Canada 63
dynamic with actors – e.g. humans, community, animals, plants, water – on a
level playing field. The definition of ecological integrity from a perspective of
biotic indicators (moose, fisher, fish, edible berries’ habitats), demonstrate a
local interpretation of environmental impact which stakeholders can relate
to, are able to monitor, and can commit to protecting. As reported by
Whitmarsh, Seyfang, and O’Neill (2011), community involvement is a key
factor for the success of policies for climate change mitigation. Therefore,
from the local context, the pathway ‘hold your horses’ is expected to be more
successful in achieving its goals – if implemented – rather than the other
futures that lack elements that local communities can be represented in and
be relate to. This scenario could be extrapolated to the national plans for
climate change mitigation and adaptation. Today, the international discourse
is defined on GHG emissions, a concept that is not tangible or relatable to
challenges present at the local reality of the communities.
Future outlook
In the quest for identifying lower- carbon pathways envisioned by the
stakeholders in the Alberta oil sands sector, three main scenarios were
identified: one following the official proposal from the provincial government,
one based on Indigenous needs and priorities, and one based on a combined
strategy created by the collaboration of several groups and aligned with federal
strategy. Within these pathways, implementation and consequential barriers
were captured from stakeholders as potential risks should this future materialise.
These barriers mostly concentrated around economic losses, environmental
degradation, social imbalance, and health impacts. Whether these risks were
noticeable depended on the point of view of each stakeholder. However, a
bigger risk is linked to the lack of consensus among stakeholders and the
absence of a pathway capable of unifying and representing all viewpoints.
From the futures captured, the Indigenous communities most directly impacted
by the oils sands development, i.e. where the sector develops in traditional land in
the vicinity of their communities, were the least represented among all. Although
efforts to consult and include Indigenous communities has been made for all
narratives, true inclusion or representation is not evident in their actions plans.
This means that any action or policy towards reducing emissions in the oil sands
sector will have considerable impact on the welfare of the neighbouring
Indigenous communities, who are left with no voice as to their fate. Such realities
call for urgent action in incorporating Indigenous/local communities in the
process of co- developing policies effective to meet the commitments of Canada in
the Paris Agreement. As a way forward, a consensus- building framework could
serve as an important tool to maintain the interest and commitment of the
participants. One example is the Consensus Building Engagement Process
(CBEP), focused on step- by-step consensus building through the consultation and
inclusion of all affected stakeholders (Lieu et al., 2018). The framework could
consider Indigenous needs, priorities, and knowledge and by build consensus in
dynamic with actors – e.g. humans, community, animals, plants, water – on a
level playing field. The definition of ecological integrity from a perspective of
biotic indicators (moose, fisher, fish, edible berries’ habitats), demonstrate a
local interpretation of environmental impact which stakeholders can relate
to, are able to monitor, and can commit to protecting. As reported by
Whitmarsh, Seyfang, and O’Neill (2011), community involvement is a key
factor for the success of policies for climate change mitigation. Therefore,
from the local context, the pathway ‘hold your horses’ is expected to be more
successful in achieving its goals – if implemented – rather than the other
futures that lack elements that local communities can be represented in and
be relate to. This scenario could be extrapolated to the national plans for
climate change mitigation and adaptation. Today, the international discourse
is defined on GHG emissions, a concept that is not tangible or relatable to
challenges present at the local reality of the communities.
Future outlook
In the quest for identifying lower- carbon pathways envisioned by the
stakeholders in the Alberta oil sands sector, three main scenarios were
identified: one following the official proposal from the provincial government,
one based on Indigenous needs and priorities, and one based on a combined
strategy created by the collaboration of several groups and aligned with federal
strategy. Within these pathways, implementation and consequential barriers
were captured from stakeholders as potential risks should this future materialise.
These barriers mostly concentrated around economic losses, environmental
degradation, social imbalance, and health impacts. Whether these risks were
noticeable depended on the point of view of each stakeholder. However, a
bigger risk is linked to the lack of consensus among stakeholders and the
absence of a pathway capable of unifying and representing all viewpoints.
From the futures captured, the Indigenous communities most directly impacted
by the oils sands development, i.e. where the sector develops in traditional land in
the vicinity of their communities, were the least represented among all. Although
efforts to consult and include Indigenous communities has been made for all
narratives, true inclusion or representation is not evident in their actions plans.
This means that any action or policy towards reducing emissions in the oil sands
sector will have considerable impact on the welfare of the neighbouring
Indigenous communities, who are left with no voice as to their fate. Such realities
call for urgent action in incorporating Indigenous/local communities in the
process of co- developing policies effective to meet the commitments of Canada in
the Paris Agreement. As a way forward, a consensus- building framework could
serve as an important tool to maintain the interest and commitment of the
participants. One example is the Consensus Building Engagement Process
(CBEP), focused on step- by-step consensus building through the consultation and
inclusion of all affected stakeholders (Lieu et al., 2018). The framework could
consider Indigenous needs, priorities, and knowledge and by build consensus in