Environment

Alberta’s Oil Sands: Key Issues and Impacts

George Hoberg — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:32:40 -0600

Northern Alberta’s oil sands are increasingly becoming a source of political conflict, both domestically and globally, as scrutiny of the world’s second-largest known oil reserve intensifies. While recent production in the oil sands has driven rapid economic growth in Alberta, there is increasing concern that this growth is causing unprecedented ecological harm. Major environmental non-government organizations (ENGOs), such as Greenpeace and the Pembina Institute, and local First Nations have begun to call for a moratorium on new oil sands projects until associated environmental destruction can be mitigated. At the same time, prominent political observers, such as former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed, have argued publicly that development in the oil sands is proceeding at a rate that is not economically and socially beneficial for Alberta. As the primary regulatory body responsible for the oil sands, the Alberta government is responsible for shaping most of the economic, social and environmental policies that guide oil sands development. Numerous complex and divisive policy problems that all demand resolution compete for the government’s attention. The provincial government, however, has remained generally hostile to any calls for a slowdown in oil sands growth.

This article provides an overview of the major environmental, social, and economic policy problems that figure prominently in the debate over the future of oil sands development.

Overview of Oil Sands Development in Alberta

Numerous stakeholders are involved in shaping oil sands policy

Environmental Issues and Impacts of Oil Sands Development

Impact on water, greenhouse gases and on northern Alberta ecosystem a major concern

Social Policy Issues and Impacts Oil Sands Development

Alberta's Social Services and First Nations are impacted by oil sands development

Economic Issues and Impacts of Oil Sands Development

The negative impact of oil sands development on Alberta's and Canadian economy

Sources and Links to More Information

List of article sources and links to more on the development of the Alberta Oil Sands

Overview of Oil Sands Development in Alberta

Numerous stakeholders are involved in shaping oil sands policy

The Alberta government, as owner of the province’s resources, has played the dominant role. Different divisions of the Albertan government are responsible for the various aspects of oil sands policy. The Energy Resources Conservation Board is responsible for regulating the oil and gas industry in Alberta, while Alberta Energy is responsible for granting rights to industry for exploration and development, collecting royalties, and administering the energy sector’s fiscal regime. Alberta Environment, through relevant legislation and guidelines, regulates the impact of oil sands development on air, land, and water in the province. Recently, the Oil Sands Secretariat was created within the Treasury Board to strengthen policy coordination.

To inform policy development the Government of Alberta has also turned to processes involving a multitude of stakeholders. To guide the direction of future growth in the oil sands, the Alberta government created the Oil Sands Multi-Stakeholder Committee to consult with all relevant stakeholders in the province, including the general public. The committee released its report in June 2007. As of the end of May 2008, the government has yet to respond. The Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) was created in 2000, with the charge to propose a framework for environmental management for the Athabasca oil sands region. For various reasons, its progress has been slow. In January 2008, CEMA did call for a halt to the issuance of new tenures in one area while it continued deliberating , but the provincial government rejected the request, saying it would consider the issue when CEMA delivered its complete report. CEMA released its Terrestrial Ecosystem Management Framework on June 5, 2008.

The federal government’s role in managing the oil sands has been minimal. While the Government of Canada has jurisdiction over waterways, fisheries, Indian lands, and environmental assessments, it has been hesitant to exercise this jurisdiction in a way that would threaten Alberta’s perceived right to develop its resources as it sees fit.

The oil and gas companies involved in oil sands production have been extremely powerful stakeholders in the province. As of the end of December2006 there were 21 companies operating 74 projects in the Alberta oil sands. Some of the companies producing the largest amounts of oil included Imperial Oil, Suncor, Shell Canada Limited and Canadian Natural Resources. Of the 21 producing companies, the largest seven accounted for about 84 percent of production in 2006.

Today, environmental groups are increasingly asserting their concerns regarding oil sands development, and have gone so far as to challenge government policies in court. As the Alberta government remains relatively hostile to these groups’ demands, environmentalists find themselves largely removed from the formal political sphere in this arena.

Finally, the 23 Aboriginal groups that live in northern Alberta are increasingly asserting their right to shape the development of their ancestral lands. Many of their concerns are articulated in the recent First Nations’ consultative process.

All of these stakeholders are attempting to shift the pace, scale and direction of oil sands development in a particular direction that suits their respective needs or interests. To this end, some of the challenges with oil sands exploration – outlined further in this feature – are cited by many of these groups as they attempt to articulate their vision for the oil sands.

The absolute scale of current development in the oil sands, and the consequent environmental, social and economic implications of this development, are massive. Since the mid-1990s, production of oil from the region has increased exponentially. In 2006, oil sands production was at approximately 1.2 million barrels a day – a figure representing about 42 percent of Canada’s total crude output. Accordingly, the potential for future growth is enormous, as to date less than five percent of the established reserves have been produced. Alberta Energy estimates that production could reach five million barrels a day by 2030. As production continues to propel the Alberta economy forward, the policy problems that remain unresolved today will only increase.

Environmental Issues and Impacts of Oil Sands Development

Impact on water, greenhouse gases and on northern Alberta ecosystem a major concern

The Impact on Water Consumption in Alberta

Oil sands production requires an extremely large quantity of water. In general it takes about 2 to 4.5 barrels of water, most of which is withdrawn from the Athabasca River, to produce one barrel of oil. While much of this water is recycled and used many times over, the oil sands use more water per year than the entire city of Calgary. The key policy problem regarding water for this purpose is the need to allocate water supplies in a way that properly balances oil sands production needs with ecosystem and human needs in the region. While the amount of water consumed per barrel of oil produced has been declining, a 2006 Government of Alberta report warned that there simply may not be enough available water to meet the needs of all planned oil sands projects while maintaining adequate stream flows.

Criticism from academics and activists has primarily focused on the effects of water withdrawals on fish populations, particularly during low-flow months, and the water security of communities within the Athabasca watershed. Alberta’s current regulatory framework has been criticized because the quantity of water withdrawals it authorizes does not adequately ensure ecosystem protection or the long-term conservation of the Athabasca watershed. As the federal government has jurisdiction over fisheries and the Athabasca watershed is shared by the province of Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and numerous First Nations communities, there is a large potential for future jurisdictional disputes and power-sharing arrangements. Some affected communities are becoming increasingly vocal with their demands that a moratorium be placed on development, citing the negative effect that oil sands production is having on the region’s water systems. As new projects will require further massive withdrawals of water, the availability of freshwater sources may very well limit the continued expansion of oil sands production.

The Impact on Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

More than any other environmental issue, the Alberta government is increasingly being criticized for its approach to climate change. Currently, Alberta is responsible for one-third of Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs). Specifically, the oil sands are Canada’s largest-growing source of GHGs, and these emissions are expected to increase substantially in the future. It is clear the Alberta government’s intention is to allow total GHG emissions from the oil sands to continue to rise. It recently released a GHG plan that relies heavily on intensity-based targets , which focus on reductions in emissions per unit of production, instead of setting absolute limits on total emissions. The Government of Alberta’s long-term target is a 14 percent reduction in GHGs, below 2005 levels, by 2050. Its most ambitious goal is to have emissions stabilized by 2020.

Like the provincial government, the current federal government’s climate change plan considers carbon capture and storage to be the solution to the oil sands’ ever-increasing emissions, but the concept has yet to be proven technologically or economically feasible. While recent funding announcements for carbon capture research are important, the amount of funding allocated falls far short of what is required to jump-start an industry-wide capture-and-storage program. If carbon capture and storage continues to form the foundation of Alberta’s climate change plan, finding a way to overcome the large associated financial and technological hurdles will prove extremely challenging.

The Alberta government’s lack of progress on mitigating oil sands emissions may prove to be a political liability in the future. Already, vocal international environmentalists have begun targeting the oil sands on the issue of climate change. As perhaps the global environmental issue of the 21st century gains increasing international attention, Alberta’s ability to ignore this growing chorus of voices may prove impossible. At the same time, many predict that a large political showdown between the provincial and federal government is looming; the belief is that it’s only a matter of time before the federal government moves to aggressively limit industrial sources of GHGs in Canada. Recently, the Federal Court of Canada struck down the environmental assessment of a proposed major oil sands project, arguing the project did not have an adequate plan to deal with its GHG emissions.

Even the United States, which buys the vast majority of oil from the region, has begun taking steps that could force the Government of Alberta to take the issue of GHG emissions from the oil sands more seriously. California has enacted legislation to reduce the emissions intensity of its transportation fuels, a move that may limit the ability of oil derived from the oil sands that is to be sold in that state. Moreover, a recent US federal law forbids the US government from purchasing oil from ‘non-conventional’ sources whose production creates greater emissions counts than that of ‘conventional’ oil resources. While the Alberta government lobbied the US successfully to ensure this law did not apply to the oil sands, it is likely that pressure from the US will only increase.

The Government of Alberta’s ability to continue developing the oil sands while largely ignoring growing concerns about climate change, both in the domestic and international political arenas, is uncertain. Public attention to climate change issues is only now beginning to focus on the oil sands, and this attention is only likely to increase.

The Impact of Oil Sands Development on the Northern Alberta Ecosystem

Oil sands development causes large-scale spatial disturbances to Alberta’s northern boreal forest . According to critics, the cumulative effects of deforestation, habitat fragmentation, and species loss caused by exploration, open pit mines, in-situ developments, urban development, forestry, and road clearing in the region are not being adequately managed or even considered.

In April 2008, the impact on habitat received widespread media attention when hundreds of migrating ducks died in a Syncrude tailings pond. There is also concern about links between habitat loss and declines in populations of at-risk species, such as caribou. The Alberta government, as articulated in its Mineable Oil Sands Strategy, has always maintained this disturbance is “temporary” and that production sites will be reclaimed when projects are completed. Provincial requirements for reclamation, however, are considered by environmentalists to be an inadequate means of ensuring that reclaimed land resembles a functioning ecosystem. In this context, reclaimed land is not actually required to resemble the site as it existed prior to development. Environmentalists point out that ecologically complex wetlands will be replaced with dry tree plantations, though there is uncertainty as to whether trees will even be able to grow on the sites used by oil sands projects.

To date, only one oil sands project has been awarded a reclamation certificate, which means that the reclaimed land has been formally approved by the provincial government. Critics were quick to point out, however, that this site was only minimally disturbed by oil sands activity and is not reflective of the massive land disturbances that take place in most oil sands project sites. Despite uncertainty as to whether the land base can be adequately reclaimed and how much money this will cost in the future, approvals for new oil sands projects continue to be granted. There is concern, however, particularly among environmental groups, that the Alberta government (and thus taxpayers) will be stuck with the future cost of reclamation. Though operators are required to provide the government with “financial security” that can be used if the land is not adequately reclaimed, it is the oil sands companies that tell the provincial government how much this deposit should be. It is also unclear whether this amount of money will be close to the amount required for ecologically sound reclamation, if needed.

Alberta's Social Services and First Nations are impacted by oil sands development

The Impact on Social Services in Alberta

There is much concern in Northern Alberta communities about their ability to keep up with the pace of development in the oil sands. In towns like Fort McMurray and Cold Lake, housing costs are spiralling upwards, such that many newcomers cannot find adequate housing. The region’s physical infrastructure, from roads to water and sewage systems, are severely overtaxed, with communities reporting massive infrastructure deficits. Social services, including health care, crime prevention and education, are inadequate and unable to meet the demands of population pressures. Communities in Northern Alberta feel they are absorbing a disproportionately high amount of the negative impacts of oil sands growth while failing to receive their fair share of the benefits. Many mayors, municipal councils, and individuals from these communities outlined their concerns in submissions to Alberta’s Oil Sands Consultations process. While the Government of Alberta has acknowledged there are indeed gaps in social services and infrastructure, few of its own recommendations have been implemented.

To alleviate some of these major social problems, communities have requested large investments from the provincial government and a new arrangement for tax and royalty regimes to ensure communities in the oil sands region can meet both infrastructure and social demands. Despite budgetary surpluses, the Alberta government has been slow to provide these communities with the requested funding. Massive social and infrastructure deficits remain; finding a way to fairly share the economic costs and benefits of the oil sands will remain a politically difficult policy problem for the foreseeable future.

The Impact on First Nations in Alberta

Over 30 different First Nations live in the oil sands region of Northern Alberta. Unlike in most of neighbouring British Columbia, formal treaties cover the area and, as with many resource extraction industries, the oil sands industry has been a mixed blessing for rural First Nations communities. While many First Nations members are indeed employed in the oil sands, there is much concern that oil sands companies are not doing enough to hire local First Nations. That said, the amount of business flowing to First Nations-owned companies (such as trucking and construction) has been extremely large. Furthermore, many of the larger oil sands companies have strategies and targets for hiring specific numbers of First Nations employees, and for purchasing from, and contracting with, First Nations-owned businesses, as outlined in a report published by the National Energy Board in 2004. These economic benefits, however, have not been sufficient to mute the resistance of many First Nations members to the scale and pace of development in their ancestral lands.

The problems cited by First Nations members regarding oil sands development include: lack of proper consultation and accommodation of First Nations interests; lack of adequate compensation; loss of traditional hunting and trapping territory; habitat destruction (particularly fishing grounds); health concerns relating to surrounding air and water pollution; and general concerns regarding the wide range of environmental issues pertaining to oil sands development. As many of the First Nations affected by oil sands development are located downriver in Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories, this poses challenges for other governments (provincial and territorial), as well as the federal government. Several First Nations groups, including the Decho, have made high-profile calls in support of declaring a moratorium on oil sands development. Recently, the Assembly of Treaty Chiefs, which is comprised of representatives from all First Nations groups in Northern Alberta, unanimously passed a resolution calling for the provincial government to cease granting approval for new oil sands projects until certain conditions, including the development of a proper water management strategy, are met. While recent consultations with Alberta’s First Nations about the oil sands have concluded, it remains too early to determine how the Alberta government will respond to the issues raised during these proceedings.

Economic Issues and Impacts of Oil Sands Development

The negative impact of oil sands development on Alberta's and Canadian economy

The Impact on the Alberta Economy

Despite the enormous economic growth that oil sands development has spurred in Alberta, distribution of benefits has been uneven overall. In general, the level of investment and growth in the oil sands has hurt the province’s conventional oil and gas industry. Rising real estate costs and general inflation have hurt sectors such as agriculture and manufacturing particularly hard. Consequently, today there is a growing income split between those Albertans who are employed in the oil sands and those who are not employed by the oil sands – but who are faced with the rising daily cost of living. There is also concern that the economic benefits associated with oil sands development are being concentrated geographically and not diffused throughout the province. Moreover, despite recent changes to the province’s royalty regime, the Government of Alberta has been criticized for not collecting enough economic rent (in the form of royalties) from the oil sands on behalf of Albertans (the so-called ‘owners’ of the resource), and for allowing the vast majority of oil sands profits to flow to industry. Also worth noting here is that since labour demands for the oil sands are so large, a significant proportion of oil sands employment is going to non-Albertans. Consequently, more oil sands-related economic benefits are flowing beyond Alberta. Accordingly, it has been argued that a more prudent economic strategy would see oil sands development slowed, thereby ensuring Albertans can fill any related jobs and benefit from oil sands employment over the longer period. While economic benefits are the primary motivation behind the current pace and scale of development in Alberta’s oil sands, the manner in which these benefits are distributed within the greater Alberta economy remains a contested policy issue.

Oil sands development to date has been fuelled largely by natural gas. While many factors are contributing to the increase in price of natural gas in Western Canada, it is important to note that massive demand from the oil sands is a major factor. In the future, this rising price trend is likely to lead to large increases in home heating costs. At the same time, many have questioned the logic of using a relatively clean-burning fuel (in terms of greenhouse gases and air pollutants) such as natural gas to aid in the extraction of an extremely dirty form of crude oil for the purposes of export. Faced with the rising cost of natural gas, and expected shortages due to increased demand from the oil sands, as a fuel source, nuclear power is now seriously being considered to help power oil sands extraction.

The Impact on the Canadian Economy

The oil sands bring economic benefits to other areas of the country outside Alberta. Increasingly, however, development in the oil sands is having an overall net-negative economic impact. Attracted by record profits in the oil sands, investors are pulling their money from other economic sectors and concentrating their investments in the oil sands. This has created problems for other sectors as they struggle to attract required investment. At the same time, the rising Canadian dollar, caused in part by the economics of oil sands growth, is hurting export-orientated sectors. The forestry industry in BC and the Ontario manufacturing industry serve as two prominent examples. As a result, there is increasing discord, with some provinces – such as the Government of Ontario – becoming increasingly vocal in criticizing the federal government for allowing the oil sands to develop so rapidly without considering (or compensating) other important national economic sectors. Indeed, friction between the provinces around this issue, and also between specific provinces and the federal government, is likely to increase following a recent announcement by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper that it is not the federal government’s responsibility to bail out struggling industries.

Sources and Links to More Information

List of article sources and links to more on the development of the Alberta Oil Sands

Sources Used for this Article

Dunbar, R.B. Existing and Proposed Canadian Commercial Oil Sands Projects. Calgary: Strategy West, April 2008. Available at: <http://www.strategywest.com/downloads/StratWest_OSProjects.pdf>
National Energy Board. Canada’s Oil Sands. Opportunities and Challenges to 2015: An Update. Ottawa: National Energy Board, 2006. Available at: <http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/lsnd/lsnd-eng.html>
Radke, Doug. Investing in our Future: Responding to the Rapid Growth of Oil Sands Development. Edmonton: Oil Sands Ministerial Strategy Committee, 2006. Available at: < http://www.alberta.ca/home/395.cfm>
Standing Committee on Natural Resources. The Oil Sands: Towards Sustainable Development. Report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Ottawa: Library of Parliament, March 2007. Available at: <http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committee/391/rnnr/reports/rp2614277/rnnrrp04/04_TOC_ENG.htm>
Vlavianos, Nickie. “Key Shortcomings in Alberta’s Regulatory Framework for Oil Sands Development.” Newsletter of the Canadian Institute of Resources Law Calgary 100 (2007). Available at: <http://www.ucalgary.ca/~cirl/pdf/Resources100.pdf>
Westman, Cint. “Assessing the Impacts of Oil Sands Development on Indigenous Peoples in Alberta, Canada.” Indigenous Affairs 2-3, 2006. Available at: <http://www.iwgia.org/sw161.asp>
Woynillowicz, Dan et al. Oil Sands Fever: The Environmental Implications of Canada’s Oil Sands Rush. Drayton Valley: The Pembina Institute, 2005. Available at: http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/OilSands72.pdf

Links for More Information

A Carbon Tax in Canada - The Elephant in the Room...

Greg Farries — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:50:38 -0700

John Baird and Canada's Position on Climage Change in Bali

Greg Farries — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:34:44 -0700

Global Warming vs the Cold Canadian Winter

Greg Farries — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:04:54 -0700

2002 Johannesburg Earth Summit on Sustainable Development

Scott Fogden — Sun, 01 Sep 2002 00:00:00 -0600

From August 26th to September 4th, 2002, international attention focused on Johannesburg, as South Africa’s commercial capital played host to high-level diplomatic meetings assigned to alleviate poverty while protecting the earth’s environment. This article provides an introduction to the Summit's issues, events, and outcomes.

Understanding Sustainable Development in the World

Explanation of the concept and how it is used

The Global Balancing Act

Finding balance between economic interests and environmental concerns

History of the Earth Summits

From Rio to Johannesburg

Canada's Role in the 2002 Earth Summit

Domestic interests & global concerns

Highlights of the 2002 Earth Summit

Events & agreements

Links to Further Information

List of links for more on this topic

Understanding Sustainable Development

Explanation of the concept and how it is used

Often heard but seldom considered, ‘sustainable development’ is a phrase that can be interpreted in many ways. In 1987, the UN's definition stated, “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development [The Brundtland Report], 1987). This definition touches on the concept's most basic component: specifically, we can’t expend the earth’s limited potential today if we want human life to continue tomorrow.

Of course, the issue is more complicated than that. When delegates met in Johannesburg, they were after concrete measures that would balance our current and future needs. Along with their advisors, the delegates represented a number of perspectives for current and future sustainable development. For instance, developing countries in Asia or Africa might argue that their people need economic development before environmental progress can be made. Meanwhile, many developed countries concentrated on encouraging cleaner energy technologies resulting in reduced pollution that benefited their citizens' health.

But there were other voices at the Summit aside from government officials. Stakeholders included business leaders, scientists, environmentalists, economists, and a variety of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Each stakeholder has a unique take on sustainable development that falls into one or more of the following approaches:

Three Pillars: Approaches to Sustainability

Economic: Encouraging economic development and infrastructure also increases the capacity for change.

This approach asserts that the economically powerful developed world will invest in environmental protection, whereas developing countries must devote their energies elsewhere. Simply put, the poor can’t afford to share the costly interests of a healthy environment; surviving is enough of a task for many.

Proponents

The Group of 77 (G77) developing countries has often supported this approach arguing that only when they ‘catch up’ to the developed world will they be able to participate in initiatives such as environmental protection and pollution reduction.
Business leaders are likely to support this approach arguing that increased trade and commerce is the most efficient way to achieve development and thereby a capacity for environmental responsibili

Environment: Concrete prescriptions, rules, and enforcement must curb environmental degradation.

This approach asserts that traditional development methods have created critical problems for the survival of humans and the planet.

Proponents

The European Union has sponsored this approach calling for definitive action such as the targets laid out in the Kyoto Protocol.
Environmentalists largely favour this approach since it targets environmental destruction first and foremost.

Social Justice: Sustainable development is about protecting the environment as well as economic and social justice.

This approach asserts that economic capacity and ecological stability play into a larger sphere of interests. Human life requires a combination of these entities but also social stability, security, and equality.

Proponents

Norway, Canada, and Japan have set their agendas based on some form of this combination.
NGOs representing women’s or human rights groups favour this approach since it addresses a wider range of issues affecting social development.

The Agenda of the Conference

With such diverse interests in mind, the UN chose to focus attention on a few broad objectives at the Summit:

Alleviating poverty.
Improving the ability of all countries, particularly in the South, to meet globalization's challenges.
Promoting responsible production and consumption.
Ensuring that all people have access to energy sources.
Reducing environmentally related health problems.
Improving access to clean water.

Global Balancing Act

Economic interests and environmental concerns

With such immense objectives and a diverse range of interests, the Summit's risk is that in its attempt to cover everything, it would achieve nothing. In principle, everyone is a proponent of sustainable development. Politically, it is a term that can mobilize popular support through rhetorical use, but it plays out very differently in practice. Perhaps the most sensitive aspects of implementing plans for sustainable development are the associated economic costs.

In Johannesburg, delegates bound by the interests of their constituents blocked initiatives on a wide range of issues. Most notably, summit negotiations were stalled in three prominent areas: agriculture subsidies, energy interests, and poverty concessions.

Europe and Agriculture

Agriculture is widely recognized as a potential area to reduce poverty since trade barriers disproportionately affect farmers in poorer countries. Developed countries place heavy import tariffs on goods produced by developing countries because they want to protect their own farming industries. Europe, in particular (but not exclusively), subsidizes its farming industries in this manner and sought to maintain its right to do so at the Summit.

Energy Concerns: United States, Canada, Australia

With regard to the heavily polluting fossil fuel industries, some countries were similarly hesitant toward the Summit’s proposals. The United States, Canada, and Australia were notably reluctant to support fossil fuel reduction targets, although Canada did announce its plan to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. All three countries have economies particularly dependent on the oil and gas industries and would be markedly affected by such measures.

Emphasis on Poverty: G77

The Group of 77 developing countries insists that they:

Are not responsible for the majority of industrial pollution or CO2 emissions.
Cannot afford major environmental initiatives.

They, therefore, insist that the developed world carry the brunt of the economic burden for summit initiatives and increase the transfer of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries. Much of the developing world's exemption from the Kyoto Protocol was one of the main reasons the United States refused to ratify.

History of the Earth Summits

From Rio to Johannesburg

Today’s environmental movement finds its origin in 1960s Europe and North America. It gained momentum throughout the decade, and the first international meeting focusing specifically on the environment and development was held in Stockholm in 1972. This meeting was called The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment.

1986 - Brundtland Commission

Following this conference, the United Nations appointed a World Commission on Environment and Development to find critical areas of environmental degradation around the globe. Led by Norway’s Prime Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland, the commission delivered its findings and proposed solutions. Commonly referred to as the Brundtland Report, but officially titled Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, the research brought the concept of sustainable development to the fore and called for cooperative, international efforts to combat growing environmental problems.

1992 - The Rio Earth Summit

The Rio Summit was a response to this call for global environmental cooperation. Officially titled the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio hosted an unprecedented gathering to focus on environmental issues; more than 35,000 people, including 106 heads of state took part in the Summit. Public awareness and debate around environmental issues peaked with a number of new conventions agreed upon, including biodiversity and climate change, to name two. Institutionally, the UN formed the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) to monitor implementation of agreements reached in Rio. Crucially, Agenda 21 formed a ‘global plan-of-action’ for sustainable development at local, national, and international levels.

Read the Rio Declaration

What is Agenda 21?

In 1992, the international community adopted Agenda 21 as a non-binding framework incorporating environmental, economic, and social concerns into a single scheme. It contains over 2,500 wide-ranging and concrete recommendations for action on issues such as:

Reducing wasteful use of natural resources
Fighting poverty
Protecting the atmosphere, oceans, and animal and plant life
Promoting sustainable agriculture practices that will feed the world's growing population.

Read the Agenda 21 plan

2002 - Johannesburg Summit

The Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development marked a continuation of the earlier efforts of Agenda 21. Often dubbed Rio-Plus-10, it was meant to reaffirm Agenda 21 as well as broaden the sustainable development debate to encourage partnerships between government, business, and civil society.

The Run-up to Johannesburg: Preparations

Most of the negotiations took place at the Summit's preparatory meetings. The tenth session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (known as CSD10) was the global Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the Johannesburg Summit. Four inter-governmental PrepCom meetings were held during 2001-2002 to agree on the agenda for the Summit.

The First Summit Preparatory Committee (PrepCom1) was held at the United Nations Headquarters in New York from April 31 to May 2, 2001. The Second Summit Preparatory Committee (PrepCom2) was held from January 28 to February 8, 2002 in New York, followed by the Third Summit Preparatory Committee (PrepCom3), also in New York, from March 25 to April 5, 2002. The final PrepCom (PrepCom4) committee convened at the ministerial level, and was held in Bali, Indonesia, from May 27 to June 7, 2002. Representatives from each of the major groups, including leaders from the NGO and business communities participated in these meetings.

For more details on the Agendas and Preparatory Committees:

Agendas and PrepCom proceedings

Earth Summits: Promoting Multilateralism

Since 1970, a comprehensive series of multilateral agreements on crucial environmental and sustainability issues have been reached. For more details on these agreements:

List of multilateral agreements since 1970

Canada's Role in the 2002 Earth Summit

Global concerns and domestic interests

The Canadian government's focus of its Johannesburg mission was touted “Global Sustainable Development with an Emphasis on Africa." As mentioned in the section Understanding Sustainable Development, Canada’s approach at the time of the Summit was distinguished by its combination of all three central pillars of sustainable development: environmental, economic, and social justice.

Sustainable Development

At the Johannesburg Summit, Canada emphasized partnerships in its sustainable development platform. With a large private sector contingent, the delegation stressed the practicality of partnerships for seeking, “cost-effective solutions to issues such as urban sustainability, capacity building and knowledge sharing on subjects from forest management to sustainable mining.”

Governance

President of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Program was probably Canada’s most valuable role at the Summit. Canada’s Minister of the Environment at the time, David Anderson, carried this title and pushed for consensus on ways to enforce and regulate environmental law. Given the complexity of organizing local, national, and international arrangements for environmental governance, the proceedings were hard fought, but did not move far.

Health and Human Rights

Canada’s emphasis on health care and human rights was another area that distinguished Canada’s platform from that of most other countries. Beyond environmental and economic initiatives, Canada’s delegation highlighted the importance of health care and medical services for social stability and economic development. With Canadian pressure, medical access is now deemed a human right alongside cultural and religious values.

With regard to human rights, the ‘human security’ agenda was forefront for Canada. This agenda placed importance on the capacity of individuals to live without fear of war or violence.

Africa

Subsequent announcements by the Canadian government played into summit proceedings. Over the next five years, $6 billion was earmarked to support new and existing investments in Africa’s development, including a $500 million Canada Fund for Africa.

The Fund includes:

Elimination of tariffs and quotas on imports from the 48 Least Developed Countries, of which 34 are in Africa;
$28 million to develop skills and expertise in the public sector;
$9 million to strengthen the parliamentary system;
$6 million for local governance;
A doubling of Canada's investment in basic education to $100 million by 2005;
$50 million towards the development of an HIV vaccine; and
$50 million to help eradicate polio.

Domestic Concerns

With pressure from sources within Canada, the delegation played a high profile on a few fronts. Energy was paramount in this regard; pressure from Alberta’s oil and gas industry as well as Ontario and BC governments made Canada’s plan to ratify the Kyoto Protocol uncertain. The delegation maintained its support for the accord’s flexibility mechanisms, such as emissions trading.

For more information on emissions trading and Canada’s overall position, check out:

Mapleleafweb: The Kyoto Protocol

Fisheries were another area of specific interest for Canada as negotiations finalized plans to restore fisheries to their maximum sustainable yields by 2015.

Highlights of the 2002 Earth Summit

Events & agreements

A number of media outlets reported lacklustre progress on many of the Summit’s central themes. Despite this, the United Nations highlighted several of the Summit’s achievements. (Note that a variety of outcomes are listed, from invaluable and precise, to speculative and vague.)

Water and Sanitation

Commitment to reduce by half the proportion of people without access to sanitation by 2015.
The United States announced $970 million in investments over the next three years on water and sanitation projects.
The European Union announced the “Water for Life” initiative that seeks to engage partners to meet water and sanitation goals, primarily in Africa and Central Asia. The Asia Development Bank provided a $5 million grant to UN Habitat and $500 million in fast-track credit for the Water for Asian Cities Programme.
Twenty-one other water and sanitation initiatives with at least $20 million in extra resources.

Energy

Commitment to increase access to modern energy services, energy efficiency, and the use of renewable energy.
To phase out, where appropriate, energy subsidies.
To support the NEPAD objective of ensuring access to energy for at least 35% of Africa’s population within 20 years.
The nine major electricity companies of the E7 signed a range of agreements with the UN to facilitate technical cooperation for sustainable energy projects in developing countries.
The European Union announced a $700 million partnership initiative on energy and the United States announced that it would invest up to $43 million for the initiative in 2003.
The South African energy utility Eskom announced a partnership to extend modern energy services to neighbouring countries.
Thirty-two partnership submissions for energy projects with at least $26 million in resources.

Health

Commitment that by 2020, chemicals should be used and produced in ways that do not harm human health and the environment.
To enhance cooperation to reduce air pollution.
To improve developing countries’ access to environmentally sound alternatives to ozone depleting chemicals by 2010.
The United States announced their commitment to spend $2.3 billion through 2003 on health, some of which was earmarked earlier for the Global Fund.
Sixteen partnership submissions for health projects with $3 million in resources.

Agriculture

The GEF will consider the Convention to Combat Desertification as a focal area for funding.
Development of food security strategies for Africa by 2005.
The United States will invest $90 million in 2003 for sustainable agriculture programs.
Seventeen partnership submissions with at least $2 million in additional resources.

Bio Diversity and Ecosystem Management

Commitment to reduce biodiversity loss by 2010.
Reverse the current trend in natural resource degradation.
Restore fisheries to their maximum sustainable yields by 2015.
Establish a representative network of marine protected areas by 2012.
Improve developing countries’ access to environmentally sound alternatives to ozone depleting chemicals by 2010.
Undertake initiatives by 2004 to implement the Global Program of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land Based Sources of Pollution.
Thirty-two partnership initiatives with $100 million in resources.
The United States has announced $53 million for forests in 2002-2005.

Other Issues

Recognition that opening access to markets is a key to development for many countries.
Support the phase out of all forms of export subsidies.
Commitment to establish a 10-year framework of programs on sustainable consumption and production.
Commitment to actively promote corporate responsibility and accountability.
Commitments to develop and strengthen a range of activities to improve preparedness and response for natural disasters.
Agreement to the replenishment of the Global Environment Facility, with a total of $3 billion ($2.92 billion announced pre-Summit and $80 million added by EU in Johannesburg).

What is the Kyoto Protocol's Status

Ministers at the Johannesburg Summit indicated their support for the Kyoto Protocol. The agreed action plan read: "States that have ratified strongly urge those that have not done so to ratify Kyoto in a timely manner.”

Countries like China, India, Brazil, and Thailand announced their ratification of the Kyoto Protocol at the Johannesburg Summit. Russia and Canada gave strong signals that they would ratify in the near future. The combined emissions of Russia and Canada would be sufficient to allow greenhouse gas figures to reach the required limit.

The Kyoto Protocol will enter into force 90 days after 55 governments have ratified, including developed countries which represent approximately 55% of 1990 carbon dioxide emissions (for ratifying states). As of September 2002, 94 countries had ratified, including all European Union member states and Japan, accounting for 37.1%.

Shares of 1990 CO₂ emissions:
United States	36.1 %
European Union	24.2 %
Russian Federation	17.4 %
Japan	8.5 %
Canada	3.3 %
Australia	2.1 %

Recent weather-related crises throughout the world remind us of the changes that climate change is likely to bring. From droughts in India and North America to flooding throughout Europe, regional climate change scenarios are thought to be occurring.

Plan of Action

The Johannesburg Summit agreed upon a Plan of Implementation that underlines the importance of developing and disseminating innovative technologies in energy and other key sectors, including the private sector. Technology transfers to developing countries are highlighted in this plan.

Plan of Implementation [PDF]

Political Declaration

Participating governments negotiated the Plan of Action and a Political Declaration at the Summit.

Political Declaration [DOC]

Partnerships for Sustainable Development

Type I Outcomes: Political commitments made at the Summit.
Type II Outcomes: Partnerships consisting of a series of commitments and planned coalitions to further the implementation of sustainable development. Not negotiated, they are voluntary arrangements made by multiple stakeholders including the private sector and NGOs.

Environment

Alberta’s Oil Sands: Key Issues and Impacts

Numerous stakeholders are involved in shaping oil sands policy

Impact on water, greenhouse gases and on northern Alberta ecosystem a major concern

Alberta's Social Services and First Nations are impacted by oil sands development

The negative impact of oil sands development on Alberta's and Canadian economy

List of article sources and links to more on the development of the Alberta Oil Sands

Overview of Oil Sands Development in Alberta

Environmental Issues and Impacts of Oil Sands Development

The Impact on Water Consumption in Alberta

The Impact on Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

The Impact of Oil Sands Development on the Northern Alberta Ecosystem

Social Policy Issues and Impacts Oil Sands Development

The Impact on Social Services in Alberta

The Impact on First Nations in Alberta

Economic Issues and Impacts of Oil Sands Development

The Impact on the Alberta Economy

The Impact on the Canadian Economy

Sources and Links to More Information

Sources Used for this Article

Links for More Information

A Carbon Tax in Canada - The Elephant in the Room...

John Baird and Canada's Position on Climage Change in Bali

Global Warming vs the Cold Canadian Winter

2002 Johannesburg Earth Summit on Sustainable Development

Explanation of the concept and how it is used

Finding balance between economic interests and environmental concerns

From Rio to Johannesburg

Domestic interests & global concerns

Events & agreements

List of links for more on this topic

Understanding Sustainable Development

Three Pillars: Approaches to Sustainability

Economic: Encouraging economic development and infrastructure also increases the capacity for change.

Environment: Concrete prescriptions, rules, and enforcement must curb environmental degradation.

Social Justice: Sustainable development is about protecting the environment as well as economic and social justice.

The Agenda of the Conference

Global Balancing Act

Europe and Agriculture

Energy Concerns: United States, Canada, Australia

Emphasis on Poverty: G77

History of the Earth Summits

1986 - Brundtland Commission

1992 - The Rio Earth Summit

What is Agenda 21?

2002 - Johannesburg Summit

The Run-up to Johannesburg: Preparations

Earth Summits: Promoting Multilateralism

Canada's Role in the 2002 Earth Summit

Sustainable Development

Governance

Health and Human Rights

Africa

Domestic Concerns

Highlights of the 2002 Earth Summit

Water and Sanitation

Energy

Health

Agriculture

Bio Diversity and Ecosystem Management

Other Issues

What is the Kyoto Protocol's Status

Plan of Action

Political Declaration

Partnerships for Sustainable Development

Links to More Information

The debate about the worth of the Summit

Canadian Government Sites

United Nations Sites

Further Study