NWT/NUNAVUT
When an Arctic Council oil spill response and prevention draft agreement was leaked last week, critics voiced concerns about its vague and potentially ineffective requirements.
More than 175 participants attended the National Energy Board of Canada round-table discussion on offshore drilling in Inuvik in Sept, 2011. The discussion was part of a board review on the topic of safe drilling, environmental protection and effective response to problems. - NNSL file photo
|
"On one side, it doesn't demand very much of the countries. It doesn't ensure they will be prepared before they drill," said Christy Fergusen, Arctic project leader for Greenpeace Canada. "On the other side, maybe it's vague because they don't know how to do it. The level of detail at some level seems to reflect a lack of understanding of what would be required in this kind of a situation."
The Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic won't be finalized until the Arctic Council convenes in May, which is also when Canada takes over the chairmanship for the first time in 16 years.
The draft agreement makes requirements of members such as a "minimum level of pre-positioned oil spill combating equipment," and to "maintain a national system for responding promptly and effectively to oil pollution incidents" but does not go into detail about what those requirements look like.
It also doesn't discuss liability for industry in the case of a spill.
The agreement will be legally binding and is intended to "provide mutual assistance in the event of an oil spill in the region," according to the federal government.
Federal Minister for the Arctic Council Leona Aglukkaq, who will sit as chair of the council during Canada's chairmanship, was not available for an interview on the topic.
The Inuit Circumpolar Council, which sits on the council and was involved in the agreement development, sees the agreement as a first step.
"Although we feel it is not as complete as it could be, it does begin to address preparedness and what each respective state needs to do, as well as how they may coordinate with each other on dealing with these matters," stated Duane Smith, president and vice chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, in an e-mail to News/North.
The GNWT did not respond to requests from News/North for an interview to discuss the draft agreement or what it would like to see in the finalized version.
Meanwhile, a Northern spokesperson for a national non-profit think tank said attention to the issue is sorely needed.
"I think a good place to start is at home on this one," said Shauna Morgan, a Yellowknife-based staff member for the Pembina Institute, about oil spill prevention and response regulations in Canada.
Morgan said while an international agreement may have its merits, there's a lot of work to be done nationally, particularly in light of reduced environmental protection in recent years.
"We have rolled back our environmental protection regime back to the '70s," said Morgan.
"Canada is quite far behind most other countries.
"An area Canada can look into all by itself is the liability for spills that it requires for operators operating offshores."
Canada currently has an off-shore liability cap of $40 million for operators in the Beaufort Sea.
While the federal government may be increasing the cap, Morgan referenced the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, with costs mounting above $40 billion to clean up, as an indication of how "ridiculous" the current cap is.
Fergusen said vague liability could mean communities and taxpayers could be stuck picking up the tab for industry's mistakes.
"Liability is something that needs to be specific for legal reasons," said Fergusen.
"We're on the hook to pay the rest. Taxpayers should not be paying for any of it."
