Challenge for Canada at Rio 20 conference
As countries from around the world prepare to convene in Rio de Janeiro this week to begin new negotiations to promote sustainable development practices made for the 21st century, Canada’s position will be watched closely both at home and abroad. How will Canada be able to present itself as a protector of the environment while on the home front significant proposals to dismantle key Canadian environmental laws — the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and removal of financial commitments for scientific research on environmental threats are in the works?
Flashback to 1992 when the Rio Declaration on Sustainable Development was signed by world leaders and set the tone for global reform on environmental protection. We saw a commitment to greater environmental and human rights protection.
Canada took a leadership role during the 1992 negotiations under federal environment minister Jean Charest, contributing to improvements in sound chemical management practices. Many countries developed right-to-know regimes and prior-informed-consent procedures for hazardous substances. The Rotterdam Convention, born out of the first Rio gathering, promoted effective public engagement in decision-making and acknowledged the importance of the precautionary approach. Canada was at the forefront and led many of the international negotiations on chemical management. Environmental law reform activities at home and abroad reflected Canada’s strengthened commitment to the environmental protection principles entrenched by the first Rio declaration.
But recently we have seen Canada shift away from this approach. Ottawa has taken positions that obstruct progress, rather than enabling it.
This was evident on the Kyoto Protocol, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Canada no longer supports the protocol and has initiated a process to withdraw from it, declaring that the emission targets for greenhouse gases are unachievable and create barriers for economic growth in key industry sectors, particularly energy.
Key commitments on right-to-know and prior-informed-consent regimes have also been weakened. Canada has blocked the listing of chrysotile asbestos to the Rotterdam Convention since 2006, most recently in 2011. The listing of chrysotile asbestos is widely considered important to protect human health. Exporters would be required to obtain prior consent from importing countries and it would be mandatory for exporters to provide toxicity data and information on the safe handling and use of chrysotile to trading partners. Requiring prior consent for chrysotile asbestos would be appropriate since all forms of asbestos are known carcinogens and are linked to mesothelioma and other forms of cancer and lung diseases. The World Health Organization estimated that 107,000 deaths annually are related to asbestos exposure. Canada continues to export chrysotile asbestos to the U.S. and developing countries including India, where the regulatory framework may not provide the protection needed for workers and the public from asbestos impacts. Listing could create an important impetus to seek sustainable alternatives to chrysotile and promote green economies that do not rely on chrysotile asbestos. Funds now needed to prolong the mining of asbestos in Canada could be diverted to develop a just transition plan to help workers and communities affected by asbestos.
Canada’s efforts in other discussions on chemicals have also been scrutinized by the international community. Under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), goals to achieve global elimination of POPs, which are linked to various health and environmental effects and build up in wildlife and humans, have been hamstrung. Many POPs chemicals are found in common products in everyday use in Canada. Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and its salts (PFOS) are used to promote water and stain resistance, while polybrominated flame retardant commercial mixtures are used widely in electronics, textiles, carpets and mattresses. Although these POPs are listed for global elimination, many of their applications are exempted. For Canada, and its Arctic ecosystem, this means ongoing risks from POPs deposition.
Mercury, a known neurotoxin, is the subject of international negotiations for a UN global treaty. Canada has not placed a high priority on addressing its own domestic mercury contamination. It is detected extensively in the Arctic, the Great Lakes ecosystem and in major rivers of oil-rich regions of Alberta. The First Nations community of Grassy Narrows, located in Northern Ontario, continues to deal with a legacy of mercury contamination 50 years after mercury was released into the English-Wabigoon River system. Early negotiations for a mercury treaty indicate that the provisions under consideration may not be sufficiently strong to address the challenges facing Canada on mercury.
Today, Canada’s position on environmental protection matters is unsustainable. The drastic budget cuts, decimation of key environmental legislation through the omnibus budget bill, and the announcement of ending freshwater research through the Experimental Lake Area have all but shattered the foundation of Canada’s environmental protection framework. Environmental protection legislation and programs that took decades to develop and implement have taken the current government less than a year to dismantle.
Opposition to recent environmental reforms has been loud. Former fisheries ministers have expressed their disappointment over these developments. Unfortunately, the impact of these actions will have significant impacts across Canada and around the world. For many years, the global community relied on Canada’s leading research to identify threats of toxic substances and other pollution to freshwater systems and vulnerable ecosystems, and identify gaps in the policy framework. The Canadian public will be disadvantaged by the lack of opportunities for public input in our legislative framework and the absence of science to advocate for improved environmental protection.
Canada does not need to continue on this path away from sustainability. With careful collaboration and a recommitment to environmental protection, Canada can take steps that promote economic growth through efficiency and green innovation to uphold sustainable development practices at the same time.
The Rio+20 negotiations this week offer Canada an opportunity to recommit to the environment. Canada can contribute in a positive way at these negotiations by recommitting to the precautionary principle, the prior-informed-consent procedure and the need to protect human rights. What more powerful statement could Canada make at Rio than to declare they will get out of the deadly mining and export of chrysotile asbestos? The global community represented at Rio is expected, once again, to urge world leaders to uphold and strengthen promises made in global treaties and conventions to accelerate progress on sustainability. This week Canada will be sending a strong message to its most precious resource, young Canadians who will inherit the consequences of their actions or inaction’s.
Fe de Leon and Sarah Miller are researchers with the Canadian Environmental Law Association.