and why we did it.

Warning
This program
contains coarse
language
Some viewers may
be offended
Outline
• What we did
– and why we did it.
• What are cumulative effects?
• What is the problem?
• Some thoughts about a solution
• Summary
– a proposed framework
An Independent Watchdog for
Sound Forest and Range Practices
in British Columbia
Board Mandate
Forest & Range Practices Act
Forestry
Wildfire Act
Range Use
Oil and Gas Activities
Mining
Hydro-Electric Power
Wind Farms
Water Withdrawal
Agriculture
Hunting
Tourism
the list goes on . . . and on
Mandate for the project
Forest and Range Practices Act
Section 135:
If the chair considers a special report to be in
the public interest, he may make a special
report . . . relating generally to . . . the board's
duties under this Act.
What we did
Review of
“the”
literature
and
other paper
Part of a
Complaint
Investigation
Cumulative
Effects
Case Study
Extensive
formal and
informal
discussions
Case
Study:
Cumulative
effects
assessment
Kiskatinaw
River
Watershed
What we did
Review of
“the”
literature
and
other paper
Part of a
Complaint
Investigation
Cumulative
Effects
Case Study
Extensive
formal and
informal
discussions
Outline
• What we did
• What are cumulative effects?
• What is the problem?
• Some thoughts about a solution
• Summary
– a proposed framework
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
What we did
What are cumulative effects?
What is the problem?
Some thoughts about a solution
Summary
– a proposed framework
This is Broken
The impotence of cumulative
effects assessment in Canada: ailments and ideas for
Duinker P. and Greig L. 2006.
redeployment. Environmental Management. 37(2):153–61.
A profound misunderstanding:
Current vs.
Wildesen, L. 2009.
best practices in US CEA. Presented at the IAIA Meeting Calgary AB Nov. 7 2009.
Promise and dismay:
The state of strategic environmental
Noble, B. 2009.
assessment systems and practices in Canada. Environmental Impact Assessment Review
29:66-75.
Project-level impact assessments
are not suited to
cumulative effects assessment
• Focus on project approval – by the proponent.
• Getting a complete “context” is unreasonable.
• No guidance about effect significance (most values).
• “First come – best served” land use patterns.
The broader issues
“Death by a thousand cuts”
Authorized activities in the Kiskatinaw
n
3
13
15
16
20
24
25
29
33
96
200
802
Activity
Guide/outfitter territories
Licensed waterworks
Forest licences
Registered traplines
Recreational tenures
Range use permits
Temporary water withdrawal locations
Coal mining tenures
Water licences
“Miscellaneous” permits (e.g. quarrying, wind power)
Oil and gas exploration and development permits
Right- of-ways, primarily for pipelines and utilities
The broader issues
“No one to tell”
Possible Tools (in British Columbia)
• Existing Legislation (examples)
– Land Act; Section 93.1 “balancing multiple natural resource uses”
– Environment and Land Use Act
– Environmental Assessment Act; Section 11(2)(b)
• Policy/Legislation in development (examples)
– “One window[s?]” on Government authorizations
– Environmental mitigation and offsetting policy
– Water act modernization
– Cumulative Effects Assessment Pilot Projects
http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/sites/default/files/resources/public/PDF/LRMP/status_LUP_map_201206.pdf
By Marvin Eng
Outline
•
•
•
•
What we did
What are cumulative effects?
What is the problem?
Some thoughts about a solution
– Values
– The role of science
– Objectives and limits
– Monitoring
• Summary
– a proposed framework
Values
416
417
VALUE
Values in Kiskatinaw Case Study
Valuable Thing
Conferred Value (examples)
• Drinking Water
• A way of life in Dawson Creek
• Forest Soil
• A viable forest industry
• (A viable natural gas industry)
• Cultural rights (of Aboriginal
people)
• “a canary in the coal mine”
(duty to future generations)
• Caribou habitat
Outline
•
•
•
•
What we did
What are cumulative effects?
What is the problem?
Some thoughts about a solution
– Values
– The role of science in natural resource management
– Objectives and limits
– Monitoring
• Summary
– a proposed framework
“scientific uncertainty, . . . , can be understood
not as a lack of scientific understanding but as
the lack of coherence
among competing
scientific understandings, amplified by the
various political, cultural, and institutional
contexts within which the science is carried out.”
Sarewitz, D. 2004.
How science makes environmental controversies worse.
Env. Sci. & Pol. 7:385-403
In this issue:
Perspective articles
on
Fin Fish
Aquaculture
The Association of
Professional Biology
February 2010
BC salmon farms:
“will destroy both the
wild and farm salmon”
Alexandra Morton
Whale researcher, San Diego Museum.
Coastal Alliance
for Aquaculture Reform.
“presented a low overall risk
to the environment”
Sharon DeDominicis
Environmental Sustainability Manager
Marine Harvest Canada
(salmon aquaculture company)
“The salmon farming industry and DFO should
refrain from selectively citing science.”
Alexandra Morton, B.Sc. RPBio.
“science supplies contesting parties with
bodies of relevant, legitimated facts about
nature, chosen in part because they help
make sense of, and are made sensible by,
their particular interests and normative
frameworks”
Sarewitz, D. 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse.
Env. Sci. & Pol. 7:385-403
“The technical debate – and the implicit
promise that ‘more research’ will tell us
what to do – [destroys] the will to act. Not
only does the value dispute remain
unresolved, but the underlying problem
remains unaddressed.”
Sarewitz, D. 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse.
Env. Sci. & Pol. 7:385-403
The Royal Society
1660
Harvard University
1636
Nullius in verba
“On no man’s word”
Veritas
“Truth”
Trust =
Science as an
institution
Chapter 1
Stephen
Shapin
Assumptions =
Valuable truth
Chapter 24
Nicholas
Maxwell
Is Science
Neurotic
Mottos
ofthethe
Ivy
League
schools
Table 1. Mottos of
Ivy League
schools
(sorted by date
of establishment of the institution)
Institution
Harvard
rd
Yale
Princeton
Columbia
Pennsylvania
Brown
Dartmouth
Cornell
Latin
Veritas
Lux et veritas
Dei sub numine viget
In lumine Tuo videbimus lumen
Leges sine moribus vanae
In Deo Speramus
Vox clamantis in deserto
N/A
English
Year Established
Truth
1636
Light and truth
1701
Under God's power she flourishes
1746
In Thy light shall we see light
1754
Laws without morals are in vain
1755
In God we hope
1764
The voice of one crying in the wilderness
1769
I would found an institution where any person 1865
can find instruction in any study
Is Science
Neurotic
Outline
•
•
•
•
What we did
What are cumulative effects?
What is the problem?
Some thoughts about a solution
– Values
– The role of science
– Objectives and limits
– Monitoring
• Summary
– a proposed framework
Objectives
• Specific, measurable, . . . . .
• Limits rather than Thresholds.
Setting Limits
• Science
(possibly including thresholds)
• Community Knowledge
• Adaptive Management
• Trade-off Analysis
• Flexibility
Kennett (2006) From science-based
thresholds to regulatory limits: . . .
For Environment Canada Northern Div.
Setting Limits (the parent’s dilemma)
Kennett (2006) From science-based
thresholds to regulatory limits: . . .
For Environment Canada Northern Div.
Setting Limits (the parent’s dilemma)
• Science
– X hours, but depends on (this, that and the next thing).
• Community Knowledge
– Grandmother knows “best.”
• Adaptive Management
– Too early; can’t sleep – too late; can’t get up.
• Flexibility
– Christmas Eve.
• Trade-off Analysis
– Needs of future hockey stars. Two kids; one bedtime.
Outline
•
•
•
•
What we did
What are cumulative effects?
What is the problem?
Some thoughts about a solution
– Values
– The role of science
– Objectives and limits
– Monitoring
• Summary
– a proposed framework
Turbidity at the pump house
(Kiskatinaw Case Study)
The Pump House
The Kiskatinaw River
The water manager’s view
“Human activity within the watershed has seemed to increase the turbidity
loading quite significantly. . . .
The river gets so turbid now during spring run off and freshets that we are unable
to pump the water . . . Periods of shut down have become longer and occur more
frequently in recent years.”
The data
Total Number of Days
60
Number of days
with
turbidity causing
pump shut down
(>500 NTUs)
y = -1.275x + 2582.6
R² = 0.1662
P=0.131
40
20
0
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Year
2004
2006
2008
2010
100 m
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
What we did
What are cumulative effects?
What is the problem?
Some thoughts about a solution
Summary
– a proposed framework
A proposed land management framework
1. Government has an ongoing process for
articulating society’s values about the land.
2. Structures are in place to set specific and
measurable objectives for society’s values.
3. There is a process for issuing private rights to
public land that ensures development remains
within limits of acceptable change.
4. Some activities are assessed to ensure they have
minimum negative, and maximum positive, effects.
5. Monitoring occurs and feedback is provided.