 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Canadian Environmental Network
Manitoba Eco-Network gratefully acknowledges the support of Manitoba Conservation
Eco-Journal
September/October 2003
Index
Wuskwatim
Consultations: Where's Your Voice?
by Merrell-Ann Phare
News from Resource Conservation Manitoba
F.O.O.D. Delivers Organic Produce
by Julie Fine
by Glenda Whiteman
Letter re: "Going to the Hogs"
by Al Beck, Manitoba Conservation
Winter Research in the Subarctic
by Jennifer McCulloch
Too Good to Waste! Waste Reduction Week
Wuskwatim
Consultations: Where's Your Voice?
by Merrell-Ann Phare
Manitoba Hydro, and its proposed 33% partner, Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation (NCN), have filed their requests for the various necessary licenses and approvals with Manitoba Conservation and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to allow them to construct another hydroelectric development in northern Manitoba. The Wuskwatim Generating Station and associated transmission lines ('the Wuskwatim Proposals") have been in the planning stages for a number of years, and have generated extensive debate in the environmental and Aboriginal communities. Now that the license applications have been filed, a number of public participation and consultation processes have begun, each with its own purpose. There are at least four consultation processes in Manitoba regarding the Wuskwatim generating station and transmission lines.
Manitoba Hydro / NCN Consultation Process
Manitoba Hydro and NCN have been engaging in public consultations
with northern Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities since September
2001. The general goals of these consultations are to ascertain
the communities' issues and concerns, their perspective on alternatives
to the projects, their specific concerns about the impacts of the
Wuskwatim Proposals (as predicted by Manitoba Hydro), and then finally,
their comments on the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by
Manitoba Hydro and NCN.
Northern Flood Agreement Consultation Process
The second process affects only the communities that signed the
Northern Flood Agreement (NFA), that is, Nelson House (Nisichawayasihk
Cree Nation), Norway House, Cross Lake (Pimicikamak), York Factory
(Kitche-Waskahigan), and Split Lake (). The NFA is the agreement
that provides the means to address the damages experienced by these
Aboriginal communities in the last round of hydro-development in
the 1970's. Section 9.2 of that agreement states that "Manitoba
Hydro shall not make any decisions in respect to any such future
developments unless and until a process of bona fide and meaningful
consultation with the communities has taken place." This consultation
is to ensure that the rights of these five communities are not further
jeopardized by more Manitoba Hydro activities, such as implementation
of the Wuskwatim Proposals.
Clean Environment Commission Hearing Process
The third consultation process is through the Clean Environment
Commission (CEC) hearing process. The CEC has been instructed by
the Minister for Manitoba Conservation to hold general public hearings
(set for February 2003) on two main issues: the justification, need
for and alternatives to the Wuskwatim Proposals; and the potential
environmental, socio-economic and cultural effects of the construction
and operation of the Wuskwatim Proposals. Because most, if not all,
of the negative impacts of Wuskwatim will be felt in the north,
a large amount of the CEC's attention is being focused on ensuring
that the voice of Aboriginal peoples is heard in what is certainly
an unfamiliar process to them. The CEC managed to secure an unprecedented
$1.2 million in participant funding to allow both Aboriginal and
non-Aboriginal interests to intervene in the upcoming hearings.
The CEC is supposed to recommend to the Minister whether Environment
Act licenses should be issued to Manitoba Hydro and NCN for the
Wuskwatim Proposals, and (if so) with what terms and conditions.
The hearings will largely be about reviewing the 18-binder Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that Manitoba Hydro and NCN submitted along with their license application. The EIS outlines their view of the potential environmental, social, and economic effects of the Wuskwatim Proposals. As well, these documents include an analysis of the "need for and alternatives to" the project, which attempts to explain whether Manitobans need more electricity (even if it is just for export), and if so, whether we need to generate it by building another dam, or whether there are alternative means (like wind, or biomass) that can make more environmental, social or financial sense.
The hearings have not yet begun and parts of the EIS have already been vigorously criticized. Pimicikamak, a funded intervenor, recently submitted a motion to the CEC asking that Manitoba Hydro change what Pimicikamak sees as a highly flawed description of the project. Pimicikamak argues that despite a comprehensive, long-term program to convert Manitoba's northern rivers (in particular the Nelson) into massive generators of hydro-electricity, Manitoba Hydro has described the project as only the current project, that is, Wuskwatim and the associated transmission lines. Pimicikamak insists that the EIS should review the entire scope of hydroelectric development in north, not just the current Wuskwatim Proposals, since it is clear that past, present, and future hydro projects are intimately linked as part of a singular and cohesive hydroelectric development plan. Pimicikamak calls this plan the "Whole Project", and is requesting that Manitoba Hydro be required to submit revised information on impacts of the Whole Project.
While this may appear to be a technical issue, it goes to the heart of the long history of conflict between many northern Aboriginal peoples and Manitoba Hydro. Pimicikamak states that their motion is not about opposition to hydroelectric development. It has, at its basis, their fundamental desire to acknowledge the wrongs of the past to ensure that they are never again repeated. The CEC will hear oral arguments on this particular motion on September 30, 2003. This hearing is open to all members of the public to attend, but only those registered by September 12, 2003 can present their views. The CEC regular hearings on all other matters are in February 2003 and anyone can attend and present their perspective.
Section 35 Consultation Process
The fourth, and in many ways most important, consultation process
underway is that required by section 35 of the Constitution Act,
1982. In that year, the Aboriginal and treaty rights of the "Indian,
Inuit, and Métis" peoples of Canada were "constitutionalized",
that is recognized and affirmed by the Constitution. Before this,
the federal government regularly "infringed" (impacted,
took away, or somehow diminished) treaty and Aboriginal rights,
and did so without consulting with Aboriginal peoples first. Even
after 1982, the Manitoba government refused to acknowledge the existence
of treaty and Aboriginal rights in Manitoba, or that it had any
obligation not to infringe those rights (for example by allowing
developments, such as hydro development, that would cause those
impacts).
The section 35 constitutional provision has been interpreted in such well known Supreme Court of Canada cases as Sparrow, Delgammukw, and Marshall. The Supreme Court in these cases has primarily said two things: first, governments must not infringe Aboriginal and treaty rights, but, second, if they must, they have to follow the process that is set out in those cases. This process is the only way by which a government can legitimately, and legally, infringe on treaty and Aboriginal rights, even to the point of total extinguishment of those rights.
While this infringement process involves numerous elements, a very significant part is the "consultation" requirement. Consultation generally requires that a government must, before making a decision (such as granting a license to a hydro development company to build and operate a dam) that might infringe a treaty or Aboriginal right, try to understand what rights may be impacted, the extent of potential impacts on those rights, and how to either not impact the rights or to do so as minimally as possible. They must approach this consultation in good faith with the true intention of trying not to infringe on Aboriginal and treaty rights. Courts have made clear that, if asked, Aboriginal peoples must engage in the consultation process, but that they are entitled to a reasonable amount of resources so that they can review and understand the information (for example, scientific, engineering and legal) that they receive about the project, and then provide their informed perspective to government on the potential infringement.
Right now, the federal and provincial governments are engaged in section 35 consultations with northern First Nation and Métis peoples. Recently, Manitoba Hydro released information that indicated that it wanted to receive all licensing approvals by the end of 2003 so that it could begin construction in January 2004. Given the legal requirement for consultation with governments to occur before they make any decisions to license the Wuskwatim Proposals, some communities have asked how this short deadline could possibly allow the governments enough time to engage in truly meaningful consultations with them.
While the governments may be trying to approach the section 35 consultations "in good faith"; it doesn't look very promising. Most communities are not aware of the real purpose of these consultations. They do not have the money to hire scientific, engineering or legal advice so they can ensure that they fully understand the issues. The consultations are being managed on a small budget by government staff who have never conducted a treaty and aboriginal rights consultation. The consultation facilitator that the governments have hired has stated that her role is not to interpret treaty and Aboriginal rights, and it is uncertain whether she knows the requirements for meaningful consultation as set out in the law and will be able to ensure the consultation is legally correct and protects Aboriginal and treaty rights.
Will any of this matter?
While it is unclear how the results of each of these processes will
relate to each other, there is no requirement that they must. This
could create a difficult situation for decision-makers. What is
clear is that each of them must be done right. The CEC will evaluate
and make recommendations regarding the adequacy of the Manitoba
Hydro / NCN public consultation processes, and, if they follow the
approach taken by other quasi-judicial entities (like the National
Energy Board), they will do the same regarding the section 35 consultation.
This is important because if a proper section 35 consultation hasn't
occurred, a decision to license the Wuskwatim Proposals could be
overturned by a court in the future. Even if all other regulatory
requirements have been satisfied. Even if it never is taken to court,
failure to deal properly with the potential impacts on the rights
of Aboriginal peoples would represent yet another injury to the
northern landscape and its communities. All Manitobans, including
the aboriginal peoples, must understand this is a turning point
in our province regarding the protection of Aboriginal and treaty
rights and the natural environment. Each person has the chance to
have their voice heard to ensure that all consultation processes
are meaningful and effective, and they must seize the opportunity
if the most informed, equitable and moral decisions about northern
development are to occur. Never has there been such opportunity
to participate in, and affect, the future of Manitoba.
Merrell-Ann Phare is Legal Counsel to the Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources (CIER), a First Nation environmental organization in Winnipeg
IN
MEMORIUM
The Eco-Network is saddened to note the passing of two valued members
of our environmental community in the past year. Mr. Walter Danyluk
was a recipient of the Manitoba Eco-Network Environmental Award.
As a government employee, he is credited with overseeing the creation
of most of Manitoba's provincial parks. He is also known for his
active opposition to many industrial activities in parks which he
thought inappropriate.
Charlotte
Ferree was a supporting member of MEN for many years. She generously
provided us with some of our most popular library holdings, renewing
subscriptions over the years for important publications such as
the Ecologist and the Journal of Pesticide Reform. Our condolences
to their families.
News
from Resource Conservation Manitoba
Women's Integrative Health Conference
Saturday, March 20
An upcoming health conference examines the relationships in women's
lives. Relationships with each other, and family members, with their
own bodies, between work and home, their relationship with food
and the environment and even money.
The 2nd annual Women's Integrative Health Conference at the Wellness
Institute on Saturday March 20 features a keynote presentation by
Terri Knox called The Power of You which looks at how positive attitudes
can trigger enthusiasm and creativity. Knox is also presenting on
balancing work and life, one of over a dozen breakout sessions through
the day, and a wrap up session called The Complete Power of You.
Manitoba Eco-Network Executive Director Anne Lindsey will join Organic
U-Pick market gardener Roland Reenders in one session called Why
Organic? looking at the ecological, health, social and philosophical
impetus to shift one's personal diet in the direction of organically
produced food.
Other featured presenters include Dr. Brenda Maxwell on conventional
and holistic healing, therapist Jane Markestyn on Relationship Tune-Up,
Educator Marilyn Bileski on World Medititations and Psychotherapist
D'Arcy Bruning-Haid on the Ten Gifts Life Has to Offer.
There are also several active sessions to engage participants in
Yoga, Pilates, Belly Dancing, and even Body Bliss, a fusion exercise
that combines Pilates and Yoga movements.
Two financial planners address Money: Women's Final Frontier, Registered
Dietitian Carolyn Somerville looks at how to TRANS-form your day
by getting trans-fat out of your diet, and a pharmacist looks at
both hormone replacement therapy and alternatives.
The one-day session at the Wellness Institute, 1075 Leila Ave.,
Winnipeg, costs $65 and includes lunch. An optional Salute the Sun
early morning yoga session costs an additional $5. For more information,
or to register for the conference call 632-3297. A PDF file of the
conference brochure is available by email request to info@wellnessinstitute.mb.ca.
F.O.O.D.
(Fresh Option Organic Delivery)
Business Delivers Organic Produce
By Julie Fine
A few months back, over a cup of organic tea with a spoonful of
local buckwheat honey, I sat down to talk with Marnie Feeleus of
Fresh Option Organic Delivery (F.O.O.D) about her new business.
Marnie and her husband Kevin offer a natural and organic food delivery
service to homes, restaurants and health food stores. Their family
business focuses on local produce and vegetarian items. Here are
some snippets from our chat.
How did you come up with the idea to start F.O.O.D?
Kevin and I both have backgrounds as chefs and we thought we would
open a restaurant. A series of lifestyle changes led us to this
point. One of our goals was to create a family- based, small business
that would give our son a sense of where his food came from. We
saw a gap in the need for a distribution system that linked Manitoba
organic growers with consumers, and from here, F.O.O.D. was born.
What does your service offer?
The main product is a weekly delivery of a fresh box containing
a changing variety of organic fruits and vegetables. Each week the
contents differ based on seasonal availability, price and what each
household needs. In addition to the fresh box delivery, we offer
a range of non-produce foods from our catalogue.
How does someone get started with F.O.O.D?
Anyone can sign up on-line at www.freshoption.ca or call our office
at 474-2640. Your fresh box is delivered weekly to you door on a
pre-arranged evening depending on what area of the city you live
in. It comes in one of three sizes: small, medium and large. The
photos on our website show the sizes and sample contents of what
a box may contain in a typical week.
I have a few allergies, so I'm wondering if the contents of this
box are completely set each week or can I make some substitutes?
When you sign up, you can customize your box by specifying your
allergies, dislikes, as well as preferences for substitutes. The
contents of the box vary seasonally and from week to week. You'll
find a list of what is available on line at the beginning of each
week and you can make one additional substitute as well.
Do you offer any suggestions about how to cook or prepare some of
the foods included in the box?
Yes, each week, the box includes recipes, storage tips, related
news/events and information about the benefits of buying organic
and local products. Sometimes we include producer profiles and links
to other web sites that are of interest to customers. If we add
the occasional unusual vegetable or fruit, we include a recipe that
will help you incorporate it into your household menu. It's important
to share ideas, promote healthy eating and good wholesome foods,
by getting back to home cooking. We want to help people do this.
What about groceries other than fruits and vegetables, is this something
that I can have delivered?
Yes, we're very excited about the wide ranges of Manitoba organic
foods that we can offer, including freshly baked breads, fair trade
coffee - roasted to order in Winnipeg, bulk grains, legumes, seeds
and flours. As well you can order from a full range of grocery items,
including vegetarian cheese, dairy and meat alternatives, pasta,
snacks, cereal, bulk staples, beverages, baking supplies, tofu,
condiments and baby foods.
Having opened in April of 2003, what are some of the challenges
you've encountered?
Well, we're definitely breaking new ground here in Manitoba and
that hasn't been easy. In trying to source as much locally produced
food as possible, we found there was a lack of ready-to-eat Manitoba
produced foods. There is really no established system of distribution
for locally produced organic food other than direct farm-gate sales,
and now the Prairie Sun Organic Market. This means that growers
are accustomed to exporting out of province and to the States and
Europe in large amounts. Most of what is consumed organically here
is imported. Essentially what happens is the primary crops are shipped
out, someone else "value-adds" to the product, whether that means
packaging or processing, and then we buy it back at an elevated
cost.
What kinds of goals do you have for the future and where do you
see your business taking you?
One dream is to bring organic food into the schools, especially
by providing an educational element about why we should consume
organic foods. I'd also consider expanding into the area of ready-to-eat
Manitoba produced organic foods because in sourcing local products,
I have become aware there are opportunities and gaps to be filled
there.
F.O.O.D has a table at the Prairie Sun Organic Market and you'll
be seeing Marnie at other venues around the city.
Fogging
Controversy Continues...
By Glenda Whiteman, Executive Director
Concerned Residents of Winnipeg (CROW), Inc.
Despite improved communication between levels of government and
the public, there remain a lot of unanswered questions with respect
to Government's handling of West Nile virus in Manitoba and, in
particular, its use of pesticides.
Manitoba is the only province in Canada which fogged its citizens
in 2003, having sprayed the rural communities of Virden, Deloraine
and Stony Mountain in August. CROW, Inc. travelled out west to try
to get some answers. Sadly, we were unable to prevent fogging but
we were able to act as a resource for angry residents of those communities
who were told, "There's nothing anyone can do to stop this." Despite
amazement by community members because of the negligible presence
of mosquitoes, fogging in these towns continued as announced.
CROW's repeated requests to the province for actual mosquito trap
counts and locations were denied. Finally, on September 12, weekly
trap count averages were released to the Winnipeg Free Press. Interestingly,
although most updates can be found on the Manitoba Health website
at www.gov.mb.ca/health/wnv,
the weekly mosquito counts which were released to the Free Press
do not appear.
While the province has been busy this year developing the science
to justify fogging people, the City of Winnipeg appears to be avoiding
the issue by concentrating on larviciding. Although the City likes
to brag about its innovative use of the environmentally friendlier
BTi, CROW is still waiting to be told where and how they are applying
Dursban for larviciding purposes. The City also continues to encourage
the use of Dursban around the base of elm trees on boulevards despite
the fact that it's been banned for use in Winnipeg's schools and
playgrounds.
Levels of government worked jointly to provide better public education.
Pilot projects were introduced in Wolseley and Garden City, called
TEAAM, Targeted Environmental Action Against Mosquitoes. Teams of
TEAAM blanketed these neighbourhoods with educational materials
about reducing mosquito breeding sites, personal protection (including
safety Tips on Using Personal Insect Repellents), an optional yard
audit, and unfortunately, the typical advice to use DEET. More information
about TEAAM can be found at www.winnipeg.ca/cms/bugline/teaam.
Earlier in the summer, Town Hall meetings were held to introduce
and get feedback for the proposed Civic Environment Strategy, sections
8.1 and 8.2 of which pertain to pesticides. This document and several
stakeholder responses can be found at www.winnipegcec.org/environmental_strategy.
Look for CROW's response to be added soon.
As well as monitoring the press and writing letters, submissions
and information requests, CROW attempts to fulfill a number of other
important duties. This summer CROW had information tables at community
functions from which we collected and submitted numerous buffer
zone requests from citizens all over Winnipeg. As mentioned, we
also travelled to rural communities faced with imminent fogging
to provide information and assistance.
CROW also monitors the chemical industry's forays into our education
system. We recently attended Amazing Grains at Red River Exhibition
Park, a field trip provided for Manitoba schoolchildren with numerous
sponsors including the Manitoba government and pesticide/ pharmaceutical
giants Monsanto, Dow, Dupont and Bayer. Sadly, the only mention
of the word "organic" that we observed appeared on posters still
up from the Prairie Sun Organic Market. For more information, see
www.aitc.mb.ca/amazinggrains.htm
One of CROW's goals is to increase awareness of the pesticide issue
through cultural events which promote harmony and a sense of community
rather than controversy in the streets. Watch for announcements
about Mosquito Café. To date, three have been held at Westminster
Housing Co-op, the Mondragón Bookstore & Coffeehouse and Academy
Coffee Co.
CROW, which incorporated as a non-profit organization in March of
this year, is the Manitoba member group of the Canadian Coalition
for Health and Environment. CCHE is a non-profit organization founded
in February 2003, made up of groups across Canada who have united
to discourage the unnecessary use of toxic chemicals to kill mosquitoes
that may carry the West Nile virus. CCHE's mission is to raise nation-wide
public awareness on the issue of pesticides and other toxic chemicals
by engaging doctors, scientists, interested groups and individuals
across Canada and by creating ties with similar organizations throughout
North America and overseas. CCHE encourages and supports the use
of ecological strategies to protect human health and the environment.
CCHE has released an ecological West Nile virus strategy, which
can be found on their website at www.cche-info.com.
Their strategy document includes background information, comments
on specific pesticides, and recommendations for healthy solutions.
The Coalition encourages governments and the media to educate the
public on safer effective approaches to dealing with mosquito-borne
diseases. Both CROW and CCHE welcome new members, enquiries and
donations; write to CROWinc@mts.net
or CCHE@mts.net, or call (204)
229-9613.
CROW is a new member group of the Manitoba Eco-Network.
Letter regarding "Going to the Hogs"
From:
Mr. Al Beck, Manager
Environmental Livestock Program
Manitoba Conservation
Re: Going to the Hogs article by Mr. Ted Ross, May/June issue of
the Eco-Journal
I commend the efforts of the Roseisle Creek Watershed Association
in protecting and preserving the natural habitats of the Babcock/Roseisle
Valley area. Such areas provide many alternative use opportunities
for people as well as performing essential ecological functions.
However, some of the discussion in the article should be placed
in proper context.
The Province of Manitoba is committed to the principle of keeping
local land use decision making in the hands of local decision-makers,
that is the elected municipal councillors. This provides the best
opportunity for local people to interact with their elected officials
to decide the future of their local area. Ideally, this interaction
would occur through the development of municipal development plans
and land use zoning well in advance of consideration of specific
proposals.
Technical Review Committees (TRC) are established under The Planning
Act. The role of the TRC is to provide support to local government
by providing preliminary technical assessments and reports on proposals
for livestock operations. The TRC assesses a proposal based on information
provided by the proponent, other information available to members,
local and provincial land use policies, the Farm Practices guidelines
and pertinent regulations. The TRC will describe the potential effect
of a proposed operation in terms of the assimilative capacity of
the land base to use livestock manure on a sustainable basis as
a crop nutrient. Comment will also be provided on the potential
for nuisance odours...
A TRC report does not provide an environmental assessment as protection
of the environment lies within the purview of Manitoba Conservation.
The proponent may proceed to acquire the detailed hydro-geological
and geophysical information needed to support an application to
Manitoba Conservation for a permit to construct a manure storage
facility. The detailed information is used by Manitoba Conservation
to assess the proposed design of manure storage facilities and sustainability
of proposed manure application to farm land. Usually the collection
of detailed information engenders considerable cost and proponents
are reluctant to proceed to this step unless there is some assurance
of approval from the municipal council. Therefore , the detailed
information is typically obtained after approval to proceed has
been obtained from muncipal council....Regardless of the location,
site-specific detailed information must be provided to Manitoba
Conservation before any permit request may be considered by the
department.
Response
From Ted Ross, President
Roseisle Creek Watershed Association
Ref. Mr. Beck's letter concerning "Going to the Hogs" Article
I appreciate Mr. Beck's commendation on the efforts of our association
to protect the natural habitats of the Babcock/Roseisle Valley.
Unfortunately, our efforts so far have gone unheeded. We are loosing
to putrid manure pits (euphemistically referred to as "lagoons")
full of millions of gallons of untreated feces, urine and toxic
waste destined to be spread onto soils, and potentially into subsurface
waters and rivers.
Rather than debate the process Mr. Beck describes in his letter,
I will share some information with you. You read it, then decide
yourself if the hog industry is safe (to our environment and health)
and respectful of people.
* Our experience with the Technical Review Committee and Conservation
Process is that they are formulated, first and foremost, in the
context of commercial interests. In my opinion, and in that of many
others in rural Manitoba, our health and nature's health are treated
as secondary to commercial enterprise. The two operations near our
valley serve as good examples.
– We are quite certain, by way of aerial photos, that one of these
operations has a lagoon built too close to surface water contrary
to the Environment Act (the permit to this operator has been under
appeal to Conservation since July 2002). We see another proponent
building in a moose habitat, then is found digging with a backhoe
in a marsh (aquifer recharge area). This latter operator has also
been allowed to build contrary to the farm Practices Guidelines
in that there are too many residences within 1 mile of the site.
And this is what the so-called good operators are doing. Never mind
the practices of the bad operators.
– If my calculations are correct these two operations will use 200
million litres of water a year, at a time when fresh water scientists
are alerting governments to drought conditions and the need for
more effective water management.
– We are seeing woodlands bulldozed to provide more room for the
spreading of hog excrement to meet manure management plans.
* Consider these requirements in the Environment Act and be your
own judge as to how well our drinking water is protected.
– A manure pit can be 100 m (300 ft) from any surface watercourse,
sinkhole, spring or well (ref. the Environment Act: Schedule A -
1. Siting Requirements).
– The bottom of a manure pit can be 1.0 m (3 ft) above the elevation
of a water table (ref. the Environment Act: Schedule A - 2 (g) General
Construction Requirements). And don't be comforted by plastic liners
as their design specifications have a seepage tolerance.
– The contents of a manure pit can be spread as close as 16 ft from
a well if the slope is less than 4 % (less than 4ft slope over 100
ft, for example). Reference the Minimum Manure Setback Distances
in the Farm Practices Guidelines).
I would ask your readers to give some thought to these facts. Manitoba's
hog population grew by 42.9% between 1996 and 2001 (ref. Winnipeg
Free Press, Oct 24, 2002). Our yearly hog production is now around
6.8 million (Stats Canada). Information I have read states that
a hog produces at least 3 times the excrement humans do (ref. Waterkeepers
Alliance). So hogs in Manitoba are producing the human waste equivalent
of nearly 21 million people. And this untreated waste is spread
on fields. Sounds like a huge risk to me, and must certainly be
a big contributor to the death of our lakes.
Not to pick on Mr. Beck, but I get upset with the government advocates
of this industry. How many of these people have their homes or business
just 1/2 mile from 8000 pigs and their open-air toilet? How many
of them are dependent on drinking water from a well fed by an aquifer
under a pit holding millions of gallons of untreated animal excretion.
I expect the answer is none! And if our local experience is any
indicator, most of the operators and owners of these large corporate
animal factories (I'm not talking about family farms) won't even
live near their operations.
It would be interesting to hear from your readers as to their experiences
with these operations. I am getting sick and tired of how our politicians
protect this disgusting industry, while the family hog farms collapse,
and our waters die. The whole business reminds me of the debates
and issues concerning the tobacco industry not so many years ago...air
and water pollution from these hog factories being just a different
form of "cancer".
Manitoba's
Public Registry Online
Information from the Alice Chambers Memorial Library
Manitoba's environmental public registry (PR) provides a window
of information on events that have shaped and continue to shape
Manitoba's landscape. Any proposed developments that require approval
under Manitoba's Environment Act must be filed in the PR. It includes
a wealth of information on proposals, including environmental impact
statements, management plans, maps and facility diagrams, reports
from technical advisory committees and verbatim transcripts of Clean
Environment Commission hearings.
In the latest word on the PR, Final Report of the Chair - Core Group
on the Amendments to the Environment Act 2002 (Section I 12.B Public
Registries), it was noted that "there are considerable improvements
that could be made to the public registry system", one of which
is the "greater use of electronic information". Arguably, the dominant
forum for the dissemination of electronic information is the Internet,
so in the context of Manitoba and the PR, the question that must
be asked is "Where is PR in terms of access and availability of
information online?"
Announcements - Indexes and Summary Information:
Since 2001, all new material deposited to the PR has been indexed
by the staff of the Manitoba Eco-Network and announced on Eco-Man,
a listserve for environmental issues relevant to Manitoba. The text
of the announcement to the listserve is then placed on the Internet
in the form of an easy to understand index, with the aim of providing
a quick and easy aid for the public to ensure they are viewing the
complete contents of a particular file.
http://www.web.net/men/mbprposts.htm
The files are arranged by file number and encompass all of the contents
noted and organized by the date that a piece of material was added
to the PR, with the most recent first. Other information included
on the webpage includes the client name, type of development, license
information and the Rural Municipality where the proposed development
is to be situated. Finally, each PR file has a link to the file
summary available at the Manitoba Environmental Approvals website.
Although it only provides information on proposals since 1996, the
Manitoba Environmental Approvals website is very useful in getting
a quick overview of PR files, provided that you know the year and
class of development or the region in which the development is located.
The strongest feature of the Approvals website is that once a license
has been issued, the complete text is added as a link off of the
summary page to allow the public to get the full text of the license
online.
http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/envapprovals/archive/arcindex.html
Searchable and Downloadable data:
If you want to search for files and compare similar files, a new
website launched by the province is very useful. The Public Registry
Database provides users with the ability to search by entering keywords,
client name, operation type, file and license number. This allows
users to gather related material together for their research needs.
http://www2.gov.mb.ca/con-cat/Regquery.htm
Finally, the ACML has placed an Excel file (PR Master File) online
that contains the information of every file released through the
public registry. The spreadsheet is useful because it allows users
to sort data by file number, operation type and client in order
to group similar developments for research. This file includes developments
that occurred prior to 1996. http://www.web.net/men/Data/
What Now:
By using the combination of these online resources, an individual
can quickly cobble together information on a given file or development
type. However, the online sources are scattered and not user-friendly.
There is room for improvement in online access to this information.
What is needed is an online one stop, comprehensive, and easily
searchable, full text retrievable documented system. A good example
of such a system is the recent Georgia Strait Crossing Pipeline
Limited GSX Canada Pipeline Project.
http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/registry/gsx/pubreg_e.htm
However, it must be stressed that the Final Report of the Chair
also noted that "not all people have access to computers" so, while
many challenges lie ahead as it relates to serving up the PR over
the Internet, this should in no way take away from the work needed
to maintain and improve the print PR depository system found at
twenty locations throughout the province. But as they used to say
on the riverbank, "that's another story".
WINTER
RESEARCH IN THE SUBARCTIC
By Jennifer McCulloch, Churchill Northern Studies Centre
As human activities continue to potentially disrupt the balance
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and alter climatic conditions,
the need for environmental monitoring becomes essential. Because
it is thought that climatic changes will be seen first in the north,
environmental monitoring, like the type being performed at the Churchill
Northern Studies Centre (CNSC), will provide valuable information.
For the past 26 years the Churchill Northern Studies Centre (CNSC),
located 20 kilometres east of Churchill, Manitoba, has promoted
and assisted research and education in the north. In addition, over
the course of the last 4 years, the CNSC has developed its own in-house
research at 7 long-term monitoring sites to observe various tundra
and forest ecosystems and the potential impacts of climate change
on these ecosystems. For the past 3 summers, baseline data has been
collected in relation to biodiversity, carbon storage, plant phenology,
permafrost status and meteorological data.
However, in the past, research being performed in this region has
been restricted to spring and summer months due to logistical difficulties.
Unfortunately, this has created a gap in the understanding of how
the winter months contribute to the development of the various ecosystems.
For instance, composition and survival of plant communities is greatly
dependent on the amount of snow coverage. If over time the area
experiences a change in precipitation levels, a change in plant
species could be observed.
Over the past 2 years the CNSC has begun to bridge this gap in understanding
by continuing its monitoring program through the fall and winter.
Such monitoring has included bi-weekly data collection at temperature
probes installed at each site to make record of both freeze-thaw
cycles and snow pack temperature gradients. Bi-weekly snow depth
measurements at each monitoring site were taken as well as observations
of what mammal and avian species were making use of the various
sites during the winter months.
Beyond the bi-weekly monitoring, more intensive sampling took place
in February when the CNSC hosted a group of Earthwatch volunteers
and students from the University of Alberta under the direction
of Dr. Peter Kershaw from the University of Alberta. Earthwatch
is a non-profit organization that assists in teaming up volunteers
with research projects. Such a relationship aids not only with the
labour aspect of research but also greatly helps maintain funding
for the project. This February's Earthwatch team saw volunteers
arrive in Churchill from the U.K., USA, and Japan. Upon arrival
they assisted in obtaining data about the winter ecology of the
area by digging snow pits at each site. From each pit several measurements
were taken including definition of the different precipitation events
by determining the various layers, density of the snow from the
various layers, types and size of snow crystals making up the layers,
vertical and horizontal hardness of the various layers, pH and particulate
matter. Such data will provide a much better understanding of all
aspects of the ecosystem. For instance vertical hardness can be
used to determine the energy required for a fox to dig through the
snow to catch a lemming or the energy required for a caribou to
dig to the ground to reach the desired vegetation. Horizontal hardness
can be used to determine ease of small mammals to tunnel through
the snow and data regarding amount of water in the snow will give
a better understanding of soil development.
Because this research has only been active for the past 2 years,
conclusions obviously cannot be made yet, but it is anticipated
this research will continue for many years to come. It is also hoped
that upon hearing about this successful winter sampling other researchers
will be intrigued about the area and, as a result, the type of research
being performed in this subarctic environment will continue to expand.
For more information about the Churchill Northern Studies Centre,
please visit our website at www.churchillmb.net/~cnsc
or phone (204) 675-2307. For more information about Earthwatch,
visit their website at www.earthwatch.org.
Too
Good to Waste!
Get Ready for Waste Reduction Week, October 20-26, 2003
Canadians produce more than 21 million tonnes of garbage annually,
making us one of the five biggest waste-producing nations in the
world, per capita. We are also the third highest energy-consuming
country, per capita. And, in the same year that we spend a total
of three billion hours commuting to and from work, each of our cars
releases about 4850 kg of greenhouse gases and other harmful emissions,
and each of our SUVs gives off about 8070 kg.
The good news
Waste Reduction Week (WRW) is a community response to environmental
and social problems generated by overconsumption and waste. The
aim is to encourage action on conservation and waste reduction.
2003 marks the third year for WRW as a national event. Cities, towns,
schools, companies, and community organizations in all thirteen
provinces and territories are taking part.
The theme of the week, "Too Good to Waste," is intended to convey
an appreciation for the richness, diversity and beauty of the world,
and to call Canadians to protect the environment by conserving resources
and curbing wasteful practices. Each day of WRW has a designated
theme:
Monday - home Friday
- play
Tuesday - travel
Saturday - shopping
Wednesday - work Sunday - community
Thursday - school
Creative actions
The ways to participate in WRW are innumerable. Individuals, schools,
workplaces, and organizations can pick up on an idea from elsewhere,
or do something completely different. In previous years, the University
of Manitoba Recycling and Environmental Group launched their Residence
Recycling Challenge, organizers in Manitou staged "litterless lunch"
days in the school cafeteria, and the mayor of Thompson made an
official WRW proclamation.
As well, students of Red River College took tours of the Canadian
Waste recycling facility, the Town of Roblin aired a recycling video
on a local cable station twice daily, and the University of Winnipeg
Womyn's Centre held a free reusable pad-making workshop.
More information
Resource Conservation Manitoba coordinates WRW in Manitoba. For
more information or activity suggestions, or to request a free full-colour
poster or WRW handbook, visit www.resourceconservation.mb.ca,
or call 925-3775 in Winnipeg, or 1-866-394-8880 toll-free. Don't
forget - you can register your Waste Reduction Week event and be
entered to win a fabulous prize!
WRW in Manitoba acknowledges support from the Manitoba Product Stewardship
Corporation, Manitoba Conservation, the City of Winnipeg, Manitoba
Hydro, the Manitoba Association for Resource Recovery Corporation,
and the Tire Stewardship Board.