By Len Coad
In the Edmonton Journal
June 18, 2014
There is an unhealthy interplay between the rise of advocacy, the decline of trust in regulation and natural resources development. In some cases, projects are strengthened; in others, they are delayed interminably.
The Canada West Foundation recently published a discussion paper that points to some of the underlying factors that impair public support.
In North America, regulatory agencies, tribunals and government departments play a key governance role in resource projects. They have a long record of success at ensuring health and safety and protecting the environment. The record is not perfect and was never intended to guarantee no accidents or incidents. Such a guarantee would be impossible to deliver.
The role of regulation is to ensure that a clear standard is set, that it represents the public interest, and that it is met by all. The standards are based on sound technical principles, but are always open to discussion. Public confidence that the rules are clear and will achieve their stated objectives is critical to their success. That confidence appears to be waning. Why?
This is where the rise of advocacy comes into play. Some advocates provide sound, evidence-based arguments in favour of their positions. Others view their role as either to support or attack actively and continuously. The former leads to stronger projects and better regulation, the latter leads to paralysis.
One example illustrates how these factors come together to impair sustainable resource development.
Certain elements of the opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline project illustrate the positive application of advocacy. A number of advocates voiced their concerns over the safety provisions designed into the project and the related emergency procedures. Enbridge made adjustments. The National Energy Board included numerous conditions that respond to the concerns raised. Should the project receive final approval and be built, it will be a better project because of the role advocates played.
A similar example has arisen recently for the Keystone XL project in the U.S. The advocates argue that two specific safety conditions were added to respond to issues appeared as part of TransCanada’s construction process for the Gulf Coast pipeline leg. They argue those safety conditions will ensure that independent inspectors will hold TransCanada to a higher standard. Their implication is that there is a trust issue that could undermine support for the project.
TransCanada’s response is that the additional conditions are similar to those being applied to all pipeline projects, that their practices exceed regulatory requirements, and that the issues for Gulf Coast were identified because of their quality control process and have been corrected. They view this as evidence that the public will do well to put their trust in the process.
Here is the fundamental challenge. The general public may include individuals with the technical expertise to work through both sides of the story. They may also find the circumstances that permit resource projects to proceed while protecting health, safety and the natural environment.
However, most of us either are not qualified or just aren’t familiar enough with the specifics to speak with authority on the merits of a particular project (myself included). That’s why we have expert regulators and we need to be able to trust their judgment.
If we can’t or we don’t, the system begins to fail.
A compounding factor is that it is far easier to criticize than to decide. To the extent that advocates take positions that test the evidence and lead to stronger health, safety or environmental practices, resource projects benefit. To the extent that advocates choose to oppose simply to delay or frustrate, they will always have the material they need.
So what’s the answer? Let’s reward companies for being transparent and for admitting and fixing problems as they arise. Let’s reward them for continuous improvement. Let’s accept that some advocates are eternal opponents and others are motivated to improve outcomes.
And let’s have the wisdom to see the difference. Let’s be willing to trust regulators to do their job and committed enough to be constructive in telling them how to do better.
Len Coad is Director of the Centre for Natural Resources Policy at the Canada West Foundation, which exclusively focuses on policies that shape the quality of life in western Canada.