EDMONTON — The Alberta government has unveiled a plan for its oilsands region that would give some level of conservation protection to at least 20 per cent of the land in the northeast corner of the province.
That level could increase to 34 per cent of the vast forests and wetlands, said Sustainable Resource Development Minister Mel Knight, who called the proposal “leading edge in North America.”
But critics pointed out the areas being suggested for preservation are a scattered patchwork, not a coherent whole. They also said the plan would allow existing oil, natural gas and logging operations to continue even on land classified as a conservation area.
New industrial facilities could also be built in such protected areas, the plan says.
“It’s a step in the right direction, but it falls short of what’s necessary,” Helene Walsh of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society said Thursday.
The proposal, written by an advisory group of industry, municipal, aboriginal and environmental groups, deals with a long strip of land along the east side of the province that begins east of Edmonton and stretches all the way up to the Northwest Territories.
It contains almost all of Alberta’s proven oilsands reserves, most oilsands developments and the city of Fort McMurray. It also generates about $1.4 billion in direct and indirect revenue from forestry.
Protecting 20 per cent of it would triple the amount being conserved. But exactly how much protection is being considered is unclear.
“Existing uses, such as conventional oil and gas, will be permitted to continue,” the document says. “New facility permits will only be issued on existing tenure.”
Knight said the principle of varying degrees of protection for parts of the landscape is well-established.
“There’s a recognition generally that there are different levels of conservation,” he said. “You will have levels of conservation inside that area.”
Some areas will be no-go; some, like certain provincial parks, will allow resource exploitation.
“People need to have a place to go to work, they need to feed their families and they have to continue to survive in the province,” said Knight. “There is a primary consideration for the government of Alberta to be sure that we develop those resources.”
That sounds like another way of saying business as usual, said Liberal environment critic Laurie Blakeman.
“When we think conservation, most people expect there would be no development allowed in the area. Our experience in Alberta is there’s all kinds of development in conserved areas.
“What does conservation really mean?”
Large parts of the areas being proposed for protection overlap with current forestry management areas and mineral leases.
Walsh pointed out that the areas proposed for conservation are smaller than the four- to 5,000-square kilometre zones specified in the terms of reference. As well, none of them are connected, which they were supposed to be.
“They have not actually met their own criteria,” she said.
Walsh said the government could easily protect up to half of the region, since less than half of it contains commercially recoverable oilsands reserves.
New Democrat Rachel Notley calls the proposal a recipe for business as usual.
“We don’t seem to have moved very far along this road of doing cumulative impact assessment. It looks like we’re going to get more of the same.”
Walsh said this land use plan is critical, since it’s the first and will likely form a precedent for the rest of the province.
“It’s somewhat encouraging,” she said.
“They’ve recognized the need for conservation areas in their planning, which is a big step from the last few years. But we have to get beyond the minimal protection to what’s needed for maintaining the biodiversity.”
Knight said the plan will now go out for public input. He said he hopes to present a final document to cabinet early next year.