Alberta does not have a good understanding of the overall environmental impacts of oil sands a decade after implementing the monitoring that was supposed to provide them, internal government documents suggest.
In July, Alberta Environment and Parks surveyed dozens of scientists and other participants in the Oilsands Monitoring Program, a joint federal-provincial program that has run under various names since 2012 and is funded by a $ 50 million annual tax of the industry. The Canadian Press obtained a copy of that poll.
Of the 112 people surveyed, 26 responded. They voiced concerns ranging from a lack of general direction to miscommunication and an arbitrary and inappropriate funding cap that inflation is phasing out.
“We still have significant concerns with the program’s ability to develop a robust, world-class monitoring program as planned,” said a response from the Alberta Environmental Network, which has delegates on several of the program’s technical committees.
It notes that funding has been unchanged since 2012 despite inflation, representing a cut of nearly nine percent.
“We do not know of any independent analysis suggesting that $ 50 million is adequate,” the network said.
As a result, he says, crucial questions go unanswered.
What people are reading
Despite the fact that wetlands cover about a quarter of the tar sands area, funding for wetland research was cut by more than half in 2021-22 after being cut by two-thirds the previous year. Terrestrial monitoring, which looks at the state of plants and animals, fell by two-thirds for next year after a 50 percent cut last year.
The network said no research has been funded into the risk posed by the industry’s toxic tailings ponds.
No one from Alberta Environment and Parks responded to a request for comment on the survey.
Survey finds #oilsands environmental monitoring ineffective after 10 years. #ABPoli
Most of the respondents reported that there was little communication and coordination between the different scientific groups.
“Communication on the (show) sucks,” wrote one respondent.
“It is clear that committee members do not have clear direction on the purpose and priorities of the program,” wrote another.
Several said the program gathered useful data, but did nothing with it.
“There were a significant number of workplans that included follow-up activities, but not analysis,” said one.
Most respondents said that decisions about what research to fund were inconsistent and came too late to prepare for that year’s field season.
“Funding an employee position one year but not the next, but possibly the following year is mismanagement,” said one comment.
The survey did not include numerical breakdowns of their responses.
Mandy Olsgard, who represents indigenous communities on various program committees, said in an interview that no general plan guides research decisions. Instead, funds are awarded based on proposals from individual researchers.
“We see arbitrary cuts in work plans or technical components that are not based on science,” he said. “He’s just trying to get to that number ($ 50 million).
“It’s not to say that the data isn’t there. It just hasn’t been put together … to say what the effect is on the environment. We don’t understand the cumulative effects of tar sands mining at this point, full stop.”
Kelman Wieder is a Pennsylvania Villanova University biologist who has been studying the wetlands of the oil sands region for decades and has published several articles showing how development has affected them. Its funding has been cut completely.
“The focus is, let’s go out and collect some data, dip bottles or count bugs or whatever, put that data in notebooks, stick it on a shelf and call it good,” he said.
Alberta’s monitoring is set up backwards, Wieder said.
“My approach would be for us to design the best program and see how much it is going to cost and see if there is money. And if there is no money, let’s go back and take a look at the design and see what we can do.
“That doesn’t seem to be the focus.”
He said Alberta appears to be trying to monitor its environment cheaply.
“I’ve heard repeatedly that the goal … is to have a monitoring program that is quick, easy, and inexpensive and that can be done by people with minimal experience. That’s just an odd set of goals.”
Wieder was adamant when asked if the industry’s environmental impact is well understood.
“Absolutely not,” he said. “Not even close.”
This Canadian Press report was first published on January 9, 2022.
Reference-www.nationalobserver.com