Eco-Journal

Back to Archives

Volume 15, Number 5
November / December 2005

view PDF version (2.22MB)

A Personal Journey: SOS Launches Seine River Greenway Map
    by David Danyluk
Campaign for Permanent Protection Continues: Fisher Bay Park Reserve Extended
    by Ron Thiessen
Shopping Comparison Suprises: Organics can be less expensive than conventional foods
    by Anne Lindsey
Reducing Canada's Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The LFE System and Project Green
    by Rachel Van Caeseele
Exorcising the Garrison Ghost
    by Claire Sevenhuysen
Eco-Network News
    by Anne Lindsey
Youth Conference on Climate Change
    by Rachel Van Caeseele
Nuclear Waste is back
    by Anne Lindsey
Faith and the Common Good: Toward Greening Sacred Spaces
    by by Lisa Martens
Master Compost Volunteers in the Community

A Personal Journey: SOS Launches Seine River Greenway Map
by David Danyluk, Save Our Seine River Environment Inc.

After having spent about 70 days paddling in northwestern Ontario one summer, I moved back to River City (Winnipeg). I was soon restless to get back on the water and paddle. Although convenient, I decided the Red River was too open, had too much powerboat traffic and the wind made it too much work. The Assiniboine wasn’t bad, but it moved a bit quickly so your trip ended too soon. So what about the Seine River? Where exactly was it anyway? I knew it appeared once in a while when I crossed some busy roads like Bishop Grandin and Fermor, but street maps usually showed only a little squiggle of the river near the corner of the page. I decided to call the City of Winnipeg; surely, they would have a map of the Seine somewhere. I didn’t know that this phone call would change the direction of my life.

The first person I spoke to at the City referred me to someone, who referred me to someone, who referred me to someone else, who finally confirmed there was a map, sort of; there was something in the back of a study. It sounded like it may be suitable and I could come and have a look at it.

A river lies waiting to be discovered...
And what a study it was! The Seine River Greenway Study (2000) was an amazing read. First of all, I discovered that the Seine was really a Greenway and that it was actually 27 km long in the city—which makes it the second longest river in Winnipeg after the Red. The Seine River Task Force outlined proposed improvements like many kilometers of new trails, pedestrian bridges, canoe launches and historical sites. To learn more I obtained the four sub-studies—vegetation and species present, history, hydrology, and bank stability. Combined, it was over 300 pages of reading—all about the Seine River. It is a wonderful planning document that has a regional approach rather than an isolated approach. This form of vision was exciting and appropriate for such a long river. There was more attention on this little, often forgotten river than I expected.

Who was this Seine River Task Force? I read the acknowledgements and learned about a group called Save Our Seine River Environment Inc., often referred to as SOS. I called the President, Jules Legal, and asked if I could meet him and learn more. He readily agreed and we met for a walk on a SOS initiated trail in St. Boniface. While we strolled along the river, Jules would point out where a proposed pedestrian bridge was planned, or how this field was to become a park space, or where a canoe launch was going in. Jules also mentioned the annual cleanups the organization hosted as well as tree plantings. What an active group! I imagined an organization with dozens of committees and hundreds of members with specific roles and duties putting in thousands of hours—how else could they provoke the City to conduct the study? By the time our short walk and long conversation was over, I was hooked on the Seine River.

As a new member of SOS, I began a steep learning curve. I first realized that the core group of board members was only ten or twelve people, and some had been members for almost a decade. I quickly grasped their vision for the river and began to devote serious time to helping SOS’s initiatives. There were so many worthwhile projects and to complicate matters, each level of government had several agencies and departments with some authority on the river. A bureaucratic nightmare! I began to select my university courses and project topics to compliment my SOS activities. Within two years, I had become SOS’s first staff person.

In over my head...
In 2005, SOS celebrated its 15th anniversary as a volunteer-based, community stewardship group, which has evolved into an institution and a fixture in the community. In fact, the public calls SOS when they have questions or want to report any concerns regarding the Seine.

Today, SOS promotes new parks and trails, including the 82-acre Bois-des-esprits that will be Winnipeg’s newest Natural Park. Each summer, we host four Urban Green Team students for 12-14 weeks of full time work. SOS still plants hundreds of trees each year, and removes many, many truckloads of garbage and debris. SOS is widely recognized as the Seine’s voice for projects affecting the Seine River Greenway and its habitat. The City and developers consult SOS for input on projects along the Seine River. SOS now sponsors or assists with new studies and planning documents. As the Coordinator, I am often invited to speak about SOS and our projects at schools, universities and conferences.

To increase awareness, SOS partners with other community groups such as Prairie Pathfinders. Join us for the 3rd annual Discover the Seine in Winter hiking event on Sat., January 14, 2006 (www.prairiepathfinders.mb.ca to register). But by far, the most popular activity is to paddle the scenic Seine River and experience first-hand the urban wilderness right in the middle of our city.

In 2004, SOS was honoured with 4 awards in recognition of our efforts: The Mayor’s Volunteer Service Award, the Naturalists Society’s Prairie Crocus Award, Manitoba Eco-Network’s Group Award, and Canadian Geographic’s Canadian Environmental Award.

Greenway Map?
But there was still no map! For years, I felt like I had a secret 27-km greenway to share with citizens. A map would help anyone access, discover and enjoy the Seine.

Today, as I write this article, one of our major sponsors, Friesen’s Printing, is having our new Seine River Greenway maps printed and folded. In hindsight, I realize that in order to put the Seine River ‘on the map’, we had to make our own. This was a bigger project than I ever imagined. Creating a map should be its own discipline—I would call it “mapology”. Ironically, the original map at the back of the Seine River Greenway Study (at 1:8,700 scale) was the basis for the new Greenway Map.

The Seine River Greenway Map is a 24" X 36", double-sided, colour map. It shows the river and adjacent lands that include parks and public preserves, infrastructure and private property. All the artwork on the map has been created in watercolor by local artist Denis Savoie, who lives only meters from the Seine. In addition to listing all the bird species (149) and fish species (32) found in the greenway, the map offers a mini-exposé and painted images of five cavity-nesting birds and five fish species. Reptiles and mammals are also displayed.

Because Greenways connect heritage sites, we selected a couple of dozen for inclusion on the map, and provided short biographies on fascinating people associated with the area like renowned author Gabrielle Roy and Louis Riel, Sr., known as the Miller of the Seine.

Recreational opportunities are also included—everything from kilometers of trails (established and future ones) to 54 holes of golf, 18 holes of Frisbee golf, and even Canada’s longest lighted cross-country ski trail. Canoe routes with access points and hazards are shown with some good advice for those heading out to paddle for the first time. In the winter, the river becomes a snowshoe or ski trail and toboggan runs appear along the shores.

The map became a work of art. It is historical, recreational, educational, practical and even a bit political. Contact SOS to get your map and discover what the Seine River Greenway has to offer. Maps come either folded or as an unfolded poster.

My journey to find a map of the Seine River changed my life, and allowed me to discover not only this beautiful resource in my city, but a growing, stewardship movement within my community, filling a vacuum left by under-funded governmental agencies. Today, I can look back and appreciate the best lesson I have learned from the tenacious members at SOS. Don’t wait for government or others to do it; we can do it, in fact, we should. This spirit of confident, community empowerment has produced a new type of dedicated citizen, people who step forward and make a difference. I am proud to work for some of them.

back to index

Campaign for permanent protection continues: Fisher Bay Park Reserve Extended
By Ron Thiessen, Western Canada Wilderness Committee

‘Time is running out! The Fisher Bay park reserve’s protection from industrial developments such as logging and mining is about to expire. Action must be taken now.’ This is what ran through my head as I made my way to Fisher River Cree Nation this summer to work with the community on protection of the area.

Located on the west side of Lake Winnipeg, the Fisher Bay park reserve is 89,000 ha, or twice the size of Winnipeg, and consists of treed shorelines with long sandy beaches, large islands covered with old growth forests, reefs and muskeg, and even a big section of Lake Winnipeg’s water is included within its boundaries. This richly diverse wildlife sanctuary provides for moose, pelicans, elk, and many fish and waterfowl species. Its little-used beaches are suitable grounds for the Piping Plover, a highly endangered shorebird, to lay its eggs.

On that crisp June day, I met George Crate. George is a charismatic, well-spoken family man who continually impresses me with his long-sighted vision. As Director of the Ochekwi-Sipi Economic Development Corporation, George asserts that protecting the boreal forest is as important for the economy as it is for the environment.

George makes it clear that protected areas in the boreal forest secure opportunities for traditional activities such as hunting and trapping as well as emerging eco-tourism developments. Fisher River Cree Nation has already developed the magnificent Leigh Cochrane Memorial Visitor Center to welcome guests to share the treasures of their community and its surrounding lands and waters. He is proud that his community embraces a healthy future by pursuing community-driven, sustainable economic ventures that are in harmony with the boreal forest.

The Boreal Forest and Park Reserves
The boreal forest surrounds the Northern Hemisphere, and a result has been poetically described as the earth’s green halo. It is the earth’s largest source of fresh water, a key player in global oxygen production, and has a huge part in regulating the planet’s climate.

Canada is blessed with 25% of the earth’s remaining intact forests—90% of Canada’s intact forests are boreal forests. According to the Canadian Boreal Initiative, less than 10% of Canada’s boreal forest is strictly protected. This is an insufficient percentage considering how important the boreal ecosystem is to life as we know it. It’s long overdue for our leaders to begin safeguarding the ecological integrity of Canada’s boreal forests by creating large, interconnected protected areas based on science and traditional knowledge.

Park reserves are areas placed in a time-limited decision making process. There are fourteen park reserves with interim protection in Manitoba. Most were nominated by First Nation and Aboriginal communities to be protected from industrial development. It’s the responsibility of Manitoba Conservation to work with the affected communities and all Manitobans to move these protected areas forward to potential permanent protection.

However, the Manitoba government continues to make decisions on industrial developments prior to establishing protected areas. Already close to 60% of Manitoba’s boreal forests have been allocated to forest companies for clearcut logging.

The Fisher Bay Park Reserve was created in 1999 based on a nomination by the Fisher River Cree Nation. The Fisher Bay Park Reserve’s interim protection expired October 31, 2005. Thankfully, after Fisher River Cree Nation officially reminded Premier Doer and over 1500 hundred letters of support were sent by Wilderness Committee Manitoba supporters in October, a 5-year extension of the protected park reserve was passed. This will allow time for the consultation process to be completed.

Taking Action
It’s important that we all help move boreal forest conservation forward by letting our political leaders know how we feel. As Fisher River Cree Nation and the Wilderness Committee work to permanently protect Fisher Bay, Manitobans and Canadians are continuing to shower the provincial government with letters in support of a future for the area without industrial activities such as logging, mining, and hydro.

To make it easy, the Wilderness Committee has designed a simple and quick email letter that can be sent through our website. Just go to http://www.wildernesscommittee.org/campaigns/boreal/manitoba/form/fisher_bay to let the Manitoba government know your opinion about permanent protection for the Fisher Bay park reserve. It only takes a moment and it’ll make you feel great!

We are one step closer to fulfilling George Crate’s dream of a healthy Manitoba boreal forest ecosystem supported by sustainable community-driven economies. Manitoba has an abundance of intact boreal forest and a tremendous opportunity to protect wilderness and wildlife. At the same time, we can fulfill our global responsibilities to air quality, climate regulation, and fresh water protection. It’s time the NDP government shows the world that Manitoba is top-rate when it comes to creating a truly sustainable future by fulfilling its commitments to safeguard our boreal forest regions.

back to index

Shopping Comparison Surprises: Organics can be less expensive than conventional foods
By Anne Lindsey

Sharon Taylor found out something interesting about her grocery shopping this fall. The Winnipeg resident and organic food eater decided to see for herself how organic food prices stack up against comparable conventional foods. What she found was a pleasant surprise. It turns out that many organic foods purchased in Winnipeg are actually less expensive than their conventional equivalents! Sharon presented her findings at the Organic Matters Conference held early in November in Brandon.

Sharon notes that the number one reason people give for not eating organic foods is economic. Organic foods, almost everyone feels, are just too expensive. And she found herself agreeing in conversations that yes, the cost is higher, but justifiable for the health and environmental benefits that organic agriculture confer. In fact, she thought that this would be the main thrust of her conference presentation. After doing the shopping however, her focus changed.

Organic bill less expensive
For one week, Sharon took a basic typical shopping list for her household (including meat and dairy products) and purchased exclusively organic foods. She then took the list to a conventional grocery store and sought out items that were as equivalent as possible (though not organic). It was clear at the outset that there was quite a range of prices in the conventional store, and she deliberately chose products that were evidently of “higher quality” in this category, reasoning that higher quality conventional food was more comparable to the organic varieties. The result? The organic bill was actually $3.39 less expensive than the conventional bill!

Comparisons
Some items were particularly interesting to Sharon—coffee for example. 1kg of fair trade, organically grown coffee turned out to be $12.99, compared to $17.98 for a “gourmet” brand of conventional coffee. Similarly, chicken breasts came in at $16.60 per kg. for the organic variety compared to $17.42 for non-organic. The biggest difference was in goat cheddar cheese: $17.93 per kg for organic versus a whopping $31.90 for conventional. Having been an organic shopper for about 5 years, she was surprised to find that high quality conventional food was so expensive.

While these results are revealing, they do not tell the entire story. Sharon’s next test was to seek out the lowest cost conventional for the list of groceries (often bargain and no-name brands). This was definitely cheaper—a total of $90.54 for the total. Cheaper, but still only $12.54 less than the organic basket.

Shopping around vs. convenience shopping
Sharon notes that one key to her successful organic purchases was that she “shopped around”—using a mixture of the “full service” organic stores in Winnipeg, the farmers market, and an internet organic shopping service. She found that “convenience organic” shopping (i.e. buying all items at one store) was pricier: coming in at $138.57 for the full basket.

Shopping around turns out to be Sharon’s number one tip for prospective organic purchasers. It will take new buyers some time to figure out where the best prices can be had for the range of groceries a typical household might purchase, she says. For example, local organic meats found at the farmers market, or purchased direct from producers were considerably less expensive than the retail store versions. Also, costs relating to “shopping around” (i.e. time, gas or bus fare) would also need to factored in when comparing the organic to the “conventional, convenience” option.

Sharon’s second major tip is to buy local where possible, especially in the summer months, when the selection of produce available at the farmers’ market is very affordable and abundant.
Other tips include: buying in bulk where possible and preserving foods by freezing or canning during abundant periods to last through the winter months.

What conclusions can we draw from this investigation?
It’s clear that for many people who are currently purchasing higher quality conventional foodstuffs, making the switch to organics may not be as uneconomical as they seem to think. Some time has to be devoted to learning the local markets to really reap the financial benefits. Meanwhile the health, environmental and taste benefits of organic eating will more than make up for the preliminary work involved.

For those on much lower incomes, however, currently forced to seek out the best bargain for food that can meet their budgetary constraints, eating organic will continue to prove more of a challenge. Programs such as West Broadway’s Good Food Club, which involves a conscious attempt to enable lower income families to access healthy, and where possible, organic foods, will continue to be needed until such time as all people have an income adequate to meet their needs. (See Eco-Journal, Vol.13, No.1 for an article about the Good Food Club).

Sharon points out that her household is not on the “higher income” side, but for them, organic eating has become a priority—one they feel able to fulfill by carefully considering all items of the household budget, and by being knowledgeable about the local market options.

Sharon hopes to follow up on her initial research by conducting a similar survey in the middle of the Winnipeg winter—when locally grown food is not available through the farmers’ market. We’ll look forward to her results.

Sharon Taylor used to work at an organic grocery store. She and her husband, Esteban, were also part of the Worldwide Workers on Organic Farms in 2000, an experience to which she credits their move to more organic eating. Sharon is the distributor for ‘Down to Earth’, the 3rd edition of the Guide to Organics in Manitoba, published by the Organic Food Council of Manitoba. This guide is available for purchase from the Manitoba Eco-Network ($6.95) or on loan from our library.

back to index

Reducing Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The LFE System and Project Green
by Rachel Van Caeseele, Climate Change Connection

In April 2005, the Government of Canada released Project Green. Uninspired name aside, the document contains the new federal policy plan to honour our Kyoto Protocol commitments for the period of 2008-2012.

Project Green has a distinctly different flavour from previous climate change policy plans. Economic productivity and vigour are key themes that are repeated mantra-like throughout the document. Clearly, there has been an effort to douse the not-so-uncommon fear of economic ruin if we, as a country, endeavour to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

One notable piece of the Project Green pie is the Large Final Emitter (LFE) system. Formerly the LIEs (Large Industrial Emitters—clearly, an undesirable acronym), the LFEs include companies in mining and manufacturing, oil and gas, and thermal electricity sectors. They contribute slightly less than 50% of Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

The system will affect about 700 companies operating in Canada; 80-90 of these produce almost 85% of the LFE greenhouse gas emissions.

The 2002 Climate Change Plan for Canada featured an overall target of 55 Mt (mega tonnes) for LFEs. Since then, pressure from sectors with fixed process emissions—those driven purely by underlying chemical reactions and not by fossil fuel combustion—have necessitated a review of LFE targets. These sectors raised concerns of competitiveness.

The 2002 plan also featured covenants (contractual agreements) between LFEs and the government. Implementation of the LFE system was to take place through these individual covenants, with a regulatory or financial backstop.

It isn’t surprising that the system was reviewed. The practical and administrative complexity of all the individual covenants, in addition to the unacceptable level of competition for some sectors, would have sent even the most tenacious wonk back to the drawing board.

Project Green has established a more streamlined target of 45 Mt for LFEs. It is described as “firmer” than the previous target, as there will be no downward wiggle room through covenants. This target is equivalent to a 39 Mt target using baselines from the 2002 plan.

The two types of emissions are recognized in this plan: fixed process emissions and all other types. Fixed process emissions cannot be decreased except by actually lowering production, whereas those that fall into the “all other types” category can be adjusted with existing technologies without affecting production. As such, fixed process emissions have a zero percent target reduction during the 2008-2012 period. All other emissions have a 15% target.

Next—the actual ways that LFEs will reduce their greenhouse gas emissions now that the target is firm and to everyone’s satisfaction. LFEs will have a number of options for compliance:
• Invest in in-house reductions. This will allow LFEs to invest in their own facilities and profit from increased productivity and efficiency.
• LFEs that cannot—or have not—met their compliance goals can purchase emissions reductions credits from other companies that have done better than their targets.
• Buy domestic offset credits. These credits are real emissions reductions or carbon sequestration generated outside the LFE system.
• Purchase international credits, provided only they represent real emissions reductions. (Those that aren’t “real” include those from Eastern Block countries where decreases in production over the last decade have been designated as potential Kyoto credits. Basically, credits for a lack of emissions that would have been there if those economies weren’t in a slump).

According to Project Green, all of these options will either reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, or provide us with international Kyoto credits that represent real reductions somewhere else on Earth.

Aside from the reduction from 55 Mt to 45Mt (actually 39 Mt, but who is counting?), the system seems to offer some real incentives to reduce emissions, and an opportunity to streamline operations and improve efficiency. There is, though, a bit of a loophole for those LFEs who begrudge, for whatever reason, reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) here, there or anywhere on the planet. Or, to be fair, just plain can’t.

Enter the GHG Technology Investment Fund. This fund would support the development and deployment of innovative Canadian emission reduction technologies.

The fund represents an opportunity for LFEs to invest in the development of technologies that would reduce emissions in their sector, which they could potentially implement when made available. According to Project Green, such a system would promote not only a healthy investment in Canadian technology, but would also help ease us into long-term transformational change.

You might be rolling your eyes right now, believing that lethargic LFEs will simply pitch money at this fund and go on their merry climate-changing ways. Fortunately, there is limit. LFEs can only contribute a maximum of 9 Mt equivalents to this fund, there by ensuring that a portion of the reduction target will be from real reductions.

Clearly, the LFE system features much more detail than I have provided in this brief overview. Regardless, the basic framework is here, and the strategy seems to be an improvement from the—if I may—somewhat floppy covenant-based 2002 plan. If you are keen to read Project Green in all its glory, visit www.climatechange.gc.ca. and find out how we will be “Moving forward on climate change!”

Reference: Government of Canada. April 2005. Project Green: Moving Forward on Climate Change. A Plan for Honouring our Kyoto Commitment.

back to index

Exorcising the Garrison Ghost
by Claire Sevenhuysen

This summer, Manitobans suffered the frustration of witnessing the ‘eleventh hour’ bargaining of the dispute between Canada and the United States over the Devils Lake water outlet. Our outrage over Devils Lake now needs to be turned towards the other water management plans in North Dakota that may yet have unforeseen, and potentially catastrophic, consequences. Manitoba got burned in the Devils Lake ‘deal’, but next time both politicians and the public will be better prepared.

Over the summer, there were grumblings that North Dakota was “revisiting the Garrison project” and many of North Dakota’s recent water management proposals have been described as “Garrison II”. The Garrison Diversion Project was initially proposed in the mid-1940s and was designed to divert Missouri River water for irrigation of land within the Red River Basin. Although the Garrison Project no longer formally exists, glimpses of its ghost can be seen in many water management plans in North Dakota over the past 60 years.

Garrison Diversion
The State of North Dakota straddles the continental divide which separates the Missouri River Basin from the Hudson Bay Basin. In the western area of the State, rain is scarce, and reservoirs and aquifers can run dry, leaving communities with unreliable water sources. The Garrison Dam was constructed on the Missouri River following the 1944 Flood Control Act. The Garrison Diversion Project was authorized by the U.S. Congress in the mid-1950s, and proposed to use water from the Garrison Dam reservoir (Lake Sakakawea) to irrigate 250,000 acres of North Dakota farmland. The construction of various dams and canals would be necessary for the completion of the larger project.

Completion of Garrison was plagued with opposition from taxpayers, environmental groups, neighbouring states, and from Canada. Canada argued strongly that the Garrison Diversion would violate the Boundary Waters Treaty (BWT) of 1909 by transferring Missouri River water into the Souris and Red River drainage basins. The U.S. acknowledged its obligations under the BWT, and in 1975, the project was sent to the International Joint Commission (IJC) for resolution. The IJC agreed that the potential for inter-basin transfer of organisms, degradation of downstream water quality, and impact on flooding was unacceptable and recommended in 1977 against construction of any portion of the Garrison project that could affect waters flowing into Canada without Canadian consultation.

Garrison Reformulation Act
Continuing conflict over environmental concerns, land acquisition, and the economics of irrigation nibbled away at confidence in the Garrison project until Congress formed the Garrison Diversion Unit Commission and ordered a comprehensive review of the project. A careful compromise was set down in the Garrison Reformulation Act of 1986. The acreage of land to be irrigated by Garrison Dam water was reduced, Canadian consultation was promised prior to the construction of specific project features, and plans were laid out for water treatment facilities and wetland management.

In the years following the ‘reformulation’ of Garrison, the State continued to work with the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District on development and maintenance of Garrison features which led eventually to the Garrison Diversion Completion Act, which brought many of the features of the original Garrison project back to the planning table.

Dakota Water Resources Act (DWRA)
After three failed attempts, and finally tacked on to a health-related bill, Congress approved amendments to the Garrison Reformulation Act, creating the Dakota Water Resources Act (DWRA) in 2000. Under the DWRA, the acreage to be irrigated from the Garrison Dam was reduced even further, and it was noted that these acres were not to be part of the Hudson Bay or Devils Lake drainage basins. The DWRA is purported to be in compliance with the Boundary Waters Treaty. However, the DWRA also supports the maintenance of Garrison project features already constructed, and identifies further possible uses of Missouri River water within the Hudson Bay watershed. Despite a lack of scientific evidence to support it, DWRA plans are based on the assumption that treatment of Missouri River water will remove all threat of biota or pollution transfer into the Red River. With the announcement of the DWRA, alarm bells sounded in Canada as shadows of the ‘defeated’ Garrison project passed over the legislative landscape.

Northwest Area Water Supply (NAWS)
More recent projects, administratively unrelated to the Garrison Diversion, have strikingly similar goals. The Southwest Pipeline draws water from the Garrison Dam reservoir (Lake Sakakawea) to provide water to North Dakota communities within the Missouri River Basin. The Northwest Area Water Supply (NAWS) proposes a similar transfer of treated water from the Missouri River Basin to communities on the Hudson Bay side of the continental divide.

The federal Bureau of Reclamation (the agency responsible for NAWS) conducted an Environmental Assessment in 2001, which returned a “finding of no significant impact” regarding Canada’s concerns over the proposed inter-basin transfer of water. Canada and Manitoba appealed the process, stating that the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act calls for a more thorough Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In 2002, when no EIS had been initiated, Manitoba sought an injunction in U.S. court to prevent completion of the NAWS project. In February 2005 a District Court judge brought down the ruling that the Bureau’s initial Environmental Assessment was unlawful.

Red River Valley Water Supply Project
The Dakota Water Resources Act initiated a study of the predicted water supply needs in the Red River Valley for the next 50 years, and resource options available. This study was spearheaded by the Lake Agassiz Water Authority (LAWA), composed of representatives from the 13 counties along the Red River, with input from the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District. LAWA is responsible for water distribution plans in eastern North Dakota. The recently released draft report presents seven options, four of which involve transfer of water from the Missouri River and/or Garrison Dam. Two options present “in-basin” movement of water, one including the use of groundwater from Minnesota. The final option presents a diversion of water from Lake of the Woods.

Various organizations submitted comments on the draft report. A draft EIS on the preferred option is expected in December 2005. Opposition was strong on many aspects of the report, including the population and resource needs estimates, predicted conservation measures, anticipated water shortages and the likelihood of drought, the unfeasibility of the options presented, and the lack of discussion around flood control, climate change, and international relations.

Threats from the Missouri
North Dakota’s solutions to water excesses and shortages in the state may have disastrous consequences for Manitoba. Foreign animals and plants could out-compete native species, damage ecosystems as well as infrastructure, and microorganisms such as fish pathogens could have a devastating impact on Manitoba’s multi-million dollar commercial fishing industry. For example, Striped Bass, an aggressive carnivorous fish species, is known to exist in the Missouri River.

The Missouri River and Hudson Bay basins have been separated since the glaciers retreated across the prairies. It is pompous folly to think that even the most comprehensive environmental assessment would give us more than a hint of the consequences of an action such as connecting two unrelated environments. There are countless examples around the world of the unintended impact of introducing single species, yet the U.S. government has spent the past 60 years casually discussing the introduction of all the species (or at least all those smaller than any proposed filter) from one ecosystem to hundreds of others downstream.

Garrison to Devils Lake and back again
It has long been an objective of the Garrison plan to stabilize the level of Devils Lake by introducing a constant source of water. The “temporary emergency outlet” constructed this year was conceived so as not to require an EIS, federal permits, nor review by the IJC. Given the 60-year battle over Garrison, one begins to understand the State’s reluctance for review. During the debate over the Devils Lake outlet, politicians and policy-makers in North Dakota were quoted celebrating this recent progress of the Garrison plans.

Although numerous assertions have been made that North Dakota has no plan to build an inlet to Devils Lake, there are other plans under discussion that would have similar consequences for Manitoba. One of the favoured options of the Red River Valley Water Supply report is a diversion of Missouri River water into the Sheyenne River, via the McClusky Canal. Although the Garrison aim of stabilizing the level of Devils Lake would not be achieved, the downstream effects of this inter-basin transfer of water would be identical. More worryingly, the outcome of transboundary negotiations between North Dakota and Manitoba may set dangerous precedent for the future viability of the long-respected Boundary Waters Treaty, and other international disputes over precious water resources.

Water knows nothing of our arbitrary international or state/provincial boundaries, and it is essential that all parties participate in watershed planning strategies. If there is one lesson to be learned from the Devils Lake fiasco, it is that Manitobans must pay close attention to activities throughout the Hudson Bay Watershed. We may suffer the full horror of our ecological ignorance if we let government-sanctioned contamination of our shared water resources slip through legislative loopholes.

A number of groups are gearing up to make sure Canada’s and Manitoba’s concerns are respected in these upcoming transboundary water discussions. For more information, or to get involved, contact:
Manitoba Eco-Network Water Caucus–Garrison Working Group
Glen Koroluk, Coordinator: water@mbeconetwork.org; (204) 943-0318; www.mbeconetwork.org/projects_water.asp.
Council of Canadians: inquiries@canadians.org; 1-800-387-7177; www.canadians.org
Susan Howatt: showatt@canadians.org; (613) 223-4487 ext.239
Friends of the Earth (FOE) Canada: foe@foecanada.org; 1-888-385-4444; www.foecanada.org
Claire Sevenhuysen: csevenhuysen@foecanada.org

back to index

Eco-Network News
By Anne Lindsey

The view from the window over the rooftop garden changed dramatically with the recent snowfall—from prairie flowers to puffy white drifts. This view, together with the big west facing windows, is a wonderful bonus at our new office space on the 3rd floor of Mountain Equipment Co-op’s building on Portage Avenue. We’ve just passed the 6-month mark here, and so far, we are very happy with the new premises. All the Eco-Centre groups combined to host a well-attended “thank-you” event in early October, and to unveil our beautiful donor appreciation plaque, designed by Liz Dykman. An interpretive sign explains the various components of the Green Office development, and soon we’ll have a “virtual tour” on our website at http://www.mbeconetwork.org/projects_relocation.asp

In the next couple of months, look for the Eco-Centre sign on the Portage Avenue wall of the building. At this writing, we still do not have full use of the elevator. If you require elevator access, don’t hesitate to request it at MEC’s Member Service desk on the main floor. Please come and visit!

Projects and services
Manitoba Eco-Network’s projects and core services are all up and running. This summer’s Organic Lawn Care Education project was very successful, despite the fact that most Winnipeg yards were extremely soggy well into July. Many people attended the workshops, demonstrating that citizens are keen on pesticide-free green space in their communities. Our summer staff, Eszti Nagy and Tom Bailey, redesigned the workshop presentation, and found that this year, they needed more resources and information on alternatives to lawns.

Climate Change Connection has completed its series of community workshops, with a final one in Inglis. This year’s focus is on youth, and judging by the huge response to the first youth conference here in Winnipeg, the time is right. Two more such events are planned, for Brandon and Winkler, in the New Year. Rachel Van Caeseele and Susan Block, project staff, report that demand for Idle Free Zone signs continues to be high. St. James Assiniboia and Seven Oaks School Division have both declared themselves Idle-Free, as has the St. Boniface Hospital.

Watch for two new guides from Climate Change Connection in the near future: The Bottom Line on Climate Change, A Manitoba Business Guide is currently in the final draft stage. The Municipal Guide on Climate Change is intended as a follow-up to the community workshops, and will support Manitoba’s “C4—OTC” (Climate Change Community Challenge—One Tonne Challenge) communities, as well as others implementing action plans to reduce their greenhouse gas footprint. Both guides will be available on the Climate Change Connection website, www.climatechangeconnection.org.

New support for water
The Water Caucus continues to be very active, recently hosting Water Stewardship Minister, Steve Ashton at its October meeting. Minister Ashton commented on the recent report of the Caucus on key water issues facing Manitoba. The Caucus found that the many disparate issues are broadly affected by trends in government including resource allocation, management, expertise and access to information, and made a number of recommendations. The report For the Public Good may be found at http://www.mbeconetwork.org/forthepublicgood.pdf. A text copy is, of course, available in our Library. The report was part of our deliverables under a contract with Manitoba Water Stewardship, and we are grateful for their support for the Caucus’ work. The Minister has indicated that he wishes to continue to provide some financial assistance to the Caucus in the coming year.

We are also very pleased to have received a generous grant from the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation to help support the Caucus this year. Amongst the many issues that come to the Caucus table, Coordinator, Glen Koroluk will be emphasizing the issues of inter-basin water transfer, in particular the proposed Garrison Diversion Project (see article by Claire Sevenhuysen in this issue).

Green Maps
Anke Kirch, Manager of the GIS/Mapping Centre, is working on a number of exciting proposals for GIS applications in partnership with a variety of groups and agencies. These include a GIS for Manitoba’s newest provincial park—Manigotagan River—with Western Canada Wilderness Committee, and hopefully Manitoba’s Parks Branch, a GIS of the Seine River, with Save Our Seine River Environment, and the Green Map of Winnipeg, in partnership with Dr. David van Vliet and students at the Faculty of Architecture, University of Manitoba. We are still awaiting word on funding for these projects, and are hopeful that at least one of them, (if not all!) can move forward in the New Year. Meanwhile, Anke and volunteers have developed a demo version of the Seine River GIS, and it is proving to be a valuable tool to illustrate the utility of this technology.

Our own “millennium library”
Our Library Technician, Tara Kenny, has made some changes to the Library section of the website, to make it more user friendly. In addition, she has started to send out monthly electronic bulletins describing new resources in the library. Here’s a sample:
Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice, by Peter Watchern, 1995. Adopted in many countries, with different degrees of enthusiasm since its inception in the early 1970’s, environmental impact assessment (EIA) is established as a major procedure for assessing the environmental implications of legislation, the implementation of policy and plans and the initiation of development projects. This book provides a review of both the science and art of EIA, reflecting concern both with the technical aspects of appraisal and the effects of EIA on the decision making process.

Happier Meals: Rethinking the Global Meat Industry, by Danielle Mierenberg, published by the World Watch Institute, 2005. As livestock numbers grow, our relationship with these animals and their meat is changing. Most of us don’t know—or choose not to know—how meat is made. But meat production has come a long way since the origins of animal domestication. In a very short period, raising livestock has morphed into an industrial endeavor that bears little relation to the landscape or to the natural tendencies of the animals.

Food for Thought: Practicing conservation at the table, by Heather Montgomery, Green Teacher (journal), Fall 2005. This article talks about a program called food for thought, which uses mealtime to encourage students to consider their food as a valuable resource. You can teach where food comes from, explore what is required to get it to their plate, and weight all the food that is wasted at each meal. The article also contains a series of different activities to help students learn the value of food and conservation techniques.

Learning with Lichens: Bio-indicators of air pollution, by Andrew Kett, Sonia Dong, and Heather Andrachuk, Green Teacher (journal), Fall 2005. This article discusses using lichens as biological indicators to monitor air quality and learn about air pollution.

Call Tara on Tuesday or Thursday afternoons for more information, or drop by the Alice Chambers Memorial Library any day of the week. (Loans of books, reports, videos etc. are free to the public).

Of course, if you call the office, chances are Liz Dykman, our Coordinator, or I will answer the phone to assist you with any questions, ideas or referrals you may need. And we welcome Judy Silva as a new addition to our staff in the position of bookkeeper.

back to index

Youth Conference on Climate Change
By Rachel Van Caeseele, Manager, Climate Change Connection

Youth will inherit climate change. Although impacts are being felt now, the more serious trouble is projected to occur in the next 50–100 years. What can youth expect? More severe weather events, the spread of disease, and water shortages, to name a few. The word “inherit” doesn’t usually rouse feelings of surly resentment. But in this case, it already does.
Youth are becoming more and more concerned about climate change. As leaders quibble and posture, youth see their future grow increasingly uncertain and unpleasant.

Fortunately, youth have found their voice. The Youth Delegation at the 11th United Nations Conference on Climate Change (November 28–December 9 in Montreal) created an International Youth Declaration on Climate Change. The Declaration, in no uncertain terms, calls on leaders to take rapid and effective action on climate change. The words are bold—as bold as you would be if someone was playing with matches in your house.

Day-long youth conference in Winnipeg
Here in Winnipeg, youth also had the opportunity to declare their position on climate change at a day-long conference held at the University of Winnipeg. On November 18, 57 students from 17 high schools attended the Youth Conference on Climate Change. At the conference, they were given the opportunity to create their own Youth Declaration on Climate Change. This Winnipeg Declaration was then sent to Montreal to be integrated into the International Declaration. (The Youth Declaration on Climate Change can be viewed on the Eco-Network website, at www.climatechangeconnection.org.)

The conference, co-hosted by Climate Change Connection and Resource Conservation Manitoba, had more to offer than the opportunity to create a Declaration. Youth heard presentations from local experts on how urban design, transportation, and consumerism contribute to climate change. The conference also moved beyond finger pointing at the “usual suspects” and addressed youth activities that contribute to global warming.

One activity sharply illustrated how youth consumption contributes to climate change. The “You Are What You Wear” contest had youth do a self-audit of all their consumer goods—clothing, bags, shoes, wallets, etc. A detailed worksheet provided distances to popular manufacturing locations, allowing participants to add up the thousands of kilometres and greenhouse gas emissions they were carrying on their backs. Youth whose outfits travelled the shortest distance won prizes for their sustainable style.

Raising youth awareness about climate change was not the only goal of the day. For youth to take their own action, a ride on the Skill Wheel was necessary. Youth rotated through five stations where they learned about leadership, brainstorming, fundraising, social marketing, and project planning. This crash course provided youth with the skills to create well-planned projects for their community.

Designing a greenhouse gas reduction project
And plan they did. In the final activity of the day, participants had to design a greenhouse gas reduction project for their school or community. It had to feature a detailed timeline, a fundraising and marketing strategy, and an innovative idea that would get other youth involved in combating climate change. As an incentive, Resource Conservation Manitoba offered two grants of $500.00 to help groups keep their momentum after the conference was over.

Both worn cliché and absolute truth, ‘youth are the future’. They will inherit the outcomes of all our current decisions and actions. They need the information and skills to communicate their stand on climate change, as well as be a part of the solution, now and in the future. The Youth Conference on Climate Changed offered them just such an opportunity.

Note: There are two more Youth Conferences on Climate Change planned for the new year in Brandon and Winkler. Stay tuned to www.climatechangeconnection.org!

back to index

Nuclear Waste is back
By Anne Lindsey

Nuclear waste lasts a very long time. So maybe it’s not surprising that the question of what to do with nuclear waste in Canada is taking a very long time to answer. People under 25 may not realize that nuclear waste disposal was a big issue in Manitoba in the 1980s, even though this province has no power generating reactors.

Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited (AECL), the Crown Corporation charged with promoting and developing nuclear power in Canada, operated a major research facility at Pinawa, focused largely on nuclear waste. AECL has since closed down the facility and the site is in the process of being decommissioned. Close by, at Lac du Bonnet, AECL had a huge underground research laboratory (URL), where they examined issues related to their proposal to bury the highly radioactive spent fuel from nuclear reactors deep in the Canadian Shield. This URL is currently in preparation for being decommissioned.

The most contentious issue in their research was how long it would take the radioactive materials to move out of their containment vessels, the backfill material and the rock itself, into groundwater, eventually to emerge at the Earth’s surface. AECL argued that this would take so long that the radioactivity would be decayed to point of relative harmlessness. Their critics weren’t so sure.

Neither safety nor acceptability demonstrated
In fact, so many Canadians expressed concern over the plan to transport nuclear fuel from the reactor sites in southern Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick to be buried and sealed up deep in Pre-Cambrian bedrock, that a 10 year long Federal Environmental Assessment completed in 1998 concluded that AECL had satisfactorily established neither the safety nor the acceptability of the deep burial option. The Panel (known as the Seaborn Panel) recommended that the Government establish an arms length body to be charged with further consideration of the nuclear waste issue. Instead, the government created the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), made up entirely of nuclear industry representatives and owners of the waste, and charged it with making recommendations on the management of Canada’s nuclear fuel waste. The three options it was to consider were: deep geological disposal, continued storage on the site of the nuclear reactors (where the waste is currently stored), and a centralized storage facility.

No mention of phase-out
NWMO is recommending all three in its report, released early in November 2005. It has added the consideration of Ordovician Sedimentary rock (such as may be found beneath Ottawa or the Bruce Peninsula) as a deep geological alternative to the Pre-Cambrian rock of the Canadian Shield, and calls for a final burial site to be sought in New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario or Saskatchewan. Not surprisingly, there is no mention of the option favoured heavily by a wide range of environmental organizations across Canada: phase out nuclear power in Canada by 2020, at the end of the working life of current reactors, so that no more waste is being produced. Only then, the groups argue, can we look at the controversial issue of waste management, and have any hope at all of achieving a societal consensus.

High Level Radioactive Waste Act
Why is Manitoba not on the list of potential host provinces for an eventual repository? After all, the Canadian Shield underlies much of our land, and we played host to some of the key research. The answer may lie in the 1987 High Level Radioactive Waste Act, provincial legislation prohibiting the disposal of nuclear waste in this province. The Pawley Government passed the Act after many years of lobbying led by a grassroots group, Concerned Citizens of Manitoba (CCM). The group—which began at Lac du Bonnet, and eventually included members from across the province—believed that with the presence of the underground lab in close proximity to the Pinawa research centre, Manitoba was an easy target for development of a nuclear waste repository. AECL documents from the 1970s, describing how a demonstration repository would ensue from the underground research exacerbated those concerns, despite frequent assurances by the nuclear industry and provincial and federal governments that there was no intention of developing a radioactive waste disposal site at Lac du Bonnet.

CCM members were told early on that an act of the Provincial legislation simply wouldn’t hold up under Federal pressure to locate a nuclear waste disposal site here, as nuclear issues come under Federal jurisdiction. But the group, and its many supporters from all walks of Provincial life—from municipal councils to churches to women’s organizations—were adamant that by declaring in legislation Manitoba’s clear opposition to a nuclear waste site, we would at least create a major roadblock to any future Federal designs. The provincial government eventually agreed, and we can hope that the roadblock will continue to be effective.

Many concerns are still outstanding
But we are not “off the hook” by any means. Even if Manitoba is not selected for a repository, an eventual nuclear waste site located in Saskatchewan, for example, would mean our highways (particularly the Trans Canada) would see daily shipments of radioactive fuel, through agricultural land, next to populated areas, and alongside rivers and lakes. (Communities in Northern Ontario are already passing bylaws prohibiting the transportation of nuclear waste through them).

And the nuclear industry continues to be heavily subsidized with taxpayers’ money - funding that could be going into more sustainable alternative forms of energy. Nuclear supporters are pushing hard for a resurgence of nuclear power, on the mistaken premise that it will be an answer to our burgeoning greenhouse gas problems.

Finally, a major issue for Concerned Citizens of Manitoba, and the many other environmental organizations across Canada who monitor nuclear power, is the very real fear that should a dump be located in Canada, the potentially lucrative importation of nuclear waste from other countries will prove irresistible. Despite massive stockpiles of waste in temporary storage throughout the globe, no country has settled on a final “disposal” option, and an international repository concept is favoured by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Concerned Citizens of Manitoba experienced a victory with the report of the Seaborn panel, and even more so, with the passage of Manitoba legislation. While the group no longer meets, nobody was under any illusions that this issue would not be back. It has arrived.

Anne Lindsey was a member of Concerned Citizens of Manitoba.

Further information on this issue:
Getting the Shaft, by Walter Robbins, describes the early history of the CCM and AECL’s activities at Lac du Bonnet
Challenges to Nuclear Waste, the proceedings of an international citizens conference on nuclear waste, held in Winnipeg in1988.

Both of these books are available in the Alice Chamber Memorial Library.

Relevant websites include: Nuclear Waste Management Organization: www.nwmo.ca; Northwatch (citizens group in Northern Ontario): www.web.ca/~nwatch; Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout: www.cnp.ca

back to index

Faith and the Common Good: Toward Greening Sacred Spaces
by Lisa Martens

Baha’i Faith: “Know thou that every created thing is a sign of the revelation of God” —Baha’u’llah, Gleanings 177
Hinduism: “I am the fragrance of the Earth, the heat in fire. I am the life of all that lives.” —Lord Krishna, Bhagavad Gita 7.9
Unitarianism: “We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.” —Seventh Unitarian Principle
Shintoism: “Return the thing given to the human as a gift of nature to its original place.” —Ancient Japanese saying

Faith and the Common Good (FCG) is an Interfaith group, active across Canada, that works on environmental issues from a Faith perspective. In recent years, FCG in Manitoba has worked on Earth Day events, organized inter-faith forums and promoted David Suzuki’s Nature Challenge.

This year, FCG is inviting communities across Canada to green sacred spaces at home and at places of prayer. FCG has teamed up with Canada’s One-Tonne Challenge program to develop interfaith resources to help Canadians of faith reduce greenhouse gas emissions connected with their places of prayer and meditation.

Faith and the Common Good’s ‘Green Rule’ poster, quoted at the top, was created by Katharine Vansittart in Toronto, in cooperation with Religious leaders from thirteen Religious and Spiritual groups. The poster admonishes people of faith to “Do unto the Earth as you would have it do unto you.”

Greening Sacred Spaces
In this region, the FCG Coordinator, Lisa Martens, and members of the FCG Steering committee are ready to work with individual volunteers and committees from religious / spiritual groups in order to:
• Inform people how they can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, make their buildings more energy efficient and obtain grant money to do the work.
• Hold workshops with religious / spiritual groups to explore connections between energy-use and Faith; to share ideas and inspiration.
• Provide groups with Canada’s One-Tonne Challenge materials, which explain easy steps to take in a home to reduce a household’s emissions of greenhouse gases by one tonne.

A volunteer or committee can receive $500—$1000 for his or her work. The funds can be used to sustain a volunteer who is organizing or can be used toward the cause of greening a sacred space. To apply to volunteer, contact Lisa Martens using the information below.

Why Green Sacred Spaces?
“The earth and air are in these amazing states of balance that allow humans to survive,” explains Lisa Martens, “and we’re massively tipping that balance in all kinds of ways, including with greenhouse gas emissions. Being a Mennonite, some of my inspiration for doing this work comes from the Bible. I especially like the verse in Leviticus, ‘you shall provide for the redemption of the land’ [Lev. 25: 24b, NRSV] which is said in the context of the Jubilee.” The Jubilee is a biblical program that calls for a sabbatical year every fifty years. In that year, people are urged to allow for rest and renewal for the land and everyone in their households. “When I think of massive energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions connected with our religious buildings I think the charge ‘you shall provide for the redemption of the land’ is relevant in an urgent way.” Buildings, in general, account for 30% of the greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, according to the Canada Green Building Council.

I love the old standard, “Love your neighbour,” says FCG steering committee member Audrey McClelland. “Some of my neighbours are indigenous peoples. Being aware of electricity-use and conserving energy in my home and my place of prayer is a spiritual discipline and one small way to acknowledge the on-going experiences of indigenous peoples.” In Manitoba and in other provinces and nations, indigenous peoples suffer the on-going consequences of hydroelectric dams, including the destruction of local economies, the destruction of plant and animal habitat, and dangerous reversals of natural water cycles.

FCG steering committee member, Harold Shuster, who organized FCG’s last multi-faith forum, explains, “We need to keep offering people simple ways that they can lessen their environmental footprint. Saving the planet is a big job, but there are little things, that if we participate collectively, can make a big difference. Theses changes can be made not only in our own lives, our homes and workplaces, but also in our places of worship.”

To work with FCG on Greening your Sacred Space, contact:
Lisa Martens
Faith and the Common Good
Faculty of Theology, University of Winnipeg
204-789-1406 or sacredbalance@uwinnipeg.ca

back to index

Master Compost Volunteers in the Community

Since June 2004, Resource Conservation Manitoba’s thirty Master Composter volunteers have helped divert over 46 tonnes of waste from landfill, and potentially helped to divert over 1084 tonnes of waste, by educating over 3400 Manitobans on the benefits of composting. That’s equal to 108 truckloads of garbage being converted into a useful product for our gardens-compost!
Master Composter volunteers have presented information to community garden groups, local scout groups, non-profit organizations, schools, businesses and government departments. Call the Compost Infoline at 925-3777 if you would like to book a Master Composter for a presentation. (Please book at least 1 month in advance).

About the course
Resource Conservation Manitoba’s popular Master Composter Course is hitting Winnipeg for the third time. The course, like others across Canada, is about getting people in the classroom, leaving their job titles at the door and learning with like-minded people about a very hot topic in Canada. In other cities, decision-makers and waste reduction practitioners at all levels have taken the course. “The City of Edmonton’s Master Composter Program is a great way for city and provincial employees to improve their knowledge of waste issues and compost how-to’s, learn from the leaders and participants about problems and concerns, and seek ideas for provincial strategies,” says Master Composter, H. Wheeliker, Waste Education Program Coordinator, Alberta Environment.

Composting is a proven strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. One household participating in backyard composting can divert up to 40% of its organic wastes, resulting in an estimated 319kg/yr/household being diverted from landfills. “We all have a shared responsibility to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and by starting to compost at home or in the community we can do just that,” says Master Composter Coordinator Ophelia Morris of Resource Conservation Manitoba.

Course starting January 17
RCM is offering another Master Composter Course starting January 17th to February 2nd, 2006. Open to all Winnipeg residents, this FREE course covers basics and technical aspects of backyard and large-scale composting, microbes, compost quality, maturity tests, compost uses, compost tea, ecological footprint, tours and hands-on demonstrations. After the course, participants are required to give back 30 hours to the program in volunteer time in their community, at work or at home. If a person would like to attend some or all of the classes and tours, but cannot participate as a volunteer, they can do so by paying a fee of $100 without further obligation.

Master Composters receive a Certificate of Completion, Training Manual, Resource Kit including books and composting tools, Compost Scene Investigation Newsletter (C.S.I Manitoba) and invitations to meetings and recognition events.

For an application form, call the Compost Infoline at 925-3777 or visit our website: www.resourceconservation.mb.ca. Deadline to apply: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2006.

back to index

Go to Eco-Journal Archives

Back to Archives

Back to Top

Copyright 2007 Manitoba Eco-Network

Privacy Policy - Contact Us