Mackenzie Gas Panel Rejects Governments’ Attempt to Weaken Its Recommendations
10/14/2010
It is no secret that the Governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories are strong supporters of the Mackenzie Gas Project. But it’s shocking that they seem set on pushing it through with little or no regard for whether it will promote sustainable development for the North or harm this invaluable ecosystem. Fortunately, the Joint Review Panel (JRP) that was tasked with reviewing the environmental and socio-economic implications of the project is refusing to endorse this irresponsible approach.
In December 2009, after 2 years of public hearings and another 2 years of deliberations, the JRP released its report on the Mackenzie Gas Project: “Foundation for a Sustainable Northern Future”. The Panel concluded that the project could make a positive contribution to sustainability and that it could be carried out without significant adverse impacts, subject to the full implementation of its 176 recommendations. As we noted then, these recommendations are no joke. They’re the product of a very serious, comprehensive and committed effort to map the conditions under which this massive undertaking could open up the pristine Mackenzie basin without leading to its destruction.
It is very disturbing that the Governments of Canada and the NWT have tried to have the JRP accept the Governments’ commitment to implementing only about 10% of the recommended actions. The Governments -in an interim response that remains know to the public only through the JRP’s response to it- are proposing to accept only 10 of the 115 recommendations directed to them, reject 28 and claim to “accept the intent” of 77.
The recommendations that the Governments would like to reject or “accept in intent” include those directed to limiting green house gas emissions, ensuring sustainable end use of the extracted gas, completing and implementing First Nations land use plans, and protecting wildlife like caribou and polar bears. They also include recommendations intended to protect the Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary from the impact of the anchor fields and other development that the project proposes to carry out inside this protected area.
It is encouraging that the JRP has both refused to engage in a confidential exchange with the Governments and that they have stood firm by their conclusion that “in the absence of implementation of its Recommendations, and in particular those Recommendations directed to Governments, the adverse impacts of the Project could be significant and its contributions to sustainability could be negative.” Bravo to the JRP for standing up for transparency and sustainability!
This is not the end of the story, however, so stay tuned for further developments…
