Melancthon Quarry or Melancholy: Threats to Canadian Water and Farmland

In recent news regarding threats to water in Canada, I have been following the Melancthon quarry- an enormous open pit mine proposed in Melancthon township on Highway 124 just north of Shelburne, north of Orangeville. This would be the largest quarry in Ontario and the second largest in North America. Today, I received an alert from Avaaz.org warning that this mining project could poison a million people's drinking water and the headwaters for five major rivers, would create an open pit deeper than Niagara Falls and decimate thousands of acres of healthy farmland.

Highland Companies had posed as a potato farming company for past years and bought acres of land from local farmers. It was recently revealed that it is backed by a $14 billion hedge fund out of Boston called Baupost Group. It was also announced that the plot of farmland would be converted into a limestone quarry (2300 acre pit), so deep it would interfere with the ground water system in the region. Furthermore, the quarry would require over seven thousand trucks to transport limestone each day, increasing carbon emissions and requiring new roads to handle the exploding traffic, further destroying the natural habitat of many species of animals. It is also in the middle of farmland that Canada depends on for food production. But, in order to start digging, Highland must win approval from Minister of Natural Resources Linda Jeffrey. 




Jeffrey is taking 4 more days to consider public opinion on this quarry before making her decision. Avaaz.org is encouraging the interested public to sign a petition that can deliver a wave of opposition to the plan. The petition can be signed here: http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_the_quarry/?vl 

Ralph and Mary Lynne Armstrong on their farm near the proposed quarry. “Where’s the good food going to come from if you don’t have land to grow it on?” says Ralph, a cattle and pig farmer. (Sept. 24, 2009) 

ANDREW WALLACE/TORONTO STAR

Residents and environmental activists are working hard to oppose the quarry's license. Ontario's Liberal government faces a tough re-election fight in October and Liberal Minister Linda Jeffrey is concerned about public opinion in these key months before votes are cast. A national call will put pressure on Jeffrey and her party to stand up for Canada's environment, its farmers and the fresh water many Canadians depend on for survival. 




This information was provided by Emma, Ricken, Iain, Pascal and the rest of the Avaaz team. 




MORE INFORMATION 





• Council of Canadians report on the mega-quarry
http://www.canadians.org/index2.html


• Limestone quarry threatens prime farm land (Toronto Star)
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/734969--limestone-quarry-threatens-prime-farm-land


• Environment ministry blasts mega-quarry proposal (Toronto Star)
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1017849--environment-ministry-blasts-mega-quarry-proposal 


• The call for open submissions to the Ministry of Natural Resources
http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTEyNTY2&statusId=MTY4ODI5&language=en 

• Chong calls for federal review of quarry proposal (Guelph Mercury)
http://www.guelphmercury.com/news/local/article/549053--chong-calls-for-federal-review-of-quarry-proposal 



Avaaz.org is a 9-million-person global campaign network that works to ensure that the views and values of the world's people shape global decision-making. ("Avaaz" means "voice" or "song" in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 13 countries on 4 continents and operates in 14 languages. Learn about some of Avaaz's biggest campaigns here.

The 2nd Annual Canadian Water Summit- Are We Heading in the Right Direction?

I had the opportunity on June 14, 2011, to attend the 2nd Annual Canadian Water Summit at the International Centre as a delegate with Waterlution.

The Summit was a great forum and networking opportunity to get the conversation going among involved and critical multi-stakeholders on issues of the future of water quality and quantity, as well as governance in Canada. It was attended by business professionals and investors, water industry representatives, building and municipal stakeholders as well as government officials, water industry regulators, NGOs, academics and community representatives. As the snippet images from the Summit's site display, questions of significant importance were placed on the agenda for discussion. 

Setting aside the magnitude and relevance of these questions, the overall direction of the conversation carried solid undertones of market-driven solutions. I suppose the popular mindset is "if you can't change the system you need to work with it". I am still not so convinced that fighting shy of putting the critical question of "what is wrong with the system that led us to where we are today?" at the heart of these discussions - simply because "we've exhausted the conversation", "it's a thing of the past", "only leftists/anti-capitalists ask this type of questions"  or because "it unleashes a whole new can of worms and becomes too complex to tackle"- can lead us to sustainable sustainability (if I may). 

With the tagline "let's work together to drive real progress in our world", IBM proposed that technology is the way to go. The technologies presented by their Smarter City/Smarter Planet program were certainly ingenious and a progressive contribution to tackling emerging water management problems (i.e advanced weather forecast systems determining amounts of rain and issuing signals to cities to prepare in advance so they avoid sewerage system floods; an iphone app that allows users to report water leaks; households subscribing to receive instant messages from utilities about their water consumption levels). Presenter Michael Sullivan explained that 45% of water is lost due to leaks in an aging water infrastructure around the world, and some of the technologies they have devised can deal with that. Great advancements indeed! However, when a participant posed the question of why IBM's current and prospective deals are concentrated in Europe and North America and whether there is potential to share this technology with  developing countries dealing with urgent water crises (as in Sub-Saharan Africa) who may not be able to afford it, the unsatisfying response was "We are a business, and we run as a business". This begs the question then: in WHOSE world are we driving "real" progress?

Other recurrent approaches seemed to be international collaboration and alliances to regulate industries and companies on a voluntary basis (i.e Water Disclosure Project- part of Carbon Disclosure Project; Blue Economy Initiative, Aqueduct, Global Water Roundtable etc.).  Again, these initiatives are a great start, but more than anything they are an indication for a need for REGULATION. Their pitfall in my opinion, is that a voluntary approach and "incentives" are insufficient to exert enough pressure on companies to acknowledge their footprint and contribution to escalating the water crisis (i.e mining companies in developing communities) and although such measures may provoke some action, it is questionable to what extent this action will be bold, organic and of magnitude, setting the bar high for regulatory progress and for preventing future recourse for loss in profit (as in the case of Metalclad among many other examples).
On the grassroots level, municipality and provincial representatives shared their endless plight to address local water management and its dynamic challenges. It was shocking to learn that despite Ontario being a leader in innovative technology in the water sector - currently working on a technology transfer program with other countries- an estimate of only 1% of this technology is actually used nationally. Minister of Research and Innovation, Glen Murray, brought this to our attention, and he ended with quite a striking and reverberating comment: "if you don't understand that the economy is a subset of the environment, then you just don't get it!" Seldom do we make this link, and often do we think that the environment is a subset of the economy. This may be a core problem in our perception; and perception, unfortunately, is reality.

A final note on the event and one that is most humanizing in my opinion, is a contrasting perspective presented by Native environmentalist of Turtle Clan Mohawk, Danny Beaton, who reminded everyone that what is of urgency is our acknowledgment as a human race that we are stewards of this earth and that water is the sacred blood of mother earth. We have for long abused our relationship with mother earth and are today paying the price for it. We need to relearn to appreciate the sun, the earth, water, life. Perhaps a return to the basics is really all it takes. Technology is a solution, but with every invention we invent its problems. Perhaps the question of "what is wrong with the system?" is not so complex afterall. It is easy. The system is not sustainable. Hypercapitalism is not sustainable. How can we speak of sustainability in an unsustainable system? Minor or major tweaks and fiscal resurgence of management solutions and regulation does not lead to sustainability. It simply delays the problem, it does not solve it. A return to the basics is simple- I'll let your imagination interpret the possibilities of this concept...

Connecting the dots ...

I would like to share some brief reflections on my recent experience in a graduate summer school at York University IPEESS (International Political Economy and Ecology Summer School 2011), followed by a conference and SSHRC funded workshop on the future of global governance. The title for the course was New Constitutionalism and Global Political Economy. 

"What we need is more 'demos-prudence' instead of jurisprudence"- Upendra Baxi 

Richard Falk- Left

I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to interact with a roster of leading lawyers and political economists and theorists, most notably Stephen Gill, Richard Falk, Upendra Baxi, Claire Cutler, Isabella Bakker, Ran Hirschl, Saskia Sassen, Janine Brodie and a few others regarding the developments in the recent past of our global political economy (particularly since the 80's) which have been labeled as a form of new constitutionalism; one which "locks-in" through legal (politico-juridical) mechanisms, specific frameworks and regulations that insulate neoliberal capitalism from democratic power. A particular session was on the topic of "enclosure of the commons",  during which water was a field of contestation. The interesting dialectic between water as a fundamental human right and the ongoing process of its commodification, which I have discussed in earlier blogs, and the ensuing discussions revealed the key to a missing link in my analysis for my future research project. 

The process of commodification of water (and the environment- i.e the creation of "weather derivatives" to commodify the risks involved with climate change)  is not only adopted as a market mechanism for greater capital accumulation, but in fact has also been constitutionalised, in a sense, through international, national and otherwise neo-forms of agreements and binding treaties, very much in tandem with neoliberal trade and investment frameworks. This has been severely affecting ecological practices and social reproduction, and has in fact reshaped our normative understandings of water. 


It is now my goal to further research what elements of new constitutionalism have been adopted (in other words the trends) in various geographical and social spaces and points of contact where neoliberal reforms in water policies have been employed and in instances met resistance. I believe the locations of resistance will unveil the cause of contestation. The "what" that is being contested, I speculate will be evidence of a similar pattern through which neoliberal capitalism has further infiltrated into areas of the environment and basic human needs (ie water) and is deeply infringing on and threatening local livelihoods. I hope as my research unfolds, I will better connect the dots...

On this note, "Abuela Grillo" is a very symbolic and short clip- shared with me by a friend from Brazil- on the water wars in Bolivia. It really encompasses the dialectical relationship between locals as stewards of water resources, their lack of appreciation of this resource at a certain point, and the process of exploitation by capitalism- and tells the story through the personification of water by the wonderful character of Abuela Grillo.   

Water Changes Everything

Comprehensive yet strikingly simple video created by Charity:Water, narrating the importance of water to every facet of life. Takes me back to the very first WWB seminar discussion on ways of presenting the water crisis to grab audiences' attention and point to its magnitude. For reference, take a look at my first blog. Enjoy.

From Books to Reality: A note on my experience in Kenya

Photo credit: Harris Switzman

The purpose of our WWB field assignment in Kenya was to observe first hand the impact of water policies on communities that lack basic access to clean and sustainable water. However, the trip extended far beyond its mere research significance and resulted in a plethora of unforgettable experiences and cultural exposure. I personally left with a new-found positive perspective: change lies not in the boardrooms of donor agencies, international organizations or behind closed doors of public servants' boardrooms; it lies in the adamance and perseverance  of people to provide their families and communities with access to clean drinking water. 


As I will be addressing in my final Masters Research Project, there has been much research and funding focused on urban centers in developing countries, in terms of adequate water provision. However, a majority of rural populations have been, as a result, excluded and marginalized. This is the case particularly as the indebted public service system is unable to financially support expanding pipelines or infrastructure, the private sector is uninterested in investing where the margin or profits are low (or non-existent) and  local commercial actors are exploiting locals by charging more than public utilities would. As I like to depict it, in the concerted effort at the international and national platforms to resolve the tragedy of the commons, the poor in rural regions of developing countries are commoners left in a state of tragedy; fending for themselves for access to clean water and in some case... to just water.

Wandiege Water Project: Consumption Rates & Costs

I was very interested in the organization and governance mechanisms of self-help water projects we visited. I learned in some cases, they were initiated by members of these rural, poor and marginalized communities, led by a democratically chosen leader, volunteers managing funds from donors, and fully maintained and expanded by the community through charging social tariffs that ensure affordability and sustainability. Learning about the impact a small contribution from an international organization can have resonated with me. I also had the rare opportunity, on several occasions, to conduct rigorous interviews with local public officials, local community members and project coordinators, local NGOs, and greatly enjoyed the meetings with the officials at UNEP, UNHabitat and the Lake Victoria Basin Commission.

Director of SANA, local NGO

If I were to choose one significant moment on the trip (hard as it is!), it would be the community prepared lunch at Abala, where each one of us felt incredibly overwhelmed with the generous hospitality. Even with little in their possession, our friends at Abala did not fail to give a lot, with the generosity of their singing, dancing and radiant smiles. The valuable experience and knowledge I gained will carry with me and will be directly incorporated into my current and future research and professional pursuits.

Abala Community Water Project

"It's everybody so it's nobody"

Dr. Krantzberg's presentation: Great Lakes Great Responsibility, touched upon major water quality and governance issues that are not very familiar to the larger public, although the problem resides right in our Canadian backyard. To think that the mechanisms set to protect the Great Lakes are in reality outdated and not adequately coordinated between Canada and the US, is a reason for major concern. 

Despite the myth of abundance, reality remains that only 1% of the Great Lakes are renewable through rainfall. In the documentary Waterlife, it is claimed the Great Lakes are the last remaining large source of fresh water in the world. Given this claim, and also given the old and new problems that have emerged (i.e eutrophication, sewer overflow, toxic chemicals, invasive species, etc.), the recent revision of GLWQA (Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement- 1972) should address the bi-national governance deficit that has stalled the adoption of a preventative approach. This is critical in order to foresee problems before they arise rather than continue to employ the traditional reactionary attitude that has led us to where we are today in terms of the Great Lakes' deplorable conditions. 

When questions such as "Who is responsible for what?" are posed, the general response is "it's everyone's responsibility" and with this broad-based sense of responsibility, no one feels obligated to assume the role of the culpable. This ambiguity in turn leads to inertia in governance and points to a serious gap in policies and problem-solving mechanisms. 

Dr. Krantzberg emphasized the need for a strong bi-national agreement that can hold both national governments (US and Canada) accountable to an equal amount of dedication of resources and attention for the Great Lakes (as the lakes are divided 50-50). However, as Dr. Krantzberg began to share with us the success of her experience in working with near-shore communities around the lake to restore the conditions of the water and surrounding environment, I became more cognizant of the momentousness of bottom-up initiatives to fill policy gaps and governance inertia. Regardless of the stature of a commitment initiated at higher levels of governance and the promise it holds, the grandeur of such top-down statements can lead to mayhem if a well-coordinated system at every level and area of expertise is not well envisioned and practiced. In the case of nearshore communities around the Lake Victoria Basin in Kenya for example, it seems that self-help initiatives are increasingly becoming the solution to alternative water provision that can reduce pressure from the Lake and also address gaps in policies,  as government and industry actors remain passive. In times of desperation and a threat to livelihood and well-being, a sense of urgency sparks agency at the individual and community level and although it may not be the solution to all the problems, it is the most impactful. It is the bridge between paper agreements and action. 

In brief, concerted efforts need to reside both at the macro governance platform, and more importantly at the involved communities' level. Although it is not fair to shift the burden of responsibility fully onto near-shore communities, their endogenous concern and action can offset the inaction of other actors. In fact, their concern and ownership of the problem will consequently result in placing pressure on policymakers to give greater attention to the cause. I believe that in the revision of GLWQA and its annexes, greater attention and resources must be dedicated to near-shore communities with the goal of raising awareness and working on endogenous solutions. There is no doubt that the given communities, with support from the greater concerned public, experts and governments will take bolder action to protect the Great Lakes and bequeath them to future generations, as challenging a task as that may be. 

To "C"ommunicate or to "c"ommunicate?

Who would have thought the dynamics of communication between science experts and policy experts needed decoding before it is communicated? During Dr. Bielak's talk, it became evident that experts seem to be insulated within their own fields and accustomed to speaking their own discipline's coded language. Consequently, whenever exchange of information is necessary to "outsiders", it is not communicated in an effective manner, or perhaps the message is not "decoded" appropriately by the receiver.

The process of communication is complex (it consists of a sender who encodes a message that is then transmitted through a medium, and then decoded by the receiver). I found it difficult at the outset to understand the term "knowledge brokering" or even its relevance to this complex process. However, it soon began to make sense that since "big C" (Communication department) takes care of catering to the larger publics, "little c" is needed to attend to communicating to more specific publics such as policy makers, decision makers, and most importantly the interested/attentive public. The quality, depth and breadth of information need to be tailored appropriately to actively engage these important audiences.

This is where it gets interesting. Knowledge brokering is the intermediary process at the level of “little c” that helps to build links by bringing relevant people together to share ideas, assisting them in understanding each other's abilities and needs, and guiding them to sources of knowledge.[1] More importantly, the role of knowledge brokers becomes essential in helping ensure that the right questions are being answered.

Beginning to think about this complex process, particularly in communicating knowledge that is confined within our various disciplines led me to reflect on the dynamics within our multi-disciplinary WWB team. Everytime I write these blogs, I struggle to ensure I am effectively communicating the intended message with enough clarity for all my colleagues (who I am sure agree is not an easy task!). It also became more obvious that a gap exists in communication as soon as we began to test our elevator speeches during the seminar, using terminology that was discipline oriented and not quite comprehensible to out-of-discipline colleagues. Lesson learnt in both cases: know your message and know your audience!

Regardless, with a little tweaking, I am certain we will all have well-polished elevator speeches that effectively communicate the right message to the right audiences (thanks to Dr. Bielak). 

Here is mine - please critique:

“Hello, my name is Dona and I am a graduate student in Globalization Studies and Water Without Borders. My research aims to identify the obstacles embedded within national water policies that prevent rural populations from exercising their rights to access clean water and a healthy living standard. It will also explore policy trends at the international level that steer national water policies in the direction of excluding rural areas. Greater attention to this issue can facilitate achieving the Millenium Development Goals and improving the output of policies in the water sector. I am asking to be granted funding for this project as I am certain the findings will have the potential to be emulated and tested in different settings. I hope I captured your interest and will be glad to provide further details regarding my work.”

---

[1] Bielak, A.T., A. Campbell, S. Pope, K. Schaefer and L. Shaxson “From Science Communications to Knowledge Brokering: The Shift from Science Push to Policy Pull.” In Cheng, D., M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B.Schiele and S. Shi (eds), Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices. Dordrecht: Springer., 2008:  220.