One year ago, after scathing reports by international agencies, the federal government promised to better protect Wood Buffalo National Park, with Environment Minister Catherine McKenna saying a warning from the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, followed by an equally dire assessment by the International Union on the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), were a call to action.

But that action is moving at a glacial pace, even though the stated threats to the integrity of Canada’s largest national park, such as upstream oilsands development, climate change and construction of the Site C dam, are continuing unabated.

“Change in the [Peace-Athabasca Delta] is undisputed and there are clear, consistent and conceivable hints at causal relationships with industrial development, confirmed by western science and local and indigenous knowledge,” the report warned. It also took aim at forestry, pulp and paper, uranium mining, agriculture and other resource development in the watershed.

Now, with World Heritage Centre deadlines approaching, a coalition of Indigenous and environmental groups is pushing for faster decisions and dedicated funding to help address the park’s many problems.

“When our community heard Minister McKenna tell us that the mission report was a call to action we were hopeful,” said Melody Lepine, director of government and industry relations at Mikisew Cree First Nation.

“A year later, there is little concrete action to report to our elders except that we keep trying to get government to honour its commitment. So much more needs to be done and done fast,” she said.

Last July Lepine told a World Heritage Committee session in Krakow, Poland, that Canada is not acting in good faith and described how the Peace-Athabasca Delta — the world’s largest freshwater inland delta — is threatened by dams and rapid industrial development.

Wood Buffalo encompasses about 4.5 million hectares of boreal plains in northern Alberta and the southern Northwest Territories, is home to the world’s largest herd of free-ranging wood bison and is the breeding ground for the only wild, self-sustaining migratory flock of whooping cranes.

The park was visited by UNESCO inspectors after a 2014 petition from the Mikisew Cree First Nation and the subsequent report warned that, without a major and timely response, the organization would recommend that Wood Buffalo be included in the list of World Heritage in Danger, a list usually reserved for sites in countries dealing with disasters.

A November report by the IUCN raised further red flags, saying the park had deteriorated since the IUCN’s 2014 assessment and that the federal government’s response has been “inadequate in light of the scale, pace and complexity of the challenges.”

Wood Buffalo received the worst rating of all of Canada’s 10 natural world heritage sites and, only the Florida Everglades received a lower IUCN rating in all of North America.

The World Heritage Committee has asked Canada for a Strategic Environmental Assessment to be completed by next month and for an Action Plan to be submitted by December 1, so that it can make a decision on further action by summer 2019.

But even the planning has run into problems, with the federal government not taking into account some of the activities and threats outside the park boundaries.

“Canada’s ongoing refusal to consider the impacts of the Site C dam dam on the Peace-Athabasca Delta is astounding, “ said Galen Armstrong, Sierra Club B.C. Peace Valley campaigner.

The committee agreed in its report.

As for Site C project, the mission notes that the joint review panel’s conclusion that project impacts on the Peace-Athabasca Delta would be “negligible” is not substantiated by any information presented in its report and appears to be based exclusively on the proponent’s definition of downstream impact area.

McKenna, in a statement, said the government is responding to the World Heritage Committee’s request and the 2018 budget proposes “historic investments” to protect Canada’s nature, parks and wild spaces.

“Included in these investments in Canada’s natural legacy is a commitment to invest in the action plan that is being developed for Wood Buffalo National Park World Heritage Site,” she wrote.

Becky Kostka, Smith’s Landing First Nation lands and resources manager, said there have already been missteps and the initial draft of the Strategic Environmental Assessment was inadequate, simply pulling together previous studies, and did not represent Indigenous voices and Indigenous knowledge.

“Local knowledge-holders would have liked a bigger part,” Kostka told The Narwhal.

“Previously they (government) said there were no environmental changes north of the Peace River and when I talk to the elders they say there are significant changes happening across the park.”

However, there appears to be a willingness to make changes and a series of meetings are now being planned, she said.

Funding is another problem and diverting scarce resources previously allocated for Wood Buffalo will not suffice, said Kostka, who is also concerned about the tight time-frame for producing an action plan.

Those concerns are echoed by Alison Ronson of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

“It is clear the World Heritage Committee is expecting Canada to deliver more than a plan to plan,” she said.

“With the commitments for environmental conservation in the new federal budget, Canada can and must develop an action plan with real resources.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Trudeau government committed an unprecedented $1.3 billion in Tuesday’s Budget 2018 to protect land and water in Canada over the next five years. The funds will help Canada meet its target to protect 17 per cent of land and 10 per cent of oceans by 2020 under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.

“This is a very good news day for conservation in Canada,” Alison Woodley, national conservation director of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), told DeSmog Canada.

In addition to significant financial investments, the budget also outlines a new model for collaborative conservation efforts bringing Indigenous, provincial and territorial governments together.

“For the first time the government is not only investing in federal action but also recognizing the importance of partnerships, recognizing Indigenous, provincial and territorial government’s work to protect land and water,” Woodley said.

Over the next five years the federal government will invest $500 million in conservation partnerships and $800 million to support the creation of new protected areas, increased park management, protection of species at risk and to establish a coordinated network of conservation areas with other governmental partners.

“I think the great thing about this is we’re not starting from scratch,” Woodley said. “There are places across this country where Indigenous and other government have proposals underway to protect large landscapes.”

Protecting the celebrated Peel Watershed in the Yukon would be an easy win when it comes to protecting undisturbed wilderness, Woodley said.

Proposals for the South Okanagan Similkameen national park to protect rare and diminishing desert in British Columbia, plans to protect undeveloped land in the Rockies and the Indigenous-led Thaidene Nene conservation project in the traditional territory of the Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation could also represent big conservation wins, she added.

“This is a very good news day for conservation in Canada.” https://t.co/8KMcf1cyeb

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) February 28, 2018

Indigenous-led conservation a priority

“We are particularly pleased to see the budget acknowledge the leadership of Indigenous peoples in protecting Canada’s land and waters,” Éric Hébert-Daly, CPAWS national executive director said in a statement.

“This funding will support Indigenous governments in their conservation efforts, which will make an important contribution to reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada.”

Indigenous-led conservation efforts have resulted in some of Canada’s most iconic land use agreements, including the creation of the Great Bear Rainforest and the Gwaii Haanas national park.

And the creation of tribal parks in unceded First Nations traditional territory in British Columbia — like the Dasiquox Tribal Park — has helped redefinine conservation strategies to more thoughtfully prioritize indigenous land use and cultural practices.

Steve Ganey, director of the land and ocean program for the Pew Charitable Trusts, applauded the federal government for its renewed commitment to conservation but said more can and should be done to emphasize reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in all land protection efforts.

“National and provincial governments should work to support new forms of Indigenous-led conservation in their efforts to meet the biological diversity targets,” Ganey wrote in a response to Budget 2018. “This is particularly important in northern Canada, where most of the country’s intact natural areas — and many of its Indigenous communities — are located.”

Ganey added Canada should consider creating protected Indigenous lands that are managed under a self-governance structure that highlights traditional knowledge — similar to Australia.

“This is the best and perhaps only way to rapidly expand conservation efforts while honouring Indigenous rights.”

Woodley said many of Canada’s Indigenous communities are already leading the way when it comes to protecting their lands and cultural practices.

“Indigenous-led conservation initiatives can be a great tool to advance reconciliation,” she said.

Continued investment needed to protect at-risk species

Conservation efforts are key to recovering Canada’s species at risk, such as caribou and orca that have suffered critical habitat loss and degradation over the last several decades.

“The number one reason that species across Canada and globally are in danger is because they’re losing habitat,” Woodley said.

“Protected areas are a key tool, whether on land or in the ocean, for addressing species at risk.”

Canada has been harshly criticized for failing to adequately protect its endangered species, especially through the creation of strict no-go zones that would protect critical habitat from industrial development and human activity.

Aerin Jacob, conservation scientist with the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y), said today’s investment in protected areas signals a change in tide.

“This type of vision shows the government is serious about protecting nature on the scale it needs to thrive,” Jacob said.

“Now the hard work lies ahead since we need different conservation approaches in different parts of Canada. This includes carefully planning where the new protected areas should be, based on intact wilderness, connectivity, species at risk and more.”

Woodley said conservation creates cascading positive effects where protected areas benefit wildlife, nature-based tourism and allow people to enjoy the lifestyles that come with landscapes that aren’t industrialized.

“This funding can deliver a whole suite of benefits to Canadians from nature conservation, economic, social and health perspectives.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

For decades, the ‘battle of Alberta’ has alluded to the intense rivalry between Calgary and Edmonton, especially on the ice or the football field.

“The worst way to engage Edmontonians is to tell them how things are done in Calgary,” wrote Harvey Locke in a piece titled “The Two Albertas” for the Literary Review of Canada.

But as demographics shift, there’s a different kind of battle of Alberta brewing, one that doesn’t divide people along municipal boundaries. And that battle has elicited boycotts, harassment campaigns and even death threats.

“I think there are multiple Albertas and multiple identities … at play in terms of the political future of the province,” said David Coletto, CEO of Abacus Data.

There’s long been an urban vs. rural divide in Alberta and that gap is widening, Coletto says. But there’s also been an influx of young people into the province, particularly to Edmonton and Calgary.

“There’s a generational divide that’s growing,” Coletto said.

Yet despite deep divisions within Alberta, Albertans are often viewed monolithically by the rest of Canada.

“Albertans will unite to defend their economic freedom and autonomy,” Locke wrote. “They will put aside any difference to avoid being told what to do by Central Canada.”

One need look no further than the current Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline dispute with B.C. to see evidence of that. But, although Albertans may appear to rally together from time to time, they are far from a singular entity when it comes to the environment.

Environmental campaigns draw violent threats

The latest skirmish in the new battle of Alberta broke out in late January over an event called Hops and Headwaters hosted at a brewery in Edmonton. The event was in support of a campaign to protect the Bighorn Backcountry, a region in the province’s foothills home to the headwaters of the North Saskatchewan River, which provides drinking water to the citizens of Edmonton.

“Water being the largest ingredient in our beer, it’s an issue and something that’s very near and dear to our hearts and important to us,” Bent Stick Brewery co-founder Scott Kendall told City TV News.

Seems fairly reasonable, right? Nope. The brewery was struck with dozens of one-star reviews on its Facebook page for supporting the headwaters protection campaign.

Reviews like this one: “I will not support any company that supports foreign-funded groups such as Y2Y [Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative] and Love Your Headwaters that strive to limit my ability to responsibly access and enjoy the beautiful public lands in Alberta.”

And it didn’t stop at Facebook comments. By the time the event date rolled around, there were enough threats made on social media to warrant hiring four private security guards.

Why were some Albertans so hot under the collar? Because of a proposal to limit off-highway vehicle use in certain areas.

“My organization never had a security protocol until we started working on this issue,” said Stephen Legault, a program director for Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y).

Up until now, parts of the Bighorn Backcountry have been somewhat of a free-for-all when it comes to off-highway vehicle use, but all of that ripping around in the wilderness has consequences.

“Off-highway vehicle use can have a dramatic impact on downstream water quality and on the ability of endangered species to survive,” he said.

An example of the type of damage that can be caused by off-highway vehicles. Photo: Stephen Legault.

Legault — who’s lived in Alberta for 25 years — is adamant he isn’t against quadders and other off-highway vehicle users, noting that citizens have done a good job of managing stream crossings in some areas.

“I think the critical thing is that it’s not about eliminating it, it’s about finding a place for it where it does less damage.”

The first threats of physical violence came when Legault gave a talk in Caroline, Alberta, a few months ago.

“For the first time in 25 years, I actually had to leave an event and drive away in order to de-escalate the situation,” Legault said. “In many ways, what’s happening is there’s a proxy fight happening right now over government.”

It’s certainly not the first time a complex policy conversation has turned into a toxic, polarized debate. It’s just one of several attacks on academics, scientists and environmentalists in Alberta in recent years. Veteran environmentalist Tzeporah Berman has faced violent threats for her role in Alberta’s Oil Sands Advisory Group. And economists Andrew Leach and Trevor Tombe have weathered more than their fair share of rage online.“

Collaborating with the enemy

Adam Kahane knows a thing or two about how public conversations can get derailed. He has mediated conflicts around the world for more than three decades and has been credited with helping to end Colombia’s civil war.

In his latest book, Collaborating with the Enemy: How to Work with People you Don’t Agree With or Like or Trust, Kahane says there are four choices when it comes to working with others: collaborate, adapt, force or exit.

There’s always the choice to collaborate. Unfortunately, often times when people can’t get what they want, they turn the other side into an “enemy.”

“The situation quickly moves from ‘those people have a different perspective’ to ‘those people are wrong’ to ‘those people are my enemy.’ That’s the process of enemy-fying, constructing enemies,” Kahane said.

“I’m not saying people never have enemies, but I’m saying we don’t have enemies as often as we think we do. And so turning an ordinary situation into a declaration of war is an unfortunate escalation.”

Another factor that has really irked some Albertans in the debate over limiting off-highway vehicle use in the Bighorn Backcountry is the involvement of Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. Both of these organizations (like most non-profit organizations, including ourselves), receive some of their funding from foundations located outside of Canada that share a common interest in protecting wildlife and wilderness and addressing climate change. (We might need a passport at the border, but wide-ranging animals such as grizzly bear, wolverine and lynx roam freely back and forth between the two countries and require protection on both sides of the border for their long-term viability).

As for the involvement of “foreign-funded” groups, Kahane says it’s not the first time there have been charges of “foreign-funded” organizations coming in from the outside and meddling in local affairs.

“It’s a classic form of othering,” Kahne said. “It’s a very common way of looking at things, because then the problem isn’t us. It’s those outsiders. It’s a scapegoat.”

French thinker Rene Girard says a scapegoat removes the need to look at ourselves.

“Usually there’s something amongst us that has to be worked out,” Kahane said.

Crescent Falls in the Bighorn Backcountry. Photo: Stephen Legault.

The real issues

In the case of the escalating tension over the North Saskatchewan River, Legault says there’s been almost no monitoring or enforcement of off-highway vehicle use in Alberta over the last decade.

“An identity has developed that part of being an Albertan means I can go anywhere I want,” he said.

“We’re not asking the government to ban off-highway vehicle use. What we’re saying is there needs to be careful thought given to where off-highway vehicle use occurs … What we’re really trying to do is find a place for everybody to enjoy nature.”

Coletto said this issue feeds into a larger narrative in which the battle lines are easily drawn.

“There’s always a defence of tradition and heritage,” he said. “On the one hand, you’ve got a solid and larger than perceived group of environmentalists and progressives who are living and working and trying to advocate for change in Alberta, but there’s just as large a group that’s trying to defend their way of life.”

Since the early 1970s, there’s been a conversation about protecting the Bighorn Backcountry. In 1974, former premier Peter Lougheed held the eastern slopes hearings, in an attempt to engage ranchers, hunters and sportsmen on a vision for how the region would be managed.

“That proposal has gone so far as to be on roadmaps in Alberta in the 1980s and then got quickly rescinded,” Legault said. “This issue has been part of the effort to protect Alberta’s headwaters for a very long time.”

Getting beyond the battle of Alberta

Kahane is clear that if you want to reach a solution, sometimes you need to work with people with whom you have permanent disagreements.

“I think those situations are more and more common and it is possible. I’ve seen it with my own eyes many times, but you have to make a choice,” Kahane says.

Sometimes that means talking in the presence of armed guards and sometimes that means talking under the condition that people leave their guns at the door.

In Colombia, progress was made in peace talks by bringing together everyone from armed left-wing guerillas and right-wing paramilitary to trade unions, churchgoers and academics.

Alberta may be no Colombia, but it’s important to remember there are real differences at play, Kahane emphasized.

“They’re not imaginary. And they’re not necessarily ones that if we really had a good chat over a beer we’d find we agreed,” he said.

A fascinating piece of Coletto’s research indicates Albertans think they’re more conservative than they actually are.

“I think it’s historical. You have to always keep in mind the historical political culture of Alberta as being a place that was for most of its history on the outside looking in,” Coletto said. “It is remarkable to think how resilient those views have been and how effectively they’ve been passed down even from generation to generation. If you’re a progressive or an environmental-minded Albertan … that’s always going to be a hurdle in the province.”

But, while being conservative has been a core part of the Alberta identity for a long time, “that identity is starting to be chipped away at,” Coletto says.

Legault said he’s recently been able to start some productive conversations through posting his photographs of the Bighorn Backcountry.

“I think all sides of the conversation need to get over their fear of losing,” he reflected.  “Conservationists need to get over their fear of losing nature and recreationalists need to get over their fear that we’re going to take away everything they care about.”

The irony is people on both sides of the conversation are defending their right to spend time outside in nature.

“There are lots of shared values,” Legault said. “The problem is the divisions are easily exploitable.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The summer of 2017 was an extraordinarily deadly one for North Atlantic right whales, a species already hovering on the brink of extinction.

Investigations are ongoing into the cause of death of 15 right whales off the Atlantic Coast of Canada and the U.S., although it’s not too soon to point the finger at human activity, Megan Leslie, vice president of oceans for WWF-Canada, told DeSmog Canada.

“I’ve been frustrated by reports that we don’t know what’s killing these whales,” Leslie said.

“We do. We know it’s human activity. There haven’t been necropsies on all of the whales, but the ones where there have been it’s clearly been blunt force trauma from ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear.”

As widely reported, a bizarre spat of ten whales were found dead in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in June and July. Since then another five whales have been found floating dead or washed ashore in Canada and the U.S.

There are an estimated 500 right whales, which can grow to be 50 feet long, left in the entire world.

That means the deaths represent three per cent of the global population killed in only one summer.

It’s completely unprecedented.

‘Immediate Measures’ Needed to Save Species

“It is hard to overstate how serious this problem is,” Leslie, who was the former federal NDP environment critic and MP for Halifax, said.

“People have been looking at how to rebuild this population and now with these deaths I’m quite worried that it’s no longer a discussion about how to rebuild the population, but even how to just save it.”

The federal government has introduced some new rules in response, including closing a snow crab fishery, continuing surveillance flights and implementing a temporary mandatory slow-down in the area by about one-third of average speeds.

On Aug. 30, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Dominic LeBlanc announced the government is developing a new set of rules for commercial fishing gear and practices to help prevent deadly entanglements.

But conservationists fear it might not be enough.

ICYMI: Industry Sways Feds to Allow Offshore Drilling in Laurentian Channel Marine Protected Area

“These immediate measures are desperately needed,” said Alexandra Barron, an ocean conservation manager for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, in an interview with DeSmog Canada.

“However, our position is we need to start managing these waters much more proactively and considering the needs of endangered whales.”

North Atlantic right whale entangled in fishing ropes. Photo: NOAA News Archive 123110 via Flickr

Over 70 Per Cent of Right Whales Bear Scars from Fishing Entanglements

Right whales have been killed before in Canadian waters, but the average number of deaths was only 3.8 per year prior to 2017.

That means there’s been a potential tripling of whale casualties in a single year, a huge blow for a population that only recently rebounded from a dangerous low of under 300 whales in the 1990s.

A spokesperson for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) wrote in an e-mail that it takes scientists between six and eight weeks to receive complete results on cause of death for the whales following the necropsies and samples.

Leslie said one of the whales had been caught in fishing gear for two weeks before it died.

More than 70 per cent of North Atlantic right whales actually bear scars from such encounters.

However, due to the tragic death of a member of the Campobello Whale Rescue Team in July 2017 during a disentanglement, the DFO has temporarily suspended all disentanglement operations.

The WWF notes that between 1970 and 2006, humans were responsible of 48 per cent of the deaths of right whales, mostly due to ship strikes or entanglements.

Many Critical Habitats Still Unexplored

However, it’s less known why the whales have moved from the Bay of Fundy or off the coast of Nova Scotia to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, where there’s considerably higher shipping traffic and more fishing gear.

There are some hypotheses around impacts of climate change and water temperatures, with the whales potentially following food sources. However, Barron said that right whales have been in the area and used the Gulf of St. Lawrence prior to this season. It’s difficult to draw any real conclusions without comprehensive coast-wide surveying, she said, in order to find out exactly where the whales might go.

Currently, Canada only has two designated areas of critical right whale habitat: the Grand Manan Basin and Roseway Basin. Barron said that by contrast, the U.S. has effectively designated their entire shelf waters throughout Maine and other northern states as critical habitat.

“We’re likely to see shifts in their movements in future years,” she said. “And we need to start mapping these areas of use and planning for that in the future.”

Between August 23 and 30, an expedition led by Oceana Canada used advanced exploration technology to survey much of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Robert Rangeley, director of science at Oceana Canada and key planner of the expedition, said in an interview with DeSmog Canada that much of the region is still fairly uncharted, pointing to the American Bank (located just off the Gaspé Peninsula in the Quebec portion of the Gulf of St. Lawrence).

“It’s got this official designation as an area of interest for a Marine Protected Area,” he said. “But it’s never been explored. None of these areas have been explored with cameras. We don’t really know what’s down there.”

Such a current lack of knowledge obviously impedes the ability for the federal government to craft appropriate regulations to ensure the survival of right whales and other marine mammals.

3% of World’s #Endangered #RightWhales Died This Summer, Mostly in Canada’s Unprotected Waters https://t.co/duH3p5vLHv #cdnpoli @DLeblancNB

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 1, 2017

Network of Marine Protected Areas Could Help Save Right Whales

And that’s where marine protected areas (MPAs) are supposed to come in.

As previously reported by DeSmog Canada, the federal government is aiming to protect 10 per cent of marine areas by 2020. However, proposed regulations for the Laurentian Channel MPA in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are under serious fire as they currently allow for potential offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling.

Conservationists suggest that a critical way to protect right whales is via the MPA network.

ICYMI: Canada Has Three Years to Increase Protected Areas by 60% And, Um, It’s Not Going to Be Easy

“These processes have been to this point very, very slow,” Barron said. “We need to start moving more quickly on these processes and identifying those potential areas where we may see whales: even if we’re not seeing them this year, that might be where they go next year, and we need to start making sure those sites are properly protected for the whales long into the future.”

Allowing oil and gas activities in the region would result in a series of catastrophic impacts, including increased marine traffic and chances of ship strikes, destruction of zooplankton and other food sources, contamination of food webs with toxic waste and a much higher chance of oil spills.

Unless the federal government protects such areas with strict regulations, there’s no real guarantee that this year’s death toll will be anomalous in the future.

“The deck is stacked against these whales,” Leslie concluded. “There’s so much coming at them, we’ve just got to figure out a way to help them survive.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

In less than three years, Canada has to increase the amount of land and inland waters it protects by 60 per cent to meet a commitment under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.

The commitment requires signatories to legally designate 17 per cent as “protected areas.” Those can include national, provincial and territorial parks, as well as Indigenous protected areas, tribal parks and privately protected spaces. But to qualify, the areas must be closed to industrial activity.

It’s not going to be easy.

At last count, Canada protects a mere 10.6 per cent of its land and inland waters. That’s compared to Venezuela (53.9 per cent protected), Brazil (29.5 per cent protected) and Australia (17 per cent protected).

Canada is officially behind every other G7 country on this front.

“In the last decade — from 2006 to 2016 — we’ve only protected two per cent of our landbase,” said Alison Ronson, national director of the parks program for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, in an interview with DeSmog Canada. “We just need our government to do more. Often, they make announcements that they’re going to protect an area, but then they don’t put that area into a legal designation.”

With such slow progress, time is running out to act.

Canada Has 3 Years to Increase Protected Areas by 60% And, Um, It’s Not Gonna Be Easy https://t.co/fYaKk1s34X @cpaws @ParksCanada #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/Qx88EUkiPF

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) August 25, 2017

Scientific Consensus Suggests Countries Must Protect More Than 50% of Land

Canada signed on to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in 2010.

As with many environmental pledges made under former prime minister Stephen Harper, there were few steps actually taken to meet that target. But Ronson said that “not a lot has happened under the new government,” aside from announcing a new national park in Manitoba and opening the Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve in Newfoundland (which was announced in 2010 under the Conservatives).

However, she did note that the Liberals have kicked off a process to at least get the country to meet its commitments by 2020.

In March 2016, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and then-president Barack Obama made a joint announcement that included: “Canada and the U.S. re-affirm our national goals of protecting at least 17 per cent of land areas and 10 per cent of marine areas by 2020. We will take concrete steps to achieve and substantially surpass these national goals in the coming years.”

The latter sentence is key. Ronson emphasized that 17 per cent by 2020 is simply an “interim target,” and there’s a growing scientific consensus that countries need to be protecting at least half of their landscapes.

That’s right, half.

The vast 68,000 square kilometer wilderness of the Yukon’s Peel watershed is the northern anchor of the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. Photo by Juri Peepre via Flickr

Some Protected Areas Allow Industrial Activities

Another major problem is the actual quality of the protection.

The federal Liberals have already demonstrated that they’re willing to make concessions to industry pressures with the potential allowance of oil and gas exploration in the Laurentian Channel, a proposed Marine Protected Area off the coast of Newfoundland. As previously reported by DeSmog Canada, such a capitulation has angered many in the scientific community, with oil and gas activities in the region undermining any other formal protections.

The same applies to protected land bases.

Ronson said that “across the country, we see protected area legislation that’s fairly weak and allows the ministers a lot of discretion to allow activities which should just be de facto absent from a protected area.”

ICYMI: Industry Sways Feds to Allow Offshore Drilling in Laurentian Channel Marine Protected Area

For instance, in Alberta, the responsible minister can allow rights-of-way and industrial activity within protected areas on a case-by-case basis.

This situation is complicated further by the role of privately protected spaces, such as those held by the Nature Conservancy of Canada, which buys up land and announces it as protected. Ronson noted that often private protection isn’t enough to extinguish some mineral rights, meaning it’s not fully protected from future industrial activities.

Such private lands often protect rare ecosystems like grasslands and Carolinian forests. But she emphasized that “the biggest opportunity in Canada for land protection is on public lands.”

Indigenous Circle of Experts Gathering Perspectives on Process

There’s also huge potential in the process for the expanded acknowledgment of Indigenous sovereignty and stewardship.

To reach “Canada Target 1” of 17 per cent protected areas by 2020, the federal government created three roundtables of sorts. They include the National Steering Committee (including directors of provincial and federal environment and parks departments), the National Advisory Panel (providing recommendations “reflecting a broad spectrum of perspectives”) and the Indigenous Circle of Experts.

Eli Enns, a Nuu-chah-nulth Canadian political scientist and co-chair of the Indigenous Circle of Experts, said in an interview with DeSmog Canada that they’re in the process of completing four regional gatherings to gather perspectives on how to meet Target 1 in the spirit and practice of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

He said the outcome will include a written report and a narrative in the Indigenous oral tradition that won’t be written down but instead be provided in spoken form to the ministers.

“In broad terms, the recommendation would be to honour the treaties,” he said. “The so-called historical treaties have not been honoured. But they do have a lot of potential to give us guidance and help us to achieve our biodiversity targets such as Target 1.

“As soon as you talk to the elders about Target 1, the kneejerk reaction is to say ‘you’re richer than you think.’ Because built into the treaties themselves are ideas, values and laws of respecting the land and respecting one another. These treaties, which are sometimes referred to as numbered treaties, are actually peace and friendship treaties.”

ICYMI: ‘It’s No Longer About Saying No’: How B.C.’s First Nations Are Taking Charge With Tribal Parks

There have already been a series of protected areas created in collaboration with Indigenous communities, including Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve in Haida Gwaii and the proposed Thaidene Nëné National Park Reserve in the Northwest Territories (national park reserves specifically allow Indigenous communities to continue traditional land use practices in the region).

Other Indigenous conserved areas, including Dasiquox Tribal Park in Tsilhqot’in territory and K’ih tsaa?dze in Doig River territory, could receive provincial or federal regognition.

CPAWS Outlined Nine Steps To Help Reach 2020 Target

In its most recent report on protected areas, titled “From Laggard to Leader?” CPAWS listed nine “overarching recommendations” for immediate progress.

They include the implementation of existing commitments to protect land and inland waters, planning beyond 2020 to ensure that at least half of Canada’s land base will be rapidly protected, banning the issuing of permits for industrial development in such areas and developing “landscape scale ecological connectivity strategies.”

It also zeroed in on 13 opportunities for “early action on-the-ground” including the Peel River Watershed in the Yukon, the South Okanagan-Similkameen National Park Reserve in B.C., the Bighorn Backcountry in Alberta, the Saskatchewan Grasslands and the Three Wild Watersheds in Western Quebec. They’re all places where governments have been working for a long time, often with Indigenous partners.

Source: CPAWS Parks Report 2017

Almost everything that needs to happen for the process is already known. The challenge now is simply implementing such knowledge.

Ronson said she suspects the lack of inaction on the subject has been entirely due to a lack of political will. But that may be slowly changing.

“We’re really encouraged that a lot of people are paying attention to parks this year,” she said. “Obviously, a lot of it has to do with the free access to national parks. But we’re hoping that people will realize that parks and protected areas are important not only for protecting species at risk and maintaining biodiversity in our country, but they’re also really important for us: they provide us with clean air and fresh water, and also when people connect with nature they see extremely important physical and mental wellness benefits.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Almost 40 years ago, former federal judge Thomas Berger issued a final report in the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry, at the time Canada’s longest, largest and most comprehensive industrial project review.

The massive two-volume report was the product of exhaustive consultations between 1974 and 1977 with Dene, Métis and Inuit peoples, and recommended that the proposed construction of a gas pipeline be delayed for a full decade in the Northwest Territories and permanently barred from the Northern Yukon as it would “entail irreparable environmental losses of national and international importance.”

It turned out to be an incredibly pivotal moment in the history of Indigenous rights and ecological protections in Canada, arguably helping to preserve the largely pristine Northern Yukon, Mackenzie Delta and Beaufort Sea for the decades since.

And on March 22, 2017 — a single day before his 84th birthday — Berger will fight another battle on behalf of the region, this time representing three Yukon First Nations (Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in, Na-cho Nyak Dun and Vuntut-Gwitchin) and two environmental organizations (Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and Yukon Conservation Society) in the Supreme Court of Canada over land-use planning in the Peel Watershed.

Berger told DeSmog Canada he reentered the fight for the Northern Yukon because what for decades had been protected was now facing new threats.

“The future of this very special place was at stake,” Berger says.

The case Berger is taking to the Supreme Court is complex and somewhat unusual, but fundamentally, it will determine how the future scope of industrial development is decided not only in the Peel Watershed — a 68,000 square kilometre region in the territory’s northeast — but across much of the rest of the Yukon and potentially across Canada.

“This will set the precedent for future land-use planning in the Yukon,” says Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in chief Roberta Joseph.

“It’s a generational hearing that’s happening,” adds Chris Rider, executive director of the Yukon chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS).

Yukon Government Threw Out Five Years of Study For Pro-Industry Plan

First, a little bit of context about the Peel Watershed.

The Peel is a massive region, draining 14 per cent of the Yukon or an area the size of the entire Republic of Ireland.

Six tributaries flow into the Peel River, which itself later flows into the huge Mackenzie River and empties into the Beaufort. And the watershed serves as home to four First Nations (Na-Cho Nyak Dun, Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in, Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation and the Tetlit Gwich’in Council) as well as for important wildlife including the porcupine caribou, grizzly bears and dolly varden trout.

Bobbi Rose Koe, a 27-year-old Tetlit Gwich’in from Fort McPherson, Northwest Territories, emphasizes that her people are who they are because of the Peel River and watershed.

“We go out on the land for ourselves,” she says. “That’s where we feel at home and where we spend our free time. That’s where we get our food from, that’s where we get our fish from, that’s where we get our water from. That’s where my grandparents spent the majority of their time. We have that connection and that’s where we’re rooted to.”

So far, the watershed has been largely untouched by industrial development, despite being described as having “incredible mineral and hydrocarbon potential.” There’s only one major road, located on the far western side of the region.

It’s about as pristine a region as can be found in Canada.

A lone grizzly bear crosses a desolate road in the Northern Yukon. Photo: Peter Mather, all rights reserved.

In 2009, after five years of study and consultation, an independent land-use planning commission concluded that it should largely remain that way; the six-member commission issued a Recommended Plan that would ensure the protection of 80 per cent of the Peel from roads and industry.

That plan was finalized in 2011 after further consultations.

But in January 2014, without any warning and despite having engaged in the aforementioned land-use planning process for many years, the then conservative Yukon Government issued its own plan that only protected 29 per cent of the Peel from new mineral staking or oil and gas exploration.

“It was almost an exact reversal of the original plan,” Rider says. “The impacts would potentially be huge.”

Modern Treaty Process Requires Government to Stick to Planning Rules

Unfortunately for the government, such actions contravened how the land-use planning process must unfold according to provisions in the Umbrella Final Agreement of 1993 (which established a framework for Yukon’s First Nations to sign land claims and self-government agreements).

Chapter 11 of the Umbrella Final Agreement requires that the government “approve, reject or propose modifications” to the Recommended Plan, after which the land-use planning commission reconsiders the plan and submits a Final Recommended Plan to the government.

In 2014, a Yukon Supreme Court judge decided the government failed to follow that process with its last-minute rejection of the Final Recommended Plan; by previously submitting a letter with suggestions for minor modifications to the Recommended Plan — as opposed to an outright rejection of it — the government implicitly agreed to continue with the process.

As a result, the judge set aside the government’s industry-friendly plan of 2014, and ordered the process be rewound to the stage of final consultation so the process could be completed under the rules of the Umbrella Final Agreement.

Berger paraphrases the judge’s argument to the government as: “If you wanted to reject it, that’s what you should have done at the outset and given written reasons, but what you did was propose modifications and in those modifications you never argued about the amount of land protected. If this procedure is to mean anything at all, you have to be obliged to live by what you agreed to.”

Court of Appeals Verdict ‘Really Made A Mess of Things’

This was considered a major win for the plaintiffs: all the hard work that had been completed by the land-use planning commission would be retained, as well as the recommendations of limited industrial development.

But the verdict was appealed. In 2015, a Yukon Court of Appeals judge agreed that the government had behaved inappropriately in replacing the Final Recommended Plan with its own land-use plan after submitting proposed modifications, “failing to honour the letter and spirit of its treaty obligations.”

However, instead of rewinding the process to the point of final consultations, the judge ordered it back to the 2010 stage — prior to the government issuing its approval, rejection or proposed modifications — which would allow the Yukon government to effectively have a do-over. In addition, the judge reiterated the government’s final authority to reject any plan that results from the lengthy process and adopt a plan of their own.

The appellants contend that verdict was a serious mistake and, unless unchallenged, will grant the territorial government far too much power over the land-use planning process. That in turn could erode the purpose of the Final Agreements.

In the words of Christina Macdonald, executive director of the Yukon Conservation Society, “it really made a mess of things.”

Berger says it puts at risk all of the foundational work previously laid: “If you want this process to work and all parties to proceed in good faith, you can’t allow Yukon to pull a completely new plan out of its hip pocket at the end of the day and reject all that has gone before.”

New Government Pledge to Implement Original Plan But Still Want Case Dismissed

The situation is only made more complex by the fact that a new territorial government was elected in November 2016, with the winning Yukon Liberals promising to implement the land-use planning commission’s original Final Recommended Plan.

In other words, the Supreme Court of Canada case is going to be a fight between two parties who ostensibly both want to see 80 per cent of the Peel Watershed protected from industrial development.

However, the new Yukon government maintains the current Supreme Court appeal should be rejected, arguing that the process: 1) be rewound to the first round of consultations; and 2) allow the government to retain the ultimate power to reject any plan that is recommended by a land-use planning commission regardless of whether the process was conducted in good faith or not.

Macdonald explains that if the Supreme Court doesn’t set aside the Court of Appeal ruling it will mean that: “We can go through this process, Yukon government can play along, opt to modify the plan at the early stage of consultations but ultimately just be like ‘we don’t like that plan, here’s our own plan.’

“That’s what happened with the Peel,” she continues. “And our argument is that is not in keeping with what the creators of these Final Agreements intended.”

The Yukon government did not respond to a request for comment.

In its January 2017 factum for the Supreme Court case, the government’s legal counsel contended that setting aside the ability to reject any future Final Recommended Plan “would have the effect of turning the final land use plan approval decision over to the commission, contrary to the scheme of the Final Agreements.”

That’s ultimately the key disagreement.

The appellants contend that the independent land-use planning commission should in fact have a final approval decision of sorts, separate from any political bias or influence.

And in addition, that if First Nations are going to be truly equal partners in the land management and development, that the planning process as articulated in the Umbrella Final Agreement must be honoured.

“If everyone else is engaged in this process in good faith and done what they need to do then it should be essentially a binding process,” Rider says. “This government may be committed to acting in a fair and reasonable way. But there’s no guarantee that a future government would be. It’s important we get that precedent right, now.”

“The Court of Appeals judgment undermines the land-use planning process not only for the Peel but for every region of the Yukon over a period of what may well be decades,” Berger concludes. “It’s important that this matter be determined now.”

The Supreme Court can take six months or more to issue a verdict following a hearing.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Eighteen Canadian charities have written a letter to the country’s political parties asking them for platform commitments to enhance the ability for charities to engage in public policy debates.

The charities argue in their letter that “without years of organizing effort by Canadian charities, Canada would not have dealt with issues such as addressing acid rain, promoting safe driving, reducing smoking and banning toxic chemicals.”

The chief concern lies around the current regulation of so-called “political activities” — defined by the Canada Revenue Agency as any activity that seeks to change, oppose or retain laws or policies. Charities are currently limited to spending ten per cent of their resources on these “political activities.”

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

Groups that signed onto the letter include Oxfam Canada, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Amnesty International Canada, David Suzuki Foundation and Equiterre.

“Our society has evolved and our legislation hasn’t,” Eric Hebert Daly, executive director of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, told DeSmog Canada.

Charities have changed from being primarily service providers — doing things like running soup kitchens and helping the disabled — to contributing direct knowledge of social issues to public policy debates, Hebert Daly argued.

“It seems ridiculous to not let the experts be the ones to speak out on issues that they’re experts in,” he said. “If you’re a corporation, you can write off 100 per cent of your spending on political activity and have no restrictions whatsoever, but if you’re a charity you can only write off 10 per cent. There’s a real discrepancy there that doesn’t seem to make sense.”

Right now, the letter the charities sent to federal politicians would qualify as “political activity” and would need to be accounted for under the ten per cent rule.

“When they hear political activity, most people think ‘supporting a political party’ but there’s a huge gap between creating public policy and supporting a political party,” Hebert Daly said.

Charities are banned from taking part in “partisan activity” (supporting or opposing a candidate or political party).

Several of the charities that signed onto the letter have been audited since 2012, when the federal government dedicated $13.4 million to the Canada Revenue Agency to audit the political activities of charities.

The groups argue in their letter that the current regulations are confusing:

“A confusing regulatory environment leaves many would-be advocates unclear how proactively charities can advocate for policy change. The existing interpretation of the Income Tax Act appears to be open to widely divergent interpretations of what constitutes charitable activity … The result is a chill where charities feel that their efforts are being discouraged, subjected to rhetorical attacks or harsh or arbitrary review.”

Hebert Daly says all political parties should be interested in reforming the law so there is no question about arbitrary application of the rules or silencing of dissent.

“The fact that the interpretation itself can change at any moment is part of the problem,” he said. “It would simply take a bureaucrat three seconds to change their mind at CRA and we’d be way above the 10 per cent.”

The groups are asking for an open consultation process involving a broad range of charities and the public to help develop new regulations for the sector.

“The debate on this has really just started,” Hebert Daly said. “I think you need to have an open and honest conversation in the public view about what makes sense in terms of modernizing the Income Tax Act.”

Photo: Dave King via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A little-known Bill, the Park Amendment Act, that will drastically alter the management of B.C. parks is set to become law today, creating controversy among the province’s most prominent environmental and conservation organizations. The passage of Bill 4 will make way for industrial incursions into provincial parklands including energy extraction, construction of pipelines and industry-led research.

The Bill, quietly introduced in mid-February, has already met significant resistance in B.C. where the Minister of Environment received “thousands of letters” of opposition, according to Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society’s Peter Wood. “There has been absolutely zero public consultation, and the pace at which this was pushed through suggests this was never a consideration,” he said in a press release.

“This Bill undermines the very definition of what a ‘park’ is,” Gwen Barlee from the Wilderness Committee said in the same statement, “given that our protected areas will now be open to industrial activity.”

“This is a black day for B.C. Parks – the provincial government is ensuring that none of our parks are now safe from industrial development,” she said.

According to staff lawyer Andrew Gage with the West Coast Environmental Law the bill is “difficult to square” with the sentiments underlying the B.C. Parks Service, which claims provincial parks and conservancies are a “public trust” for the “protection of natural environments for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public.”

In an overview piece, Gage wrote “Bill 4 allows for industry (and others) to carry out ‘research’ in provincial parks related to pipelines, transmission lines, roads and other industrial activities that might require park land. It also reduces legal protection for smaller parks.”

He noted that preliminary ‘research’ carried out by mining company Taseko in preparation for an environmental assessment of the controversial Prosperity Mine included the drilling of 59 test pits, eight drill holes 50 to 75 metres in depth, and ten holes roughly 250 metres in depth to collect metallurgical samples. The tests also required the creation of 23.5 kilometres of exploratory trails.

Bill 4 claims permits for ‘research’ will only be considered after a “thorough review of protected area values,” yet, Gage writes, “this requirement is nowhere to be found in Bill 4.”

This amounts to a “’trust, us, we’re government’ approach,” writes Gage.

Previously park use permits were only granted to those able to demonstrate the proposed activity was “necessary for the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park involved.” Bill 4 rids the Park Act of this safeguard.

“The government has sent a clear signal that it is open to having pipelines cut through our globally renowned protected areas,” said Al Martin of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. “The Act will now allow industrial expansion in some of B.C.’s most beloved parks, placing them at risk.”

Critics are also concerned the changes will open pristine landscapes to environmentally destructive oil and gas extraction processes.

“This legislation opens the door to pipelines, oil and gas drilling and industrial activities that are counter to the values that created our parks system,” said Darryl Walker from the B.C. Government and Service Employees’ Union. “If Bill 4 passes, 2014 will be the year that B.C. Parks changed forever,” he said.

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and a group of other environmental NGOs have already collected nearly 10,000 signatures and letters in an effort to stop the implementation of the bill.

These groups are claiming the total lack of public consultation left local communities, park users and conservation groups out of the decision making process. 

Image Credit: Garth Lenz, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A world heritage site in Newfoundland is under extreme threat from fracking, according to a recent report by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS). The report, entitled “One Step Forward / Two Steps Back” says Gros Morne Park, along with several other nationally and provincially protected areas, is in danger from “inappropriate development.”

Recently, a proposal by Shoal Point Energy Limited and several other companies to search for oil in the rock layers just metres from the park's border captured the attention of The United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). During its June meeting in Phnom Penh, Cambodia UNESCO delegates drafted a resolution to ask for further environmental review from the Canadian government.

UNESCO declared Gros Morne Park a world heritage site in 1987 because it offers a unique glimpse into the tectonic processes that formed the east coast through continental drift. The coveted designation marks the park for protection alongside the world’s most important natural and cultural landmarks.

Robert Cadigan, president and CEO of the Newfoundland and Labrador Oil and Gas Industries Association, tried to quell fears in an interview with MacLean’s Magazine by pointing to the industry’s safety record. “There have been tens of thousands of wells fracked in Western Canada, just as an example — successfully — with no environmental damage.”

But the CPAWS report points out that development would greatly increase traffic on the park’s one road as well as lead to possible ground water contamination. It may also endanger the area’s well-developed tourism industry.

“For 30 years people have worked really hard to build a sustainable tourism industry around Gros Morne, based on Gros Morne. And this proposal would put that existing economy at risk,” pointed out CPAWS representative Alison Woodley.

Other dangers to the Canadian park system mentioned in the CPAWS report include the Yukon territorial government’s scrapping of its Peel Watershed Planning commission.

A major sub-basin of the Mackenzie River, the Peel Watershed is a largely pristine wilderness with massive biodiversity. There is currently a moratorium on development while consultations with First Nations groups continue, but there are already 8431 active mineral claims in the area, 6773 of which were staked after the planning process began.

After seven years of study, First Nations groups and the territorial government recommended 80% of the watershed be protected. Shortly thereafter, the plan was scrapped entirely. In February, Green Party leader Elizabeth May wrote an open letter to the Yukon government urging them to take the commission’s advice.

Ontario too backed away from its 2010 commitment to increase the protected area in Algonquin Park from 22% to 49%.

On the federal scale, budget cutbacks of $30 million per year have lead to a 30% reduction in ecosystem scientist positions and put some major ecological restoration programs on hold.

The report from CPAWS also called out Manitoba for continuing to allow mining and logging in protected areas. Although Manitoba agreed to ban peat mining in February of this year, the province is still in the process of approving a copper mine in Grass River Provincial Park.

The Hudbay copper mine will be situated by Reed Lake, a crucial travel corridor for endangered woodland caribou.

In terms of future recommendations, the report suggests strengthening regulations against oil and gas exploration in Nova Scotia’s Sable Island National Park. The area was designated a national park in June.

"Yesterday, oil and gas companies could drill on Sable Island and today with royal assent they won’t be able to," said Halifax MP and NDP environment critic Megan Leslie.

The Green Party objected to the designation, saying stronger protections are needed to stop oil and gas exploration in the area.

The CPAWS report points out that southern Alberta’s Castle wilderness area, which has been endangered by logging, oil and gas exploration, may become a Wildland and Provincial Park.

The region features spectacular rock formations and supplies drinking and agricultural water for 70 communities. Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development will have a land use report on the area available in August.

Canada’s national and provincial parks provide not only spectacular views for tourists but also preserve wildlife diversity and assure a clean water supply for much of the country. CPAWS collaborates with indigenous people, local communities, governments and industry to ensure that this continues to be true. Their goal is to protect half of Canada’s public land and water. 

Image Credit: VisitGrosMorne via Flickr Image Credit: peelwatershed via Flickr Image Credit: Charles Truscott via CPAWS

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.