Voluntary Planning

Dear Committee:

Let me first say that I have been extremely impressed and satisfied with the process that you carried out in an attempt to listen to all Nova Scotia residents on this sensitive issue relating to the four areas – biodiversity, forests, minerals and parks. However, I was less impressed with the resulting document. Having said this, I have a number of concerns regarding the outcome as stated in the Working Paper October 2008 as they apply to specific comments in the paper. Although I have not commented on every aspect of the document (only biodiversity and minerals) I have attempted to make statements on those issues that hit a small nerve with me while reading through the working document.

Participation:
Unlike the VP committee itself, I am very dissatisfied with the overall turnout from the residents of Nova Scotia. A little over 2000 people (many who were present at multiple meeting) attended the 27 public sessions and 600 written submissions were received. If you accept that many of the submissions were forwarded from individuals who attended the sessions, then you would have to accept that the total individual participation for this strategy was probably less than 2000 in total. This, from a total population of close to a million! This translated into approximately 0.2% of the provinces population. Once the child factor is removed from the numbers is removed I find that still I can not support the concept of a document representative of the people. Rather, I am afraid that you may have a totally biased view of what the majority of Nova Scotians think of these four areas!
…

Key Emerging Themes

Sustainability:
As you stated in the document, there was an acceptance of universal sustainability. However, the meaning behind the word was so diverse in people’s mind that no one could truly accept it as a universal acceptable concept as it related to the four main areas as outlined.

Diversity:
This document appears to suggest there was acceptance of diversity as it applies to economy, ecology, society and lifestyle. However, what I heard was a strong division between those talking about economy verses those talking about ecology, spiritual experience and their desire to eliminate anything that might have any potential adverse effects on the environment.

Balance:
I would suggest that although many people talked about balance, few agreed on how best to achieve this and there was a notable division between those who promoted economic prosperity and sustainability and those who promoted environmental and social conservation of one sort or another.

Collaboration and Transparency:
I am relieved to say that I agree with your comments in these two sections.
…

What We Heard About Biodiversity

Sustainability:
Biodiversity is all encompassing: The document appears to suggest that creating parks and protected areas would somehow lead to biodiversity. However, I believe science would argue otherwise and that leaving an area as a protected area would in fact, lead to a reduction in species over time.

Reduction of Impact: It was interesting to see that there is little mention of this as it related to urbanization throughout the province.

Investment in New Opportunities: Although there was some discussion regarding these opportunities, there was nothing indicated with regard to any potential negative impact of these activities.

Diversity:
Non-economic values: I have a lot of concern with how this section is represented in the draft document. There were a few vocal participants who held these expressed views. However, there were many more individuals who had no idea of just what diversity really even meant. I find the selected view in this section somewhat disturbing and not representative of all participants present.

Unique Attributes: With regard to your last comment in this section (last bullet on p.6) I would have to ask for verification to justify saying this.

Balance:
Perhaps this is at the base of most issues in this document. Lack of communication and information across the province appears to have led some people to believe that DNR traditionally sides with short term development opportunities. In essence, it all boils down to development verses protectionism and diverse opinions in this regard. It appears that the comments regarding a dramatic shift in policies that hinder development in favor of protectionism were either omitted or not recorded.

Landownership:
Again, I failed to see the comments regarding the fact that some land owners commented that it was their land and no one would tell them what could be done on their land. I hope this document is not overly biased in its approach!

Role of Government:
The suggestion of moving some aspects of DNR to other departments, such as DOE, is the very thing that will lead to the building of silos throughout government. It would be a much more constructive solution to integrate competing interests within DNR so that solutions could be better addressed. Furthermore, to suggest that DNR could not protect ecosystems and promote natural resources at the same time is a very narrow view expressed by a very select group of participants with a very slanted and focused view!

Collaboration:
Roll of Communities and Citizens: The selected comments suggesting that citizens and communities should have a greater input in DNR’s action plan is overly emphasized and should be stated with a degree of caution as I would suggest that either these individuals or groups may only have a small fraction of the total information required to make sustainable resource decisions. Furthermore, those individuals who suggested that they had developed their own best practices were never questioned to determine if they in fact were causing adverse effects rather than their stated result.
…

What We Heard About Minerals

Development Criteria:
A suggestion to allow community driven decisions is probably the most dangerous comment in this entire document. What is needed is a consistent policy across the province so everyone is on the same page moving forward. This consistency was discussed in relationship to biodiversity, forestry and parks, but appears to have escaped inclusion into the minerals sector. Furthermore, establishing a “total cost to society” would be an interesting calculation and one that I would dearly love to see! The idea of not allowing mines and quarries in any sensitive area is flawed as this is totally dependant on particular values at the time and for the associated site. In addition, the idea of not allowing mines or quarries within a significant distance of protected area boundaries is fatally flawed. If these boundary areas are that important then they should be included within the designated protection area from the onset.

There is a suggestion that an upfront fund should be established to remediate mine sites. This is already in effect at DNR and is called a “reclamation bond”. You may find it interesting that the mining industry is one of the few sectors that are fully accountable to this process.

There is a comment regarding “zero tolerance for pollution” from mine and quarry sites. My comment in this regard is that there is no industry, development, or human activity that does not cause some degree of pollution! These comments are unrealistic and I presume are provided primarily from individuals who want to eliminate mining activities throughout the province.

There is a comment pertaining to having the mining industry adhere to best management practices and certification programs. Currently in Nova Scotia many mining companies have implemented programs that are the best in the world and go well beyond any provincial programs.

I continue to be appalled by the fact that other industry sectors and commercial developments are not held to the same environmental standards as the mining industry. For example, when was the last time you witnessed a housing development or a new shopping mall held responsible for an environmental assessment similar to the mining sector? Fact is, you haven’t ever seen it! Because of this I would confess that many Nova Scotians are not really be interested in true environmental impacts of the province. If we were truly serious, then every disturbance (including residential housing) would require some form of environmental assessment!

With regard to the suggestion of using the Whites Point Quarry panel review process as a model for a development of any sort is akin to total heresy. This was probably one of the worst examples I have ever seen to evaluate any project and should be held high as an example of what not to do! This should be considered nothing short of a witch hunt.

Balance:
The comment regarding the provinces resources only being used for the largest benefit of Nova Scotian residents is a wee bit hypocritical. Participants making these comments are all too willing to benefit from resources that come from other jurisdictions around the world but don’t appear willing to share the resources of Nova Scotia – interesting greed don’t you think! Comments relating to restricting mining only if sustained economic development could be demonstrated or where downstream benefits could be demonstrated, is totally unrealistic. The only way to sustain the mining industry is to promote and develop mining in a manner that can be maintained for generations. Furthermore, developing downstream processing and manufacturing industries may never take place in this province for a host of reasons.

Land use Planning:
I do agree that our mineral resources should be defined within an overall framework and included under some form of ‘mining only protection’ policy. I disagree totally with the concept of not allowing exploration in protected areas. Non-destructive exploration can, and should, be carried out in protected areas. Comments pertaining to failures of current legislation are just incorrect.

Transparency:
Building public trust: There is a suggestion that the mining industry has a bad name from loss of human life. In actual fact this is far from the truth – mining is currently one of the safest industries in the world. I would suggest that a short conversation with the workers compensation board would clarify this.
…

What We Heard About Uranium

I do agree that this will require a totally different forum for discussion.

Health and Environmental Concerns:
I am very concerned that this document has listed four concerns that were heard during the sessions but there is no commentary pertaining to mitigating health and environmental concerns as were pointed out at the meetings. Furthermore, modern methods that virtually eliminate these stated concerns are never mentioned in this section.

End Uses:
Comments at the end of this section suggesting Nova Scotia uranium might become the fuel for nuclear weapons should never have made it into this document. This is akin to suggesting that Nova Scotia electricity might lead to the continued use of the electric chair!
…

This ends my pointed commentary with regard to this Working Paper 2008 on Natural Resources Citizen Engagement Committee. I continue in my desire to work with Voluntary Planning in furthering this process and offer my assistance in any capacity that is manageable.

As a parting comment, I would again like to caution any interpretation resulting from the dialogue of this process due to the extremely small number of Nova Scotia residents who participated in the process. We need to realize that only 0.2% of the population was heard from during this process and that many of these participants represented polarized special interest groups.

Kindest Regards

_____________________
Paul K. Smith, Resident of Kings County