"The Greenwash of Ontario's 'Lands for Life' Settlement: Why Some Environmental Groups are Complicit in the Tories' Disastrous Plan"

by Tony Weis and Anita Krajnc

Ontario is about to undergo the privatization of nearly half of its public land, with management responsibilities to be largely transferred from the Crown to industrial logging and mining interests. One would naturally assume that the implementation of such momentous decisions would be met with loud protestations from the environmental community. Strangely however, rather than protesting, several major environmental organizations in Ontario are actually helping in the marketing and implementation of this ominous land transfer. How can this be?

On the eve of Ontario's recent election campaign the Mike Harris government entered into last-minute, secret negotiations with a select group of moderate environmental organizations. This came after two years of consultation through an exclusionary process known as Lands for Life designed by the Tories to determine, in one fell swoop, the fate of 45 per cent (or 46 million hectares) of Ontario's land mass (see Map 1). The result was the Ontario Living Legacy initiative and Ontario Forest Accord, announced on March 29, 1999. According to this settlement, roughly 2.4 million hectares (5 per cent of the planning area) will be protected in a total of 378 new provincial parks and protected areas across northern Ontario. The remaining 43.6 million hectares (95 per cent of the planning area) will be the domain of industrial managers.

From the outset of the planning process, it was obvious that Lands for Life was merely a guise to mask the ideological fervor behind the Tories primary goal -- the massive privatization of land management across the province, akin to Alberta's great land sell-off to pulp and paper companies in the late 1980s. However, through the cooptation of some significant environmental voices, the Tories have been successful in greenwashing this enormous land give-away. They boasted in their 1999 election platform that they had created the best system of parks in Canada.

The day after the Tories' Living Legacy announcement, the Partnership for Public Lands -- the coalition of environmental groups involved in the process, led by the World Wildlife Fund Canada, the Wildlands League, and the Federation of Ontario Naturalists -- were quick to congratulate Harris for increasing the percentage of land protected. Monte Hummel, the president of World Wildlife Fund Canada, who had previously been critical of the nature of the process, now boldly stated: "The province has made an unprecedented contribution to conservation on a global scale." The World Wildlife Fund went so far as to give the Tories a B+, the top grade of all provinces in 1999 in protection of wild lands. More surprisingly, Lea Ann Mallett of the formerly more radical group Earthroots proudly stated that "Credit is given where credit is due."

It is very disturbing for these groups to heap such praise on the Lands for Life deal, for two reasons. First, the merits of the deal simply do not stand up under close scrutiny, nor do they even approach the Partnership's modest campaign goals of 15-20 per cent protection. Secondly, the agreement was reached through a highly undemocratic process -- one that excluded natives, many environmental groups, and the public at large.

UNMASKING THE GREENWASH

To unmask the real nature of the deal from its greenwash, we have to focus on the vast majority of the southern half of northern Ontario that is being handed over to logging and mining interests in long-term tenure contracts. The Tories and the greenwashers have together successfully shifted attention away from this giveaway, taking credit for the protection of the 12 per cent of the region now set aside as parks (including the land that was already protected), while ignoring the fate of the 88 per cent being given away (again, which includes 95 per cent of the land under decision). This is especially disturbing in light of the argument made by leading conservation biologists Soule and Sanjayan, who contend that roughly one-half of a land area "is needed to represent and protect most elements of biodiversity, including wide-ranging animal species" (Science, v.279, n.2060). However, rather than establishing the necessary core areas, buffer zones and wildlife corridors to protect the long-term functioning of ecosystems and species diversity, most of the newly protected areas are small, unconnected patches of land (see Map 2 or 3).

While the Forest Accord does allow for increasing the amount of protected areas beyond current additions, this is an unlikely prospect. The deal is premised on a commitment to the logging industry that there will be no net loss of wood fibre to mills. This implies the need for intensified logging on unprotected lands. Further, given current rates of exploitation in Ontario (over 90 per cent of logging is presently done by clearcutting), it is estimated all remaining lands outside protected areas will be logged within 20 years. In short, turning over the vast majority of public lands for intensified industrial uses with corporate-styled self-management has disastrous implications for biodiversity, and can hardly be seen as an environmental accomplishment.

The implementation of Lands for Life will create a landscape of disparate protected islands (habitat patches), with poor landscape connectivity, set in an industrial sea of mining activities, clearcuts, and chemical-intensive tree farms. This does not bode well for the preservation of ecological functioning or the movement of species. Patches that are too small are generally shown to lose both. This is especially so since the total amount of protected area, with additions, still adds up to only 12 per cent of the landscape.

The NDP government of 1990-95 had begun to move the Ministry of Natural Resources towards an ecosystem management approach. Now, the Lands for Life deal may remove the biodiversity components of the Timber Management Class Environmental Assessment and the Crown Forest Sustainability Act to allow intensive forestry. Further, as part of their broader assault on the environment during their destructive first term, the Tories decimated the monitoring and legislative capacity of the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Natural Resources, cutting staffing levels by 36 and 40 per cent respectively. Job losses were concentrated in research, monitoring, inspection and enforcement of environmental laws -- meaning that privatization will be accompanied by a markedly reduced capacity of the public to know what is going on and to do anything about it.

A note on employment is necessary to further shift the focus of discussion. Employment in logging and the volume of wood harvested have had an inverse relationship for the past two decades. In fact, while jobs in the logging sector have been in a prolonged, steady decline since the 1960s, falling by 40 per cent from 1965 to 1990, the average annual harvest increased by 75 per cent over the same time frame. The proclaimed need to maintain current levels of logging in this highly capitalized sector clearly relates much less to jobs than it does to corporate profits. Jobs would actually increase by a de-intensification of logging practices, with emphasis on such things as selective logging, value-added processing within northern communities, and ecotourism. But such logic obviously did not mesh with the vested interests of owners, managers and shareholders intent on maintaining the exploitative status quo.

PSEUDO-PROTECTIONISM

The second argument in unmasking the greenwash is that the newly protected areas are not even protected. That is, they do not meet the international definition of protected areas because they allow mining. In 1988, the Ontario Liberal government banned mineral exploration in all provincial parks. However, the Tories' proposed changes would actually reduce the protection of new parks and reserves, allowing mining within protected areas that have high mineral potential (who will define 'high mineral potential'?). Such areas would become floating reserves, in which land swaps would be allowed between formerly protected areas and other (likely already disturbed) land elsewhere.An obvious fear is that high mineral potential will trump high natural value, even when natural values may not exist elsewhere.

Another frightful change is the allowance of sport hunting and commercial trapping in all new protected areas (except Nature Reserves), a change demanded by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. It is very telling to note that only 13 of the 378 new parks are Nature Reserves. Also troubling is the fact that the Harris Government announced amendments to the Lands for Life deal in July after it was re-elected, in which existing wilderness parks in the Lands for Life area may also be opened to sports hunting, subject to separate consultative processes.

Gus Zylstra of the ProNature Network questions the discounting of wildlife by wilderness groups in the Lands for Life settlement: "Certainly, some of our last old growth forests will be protected under this plan, but will they be empty forests or forests robbed of their natural bio-diversity through the proposed fish stocking and wildlife enhancement programs? Do we merely throw in the towel and allow the 'hook and bullet crowd' to determine what a natural ecosystem should be comprised of?". This sort of environmental 'protection' bears an ominous resemblance to policies of the anti-environmentalist Wise Use Movement in the U.S., which advocates the opening up of parks to mining, logging, commercial trapping, and industrial recreation such as hunting, snowmobiles, and four-wheel drive vehicles.

Together, the Living Legacy and Forest Accord represent an ideology where complete human dominion is sanctified through economistic arrogance, with short-term economic rationality the sole arbiter of public policy. There is an implicit acknowledgment in the settlement that no land or species have a right to exist apart from their economic worth to humans, all too evident in the fact that even in the newly protected areas the rights of other species are defined by their value as blood sport.

EXCLUSION OF FIRST NATIONS

The complete exclusion of First Nations peoples from the planning process and the failure of the settlement to increase their land and managerial rights constitutes another fundamental problem that has been almost completely absent from the public debate on Lands for Life. Reforming the land management regime over such a vast extent of land could ideally have been a vehicle to address the ongoing and debilitating colonial inequities faced by Ontario's First Nations. However, the process and the decision have only further embedded the second-class status and economic marginalization of First Nations peoples, inevitably increasing frustration and resentment.

Further, land north of 50 was included in the Forest Accord negotiations between the government, the Partnership for Public Lands, and the resource industries, even though it was not part of Lands for Life. This represents an intent to move industrial forestry north and build public roads north of 50. The Anishnawbe Nation were not part of the process, yet their land was bargained away.

UNDERSTANDING THE GREENWASH

At the outset of the planning process, the Partnership for Public Lands set an initial goal of obtaining a minimum of 15-20 per cent protection -- a modest goal that had widespread public support. The Partnership itself consistently referred to polls over the past three years which showed that roughly 80 per cent of the public supported at least 20 per cent land protection, with even higher levels of support in the north. Now these same environmental groups are putting on a happy face and assuring both the environmental community and the public at large that a 12 per cent settlement with major loopholes in it is somehow a success, an "outstanding achievement"? Why the greenwash?

The complicit role of many key environmental groups and environmental leaders is related to a deeply flawed process, a carefully orchestrated government strategy of divide-and-conquer, and handsome pay-offs to the eager takers.

A FLAWED PROCESS

The Lands for Life process began in 1997 when the Harris government created three land use planning roundtables -- Boreal East, Boreal West, and Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Lowlands. Each of the roundtables was heavily stacked by the Tories to favor logging, mining and hunting interests. The proposal was released in November 1998, and the public was given a 30-day comment period to review the 250 recommendations in the consolidated roundtable report. This initial proposal was so overwhelmingly pro-industry that even the Partnership for Public Lands was outraged.

However, rather than acting on these initial recommendations, in fear that the environmentalists might make this an election issue and stir up Ontario's semi-comatose electorate, in early 1999 the Harris government entered into secret negotiations with resource industry representatives and the Partnership for Public Lands. When the result of these negotiations -- the Living Legacy deal and the Forest Accord -- were announced on March 29, the public was again given only 30 days to comment. At the same time, the government announced a separate deal with the mining industry, having excluded the public from the process as usual (although the Partnership for Public Lands was already aware of parts of the mining deal in February).

In short, the Harris government used an unfair, unrepresentative blitzkreig approach. This ensured that the process would be hijacked by industrial interests. The secrecy and lack of consultation inherent in this agreement left little room for public involvement, debate and discussion -- in complete contradiction to the promises made by the government at the outset that the process would herald a new era of public involvement in land use planning.

COOPTATION, CONSERVATISM, AND GROUPTHINK

The government aimed to divide and conquer the environmental movement. It picked off moderate environmental groups to negotiate with, who had themselves undergone some degree of self-selection by choosing to participate in the conservative Partnership. The task was further facilitated by the convenient cross-fertilization between Harris' neo-conservatives and the World Wildlife Fund's corporate board members. Chief among these was David Lindsay, a Harris confidant and former campaign manager, who was sitting at the table for the government and is also a director of the World Wildlife Fund, one of the Partnership's members.

The conservative outlook of mainstream greens such as the World Wildlife Fund represents what has been called shallow or reformist environmentalism. That is, such groups are unwilling to confront deep, foundational environmental issues of overconsumption, corporate control over the economy, industrial production levels, inequality, denial of indigenous knowledge and land rights, and a human dominionist mind-set. Rather than challenging the destructive assumptions of the prevailing paradigm (that is, its root causes), they see environmental protection merely in terms of reforming some of its worst symptoms and saving a few of the remaining small parcels of wildlands as protected areas. For evidence of the intense conservatism of mainstream environmental groups like the World Wildlife Fund, one need only glance briefly at some of its corporate contributors and board members (see box). Obviously, having sold their souls to the captains of our corporate economy, it is little surprise that the World Wildlife Fund and its partners have become compliant pawns in negotiations with a neo-conservative government. _____________________________________________________ 

Corporate Funding, Compliant Agenda: Select WWF Donors

Nature of Tomorrow Campaign Donors (1995-96)

PARTNERS ($500,000 - $1,000,000 and above)
Husky Injection Moulding Systems Ltd.
The Canadian Life Assurance Company N. M. Davis Corporation

STEWARDS ($250,000 - $499,999)
The Richard Ivey Foundation
Royal Bank Financial Group Canadian Airlines Petro-Canada

PROTECTORS ($100,000 - $249,999)
The Molson Foundation
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
Noranda Inc.
ScotiaBank
Amoco Canada Petroleum Company

ADVOCATES ($50,000 - $99,999)
Nova Corporation of Alberta
Price Waterhouse

SUPPORTERS CIRCLE ($500 - $49,999)

S. C. Johnson and Son
Shell Canada Limited
Laidlaw Foundation
McDonald's of Canada Limited
General Motors
The Home Depot

Source: World Wildlife Fund Canada 1998 Annual Review

The government's strategy of dividing and conquering the environmental camp worked better than planned. Even Harris and his cronies must have been surprised at the inability or unwillingness of other environmental groups to voice opposition to the deal and the undemocratic process. One reason is that there simply was not enough time, given the scope of the proposed changes and the short period of time given for public comment. For example, the Canadian Environmental Law Association wrote a highly critical preliminary analysis of the Lands for Life proposals, but was only able to release it three weeks after the 30-day deadline for public comment.

Another reason is the phenomenon of groupthink. Groupthink is described by social psychologists as a dysfunctional tendency of small groups to follow a leader's views and suppress any dissenting views. With the Partnership for Public Lands and Earthroots taking the lead in congratulating the Harris Government and distributing literature and postcards urging the public to do the same, other environmental groups were left confused and unsure of whether to publicly disagree and rock the boat, out of fear that if the deal were scuttled even the small increases in protection might be lost.

Some of the greenwashers supporting the deal even went so far as to actively lobby opposition parties and other environmental and animal rights groups not to publicly dissent, thus ensuring that little informed public discussion or debate about the overall flaws and merits of the agreement would take place. This helped ensure that the media did not report critically on the deal (with the notable exception of a series of increasingly devastating Toronto Star editorials), all of which worked marvels for Harris who had mainstream environmental groups, industrial interests, and the media flattering the Lands for Life settlement mere months before an election.

THE BUY-OFF

With the re-election of the Harris Government in June, implementation of Lands for Life will occur, most likely behind closed doors. Not surprisingly, the new boards set up for the task comprise members of the Partnership for Public Lands as their environmental representatives. Tim Gray, executive director of the Wildlands League and chief negotiator for the Partnership in the secret deal, and Ric Symmes, executive director of the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and chair of the Partnership, now sit on the Ontario Forest Accord Advisory Board.
In addition, World Wildlife Fund and Federation of Ontario Naturalists were given the authority to nominate members to one of the seven positions on the new $30 million Living Legacy Trust. The Trust will provide funding for research on intensive silvicultural practices, and ecological research on fish and wildlife habitat and population linkages.

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

Apart from a few potential legal challenges, which hold out faint glimmer of hope, the overwhelming sentiment among those most familiar with the process (on both sides) is that Lands for Life now awaits only an inevitable rubber stamp. Where does that leave opponents of the deal?

Although polls suggest that the vast majority of Ontarians are opposed to the meagre levels of protection afforded by the deal, the reality is that very few still know what's going on. In fact, an Oracle poll from the spring 1999 suggested that only 14 per cent of Ontarians were aware of Lands for Life. Thus, there is great urgency for critical public education to counter the heavy greenwash which continues to mask the issues.

Even if the implementation proves unstoppable, such education could begin to sow the seeds of resistance against the many environmental dangers lurking in Harris' second term. These include the negotiation of long-term leases for logging companies, logging north of 50 degrees, further cuts to the Environment and Natural Resources ministries, and the introduction of a Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act, promised in the Tories' Blueprint. As well, although the new parks have already been largely drawn up, there remains the need to further articulate that biogeography concerns over corridors be taken into account in future land use planning. For instance, the campaign for the Y to Y (Yukon to Yellowstone) Corridor in the Rockies has built much steam, and the fledgling A to A Corridor (Algonquin to Adirondack) is an example of how connectivity can be understood and promoted.

Ultimately, concerned environmentalists can only hope the struggle to make people aware of the problems with Lands for Life (both the process and the outcome) will be a catalyst for the formation of a deep ecology movement in Ontario, the way the confluence of the Cold War, nuclear militarism, and the threat of ecospheric annihilation helped bring peace and environmental activists together to form Greenpeace in 1971. A movement that combines deep environmental ethics, social justice and First Nations priorities, together with animal rights concerns, could take the lead in the pursuit of a more compassionate and sustainable society.

The issues of this article go on and on...  Please see these links for an update on even more current issues - http://www.pronature.on.ca/news.html and http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Anita+Krajnc&btnG=Google+Search 

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Tony Weis is a doctoral student in Geography at Queen's University and is a member of the Executive Committee of the Eastern Canada chapter of the Sierra Club. 

Anita Krajnc, PhD, serves as the Sierra Club's Eastern Chapter chair of the Forest and Wildlife Campaign. Her research interests and environmental activism have focused on forest and wildlife protection, and staff and funding levels at the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE). She is currently a Globalism Project Post-Doctoral Fellow at the University of Toronto's Department of Political Science working on problems related to economic globalization, the shrinking role of government in environmental protection, and citizen protests against corporate globalization.

Anita published an article on cuts to the MOE in Canadian Public Policy (March 2000), and co-authored (with Tony Weis) articles on "Lands for Life" and "The New Politics of Bloodsport in Ontario" in Canadian Dimension.

Focus:
Forests and wilderness issues, Ministry of Environment cut backs and policy changes

Email: anita.krajnc@sierraclub.org