The Globe and Mail recently reported on a request by Taseko Mines to limit the input of First Nations in the upcoming environmental review of the revised Prosperity Mine proposal. Two specific complaints about the former process were the inclusion of an "aboriginal activist" on the panel and the receipt of somewhat unconventional evidence by the aboriginal participants. It is suggested that this led to bias and neglect of good science.
It is not unusual for proponents to complain quite vociferously about aboriginal participation in processes as being characteristic of bias and any aboriginal perspective on issues as being poor science. Oddly they rarely see the inclusion of industry geologists, energy sector lawyers or long-time Alberta energy sector civil servants in a review process as potentially exhibiting any form of bias toward proponents. It says something about the mindset of these people in this day and age that one could say (without hanging your head in shame) that Hans Matthews (one of the Enbridge JRP members) is objectionable because he is an aboriginal person from a remote community as opposed to a long time beneficiary of the resource sector. In reality (as Minister Peter Kent seems to have recognized), neither is a grounds for objection per se, panels such as these are designed to include different perspectives and to add legitimacy in the eyes of all communities by seeing components of their communities represented in the make-up of the decision maker.
As for the content of the science -- well panels are mandated to consider traditional knowledge, traditional ecological knowledge and also oral history evidence. This evidence is received not just to assess the effects on the biophysical systems at issue but the effects on the people who have to live with the project into the future. These effects can be physical but can also can include the psychological effects that come with knowing that your local area has been put at risk or just generally degraded by being turned from a wilderness to an industrial site. Besides, to use an example from the article, is it really that outrageous to present a play showing the destruction of a fish population when the explicit plan for the project is to destroy a lake called "Fish Lake" and turn it into a tailings pond.
This debate shows the difficult the Harper Government faces in its desire to streamline and limit environmental review processes. In Haida the Supreme Court of Canada mandated consultation with aboriginal people in order to assess the impacts of proposed development upon them,their rights and their interests. As the companion Taku case demonstrated, however, robust environmental review processes with substantial participation by aboriginal people in the design and implementation of the assessment can serve to discharge this duty to consult. The difficulty arises as EA processes become less thorough, less comprehensive and less participatory -- then their ability to address the consultation obligation is diminished and the question of how that duty to be fulfilled remains. In its recent budget and environmental streamlining processes, the Federal government recognized the challenge of dealing with consultation in the face of anaemic environmental assessment processes. Now the question is how will they deal with that challenge?
To be precise, the original proposal was to destroy Teztan Biny as part of the mine construction and to build a separate tailings dump - the lake itself would not receive the tailings. The "new" proposal (actually a rejected option in the earlier review) would not drain the lake but would have serious impacts on it.
ReplyDelete