Imagine that your next door neighbours clean up their run-down house. They apply some new paint, fix broken windows, and replace an old smoke-belching furnace with a newer, cleaner and more efficient one. They do this because it increases their land value, makes their house a nicer place to live, decreases heating costs, and increases the rent they can charge. They may even do it partly because they want to be good neighbours. You, the next door neighbour, will probably be happy with all this: an eyesore has been removed, you are not choking on the smoke, and your land value might even go up.

But what if your neighbours came to you after the clean-up and said they wanted to get something from you in return for their work? They don't just want a thank you. They want money. A lot of money. If you are a polite neighbour you might say: "Thanks. We recognize your contribution to the neigbourhood and really appreciate it, but we aren't going to pay you." Less polite neighbours might… Well you've imagined this much. You can imagine a bit more.

It's time to stand up

Unfortunately, Canadian governments are less firm with equally demanding neighbours. Canadian industry is demanding "credit for early action" — possibly worth billions of dollars — for past greenhouse gas emission reductions. Industry wants credit for greenhouse gas emission reductions from January 1, 1990 forward. They want credit in the form of one tonne of credit for every tonne of emission reductions, and they want to be able to use that credit against greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements during the period after 2008, when Canada's emissions will be limited under the Kyoto Protocol.

By giving industry credit against future regulatory requirements, a credit for early action system is supposed to encourage low- cost or profitable emission reductions now, without government having to risk the angry reaction industry or Alberta would have to carbon taxes or mandatory emission limits. By encouraging early action now, the gap between Canada's projected emissions and its Kyoto commitment would be narrowed and Canada's future costs of compliance reduced. That's the theory anyhow.

Weak solutions won't work

Economists are quick to point out that credit for early action is likely to be less environmentally effective and less economically efficient than simply imposing either a carbon tax or mandatory emission limits with emissions trading. West Coast Environmental Law has warned that credit for early action is at best a distant second best solution, and could even be worse than nothing.

While credit for early action is problematic, credit for past action is unconscionable. Credit for early action is supposed to create an incentive to reduce emissions. But unless credit for past action leads to the development of time travel, encouraging past action will not actually change the past.

Credit for past action may also reduce the effectiveness of the overall credit for early action system. There is likely to be a limited budget for credit, and giving credit for past action will reduce the amount of credit available to encourage new actions that help Canada meet the Kyoto target. The result: less incentive to actually reduce emissions.

Credit for past action will also increase compliance costs for industries and sectors that have greater difficulty in reducing emissions. As noted above, Canada only has a limited amount of allowable emissions in the 2008 to 2012 period, and credit for past action will not reduce current or future emissions. Credit for past action means firms and sectors that were unable to reduce emissions in the 1990 to 1998 period will face either higher emission reduction requirements or higher taxes. (If credits are used as credits against carbon taxes, the resulting revenue loss to government will be made up by higher taxes elsewhere.)

Where's the progress?

Under some industry proposals, credit for past action will receive far more credit than credit for future action. For instance, a firm that in 1990 takes an action that yields one tonne per year emission reduction might accumulate 18 tonnes of credit by 2007. The same action undertaken in 2007 will yield only one tonne of credit, but both actions reduce emissions by five tonnes during the Kyoto Protocol's first emission limitation period (2008-2012).

The value of credit for past action is significant. Although Canada's overall greenhouse gas emissions have spiralled since 1990, many companies have reduced emissions in the overall process of becoming more efficient and adopting new technological opportunities to reduce costs. To its credit, the pulp and paper industry has reduced net emissions by 16 percent between 1990 and 1997 while production increased by 21 percent.

$1 billion for past action?

If credit is given for reductions per tonne of pulp produced, the pulp and paper industry alone could claim 4,673,000 tonnes of reductions per year. Assuming that these 1990 to 1998 reductions began on average in 1994, assuming credit is given for all reductions per unit of production from 1990 until 2007, and assuming credits are worth twenty dollars a tonne, the value of credit given to this sector alone would be well over one billion dollars. The pulp and paper industry should receive recognition for its ability to combine environmental goals with good business, but should it receive a billion dollars for actions that were largely profitable and done with no reasonable expectation of credit?

Windfalls for other sectors and firms are also dramatic.

There is no good reason for crediting past action. Canadian governments should simply say no.

Chris Rolfe
Staff Counsel

Selling Out — The Corporatization of BC Forests

Eighty-three percent of BC is classified as "Provincial Forest" or public forest land. British Columbians made a policy decision decades ago that the forests of BC should be managed for public values rather than solely for private profit. While provincial governments have rarely gone far enough to protect non-timber values in their forest management regime, the fact that logging operations take place on public land has given citizens a legitimate interest in demanding a say in how these lands are managed. Most public forest lands also form part of First Nations' traditional territories, and are subject to treaty negotiations.

Minister of Forests David Zirnhelt was quick to distance himself from Miller's remarks, and reportedly indicated that there is no NDP policy to privatize forest lands. Recent experience suggests otherwise.

In fact, privatization of public lands has already begun. Early this month the Province of BC signed off on a deal which could result in the privatization of up to 30,000 hectares of public land on Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast. The deal between the Province and MacMillan Bloedel will also involve the removal of approximately 90,000 hectares of private land from Tree Farm Licence 39 (Haida Gwaii/Queen Charlotte Islands) and TFL 44 (Vancouver Island). As a result, the Forest Practices Code and log export restrictions will no longer apply to these lands.

The MacMillan Bloedel deal is ostensibly to compensate the logging giant for lost cutting rights due to park creation on Vancouver Island; however, MacMillan Bloedel is effectively trading licences to log 7,663 hectares of land it never owned in the first place, for up to 30,000 hectares of land in fee simple, plus the removal of vast areas of its private land from the Forest Practices Code regime.

British Columbians should be gravely concerned. Why?

First, many of the public lands that the Province proposes to privatize are subject to First Nations treaty negotiations. The failure of the government to consult with First Nations before agreeing to privatize lands which form part of First Nation traditional territories is an act of bad faith on the part of the Province, as the lands will no longer be available for treaty settlements. While there will be some form of public process in the coming months, it will only be to help select which parcels of land (from a list submitted by MacMillan Bloedel) could be privatized.

Second, it is unclear that in the circumstances MacMillan Bloedel has a legal right to $83.75 million (the figure the Province and MacMillan Bloedel have agreed to) in compensation. The public has not been informed of the details of how this figure was arrived at and the company's legal entitlement has never been determined by a court of law. Agreeing to compensate MacMillan Bloedel in these circumstances creates a harmful precedent that undermines the future of park creation and the outcome of land-based treaty negotiations in BC.

Third, multinational logging companies must make decisions to please their shareholders, not to sustain healthy communities in BC. Privatization of our natural heritage will eliminate the voice of future British Columbians in ensuring that forests are protected or managed in a way which meets our needs and aspirations.

In 1991, after listening to British Columbians around the province, the Forest Resources Commission reported that "selling off the province's public lands is not a realistic alternative." Let your MLA and the Premier's office know that this is still the case!

Jessica Clogg
Staff Counsel

THIS CALL IS FOR YOU!

Please mark your calendar now. West Coast Environmental Law is turning 25, and we want you to join us for a very special evening. We're planning a joyful celebration for Saturday, September 25^th, 1999, and we hope to see you then.

We're counting on friends and supporters like you to mark this wonderful event. It'll be a chance for you to meet old friends and make new ones, and to look back at 25 years of effective and powerful advocacy for environmental legal protection. We hope that many past and current volunteers, board members, supporters, staff and other friends will join in the celebration. And we hope you'll be part of that group!

Details of the evening will be announced in coming Newsletters, and in a special mailing to our members and supporters. Please count yourself in for our 25^th Anniversary Celebration! And if you have memories of West Coast you'd like to share or ideas for the celebration, please call us. We'd love to hear them.

Preaching "Green" While Subsidizing Dirty

We think often on the subject of what more the G-7 export credit agencies could achieve through better coordination, and I place at the top of the list the protection of our global environment. Unfortunately, we are the only export credit agency to have adopted environmental standards for the projects we will support. To be clear, these are basic environmental guidelines, internationally recognized minimum thresholds for air and water quality that we encourage projects and exporters to meet. Nonetheless, at a meeting of the chair[s] of the G-7 export credit agencies in Washington in April, we were unable to agree even to the simplest of language pertaining to this subject. Clearly, other countries of the world are satisfied to preach `green' while subsidizing dirty. This must change.

— James Harmon, Chair of the US Export-Import Bank, October 2, 1998, Speech to 7th Annual World Economic Development Congress

Why be concerned about whether the Canadian Export Development Corporation (EDC) or any of the world's export credit agencies (ECAs) are required to follow environmental standards? ECAs are the single largest public financiers of large-scale infrastructure projects in the developing world, and routinely finance projects with serious environmental and social impacts such as dams, power plants, mines, forestry, roads, pipelines, and chemical plants. The absence of environmental policies for these important public agencies is increasingly being questioned worldwide. In Canada, the EDC is under scrutiny. In two separate but related public consultations, on a proposed Environmental Review Framework and an overall legislative review, the EDC's lack of environmental standards has become a major issue.

A bit of background...

First, some background. The EDC, a Canadian Crown corporation with a mandate to promote exports, provides Canadian exporters with financing products to help their customers. It also provides commercial and political risk insurance, particularly for higher-risk and emerging markets. In 1997, the EDC worked with 3,711 customers in 145 global markets, helping Canadian companies to generate more than $28 billion in sales and foreign investments. This enormous level of economic activity reveals the potential scope for environmental harm. Yet the EDC, like most export credit agencies, is not required to abide by any environmental standards.

EDC-financed projects have had serious environmental consequences

Projects financed by the EDC have had serious environmental consequences. Many of the recent mine accidents involving Canadian companies overseas, such as those of the Kumtor cyanide spill in Krygyzstan, the Omai gold mine in Guyana and the OK Tedi copper mine in Papua New Guinea, have received substantial funding from the EDC. The EDC has also provided financing for the Canadian companies to obtain contracts to work on the Three Gorges Dam, and for the sale of Candu nuclear reactors to China.

The EDC is not currently subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Although the EDC has an environmental review policy, it apparently relates to whether an individual project is at risk due to environmental factors such as seismic, flood or storm damage, rather than on the environmental impact of the project as a whole. This policy is not publicly available. A new Environmental Framework is now being prepared. Public consultation on the proposed principles for this Framework was conducted during the fall of 1998. West Coast participated in the consultation, recommending a legislated, transparent, inclusive and thorough process that uses a broad definition of environmental risk, and builds on existing standards used by the US Export-Import Bank and the World Bank. West Coast has also requested further public consultation on an actual draft Environmental Framework document, as the initial consultation was based on a short, limited, and generally unobjectionable set of principles.

At the same time as this Framework was being developed by the EDC, a separate legislative review of the EDC's governing legislation was underway. This review is scheduled to report in June. It is not clear why the EDC has separated the Environmental Framework from the overall legislative review. Integration of environmental policies into all economic decision-making is one of the cornerstones of sustainable development thinking, a concept embraced by the federal government in most of its policies, notably the requirement for each government department to prepare a Sustainable Development Strategy. Why is the EDC exempt from this policy? West Coast has asked the EDC President to explain the rationale for separating the inextricably linked subjects of the environmental consequences of projects supported by the EDC and its legislative mandate.

Practice what you preach

Many Canadians have, for years, been urging the government to ensure that international activities financed by the federal government or its agencies be subject to environmental standards no less strict than those applied inside the country. Canada has been a leader in forging new international environmental agreements. Yet by using taxpayers' dollars to support projects like the Three Gorges Dam, which has been labeled the world's most socially and environmentally destructive dam project, Canada's credibility, reputation and leadership are seriously damaged.

The Canadian government's response to this criticism is that it is working to establish a multilateral framework for environmental assessments for OECD Export Credit Agencies. But this rationale is seriously flawed. As the above quote from the Export-Import Bank Chair illustrates, the process of establishing a multilateral agreement is proceeding extremely slowly, and no evidence suggests imminent change in the process. In the interim, there is no reason why Canada cannot act alone before a multilateral agreement has been finalized. The Department of Foreign Affairs has shown its willingness to act alone in certain situations — for example by applying continued sanctions against Nigeria to stem human rights abuses. It has also shown leadership on critical foreign issues such as promotion of the land mines treaty. Decisive action to safeguard the environment by requiring the EDC to support only those projects with demonstrably minimal environmental impacts would be a welcome new direction in Canadian foreign policy.

Other member countries of the OECD have policies in place requiring this type of review. The US Export-Import Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation are forbidden by law to support some projects with harmful impacts, and to consider the environmental impacts of projects requesting their support. If Canada's largest competitor has these policies, there is no reason why Canada cannot adopt similar legal requirements.

The International ECA Reform Coalition, a group of nongovernmental organizations, has asked the G-7 countries to move more rapidly to establish common environmental and social standards. At a meeting in Tokyo this April of the G-7 ECA Presidents, the Coalition urged governments through the G7, OECD and other fora to:

• call for an agreement on common environmental and social standards for export credit agencies;
• set a deadline for reaching such an agreement within one year;
• base the agreement on minimal existing standards in other publicly supported agencies which subsidize public and private investment such as those of the World Bank Group or the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC); and,
• extend the mandate for reaching such an agreement to investment insurance agencies not represented in the OECD deliberations but which do have a common forum in the Berne Union, the International Union of Credit and Investment Insurers.

In Canada, the results of the EDC's legislative review, and the release of a draft Framework, will provide additional opportunities to advocate legislated environmental standards for the EDC. There is no reason not to practice abroad what we preach at home.

Linda Nowlan
Staff Counsel

BC Grows Smarter

BC's urban areas are among the fastest-growing in North America, and growth pressures are threatening both quality of life and ecological integrity:

• in the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) alone, vehicle kilometres travelled are projected to increase from 13.2 billion to 21.4 billion by 2020;
• the province lists urban development as the largest threat to endangered species in BC;
• already 120 streams in the Fraser Valley have been lost to urbanization, 61 percent of the remaining streams are classified as endangered;
• the best agricultural land in the province is threatened by the sprawl of single family housing;
• with the highest housing costs in Canada in the GVRD and Capital Regional District (CRD), the affordable housing agenda competes with the provision of infrastructure to suburban developments; and,
• community stability is threatened by strip mall and bedroom community developments.

"Smart growth" refers to land use and development practices that avoid these negative impacts, ranging from demand management strategies for transportation, water and waste, to development practices that minimize ecological damage and foster vibrant communities. Smart growth practices aim to limit the sprawl of urban centres. They also respond to the current fiscal realities facing local governments. Development based upon resource efficiency and conservation costs less than conventional development.

In the spring of 1998, West Coast began contacting a number of groups to discuss the need for a new organization which could unite and provide support for the many voices calling for smart growth. Joining forces with the University of Victoria's Eco-Research Chair, West Coast convened several meetings with community and environmental groups in the summer of 1998. It was clear that an increasing number of ratepayers, community, land trust, transit, bicycle, habitat protection, affordable housing, and agricultural preservation organizations were active in BC, but these groups' smart growth work was often being done in isolation and was site and issue-specific. There was a clear need for a provincial smart growth organization modeled on successful organizations such as 1,000 Friends of Oregon.

The Smart Growth BC Initiative is intended to sow the seeds for such an organization, an organization that unites and helps coordinate diverse interests, and that provides informational and advocacy support. Smart Growth BC is a joint initiative of West Coast Environmental Law and the Eco-Research Chair, and involves a number of projects designed to increase the capacity of communities to shape land use development activities in their municipalities, such as preventing urban sprawl and creating compact communities.

In the shorter term, Deb Curran of the Eco-Research Chair will work as coordinator for the Smart Growth BC Initiative. Working together with West Coast staff lawyers, she will develop a Smart Growth BC pamphlet, letterhead, slide show and web site, and conduct Smart Growth workshops in the lower mainland and Capital Regional District. Smart Growth BC will also be releasing publications on best development practices and the regional growth planning process. West Coast is hoping to augment these efforts by publishing a Smart Growth Guide to Municipal Law and Advocacy and providing workshops on municipal advocacy. Most importantly, next year's workplan involves creating the support for a new organization which unites many interests.

Chris Rolfe
Staff Counsel

Community Outreach on Forest Law and Policy

West Coast's Guide to Forest Land Use Planning is a comprehensive reference to the laws, regulations and policies that govern forest land use planning in British Columbia. Copies of the Guide can be ordered through our office for a nominal fee of $22 for West Coast members, or $25 for non-members. It is also available on our website at www.wcel.org.

Forestry Outreach

West Coast is organizing outreach activities on forest land use planning and related legal and policy issues beginning this month. In addition to providing training based on the Guide, we are available to facilitate workshops on forest land use issues of particular interest to your community, such as the forest tenure system or private land forest regulation. We look forward to working with your organization to design a formal or informal event that addresses priority issues for your community.

Our staff forestry lawyer would also be pleased to assist you with:

• free legal advice on forest law and policy;
• advice and assistance regarding environmentally-oriented forest law reform objectives;
• research assistance on forest law and policy issues; and,
• publications, educational materials and workshops on forest law and policy.

Please contact Jessica Clogg by phone at (604) 601-2501 or at 1 800 330-WCEL in BC, or via email at jclogg@wcel.org if we can assist you in any of these areas.

Environmental groups and leading scientists have widely condemned the proposal as totally inadequate to protect Canada's endangered species.

While the proposal does provide increased funding and support for stewardship programs — a commendable approach — stewardship programs are not replacements for strong legislation.

The key deficiencies with the current proposal include:

• Scope: The current proposal only allows for habitat protection on federal lands, which make up less than five percent of Canada (outside the Yukon and the NWT). Very few species can survive just in post offices, airports, defence bases, Indian reserves and national parks.
• Habitat: Habitat loss is the number one threat to species at risk and is responsible for over 80 percent of species decline. The federal government is only willing to protect a species "residence" (den, nest or dwelling area). As ecology professor Dr David Schindler notes, this is like "saying to people we're going to protect your house, but we're going to destroy the rest of the town." The solution is simple — to save species, we have to save spaces for them.
• Listing: Listing species at risk under legislation is the prerequisite to legal protection and should be an independent, scientific process. To be eligible for protection, the species must be listed. The current proposal would allow politicians, not scientists, to decide which species get legal protection. The law must allow scientists, not politicians, to decide which species are at risk in Canada.

What you can do to help!

You can help Canada's endangered species in the following ways:

• Voice your concerns to the Prime Minister

  Print off a copy of our letter to the Prime Minister from our web site at www.wcel.org/esc and fax or mail it off. Your letter will be most effective if it is sent right now.

• Join the BC Endangered Species Coalition's "Speak out for Species" email list or mailing list

  Join other British Columbians from across the province who have signed up to "Speak out for Species." With no more than four emails a month, you'll be sent action alerts when necessary and a monthly update on the campaigns for federal and BC endangered species legislation. To join the list, send an email to Kate Smallwood, the BC Endangered Species Coalition's Campaign Coordinator at ksmallwood@wcel.org. If you don't have access to email, but would like to receive the Coalition's member newsletter (four to six per year), contact the Coalition by calling (604) 601-2507, or 1 800 330-WCEL in BC. Our member newsletters are also posted on our web site at www.wcel.org/esc.

• Call in regularly to the Endangered Species Hotline — it's free!

  To keep informed about the status of the campaign for federal endangered species legislation call the Canadian Endangered Species' campaign hotline at 1 800 267-4088, extension 298.

We have the opportunity, if we act now, to ensure an enduring legacy for future generations — our natural heritage.

Please make your voice heard in the campaign to save Canada's endangered species.

On March 20 and 21, West Coast Environmental Law lawyer Karen Campbell spoke at the Fourth Annual Conference of the Northwest Institute, in Smithers, BC. The theme for this year's conference was environmental assessment, and Karen presented an overview of federal and provincial environmental assessment legislation, in addition to discussing opportunities for public participation in environmental assessment.

The conference was attended by twenty-one individuals representing groups throughout the region, and five government representatives from both the federal and provincial governments. There was much discussion and active participation by all. With the many mines and other megaproject proposals in the northwest, these assessment processes have become increasingly important to the future of the region. The Conference objective was to assist people's understanding of environmental assessment in order to improve capacity for public participation in future assessments, and by all accounts, the conference was a success.

Congratulations are in order to Pat Moss of the Northwest Institute for organizing an educational and enjoyable event!

If you have questions about federal and provincial environmental assessments, contact Karen Campbell at (604) 601-2508 or by email at kcampbell@wcel.org.

In May 1998, Triple R Developments was granted a permit for the construction of a sewage disposal system for eleven motel units and a caretaker's unit on Red Granite Point, Cortes Island. The proposed development is on an isthmus about 75 metres wide, connecting the Point with the rest of the island, and is a prime recreational and shellfishing area. In 1995 the area was designated by the Regional District as an Environmental Development Permit Area, recognizing its unique value as an environmentally sensitive area. The Friends of Cortes Island appealed the granting of the permit, not because it was opposed to the resort development, but because it wanted to ensure that the environmental conditions under which the development would proceed were appropriate to this sensitive area.

Two important issues have been brought out by this decision. First, it highlights the comprehensive nature of a permit approval; and second, it is an example of the importance of community concern about proper and appropriate development, and the critical need for citizens to be knowledgeable and diligent about the nature of proposed developments in their area.

Issue 1: the nature of a permit approval

Can the Panel review the previously constructed portion of the sewage system or is it restricted to considering the unbuilt portion of the system?

Initial construction on the sewage disposal system commenced in 1995, pursuant to a permit granted by the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) under the Health Act. It expired in 1996, but construction of the system was not completed, so Triple R applied for and received a new permit in May 1998.

At the hearing, the developer and the EHO argued that the scope of this appeal should be restricted to the unbuilt portion of the sewage disposal system. The Panel disagreed, noting that the 1998 permit covered the construction of an entire sewage disposal system, despite the fact that part of the system had already been constructed. The panel took a holistic approach, stating that in order to "consider the adequacy of one part of the system, it is necessary to look at the system as a whole" (Appeal No. 98-HEA-12(c) p.5).

We are pleased that the Panel did not limit the scope of its jurisdiction on technical grounds, but rather that it considered the full environmental implications of the proposed sewage system.

Issue 2: the importance of community concern

Was the permit application accurate and did it completely set out all information required?

The Panel was required to make some interesting factual determinations, as there were a number of instances where the information presented to the EHO was not accurate. While the developer is required to disclose all material facts in its application, there were a number of irregularities in this case.

First, the estimated daily sewage flow for the permit was inserted by the EHO after he received the application, instead of by the developer prior to submitting the application. While the EHO merely used the same numbers that Triple R had submitted in its 1995 application, the Panel agreed with the Appellants that this is not just a "petty technicality." The Panel confirmed that the permit applicant, who is more familiar with the proposal, is required to submit these estimates in order that the EHO can assess their accuracy and compliance with the Regulation and policy.

In this case, the Panel held that the applicant did not provide the information, but that this oversight was not fatal to the permit. While the Panel did not use this oversight to rescind the permit, it did draw attention to the important and absolutely impartial role of the EHO and other approving officers when assessing the adequacy of permit applications.

Another critical irregularity was that the plans submitted by Triple R understated the size of the units, which were actually larger than specified in the permit application, resulting in higher sewage flows than estimated by the EHO.

The Panel was presented with evidence that the plans submitted for this permit, which show one bedroom units with dens, were virtually identical to a previous set of plans which contained two bedrooms. The Panel noted that the only difference between these two sets of plans was that in the more recent version submitted for the permit, the "second bedroom" was relabeled "den," but that the den still had a clothes cupboard in it. The Appellants argued that these larger units would, in fact, attract families and large groups. Triple R disagreed, maintaining that "retired couples, sometimes with a grandchild, will be the most frequent type of user" (page 9 of the decision).

On this basis, the Appellants argued that the increased number of sleeping areas would boost the average daily sewage outflow from the 9,386 litres per day estimated in the permit application to anywhere between 13,632 and 16,356 litres per day.

The Panel agreed with the Appellants, and held that Triple R had violated a condition of the permit by changing the plans and increasing the size of the units. On this basis, the Panel rescinded the permit, as the material information was not current and accurate.

This ruling shows that the opportunities for review and appeal of environmental permits are important, and can be used effectively by community and environmental groups to ensure that development is undertaken in a responsible manner. It also highlights the importance of community and environmental groups being knowledgeable about developments in their area. Local victories, such as this, have significant impacts on local environmental quality.

The Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund is available to assist community groups throughout the province in resolving environmental disputes and using the law to better protect the BC environment. To learn more or to make an application, contact Karen Campbell, EDRF Liaison Lawyer at (604) 601-2508, or at 1 800 330-WCEL if you are outside the lower mainland.

Karen Campbell
EDRF Liaison Lawyer

More Endangered Species News

Public outreach — expanding the chorus for endangered species protection

The environmental movement is open to the criticism that it tends to "preach to the converted," and that it lacks diversity of membership. The BC Endangered Species Coalition is actively involved in expanding the chorus and diversifying our support base.

The key sectors we are focusing on this year are youth, religious groups, women, and urban residents. Our recent outreach work has focused on the first two sectors — youth and religious groups.

Youth

Public opinion research has shown that youth (especially youth aged 18 to 24) are concerned about environmental issues, and wildlife in particular. A recent poll by Environics showed that "Canadians are fretting about wildlife in a big way for the first time since environmental issues peaked in the 1990s." Wildlife worries have surged most in British Columbia and Atlantic Canada, with both regions having at least 60 percent of the public expressing deep anguish about this issue. Those most likely to be concerned are young adults in Vancouver and Toronto — great news for our outreach work with youth this year.

To facilitate our work with youth, Kate is working closely with the Sierra Youth Coalition ("SYC") and Lyndsay Poaps from the SYC has joined the Coalition's Steering Committee. The SYC has chosen endangered species as a priority issue for this year. Recent action from the SYC includes an open letter in poster form to Premier Glen Clark (who is also Minister of Youth) and the Youth Day of Action on endangered species. The SYC is also giving regular presentations of our BC Endangered Species Slide Show to youth.

Religious groups

The Coalition is continuing last year's outreach work with religious groups. Kate has been chosen as the Co-Chair for the Visions for the Earth project, a loose coalition of religious, multicultural and environmental groups. Over the next few months, Visions' new Coordinator will be researching what a BC Religious Partnership for the Environment should look like.

The Coalition is pleased to announce that Errol McKinstry from the Unitarian Church has joined the Coalition's Steering Committee. Our thanks to the Unitarian Church for their recent resolutions calling for comprehensive federal and BC endangered species legislation.

In the meantime, other religious groups continue to press forward on environmental issues. The national Church-in-Society Coordinating group from the United Church of Canada wrote to the federal environment minister calling for effective endangered species legislation in Canada. The Vancouver Sun featured a lengthy article from Doug Todd on "Spirituality and the Earth." Other events include a "Stewardship of Creation" workshop on April 17 and a Multifaith Pilgrimage to Burns Bog on May 1 (contact the Burns Bog Conservation Society at (604) 572-0373 for more information).

Endangered species and protected areas maps

Two new maps now located on our website at www.wcel.org/esc demonstrate what many of us have known for a long time — most BC species at risk are found outside BC's protected areas. You can download the maps directly from the website.

Using element occurrence data from the BC Conservation Data Centre and protected areas data from the Land Use Conservation Office, the BC Wild Mapping Consortium produced two maps for us identifying the location of BC species at risk relative to BC's protected areas. One map is province wide, the other focuses on the Okanagan — the number one hot spot for species at risk in BC. (Note — the maps do NOT contain information about the location of sensitive species or occurrence information for wide ranging ungulates and carnivores).

We are producing copies of the maps in poster and slide form and these should be available at the end of April.

Endangered species t-shirt by Robert Bateman is back!

Some time back, we produced an endangered species t-shirt featuring a beautiful image from Robert Bateman of two marbled murrelets on the water. Needless to say, these shirts sold like hotcakes, not least of all because this is the only time Robert Bateman has lent his artwork for a t-shirt. We may have been a bit slow off the mark here, but the shirts are now back! The front of the shirt has the murrelet image and the words "Marbled Murrelet — Here today… Gone tomorrow?" The back of the t-shirt includes a poem by Jane Goodall and the words "BC Endangered Species Coalition: Protecting Wildlife at Risk."

The cost is $15 per shirt if you buy from West Coast's office, $19 per shirt if you order by mail. To order, send a cheque payable to West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation and tell us what size shirts you want.

The shirts are Canadian-made white heavier weight cotton t-shirts in small, medium, large and extra large.

Kate Smallwood
Endangered Species Coalition Campaign Coordinator

Your will says something about you. First, it says that you care about your loved ones. You want to make it easier for them by taking care of legal matters relating to the transfer of your estate. You want your affairs handled smoothly and without undue inconvenience to those who will be experiencing grief.

Second, having a will means that you have sought to conserve your estate. You can reduce taxes and probate costs by designating what things will go where and who will be responsible for handling the details. The cost savings resulting from a carefully constructed estate plan means that more of your estate can go to family members and other beneficiaries.

Third, your will provides insight into your lifetime involvements, passions and concerns. Bequests to family members tell of your love and concern for their welfare. Bequests to organizations speak volumes about your values.

For example, when you include West Coast Environmental Law in your will, you reveal that caring for our shared environment is worthwhile and you affirm your belief in the mission of West Coast Environmental Law. Your legacy for the environment will encourage those you leave behind to consider how they, too, can work for better environmental protection.

Finally, when you include West Coast Environmental Law in your will, you tell us at West Coast that you want us to continue to fulfill West Coast's mission. You reveal your vision for our future! You encourage us to be good stewards of the new resources you place in our hands, as well as good stewards of our environment.

Your will says other things as well about your interests and values and commitments. And because your will says so much, you are wise to think it through carefully.

We at West Coast Environmental Law want you to experience the good feelings of having a well-considered and well-crafted will. We encourage you to take care of this very important matter. And to help you, we are developing a complimentary "will kit" which is yours for the asking.

Further, if you want to talk with us about finding a good lawyer or about how to leave a bequest to West Coast, we are available. Please let us know how best to serve you by calling Catherine Ludgate at our office at (604) 684-7378 or faxing her at (604) 684-1312.

New Arrivals at the West Coast Library

Books

• Guide to Forest Land Use Planning (March 1999). $22 WCEL members, $25 non-members.
• Turning Down the Heat: Emissions Trading and Canadian Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol (April 1998). $30 WCEL members, $40 non-members.

Reports, briefs and discussion papers

• Opportunities and Liabilities from Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions (March 1999).
• The World Trade Organization: A Guide for Environmentalists (March 1999).
• Early Crediting and Baseline Protection (March 1999).
• Selling Clean Air: Workshop Proceedings (March 1999).
• Submissions to the Special Legislative Committee on the MAI Regarding the Constitutionality of the Investment Provisions of NAFTA (March 1999).
• Riparian protection and compensation — Fish Protection Act (January 1999).
• Submission on amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission Act — defining the "Provincial Interest" and expanding the criteria for considering the effects of proposals to remove land from the Agricultural Land Reserve (August 1998).
• Submissions of the West Coast Environmental Law Association to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development Regarding Bill C-32 (May 1998).
• Assessment of the Prospective Impacts of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment on Policies, Law and Programs Relating to the Forest and Fisheries Sectors in British Columbia (May 1998).
• Environmental Perspective on International Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading (April 1998).
• Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: A guide to the Protocol and analysis of its effectiveness (January 1998).
• Comments on Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (Volume 1): Species at Risk and the Forest Practices Code (January 1998).

West Coast publications may be ordered by e-mail, phone, fax, or mail. To process your order we require your name, mailing address, phone number and payment method.

Payments can be made by cheque or VISA. Prices for bound publications are indicated after the document title. A 10 percent handling fee will be charged. Photocopying and handling will charged for reports, briefs and discussion papers. For more information, contact West Coast by phone at (604) 684-7378 or at 1 800 330-WCEL in BC, or via email at admin@wcel.org. These documents are also available on the West Coast website, at www.wcel.org.

Sandra Janzen
Library Intern

Agriculture, Trade and Global Warming

How agricultural trade policies are fuelling global warming

Just before the new millennium, representatives from over 130 nations will convene for a series of international negotiations that are likely to have a profound impact on our ability to confront the challenges of climate change. However, these negotiations will not be taking place under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, but rather under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and they will concern the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. Unfortunately, the impacts of this trade agreement on climate change will not be on the WTO's agenda, and those responsible for the negotiations are likely to be entirely unaware of critical inter-relationships between agricultural trade and global warming.

At about the same time, most of the same countries will be sending delegates to climate change convention negotiations. These negotiations are likely to be difficult as countries endeavour to address the factors that have increased greenhouse gas emissions from many developing countries. In fact for these countries, since solemn commitments were made at the Rio Summit in 1992 to substantially reduce greenhouse gases, emissions have actually been increasing, and often by double digits. While the factors fuelling these increases are varied and complex, one of the most important is certain to be the globalization of the food production and distribution systems. Yet the impacts of agricultural production and trade on climate change are almost as obscure to climate change negotiators as global warming is in the WTO context.

Ignoring a crucial connection

Given the indifference of international trade institutions to the impact of trade regimes on non-commercial policy objectives, it isn't surprising that the connection between climate change and agricultural trade would be ignored in that context. More difficult to understand, however, is the lack of apparent concern among those working to combat global warming about trade policies that are putting climate change goals further out of reach. Unfortunately, part of the explanation has to do with the failure of governments to consider (as the Framework Convention requires) the impact of economic, and in this case agricultural, policies on global warming.

But another important part of the problem appears to be methodological. When information about agriculture and climate change is presented, the energy demands of processing, packaging and distribution systems are usually ignored. Thus, rather than look at agricultural production and trade as an integrated system, the energy demands and greenhouse gas emissions associated with production are isolated from those related to agricultural products once they leave the farm. This is particularly problematic because for many agricultural goods, it ignores the largest share of energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions that should properly be assigned to agricultural systems.

Understated impacts

Therefore, by allocating to agriculture only those greenhouse gas emissions associated with production, the importance of agriculture as a contributor to global warming is substantially understated, and the impacts of current agricultural policies are difficult to identify. In fact, when considered in aggregate it is likely that no other sector of the global economy contributes more to global warming than does agriculture. Moreover, there is every reason to expect that the implementation of present agricultural trade policies will actually increase the energy intensity of agricultural systems.

In simple terms, the trade agenda being implemented by the WTO is intended to establish an integrated global agricultural economy. Every region of the world becomes a producer of specialized agricultural commodities, each supplying its needs by shopping in the global marketplace. Food is grown not by farmers for local consumers, but by large corporations for global markets. In this process, indigenous and diversified agricultural economies are replaced by more homogenous and energy-intensive industrial models.

As local production and supply systems are displaced by regional and international ones, agricultural commodities need to be transported over increasingly longer distances, and be processed and packaged to survive the journey.

The Framework Convention on Climate Change exhorts governments to:

take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects [Art 3 Principles 3 …] and to take climate change considerations into account, to the extent feasible, in their relevant social, economic and environmental policies and actions….

Globalization's role

If an assessment of current agricultural trade policies was to be carried out it would no doubt expose how globalization is contributing to rising greenhouse gas emissions by increasing the energy intensity of food production, processing, packaging and distribution systems. Moreover, because international trade policies reshape the basic infrastructure of agricultural production and distribution systems, their adverse impacts on greenhouse gas emissions will endure for decades.

It has now been over a decade since the World Commission on the Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission) offered a compelling case for integrating environmental and economic policy. Many governments, including Canada's, have embraced this principle, yet few have made any serious effort to actually put it into effect. The apparent collision course currently being set by the institutions responsible for agricultural trade and climate change underscores the urgency of taking steps to correct this policy failure.

The WTO Ministerial Meeting that will get underway late this year in Seattle will focus on certain key areas of international trade, and agriculture is slated to be central to the agenda. Environmentalists are likely to be present at that meeting in significant numbers. In our view it is critical that we come prepared to broaden our advocacy beyond concerns about the adverse impact that WTO rules have had on environmental standards. If we expect governments to adopt a more integrative and structural approach to environmental issues, we must be willing to do so ourselves. WTO negotiations on agricultural trade will provide an ideal opportunity to demonstrate that commitment.

Steven Shrybman
Executive Director

The mission of West Coast Environmental Law is to provide legal services to protect the environment and to foster public participation in environmental decision-making.

• West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation (WCELRF) provides 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 (EDRF) provides assistance and funding to citizens to help solve environmental problems in their communities.

NEWS from West Coast Environmental Law (ISSN #1204-4326), copyright 1999. Printed on recycled paper. Published by the West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation.

Safeguarding our Future

____ Yes! I want to be a member and receive NEWS
          from West Coast Environmental Law. Here's $20.

____ Yes! I can help Safeguard our Futrue.
          Here's my cheque for:
          ___ $50 ___ $75 ___ $100___ Other
Make cheques payable to WCEL

Name: ___________________________________

Address: _________________________________

City, Prov: ________________________________

Postal Code: ______________________________

Phone: ___________________________________

Email: ____________________________________

VISA No: __________________________________

Expiry Date: _______________________________