Voluntary Planning

Submitted by Ecology Action Centre

The Future of Nova Scotia’s Natural Resources: What We Heard
~ A Review

Jamie Simpson, on behalf of the
Ecology Action Centre
November 14, 2008

SUMMARY OF NECESSARY CHANGES TO THE REPORT
1. The report must acknowledge the clear and persistent call for reform to natural resources management. The tremendous level of participation in the consultation process, and the overwhelming call for change, must not be ignored by Voluntary Planning.
2. The report must document the specific issues wherein change is required, and the abundant solutions offered by participants to achieve desired changes. Voluntary Planning must move beyond vague statements and motherhood values, or the entire consultation process will have been for naught.
3. Voluntary Planning must not abdicate its duty to include comments on uranium within the mining section of the document. Voluntary Planning must abandon its position that uranium falls outside of its mandate.

GENERAL REMARKS
Voluntary Planning’s good reputation is on the line. If presented to government in its current form, The Future of Nova Scotia’s Natural Resources: What We Heard will serve only to disappoint and frustrate the vast majority of people who participated in the public consultations on natural resources.

The report fails Nova Scotians in two principle ways. First, VP failed to document in the report Nova Scotians’ clearly expressed desire for change. Second, VP failed to capture the wealth of positive and creative solutions put forth by participants to deal with the problems and challenges facing the current management of our natural resources.

In the “Key Emerging Themes,” for example, VP identifies five general concepts (sustainability, diversity, balance, collaboration and transparency) that are undeniably important but undeniably vague in providing useful direction forward. In the “What We Heard” section, VP literally and merely puts forth various snippets of comments received during the consultation process.

To be blunt, this report begs the question: So what? Was this public consultation process necessary to conclude that Nova Scotians care about their natural resources? That the concept of sustainability has different meanings for different people? That diversity is important? Obviously not.

We urge Voluntary Planning to deliver a report with backbone, a report that conveys the expressed will of Nova Scotians and that draws from the numerous suggestions and solutions put forth during the consultation. The public consultation process will have served little purpose if the outcome merely boils down to a few general statements that could have been written just as easily at the outset. One of the last participant quotes in the report states: “I hope this conversation will translate into actual action and change.” It is abundantly clear that the report as written will serve only to maintain the status quo. We suggest that unless the report is rewritten to reflect the sentiment of the vast majority of participants, then the report will be a departure from VP’s usual good work.

SPECIFIC ISSUES:

1. No indication of the public’s desire for change
The report must clearly articulate the public’s overwhelming appetite for change in how we manage our natural resources in Nova Scotia. This must be presented clearly in the report’s summary, and be made a central theme of the report.

2. Pitting ecological concerns against social and economic concerns is not appropriate
Too often, the report slips into a false dichotomy of environment versus economy. This type of thinking is not conducive to generating solutions, and has no place in this report. Indeed, a central theme of the report must be the desire to explore ways to achieve healthy forests and healthy communities. The two are by no means mutually exclusive, and in fact are dependent on one another.

3. Report lacks direction and specific recommendations
Nowhere does the report present potential solutions to the problems facing natural resources in Nova Scotia. This, despite numerous positive and creative ideas put forward by participants. Stressing the need for balance in the report is a poor substitute for providing direction to DNR based on the public’s input during the consultation process.

For example, VP states that “the importance of the forest to the economy of rural Nova Scotia was frequently heard.” Plenty of recommendations for improving forest-based rural economies were put forth, but nowhere does VP document these.

On the issue of clearcutting, VP states “This was an area where there were substantially divergent and passionate views. Increasing the general level of knowledge on the subject and finding ways to work together towards a solution would benefit all.” This statement does not recognize the widespread and persistent call to reduce clearcutting.

With respect to herbicides and pesticides, VP states that this is “another forest management issue where there are strong, divergent views.” Again, this empty statement offers no indication of the public’s view on biocides, and no direction forward.

Similarly with the theme of transparency: VP states that transparency includes a number of factors, but does not make any recommendation as to what changes are required to achieve transparency.

In nearly every section of the report, VP needs to provide much more insight into how public opinion was divided on key issues and make a determination on what the majority opinions are. Conveying that "some participants felt X, while others felt Y" provides no useful guidance to those who will draft DNR’s Natural Resource strategies.

4. Report contains vague statements
The report contains meaningless statements in some instances. For example:

“the sustainability of what is important to Nova Scotians was a major value.”

“Management practices play a large role in what the future forest will look like. What is managed and how it is managed have both economic and environmental impacts. This is a long term issue and the balance between the end objectives must be known before the correct management practices can be chosen.”

Statements such as these should be expunged from the report.

5. Questionable statements in the minerals section
VP’s opening statement in the mining section is “While the committee received a great deal of input on the topic of minerals both through written submissions and in community meetings, there were few individual industry workers who participated.”

What is the point of introducing the minerals section with this statement? Does the statement suggest that the industry was not adequately represented during the consultations, and that the results of the public consultations were thus biased against the industry? The mining industry was well represented at the various meetings attended by EAC staff and volunteers. To suggest that the mining industry’s position was not adequately presented is disingenuous.

VP also states that comments from participants about both industry and government needing to build public trust were “based on history.” This suggests that it is only historical events, and not present events, that give cause for concern. However, this was not the case; numerous participants commented directly on present mining operations.

6. Abdicating responsibility with respect to uranium
VP’s statement that “the issue of uranium exploration and mining has clearly been identified … as one that requires a separate, dedicated process to resolve” in not appropriate. The public’s views and values on the uranium issue have every right to be included under the mining section of the report. The Natural Resources public consultation was undeniably the appropriate opportunity for Nova Scotians to voice their thoughts on uranium; even the Minister of Natural Resources stated that Nova Scotians should utilize the VP consultation process to express their thoughts on the uranium issue.

VP also states that “the volunteer Natural Resources Citizen Engagement Committee … and the processes it developed were never structured to address a technical and focused issue like uranium mining.” We suggest that many issues of natural resource management are inherently “technical and focused.” To state that uranium mining is too difficult an issue for the Committee to deal with after the fact is a blatant abdication of the Committee’s duty.

Amazingly, the only comment included on uranium mining under the mining section was: “The moratorium on uranium exploration and development is a hindrance to exploration in general. Restricts all activity, not just uranium.” VP’s statement that “overall the public input received as part of the VP natural resources process overwhelmingly indicated a desire to see the moratorium on uranium exploration and mining maintained and legislated” should be moved to the mining section of the report.

7. Petitions require context
The context of the petitions included in the report must be clarified. Simply including the petitions without context invites the interpretation that they were province-wide petitions, rather than from specific small communities.

8. Comments regarding coastal areas should be included
We believe that the VP report ought to include recommendations for developing a coastal strategy, as detailed by participants in the consultation process. DNR retains clear responsibility for legislation, policy, regulations and operational decisions that have a direct impact on coastal areas. The public expect DNR to play a lead role in coastal management as well as in prioritizing the acquisition of ecologically significant coastal lands.

9. Wide-spread call for science-based decisions must be recognized
VP does not explicitly comment on participants’ call for the need to use science in decision-making.

10. Climate change must be recognized as an over-arching issue
VP does not mention climate change as a key issue of natural resources management.