Oilsands monitoring programs aren’t quite living up to expectations.

That was the conclusion presented by a six-person expert panel in Edmonton on February 22.

The two organizations that were examined — the Joint Canada-Alberta Plan for Oil Sands Monitoring (JOSM) and Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency (AEMERA) — have improved in performance in recent years, according to the review.

But the organizations have largely failed at actually conducting analysis of the data collected about the four component areas: air, water, wildlife contaminants and toxicology, and biodiversity and land disturbance.

In addition, both JOSM and AEMERA have lacked clear mandates, a fact that has “severely hampered” success.

“The work of the Panel was made more challenging by the absence of an overarching document that clearly articulates the policy and scientific goals of the Governments of Canada and Alberta for oil sands monitoring,” according to the report, which was commissioned by AEMERA and Environment and Climate Change Canada.

AEMERA Struggling to Fulfill Mandate

Such revelations didn’t come as much a shocker for Martin Olszynski, assistant professor in law at University of Calgary who specializes in environmental and natural resources law.

“As someone who’s tried to use the data that’s been generated, I wasn’t surprised at all,” he says. “It’s very hard for anyone without training in all of the metrics. It’s very technical data that someone like myself — and I’m not a total novice when it comes to this — couldn’t make heads or tails of.”

AEMERA was established after Bill 31 — also known as the Protecting Alberta’s Environment Act — received royal assent in December 2013. Prior to then the JOSM handled the monitoring, evaluation and reporting activities.

But the hand-off of responsibilities to AEMERA hasn’t been straight-forward. The new organization, which receives most funding from industry, works with a limited budget of $50 million and has gone through three chiefs executives since its inception.

The province’s auditor general also shamed the organization in his October 2014 report for a lack of clarity and failure to include key details in reporting.

Programs Receive ‘B’ Grade from Panel

To be sure, the panel’s review praised data collection by the two organizations. Clarkson University’s Philip Hopke, who served as chair of the panel, gave the programs a ‘B’ grade at the press conference. There have been increases in sampling sites, frequency of sampling and geographical coverage.

Olszynski says it’s “mostly a good news story.”

But the data collected between 2012 and 2015 still hasn’t been processed or published in a way that can be understood by the public. It’s a problem that was predicted back in a June 2011 report by the Alberta Environmental Monitoring Panel, which emphasized that “monitoring by itself is not sufficient.”

“The value that the environmental monitoring system brings to stakeholders will only be fully realized with appropriate information dissemination activities,” noted the authors of the report.

Results Could be Suppressed

It’s an issue that Olszynski has observed for a long while. He says the translation of information to something that laypeople can understand is imperative to the success of the program.

An associated problem is that AEMERA isn’t yet a “household name,” meaning reporting that carried politically negative news (say, as a hypothetical, increased air pollution in a certain site) could be more easily muffled.

“Unfortunately, because they haven’t done that work to transmit that information that average Albertans and other stakeholders can use, my fear is that if tomorrow Alberta said ‘yeah, we understand this but we’re just not prepared to go ahead with this,’ I don’t think there would be much of a fuss that they would kick up,” he says.

Funding Woes in Tough Economic Times

Fred Wrona, vice-president and chief scientist at AEMERA, noted earlier this month that the organization is preparing to present findings this fall. In addition, AEMERA will be increasing staff numbers from 85 to 130 in the coming years.

The panel noted the utility of the information portal could be boosted with additional funding. However, Olszynski’s skeptical of the likelihood of “significant investments and resources” being directed towards the organization given current economic circumstances.

“I’m not sure it’s going to happen in the next couple of years,” he says. “That’s maybe forgivable.”

“But at least stay the course, don’t abandon the thing entirely,” he advises. “Keep it working as it is. It would be nice to have that comprehensive analysis now, but it’s not the end of the world if we don’t, and other people can maybe step up. But don’t stop collecting that data or doing the actual work of monitoring.”

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.

"Transparent,” “credible, “world-class” — those are just a few of the words that have been deployed to detail the aspirations of the one-year-old organization tasked with monitoring the air, water, land and wildlife in Alberta.

But there are a lot of questions about whether the Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency (AEMERA), funded primarily by industry, has lived up to its goal to track the condition of the province’s environment.*

Unlike the Alberta Energy Regulator, which the new NDP government is considering splitting into two agencies to separate its conflicting responsibilities to both promote and policy energy development, AEMERA hasn’t spent much time in the public spotlight — yet.

Last October, Alberta’s auditor general slammed the agency for releasing its 2012-2013 annual report in June 2014, well after when it should have been released. The auditor general also said the report “lacked clarity and key information and contained inaccuracies.”

Many of the agency’s projects were missing several details and the auditor general cautioned such omissions “may jeopardize AEMERA’s ability to monitor the cumulative effects of oil sands development.”

And that’s a pretty big problem. Because if Canada is to feasibly establish a strong environmental record, it’s going to need stringent monitoring in Alberta, especially in the Lower Athabasca region where the bulk of the province’s energy industry operates.

The Birth of A Really Long Acronym: AEMERA

AEMERA was dreamt up in 2011 as a means to coalesce the dozens of monitoring organizations working in the province under one banner, firewalling the result from government and industry to avoid conflicts of interest.

Martin Olszynski, an assistant professor in law at University of Calgary who specializes in environmental law, notes that at the time of the agency’s inception, international pressure was limiting market access for oil.

“When someone went to check on the monitoring system, it turned out it was a mess,” Olsznynski says. “We weren’t getting the data that we needed.”

AEMERA — with the Joint Canada-Alberta Plan for Oil Sands Monitoring serving as the transition agency for the three years prior to its official birth — was crafted to solve that problem.

Yet Bill 31, the piece of legislation that conjured up the arms-length agency in late 2013, faced considerable criticism from the get-go. Opposition parties pleaded for more than a dozen amendments.

Many of the proposed tweaks would have addressed the tight relationship between government and the monitoring agency. Amongst other things, the legislation suggested the environment minister would appoint the board and choose when data was released to the public.

Shaun Fluker, an associate professor of law at the University of Calgary, wrote in a 2014 post that the latter provision “arguably undermines the whole structure and suggests that politics can and will override science and transparency on environmental monitoring and reporting.”

All the proposed amendments were shot down. Lorne Taylor, former environment minister under Ralph Klein and renowned anti-Kyoto Accord activist, was appointed as chair of the board. Little has changed since.

Unlike other agencies, AEMERA doesn’t mandate quotas for groups or interests on the board. As a result, Bigstone Cree elder Mike Beaver is the sole indigenous representative on the agency’s seven-member board.

Traditional Ecological Knowledge, a method of integrating indigenous worldviews into policymaking, was listed as a priority in AEMERA’s founding document — yet the auditor generals’ report noted that just three of 38 of AEMERA’s projects surveyed involved Traditional Ecological Knowledge.

Val Mellesmoen, spokesperson for AEMERA, says the organization is working hard to foster strong relationships with indigenous people. In mid-June, the organization appointed a Traditional Ecological Knowledge panel to focus on such issues.

Insufficient Funding for Mobile Air Monitoring Van

Then there’s the overarching issue of funding. Exactly $50 million was decided upon as the max that industry would contribute per year, a number that features a “conspicuously round nature,” Olszynski says.

In late March, news broke that the Wood Buffalo Environmental Association — historically the recipient of the largest amount of money for monitoring — couldn’t afford the $500,000 price tag for a new mobile air monitoring testing van on account of a lack of funding.

Andrew Read, policy analyst at the Pembina Institute, says there’s no public information available as to why $50 million was chosen as the funding cap; he has submitted multiple requests to the federal government (which coordinated the interim monitoring framework prior to AEMERA’s takeover), but hasn’t received any clarification.

Mellesmoen, the agency’s spokesperson, says it was a “gentlemen’s agreement” with the number determined by “an initial estimate that was based on industry providing an overview of what they felt they were currently spending as individual companies.”

Mellesmoen — who previously served as Taylor’s spokesperson when he was an MLA and minister — says there are questions within the agency about the reasoning for the cap.

“Even that funding model needs to be maybe looked at in the long run,” she says.

New NDP Government Could Amend Bill 31

Olszynski says the newly elected NDP could amend Bill 31 to deal with such issues. Prior to being elected as premier, Rachel Notley was an outspoken critic of the monitoring agency, at one point asserting the organization was “nowhere near ready to assume responsibility for the [Lower Athabasca] region.”

The NDP’s platform also pledged to “strengthen environmental standards, inspection, monitoring and enforcement to protect Alberta’s water, land and air.”

This week’s decision to revisit the Alberta Energy Regulator’s mandate represents that focus. The press secretary for Minister of Environment Shannon Phillips didn’t respond to multiple requests for an interview on the subject.

International Experts to Evaluate Oilsands Monitoring

An international panel composed of six scientists will evaluate the performance of the new monitoring system. It plans to “evaluate the extent to which the implementation of the Joint Canada-Alberta Oil Sands Monitoring (JOSM) has improved the scientific integrity of environmental monitoring in the oil sands.”

The panel will deliver its report this fall, which will “help determine the next steps on the oilsands monitoring design and implementation.”

Olszynski emphasizes the uniqueness of AEMERA

“It’s an experiment, an innovative one, an important one,” he says.

Yet there’s much more to be done: stable funding must be solidified, the line between cabinet and organization must be clarified and the data must be analyzed and reported on in a way that regular Albertans can understand. AEMERA also has to expand its monitoring province-wide to fulfill its mandate.

“AEMERA needs to step out and demonstrate that they’re acting in the public interest,” Read says. “We want to see a demonstration of AEMERA actively taking and delivering that unbiased information to the government and providing a perspective on the current state of the environment.”

* Clarification Notice: This article originally stated that AEMERA is funded 100 per cent by industry. While AEMERA gets the bulk of its funding from industry, the agency also receives government funding for general operations and monitoring, evaluation and reporting activities in other areas of the province

Image: Kris Krug 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 study has found evidence of rising mercury levels downstream from Northern Alberta’s oil sands extraction plants.

Researchers collected gull and tern eggs from nests in various locations around Alberta over several years. Eggs collected in the Athabasca Lake area, downstream of oil sands' development and refineries, showed much higher levels of mercury than those collected nearer to Calgary.

The Joint Oil Sands Monitoring (JOSM) Program, a partnership between federal and provincial governments, commissioned the peer-reviewed study, but it has yet to appear on their online portal. The Environmental Science and Technology Journal released the study online this September.

A similar study in 2011 by the same authors also found mercury levels in gulls from the Lake Athabasca area showed a 40% increase from 1977 to 2009.

The authors of both studies were reticent to make a direct connection between the eggs' proximity to oil sands operations and increased levels of mercury, saying more study is required to find the exact cause. “We can’t link the mercury levels we’re seeing in these bird eggs specifically to oil sands. Certainly that’s one possibility, but there are other possibilities as well,” author Dr. Hebert told the Globe & Mail. Other possible factors include mercury pollution from coal power plants in Asia.

In 2010, 824 kg of mercury were amongst the toxic materials found in oil sands tailings ponds, according to data from the National Pollutant Release Inventory compiled by the Pembina Institute. Between 2006 and 2010 the amount of mercury added to tailings ponds rose 80 per cent.

In June of this year, Alberta’s Energy Resources Conservation Board found that several oil sands companies weren’t hitting their targets for reducing toxic tailings ponds.

Neither article concludes that wildlife in the area are currently adversely affected by the mercury levels, but if those levels continue to rise, the results could be very serious.

Mercury is a bioaccumulative toxin, meaning it accumulates in the body of an organism for its entire lifespan. Bioaccumulated toxins are also passed up the food chain, leading to higher levels of toxins in more apex predators. Because the Peace-Athabasca Delta is an international staging area for wildlife, the mercury that birds ingest in the region could be spread through food chains all over the world.

Mercury poisoning can have devastating long-term effects on both humans and wildlife. A recent study by Japanese researcher Doctor Masazumi Harada found that two First Nations communities in Ontario that suffered mercury poisoning from nearby pulp and paper mills are still feeling the impacts nearly 50 years later.

Earlier this month, the government of Canada was one of 140 countries to sign the Minamata Treaty, a legally binding international agreement aimed at reducing mercury levels worldwide. Upon signing, Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq acknowledged the global nature of the issue in an official statement.

“Signing this treaty reinforces Canada’s commitment to protecting the Arctic ecosystem, the health of our indigenous peoples, Northerners and the global population,” said Aglukkaq, who is also Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council.

Mary Richardson, a spokesperson for the Keepers of the Athabasca, worries that the needs of the oil sands industry will outweigh Canada’s global commitments in this area, just as they did with tailings ponds. “Mercury levels have been going down in Canada for the last forty years and now it appears they’re going up in the tar sands area, which is absolutely unacceptable,” she said.

A professor emeritus in philosophy from the University of Athabasca, Richardson has been involved with environmental groups based in the region for more than 20 years. This year, she was tapped to be part of an environmental non-governmental organization advisory committee for the JOSM, but has only been called to one meeting to date and does not speak on the organization’s behalf.

“This article is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what we need to know,” says Richardson. “The eggs were presumably analysed for a lot of other contaminants, but research has not been published for those levels.”

She would like to see numbers for hydrocarbons, arsenic, and other heavy metals, just to name a few of the toxic substances that are related to oil sands extraction.

Still, she is cautiously optimistic about the study, saying that being published in an independent, peer-reviewed journal lends it and the JOSM credibility. “My view is that this article does represent credible science done on the subject,” she says. “The article is careful both in its description of the analysis and in its conclusions.”

Transparency, she believes, is key to the process. “That’s why this program [the JOSM] is important,” she continues. “If in fact the results are open and there’s enough pressure from concerned members of the public, then perhaps something can be done.”

Image Credit: p.Gordon 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.

More than a year after the program's supposed implementation, negotiations over the Alberta-Canada Joint Oil Sands Monitoring (JOSM) program were still ongoing between the federal government and the Government of Alberta, email correspondence shows.

In documents obtained by the Globe and Mail through the Access to Information Act, it’s clear that the conditions of the program changed throughout the last year. Though details are unclear due to redactions in the released emails, it’s evident that the final deal wasn’t signed until June of this year after significant back and forth and meetings between the Alberta government—who publicly resisted the creation of joint provincial-federal program—and Environment Canada officials.

Bob Hamilton, Environment Canada’s deputy minister, wrote on March 28 of this year, more than a full year after the program was announced, that they “have a green light to move forward with OS [oilsands] monitoring.”

The program was designed to increase monitoring of air, water and habitat quality from annual to monthly, with results available to the public to allow for independent scientific investigation. Full reports were to be issued annually.

After independently appointed panels at both the provincial and federal levels deemed Alberta’s monitoring systems inadequate, the Government of Alberta still balked at the prospect of the federal government implementing a new monitoring system.

The newly released emails indicate continued pushback from Alberta and an unwillingness to face the full extent of the gaps in existing environmental monitoring policy.

One email shows that Alberta’s Deputy Minister of Environment Dana Woodworth believed the province’s existing system left it “well-positioned” to implement a new monitoring regime, in spite of widespread criticism of that system.

The final agreement also states than while the program is intended to undergo a full review in 2015, three years from the time it was announced, either party can cancel the program with six months’ notice.

Given the program's internal disorder, it is unsurprising the first results commissioned by the monitoring program have only just been publicly released.

A study conducted by Environment Canada shows rising levels of mercury in bird eggs tested downstream from the Alberta tar sands. Some samples taken from the eggs of predatory birds showed traces of mercury that exceed the threshold of what’s considered dangerous. The findings indicate mercury levels could be rising in the fish the birds consume. The report was published online last month by the Environmental Science and Technology Journal.

In spite of what the study’s lead author called a trend of rising levels of mercury, spokeswoman for the Alberta government Jessica Potter told First Nations residents of Fort Chipewyan and Fort McKay that the bird eggs were still safe to eat.

“It’s one study. It doesn’t necessarily indicate a trend. It’s just important that we continue to look into it,” she told the Globe and Mail.

And while the Alberta Government shared the results with those communities and the study was published academically, the results weren't made publicly available on the JOSM Portal website. An agreement signed in June states that all data produced through the program will be publicly accessible via the portal. Although the website lists ongoing testing, many of the results tables state that results will be released in coming months.

Screen shot taken from the JOSM water monitoring page.

Environment Canada researchers said they couldn’t pinpoint the tar sands or any single factor as the cause of mercury increase, though one test revealed that mercury levels had risen two thirds since 1977 and the early days of tar sands' development. Dr. Craig Hebert said coal plants in Asia are a source of elemental gaseous mercury in North America and could possibly be a contributor to the increase.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), Canada's largest oil and gas lobby body and the only non-government body involved in the development of the joint monitoring program, has declined to comment on the results of the latest study.

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.