| ICE Case Studies
|
|
I.
Case Background |
Since its inception in 1973, the James Bay Project, which involves damming several rivers and flooding territory, has increasingly come under the scrutiny of the international community. The region of this project is also home to the Cree and Inuit Indian tribes. Originally conceived as an avenue for Quebecois independence and self-sufficiency, it has now become the center of controversy in the Canadian political scene. The media criticize the series of large development plans for their environmental and social implications, environmentalists and, as of recently, importers of electric power in the U.S. Moreover, the James Bay Project embodies the ongoing friction between the Province of Quebec and the government of Canada.
On the evening of April 30, 1971 Quebec Premier Robert
Bourassa unveiled plans created by Hydro-Quebec, the state-run
electric company, for a hydro-electric project that would dam
several rivers in Northern Quebec, create tens of thousands of jobs
and create a new trade base for Quebec in surplus power for export
and to entice investment in extractive industries. Two months
later, the feasibility study being conducted by Hydro-Quebec had
not even been completed, but the construction of roads into the
James Bay Area began. Bourassa saw this project as a way of
creating much needed jobs and increasing the economic autonomy of
the Province.
The James Bay Project became controversial because of the
considerable stakes involved. Hydro-Quebec, the state-owned
utility company that has supervised the construction, is the
primary engine of economic growth for Canada's Francophone
province. Hydro-Quebec's venture is a means for achieving a
certain independence from Canada. Likewise, the Inuits and
especially the Cree Indians maintain that they will violate their
right to self-determination if they expand the project (see BABYSEAL and ECFURBAN cases). The environmental risks
are also central to the controversy. Flooding the area to create
artificial lakes will alter an already fragile ecosystem. Species
especially at risk include the Beluga whale, several migratory
birds and fresh water seals. Since the 1970s repeated, the Cree
and environmental groups against Hydro-Quebec have initiated law
suits. In addition, several contracts between U.S. utility
companies and Hydro-Quebec have fallen through. James II has been
delayed due to pressures domestically and at the international
level for a joint federal-provincial environmental impact
assessment.
Northeastern Canada has, per unit of surface area, more
flowing water than almost anywhere else on the globe. It is in
the many rivers flowing into the James Bay and Hudson Bay that
industrialists and politicians saw the potential to spur economic
growth in the traditionally backward Province of Quebec. Hydro-
Quebec, government owned since 1963, embarked on a mission to
transform the natural waterways into a system of dams and
reservoirs to generate electric power for Canada and New England.
The first phase of the project, James I, or the La Grande Project,
resulted in three power stations capable of generating 10,282
megawatts of energy at a cost of $13.8 billion. Although the La
Grande Project is still underway (six more power stations are to be
built), the next major stage in Hydro-Quebec's plans is to build a
complex at another location, on the Great Whale River. This
project, known as James II, is stimulating the most debate,
worldwide.
Proponents of this colossal scheme argue that large amounts
of electricity are needed for Canadians, who warm their homes and
businesses with electric power, and for the U.S. which will be
seeking alternatives to polluting coal power plants and
controversial nuclear power plants. They maintain that
hydroelectric power is environmentally sound in that it is
renewable and does not contribute to global warming. For French-
Canadians, Hydro-Quebec is a source of pride for its innovations in
hydroelectric power and its contribution to economic growth.
The magnitude of the project represents the greatest threat to
the environment. The Great Whale project would flood 5,000 square
kilometers of land in an area in which 12,000 Cree and 5,000 Inuit
live. Cree and environmentalists have pointed out that the areas
to be flooded are the only areas suitable for the native animals.
These animals, including caribou, snow geese, marten, beaver, black
and polar bears and elk are at risk of losing their habitat.
Decomposition of trees as a result of flooding creates a
highly toxic form of mercury, methyl-mercury, which is passed down
the food change. People whose diets are based on fish are
poisoned, as are other endangered species, notably the Beluga whale
and the fresh water seal. One cocnern is about destroying the
balance of a complex hydraulic cycle which is not completely
understood, but known to contribute to weather patterns. Hydro-
Quebec has also indirectly harmed the environment through its
secret contracts with aluminum companies and other polluting
customers who buy underpriced power. This costs the utility and
taxpayers between $1.5 and $10 billion.
Hydro-Quebec's venture, and the support it receives from the
Quebec government are directly threatening to the indigenous
population in Northern Quebec. Since Europeans first settled
Northern American, the Cree and the Inuit have been forced to
relocate further North each time a discovery of a marketable
resource was made.
Since the early 1970s the Cree has been struggling to protect
their lands or at least receive compensation. The 1975 James Bay
and Northern Quebec Agreement between Hydro-Quebec and the Indians
was thought to be a solution to the conflict between the two
interests. However, the Cree believe the utility company has
violated the agreement by not performing environmental impact
assessments and by beginning the construction of more plants
despite low demand. Hydro-Quebec contends to the contrary, that it
was understood in the agreement that the company could complete its
foreseen project, including one on the Great Whale River.
A recent Supreme Court decision in Ottawa illustrates the
tensions between Quebec's drive for independence and the drive for
self-determination by the Cree. In 1990, the National Energy Board
granted Hydro-Quebec a license to export electricity to New York
and Vermont provided that the production of electricity did not
conflict with relevant environmental standards and that an
environmental assessment was performed (by the national government)
to determine that there were no violations. Quebec appealed this
decision on the grounds that the whole James Bay Project was being
subjected to federal control and eventually won. The case was
brought to the Supreme Court by the Cree. The Court ruled that a
federal review of Hydro-Quebec dams is required, if they are
connected to export contracts. Although a victory for the Cree,
they could not convince the Court that licenses to export be
completely revoked. Moreover, the Court has given Hydro-Quebec
permission to begin construction of yet another dam (Ste.
Marguerite).
Continent: North America
Region: Eastern North America
Country: Canada
Reservoirs built on the La Grande complex first submerged
83,000 kilometers of stream and lake banks, and then, 12,000 square
kilometers of forest. Because the water levels in reservoirs
fluctuate according to demand -- going down in the winter and
rising in the summer -- nature does not have a chance to replace
lost wetland habitats. A loss of a habitat implies a loss of
species.
This issue is similar to others around the world. People in
many nations, such as Egypt and India, have been displaced as a
result of hydro-development. In some cases, the result was bloody:
in Binar, India, the Santal people were subject to government
reprisals killing 8 demonstrators. Whether for agriculture or
for hydro-electric power, the building of dams and the creation of
reservoirs, in addition to the flooding, can come with other
problems. In
high erosion areas, the river can become very silty, fouling
turbines as well as destroying habitat downstream; the enormous
pressure of water retained in reservoirs can create seismic
hazards; and decomposition of vegetation left in flooded areas can
release greenhouse gasses as well as concentrating naturally
occurring methyl-mercury in fishing areas, where contaminated fish
are then eaten by the local population.
The level of mercury in the environment is already well above
those internationally regarded as being safe, and the number of
cases of mercury contamination exceeds World Health Organization
standards (also a problem in the BRAGOLD case). Hydro-Quebec
believes that other than the habitat damage from the reservoirs,
there will be little adverse environmental and social impact, and
that mercury levels will drop in 20-30 years. Others estimate
that the mercury levels in the reservoirs will not drop for 80-100
years. Studies conducted at the Experimental Lakes Area, in
northwestern Ontario, found that hydro-electric dams, like those
that Hydro-Quebec have created in the James Bay Area, emit as much
greenhouse gas as a fossil fuel plant.
In the push for public awareness, the Cree and Inuit have appealed to the people in the U.S. states to which Hydro-Quebec would sell power. The states in New England provide Hydro-Quebec with huge potential markets for the power generated at James Bay, and because of rates artificially inflated to subsidize power costs for Quebecois, these states represent a huge potential profit. By appealing to the citizenry of these states, the Cree have a chance to take from Hydro-Quebec a portion of its potential revenue. In New York, former Governor Mario Cuomo canceled an estimated $17 billion contract with Hydro-Quebec when the New York State Legislature passed a law requiring the state to explore conservation and alternative energy sources before importing power. Other power companies claim that there will be little or no need for Quebec power in their service areas, and that they too will market surplus power to companies in neighboring states. This will further reduce Hydro Quebec's justification for expanding production facilities in the James Bay area.
IV. Environment and Conflict Overlap
V. Related Information and Sources
Benesh, Peter. "Canada's White Whales are Dying." World Press
Press Review. 36 (January, 1989): 56.
Boras, Alan. "Plant Signals a Boom." Calgary Herald. June 19,
1993, Sec. A, 1.
"Cree Indians Accept Reward But Want Hydro Plants
Halted." Inter Press Service. January 21, 1993.
Dale, Stephen. "Canada: Native Indians Fight Against Hydro-
Electric Project." Inter Press Service. April 22, 1993.
Crane, David. "Panel Targets Environmental Woes." The Toronto
Star. March 29, 1994, Sec. B, 2.
Euromoney Trade Finance and Banker International. "USA: Hydro
Quebec Left in the Dark." Reuter Textline in Lexis
Nexis, April 1, 1994.
The Gazette. (Montreal). "Hydro Calls Tune." April 2,
1993, Sec. B, 2.
Hamilton, Graeme; Authier, Philip and Heinrich, Jeff. "Cree Beat
Hydro in Top Court: But Dam Project Gets Go-Ahead." The
Gazette. February 25, 1994, Sec. A, 1.
Hamilton, Graeme. "Hydro Blasts U.S. Group for Criticism of
Dams; Think-tank Calls Utility 'Paranoid'." The Gazette
(Montreal). January 12, 1993, Sec. A, 4.
Hydro-Quebec Urged to Harness Wind instead of Rivers."
The Ottawa Citizen. March 21, 1994, Sec. A, 3.
Heinrich, Jeff. "Hydro Under the Microscope." The Gazette.
March 14, 1994, Sec. F, 8.
Jaekl, Christian. "James Bay: Prometheus vs. the Environment."
Swiss Review of World Affairs. April, 1993.
Johnson, William. "Blow to Quebec: Ottawa wins in Court Ruling
Over James Bay." The Gazette. February 25, 1994, B3.
MacDonald, Gayle. "Megaprojects Lose Energy: A Chilly Climate."
The Financial Post. December 30, 1992, Sec. 1, 36.
McCutcheon, Sean. Electric Rivers: The Story of the James Bay
Project. Montreal and New York: Black Rose Books, 1991.
O'Neil, Peter. "Warning from MP Jim Fulton Ignites Firestorm in
Quebec." The Vancouver Sun. February 19, 1993, Sec. A4.
Verhovek, Sam Howe. "Power Struggle." The New York Times
Magazine. January 12, 1992, 16-27.
Wald, Matthew. "Accord with Cree will allow Quebec Utility
to Finish Dams." The New York Times. January 10, 1993,
Sec. 1, 30.
Walsh, Mary Williams. "Loss of Contract Leaves Power Project in
Dark." The Los Angeles Times. April 18, 1992, Sec. A, 3.