Subject: [permaculture] Ontario Environment Commissioners Report

From: Gary Gallon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 23:19:15 -0300

THE GALLON ENVIRONMENT LETTER
       Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment
           506 Victoria Ave., Montreal, Quebec H3Y 2R5
            Ph. (514) 369 0230, Fax (514) 369 3282
                    Email  [email-masked]
                Vol. 3, No. 12, May 3, 1999 

*********************************************************************

THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER REPORT 
ON ONTARIO

The Environmental Commission of Ontario (ECO) last week 
released its most recent annual report on government activities 
to protect the human environment in Ontario.  The Commission
was created under the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights. The
Commission is an independent agency established by law to
monitor government efforts to protect human health and ensure that
every citizen the right to a clean environment The Environmental 
Commissioner, Eva Ligeti, released her latest report entitled, "Open 
Doors  Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights". The 350 page report 
is full of detailed analysis on issues including climate change, waste 
management, and air & water pollution.

The findings of the report, while focused on Ontario, may provide
insight into the performance of other jurisdictions which face similar
issues. The full report is available from the Environmental 
Commissioner of  Ontario (ECO), 1075 Bay St., Suite 605, Toronto, 
Ontario M5S 2B1, Ph. (416) 3253377, fax (416) 3253370, You can 
download a copy from the ECO website at
<http://www.eco.on.ca/>http://www.eco.on.ca/  
email [email-masked]

****************************************************************

43% CUT TO THE ONTARIO ENVIRONMENT BUDGET  

Before reviewing the findings of the Commissioner's report, one
needs to understand the background of environmental protection 
efforts in Ontario over the past several years. Organizations have 
seen the Government of Ontario change course with commitments 
to cutting red tape and to getting environment protection out of the 
way of economic progress. The government cut the budget for 
environmental protection by 43% and has committed to reducing 
staff by a similar amount. Like Alberta, Ontario has committed to
reducing its environmental regulations by half. The Canadian 
Institute for Business and the Environment analyzed the detailed 
"budget estimates" of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
(MOE) for 199595 and for 199798.  The institute found that 
the operating budget of the environment ministry was cut from 
$365.4 million in 199495 to $211.0 million in 199798.  That is 
a loss of $154.4 million, or 43 per cent, from Ontario environmental 
protection budget. Cuts to various budget lines include,

o    Funding for the development of environmental programs and 
standards was cut 99 per cent from $51.0 million in 1994  95 to 
$0.5 million in 1997 to 1998.  As a result, Ontario  reduced its 
own ability to design standards and carry out voluntary environment 
programs.

o    Environmental laboratory services funding was cut 40.3% from 
$29.5 million to $17.6 million

o    Compliance and enforcement branch budget was reduced 30 per cent, 
or $14.7 million from the $49.1 million in 199495 to $34.4 million 

o    Capital funding for environmental technologies and processes including 
new technologies,  recycling and energy conservation equipment, was virtually 
eliminated, being dropped 99% from $72.2 million in 199495 to $500,000 
in 1998

o    Funding for "Beaches Restoration" was cut 97 per cent from $12 million 
in 19956 to $400,000 in 199798. 

o   MOE Environmental Science and Technology operational funding was cut 
75.8 per cent from $19.4 million to $4.7 million

o    MOE staff positions were cut 880 positions for a total of 36%,  
from 2,430 in 1995 to 1,550 in 1997. 

The is this deteriorating condition in which the Ontario Environmental
Commission finds itself tracking efforts to protect the human environment. 
For a complete review of the budget cuts ask for the email report to be 
send to you, contact CIBE at [email-masked]

*************************************************************************

ONTARIO'S WASTE MANAGEMENT
VOLUNTARY ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURE FAILING

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) announced in October 
1998 that instead of using regulations to acheive waste recycling, 
it would seek to have industry voluntarily create a $20 million a 
year fund to support the Blue Box Recycling program. However, 
industry has failed to voluntarily commit the money. As a result, 
MOE admitted to the Commission in March 1999, "that no specific 
target has been set for industry financial support."  Furthermore, 
MOE reported that it had reduced its $20.0 million project of
voluntary contributes to an estimated $11.0 million, with no
security that this amount will be met.

*************************************************************

LACK OF VOLUNTARY DRIVERS THE PROBLEM

The reason industry hasn't committed yet, is because the voluntary
nonregulatory initiative (VNRI) does not have a proper driver. 
The drivers of voluntary initiatives are outlined in the study by the 
Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment entitled, 
"Voluntary Environmental Measures, The Canadian Experience" 
(September 1997, Toronto, copies available). The report found that 
if the drivers are not present, or are weak, the chances of creating 
and implementing a successful voluntary measure are almost nil. 
The development of voluntary measures in the presence of pressing 
and fundamental needs (these drivers) will ensure their success. 
The drivers include:

o   threat of regulation
o   erosion of goodwill
o   ecoefficiencies that improve corporate income 
o   banks and insurance companies liability reduction requirements
o   sense of community responsibility and visionary leadership

In this case, MOE did not have draft regulations written to implement in
the event the voluntary approach didn't work. It was just such regulations
that were, indeed,  written regarding 3Rs legislation in 1985 that drove 
industry then to avoid regulation by donating more than $20 million a year 
for a number years to the very successful OMRI recycling program 
established by industry.

Regarding MOE's waste management policies in general, the 
Commission report goes on to say that, "Ontario is the only
province in Canada that does not have a comprehensive product 
stewardship program for beverage containers." For a copy of the 
CIBE report, "Voluntary Environmental Measures, The Canadian 
Experience" , ask at email  [email-masked].
*******************************************************************
NEW ADMINISTRATIVE $5,000 PENALTY SET TO LOW

With the lack of resources, the Ministry of the Environment is
seeking cheaper ways to prosecute polluters than by using the
traditional method of monitoring for, and prosecuting for, actual
pollution. Instead, the MOE, in Bill 82, provided for "administrative 
penalties" , this is where companies are charged for not keeping up 
their paper work on pollution reporting. The Commission found that
the maximum fine set for administrative infractions of $5,000 per day 
is far too low. Ontario's fines are at least ten times lower that similar 
administrative infraction fines in the United States. The Ontario amount 
is so small that the Commission stated that, "some commenters 
argue that the low ceiling of $5,000 for contraventions of environmental 
law will be perceived by many companies as a license to pollute." 
The companies would rather pay the inexpensive fine, rather than 
spend millions of dollars on establishing the proper pollution prevention 
measures to reduce the environmental impacts.

******************************************************************

ONTARIO MOE ALLOWS MORE
WATER POLLUTION FROM CHEMICAL COMPANIES

The Commission reported that a new Ministry of Environment
regulation (Ont. Reg. 50/98), "increases effluent loadings limits 
for specified plants of several chemical, rubber, and vinyl 
manufacturing companies on a facility specific basis. The 
companies include Bayer Rubber Inc., Dow Chemical, Ethyl 
Canada Inc., G.E. Plastics, Geon Canada Inc., Imperial Oil 
Chemicals, Nova Chemicals, and Cornwall Chemicals." 
Many of these companies the same ones that show up as
major emitters on Environment Canada's National Pollutant 
Release Inventory (NPRI). The Commission stated that the 
amendment, "allows the companies to increase discharges of 
pollutants such as nitrogen compounds, suspended solids, 
phosphorus and dissolved organic carbon." It is also these
same companies, through the Canadian Chemical Producers'
Association (CCPA) that are lobbying hard again the new proposed
Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). See the 
CCPA environmental policies at its website
<http://www.ccpa.ca/>http://www.ccpa.ca/

********************************************************************

ENVIRONMENT MINISTRY PLACES ENVIRONMENT 
SECOND TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment stated to the 
Environmental Commissioner regarding its amendments to
the Effluent Monitoring and Effluent Limits  Organic 
Manufacturing Sector, O.Reg. 63/95, "that the proposed changes 
to the regulation will allow for business growth within the sector." 
The Environment Commissioner concludes that, "MOE is clearly 
more concerned about business growth within the sector", than
with the environment. Unfortunately, what is not well understood
is that the savings given to the companies from not having to install
pollution prevention devices, results in additional economic costs
to other economic units in the community. There are additional
health costs, there is degradation of commercial and sports fisheries,
there may be additional health costs to the provincial medical 
system. These externalized costs result in no net savings to the
economy from this effort by MOE to save these companies from
having to install pollution devices.

********************************************************************

ONTARIO MAKING FEEBLE PROGRESS IN AIR 
POLLUTION REDUCTION STANDARDS

While Ontario has launched a campaign to ask the United State's
to clean up its air pollution that is moving northward across the
border affecting Canada, Ontario is falling behind in setting and 
enforcing its own air pollution standards. The Commission reported 
that, "although MOE publicized its plan to update air standards 
as an aggressive approach to protecting Ontario's environment, 
the Commission's review of MOE's actions showed the ministry's 
progress to be feeble." It reported that, "the ministry said it would 
update the standards for 70 pollutants over three years." Instead it 
delayed and spent, "approximately two years to finalize the rules 
pertaining to only nine pollutants. Even for those few pollutants, 
MOE merely created guidelines rather than directly enforceable 
standards." 

******************************************************************

ONTARIO'S DECISION NOT TO ENFORCE FEDERAL
FISHERIES ACT, SECTION 35 RAISES CONCERN

In Canada, major national laws like the federal Fisheries Act, are
allowed to be enforced by the provinces rather than by the federal
government. This is in deference to the province's request for more
power to administer their territory. However, in an unusual move, 
the Government of Ontario has decided not to enforce Section 35 of 
the Fisheries Act which deals with the protection of fish habitat. 
The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) posted the 
decision to withdraw on the Commission's Registry August 18, 
1997, not allowing for public comment. Environment Canada attempted
to cover the abandonment by temporarily sending eight fisheries
officials to Ontario from the Atlantic region. However, their number
is too small to replace the hundreds of Ministry of Natural Resources
(MNR) and MOE staff that used to do the work. This virtually leaves 
Ontario's lakes and rivers fisheries habitat unprotected.

****************************************************************

ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTRY

The Commission's Environmental Registry is mandated by the 
Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) to receive postings on the 
Commission's website about environmentally significant proposals 
and decisions, appeals of instruments, court actions, statements of 
environmental values (SEV's), and other information related to ministry
environmental decision making. Ontario ministries must post this 
information on the "Environmental Registry" in order to provide the
public an opportunity to make input into the decision making prior
to the final decision. It is the newest service for public participation
which is designed to be added on to the existing public participation
mechanisms normally used by governments. The Environmental
Registry can be found at the website 
<http://www.eco.on.ca/>http://www.eco.on.ca/

****************************************************************

ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTRY NOT BEING USED
CORRECTLY FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION BY ONTARIO GOVERNMENT 

Instead of using the new Environmental Registry website as
one of many key tools in public participation, the Ontario 
Government appears to be using the Environmental
Registry as its only or primary tool for public participation.  
It has virtually dropped environmental assessments and
public hearings. It holds much fewer public meetings, working
groups, and conducts few information mail outs. And, if you don't 
happen to see the information on the Environmental Registry
The Government of Ontario made a decision to redefine public
participation in environmental issues from one of mailings of
information and the holding of public meetings and allowing 
questions directly to government on new proposed undertakings.
It has been changed to just one of a posting on a website  on the 
Environmental Commissioner's website. What is required, is for
the proponents to use the Commission's registry postings, in 
addition to the other standard public consultant methods. 

In another matter, the Commission is concerned that the 30 day 
mandatory posting required by law is being hedged by Ontario. 
It reported that, "Bill 82, the Environmental Statute Law 
Amendment Act", was posted only 10 day on the Commission's
website. The Commission wrote the MOE, "urging the ministry to
comply with the minimum posting period of 30 days." It found 
that the "shortened comment period was illegal and inadequate."
Visit the MOE website at  <http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/>http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/

*************************************************************

MOE RESPONDS TO CRITICISM ON PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment issued a "Media 
Backgrounder" April 28, 1999 in response to the Commissioner's
report (available on the MOE website http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/ ).
It stated that, "for its part, the Ministry of the Environment has
actively incorporated consultation into its policy and program
development and its decisions. This emphasis on full consultation
is shown by the ministry's initiative to post EBR registry on the
Internet a year ago. As a result, we've seen a dramatic increase 
in the number of users. Our latest statistics which cover September 
1998, show about 1,4000 hits per month on the EBR registry."

*************************************************************

ONTARIO SUPPORT FOR ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRIES 
IS STRONG, BUT NEEDS WORK

On the good news side, the Government of Ontario's support for the 
environment industry sector is strong, driven by the province's green 
industry strategy and the Ministry of the Environment's (MOE) Green 
Industry Office (GIO). The Commission found that, "according to a 
1997 survey, the environment sector in Ontario is growing at a rate three 
times that of the Ontario economy as a whole, and that sales are expected 
to double between 1995 and 2000, from C$ 5.8 billion in 1995 to $12.2 
billion in the year 2000."

*****************************************************************

COMMISSION ENCOURAGES CONTINUED SUPPORT FOR OCETA

The Commission found that the Ontario Centre for Environmental 
Technology Advancement (OCETA) is being supported well by 
both the federal and Ontario governments. It reported that, "OCETA 
signed contracts with 56 client environmental companies, creating 
190 new jobs, and generating $18.8 million in new economic activity." 
OCETA works closely with the MOE's Green Industry Office.
The Environmental Commissioner encouraged continued financial 
support for the Centre after its funding runs out in 1999. 
OCETA website at  <http://www.oceta.on.ca/>http://www.oceta.on.ca/

*******************************************************************

ONTARIO'S MINISTRY OF TRADE NEEDS TO DO MORE
FOR ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRY

The Ministry of Economic Development, Trade & Tourism (MEDTT)
has worked side by side with MOE's Green Industry Office on export
trade promotion of Ontario's environment industry. However, MEDTT
is blind to the environment industry sector in many of the ministry's
functions, says the Commissioner. The Commissioner found that there 
was, "no mention of green industry in MEDTT's business plans" in the 
last two years. It, "has seen no evidence that the MEDTT has measurable 
targets related to green industry." It further found that, "MEDTT staff 
have little or no training on environmental matters, nor do they track 
environmental issues or referrals. MEDTT does not consider this to be 
part of the economic development role of its regional staff in Ontario". 
MEDTT website  <http://www.ontariocanada.com/>http://www.ontariocanada.com/

*********************************************************************

NEW $500 MILLION ONTARIO R & D TECHNOLOGY FUND
SQUEEZES OUT ENVIRONMENT

The new Ontario Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology (MEST)
has been given direct responsibility for administering the new $500 million
"Ontario Research and Development Challenge Fund" over the next
10 years. The fund is "designed to create alliances and collaboration
between the private and public sectors to promote research excellence
in Ontario while benefitting industries and stimulating high value jobs
in the future." The fund is designed to "focus on five disciplines
which include environmental sciences, engineering, mathematics,
natural sciences, and health sciences."

However, the Commission found that there are policy restrictions in
the fund that makes it virtually impossible to support research and
demonstration of new environmental business technologies. The first 
flaw in the R & D Fund is that it is allocated only for advanced research 
at the bench scale, not to new emerging applicable technologies. Secondly, 
the Commission found that the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry 
of Natural Resources have been left off the selection committee of ministries
responsible for assessing proposals. Worse, the Commission reported that, 
"in the first year of the Fund, 31 projects were funded  .... but there was
no 
funding for environmental research." Check out the MEST website at 
<http://www.est.gov.on.ca/>http://www.est.gov.on.ca/

**************************************************************************

ONTARIO CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAMS FALL SHORT

Ontario's climate change program to help Canada meet its commitment
to the Kyoto Protocol reductions of greenhouse gases, does not have the
substance to drive substantial reductions in the province. The Commission
reported that, "the review of Ontario's progress on climate change has
found that provincial ministries have not done the analyses necessary to
support their assumptions about the ability of their programs to deliver 
reductions in greenhouse gases. The Commission also found that ministries 
do not have plans for consulting the public and that only limited staff 
resources have been assigned to the problems of climate change."

*****************************************************************

AS NUCLEAR POWER IS SHUTDOWN, ONTARIO'S
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS GO UP

The Commission expressed concern that the CANDU nuclear power
plants have been suffering unexpected breakdowns and expensive
repairs, forcing Ontario to switch back over to coalfired electricity.
The Commission reported that, "nuclear power, long an important
component of Ontario's energy mix, supplied more than 60% of the 
energy generated by Ontario Hydro in 1994, and fossil fuels
supplied a mere 10%. But today, the mix has changed dramatically.
Half of Ontario's nuclear capacity is now shut down, and in 1998 
close to 25% of Ontario Hydro's production was coalfired. This 
has caused both and increase in Ontario's overall GHG emissions 
and a shift in the source of the emissions."

"Although Ontario's GHG emissions held more or less steady between 
1990 and 1995, they are projected to rise by about 12% between 1995 
and 2010. In fact, the federal government projected such a rise even before 
Ontario Hydro's unexpected announcement in August 1997 that it was 
shutting down seven nuclear reactors and shifting to more burning of fossil 
fuels", reports the Commission. It reminds us that, "Ontario produced
nearly 30% of Canada's GHG emission in 1995, almost as much as
Alberta, and far more than any of the rest of the provinces."
Ontario Hydro website 
<http://www.hydro.on.ca/ontariohydro.html>http://www.hydro.on.ca/ontariohydr
o.html

*****************************************************************

ONTARIO'S EMISSIONS TRADING PROGRAM "PERT" IS WEAK

The Commission found that the new experimental "Pilot Emissions
Reduction Trading" (PERT) program lacks transparency and lacks
accountability measures such as an accurate inventory of emissions,
an agreed upon cap on total emissions for a given locality and lacks
the institutional ability to verify reduction rates. PERT focuses primarily
on those pollutants that cause smog including NOX, SOX, and CO2. 
Members of PERT include Ontario Hydro, Consumers Gas, Detroit
Edison, DOFASCO, Stelco, Shell Chemical, and Union Gas.
PERT emission reduction credits are created when a source reduces its 
emissions below either the actual emission level, or the level required 
by regulation, which ever is lower. Credits must be real, surplus, 
quantifiable, and verifiable. Website for PERT is
<http://www.pert.org/>http://www.pert.org/

*******************************************************************

KEY FACTORS FOR MAKING EMISSIONS TRADING WORK

The Commission, in reviewing PERT, made a number of 
recommendations for successful emissions trading programs.
In addition, to the need for transparency and accountability,
the Commission recommended that, "the emissions cap must
be set at a level below actual emissions at the beginning of
the program". It recommended that emissions trading programs
need to, "include effective monitoring and enforcement components."
It recommended the need for "appropriate monitoring and 
enforcement systems that can ensure effective compliance."
The Commission cautioned that there may not be value in
counting emissions reductions as credits in trading programs,
reductions that were caused by incidents and accidents not
caused by specific efforts to reduce emissions below the cap.
The Commission said that, "for example, the economic
collapse of the former Soviet Republics means that" reductions
"are expected to be 150 million tons below the GHG limits each
year during the 2008 to 2012 Kyoto commitment period. The
Kyoto agreement allows them to trade these credits even though 
they would never have been emitted."
See the IEAA trading emissions newsletter at website 
<http://www.ecn.nl/unit_bs/etsap/newslet>http://www.ecn.nl/unit_bs/etsap/ne
wslet/

*****************************************************************

ONTARIO FALLING BEHIND IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY

The Commission reported that, "the Ontario government missed an 
opportunity to promote better energy efficiency standards and help
to achieve Ontario government commitments to reduce greenhouse
gases emissions." The Commission worried that, "Ontario was once 
considered a North American leader in energy efficiency standards. 
Now Ontario is about two years behind the U.S. in implementing 
stricter efficiency standards in some areas such as refrigeration 
technology." These comments were issued in response to Ontario's 
approval of a new Regulation 32698 amending O. Reg. 82/95 made 
under the Energy Efficiency Act. It found that this new regulation fell 
far short in initiatives required to strengthen Ontario's energy 
efficiency efforts. 

        ************************************************************
*****************************************************************************

             $180.90 ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION TO
            THE GALLON ENVIRONMENT LETTER 

Subscribe to "The Gallon Environment Letter". The 8 to 10 page newsletter is
loaded with up to date business and policy information that your company, 
government agency, or organization can use immediately. It is provided twice 
a month. It is also accompanied by the "Green Jobs Available Report" that is 
sent to you once a month. Subscribe now. Send a cheque for $180.90 a year 
($169.00+ $11.90 GST) and help finance the research that delivers inside 
information and breaking news on environment business in Canada and the
world. 
Make your cheque out to, "Gallon Letter", 506 Victoria Ave., Montreal,
Quebec, 
H3Y 2R5.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
     Copyright (c) 1999 Canadian Institute for
      Business and the Environment, Montreal
              All rights reserved.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

---
You are currently subscribed to permaculture as: [email-masked]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]