Thank you for the invitation to come and talk to you about the recommendations around a national conservation plan.
At the outset, I think one thing that needs to be said is that when you take a look at environmental issues, conservation issues, agriculture has been at the forefront of that, right from the time farming started. The biggest resource we have is our land base, and conserving that land base and making sure that there's a diversity there I think is critical to the profitability of our businesses.
If I were speaking to the agriculture committee, I imagine everyone would know what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is. Just so this group understands, we represent about 200,000 farmers across the country. We have provincial farm organizations and a number of commodity organizations that participate in the discussions at CFA and help to establish some of the policy work we do.
First, with respect to the concept of a national conservation plan, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture really applauds the idea of moving ahead with something like this. We actually attended the initial stakeholders meeting that was held by Minister Kent. I thought it was interesting to be sitting around that table with a number of different stakeholders with the goal of conservation. I think engaging all of the partners in that discussion is critical up front.
You have our background paper. I'm not going to go through every word in that document, but I will highlight a few things that are in there.
I guess the first thing is the whole economic side of agriculture. Agriculture is responsible for a tremendous number of jobs in the country and 8% of our GDP. We're the largest manufacturing sector in Canada.
The reason I say that is because we have to recognize that when we're moving ahead with any conservation effort, we have to be conscious of the economic realities of the sector that could be affected by it. We quite often hear from our members that one of the biggest frustrations is that when you get into regulatory frameworks, the cost of dealing with those regulations can sometimes actually undermine the bottom line.
If it's done right, conservation can actually contribute to the bottom line. I know we've done things on our own farm where we've made steps to improve wildlife habitat and water quality. Indirectly, over time, we've actually seen the productivity on our farm increase. So sometimes you can end up with those win-win types of situations.
The second point in the brief talks about agriculture on the Canadian landscape. Now, 7% of the land is in agricultural use, but one thing you have to keep in perspective is that this 7% of the land is usually at the interface between urban and rural populations. That is where a number of the conservation issues really come to a head. It's that interaction between humans and habitat that really causes sometimes concern, and I think that is where agriculture can have the greatest impact moving forward.
One of the other things you'll note in the background document is that 30% of the farms in Canada now have what's called environmental farm plans. Basically, these are plans that are put together where farmers sit down, take a look at the environmental risks on their farms, do an assessment of those risks, and put a plan in place to try to address them.
I think one thing that's noteworthy is that the environmental farm planning process was actually started by farmers themselves. When they recognized that there was starting to be public concern about the practices out there, they started putting these environmental farm plans in place as a way to try to address some of those concerns.
I guess the key point, though, in moving ahead with any national conservation plan is making sure that stewardship and innovation are part of that whole process, and with that there would be incentives to make things happen. One of the difficulties is making people understand that farmers have this land base that is very expensive, and if you're going to set aside land for some conservation purposes, there may be costs incurred with that.
It boils down to this: if there's a benefit for all of society, there has to be some way of sharing some of those costs. The combination of stewardship, innovation, and incentives is usually a fairly effective way of getting conservation on the landscape.
There's a need for a science-based approach. I think all too often we see rules and regulations develop with the idea that this will solve the problem, but we have to make sure that they're founded on sound research.
A good example would be the recently announced changes to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and moving them away from municipal drains, which are drainage ditches designed to drain farmland, but the fish decided there was a good water course there so they moved into it. But one of the science things behind that is that those drains have to be maintained from time to time. So you may be damaging one drain, but overall the habitat—because you're doing that ongoing maintenance—is creating it. So there is a critical need for a science-based approach.
The other thing I think we should look at with the whole national conservation plan is a way of using that as part of branding Canada. More and more we're seeing retailers starting to look at environmental qualities in the products that are produced, and I think there is a unique opportunity, if we get this national conservation plan right and we're doing the right things for the environment, that we can actually spin that into a marketing initiative both nationally and internationally with the Canada brand.
The other point when you're looking at a national conservation plan is finding a way to harmonize across departments and make sure that your regulations are approached in a systematic manner. One of the things, working with a national conservation plan, is that likely one of the biggest challenges is figuring out how you get all of the different jurisdictions agreeing with the direction that needs to be set. This is because you'll have provincial governments, conservation authorities, and the national government looking at how you implement it, so harmonizing the regulations at all three levels of government and harmonizing the approach are critical.
Concerning next steps, there are a number of land policy initiatives that are described in the document. Environment Canada has activities they're involved with. We have the Growing Forward approach that's taking place now with agricultural policy planning. There are also other organizations that are working on conservation initiatives. Delta Waterfowl is one I can mention, and Ducks Unlimited. There are a number of those groups that are critical in making sure that the national conservation plan works because it's going to be about building the partnerships as we move ahead. I think those partnerships hold the key to the success of having a national conservation plan that would actually have support of a broad range of people from a number of different sectors in Canada.
With those brief comments, I will stop talking there. I think that likely the dialogue back and forth between us will likely twig a few issues for you to discuss, and then maybe in questions and answers we can get into more detail.
Thank you.
On behalf of Manitoba's Keystone Agricultural Producers, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to talk to you today on prairie agriculture's role in the development and implementation of a national conservation plan.
Keystone Agricultural Producers is a general farm organization, a member of CFA, representing individual family farms as well as 22 commodity groups within the province. So we represent a broad base of the agricultural spectrum in our province.
Let me start by saying that we are passionate in our belief that farmers and farm groups must play a significant role in both the development and implementation of a national conservation plan, if it is to achieve widespread success. With proper programming to help inform and provide incentives to farmers, we are certain they can bring the bulk of soil, water, and habitat stewardship to sensitive areas as needed.
Farmers are uniquely connected to the environment because our economic survival depends on our ability to successfully integrate our farms into the surrounding landscape. We learned long ago that attempting to simply use land and water resources without giving back is rarely successful in the long run. As we get into defining how an NCP could work, KAP believes it should identify conservation and environmental priorities, and then establish a framework that guides both government and other stakeholders in the development of tools that will achieve these priorities.
I might add that we must be realistic in identifying all stakeholders who are involved in using resources, both directly and indirectly. One of the basics of an NCP should be a commitment to engage all stakeholders and create a meaningful dialogue. That being said, I do want to stress that goals that bring together environmental successes and farm successes need to be given priority in this process.
Because of the nature of our work, many conservation problems affect farmers directly. These, as we all know, range from excess moisture and flooding to alien plant species that have inadvertently been introduced into our environment from around the world. These problems impact many thousands of hectares, certainly some food for thought.
Let me move on to implementation. Currently there are three methods of achieving conservation goals. An NCP should recognize the effectiveness and the role each one can play. First is education, a critical step. For example, farmers often hear government and the urban public calling on us to do more to protect the environment, but often we're not provided with information on how we can do this.
Providing this information can be a government initiative or an industry initiative. Take the example of the environmental farm plan program, which Ron alluded to. Funded under the federal-provincial Growing Forward policy framework, this has been very successful and it has educated farmers on reducing the negative impacts of their agricultural operations and how that will interact with the environment.
Participating farmers are guided through a self-assessment of the environmental performance of their operation and assisted in identifying areas for improvement. After completion and an approval process, they become eligible for various government incentive programs to help them cost-share the expense associated with implementing beneficial management practices that will improve the environmental performance of their farms.
The EFP program has been tremendously successful in Manitoba. To date, I believe 6,427 farms have completed it. That's significantly higher than the 30% quoted by Ron, but Manitoba has been very successful, so that's good. An NCP, in our opinion, should recognize existing programs like this.
Wouldn't it be remarkable for an EFP model that could provide a framework for education programs in other industries? A good example of industry-led education is the way in which KAP is partnering with the lake-friendly conservation initiative in Manitoba to educate farmers about how they can reduce the impacts of how their farms operate on Lake Winnipeg.
The lake currently has high levels of nutrient buildup, blue-green algae growths, and pockets of eutrophication, which are threatening its health and its entire ecosystem. There is no single point of pollution to blame for the problem, and all citizens in the Lake Winnipeg watershed must take action. The lake-friendly initiative and KAP are working with government, academics, and NGO stakeholders, like Delta Waterfowl Foundation and Ducks Unlimited and IISD, the International Institute of Sustainable Development, on a communications strategy that strives to influence ail Manitobans. An NCP needs to identify, recognize, and promote initiatives like this and take action at a local level.
I promised you three methods of achieving conservation goals, and here's the second. It's called incentives. Because there are often significant costs associated with a landowner undertaking a conservation project or a farmer changing his production practices, and society as a whole benefits from this effort, KAP believes that incentives are a necessary part of the equation.
By incentives, I mean compensation. KAP has been active in encouraging the development of an ecological goods and services program like the national alternative land use services program that provides compensation as incentive for adoption of sustainable practices. If done correctly and with adequate funding amounts, this is a very effective system. A national conservation plan must ensure that this principle of society paying for ecological benefits is a pillar of its program development.
Regulation is the third method of achieving conservation goals, and I want to touch on this briefly. KAP understands that there are instances when regulation is necessary. Unfortunately, Manitoba farmers have witnessed the development of regulations in the absence of sound scientific foundation and industry consultation and without the flexibility to be effective. The result is a regulatory environment that stifles industry growth, adds significant cost to farm operations, and fails to achieve its conservation goals.
Regulations must be based on peer-reviewed science. It is the responsibility of regulators to balance political and public pressure against sound science, using the latter as the primary rationale behind regulations. Regulations must include stakeholder consultation and input, because if they are not enforceable or reasonable they are often completely ineffective in achieving their goals.
Finally, an NCP should establish a framework for the development of conservation regulations that take into account unnecessary costs, or costs that are placed on only one sector. Those making the regulations must consider the economic impact of their new rules, and where significant impact on the industry results, they must attempt to find a better way to help offset the costs to the stakeholders affected.
In closing, I'd like to sum up by giving you an example of what has happened in Manitoba. KAP has been pressing our provincial government to develop and commit to a water strategy that addresses all issues associated with water in Manitoba, including its conservation, management, and use. This is contrary to what is presently happening, which is that issues with the health of Lake Winnipeg are addressed separately from the flooding that we periodically face. Manitoba needs to stop looking at the issues around the natural environment as silos and start treating the system as a whole. It is only now being realized that a strategy needs to recognize and address issues collectively if there is to be a successful outcome.
I would encourage you to take the same approach when looking at the conservation issues for Canada. Regardless of whether the goal is conservation-specific plants, animal species, or entire ecosystems, an NCP must be comprehensive in the same way.
This ends my presentation, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
:
Thank you very much for that introduction and the opportunity to appear in front of the committee today.
I’m Judy Fairburn, executive vice-president of environment and strategic planning for Cenovus Energy. I am also the chair of the stakeholder steering committee for Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance, or COSIA. It’s a real pleasure to be here to discuss COSIA with you today.
COSIA is an unprecedented alliance of 12 major companies that will raise our collective game in oil sands environmental performance. We have a strong interest from other potential members as well.
The oil sands, as you know, are one of the world’s largest energy resources, and they will be a very important part of the future of Alberta and Canada.
Developing the oil sands responsibly is essential if Canada is to continue to benefit as a nation from this resource. To do this we must continually challenge ourselves to improve our environmental performance. That is what COSIA is all about: accelerating the pace of improvement in environmental performance.
Innovation unlocked the resource potential of the oil sands, and innovation will help solve the environmental challenges. Indeed, we’ve seen tangible environmental progress already, but the pace of change, we acknowledge, has not been enough. We’ve listened to Canadians, and we know that our operations have an environmental impact. We’ve heard that Canadians want our companies to do better.
We believe that environmental stewardship is a shared responsibility among our companies. This recognition and our genuine desire to do better have brought us to the formation of COSIA.
COSIA is led by a chief executive, Dr. Dan Wicklum. We looked long and hard for Dan, because we were looking for the right person to lead COSIA. Dan has a background in environmental science and innovation leadership. Specifically, he has a PhD in aquatic ecology, was a faculty member of the University of Montana, executive director of an innovation organization called the Canadian Forest Innovation Council, and has significant experience in managing research and laboratory networks.
It is important to us that we have a scientist at the helm—someone who has a technical understanding of the environmental challenges our industry faces, as well as strong leadership qualities and experiences. So Dan’s background is perfect for COSIA, as we’re a science-based alliance that will be focused on environmental performance and innovation. In fact, Dan is travelling today on his way to a conference where he will be speaking and building alliances with those who have an interest in contributing to the work COSIA will do.
People have asked how this alliance is going to make a difference. What is so unique? What is our commitment? What are some tangible examples where collaboration is working?
First, what is so unique about COSIA? COSIA is an overarching strategic collaborative for our members. It's a hub, building on the experiences and successes of existing innovation entities that will be merged into COSIA through 2012.
COSIA is unique in four ways: leadership, line of sight, leverage, and linkages. When I say leadership I mean that the CEOs are taking a very hands-on approach to COSIA. The members of the stakeholder steering committee—largely at the VP level in each of the companies—which I lead, are all very senior people within their companies.
On line of sight, oil sands producers have never jointly set goals and worked towards them collectively. That’s what line of sight is about for COSIA. We intend to set public goals, and we will report our progress toward meeting those goals.
Leverage is about working together to fast-track environmental innovation and avoid duplicating effort. COSIA will be the collaborative hub through which innovation developed by individual companies will be shared and leveraged. Sharing ideas will make sure that the best environmental ideas get adopted.
Finally, on linkages, we believe our companies need to look beyond our industry, and indeed beyond our borders, for new ways of thinking and for innovative solutions. We want COSIA to be the space where that innovation occurs and where we can build relationships with those who can help us move the bar in terms of improving environmental performance in the oil sands.
So when I am asked about what makes COSIA different, I say leadership, line of sight, leverage, and linkages.
Second, what are some tangible examples of successful environmental collaboration in the oil sands industry? We know collaboration works. We’ve seen it through the success of predecessor organizations, including the Canadian Oil Sands Network for Research and Development (CONRAD), the Oil Sands Leadership Initiative, and the Oil Sands Tailings Consortium, which Alan has been leading very successfully.
I’d like to highlight some of these collaborative successes for you now. The first is about several companies working together on a new technology to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from in situ oil sands operations. This GHG technology is expected to have several advantages over competing technologies, including the ability to capture 99% of carbon dioxide emissions and significantly reduce other air emissions.
A second example of successful collaboration is in the area of land reclamation. In February of last year, several oil sands producers came together to conduct a winter wetland planting trial in Alberta’s boreal forest. Winter and planting are two ideas you normally don't think of together, but the companies found a way to make it possible. In temperatures as low as minus 25 degrees Celsius, 900 little black spruce trees were planted in a disturbed wetland site in northern Alberta. More than 94% of these trees survived. This is significant, because it will allow companies to revegetate areas that are difficult to access during summer months due to the muddy nature of thawed muskeg. We think this new technique will greatly increase our ability to reclaim natural boreal ecosystems.
The progress we’ve made in developing the oil sands, the steps we’ve taken to collaborate, and the efforts we’ve made to listen to our stakeholders are all steps on the journey to a brighter future. We believe COSIA will be key to helping us get there. As an alliance that builds on the successes of predecessor organizations, we will be able to offer a platform for even greater collaboration and will bring in a new era in responsible oil sands development.
Third, what is our commitment? The COSIA charter signed by our 12 CEOs starts with our vision, which is “to enable responsible and sustainable growth of Canada’s oil sands while delivering accelerated improvement in environmental performance through collaborative action and innovation”.
Let me read a few lines from our charter:
Our companies pledge to accelerate improvement in environmental performance as measured from a baseline in the priority areas of tailings, water, land, and greenhouse gas emissions; work with a broad range of participants within and outside of Canada; allocate multi-year human and financial resources, and initiate, participate in, and lead projects; listen, respond to, and work with stakeholders who aspire to our vision; assess and drive progress, remove barriers, and communicate the performance of COSIA in a transparent fashion.
I’m personally very excited about what COSIA will accomplish, and am thankful for the hard work and passion of many in our industry and beyond who have worked to create COSIA. To our knowledge, COSIA is the largest environmental performance-focused industry group of its kind on the planet, and we welcome other partners and interested companies, individuals, and organizations to learn more about what we are doing.
Our 12 companies remain competitors, and will continue to compete aggressively; however, we know that when it comes to the environment, we all win when we work together.
Improving environmental outcomes is also a journey for our industry, much like safety was a journey for us a few decades ago. We still have a lot of work to do. I’m confident, though, that our collective passion, commitment, and energy will help us make sure that COSIA reaches its potential and contributes to sustained and responsible oil sands development.
We have come together recognizing that none of us has a monopoly on ideas when it comes to the environment. We know that the sum of what we will do is greater than any individual effort. We are ready to respond to Canadians’ expectations and accelerate the pace of improvement of our environmental performance.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for this opportunity and time today.