The Fish-Climate Connection

Linking global warming with declining fish stocks

When people are asked what is causing the decline of salmon stocks in many BC rivers, they point the finger at problems like overfishing, damage to habitat by forest operations and water pollution. Few people relate dependence on motor vehicles and fossil fuels or energy inefficiency with decline in fish stocks. However, recent scientific findings do just that.

In January 1996, scientists at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado looked at patterns of El Niño — an unusual warming of the South Pacific — and the Southern Oscillation — an unusual change in atmospheric pressure over Indonesia. El Niño is typically a short-lived phenomenon but since 1976 it has been both more frequent and longer lasting. The El Niño which lasted from 1990 to June 1995 was the longest on record. The National Centre for Atmospheric Research scientists found that the 1990-1995 pattern of El Niño and the Southern Oscillation was extremely unusual. Based on historic records it was an event which should only occur once in every 1,500 to 3,000 year period. The scientists concluded:

Is this pattern of change a manifestation of global warming and related climate change associated with increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Or is this pattern a natural ... variation? We have shown that the latter is highly unlikely.

What does this have to do with salmon?

When Queen Charlotte Chinook stocks declined by 80% this summer, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ biologists blamed predation from mackerel, a warm water species that moves North during El Niño. Similarly, the Robertson Creek fisheries declined from 200,000 in 1994 to 30,000 in 1995, with a further decline to 10,000 forecast for 1996. During this period there was no change in the commercial fishery. DFO again blamed mackerel predation.

These aren’t the only impacts of climate change on salmon. A 1994 Environment Canada report looked at the effects of the warmer temperatures, wetter winters and drier summers that are predicted for British Columbia if greenhouse gas emissions are not significantly curtailed. The report said this combination “may make it unfeasible to prevent the extinction of some local salmon stocks in the Fraser River watershed.”

Canada is one of the worst greenhouse gas polluters in the world. Canadians have among the highest per capita emissions of greenhouse gases in the world. Despite a commitment to stabilize emissions at 1990 levels by 2000, Canada’s emissions are projected to increase by thirteen percent. British Columbia emissions are one of the chief causes of this rapid increase. In BC, emissions increased by nine percent between 1990 and 1994 alone. If the federal and provincial governments want to protect salmon, they need to reverse these trends.

For more information, contact Chris Rolfe (crolfe@wcel.org).

— Chris Rolfe

Harmonization is back again

The federal/provincial initiative for harmonization of environmental management is back on track after being derailed by strong negative feedback from environmental groups and ambivalent support from industry in a national consultation last winter. In late August, the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME) released for public comment a draft Accord and schedules on standards and inspection, replacing the discredited draft Environmental Management Framework Agreement and eleven schedules.

The multi-sector National Advisory Group (NAG) on Harmonization will meet in Winnipeg on October 17 to gauge the response to the rejuvenated proposals, but there is strong political momentum (stemming from the First Ministers meeting last June) for the CCME ministers to approve the Accord and two schedules at the November CCME meeting. A third schedule, on environmental assessment, is slated for approval in the Spring of 1997.

The documents are available on the CCME’s Web site at http://www.ccme.ca/ccme.

Filling in gaps and eliminating duplication

One positive feature of the new proposals is that the objective of “identifying and addressing gaps and weaknesses in environmental management activities” has been added, and elimination of overlap and duplication, the existence of which had proven impossible to document, has been dropped.

However, the new proposals retain — and in some respects strengthen — the general direction adopted by the previous harmonization proposals with respect to diminishing the role of the federal government in environmental protection:

• Under the proposed Accord, national environmental priorities would be set not by the federal government but by the CCME, in which the federal government is only one voice among the ten provinces and two territories.
• Decisions would be “consensus-based,” which would allow one or more provinces to slow down or halt any particular national environmental initiative.
• The development of national standards or norms would “be sensitive to regional conditions” (provincial politics).
• After a national environmental objective has been agreed upon, each province would be entitled to consider “social and economic implications” in choosing what measures it would take to attain the objective, although reference is made to “the merits of consistency across jurisdictions in minimizing barriers to trade.”
• The federal government would no longer be responsible for environmental standards applicable to particular industrial sectors (presumably a reference to the pulp mill, metal mines, and other sector-specific regulations under the federal Fisheries Act, which some of the provinces would like to weaken).
• Federal environmental powers in areas dealt with by the provinces under the new proposals would be held “in abeyance,” leading to concerns that the federal capacity (staffing and expertise) in the area would quickly erode.

The CEN harmonization working group is preparing a response to the proposals, and is asking environmental groups to provide their comments on the topic to Mark Winfield and Karen Clarke at the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy (cielap@web.apc.org) as soon as possible.

For more information, please contact Bill Andrews (bandrews@wcel.org).

Panel procedures proposed

Proposed procedures for environmental assessment panels under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act were submitted to the Regulatory Advisory Committee (RAC) in mid-September by a multi-sector subcommittee which included Bill Andrews of WCELA and Lloyd Greenspoon of the environmental assessment caucus of the Canadian Environmental Network (CEN).

The proposal is a revision of a June draft which had been circulated for public comment, attracting approximately 50 sets of written comments. Consideration of the proposed procedures is the first item of business at the RAC’s September 25-26 meeting in Ottawa.

Andrews said, “I think the subcommittee’s report includes all our main objectives, such as public participants’ right to ask questions directly to the proponent, the right to be represented by counsel, having community hearings as well as more-structured general/technical hearings, having a scoping stage, having a stage at which the panel must assess the adequacy of the environmental impact statement prior to scheduling the hearings, requirements for public notice of the hearings, and having EA documents available immediately on the Internet (in addition to hardcopy).”

He added, “Industry and government pushed hard for, and got, specified time limits for different steps in the process, but these don’t include the time it takes for the proponent to do the EIS or to respond to a request(s) for additional information. Whether these time limits will prove workable remains to be seen.”

For more information, please contact Bill Andrews (bandrews@wcel.org).

Greenhouse Gas Action Plan: beehive burner phase-out

This is the seventh in a series on implementation of BC’s Greenhouse Gas Action Plan. Previous subjects have included transportation demand management, integrated resource planning and the BC Motor Vehicle Emission Reduction Regulation. Action Item 35 of BC’s Greenhouse Gas Action Plan calls for the phase-out of highly inefficient wood residue burners (“beehive burners”) by 2004.

Local air quality should be improving in small towns throughout BC, but the BC government may be missing some key opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The BC Wood Residue Burner and Incinerator Regulation is supposed to phase out 80 smoke and soot belching wood residue burners between January 31, 1996 and December 31, 1998. Much of the carbon in wood residue that is now being burned and released into the air should be used in long-lived products. This will marginally reduce carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere. However, the government has so far failed to seize more important opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Twenty-one years after the 1975 deadline, most beehive burners remain in operation

In 1971, government pollution control objectives called for a 1975 phase-out of unmodified wood residue burners. These are the beehive and silo burners that belch lung damaging fine particulate and PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons — classified as probable human carcinogens) over small-town BC. Twenty-one years after the 1975 deadline most beehive burners remain in operation, but the Wood Residue Burner and Incinerator Regulation is finally making progress. (Although more than half the burners scheduled for phase-out in the latter half of 1996 will likely fail to meet phase-out deadlines.)

The phase-out of beehive burners is undoubtedly good for local air quality, but it will not necessarily reduce net greenhouse gas emissions. Net greenhouse gas emissions can be slightly reduced by using wood residue in products with long lifetimes such as medium density fibreboard (MDF), but MDF plants raise other environmental concerns. (In an appeal funded by West Coast Environmental Law’s Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund, the Environmental Appeal Board found that a proposed medium density fibreboard plant in Prince George posed a number of significant public health concerns.)

More effective ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions

There are more effective ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions without causing local air quality problems. The most effective way is to convert wood residue into ethanol for use in cars and trucks. A few sawmills are studying this option, but prospects for ethanol production are dim unless government takes some action. Government could support this technology by tying the tax on motor fuel to fuels’ lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, natural gas and high ethanol blends are exempted from motor fuel taxes with no consideration of lifecycle emissions. Government could also boost the ethanol from wood residue by investing in a few ethanol manufacturing pilot projects.

The next best choice for woodwaste is to use it to produce heat for industrial boilers while at the same time “cogenerating” electricity for the BC Hydro grid. BC woodwaste could provide 300 megawatts of electrical generating capacity. That power would reduce, but not eliminate, BC Hydro’s reliance on the province’s largest carbon dioxide emitter, the Burrard Thermal Plant.

Premier Glen Clark announced during the election that BC Hydro was interested in purchasing only 59 megawatts of generating capacity from two wood residue cogeneration facilities. This is a step in the right direction, but it pales beside the amount of electricity that woodwaste could produce.

Incorporating environmental costs into decision making

Whether these and other cogeneration plants proceed will depend on whether BC Hydro makes electricity purchase decisions based purely on least financial costs or incorporates environmental costs into its decisions. Recognizing those higher costs would help ensure the viability of wood residue cogeneration, but BC Hydro is showing little willingness to factor environmental costs into its decisions. Current regulations are only aimed at reducing the local air problems caused by beehive burners. A combination of regulation and government commitment to renewable energy sources such as ethanol from wood residue and wood residue cogeneration could ensure that the beehive burner phase-out has a real impact on BC’s greenhouse gas emissions.

— Chris Rolfe

The European Flower

Eco-labeling makes inroads in European Community

In 1992, the European Community decided to introduce an environmental quality label similar to Canada’s EcoLogo program. This EU-wide voluntary instrument is designed to supplement regulatory environmental policy.

The European eco-label, the “European Flower,” is intended to encourage businesses to produce goods which are as environmentally friendly as possible and to provide consumers with better information on products which during their entire life cycle — including pre-production, manufacturing, distribution, use and waste elimination stage — clearly have fewer effects on the environment than comparable traditional products.

The fine print...

In principle, the scheme is open to all products, including those imported into the EU. The Regulation involves a complex consultation procedure for establishing criteria. Individuals or groups can propose products for eco-labelling. Different member groups establish appropriate ecological criteria and then submit them to the European Commission. For example, the United Kingdom elaborated criteria for washing machines, the Netherlands for cat litter and shoes, and Germany for laundry detergents. The Commission consults with a multistakeholder group and sets final criteria only after they have been endorsed by a majority of Member States. The final criteria are published, and manufacturers are able to apply to national bodies for award of the eco-label. With recognition of the eco-label manufacturers are allowed to label their products for a specific period, if they pay a fee of about 0.15% of sales per year.

Ecological criteria for washing machines, dishwashers, laundry detergents, fertilisers, light bulbs, hair spray, kitchen rolls, toilet paper and fine paper products have been completed; others for deodorants, textiles, paints and varnishes, shoes, household cleaning products and cat litter are still being developed.

The process for establishing the eco-label and integrating it with the policy of each Member State was quite complicated and time-consuming, since a majority of the Member States had to agree. The first steps to create an eco-label were taken in 1988. The European eco-label also coexists with other national eco-label schemes, such as the “Blue Angel” in Germany, the Dutch scheme by Stichting Mileukeur and the “Label Vert” in France, leaving those Member States the option of defining stronger ecological criteria for their own awards within national schemes.

Differing points of view

The role of the European eco-label as an appropriate instrument of product-oriented environmental policy is considered very controversial among stakeholders. Consumer and environmental organisations see the eco-label as being one further instrument in the current mixture of instruments, whereas industry and its organisations consider the introduction of the voluntary European eco-label as a first step to deregulation. However, generally speaking, the eco-label is accepted by the majority of stakeholders.

One reason for this might be that already existing national eco-labels (e.g. the German “Blue Angel”) have been important in informing and encouraging consumers to make the right environmental choice between products. They have also provided an essential stimulus to product innovation.

It remains to be seen whether the European eco-label will lead to the weakening of EU product regulation, or if it will become one more tool in the arsenal of regulatory and voluntary instruments.

— Claudia Moehlenbruch

Claudia is a visiting exchange student from Germany. Claudia has been volunteering at West Coast since mid-August on a co-op placement through a language college. She recently finished an undergraduate degree in political economy at the University of Heidelberg. Upon returning to Germany, she will be seeking employment in environmental education or environmental management.

From the lawyers' desktops

Since the last newsletter, West Coast staff lawyers have been busy. In late July, Ann Hillyer, Linda Nowlan, Chris Rolfe, and Board President Wally Braul met with Environment Minister Paul Ramsey and presented a brief outlining priorities for environmental law reform. The priorities identified include improving the Forest Practices Code; biodiversity and fish protection legislation; actions to reduce global climate change; and improving urban growth legislation.

A copy of the brief may be obtained by contacting our office at 1 800 330-WCEL.

Bill Andrews continues his work as a member of the Regulatory Advisory Committee under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. He has been writing the procedures for environmental assessment panels. These procedures are now under discussion at the Committee level. The subcommittee’s report calls for, among other things, the public participants’ right to question proponents, the right to representation, holding of community hearings as well as general/technical hearings, requirements for public notice of the hearings, and having EA documents available immediately on the Internet (in addition to hardcopy).

Linda Nowlan has been working with the revitalized provincial Endangered Species Coalition. Linda and our summer student, Michael Rodgers, held a meeting in late July with other member groups to develop a law reform and public education campaign for the fall and winter. It is anticipated that the federal government will announce new endangered species legislation in the coming months, and the time is ripe to press the provincial government to adopt similar provincial legislation. Linda has also been busy with the Citizens Oil Spill Advisory Committee: she was recently appointed Chair, and took on the work of drafting this year’s Annual Report. She recently spoke at the Annual General Meeting of the States/BC Task Force on Oil Spill Prevention in Victoria.

Chris Rolfe continues to spend the majority of his time working on a major report on strategic options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He has also focused efforts on public education and lobbying for effective greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies. Opinion/editorial articles by Chris were published in the Vancouver Sun and the Victoria Times Colonist detailing the need to reduce greenhouse gases and auto dependence. He also spoke at a meeting of the International Society of Automotive Engineers: his speech highlighted the need to go beyond technological fixes to reduce auto emissions.

Besides her work as the EDRF liaison lawyer, Patricia Houlihan has spent lots of time recently speaking to various groups about public involvement in environmental decision making and environmental law in Canada generally. Pat also helped organize a panel that addressed issues and barriers related to litigating to protect the environment for the Canadian Bar Association/Commonwealth conference that was held in Vancouver this August. This panel featured Angela Andrews from the Legal Resources Centre in South Africa and Dr. MC Mehta from India (winner of this year’s prestigious Goldman award for environmental protection in Asia). Pat also attended the annual Community Development Institute Program, held in Nelson in late July.

And in the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund, there have been three significant successes on EDRF files recently:

• The private prosecution commenced under the Fisheries Act by the Friends of the Stikine against Cominco and Prime Resources regarding the operation of a hovercraft on the Stikine River resulted in the Crown deciding to take over the charges and continue with the prosecution. Shortly after this decision was made, Prime decided to discontinue the operation of the hovercraft on the river. The Crown has indicated that it will prosecute should the company reinstate operation of the hovercraft.

• On July 31, the Williams Lake Environmental Society received a favourable decision on its appeal of the Williams Lake Fibreboard medium density fibreboard plant air emissions permit. In the decision, the Deputy Director of Waste Management, Dr. James McTaggart-Cowan, calls for new modeling to be done to account for stagnant air periods; acknowledges that the airshed is at maximum capacity; and calls for more extensive monitoring to determine point source pollution. In addition, the decision calls for stricter controls of all permitted emissions, stating that the Regional Manager can revisit other existing permits.

• A decision was released on the Nechako Environmental Coalition appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board (EAB) of the air emissions permit issued to Canfor. Although the permit was upheld, the EAB substantially amended the permit in order to address NEC’s concerns. In addition to imposing substantially increased monitoring requirements, the Board held that monitoring results must be made available to the public and that phase 2 of the project can not go ahead until the modeling done by Canfor is redone using actual data from phase 1.

News Briefs

• Revenue Canada has until the end of October to decide if it will ask the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal the decision of the Federal Court of Canada that the Vancouver Community Network (freenet) is a charitable organization. VCN hosts West Coast’s Internet Web site, and by offering free public access to the Internet provides a crucial link between the public and environmental legal information on the information highway.

• The BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks is scheduling yet another round of meetings with “stakeholders,” including environmental groups, on the latest draft contaminated sites regulations. The package includes minor amendments to the contaminated sites liability provisions of the Waste Management Act. These changes were recommended in a July report to MELP by Chris Tollefson and Diana Belevsky. The report was based on consultations with disgruntled industry and municipal officials as well as impatient environmental groups, including WCELA. It concludes that the contaminated sites regime established under the Waste Management Act (passed by the Legislature on June 15, 1993, but not yet proclaimed in force) is an improvement over the status quo with respect to certainty, efficiency and fairness.

• The exorbitant prices for digital maps ($600 per file) being sold by the BC government will be addressed in a policy paper due to be released soon by the Information Technology Access Office. BC Commissioner of Information and Privacy David Flaherty recommended that the government consider a fee waiver system so that non-profit groups can use the maps for participating in land use planning in the province. The paper will be released despite the firing (for unrelated reasons) of Joe Surich, head of the ITAO.

• People on the move: David Donnelly, long-time executive director of the Canadian Environmental Defence Fund in Toronto has left to go to law school in Windsor. Stewart Elgie has moved from Vancouver to open Sierra Legal Defence Fund’s new office in Toronto. Craig Boljkovac left the Canadian Environmental Network (CEN) for the Inuit Taparisat of Canada (ITC). ITC also gained Terry Fenge, until recently the executive director of the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee. Stephanie Cairns went from the Pembina Institute to the prime minister’s office. Cathy Wilkinson has moved from the CEN to the office of the federal minister of environment.

WCELRF, 1001 ­ 207 West Hastings, Vancouver, BC, V6B 1H7, Canada. Phone (604) 684­7378; fax (604) 684­1312; 1-800-330-WCEL; email: admin@wcel.org; home page: http://vcn.bc.ca/wcel/ NEWS from West Coast Environmental Law (ISSN #1204-4326), copyright 1996. Printed on 100% recycled paper (not secondarily bleached or de-inked). Published by the West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation and represents the work of the non-profit West Coast Environmental Law Groups: West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation (WCELRF) does research and education and maintains an environmental law library. West Coast Environmental Law Association (WCELA) provides legal representation and promotes law reform. The West Coast Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund Society (WCEDRFS) provides assistance and funding to citizens to help solve environmental problems in their communities. The mission of the West Coast Environmental Law groups is to provide legal services to protect the environment and to foster public participation in environmental decision-making. We are grateful to the Law Foundation of British Columbia for core funding of West Coast Environmental Law. West Coast staff are: Bill Andrews, Morgan Ashbridge, Chris Heald, Ann Hillyer, Patricia Houlihan, Catherine Ludgate, Alexandra Melnyk, Claudia Moehlenbruch, Linda Nowlan, and Chris Rolfe.

___ Yes! I want to be a member and receive NEWS from West Coast Environmental Law. Here's $20. ___ Yes! I want to make a tax-creditable donation. Here's my cheque for: ___ $50 ___ $75 ___ $100 Name: ______________________________ Address: ____________________________ City, Prov: ___________________________ Postal Code: _________________________