What is the role of a board when their agency has a public role or responsibility, and when their actions have profound public consequences?
Like, say, Port Metro Vancouver.
They have a dilemma, one that has become more recently acute with the proposed expansion of coal facilities at Canada’s largest and busiest port, the economic engine of this region. As Robin Silvester, the CEO, related at the annual general meeting last week, coal exports have set a new record – and that other major source of carbon, crude oil, saw over a 30 percent percent increase..
But while they can address concerns over the local impacts of goods movement, they cannot deal with what is traded, only how. That is determined by the Canada Marine Act..
If the public has concerns over the global impact of coal, that is a question for the federal government. So, in effect, go to Ottawa. And good luck with that.
.
.
Because their board meetings are held mostly in camera, there are few opportunities to directly question or comment to the members. But at a carefully choreographed question period held at the end of the AGM, the several dozen people at the mike had only one topic: the impact of coal on the local and global environment.
.
And some of the questions were pretty brutal: “If one accepts that the burning of 150 tonnes will result in one death, the increase of coal exports will result in 700,000+ deaths. Will you factor that in to your decision? From an ethical perspective, can you answer that?”
.
That, repeated Silvester, is an issue that needs to be raised with federal government.
.
It’s not as though the Port is oblivious to its community responsibility: its board has a Community Social Responsibility Committee; 1 percent of net income is devoted to community enrichment; it held over 600 community stakeholder meetings last year; it is one of only two ports that compiles an externally validated sustainability report, it is successfully addressing port-related emissions – and it delivers millions to government as well as, directly and indirectly, nearly a hundred thousand well-paying jobs across the country.
.
But responsibility, at least in some small part, for the human viability of the planet? Not their job.
.
Well, asked one astute questioner: “What can we do to help make caring about climate change your job?”
.
Silvester: We will stick to the mandate of Canada Marine Act.
.
That seems to me a pretty reasonable response, except for one thing. Even within their mandate, those responsible for assessing risk and preparing for the future must consider the possible consequences of climate change. What would a change in, say, the cost of carbon if suddenly imposed have on their books? What damage might extreme events cost. (The current floods in Germany alone are already estimated to cost over $6 billion, no doubt impacting shipping and goods movement.)
.
The question I ask to determine a level of seriousness: When did you last get a scientific briefing on climate change and probable impacts on your operations? Haven’t heard back from the Port on that one.
.
At the moment, there is a certain deer-in-the-headlights look to the board members who attempt to avoid direct answers to uncomfortable questions. The chair, Allan Baydala, was asked: “Do you believe this coal project has broad public support and is in best interest of Canadians?”
.
“Well, it’s difficult to measure support,” he responded.
.
And they’re not likely to ask.
.
.
[The appropriate process is underway locally, however. Metro politicians will be voting Friday on a motion that, in addition to dealing with the proposed expansion of new coal handling infrastructure, also requests: “… Port Metro Vancouver, Transport Canada and Environment Canada require the necessary mitigation measures and monitoring to address emission sources that are not within the jurisdiction of Metro.”]
UPDATE: UBC Political Science prof Kathryn Harrison makes a good point in her op-ed in the Vancouver Sun:
The port also has adopted a narrow construction of its environmental authority. Port spokespersons regularly state that their mandate is only to facilitate trade, without acknowledging their equally important mandate “to operate with broad public support in the best interests of Canadians.” The Canada Marine Act, which governs port operations, identifies both promotion of trade and provision of a high level of safety and environmental protection as equal goals.
The port insists it has no authority to consider climate change. However, Section 7.1 of the port’s letters patent authorizes the Port to conduct environmental assessments, without restriction on the nature of the environmental impacts. Section 11.1 directs the port to comply with all international obligations and agreements. As Canada is a signatory to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, that section not only invites, but may even require, consideration of a project’s contribution to climate change.
.
“It’s not as though the Port is oblivious to its community responsibility”
The Port’s behaviour and conduct on the North Shore over the past 24 months has been nothing short of disgraceful. The current Board is singlehandedly exhausting all of the Port’s goodwill and political capital in a very short period of time.
I’d have to agree with the port. We’re asking the port to make decisions that we as individuals and as an electorate have to make.
I know the topic is the proposed new surrey coal terminal, but to play devil’s advocate, why don’t we close the existing westar coal terminal at Roberts Bank? If they ship 29 million tonnes of coal currently (wikipedia), that’s ~ 19,300 deaths according to the figure above. Wouldn’t that be a compelling reason to close what is there already?
sorry, forgot one more decimal point – 193000 deaths per year from roberts bank.
I’m not sure how opponents got 700,000 estimated deaths from the surrey terminal unless it is over multiple years.- it’s planned that it will handle 4 million tonnes of coal per year.
http://portmetrovancouver.com/en/projects/OngoingProjects/Tenant-Led_Projects/FraserSurreyDocks.aspx
Problem is, for projects like the proposed introduction of coal exports at Surrey Fraser Docks, the Port is the sole representatvie of the Federal Government at the table. Silvester conveniently forgets he is running both a busienss and a regulatory agency. When you go to a public consultation on Port operations and he says “ask the Federal Government” – he IS the federal government.