial enterprise they're trying to protect?), such as along parts of the east coast of Vancouver Island. For example, GHOSTS (Green House Organic Sewage Treatment Society) on Hornby Island is testing several alternative systems under the BC Ministry of Health's Innovative Technology Program. Some jurisdictions require low-flow toilets in their building permits. Public education on maintaining septic systems is on the increase. But these are only baby steps on the way to long-term sustainability. A key element lies in getting government agencies to work with people in both rural and urban areas to test and implement safe, effective methods for protecting water and dealing with our wastes. The UN's goal to bring water and sanitation to over a billion people is probably impossible using current systems. Michael Rouse, head of the World Water Association (representing water regulators and engineers across the world), says the economic and environmental costs of sewer pipes (and the fact that they most often drain into and pollute water bodies) are too high and that, "the world should revert to using human solid waste as compost and fertilizer and allow liquids to drain into the ground." He also agrees with World Water Forum recommendations that "there should be a concentration on community-led programs..." ("World sewage plans should be abandoned," The Guardian, March 10, 2002). So what is the bottom line? We need to get over the bad habit of flushing and forgetting and become more aware of sewage and greywater as recyclable resources--and learn how to manage them properly. We need to educate ourselves about safe and efficient ways people and communities can adopt to protect our fresh water resources and become more sustainable. Most of all, we need to encourage government agencies to stop fighting agency "turf wars" and work with us to help ensure clean, adequate water supplies now and for future generations. * Sources
Harvesting the Treasure from the Sky "I literally got hooked on rain barrels. I started out with one and I just had to have more. I added another and another and now I've got 12 rain barrels to catch the rainwater off my house," says Dirk Becker. "To my amazement, they can fill up in as little as 20 minutes (over 500 gallons). I'm also thrilled by how well our plants respond to the warm rainwater and the micro-nutrients it contains. And by using rainwater in the garden, we draw less water from the well, so it's less likely to run dry." Becker lives with his partner Tanis Dagert on a small farm in Lantzville on the east side of Vancouver Island. He studies how methods of food production affect water, soil, and the Earth in general. From that study came one of Dirk's well-being projects, one that could benefit hundreds of gardens and a multitude of water-dependent creatures on Georgia Strait. Dirk makes rainwater collection barrels and sells them at a substantially lower cost than most such devices. "It became obvious to me that I needed to encourage others to participate in enjoying this treasure from the sky rather than getting rid of it," says Becker. Dirk spent months researching rain collection systems all over North America. He found that the most efficient and economical way to collect rainwater safely is with used 45 gallon food grade plastic barrels. Now he assembles and sells these barrels, ready to catch the next downpour, with a brass tap for a hose at the bottom and a hole in the top for a downspout, as well as bug screen to keep out insects. The barrels sell for only $45 with the fittings, almost half of what they cost from other sources. Further, for every barrel sold through an environmental group, Dirk donates $5 back to the group. "My goal is for everyone on Vancouver Island to be collecting and using precious rainwater," says Becker, who admits he will also help facilitate delivery to the BC mainland when he can. Dirk Becker might not get rich with his rain barrels, but he and the communities that use his product will be rich in the most satisfying way: they will know they are making a difference. "Now when it rains, we have the satisfaction of knowing that we are filling our barrels, caring for our gardens, and replenishing our supplies of a vital and diminishing resource." * Contact: Dirk Becker, 7560 Fernmar Road, Lantzville, BC. Ph: (250)390-5199 for directions. Understanding the composting process is needed in order to build confidence in using composting toilet and greywater treatment systems. A good start on the education process is The Composting Toilet System Book by David del Porto and Carol Steinfeld; available from the Center for Ecological Pollution Prevention (CEPP). This book, which the State of Washington used as a basis for new regulations, clearly explains composting and why it can be used to deal with human wastes (quoted with permission):
The book describes temperature, moisture, aeration, carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, and process control factors. As for why we need these systems to deal with the mountains of waste matter we produce, the authors say, "Sized and operated properly, a composting toilet breaks down waste to 10 to 30 percent of its original volume..." In addition to reducing the volume, this technology also converts it to a safe and effective material that can then be re-used to enrich depleted soils. Two Basic Types of Composting Toilet Systems According to Richard Ladouceur, a specialist on Hornby Island, composting toilet systems can be classified in two basic ways: active and passive, and the passive type can be further classified as continuous or batch. Active Active composting toilet systems are either self-contained (the toilet and a small composting reactor are one unit), or the toilet connects to a composting reactor that is somewhere else (under the floor or elsewhere). They generally have small composting chambers that need to be emptied regularly, depending on the amount of use. They are called "active" systems because something (electrical or mechanical heating, ventilation, and mixing) speeds up the composting process. These are the least expensive. They are moisture-, volume-, and maintenance-critical if they are to work properly and produce pathogen-free compost. Examples include the generally small self-contained Envirolet, Sun-Mar, BioLet, Clivus, and Phoenix systems. Passive Passive composting toilet systems use one of two methods: either single-chamber continuous composting or multi-chamber batch composting. These rely on size to hold waste materials for the long periods of time necessary for natural composting and generally do not use mechanical heaters or mixers. They require a storage area, basement, crawl space, etc. to house the large composting chamber. a) A batch composter (e.g., EcoTech Carousel, all Vera systems, BioLet NE, and many site-built composters) uses two or more composting chambers. One is filled, then allowed to cure while another fills, and so on. The batch method relies on time (up to a year or more), during which no new material is added to a chamber while the compost cures thoroughly. b) A continuous composter (e.g., Clivus Minimus, CTS, BioLet, and larger Clivus Multrum, Phoenix, Sun-Mar models) features a large single chamber where material goes in at the top and the compost is removed from the bottom. The least complicated is the urine-separating batch system. The next least complicated is the large volume remote or centralised process. The most complicated system is the active continuous system because it requires the most maintenance to be effective and non-pathogenic. A few words of advice All composting toilets require a degree of maintenance and awareness of how to properly use and manage them. Almost all of them require liquid diversion or urine separation to prevent the compost from getting too wet and becoming anaerobic. When deciding to install a composting toilet system, you must match the use to the system; that is, you need to know the volume required and length of retention time needed in order to design a system that is adequate for your situation. Ladouceur says the technology works best when people understand how their system works and if they are committed to using and maintaining it properly. "Otherwise, it just ends up in a landfill somewhere." Where to get composting toilets and greywater systems Advanced Composting Systems (Phoenix), 195 Meadows Rd, Whitefish, MT, 59937; Ph: (406)862-3855; Fax: (406)862-3855; Email: phoenix@compostingtoilett.com; www.compostingtoilet.com. Canadian distributor: Sunergy Systems Ltd., Box 70, Cremona, AB T0M 0R0; Ph:(403)637-3973 Aquatron International AB, Box 2086, SE-194 02 Upplands Vaesby, Sweden; Ph: +468 590 304 50, Fax: +468 590 304 94; Email: info@aquatron.se; www.aquatron.se Clivus Multrum Composting Toilets, Western Agent, 1278 Inglewood Avenue, West Vancouver, BC V7T 1Y6; Ph: (604)926-3748; Also at 23646 16th Avenue, Langley BC V2Z 1K9, Ph/Fax: (604)533-5207; www.clivusmultrum.com. CTS--Composting Toilet Systems, S 337 Spokane Avenue, PO Box 1928, Newport, WA 99156; Ph: (509)447-3708; toll free in USA: (888)786-4538; Email: cts@povn.com; www.comtoilet.com Ecotech Composting Toilets, 152 Commonwealth Ave., Concord, MA 01742-2968; Ph: 978-369-3951; Email: ecotech@ecological-engineering.com; www.ecological-engineering.com/ecotech.html Envirolet, Sancor Industries Ltd., Canadian Distribution Centre, 140-30 Milner Avenue, Toronto, ON M1S 3R3; Ph: 1(800)387-5245; Fax: (416)299-3124; Email: info@envirolet.com; www.envirolet.com Sun-Mar Corporation, 5035 N. Service Rd C9, Burlington, ON L7L 5V2; Ph: (905)332-1314; Free catalogue number: 1(800)461-2461; Email: compost@sun-mar.com; www.sun-mar.com * The Center for Ecological Pollution Prevention operates the EcoSan Center and offers composting toilet and greywater system workshops, home water and wastewater workshops, and a number of useful products, including books such as The Composting Toilet System Book, by David Del Porto and Carol Steinfeld.* For more information, contact Carol Steinfeld, Ph: (978)318-7033; 50 Beharrell Street, PO Box 1330, Concord, MA 01742 USA; Email: CarolStein@aol.com; www.cepp.cc/aboutcepp.html
We Told You FirstThe Mad Cow Case in Alberta and the virtual elimination of the Canadian beef export market, at least temporarily, was no surprise to readers of the Watershed Sentinel. We called on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to end the hazard of blood contamination in an article by the Canadian Health Coaltion in April 2001. 1911 Strathcona Park created. In 1918, the Strathcona Park Act was amended to open the park to the "location, acquisition and occupation of mineral claims under the Mineral Act." 1930 By now, 13 provincial parks had been set aside and at least another 50 areas were reserved for the pleasure and recreation of the public. 1957 The Department of Recreation and Conservation was created, with a Parks Branch, independent of the Forest Service. 1965 A revised Park Act provided a more detailed classification of Provincial Parks. Conservation as well as recreation had become an important reason for the establishment of parks. 1996 The current version of the BC Park Act restricts alienation of interests for Class A or C parks (the majority classification for BC Parks.) October 1997 The NDP Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, Cathy McGregor, appoints a Legacy Panel to conduct a comprehensive study of the protected areas system in BC. February 1999 The BC Park Legacy Project report sets a vision, principles and 101 recommendations for the management and protection of BC Parks. It notes that "British Columbians are strongly in favour of environmental protection for the protected areas system. They want assurance that natural values in parks will be protected and that our parks will not become commercialized or privatized in an effort to generate revenue." The final recommendations were never implemented. June 2001 The new Liberal government eliminates BC Parks as a separate entity, putting the department under the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (WLAP). The Ministry's budget is cut by 35%, resulting in discontinuation of interpretive programs in all provincial parks, removal of toilets, boat launch facilities, and garbage pick-up from 45 parks, and a cut in staff to one field staff person for every 7 parks. Ministry of Forests announces it will no longer manage 712 of its 1316 recreation sites or maintain over 300 of its 489 recreation trails. May 2002 WLAP appoints an expert Recreation Stewardship Panel (RSP) to review fish, wildlife and park recreation services and recommend opportunities to improve the management model and funding sources. August 2002 WLAP announces the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No. 082002, for the Delivery of Recreation Services in Provincial Park Campground and Day Use Areas. October 2002 Ninety-six "Request for Qualifications" applicants are chosen to be qualified respondents. WLAP publishes the draft "Request for Proposals" that is open to public comment. November 29, 2002 The Recreation Stewardship Panel releases their final report to WLAP, which is not made public until January 2003. The Panel summary says: "The overall tenor of the submissions was one of passion for protecting the ecological integrity of parks and the highly valued outdoor recreation experience in British Columbia. In response to the draft report, there was a general reluctance to dramatically change how fish, wildlife and park recreation is managed now, or how it was managed in the past." January 2003 The Recreation Stewardship Panel's final report is released to the public by WLAP. At almost the same time, the final document for the Request for Proposals for the 27 Bundles of Parks is sent by WLAP to the qualified respondents. February 2003 WLAP announces that only a few of the 24 recommendations from the RSP final report will be adopted. March 5, 2003 Closing date for "Request For Proposals" submissions. Contracts are awarded by the end of March. by Kathy Smail and Norberto Rodriguez dela Vega Late last summer, Friends of Cortes Island focussed on the recent provincial government changes in park management. This has been, and continues to be, a difficult task, involving beaurocratic complexities, continually evolving mandates, and reams of written material as the BC government works through its process. The implications for Cortes Provincial Parks are uncertain and potentially detrimental considering the motivations behind the changes. As a result of provincial budget cuts, Minister Joyce Murray announced that the government would cease funding maintenance of BC Parks, would bundle parks into groups of 10 or more, and encourage experienced organizations and individuals to apply to manage these bundles. The two-step process would start with the Request For Qualified Respondents aimed at selecting groups with appropriate qualifications that would continue to the next step, the Request For Proposals, a call to bid on the operational management of the park bundles. Prior warning of the impending change appeared on Cortes when the government ceased to fund maintenance of Manson's Landing Park in the spring of 2002. A fund set up by a local store proprietor, Bertha Jeffery, was a great short-term solution that covered the costs of that summer's maintenance and brought the issue of long-term park management to the community's attention. Once the government's Request for Proposal process was revealed, residents became deeply concerned that, under the proposed changes, issues of geographical location and the push for increased recreational revenues would compromise maintenance standards, local consultation, and environmental integrity. Community members approached the Friends of Cortes Island Society (FOCI) with the request that FOCI enter the Request For Qualified Respondents process, as the most effective way to remain involved and within the communication circle of government officials. After a complicated application process, FOCI was accepted as a qualified respondent. Moving to the second step of submitting a proposal to manage the park bundle was daunting. Thirteen parks were included in the North Island lot and ranged geographically from Hornby and Denman through Miracle Beach, Strathcona, and Elk Falls to Schoen Lake, 140 km north of Campbell River. Early on, FOCI investigated the possibility of extracting the Cortes Parks from the North Island bundle. It was estimated that the revenue from the campground in Smelt Bay Park could support the operation of the Manson's Landing day use park. As is done in Kw'as and Carrington Bay under the Regional District, FOCI could subcontract the park operations to local service providers, so that maximum revenues remained on Cortes. In November, North Island MLA Rod Visser promised to forward his support for FOCI to Minister Murray. In a meeting with WLAP BC Park Directors Martin Dueck and John Block, the latter alluded to the possibility of the bundles being reconfigured at the time of the contract so that the Cortes parks could be removed and maintained separately. The Regional District of Comox-Strathcona agreed to administer the parks with Friends of Cortes Island support and forwarded a resolution and letter of support to that effect to the Ministry. Recognizing that the competition to manage provincial parks was designed for business interests, FOCI withdrew from the RFP process. The North Island bundle was awarded to Osprey Silviculture of Victoria, who asked FOCI to bid on maintenance of the local parks. Since FOCI has neither the desire nor the mandate to compete with local service providers, the offer was declined, but the door was opened for FOCI, as a community consultation group on ecological concerns, to review future development plans and organize community meetings where necessary. And where are we today? No response has been received to the debundling proposal that was submitted by the Regional District and Cortes has a new Park Facility Operator with a ten-year Park Use Permit for Recreational Services Delivery. Osprey's President and owner, Greg Witt has stated his interest is simply maintaining status quo for the time being, hiring local workers, and encouraging community support. He has agreed to send us a list of proposed developmental changes set out in Osprey's three year business plan and FOCI looks forward to a positive and productive relationship. Questions about the future environmental sustainability of our provincial parks remain unanswered. We have been informed by WLAP's Regional Environmental Stewardship Manager that the Park Purpose Statement for Manson's Landing, which lists important environmental values, remains in effect and "There will be no expanded opportunities for overnight camping or any other activities that may compromise the purpose of this park." At Smelt Bay, basic Park Operator information states that the park's "... purpose is to protect existing Native cultural features [middens] and provide camping and day use opportunities." Our hope is that the Cortes community, Osprey Silviculture, and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection can work together to maintain and protect environmental values. In the meantime the FOCI Parks Committee remains vigilant. * In closing, many thanks to the committee members and advisors who worked so hard to wade through the ever-shifting information and required responses for the process: Jim and Dianne Hentschel, Pierre and Anicca de Trey, Fred and Ruth Zwickel, Michael Moore, Ralph Nursall, Ted Bannister, Hubert Havelaar, Norberto Rodriguez dela Vega, Carol Tidler, and Regional Director George Sirk. Another huge thank you to the park donors for their generous contributions. * For more information:
The Cortes Environmental Youth Initiative Team will be challenging residents to reduce their use of home and back yard toxics, following up with folks to see how they managed with last summer's pledges to reduce toxics use by 30% or more, and generally providing our island community and visitors with lots of incredibly valuable information and ideas! These inspiring young people will be at the local farmer's market, summer festivals, and available through the FOCI office @ 250-935-0087. Our thanks to Georgia Strait Alliance for training and program support, and to funders: Environment Canada's EcoAction Community Funding Program, BC Gaming Commission and Tides Canada Foundation Footprints Fund. Phosphates act as Fertilizers, encouraging plant growth. When released in large quantities into lakes and rivers, cause algae blooms which leech oxygen from the water and can disrupt marine life. Irritating surfactants Many of the surfactants (surface active ingredients) in detergents are skin and eye irritants. Concentrated detergents can be poisonous if swallowed by children. Gender Benders Many detergents contain a chemical that biodegrades into nonylphenols, which mimic growth, reproduction and developmental hormones in animals. They have been shown to feminize male fish near sewage treatment plants. Better: Vegetable based detergents such as Nature Clean, which use coconut oil as their surfactant Best: Washing soda/borax and pure soap flakes * Claire Noble, CEYI 2002 BEHIND THE SCENES Watershed SentinelWatershed Sentinel Graphic Design - Ester Strijbos Webmaster - Yendor Circulation 3,000; Published six times per year; Subscriptions $20.00 Canada $26 US; Distribution by news stand sale, Member British Columbia Association of Magazine Publishers; ISSN 1188-360X Join Reach for Unbleached! and receive a year subscription to the bimonthly magazine Watershed Sentinel including MillWatch. Membership is $25.3 |
||||||||||