The James Bay Project in Northwestern Quebec, Canada

The James Bay Project in Northwestern Quebec, Canada

Introduction

In 1971, the Quebec government in Northern Canada initiated a hydroelectric-power project. This project was to run in two phases and provide a total of 8 power generating stations. The hydroelectric project upon completion was expected to provide half of the country’s hydroelectric power for $13.7 billion. The project entailed massive disruption of waterways in three different rivers Eastmain, Opinaca, and Caniapiscau. In the course of implementation of the project, 11,500 square kilometers were flooded and 19 waterways were altered to create 27 reservoirs. The few opponents of this project included the native Cree inhabitants and early environmental activists. However, in later years, the project raised increased controversy concerning its effects on the population and environment. The project released pollutants into the environment affecting human, animal, and plant life. The natives were not been involved in the project initiation and development (Beyea, Rosenthal, & Hansel, 1990).

Identification of Issues and Stakeholders

The issue of the century represented in the James Bay Hydroelectric Project is perceived to be in three critical phases, first is the concern for the environment and pollution. This follows the effects of globalization. Different from how things were during the first phase of the project in the 1970s, today environmental pollution has been internationalized. It currently has no respect for national or regional borders. People now view the issue of environmental pollution in an international sense. Secondly, the completion of the first phase turned to be rapid. Having not been initially subjected to environmental assessment, there arose increased concerns about the project’s effects on the environment. The second phase was, therefore, subjected to strict environmental assessment, not because this phase exceeded the previous one in the volume, but because after 1975, there has been increasing concern about the environmental impact of projects (Martin, & Hoffman, 2008). The first phase of the project was characterized by massive environmental shortcomings. From the release of methyl mercury into water reservoirs and disruption of the natural boundaries such as shoreline, destruction resulted in the issues being raised by the stakeholders. The third issue is about the people living around these projects. During the launch of the first phase, there was less concern about the people who neighbor the plant and the impact the project would have on their lives. This may have been due to low populations in these areas leading to disregard as well as lack of scrutiny and following from the authorities. However, today the natives represent a big concern.

The main stakeholders in this issue are the experts in the energy sector, biologists, environmentalists, economists, anthropologists, and scholars. Each of these stakeholders has a part to play in the development and possible solution of the issue. For instance, anthropologists have an issue with the unacceptable disregard of the natives in the establishment of the projects including the environmental impact of the project. Biologists are concerned about the discharge of hard metals into waters that affect aquatic life.

Investigation of Relevant Literature

Paul Wertman in a 1983 article explains the real situation and facts surrounding the initiation of the project and the disregard of the natives. From an anthropological point of view, Wertman, explains how the natives’ way of life was disrupted by the project since their hunting, trapping, and fishing grounds were flooded. Which, therefore, affected their only source of livelihood. An initial case in the court had granted the native Cree some of their aboriginal rights claims and they sought compensation for the destroyed source of livelihood and discontinuation of further destruction(Wertman, 1983). However, even with this injunction, the project continued. The expected recognition of the aboriginal rights of the Cree was documented, but little in terms of implementation was observed. The natives had been promised that their hunting and fishing life would not be disrupted, but the land remained flooded. The little compensation they received through the Income Security Program was spent on food and improvement of the conditions of their environment destroyed by the project. This improvement was supposed to be supervised by the Quebec provincial administration, but they did not obey the agreement. Therefore, anthropologists observe that the people were neglected and ignored, something that cannot be allowed to happen. Their insistence and even a court injunction did not interfere with the project. The project disrupted their ways of life and strained the Cree relationship with other natives who claim that the Cree sold out the general natives’ aboriginal rights for meager compensation (Wertman, 1983).

From an environmentalists’ point of view, the first phase of the project caused great disruption of the ecosystem (Beyea et al., 1990). Beyea, Rosenthal, and Hansel describe a conflict between the government, the environmentalists, and the natives. The government views such projects as milestones in economic development and the provision of dependable employment opportunities for the people. The natives feel that the projects are interfering with their way of life while the environmentalists lament the lack of environmental consideration in the initiation of the project. The effects of shoreline destruction and displacement of shoreline birds and vegetation, together with the negative effects of the methyl mercury released in the soil to marine life are all environmental concerns. The authors of this article are also concerned with the effect of the project on the environment in terms of loss of wetlands productivity and a change in the natural waterways which have in the past resulted in the drowning of wildlife during the annual migrations (Beyea et al., 1990). The rise in water levels has also resulted in increased riverbanks erosion. These environmental claims substantiate strict opposition of a similar project to be undertaken without deeper considerations of the impact.

A report by Dr. KonstantiaKoutouki echoes these environmental effects of the project through a study of the procedure followed and the environmental assessment conducted (Koutouki, 2010). The few opponents of the project from the side of the natives had a legitimate claim on basis of environmental impact. There was no proper assessment of the environmental impact of the project. The body that would have been responsible for that was just recently formed. The Canadian Environmental Impact Assessment Act was first enacted in 1995, years after the first phase of hydroelectric power was complete (Koutouki, 2010). Dr. Koutouki extends the assessment further to involve the health impact of the project, an aspect that has not yet been put into consideration. The effects of mercury poisoning on the life of the fish eaters and especially the reproductive health. Referring to a report by the Canadian Health Association, he observes the expected effect of mercury in the fish on the reproductive health of the female population not only in the area of implementation of the project but also far beyond where the fish are taken. The high population of women of childbearing age in Canada augments the concern(Homenuck& Mucklestone, 1978).

The project has also resulted in massive natural phenomenal changes such as the conversion of a saltwater lake to a freshwater lake through disruption of the inflows and outflows of LaGrande estuary. The rise in water temperatures has disrupted marine life throughout the area, raising great concern among biologists who feel that the project is a threat not only to humans but also to other forms of life. The greatest concern is also that the second phase does not indicate that it will have any less devastating effects on life and the environment. The cultural, biological ecosystem has been frustrated by the pollution from the project and this has raised opposition from stakeholders. With the current state of globalization, a project can't ignore the issues of community involvement and environmental pollution which is now looked at in a global sense following the increase in concern of global warming and the greenhouse effect.

Stakeholders Viewpoint

The issue surrounding the project has been looked at by various stakeholders who either oppose or support the project. The main proponents of the project are the energy experts and the economists, while the opponents are a large group of local and international scholars, environmental activists, biologists, and anthropologists.

From the expert's viewpoint, the energy sector in Canada has for a long time required a boost of capacity to help in the expansion of production. The project, therefore, is a milestone towards the achievement of the self-sustainability of the country in terms of energy. The experts argue that the claims concerning the environment are far-fetched since they arose recently after the first phase had been completed. Having been stimulated by the abundance of hydroelectric resources, the project aims at boosting the industrial development in the country through the provision of adequate energy to the upcoming industries (Harvey, 1995). This will not only improve the lives of the people but also create more resources for the improvement of the environment. The stakeholders in the energy sector, therefore, view the community claims as invalid. They argue that their great concern about their land and hunting grounds is primitive and can be solved through the provision of employment opportunities that will help them to change from their subsistence hunting, fishing, and trapping (Collie, 2004).

The economists hail the initiation of the project citing various economic advantages that will be gained upon completion of the project. First, the country will benefit from the reduced cost of importation of energy and increased exportation of the same energy. This follows the relative success of the first phase of the project in the 1970s. Secondly, the reduced energy cost in the country will attract investors who will help the country in terms of economic growth through increased gross domestic products and also the creation of jobs for the millions of unemployed Canadians. The economist argues that the project’s economic advantage of improving the living standards of the people of Canada surpasses the minor effects on the biological and socio-cultural environment. In 2002, the Hydro-Quebec export revenue was documented as $3.467 billion in Canada and United States. The economic benefits of long-term contracts and transactions have led to a consideration of other claims to the opposition of the project as ill motived by the economists (Beyea et al., 1990).

From the opposition's point of view, the economic and developmental benefits of a project should not cause a disregard of the negative effects of the project. The environmentalists observe the whole project as a disruption of the natural habitat and pollution of the environment. The environmental concerns raised about the project have involved;

· Methyl mercury contamination of all water catchment areas in the region surrounding the project site. This mercury has been found to accumulate in fish and other marine animals and also causing soil structure destruction.

· The natural flow of the rivers involved has been disrupted. The result of this is a negative effect on the life of people who depended on the river for farming and other activities. Further, this results in an increased risk of soil erosion (Beyea et al., 1990).

· The regulated flow of water in winter has led to the conversion of the La Grande estuary from a saltwater environment to a freshwater estuary. This ton the environmentalists hurt the vegetation around the area which has been previously adapted to salty conditions.

· Due to flooding a wide area of land, the project has resulted in increased decomposition of the vegetation which is not used to waterlogged soils. The effects of this are increased production of greenhouse gases and contributing to global warming.

· These changes in the water bodies and the reservoirs have resulted in rising in water temperatures leading to loss of natural vegetation and destruction of marine life.

The environmentalists, thus, oppose the continuation of the venture on the basis that there has been no previous environmental assessment to ascertain look into the expected impact of the project(Wertman, 1983).

This viewpoint is shared by the biologists who observe the loss of marine life and disruption of the natural life of the people and the animals in the area as the main concerns. The effects of mercury poisoned fish on the consumers’ reproductive health and the destruction of migratory routes of the wildlife in the area are just a few of the biological impacts of the project.

Since the initiation of the first phase of the project in 1971, there has been an outcry among the natives concerning the interference of the project with their way of life. The anthropologists have shared this concern with the natives and consider the whole idea of the project as disruptive. The flooding of the hunting and trapping areas and the destruction of marine mammals such as seals due to pollution are some of the concerns (Harvey, 1995). The fact that the native Cree raised the concern long before the initial phase was complete and was disregarded indicates ignorance. The natives, especially in Northern Quebec have repeatedly sought an injunction from the court arguing that their community and culture were getting damaged by the project. Despite compensation received from the program through an earlier court case, the natives felt that the project managers did not obey their side of the bargain and still disregarded their land rights. The anthropological point of view is that in the civilized world, the respect for natives and their ways of life should be increasing. Since no culture is primitive, any group of people should be allowed to observe their practices and not be compelled to change by others. Social change should be gradual and non-disruptive (Wertman, 1983).

Evaluation of the Stakeholder Positions

All the stakeholders have a viewpoint that tends to motivate their efforts to support or oppose the project. Such diverse viewpoints are not new in the energy sector and, therefore, the possible solutions can be inferred.

Energy Security

The hydroelectric power plant is an invention that has been in existence in the world for close to a century. The main idea behind this technology is the conversion of the kinetic energy in the moving water to electricity. The technology uses waterfalls both natural and man-made to put water from the rivers into motion. This water then turns turbines that generate electrical energy. It is currently the largest provider of renewable electrical energy in the world. More than 15% of the world's population depends on hydroelectric power. Canadiana situation shows that hydroelectric power provides at least 60% of the electrical needs. The establishment of this system was, therefore, aimed at improving the production standards of the country’s energy system. This was directed towards ensuring that the energy requirements of the country are sufficiently supplied. Energy security is an objective of any government, and the energy experts. The benefits in terms of energy security of a project of such a magnitude as the Quebec project can mask the shortcomings of the project and its effects on the community around and their environment (Harvey, 1995).

The Economic Importance

The economic cost of the project was enormous. The investment was aimed at returning the profits in a short time. With a proper assessment of the energy needs of the country, it was possible to invest $13 billion in the project. The economists argued that the project upon completion would save the country the cost of importing electrical energy and also become a source of revenue for the country through the sale of the excess energy. It was also expected that the country would produce enough electrical energy to make it possible to reduce the consumers’ charges. This would encourage investors to invest in the country following the reduced cost of production. All these are of great economic benefit to the country. With this being a capitalistic world system, the economic gains are enough to mask the negative impact of the project (Homenuck & Mucklestone, 1978).

Environmental Effects of the Project

Various environmental concerns arise during the harnessing of hydropower to get hydroelectric power, Most of these effects of such a project on the environment are being understood in recent years. The project managers need to initially assess the effects and their impact on the environment before embarking on the project. This entails measuring the impact against the benefits. Some impacts on the environment are fatal and with long-lasting consequences. The belief that hydropower is green and completely clean is changed. The concern of the environmentalists is justified through studies.

It has been shown that the inevitable flooding experienced in the hydropower projects causes excessive rotting of vegetation. Decomposition releases large quantities of greenhouse gases. The flooded area causes seeping into the soil of harmful products of the project such as methyl mercury. This contaminates the water reservoirs and adversely affects aquatic life. The mercury in the water is taken in by planktons, eaten by fish, and through the food chain ends up in the humans. The effects of mercury in reproductive health and specifically in neurological development during pregnancy have been medically indicated. The issue of pollution has been internationalized by globalization. Different from the situation during the first phase, today the issue of environmental pollution is a global concern and every project must be subjected to serious scrutiny to ensure that the project does not cause environmental pollution.

Damming a river for the hydroelectric project requires the diversion of various waterways to increase the amount of water that is fed into the dam. This diversion disrupts the natural waterways but also affects the lives of many people and other life forms that depended on the water in its original route and form. Bacteria in the decaying vegetation are moved by the water into rivers and lakes. This contaminates the water in these bodies making it unsafe for use. Therefore, turbidity that results in a form of water pollution should be addressed. The response from the environmental activists has been repeated opposition and lobbying for a law that will govern future projects. As a result,t the government enacted into law the Environmental Impact Assessment Act in 1995 and its amendment in 2002 (Martin & Hoffman, 2008).

Concern for the Community

For any project to be a success, the development of the project is required to not only have any adverse effects on the community but also to improve the community’s way of living. For this to happen, a serious study of the community and its involvement is necessary. When this is not done, the community uproar and opposition to the project can lead to its downfall. In recent years, the growing concern for others due to globalization has increased. Everything being done should be focused on doing the least harm to others. The initiation of the first phase of the Quebec hydroelectric project was at a time when the surrounding community was practicing hunting, trapping, and fishing. At that time, there was less concern for people, and even a court injunction after a case filed by the natives did not halt the project. The project management failed to address the issue of the natives’ aboriginal rights. Anthropologists believe that no culture is primitive, every persons’ way of life should be respected and not interfered with. Naturally, culture changes. But the change should not be forced, rather come from within the community. The Cree people depend mainly on their nature and environment. They obtain their livelihood from the forests, rivers, lakes, and wildlife. The destroyed forests and the flooded areas resulted in a disrupted way of living. The culture of hunting is an important tradition that is upheld by all including those working in offices. The destroyed wetlands had a large and negative social impact on the life of the people. The little compensation that they received after filing a case was not enough to change their ways of life. Their land rights were also denied and there was no available substitution for their ways of life now destroyed. Besides this, the Cree community feared that the project would open the region to external influence, creating unwelcome change and interaction of people threatening their cultural practices (Hornig, 1999).

The natives have repeatedly filed cases to oppose the project. Previously, there was less concern for them, but currently, the involvement of anthropologists and scholars has resulted in deeper considerations, better planning of the project, and adequate involvement of the people in the project. The company is also obligated to practice corporate social responsibility to improve the lives of the community.

Potential Solution to the Issues

Meeting the growing energy need in any part of the world is a big challenge to the stakeholders and governments. The energy needs are rising as does the concern for environmental sustainability. The issues that affect the Quebec Hydroelectric project are based on the improper and unplanned harnessing of the environment. This affects the peoples’ way of life by negatively interfering with their habitat. To provide energy while still keeping the effects of the projects on the ecosystem at manageable levels is a great challenge. Most sources of energy such as coal, have devastating effects on the environment. Hydropower being a less harmful choice is the most widely used. It is however not entirely safe, the concerns raised in this case study are evidence enough.

Want an expert write a paper for you

Talk to an operator now

Start live chat now

Motivated by the need for a search for a solution, Dr. Collier presented a paper in a United Nations Symposium on Hydropower and Sustainable Development in 2004. In this paper titled improving decision making, Dr. Collier explores a variety of approaches that can solve the problem of the environmental impact of hydroelectric power projects (Collie, 2004). First, he describes the importance of optimum assessment of the site and the needs of the community. The social and environmental aspects of the project should be accorded the same attention, consideration, and significance as the economic importance of the project. Destruction of the wetland environment, these projects are in a position to affect the quality of water that the community uses. The impact downstream could also be life-threatening with the repeated floods and destruction of fisheries. Therefore, in such a case, the environment should be precisely studied to ensure that the importance of the project surpasses the prospective effects. Also, the environmentalists should be involved from the initial preparation of the project (Collie, 2004). The other solution to the problem can be using a river basin approach to the site. This means that the site selected should confer little disturbance of the ecosystem, it should involve as minimal flooding area as possible and the effects downstream and impact of fluctuating water levels on the shoreline should be minimized. This process should involve all stakeholders to ensure that all the areas of contention are effectively addressed and avoid opposition when the project is already started.

Compensatory measures should address the whole issue of lifestyle change. In essence, the community whose land is being used should be able to purchase suitable and usable land elsewhere with little effect on their ways of life. This means that there should be an adequate area to settle all the displaced persons and enough money to start them off. Expecting the people to remain in the same place with the changes in their environment is unrealistic. There should be laws governing the use of rivers for large projects. These so-called no-go rivers include those that are a source of livelihood for large communities and where harnessing will result in adverse effects to the environment and the life of the community around. The hydropower certification scheme should also be developed and enforced to ensure that mitigation measures are applied (Collie, 2004).

Stakeholders Bias

The stakeholder's opinions and the cause of all this conflict are to some extent biased. The point of view of the supporters of the project is biased as well. First, there is the issue of ambiguity effect. This means that their strong support tries to avoid the facts surrounding the impact of the project on the environment. The reason behind this support can, thus, be regarded as biased due to lack of information. The decision can also be based on individualism. In this world of capitalism, it is expected that a contractor will try to overlook any facts that would lead to the termination of a project. Therefore, the support could be backed by economic gains.

The opinion of the anthropologists is also biased, the fact that they are in great opposition to the project in the second phase is questionable. This appears to be a backfire effect in which the current reaction is a result of the effects that were experienced during the first phase. In as much as the claims are justified, the vigor with which they are directed to the project appears to have some political influence behind them.

The environmentalists are also affected by biasness in their opposition. Their claims, although real, are an example of the hindsight effect. In this regard, they tend to react to the situation showing that the past outcomes were predictable from the present viewpoint. The opposition is pushed by the need to achieve recognition in this era of globalization.

Personal Opinion

The following are some of the measures that can be taken to reduce such opposition to projects in the future. First, there should be guidelines and legislation governing the selection of sites to establish these projects. This ensures that the environment in which the project is situated can be effectively harnessed without adverse effects on the environment. Secondly, decision-making should be effectively planned to involve all the stakeholders in the sector (Munier, Jimenez Fernandez, 2013). This will enhance support and ensures that there is a comprehensive consideration of all the requirements. Involving the community helps to align the needs of the community to the objectives of the project. Thirdly, as part of the decision-making process, the issues of compensation should be considered. The project managers should ensure that there is adequate study and valuing of the community land and the compensation given should help the displaced persons start a new life with as few as possible hiccups.

Conclusion

To meet the increasing energy demands, efforts to increase the production of energy should be undertaken. These efforts should be directed towards achieving a clean supply of energy that will be sufficient to supply the demand and safe enough for the life of the community and to the environment. Hydropower is one of the most reliable energy sources from which enough energy can be harnessed. However, the project should entail serious environmental consideration to ensure that all the safety measures are considered. The planning process should be done with the community involved in mind. This helps to ensure acceptability and support from within. Lack of this kind of support can be the source of project failures. The failure of a project of this magnitude is something that no economy can comfortably withstand. Reducing opposition, however, is not so easy owing to the presence of biases and external influences that may not be directed promptly.