Upload
dale-potter
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
The Lower Athabasca Regional Plan: A Case
Study
Biol. 595Sept. 16, 2009
Lower AthabascaPlanning Region
• 93,000 km2
• Boreal Forest• Green Zone
Peace
River
AthabascaRiver
Fires since 1950
Major Land Uses
Net Present Value: Petroleum and Forestry
Crown Revenues in the Athabasca Region (2007)
4
3,000
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Forestry Oilsands
Crow
n Re
venu
e ($
mill
ions
)
7
Management Approach
• Environmental impact assessments and review (large projects)• Mineral surface leases (oil and gas)• Forest Management Agreements and Detailed Forest Management Plans• Operating plans, permits, regulations:
Mitigation of environment damage
Many land managers: SRD, Env, Energy, ERCB
1999
A Framework for:• support for continued economic development that addresses environ- mental needs• creating an enhanced management framework• foundation of environ- mental information• identifying priority issues
9
Cumulative Env. Mgmt. Assoc. (CEMA)
Multi-Stakeholder Association with over 40 member organizations:
Industry (forest sector, energy sector)
Environmental NGOs
Municipal, Provincial and Federal governments (multiple depts)
Aboriginal
provides recommendations to government on how to manage cumulative environmental effects
Working Groups for Air, Land and Water:
NOxSOx
Surface Water
Reclamation
Trace Metal Air Contaminants
Traditional Ecological Knowledge
Sustainable Ecosystems
10
Conflicts
• Oilsands vs. gas producers• Oilsands vs. forestry companies• Resource industry vs. Native People• Social issues in Fort McMurray• Ecological issues:
• Rapid decline in caribou populations• Loss of old growth along river valleys
• Reduced quantity and quality of water in the Athabasca River
• Reclamation of tailings ponds (lakes)
• Release of CO2,
11
Priorities of Albertans (2006) 62% of respondents agree with the statement,
“I feel that no industrial activity should occur in areas which are habitat for endangered species, no matter how careful companies try to be.”
84% of respondents agree with the statement, “Access and use of forests should be based firstly on preserving and protecting the environment and sustaining wildlife habitat at the expense of sustained economic benefits and jobs”
76% of respondents agree with the statement, “I feel that the government needs to put limits and set priorities on who is able to use the forest, how, when and where.”
Alberta Forest Products Association
Key Points:• supported by extensive stakeholder-driven scenario analyses • acknowledges energy as the key driver; trade- offs will be necessary• triad proposed as central management approach with 20-40% protection• range of natural variation concept
14
Management Goals: Environmental
• Preserve the diversity of species, ecosystems and landscapes• Sustain viable and healthy populations of wildlife and fish• Sustain the natural range of vegetation communities, successional patterns, and ecological processes• Sustain natural watersheds and their elements
15
Management Goals: Economic
• Sustain a land base for timber harvest• Maintain opportunities for oilsands and hydrocarbon reserves development• Maintain opportunities for mineral resource development• Maintain opportunities for tourism development
• Maintain opportunities for consumptive use of fish and wildlife and for traditional Aboriginal use
16
Key LearningsMost environmental indicators will decline outside their natural range of variation (NRV) with continued development in the absence of management intervention.
2100-2105
Period 20
Intensive
ProtectedExtensive
Base Case Bitumen Production (bbl/d)
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095
Year
Bitu
men
Pro
duct
ion
(bbl
/d)
Base Case 4MM b/d peak
0 50 km 100 km
Key Learning:An 20% network of protected areas could be designed without limiting the ability to deliver a 4 million bbl/d peak bitumen production scenario.
Key Points:• completion within 1 year• led by government planning team• supported by modeling team and a public advisory committee• time horizon = 50 years• plan will articulate desired outcomes• plan will integrate provincial policies• plan will set thresholds to manage cumulative impacts• 20% protection target
2009
19
Reasons for Concern
A regional plan is not the only source of objectives for decision makers:
Existing sectoral policies and mandates
Municipal officials answerable to local voters
Resource companies answerable to shareholders
Momentum of existing land-use trajectory
Lessons from past planning initiatives
20
Who is the Land Manager?
Who is accountable for ensuring that management thresholds or limits are respected within a system characterized by considerable decentralization in decision making?
Who is responsible for monitoring progress and taking action to keep the regional plan on track if and when problems are encountered?