 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Canadian Environmental Network
Manitoba Eco-Network gratefully acknowledges the support of Manitoba Conservation
Eco-Journal
Volume 15, Number
2
March / April 2005
view PDF version (2.5MB)
Decision Time for Manitoba's New National Park
by Roger Turenne, Chair, CPAWS-Manitoba
Lowlands Committee
Winnipeg Wild! Action Centres
The Toxic Tale of Smelters
by Anna Tilman
Forest Management from Aboriginal Perspective
by Carissa Wieler
A CROW’s-Eye Vision
by Glenda Whiteman, Concerned Residents
of Winnipeg, Inc.
Federal Review calls for Public Comment: Is 2,4-D
Really “Safe”?
by Anne Lindsey
Riding Mountain Ecosystem Atlas Released
by Beth McKechnie, CPAWS Manitoba
Youth Lead Greenhouse Gas Reduction
by Alon Weinberg
Decision
Time for Manitoba’s New National Park
By Roger Turenne, Chair, CPAWS-Manitoba Lowlands Committee
In March of last year, Premier Gary Doer and David Anderson, then federal environment minister, signed an agreement to work toward the creation of Manitoba’s third national park, in the northern Interlake, by May 2005. Public consultations were to be complete by the end of 2004. These consultations have not even started. It is now too late for the May deadline to be met, again. This park has been under discussion for almost 13 years and deadlines have come and gone in the past, without results. Is this more of the same?
What is at stake is a two-part area north and south of Grand Rapids. It contains magnificent sand beaches and the longest freshwater sand spit in Canada. It supports some of the greatest concentrations and diversities of inland colonial nesting birds anywhere in the country. It has an abundance of wetlands, bogs, marshes and shallow lakes that serve as major staging areas for waterfowl and shorebirds during fall migration. There are spectacular limestone cliffs and a karst, or limestone, topography with characteristics that make it unique in the world.
It also contains two natural features that cry out for protection. The first is the southwest portion of the Long Point component. This is the only place in North America where the five major species of ungulates, including white-tailed deer, moose, elk, the threatened woodland caribou and the reintroduced wood bison share a common habitat.
Lake changes colour with air temperature
The second is Little Limestone Lake. What could be more unique than
a lake that changes colour with the air temperature, from a brilliant
turquoise to a robin’s-egg blue? That’s what happens
in Little Limestone Lake. It is the finest example of a marl lake
in the world, according to Dr. Derek Ford, the world’s foremost
authority on karst, where marl lakes occur. (Marl is created when
calcite, the chief constituent of limestone, is chemically precipitated
from warm water.) Immediately to the south of Little Limestone Lake
are two caves that serve as hibernacula for little brown bats, the
most northerly such hibernacula in the province.
Such a spectacular natural area should be a no-brainer for inclusion in the park. Yet Little Limestone Lake and the bat caves are situated just outside the proposed boundary, with no protection whatsoever. For years governments have caved in to mining industry pressures to leave this area out because of its presumed mineral potential. It’s time for the province to tell industry that they can’t have this globally significant jewel of central Manitoba.
Paralysis in public policy?
There is another problem with the most recent park proposal. The
map released in 2004 contains two parts: “core lands”
and “proposed additions.” The difference is not a reflection
of the relative importance of the two, which, from a scientific
perspective, are all essential to the integrity of the park. Rather,
they reflect the timidity of the provincial government in moving
ahead without the permission of the mining and forestry sectors
who have not “signed on” to the whole package. Striving
for consensus is praiseworthy, but not when it leads to paralysis
in public policy. Will Premier Doer cave in to industry pressures
to scale back, or will he stand firm on the best conservation project
his government has ever brought forth?
Full support from local communities is critical to the creation of the park, and commendably, the two governments do not wish to proceed without it. But the town of Grand Rapids and some First Nations have been reluctant to engage in the process. They have a lot of leverage and, understandably, they are using it. They have let governments know that they want a number of unrelated issues dealt with before tackling the park, such as resolving compensation for the building of the Grand Rapids hydro dam, a desire for additional reserve land, and forestry allocations.
Until now, governments have preferred to deal with each such issue separately and avoid linkage. It hasn’t worked, in spite of the governments’ best efforts over the years to address the issues. It is a real dilemma: agree to bargain other issues to get the park, or move forward with the park establishment process in the hope that local communities will ultimately get on board? All the facts are known about the proposed park. All the studies have been done. Federal financing is in place. All the players are identified and know their interests. It’s now time for them to sit down together, bargain in good faith, and create a legacy for future generations.
There are indications that the long-delayed public consultation process will soon get underway. The Manitoba Lowlands National Park will be the third and last national park created in Manitoba. It is worth doing right. All those who care about preserving some of our last remaining wilderness should participate in this process and make clear to governments that they strongly support the park proposal, with the addition of Little Limestone Lake and the bat caves. The public meetings will be advertised, so watch for them.
For more information and to get a visual sense of what this extraordinary
landscape looks like, go to www.cpawsmb.org
and view the spectacular 10-minute slide show from the Manitoba
Chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. Just follow
the links to: A National Park Struggles to Be Born.
Last summer, CPAWS Manitoba and Wildcanada.net launched an online survey to determine Winnipeggers’ favourite parks and wilderness areas, and why these areas are important to them. Survey results were compiled in January 2005 and showed a keen interest by respondents to take action to protect their favourite parks and wilderness areas.
The newly launched online Winnipeg Wild! action centres provide educational information and steps that individuals can take in support of the two areas most frequently identified in the survey responses. They focus on Bird’s Hill Provincial Park, which is next in line for public involvement in the development of a park management plan, and the eastern boreal forest, including Whiteshell and Nopiming Provincial Parks. The proximity of the eastern Manitoba parks and wilderness areas to Winnipeg makes them popular cottaging and recreational destinations, and as a result, heavily impacted by human use.
For details, please visit us at: www.winnipegwild.net.
To receive monthly email updates on issues related to parks, wilderness
conservation and CPAWS activities, join CPAWS Manitoba ParkWatch
Network by e-mailing: parks@cpawsmb.org
The
Toxic Tale of Smelters
By Anna Tilman
Base metal smelters are a major source of pollution in Canada. For the most part, these large metallurgical facilities have been operating for decades in fairly remote areas, and are a central and dominant feature of their communities.
These operations are in the business of extracting metals of "economic value" from rock for global markets--primarily copper, lead, zinc and nickel, with numerous other metals, such as, cobalt, cadmium, silver, gold, platinum and palladium as by-products. In the process of extracting these metals, vast amounts of hazardous pollutants of detrimental value to human health and the environment are released to air, land and water.
To a large extent, these facilities remain far from the Canadian public eye--out of sight and mind, until an incident or an over-arching environmental issue, such as acid rain, impacts on the larger populated areas of Canada and the U.S.
Over the years, in the face of regulated limits, many smelters have reduced their emissions by the construction of sulphuric acid plants and the introduction of other technologies. Despite this, the base metals sector remains the single largest industrial source of sulphur dioxide emissions in Canada, as well as emissions of a number of highly toxic metals--mercury, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, beryllium, and nickel.
To put this into numerical perspective, approximately 800,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide (SO2) are emitted annually from smelters in Canada, about one-third of all industrial sources. Three facilities alone--Inco Copper Cliff (Sudbury), Inco Thompson and Hudson Bay Mining & Smelting (HudBay) in Flin Flon contribute to more than 80% of these emissions, with each of the two Manitoba facilities emitting in the order of 200,000 tonnes.
The HudBay smelter, in operation since 1930, is notorious for its emissions of mercury--one of the most pervasive toxic substances known. While emissions from this facility were in the order of 20 tonnes about 15 years ago, they remain inordinately high (over 1340 kg annually) today, making this facility the largest point source of mercury emissions to air in Canada.
None of this bodes well for human health and the environment.
SO2 along with other pollutants are a major cause of acid deposition which is intrinsically linked to other environmental issues such as climate change and the leaching of mercury (in its most toxic form, methylmercury) into rivers, lakes and streams. Likewise, the toxic metals--arsenic, cadmium and the like, add to the witches' brew of toxins that poison water and soil, severely compromising the health and diversity of the forests, vegetation and the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems upon which we all depend.
In terms of human health, exposure to SO2 (as a gas and in the form of miniscule sulphate particles) can contribute to asthma, bronchitis, cardiovascular disease and possibly lung cancer. Workers directly exposed to SO2 are particularly at risk to lung disease. Similarly, mercury and lead are extremely toxic and a cause of developmental and neurological disorders as well as damage to organs, while arsenic, nickel, chromium and cadmium are associated with the development of various cancers. For a number of these substances, there is no threshold below which adverse effects cannot be found.
Communities in Sudbury, Thompson, Rouyn, Flin Flon, Trail and other smelter towns, as well as nearby communities, bear the brunt of the pollutants most directly, and are particularly at risk of having elevated rates of asthma, cancer and other pollutant-related ailments. But it doesn't stop there. Because many of these pollutants, such as SO2 and mercury, are long-distance travellers, their influence on environmental and human health is exerted hundreds and even thousands of kilometres from their source.
The legacy from these smelters will live on long after these facilities shut down. In economic terms, the costs for remediation, health care and lost opportunities for other development are significant. The toll from these emissions is very disturbing for a country with an "advanced" economy.
Clearly, action is called for to deal with this most serious problem. So what is being done or not done?
Manitoba Smelters--Action or Inaction
Despite decades of operation, the two Manitoba smelters (Inco-Thompson and HudBay), which currently contribute about 50% of all the SO2 emissions from this industry, do not have the technology in place to capture the sulphur or otherwise reduce their emissions substantively. These facilities are the only two smelters operating in Canada without sulphur fixation or a similar method of avoiding such emissions. "Canada is alone among developed countries in permitting the operation of a smelter without sulphur fixation".1 Nor have these companies expressed willingness to invest in such technology or alternative approaches to significantly reduce these emissions, something which should have been done years ago.
The province of Manitoba has prescribed annual limits on emissions of SO2 of 220,000 tonnes for each smelter, effective in 1994 (with a monthly limit of 23,000 tonnes). These limits were set in 1988 at a time when emissions were typically greater than the present case2. However, from 1998 on, emissions of SO2 have been below the prescribed limits--emissions for 2002 were in the order of 178,000 and 196,000 tonnes for HudBay and Inco Thompson respectively. In other words, based on the annual provincial regulated limits, these companies don't have to do anything about their SO2 emissions, at least by provincial requirements, and can continue to do "business as usual" and pollute as usual.
When it comes to the protection of individuals from exposure to SO2, Manitoba's 24-hour air quality guideline is considerably weaker, by a factor of about three, than the guideline established by the World Health Organization (WHO), which reflects the current understanding of the degree of SO2 toxicity.3 While the province reports a decrease in the number of yearly exceedances of its guideline, one needs to re-examine the outcome if the WHO level were applied to indicate exceedances in the two smelter communities.
Regrettably, the province does not see fit to require more stringent limits--and is reluctant to recognize the health and environmental consequences from such massive releases. It is difficult to fathom how such amounts of SO2 cannot be harmful both locally and far from the source. Clearly, increased acid deposition due to the Manitoba smelters is a factor in the acidification of lakes in regions of Northwest Ontario and Northern Saskatchewan and elsewhere. Who knows what the fate of such high levels of mercury is--but, for a substance as complicated and destructive as mercury, a traveller without a passport, the emissions from HudBay alone are formidable and intolerable.
Federal Action--long awaited
In 2002, the Federal Government was criticized by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada for not having put control measures on the Base Metals Sector.
Federal action was finally triggered when releases from primary and secondary copper and zinc smelters and refineries were declared toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 99) in September 2002.4 Under CEPA 99, Environment Canada was required to develop a regulation or instrument within 2 years to manage these toxic substances.
The instrument chosen was Pollution Prevention (P2) Planning, a non-regulatory instrument. The proposed P2 Planning Notice (issued September 25, 2004) lists facility-specific targets for emission reductions of SO2 and respirable particulate matter that are factors to consider, in other words, not enforceable. Most of the targets are inadequate to realize any significant reductions in the next 10 years. For example, HudBay is asked to reduce emissions of SO2 to 166,000 tonnes by 2008 and Inco Thompson to 174,000 tonnes, which is barely significant relative to their emissions in 2002 (HudBay--178,000 tonnes, Inco Thompson--196,000 tonnes).
What's more, it is proposed that emissions reduction targets for
releases of toxic metals be set through a voluntary Code of Practice
by the companies, not by the federal ministry.
Yet even this measure is being strongly resisted by the companies
and in particular, the province of Manitoba, which along with the
industry, argues that protecting health and the environment will
result in lost jobs in smelter communities.
The only way to stop the destruction wrought by emissions from these smelters is to force technological change through strong regulation at both federal and provincial levels. Voluntary initiatives do not work unless they are backed up by a well-defined regulatory backstop strategy with associated enforcement and penalties for non-compliance.
At this time, Canada's base metal smelters are enjoying greatly increased profitability because of rising commodity prices. It is the ideal time to require that the dividend from these profits be spent to protect the health of the very workers and communities that have produced it and sustained this industry at the expense of their health over the past several decades.
Furthermore, the metals industry in Canada is undergoing changes in practices, ownership and management. It is essential that governments take into account the ramifications of these changes and bring in measures to ensure that the Base-Metals Sector across Canada utilizes the best technology and preventative measures in the world. This would be in line with the sentiment of the Federal Minister of Environment, Stéphane Dion, who recently proposed "developing a competitive economy anchored by a sustainable environment whose objective is to attain the highest levels of environmental quality as a means to enhance the well-being of Canadians, preserve our natural environment and advance our long-term competitiveness".
Finally, in recognizing the nature of the business in this sector and its role in the communities as a major employer, it behooves the industry and all levels of governments (federal, provincial and regional) to undertake measures to creatively address the interests and needs of the affected communities.
The use of just-transition programs and community reinvestment funds can counter the employment impacts on these communities of the potential closure of facilities or down-sizing as technologies change. No person should be forced to work in an environment which endangers their health and the health of their families because of economic constraints or threats to their livelihood.
We can and must do better as a society. Please contact your MLA and/or MP and raise these issues with them. We must advocate for appropriate and timely action on the largest emitters of Toxic substances in Canada.
Anna Tilman has been involved in consultations as a representative of environmental organizations regarding the Base Metals Smelters since 1999, and is a member of the Base Metals Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (BEMAG).
Sources for data and other information in this article may be found
at:
Environment Canada websites:
National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri/npri_home_e.cfm
Canada-wide Acid Rain Strategy;
2004 Canadian Acid Deposition Science Assessment--Summary of Key
Results
www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/saib/acid/acid_e.html
Proposed Pollution Prevention Planning P2 Notice:
www.ec.gc.ca/nopp at "Consultations"(archived)
Environmental Code of Practice for Base Metals Smelters and Refineries (proposed first edition, June 2004) www.ec.gc.ca/nopp/docs/cp/bms/en/index.cfm
Review of Environmental Releases for the Base Metals Sector prepared--Hatch
consultants (2000)
http://www.ec.gc.ca/nopp/docs/consult/bms/en/bms_releases_sum.cfm
Other references:
Letter to Ministers by Environmental Organizations:
http://www.miningwatch.ca/issues/toxics/P2_letter.html
World Health Organization on SO2 exposure:
www.euro.who.int/document/aiq/7_4sulfurdioxide.pdf
Manitoba Conservation Submission to Environment Canada--March 11, 2004
For further information on submissions to Environment Canada during consultations on the Base Metals Sector, contact Serge Langdeau, Environment Canada, at 819-994-0457.
For submissions by Anna Tilman, contact annatilman@sympatico.ca.
1 CRU International (Commodities Research Unit) reports that only
6% of copper smelters had no sulphur fixation in 2001.
2 Emissions of SO2 were 266 000 tonnes for HudBay and 283 000 at
Inco Thompson in 1988.
3 Manitoba's 24-hour guideline of 0.11 ppm (parts per million, equivalent
to 314.6 µg/m3) whereas the WHO value is 0.04 ppm (equivalent
to 125 µg/m3). The WHO guideline was reconfirmed in 2000 ref.
WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen Denmark--Air Quality
Guidelines for SO2 (Chapter 7.4).
4 The CEPA-toxic substances include Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), Particulate
Matter (PM) containing metals, respirable particulate matter less
than or equal to 10 microns (PM10) and releases to air of lead,
mercury, arsenic, cadmium and nickel.
Forest Management
from Aboriginal Perspective
by Carissa Wieler, TREE member and Board Member of Manitoba Model
Forest
I recently attended a conference entitled “How to Measure Good Forest Management: An Aboriginal Perspective”, sponsored by the Canadian Model Forest Network and the First Nations Forestry Program (March 8-9, Winnipeg). Attendees included aboriginal people from across Canada, from Labrador to Vancouver Island, as well as representatives from NGOs, industry, government and academia. We assembled to learn more about forestry indicator and certification systems, with a specific focus on aboriginal and treaty rights and perspectives. As an avid note taker, I offer you some of my notes from the conference, as well as a few reflections on the conference as a whole.
Indicators and Forest Certification
Participants learned about sustainable forest indicators, their
benefits and limitations. Indicators can be qualitative or quantitative
measurements of change, or evidence that a good practice is occurring.
A limitation of indicators is that they tend to reduce wholes into
parts.. There also appears to be a gap in indicator systems with
respect to aboriginal perspectives and participants were encouraged
to become involved in indicator development at the local level.
Participants also learned about forest certification, its benefits and limitations, and first hand experiences from aboriginal communities. Forest Certification is a voluntary, non governmental program that verifies a company’s forest management systems, operations and products against a standard.
The three main certification systems active in Canada are through the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Sustainable Forest Initiative (SFI). While each system has its own distinctions, all include aboriginal interests and protection of rights to some degree. SFI is the most recent to include aboriginal interests (as of January 2005).
For an aboriginal community, involvement in the certification process emerges along three lines of opportunity. First, aboriginal communities can pressure companies to ensure their rights are protected. Second, aboriginal communities can participate regularly and constructively in the certification process. Third, FSC certification can be appealed to the FSC if the decision to award certification appears to contravene an aspect of the standard, such as an aboriginal right.
Not a guarantee of aboriginal or treaty rights
Participants were cautioned that certification is not an avenue
for policy change and does not always guarantee that aboriginal
and treaty rights will be respected. Also, aboriginal communities
seeking certification for their own forests could save significant
costs by entering a niche market for aboriginal products, rather
than certifying their wood.
Iisaak, an aboriginal community with a timber licence in Clayoqout Sound (Vancouver Island), sought FSC certification a couple of years ago. The community felt that FSC certification would yield greater acceptance of old growth harvesting from NGOs, greater recognition of legal and customary rights of aboriginal people, and increased marketing power. Now FSC certified, the community faces the challenge of moving certified wood to the market. A solution has been to sell wood through an EcoLumber cooperative in BC.
Ktunaxa Kinbasket Treaty Council, located in the Kootenays, was part of a larger FSC certification process initiated by Tembec, the main employer in the region. Certification took place within a broader, evolving relationship between Kutaxa and Tembec, the workings of which were outlined for us. A key aspect is the consultation and accommodation agreement.
Consultation expectations are clarified by means of a consultative framework, currently in development, which includes a matrix indicating the type of consultation expected to occur for different company activities, ranging from notice only, to full consultation. Accommodation expectations include protection of rights (i.e. full access to land for sustenance), goods and services procurement, an employment strategy and business ventures. It was emphasized that the relationship is two-way and based on mutual respect and responsibility. Differences within the community are also being addressed, with the goal of protecting and strengthening both cultural and business interests. It was exciting to hear about these and other aboriginal success stories.
Involvement, perseverance and information
Emerging themes throughout the conference included: Aboriginal involvement
in indicator and certification processes is important; Patience
and perseverance is key to ensuring aboriginal rights and needs
are addressed; Transfer and translation of workshop information
to the grassroots level is needed.
I found this conference to be informative, but there was limited opportunity for participants to engage in dialogue around the perspectives they brought to the conference. This did not go unnoticed by participants, some of whom voiced their concern. “Who is this conference for?” a participant asked out loud during lunch. “Are aboriginal perspectives truly being considered?”
Meaningful public involvement and education reaches beyond one-way communication, into the realm of dialogue. Dialogue involves a willingness to look through the eyes of the other, to communicate ethically and from a place of acceptance. While I gained much from the conference, I left wanting more. The question still lingers in my mind: What is good forest management from an aboriginal perspective ?
The following acknowledges and provides the website for the aboriginal
communities who gave presentations at the workshop: Algonquins of
Barriere Lake, Quebec, www.algonquinnation.ca/barrierelake;
Black River First Nation, Manitoba, www.black-river.ca;
Iisaak Forest Resources, BC, www.iisaak.com;
Innu Nation, Labrador, www.innu.ca;
Ktunaxa Kinbasket Tribal Council, BC, www.ktunaxa.org;
Whitefeather Forest Initiative, Ontario, www.whitefeatherforest.com/
A CROW’s-Eye Vision
by Glenda Whiteman, Concerned Residents of Winnipeg, Inc.
It is wonderful to look ahead to a society where everyone understands that it is not smart to eat, drink, sleep, breathe and bathe in chemicals; that it is not healthy to expose ourselves to combinations of chemicals; that it is truly unsafe to expose ourselves repeatedly to the same chemical, even at very low doses. Imagine when our politicians have stopped offering ‘poison’ to citizens in towns and cities to kill ‘pests’ and instead offer advice on ecological turf and pest management; when residents and legislators understand that it is not dandelions but pesticides that are ‘noxious’. Then the general public will be stronger, healthier, better able to ward off flu, colds and viral infections, and take fewer sick days because our immune systems will have recovered from the annual and repeated low-dosage exposures to organophosphate nerve toxins.
Let us look through our rose-coloured glasses and picture what it could be like to live in Manitoba, when we have headlines like this: Cancer Rates Dropping; Socially Responsible Investments Offer Best Returns; Lake Winnipeg Recovering; Schools Report Fewer Cases of ADHD; Fertility Rates Up, Endometriosis Diagnosis Down; Manitoba Life Expectancy Highest in Canada.
Employers and legislators will understand the reality that it is far more profitable to create safe environments in which to live and work and we will see disability rates plummet. Stockholders and investors will insist that their money be used only in ways that will not cause harm and corporations will find creative ways to be both ecological and fiscally competitive. Our doctors will no longer be tied to a system that virtually forces them to pull out their prescription pads and instead they will have time to listen, and health care costs will decline. Our municipal, provincial, and federal decision-makers will have heeded the advice of such entities as the Toronto Public Health Environmental Protection Office (1998), the federal Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (2000), The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (2002), the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (2003), the Ontario College of Family Physicians (2004), the Sierra Club of Canada (2005) and the Canadian Coalition for Health & Environment (2005)—and everyone in Canada will be protected from pesticides. We will stop pouring billions of dollars and immeasurable energy racing to ‘find the cure’ for this or that disease and instead will focus on identifying what makes us sick in the first place. Governments will no longer register and use products with insufficient safety data (zonolite, thalidomide, baygon, 2,4-D....). We will all be safer and healthier because we can have access to all the information about all the contents of all the products in our environment, and we will be able to effectively avoid toxins in our carpets, shoes, clothing, computers, cell phones, personal hygiene products, food, water and air. And we will consider it obvious that we should pay, up front, the ‘true cost’ of every single purchase.
So, how do we get there? How do we reach the point when the public and the politicians understand that the planet is one single, coordinated organism; that what we do to our air, water and soil, we do to ourselves? How do we start spending our financial and human resources searching for ways to prevent disease, rather than on scrambling to cure disease? How do we stop poisoning ourselves?
Elsewhere in Canada, public opinion polls demonstrate irrefutably that the cosmetic use of pesticides is not welcome. Quebec, for example, is far ahead of us in terms of their understanding of the consequences of pesticide use. They have no choice—they have more people, more industry, and more ‘progress’ that has resulted in much more pollution and many sick people.
They now have a Provincial Pesticide Code. Malathion will not be legal in Quebec after next year. 2,4-D will not be permitted there either, in spite of recent heavy lobbying efforts by the industry to have it excluded from the code. Quebec is beginning the work of creating safe housing for victims of chemical injury. We have the opportunity to learn from their mistakes before we have no choice. Let us stop increasing our population of people who have nowhere safe to live. We can make Manitoba a province that will be safe for everyone.
It is becoming clear that more people would refrain from using pesticides if they knew more about healthier choices. CROW would like to become a resource for anyone in the province looking for alternatives to pesticides. We hope to train and supervise the CREW (Concerned Residents Educating Winnipeg) to provide the latest resources and information on healthy alternatives to pesticides for lawn care, landscaping, gardening, home pest infestations and insect prevention at local fairs, organic stores, and door-to-door, beginning Earth Day weekend and continuing through the summer. Donations towards this initiative will be graciously accepted.
At time of writing, Winnipeg City Council is considering a new insect control strategy. The new city entomologist, Taz Stuart, proposes to phase out the use of chemical pesticides in favour of more biological alternatives. Although there are some serious flaws in this new plan, it is a definite step in the right direction. The most obvious way you can show support for these new safer initiatives is to register your buffer zone. Better yet, team up with like-minded people and safely organize to protect your entire neighbourhood with a community buffer.
For more info, see www.crowinc.org.
Twelve Steps: Freedom from chemical addiction
We live in a chemically addicted environment. Just as with any
other addiction, we can recover one step at a time:
1 Inform yourself and share your knowledge with others. The CROW
Links & Resources web page will get you started. (www.CROWinc.org)
2 Contact your politicians. Look on CROW’s website for sample
letters and contact information.
3 Share your concerns about toxins and ask questions of senior officials
at Insect Control Branch (City of Winnipeg), Pesticides Approvals
Branch (Province of Manitoba) and their superior, Deputy Minister
of Conservation (Province of Manitoba).
4 Buffer Up! Request notification and a buffer zone from all insecticide
applications from both Insect Control Branch and Weed Control Branch.
5 Find allies among friends, neighbours, co-workers and acquaintances
and together, consider possible options for increasing public awareness.
6 Have your group or organization endorse CROW’s Open Letter
calling for an end to fogging with Malathion.
7 Connect with others concerned about this issue.
8 Join a coalition of groups in calling for a cosmetic pesticide
ban (in Winnipeg, there is a Partnership for Pesticide By-law).
9 Sponsor to have a copy of the Pesticides Literature Review by
the Ontario College of Family Physicians placed in a Manitoba doctor’s
office waiting room. (e-mail CROWinc@mts.net)
10 Contact CROW Inc. to request our display or speaker services
for your community event, meeting, or place of employment.
11 Invest your money only in SRI’s or use your clout as a
shareholder to demand sustainable practices.
12 Donate time or money to an organization working to reduce pesticides.
Federal Review calls for Public
Comment: Is 2,4-D Really “Safe”?
By Anne Lindsey
2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic Acid) is the most commonly applied lawn care chemical in Canada. 2,4-D kills broadleaf weeds such as dandelions and plantain, and is extremely popular in Winnipeg, where informal store surveys reveal that it is the most commonly purchased lawn chemical, most often in combination with other substances.
A review of the registration of 2,4-D for use on lawn and turf
was recently completed by Health Canada’s Pest Management
Regulatory Agency (PMRA)—the body charged with registering
all pesticides that are permitted to be used in Canada. PMRA released
its “Proposed Acceptability for Continuing Registration”
discussion paper on Feb. 21, 2005, giving the public until Earth
Day, April 22nd to comment before a final decision is made on continued
registration. Although Canada’s Pest Control Products Act
explicitly forbids the use of the word “safe” in advertising
for pesticide products, PMRA declared that “2,4-D can be used
safely on lawns and turf” in the “information note”
posted on its website: wording which greatly concerned many observers.
The lawn care industry is, of course, delighted with the PMRA’s
announcement—having lobbied long and hard for the continued
use of 2,4-D. But environmental and health advocates from across
the country are calling for a closer look at the discussion document,
and revealing a number of troubling aspects of the report.
Report is premature
Dr. Meg Sears of the Canadian Coalition for Health and Environment
comments that perhaps the most generous thing one can conclude is
that the report and announcement are premature: PMRA states that
several important pieces of data had not been received at the time
of the report’s publication, notably studies on developmental
neurotoxicity, reproduction, and dioxin contamination of 2,4-D products
(see below).
Another concern evident from the document and follow-up research conducted by Paule Hjertaas, a Saskatchewan environmentalist, is that the report does not even apply to many, if not most, of the 2,4-D products available “off the shelf” in Canada. Hjertaas shows that many of the commercially available products contain the “DEA” form of 2,4-D (or PROBABLY contain it, labels do not provide unequivocal information). The PMRA states: “The DEA form of 2,4-D had a different toxicological profile compared to the other forms”. It goes on to describe a variety of effects reported in available studies and foreign review summaries, including “more severe thyroid and reproductive organ toxicity at lower dose levels when compared to all other forms of 2,4-D”, and “... pure DEA causes brain and spinal cord demyelination in rats and is immunotoxic in rats and mice”, amongst others.
The report repeatedly asserts that PMRA does not consider the DEA form of 2,4-D to be toxicologically equivalent to other forms, and that it has requested further information from the manufacturer. It states numerous times “Mitigation measures for the DEA form of 2,4-D may be proposed depending on the outcome of the current review of additional information”. Meanwhile, these products remain available for retail sale.
“Real life” exposures must be studied
PMRA indicates that it “considers aggregate exposures to the
same pesticide from all sources and routes of exposure”. However,
it does not consider its effects in combination with different pesticides,
even though 2,4-D is almost always used in combination with other
synthetic herbicides (predominantly dicamba and mecoprop). In fact,
later on in the document, PMRA asserts that the frequent grouping
of 2,4-D with other pesticides (including mecoprop) in epidemiological
studies has the effect of “confounding” the results
of these studies looking at potential cancer or reproductive effects
in humans. One might suggest that it’s time that “real
life” exposures to common chemicals are studied. Until then,
surely the precautionary principle should prevail.
Contravenes Environmental Protection Act
As noted above, the PMRA report was published before the required
dioxin analyses had been provided to them by the Industry Task Force
II on 2,4-D Research. According to Dr. Meg Sears, dioxin contamination
has been problematic in the past, but since 1983 the federal government
has been assured by the manufacturers that it is no longer a problem
and no further monitoring has been carried out.
Sears emphasizes that under Canada’s Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), dioxins with 2 or more chlorine atoms are targeted for virtual elimination. Dioxins with two and three chlorines will be the predominant contaminants in 2,4-D, although some higher-chlorinated forms will be present. However, the PMRA is only asking for analyses of dioxins with 4 or more chlorines. Thus, the PMRA is in contravention of the CEPA. It is also asking for an experiment to be conducted that will ignore the most serious problem. In Canada there is no monitoring of contamination of commercial products or of herbicide-related dioxins in the environment (e.g. in sediments in waterways adjacent to golf courses). Dioxin contamination may be an important contributing factor in inconsistent epidemiological evidence regarding herbicides.
Childhood cancers need more attention
There are numerous other concerns relating to the methodology of
this report, but a particularly troubling one relates to the proprietary
nature of the input and advice by the five-member Science Advisory
Panel. The PMRA document lists only “key elements” of
this Panel’s report, one of which is that “The Panel
indicated that childhood cancer issues should receive greater attention”.
PMRA seems to dismiss this concern, indicating that there aren’t
enough studies available on children’s exposure to pesticides
to allow a determination of cause and effect relationships!
Again, Sears notes that PMRA chose to focus on animal studies provided by industry to conclude that it cannot be determined whether or not 2,4-D causes cancer. Dogs are sensitive to 2,4-D and cancers have been seen. However, rat studies were used, despite the fact that rats are better equipped to deal with toxic chemicals than people are. Moreover, the Ontario College of Family Physicians found in its study published in April, 2004 that the open, peer-reviewed literature regarding humans is clear enough for doctors to advise avoidance if at all possible. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and leukemia are frequently noted in association with 2,4-D use, along with brain tumours and neuroblastoma in children.
Is it acceptable?
PMRA does recommend some new precautionary measures be taken, including
lower application rates, restricted frequency of application, more
restrictive buffer zones to protect non-target plants, and label
statements on commercial (not domestic) products relating to toxicity.
It also wants people to know that runoff into aquatic habitats should
be avoided and that groundwater contamination is possible in permeable
areas. Overall, however, its assertion that 2,4-D does not entail
“an unacceptable risk of harm to human health...” is
problematic. Surely, determining “acceptability” of
risk is a choice that Canadians need to make for themselves after
considering all the evidence. In this case, “all the evidence”
is not available, and if registration is renewed, Canadians will
continue to be exposed involuntarily to this chemical. Given that
an alternative method of weed control exists (organic lawn care),
the continued use of 2,4-D seems neither necessary nor prudent.
Note: the Province of Quebec’s Pesticide Code bans the use
of 2,4-D. The Quebec government has reviewed PMRA’s document
and decided that the ban will remain in place.
PMRA’s document PACR 2005 -01 can be found at http://www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/pdf/pacr/pacr2005-01-e.pdf
Comments should be sent to the Publications Co-ordinator, PMRA,
Health Canada, 2720 Riverside Drive A.L.6605C Ottawa, K1A 0K9 or
by fax: 613-736-3758, or email to prma_publications@hc-sc.gc.ca
by April 22, 2005.
Riding Mountain Ecosystem
Atlas Released
By Beth McKechnie, CPAWS-Manitoba
Citizens, landowners, educators, planners, conservation organizations, researchers and government agencies in the Riding Mountain region now have a new resource to work with—the Riding Mountain Ecosystem Community Atlas.
The atlas project was initiated by CPAWS as a means to provide a single document source for a range of information on land use issues in the Riding Mountain region. Because the ecological health of our national parks depends not only on how lands within park borders are managed, but also on what happens in the greater park ecosystem, it is important that everyone has easy access to relevant information when making decisions about the future of the region.
While it was recognized that a great deal of information already existed, it was spread around different sources and was not always easy to access. By compiling the information and returning it to local communities in the form of a printed atlas and electronically on a web site, CPAWS hopes the atlas will contribute to sound land-use decisions. In turn, this will help to ensure the long-term well being of the Park and the economic future of its neighbours.
The atlas focuses on the 13,810 sq km area that forms the boundaries of the Riding Mountain Biosphere Reserve, which encompasses Riding Mountain National Park and the 15 rural municipalities that surround the Park. The content is a combination of information, figures, tables, photos, and a series of 41 maps covering items of common interest such as soil, water, vegetation, flora and fauna, human history and local economies, key wildlife and ecologically distinct areas, and the challenge of maintaining ecological integrity.
Copies of the atlas have been distributed to high schools, regional libraries, Rural Municipality and Conservation District offices located in the Riding Mountain Biosphere Reserve, and to members of the Coalition of First Nations With Interests in Riding Mountain National Park, as well as other individuals and organizations.
Community involvement was critical in the two-year effort to develop this atlas. Key collaborators on the project included Riding Mountain National Park of Canada, the Riding Mountain Biosphere Reserve Management Committee (which includes local landowners), the Coalition of First Nations With Interests in RMNP, and the RM of Park. Information and assistance was also provided by various government agencies and other conservation organizations working in the region.
The Riding Mountain atlas is part of a larger CPAWS project to compile information about land use for the greater park ecosystems of four national parks that also includes: Gulf Islands National Park Reserve in BC; Bruce Peninsula National Park; and St. Lawrence Islands National Park in Ontario. CPAWS gratefully acknowledges financial support for the project from the Government of Canada’s Voluntary Sector Initiative, through the Parks Canada Agency, and the in-kind support of ESRI Canada.
The Riding Mountain Ecosystem Community Atlas is available for
purchase in printed form (92 pages, 11x17, full colour) for $75
or as pdf files on CD for $5 through CPAWS Manitoba (tel: 949-0782
or email: info@cpawsmb.org).
It can also be downloaded for free at: www.cpaws.org/community-atlas/ridingmountain.html.
Youth Lead Greenhouse Gas Reduction
By Alon Weinberg
Does global climate change sometimes seem like too big a problem for you to tackle as an individual? Well, with the Kyoto Accord recently coming into effect, Canadians are now scrambling to live up to our collective commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Youth Environmental Network (YEN), in promotion of the One Tonne Challenge (OTC), is helping to spread the word on achievable, everyday solutions to our carbon-emitting dilemmas. The OTC is an Environment Canada program designed to encourage Canadians to reduce their personal carbon footprints by at least 20%, or one tonne off the annual Canadian average of over 5 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per person.
Through a federal grant worth $100,000, distributed to more than 20 youth-oriented environmental NGOs, YEN has been able to provide three grants to Manitoba organizations. Receiving larger core grants were the University of Manitoba Recycling and Environmental Group (UMREG) and Resource Conservation Manitoba (RCM) in partnership with Freeze Frame, the International Film Festival for Kids of All Ages. A smaller grant was awarded to the Ecological Males and Females in Action (ECOMAFIA) at the University of Winnipeg.
Youth design programs for youth
What is unique about the YEN grants is that youth are able to design
programs that facilitate the reduction of greenhouse gases by other
youth. Not only do environmentally-engaged youth find fun, creative
ways to transmit greenhouse gas-emitting strategies to their peers,
but they are fast becoming the leading environmental educators of
the society as a whole. Since climate change will have such long-lasting
impacts on the planet and its inhabitants, it is only natural that
young people, such as Daniel Gravenor and Christa McGregor of UMREG,
are promoting the One Tonne Challenge.
The two have been engaged in facilitating more sustainable transportation options to the U. of Manitoba campus. “With the U of M being a suburban campus, most people have to commute to come to class. The current infrastructure makes it easy for people to use single occupant vehicles, while hard for people who want to bicycle,” said Daniel Gravenor, co-coordinator of UMREG’s One Tonne Challenge. Gravenor organized a bike compound design competition, and will work to see the winning design become a reality. “By providing bike shelters we will finally make it easier for people to bike to the U of M on a regular basis”. McGregor also created the Faculty Fuel-Free Feud, a friendly competition among students to see which faculty can achieve the greatest emissions reductions over the semester.
Meanwhile, downtown at the U. of Winnipeg, Shayne Peitsch, Scott Harrison, John Proven, Melissa Bennett and the folks at ECOMAFIA are really working on educating their fellow students on some basic things they can do to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Earlier in the year, ECOMAFIA hosted a winter-biking workshop with Kevin Miller of the Manitoba Cycling Association. The group also created a campus transportation survey and is in the process of collecting the data on the over five hundred that were filled out. Everyone who filled out the survey at their table during Campus Commuter Challenge week was entered to win daily prize packages that included compact fluorescent lightbulbs and gift certificates to local green businesses. In addition to cycling, the collectives at both universities are encouraging more people to carpool, directing people to the website www.carpool.ca.
Jacob Carson of RCM, already coordinating the Off-ramp program in high schools, teamed up with Remi Huberdeau of the Freeze Frame film fest to create a new category of film on climate change and the One Tonne Challenge. Freeze Frame is offering youth filmmaking workshops that will better enable them to document the lifestyle changes taking place as part of the national Kyoto-related efforts. Find out more about Freeze Frame at (www.freezeframeonline.org).
Not limited to only one tonne
Just as Kyoto is an international first step towards more significant
long term greenhouse gas reductions, so are many youth not limiting
themselves to reducing their emissions by only one tonne. Realizing
the universal seriousness of this problem, young people are doing
what they can in their own day to day lives to reduce their personal
impact on the environment.
On the YEN website www.co2zilla.ca, there are many good ideas for reducing our carbon emissions footprint.
Alon Weinberg is the Youth Environmental Network’s prairie coordinator for the One Tonne Challenge.
| Copyright 2007 Manitoba Eco-Network |