The Val-Jalbert small hydroelectric station; was the EIA used to silence eco-freaks?

In 1976, Schindler criticized of the EIA system in a way that can still be seen in the practice today; EIAs can be used to silence eco-freaks, implicating that once a project get accepted, further social or environmental impacts won’t be significant. But what happens if an EIA isn’t done properly? The still ongoing Val-Jalbert case study, in the Lac-St-Jean region of Quebec, illustrates adequately this concept.

Left: 2010, Ouiatchouan waterfall in the historic Village of Val-Jalbert. Right: 1930, Family Gagnon from Val-Jalbert, an old pulp mill site in the early twentieth century. Photo credit: BANQ

The project consists of a small hydroelectric central and a 37,5 m long dam located upstream of the Ouiatchouan waterfall, inside the patrimonial site of the historic Village of Val-Jalbert. The spectacular 72m high waterfalls is the main attraction of the site, which is the second touristic attraction of the region.

Aerial view of the historic Village of Val-Jalbert. Yellow dots represent viewpoints on the waterfalls. Image credit: http://www.valjalbert.com

Questionable choices of profits

For each million of economic benefits that the project will induce in the region, the project will cost 4 millions to the Quebec collectivity, because the Quebec is in energetic surplus. Martine Ouellet, from the Parti Québecois, decided to stop six out of seven small hydroelectric central, excluding Val-Jalbert. Their main argument is that the go for the project was already delivered. Amir Khadir and François Legault, respectively from Québec Solidaire and the Coalition Avenir Québec, denounce this economic incoherence, based on the work of the Parliamentary Committee on energy surplus. Could these gigantic economic losses (80 billions dollars in 20 years) be invested in the region to build new sustainable project instead of demolishing existing one? Could alternatives be considered?

Biased Environmental Impact Assessment

Part of the answer why these questions weren’t addressed concern the possible conflict of interest that surrounds the Val-Jalbert project. Indeed, the EIA was conducted by BPR and Dessau, the same firms that will supervise the construction site, which supposes a major conflict of interest while the engineering firms don’t have any advantage to state that the project doesn’t have good standards in environment.

During the touristic season, an esthetic daily flow of 7 m3/s is projected. This represents the half of the actual river flow. During the night and the winter, the flow will be equivalent to a standard domestic water heater. The EIA report state that no valuable ecologic component (VEC) assessment was possible on the river section that will be dried out (1km long), because the accessibility was dangerous. The EIA consequently based its prediction on literature, while numerous fisherman (including Innu testimony from the Pekuakamiulnuatsh Alliance), witness of a rich diversity of fishes, especially a healthy 700-800g brook trout population.

Average daily flow simulation of the Ouiatchouan waterfalls. Pale blue: actual flow. Dark Blue: projected flow. Green: esthetic projected flow for touristic season. Graphic credit: BAPE 2012.

Social unacceptability

Léger Marketing did a regional survey in late January. The results show that 51 % of the citizens are opposed to the project while 39 % support it (10 % undecided). An interesting point is that 61 % of respondent wish the cancellation or suspension of the already started construction work for the benefits of a public consultation. The project raises controversy because of the intangible cultural appropriation from the population. It also deals with the unhappy Innu community from Mashteuiatsh. Without consulting the community, the Band Council sold the Natissian territory for profits that will not return to the Mashteuiatsh community. Therefore, Innus aren’t able to access the site anymore, Val-Jalbert is only opened to tourists. They are mainly against the project and they triggered a Band Council referendum.

Despite the construction work being started since February, members of the opposition committee for the safeguard of the Ouiatchouan river of Val-Jalbert and the Pekuakamiulnuatsh Alliance installed a camp near the site. Will the bias EIA be able to break the social unacceptability? The story is to be followed.

* This blog post was written March 6^th. 

References

Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE), 2012, Projet de mise en valeur hydroélectrique de la rivière Ouiatchouan au village historique de Val-Jalbert – Rapport d’enquête et d’audience publique – Rapport 289, Quebec, 102 pages.

Fondation Rivière, 2013, Actions Val-Jalbert, http://fondationrivieres.org/agir-pour-sauver-val-jalbert/

Leclerc, V., 2013, Val-Jalbert – Site patrimonial en péril, Huffington Post, http://quebec.huffingtonpost.ca/viateur-leclerc/val-jalbert-site-patrimonial-en-peril_b_2696912.html

Rioux, M., 2013, Val-Jalbert, tout faire pour boquer ce projet insensé, Greenpeace,  http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/fr/Blog/val-jalbert-il-faut-tout-faire-pour-bloquer-c/blog/44032/

Shields, A., 2013, Le projet de Val-Jalbert divise la région, Le Devoir, http://www.ledevoir.com/environnement/actualites-sur-l-environnement/371481/le-projet-de-val-jalbert-divise-la-region

Shindler, D.W., 1976, The Impact Statement Boondoggle, Science, Vol.192, no. 4239, p.509.

Société de l’énergie communautaire du Saguenay-Lac St-Jean, 2013, Le projet de Val-Jalbert, Les projets en développement, http://www.energievertelsj.ca/fr/16/Le-projet-de-Val-Jalbert/

Société Radio-Canada, 2013, L’opposition fait front commun contre le projet de minicentrale de Val-Jalbert, Huffington Post, http://quebec.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/02/15/opposition-front-commun-val-jalbert-quebec-solidaire-caq_n_2695939.html

Société Radio-Canada, 2013, Minicentrale de Val-Jalbert: les opposants affirment que l’étude d’impact a été baclée, http://www.radio-canada.ca/regions/saguenay-lac/2013/02/26/007-minicentrale-opposants-etudes.shtml

Arizona Snowbowl Controversy

Many environmental struggles are never resolved. In the case of the 13 native tribes living near the Arizona Snowbowl outside of Flagstaff, their campaign to save their land has been ongoing for decades (Macmillan, 2012). The most recent controversy involves the ski resort’s decision to use 100 % reclaimed wastewater to make snow for this year’s ski season (Id). The native tribes residing in this area consider these mountains sacred and have had difficulty pleading their case against the resort, whose presence is considered paramount for the survival of that community’s economy. Rallies, demonstrations, road-blocks, years of litigation and still no victory (Under the Concrete, 2011). Their most recent loss in court was specifically related to the use of the treated sewage water, to be sprayed over 205 acres of the San Francisco Peaks in the form of snow, and their concerns about its impact on human and ecosystem health (USDA, 2005). In February, the court of appeals voted in favor of the resort, allowing Arizona Snowbowl to finally go ahead with its plan (MacMillan, 2012).

Save the Peaks Propaganda Poster                          source: http://protectthepeaks.org/

Interestingly, an environmental assessment (EA) was conducted in 2005 by the USDA Forest Service, regarding the proposed actions of the Snowbowl (Holder, 2011). It is this EA that triggered the lawsuits that have gone on for the last 7 years (Under the Concrete, 2011). The EA found “class A reclaimed water” to be a safe alternative to the use of drinking water to make snow (USDA, 2005). This is in spite of the fact that a scientist hired by the city of Flagstaff, who independently tested the wastewater, found “endocrine-disrupting chemicals, or EDCs, including hormones, antibiotics, antidepressants, pharmaceuticals and steroids” (Macmillan, 2012, A. 20), in that same water. The reason behind this is that the federal EA by law does not have to consider such chemicals in its analysis, making this wastewater compliant with federal and state water standards (Id). Although several unknowns remain regarding the EDCs and their possible effects on ecosystem and human health, Snowbowl has gone ahead as planned (Holder, 2011). Coincidentally, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the midst of its own major study on the harms of reclaimed wastewater and is expected to have its results by 2013 (Id). This could be just what the tribes and environmentalists need to help further their case. If the results of the study generate any new laws, then the resort might be forced to change its practices. The picture featured here, was a protest poster created by Protect the Peaks coalition, one of the organizations fighting against the Snowbowl. This poster was developed to be distributed alongside a petition to stop the resort from using wastewater.

This example, although from a US perspective, helps highlight some difficulties that are encountered in environmental assessment (EA) and policy making. Even though the process of EA was created in part to help prevent future environmental damage from a proposed project, economic, legislative, and political barriers exist within the process and can heavily influence the outcome of the EA. This also demonstrates how the precautionary principle needs to be implemented more seriously in EA, to avoid future problems that could cause irreversible damage. In addition, even though serious public participation was incorporated into the scoping process in 2005, including several meetings with tribal leaders and groups and an extended public comment period (USDA, 2005), the sociocultural and environmental issues brought up by the participants did not alter the EA in their favor. It boiled down to the fact that federal legislation did not support those concerns and that the economic benefits of keeping the Arizona Snowbowl in operation outweighed the possible harm caused by the use of wastewater that was within legal water quality standards.

The following video demonstrates and summarizes the range of concerns from all the different parties involved in the struggle against the resort’s decision to use wastewater to make snow:

References:

1. Macmillan, Leslie. “Resort’s Snow Won’t be Pure This Year;It’ll Be Sewage”. New York Times on the web. September 26th, 2012. Retrieved October 1st, 2012 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/us/arizona-ski-resorts-sewage-plan-creates-uproar.html?_r=1&smid=pl-share

2. Holder, P. Oksana. (2011). “Snowbowl: No Green Deed Goes Unpunished”. Arizona Journal of Environmental Law and Policy. Vol 2: 1013-1019. Retrieved from: http://www.law.arizona.edu/journals/arizona_journal_of_environmental_law_and_policy/vol2comments.cfm

3. Resistance Continues for Snowbowl Opposition. (March, 2011). UNDER THE CONCRETE. Retrieved from: http://www.undertheconcrete.org/2011/03/01/resistance-continues-for-snowbowl-opposition/

4. USDA, Final EIA. (2005). Arizona Snowbowl Facilities Improvements and Forest Plan Amendment #21 – USDA Forest Service – Peaks Ranger District, Coconino National Forest Coconino County, Arizona. Volume 1. Executive summary. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/us/arizona-ski-resorts-sewage-plan-creates-uproar.html?_r=1&smid=pl-share

Balancing Costs and Benefits of Eco-tourism

Nowhere is there such a dichotomy between human survival and the conservation of nature than in the developing world. Take many parts of Africa for instance, where poverty and lack of resources force people to clear cut trees for fuel, building materials and to clear land for crops. In the face of global environmental degradation however, protecting land and wildlife to the exclusion of human use has been a strategy employed extensively in many countries.

Placing humans as separate from nature has in many cases caused displacement of people from their lands, promoted changes in social and gender interactions, and fostered in others a negative relationship towards institutionalized conservancy (West et al., 2006). Protecting areas to the exclusion of humans may protect ecosystems and particular species more effectively in many cases, it also has a large trade off on the human impact side of the equation. When looking at environmental impact overall, this cannot be ignored.

In many places throughout the world, Eco-tourism has become the solution to bringing together natural protection and sustainable livelihoods. Eco-lodges, when run correctly, have the potential to provide income for people otherwise being excluded from protected areas, while at the same time helping conserve the land and wildlife. Local communities can benefit through direct employment, by selling goods to the lodge, indirectly by selling goods to tourists, or through a variety of projects that can be set-up by the lodge and its owners.

For all the potential good these types of projects may do, there is a serious need to examine not only their potential environmental impacts, but also their social impacts. Looking purely at the “environmental” side of things (non-human), eco-tourism carries certain impacts that a conservancy does not. Tourists bring pollution (trash, increased motor use), erosion from trails, and general stress on plant and animal species from exposure to pathogens or simple physical disturbance. Socially, tourism can serve to commodify both nature and the social and cultural practices of local communities involved. This can lead to westernization of local cultures and erode the value that certain cultural practices have within communities.

On the other hand, eco-tourism has the potential to educate tourists and local people about the value of ecosystems and their components. It has been shown that satisfying experiences in eco-tourism can increase favorable attitudes towards the environment (Lee & Moscardo, 2008). It has also been my experience in talking with many people who live around Kibale National Park in Uganda (as well as people in Zanzibar and Rwanda) that benefitting from conservancy and eco-tourism creates a much brighter outlook on the policies of conservation, and encourages people to learn about the environment being protected. Of course, there is the counter argument that when those tangible benefits disappear, so will the positive attitudes. I would not argue against the fact that when faced with a struggle for survival, environmental concerns take a backseat. Nonetheless, attitudinal change is a positive outcome of a successful project.

Another important aspect of eco-tourism that warrants further investigation, particularly in ex-colonial countries, is the issue of ownership. Many eco-lodges in developing countries are owned by Europeans, or by white colonial people, and are frequented generally by those same types of people. This can be problematic as it can be seen as a form of neo-colonialism, whereby the local people are dependent on the foreign or white owner for money and placing western education and values above what existed there prior. It is not within the scope of this blog to discuss this at length, but it is necessary to keep this in mind when assessing long-term impacts of such projects. Watch below a video from UNEP on eco-tourism. Though it doesn’t explore this hierarchy, it is quickly visible.

As we know, social impact assessment lags a good deal behind regular environmental assessment and is subject to examination under the dominant academic social science paradigm (so its parameters are subject to change). Eco-tourism, for all its potential and realized positive results, requires continued consideration for its social impacts, particularly in the long term.

References:

Lee, W H, G Moscardo. 2005. “Understanding the Impact of Ecotourism Resort Experiences on Tourists’ Environmental Attitudes and Behavioural Intentions”. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 13(6): 546-565.

West, P, J Igoe, D Brockington. 2006. “Parks and Peoples: The Social Impact of Protected Areas”. Annual Review of Anthropology. Vol 35: 251–277.