In
both the tarsands development and the proposed Enbridge pipeline, the
Harper government has and will have violated legally binding
international instruments; Convention concerning the Protection of
Cultural and Natural Heritage, the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change and its protocol- the Kyoto Protocol, and the Convention on
Biological Diversity.
Canada has obligations under the Convention concerning the Protection of the World cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972)
HARPER'S CANADA IS NOT ABOVE INTERNATIONAL LAW
Canada
has failed to fulfill its obligations to protect the large area along
the coast including the area proposed for tanker traffic, as a world
heritage site. This proposal, in consultation with the first
nations, for a world heritage site should have been done, years ago
Under
the Convention are the following obligations to cultural and natural
heritage, including an obligation to future generations
....parts of
the cultural or natural heritage are of outstanding interest and
therefore need to be preserved as part of the world heritage of mankind
[humankind] as a whole (Convention concerning the Protection of the
World cultural and Natural Heritage, preamble,1972).
•.... in view of
the magnitude and gravity of the new dangers threatening them, it is
incumbent onthe international community as a whole to participate in the
protection of thecultural and natural heritage of outstanding universal
value... (Preamble,Convention concerning the Protection of the World
cultural and Natural Heritage,1972)
*Article 4 Convention concerning the Protection of the World cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972).
Each
State Party to this Convention recognizes that the duty of ensuring the
identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission
to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage referred to
in Articles 1 and 2 and situated on its territory, belongs primarily to
that State. It will do all it can to this end, to the utmost of its own
resources and, where appropriate, with any international assistance and
co-operation, in particular, financial, artistic, scientific and
technical, which it may be able to obtain
Condemnation about Canada’s failure to abide by the UN Convention concerning cultural and Natural Heritage
In 1994 at the Annual General Meeting of the IUCN, the following resolution passed:
Resolution passed by the IUCN General Assembly meeting at Buenos Aires, Tuesday, January 25, 1994
19.72REV2 North American Coastal Temperate Forests
(retyped with January 25 Amendments from the floor)
RECOGNISING
that temperate coniferous forests, and especially rain forests,
constitute a very rare type of ecosystem in the world, originally
covering less than one-fifth of one percent of the earth's land surface,
and that one half of the earth's original forest of this type occurs
along the pacific Coast of North America from northwestern California to
southeastern Alaska;
UNDERSTANDING that many endemic and
unusual plants and animals occur only in these forests; and that in
biomass productivity, the old growth forests (ancient forests) of this
biome are unequaled anywhere;
AWARE that more than one half of
the Earth's original coastal coniferous forests (ancient forests) have
been logged, including more than 40 % of the ancient forests of this
type on North America, and that few large unfragmented examples of this
type of forest, other than in protected areas, exist outside of British
Columbia and Alaska;
MINDFUL of the fact that such ancient
forests on Vancouver Island and on the mid-coast of British Columbia are
disappearing at a rapid rate as a result of practices that have, to
date, not been ecologically sustainable;
ALSO MINDFUL that past
management practices have been controversial, while the US government
has enacted legislation to ensure sustainable management of all forests,
questions continue to arise;
UNDERSTANDING that the Raincoast
Conservation Society, the Sierra Club, and the Western Canada Wilderness
Committee have proposed a large network of protected areas, including
conservation corridors, in areas of such ancient forests on Vancouver
Island and the midcoast of British Columbia;
AWARE of the fact
that none of the protected areas that Canada maintains in forest areas
along the Pacific Coast have been designated as World Heritage sites
under the provisions of the World Heritage Convention[s] and that these
ancient forests may be of outstanding universal value;
The General
Assembly of IUCN — the World Conservation Union, at its 19th Session in
Buenos Aires, Argentina, 17-26 January 1994:
1. URGES the Government
of Canada and the United States to properly manage the temperate
coastal coniferous forests of the Pacific Coast of North America by
establishing appropriate protected areas and by adopting ecologically
oriented systems of forest management which can be permanently sustained
and which protect biodiversity;
2. CALLS UPON the Governments of
Canada and British Columbia to substantially expand the amount of land
in networks of protected areas, with conservation corridors, on
Vancouver Island and the midcoast of British Columbia, taking into
consideration the recommendations of environmental groups active in the
regions such as the Raincoast Conservation Society, the Sierra Club and
the Western Canada Wilderness Committee;
3. URGES the Government of
Canada to consider nominating sites or combinations of sites (such as
networks), in these forests as World Heritage sites under the World
Heritage Convention[s];
4. RECOMMENDS that special efforts be made
by these parties and their citizens to restore degraded parts of these
forests and to secure the overall integrity of the biome by linking now
separate forest stands.
Resolution proposed by Michael McCloskey,
Sierra Club USA, in collaboration with Joan Russow (B.C. Canada) member
of the IUCN Commission on Education and Communication.
Canada used a
the failure to include a reference to the first nations in the
resolution to justify Canada's support of the Resolution.
The IUCN
is responsible for proposing World \heritage sites; the IUCN has two
houses – one NGO and the other with government representation. This
resolution passed with only the Canadian government opposing it. The
reason the Canadian government representatives gave was that there was
no reference to first nations. This was a ploy because when they were
part of the discussion about the resolution they could have quite
rightly proposed a clear reference to the first nations. A reference
that all would have supported.
• OPP0RTUNITY FOR THE 2012 WORLD IUCN CONGRESS IN SEPTEMBER 2012 IN Korea
The
1994 IUCN Resolution, can be worked on with the cooperation of the
First Nations to prepare a resolution for the IUCN. A resolution that
would bring together the first nations and environmental interests.
- BC has obligation under thr Caracas Declaration
This
declaration was endorsed by the government of British Columbia, and in
it is an obligation to not have isolated areas of protection surrounded
by inappropriate development. Undoubtedly, the pipeline and tanker
traffic would be inappropriate
Canada has Obligations to abide by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
From
Copenhagen to Cancun- to Durban; the developed states, especially
Canada have disregarded the warnings from the scientists, particularly
the ones from the World Meteorological Organization. At COP 15, COP16,
and COP17 they reported that the extreme climate related events have
considerably increased and that the global situation is far more urgent
than had been expressed in in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) report
Canada, particularly under Harper has been seen as the most obstructive state during the COP deliberations. .
Canada’s inaction on climate change
The
time for Canada’s procrastination about climate change has long since
passed; the world is in a state of emergency and further inaction is
grossly or even criminally negligent. Canada’s continued development.
And production in the tar sands must end.
As far back as
1958, scientists began to acknowledge the potential threat of climate
change. The threat was consistently ignored.
In 1988, however,
scientists, politicians and members of Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGOs) met at the Changing Atmosphere Conference in Toronto to address
the issue of climate change and warned that:
"Humanity is
conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment
whose ultimate consequence could be second only to a global nuclear war.
The earth's atmosphere is being changed at an unprecedented rate by
pollutants resulting from wasteful fossil fuel use ... These changes
represent a major threat to international security and are already
having harmful consequences over many parts of the globe.... it is
imperative to act now."
In the Conference Statement from the 1988
Conference, the participants - scientists, government representatives,
and industry and NGO organizations - called for:
"The
stabilizing of the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is an imperative
goal. Energy research and development budgets must be massively directed
to energy options which would eliminate or greatly reduce CO2 emissions
and to studies undertaken to further refine the target reductions." It
should be noted that this warning was issued when the parts per million
were at a level at about 350ppm which was not deemed to be safe.
In
1995, Canada came out with an inadequate plan that caved in to industry
plan The following was circulated at the launching of the plan
Canada’s 1994 National Action Program on climate Change”
(NAPCC) (NAPCC): DOCUMENT OF COMPROMISE AND INACTION A MAJOR STEP BACKWARDS: “THE PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF REPORT ON OPTIONS
- Joan Russow Chair International caucus, BCEN
-Canada signed (June 1992) and ratified (December, 1992) the Climate Change Convention
As
we near the 50th Anniversary of the United Nations (October 24, 1995),
Canada demonstrates its lack of resolve to seriously address global
problems. It has been over two years since Canada signed the Climate
Change Convention (June1992) at the Earth Summit.
Although
Canada presumably is not bound by a Convention until the Convention
comes into force. the Convention came into force only in March,1994,
Canada has been, in fact, bound since the signing of the Convention in
June 1992, to not do anything in the interim between the signing of the
Convention and the coming into force of the Convention “to defeat the
purpose of the Convention” (Article 18, Convention of Law of Treaties).
Rather
than Canada’s taking a lead in addressing the problem of climate
change, it has caved into the forest, fossil fuel and nuclear
industries”.
Canada’s National Action Program on climate Change”
(NAPCC) carefully ignores the impact of current forest practices such as
clear-cut logging on carbon sinks. Even though, under the Climate
Change Convention, Canada is bound to “conserve and enhance sinks”.
Since June of 1992, numerous sinks including forests and bogs have been
destroyed even before they have been properly documented. (another
provision of the Climate Change Convention).
The NAPCC document
fails to seriously call for the phasing out of the use of fossil fuels,
and the conversion of the infrastructures that support the use of fossil
fuels. “Although there is a call in the document for renewable energy,
there appears to be little resolve to create a situation, with high
mandatory standards and regulations that would attract serious
conversion to renewable energy. Most of the document appears to rely on
“voluntary initiatives”. Voluntary initiatives from the fossil fuel
sector will not be sufficient to drive industry to embrace the principle
of renewable energy.
THERE IS A NEED FOR MANDATORY
INTERNATIONAL NORMATIVE PERFORMANCE BASED STANDARDS TO DRIVE INDUSTRY
TOWARDS BEST (BEST ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND AND SOCIALLY EQUITABLE
TRADITIONS) PRACTICES.
“The NAPCC document also under the
euphemism of “Electricity and Heat Cogeneration Opportunities” p18,
keeps the door open for the nuclear energy to prey on the public concern
for climate change and thus supports the continuation of the form of
energy production with the most far reaching ecological and social
consequences”.
“Until Canada is willing to summon up the political
will to ensure that principle drives industry, industry will continually
alter and compromise principle and resolve”, and until Canada is
willing to fulfill its international obligations through enacting the
necessary legislation, little substantial change will occur.
In
1988,At the Changing Atmosphere Conference in 1988, the participants
including representatives from government, academia, NGO and industry
expressed their concern about Climate Change in the Conference
statement:
“Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled,
globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequence could be second
only to a global nuclear war. the Earth’s atmosphere is being changed
at an unprecedented rate by pollutants resulting from human activities,
inefficient and wasteful fossil fuel use ... These changes represent a
major threat to international security and are already having harmful
consequences over many parts of the globe.... it is imperative to act
now.
the Conference called for immediate action by governments, the United Nations...
to
Reduce CO2 emissions by approximately 20% of 1988 levels by the year
2005 as an initial global goal. Clearly the industrialized nations have a
responsibility to lead the way both through their national energy
policies and their bilateral multilateral assistance arrangement.
1994
The perception has changed from climate change being “a threat” in 1988
to its being only a “potential threat” in 1994 in Canada’s National
Action Plan on Climate change.
The National Action Program on Climate Change presents 5 compromising, ineffective options.
WHAT IS NEEDED IS A SIXTH OPTION
OPTION 6 : THE MISSING OPTION 1994
Adherence to three key principles;
The precautionary principle
Where
there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full
scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such
measures (Climate Change Convention, 1992)
Reverse onus principle ( proposed by Minister of Environment, Shelia Copps, 1994)
The
proponent of an intervention in the ecosystem shall have to demonstrate
safety, rather than the opponent having to demonstrate harm
Future problem avoidance principle:
The
addressing of one environmental problem should not itself be an action
that could cause irreversible harm (Standing Committee on Environment “
Out of Balance; The Risks of Irreversible Climate Change, 1991)
Actions
1..
Preserve and enhance sinks (forests and bogs), [as required in the
Climate Change Convention] , in particular preserve large areas of
original growth and conservation corridors, and report in detail on the
health of the sinks (i.e. depletion from fire which has increased.5.2
million hectares lost this year)
2. Ban all forest practices such as clear cut logging and broadcast burn that reduce carbon sinks on crown and private lands
3.
Encourage afforestation and restoration of damaged forest ecosystems
such as on Not Sufficiently restocked land (3.03 Million Hectare -1977
to 4.37 (1991)
4. . Phase out the use of fossil fuels and nuclear
energy (as recommended in the Nobel Laureate Declaration prepared for
UNCED).
5. Establish and enforce a national dedicated program for
energy conservation and efficiency (recommended, at least, since 1975 in
Knelman’s “Energy Conservation” published by the Science Council of
Canada, Background Study 44)
6. No replacement of one technology with
one that is equally or potentially more harmful (no replacement of
fossil fuel technology with nuclear,)
7. Establish extensive
networks of alternative ecologically safe and sound means of
transportation (Agenda 21), and cease the construction of all new
highways (The goal of zero vehicle emissions and electrically powered
vehicles shall not justify the increased use of nuclear power)
8.
Synthesize the existing scientific information. No new studies are
required to demonstrate that it is necessary to reduce anthropogenic
emissions. “Inaction is negligence” (Digby McLaren, Past President of
the Royal Society , Global Change Conference, 1991)
9. Adaptive
measures shall not be used as a justification for not acting to preserve
existing sinks and to prevent anthropogenic sources of greenhouse
gases.
10 , Prohibit the proposals to seek far off Southern carbon
sinks to justify maintaining northern consumptive patterns. (Costa Rica
Scheme — Ontario Hydro buying forests in Costa Rica to offset Ontario
Hydro’s CO2 emissions
11 Avoid carbon emissions trading because this
practice legitimizes continued currently harmful emission practices
12.
Transfer all energy-directed funding into renewable energies that
are ecologically safe and sound
13. Transfer a significant proportion of
the $13 [now 10.6] billion military budget to assist in implementing
the above measures and in job conversion _ (JoanRussow_Chair of the
International Affairs Caucus_ (BCEN British Columbia Environmental
Network)
Negligence under International and national law
In
view of this important and accurate statement made at this major
international conference, the developed world cannot claim that it had
never been warned.
At that time Canada was leading the way on
Climate change, but subsequently has been remiss in fulfilling its
obligations. Canada as a signatory to the UNFCCC and, through the
continued exploitation in the tar sands, is in violation of article 2 of
the UNFCCC which reads:
Under Article 2 of the UNFCCC, states incurred the following obligation:
”stabilization
of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere must be at a level
that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
system.
In 1992, this obligation clearly affirmed the urgency of addressing climate change;
TAR SANDS
The
tar sands contribution to greenhouse gas emissions has been decried not
just by representatives of the NGO community but by most developing
states and by many developed states. Canada, under the Harper government
has become a rogue state and an international pariah.
Not only
is Canada perceived to be grossly negligent under international law in
its disregard for obligations under the UNFCCC but also it could be
perceived to be negligent under its own statutory law. If Canada
continues with the construction of the Enbridge pipe line and with the
transfer of oil from the tar sands in tankers along the coast Canada
could be deemed to be negligent, grossly negligent or even criminally
negligence
Under Canadian law: Environmental negligence suits
focus on compensation for loss caused by unreasonable conduct that
damages legally protected interests. Unreasonable conduct means doing
something that a prudent or reasonable person would not do, or failing
to do something that a reasonable person would do. The plaintiff must
establish certain key elements of the tort— cause in fact and proximate
cause, damages, legal duty, and breach of the standard of care. Note
that fault may be found even in the case of unintended harm if it stems
from unreasonable conduct.
The Criminal Code (Section 219) is even
clearer that lack of intent to harm is no defence if damage results from
conscious acts performed in careless disregard for others: “Everyone is
criminally negligent who (a) in doing anything, or (b) in omitting to
do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless
disregard for the lives or safety of other persons” (where ‘duty’ means a
duty imposed by law). Significantly, Section 222(5) (b) states that “a
person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he
causes the death of a human being, by being negligent (emphasis added)
(Cited by Bill Rees in “is Canada criminally negligent”)
Ignoring International Principles
There
is sufficient evidence about the potential devastating damage caused by
oil spills on land and in water bodies to justify the invoking of the
precautionary principle which was adopted by all states including
Canada, through the Rio Declaration , and which became an obligation
under the UNFCCC,
In addition, the continued exploitation of the Tar
sand and the transfer of oil over land or by sea could be in violation
of the Transboundary principle. The transboundary principle has been
found in different forms in the following international instruments:
(a) 1972 in the UNCHE in Stockholm; Principle 21
States
have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the
principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their
own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the
responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or
control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of
areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
(b) 1992 Convention on the Law of Seas
"States
shall take all measures necessary to ensure that activities under their
jurisdiction or control are so conducted as not to cause damage by
pollution to other States and their environment, and that pollution
arising from incidents or activities under their jurisdiction or control
does not spread beyond the areas where they exercise sovereign rights
in accordance with this Convention." (Art. 194. 2., Law of the Seas,
1982)
Principle 2 States have, in
accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of
international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources
pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the
responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or
control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of
areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. (Principle 2 Rio
declaration)
To a certain extent it could be argued that Canada
shows dereliction of duty in causing through the exploitation of the tar
sands, impact on other states because of the massive contribution to
Greenhouse gas emissions and from the possible threat of accidents on
land through piped through the US or through tanker traffic
Will Harper's Canada be condemned at Rio
From
June 20 to 22, 2012in Rio, there will be the twentieth anniversary of
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), where
many of these principles were adopted by the international community. An
additional principle which was considered to be the very core of the
Conference was the principle of intergenerational equity or the rights
of future generations.
CORPORATE MISPRESENTATION IN THE TAR SANDS
In one Industry site they make the following claims Our vision for oil sands development leads to a future for Alberta that:
Honours the rights of First Nations and Metis
Provides a high quality of life
Ensures a healthy environment
Maximizes value-added in Alberta
Builds healthy communities
Sees Alberta benefit from the oil economy and lead in the post-oil economy
Sees Alberta as a world leader in education, technology and a skilled workforce
Provides high quality infrastructure and services for all Albertans
Demonstrates leadership through world class governance (agreed to by the committee of the consultation process)
In
Rio, in June 2012, will the Harper government receive again the
colossal fossil award for not just obstructionism but also for criminal
negligence and for disregarding the rights of future generations.
Hopefully these excellent films on the proposed Enbridge pipeline and
dangerous tanker route will be shown to the international community in
Rio and the gavernment and corporate rhetoric of benvolence will be exposed
For furthere information about the films and the work of Ian McAllister see:
