I'm aware of that, but I would argue very strongly that it's a very subjective view and that one person's adverse effect is another person's positive effect.
I look, for example, at prairie reservoirs, which are often built for flood control. They cause significant alterations to valley habitats. But the result of creating a reservoir is a steady state in terms of ecological processes and, more often than not, very significant fish populations that form the basis of significant local economies.
Again, adversity is in the eye of the beholder, so I don't find that a very scientific term. It's a value-laden term that I think we need to examine. What needs to be looked at are ecological processes. Those are sacrosanct in terms of the environment.
You made a point in the slide deck that review panels of landmark projects work well. Would you consider the Mackenzie Valley panel to have been a success?