| Share facebook | RSS

4
Comments

ambassador Report View

Development in the North: A Case Study

by | 18-08-2015 07:33 recommendations 0

Hello Friends,


In this article I would like to share another story I learned about during my Arctic Expedition. This story is one concerning development and conservation – and whether both are mutually exclusive. Often times, we consider the most forms of development can be harmful to the environment. Whether it be mining, energy, or oil and gas extraction, the prospect of building upon and damaging the natural landscape and what lives in it, can be considered detrimental to the environment. While on the Arctic Expedition we passed through various communities, islands and places in the Canadian Northern Archipelago. One of these places we passed close to was the region of Southern Baffin Island in the Canadian territory of Nunavut. Proposed to be built on the Mary River area, the Baffinland mine is an open pit iron ore mine which has drawn a lot of controversy.


There exists an extensive divide among the people of Northern Canada as to whether this development would result in the best situation for their lands. Since the discovery of the ore body in 1962, there has been a lot of politics and economics which has taken place on the subject of this development. The high stakes story which has developed surrounding this project involves many people as stakeholders: the corporations, the various government departments and agencies, and most importantly the people of the North.


This story started in 1962 with the discovery of the ore body by a prospector named Murray Watts. Upon the death of Watts twenty years later, the claim to the ore body was acquired by the company called Baffinland. Baffinland, a small company, went public in order to raise the funds for this project. However, the project has encountered major controversy and difficulties. At the very centre is the question of transporting the ore. The initial plan of transportation of the ore involved a specifically designed railway suited to arctic conditions which was financially ambitious. The initial cost of the project in 2006 was $350 million. The route of choosing to transport over land using a railroad was considered both long term and environmentally friendly. However by 2011, the cost of this project had increased by four fold and due to the fall in price of ore, Baffinland supposedly had to revise their plans. The new plan had the company revert back to using trucks to transport over land to nearby Milne Inlet on southern Baffin Island. There the ore would be transported by freighters every 2 days for 11 months a year.


The environmental concern of this new plan is twofold. First, the new plan involves using trucks to transport ore over 100 km. This is more polluting as well as perhaps financially harmful over a long term to the company. Second, the fleet of icebreakers operating through both Milne Inlet and Lancaster Sound 11 months a year basically ensures the existence of an ice free path through Lancaster Sound. This is considered to be a drastic change to the natural conditions in the region which tend to freeze over in the winter months. This can be detrimental to the habitat of several animals – both land and sea. However, this specific type of alternation has never been noted in this area before. Hence, the certainty in what the impact will be upon local wildlife is low. While the corporation maintains that the impact will be either non-existent or even positive, many people believe differently.


Another interesting twist to the plan is that the planned freighter routes passes directly through the proposed Lancaster Sound Marine Protected Area. I will be discussing the importance of the National Parks and Marine Protected Areas in Canada`s north in articles to come.


However, for now it is to be noted that this project will provide many opportunities for employment in northern Canada. It may also damage the environment in lands where the people of the North are dependent on the land. In this situation, it is important to consider the effect that revised plans which may be financially uncertain in the future as well as proven to be more harmful environmentally can have upon the people.


If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to comment below.


Regards,

Nitish


photo credit: nunatsiaqonline.ca

 

 
pic

no image

  • Dormant user
 
 
  • recommend

4 Comments

  • Luiz Bispo says :
    I do agree with my mates Arushi and Harmanjot! I reckon that is not sustainable development. The environmental aspect is not respected. Anyway, thanks for sharing Nitish! Keep it up. =)
    Posted 20-08-2015 13:23

  • Rohan Kapur says :
    Any type of sustainable development is good & encouraging. Thanks Nitish for the report.
    Posted 19-08-2015 19:30

  • says :
    The new plan that uses trucks for transportation will definitely pollute the environment.Changing the natural conditions of an area for commercial purposes is not acceptable.Yes,generation of employment is a good aspect,but the environmental impact will also have to be kept in mind.Thanks for the report.
    Posted 19-08-2015 14:21

  • Arushi Madan says :
    The case you have put here is not an example of sustainable development . Damaging the natural habitat of many species to make clear /ice free way for ore transportation is not good.
    But it will open employment opportunities for many , this is a good part.Thanks for sharing , Nitish.
    Posted 19-08-2015 02:55

Post a comment

Please sign in

Opportunities

Resources