A session was held on Saturday to discuss governmental action on the environmental, community and health impacts of resource development in BC.  This was part of the launching of a new initiative at UNBC, the Cumulative Impacts Research Consortium.  The launch and workshop on the weekend attracted over 120 people from across the region (see previous article).

Jennifer Psyllakis, manager, Ministry of Forestry, Lands and Natural Resources, presented the Ministry’s framework on the issue of addressing cumulative effects of resource development.

In her presentation, Ms. Psyllakis gave a definition of “cumulative effects.”  According to her, they are “changes to environmental, social and economic values caused by the combined effect of past, present and proposed activities and events.”  In that regard, she noted that, if only project or sector specific effects in natural resource development are considered, this will allow “unintended impacts to accumulate over time.”

For example, such unintended impacts could include degradation of land and water, loss of wildlife habitat, deterioration of community health, as well as phenomena such as the current pine beetle epidemic.

With LNG development, communities expect that the socio-economic effects of these resource projects will be addressed.  However, under the previous planning and regulatory processes these expectations were not being met.  As a result, according to Ms. Psyllakis, the provincial government is bringing in a requirement that LNG companies and proponents must develop a “Socio-economic Effects Management Plan” (SEEMP) for each project with the aim of mitigating any adverse impacts on communities.

This SEEMP must be submitted 90 days prior to LNG construction beginning and then must be approved by the Environmental Assessment Office of the provincial government.  Currently, 4 LNG projects in the province are working to develop a SEEMP.  However, the expectation is that the SEEMP process will be in place in 38 reporting units across the province by 2020.

Audience members raised a number of concerns during the question and answer period.  For example, one person questioned the name of the plan, noting that the plan is not really about socio-economic effects but rather is a “service and infrastructure plan.”  Echoing that concern, another person stated that the plan was proponent and project driven and not community-centred.  And still another pointed out that the plans did not involve substantial enforcement, much less actual field monitoring for compliance.

Several people raised the issue that the 90 day timeline was much too short and should be at least one or two years.  Adding to that, a local community official argued that many of the smaller municipalities and regional districts do not have full time elected representatives.  For these representatives to be expected to assess these plans, more time and more resources are necessary, especially when, in the future, a community or regional district could be presented with multiple SEEMPs at the same time, all expecting feedback within the 90 day time frame.

Ms. Psyllakis responded, in part, by saying that the SEEMP process is still new and that it will take time to meet all expectations, given that cumulative impacts are a complex problem requiring complex solutions.  She also pointed out that a few years ago, the term “cumulative effects” did not exist in any provincial government documents.  However, that has since changed and the province is now engaged in serious dialogue on the issue.  Furthermore, there have been success stories in the province such as in the Merritt area regarding timber supply allocation.  In regards to the 90 day timeline, she indicated that input could also be provided in the time leading up to that date.

Underlying much of the discussion appeared to be a concern about who actually is making the decisions in regards to resource development.  So far, it appears the LNG industry in league with the provincial government in Victoria is still very much in command.  While communities and First Nations may have some input into the process, they are clearly not the decision-makers.  As one audience member put it, the SEEMP process seems to be more about a lot of paperwork rather than anything concrete actually happening.

Cumulative impacts can have disastrous results for the environment, economy, health and social structure of our communities.  And they can also open up opportunities.

The question remains: Who will it be who decides about cumulative impacts and resource development in the province?  Does the process need to be completely reconfigured so that the communities and First Nations of our region – drawing upon available scientific and research infrastructure – are at the centre of decision-making and have the resources to do so?  Are SEEMPs a step towards that goal or just another means to placate community concerns?

It is positive that the session at UNBC opened up discussion on this issue.  If the questions and comments raised are any indication, there is clearly a need for more discussion in the future.

Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia.  He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca