My role within the Boreal Initiative is largely around the corporate sector outreach, and I've spent a good part of the last number of months back and forth to Calgary, working with energy sector companies, trying to work out some areas of common interest and address areas of common concern. So we look forward to this committee and its work as an important contribution to what sustainability means and how Canadians can benefit most broadly through the work of the oil sands--and to address the risks that they pose.
We try to get behind real integrated solutions in the work that we do. The forest companies we work with have over 42 million acres under Forest Stewardship Council certification, which is a world-leading factor for responsible forest management. Our first nations partners are shaping land use plans and balancing protection with the opportunity for sustainable resource development. We work with a pretty broad range of environment groups that are focused on ensuring that we have some long-term sustainability within today's economic development opportunities. We have MOUs with governments, and our partnerships tend to span the whole spectrum, in true Canadian fashion.
We want to talk about the boreal today in a bit more of a global context, to take a step back from the regional impacts and really look at this. The inception of the Boreal Initiative came from a realization that there are only three countries on earth today that are home to over 70% of the remaining tracks of intact forest.
Brazil, Russia, and Canada are fortunate enough to be home to that forest, and Canada is clearly the country that stands out in the best position to take a real, stable, sustainable approach to the management of that forest and that landscape. In fact, we have a global responsibility with the boreal, and the oil sands play a big role in the shaping of the future of that boreal region.
Over a billion acres spanning 58% of our land mass, the boreal stretches from Newfoundland to the Yukon. It's not only of fundamental importance ecologically, but as you know, 600 aboriginal communities also make their home and make their living there. We understand and appreciate that it's an economic engine for communities and for the larger nation, and we want to balance development with land protection.
Scientists are calling for large-scale land protection to maintain wildlife and other ecological values across the landscape. There are some areas in the boreal where there's a need for such protection at a very critical and urgent level. Woodland caribou, for example, are very sensitive to these current disturbances that are occurring across the boreal, and they are clearly a population that is in decline, particularly in Alberta. Unless critical habitat is protected and closed to industrial development in some parts of this range, this already threatened species may be extirpated from much of its former range.
Clearly, the oil sands extraction will transform a significant portion of the boreal region. Estimates are in the order of 150,000 square kilometres in total. Given that we are on the cusp of new expansions, we're supporting a growing chorus of interests that are calling for a more comprehensive, integrated review of the pace and the scale of oil sands development. It is time for a sober second thought to look at the situation as it has developed to date, to make some significant changes to better balance and integrate the environmental concerns with development and aboriginal interests as we move ahead.
As I mentioned, we'd like to note here that Suncor is a member of the Boreal Leadership Council and a signatory to the “Boreal Forest Conservation Framework”. We work closely with them on several issues. We want to underscore that we will not be speaking for them today. They presented here earlier. We are in constant contact and discussion with them, but these will be the views of the Boreal Initiative.
Another point of context for the oil sands is clearly the Mackenzie watershed in which it is situated. The watershed itself spans most of the Northwest Territories, the northern half of Alberta, and portions of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and the Yukon.
Our recommendations to you focus on remedies within this larger watershed context, as the impacts of oil sands development are and will be felt there. I don't know if you've seen the papers today, but the Deninu K'ue from Fort Resolution, 600 kilometres north of some of the oil sands development, have just formally put notice of their concerns as to where water will come from and how it may affect their interests in the long term.
Due to the size and intensity of oil sands extraction, the success of actions to mitigate the impact will have a huge impact on the larger integrity of the larger watershed. It also has impacts on our ability to fulfill international agreements and how we will be perceived internationally. Already, the oil sands region is recognized by the United Nations environment program as one of the 100 top world hot spots of environmental change.
There's no question that the oil sands development will dramatically reduce the natural capital—that is, the habitat, wildlife, and water integrity—of the region. Our boreal ecosystems have taken thousands of years to develop, and their removal through this type of mining is essentially irreversible. It may be mitigable, but it will be a different landscape, an altered landscape, and the ecological processes such as hydrology and carbon storage will be fundamentally changed and need to be carefully considered, both in terms of their implementation and their mitigation.
The SAGD will also transform the regional landscape. It will create much larger footprint impact than the mining, as you well know. The infrastructure of roads, pipelines, well pads, and processing facilities will have an impact on ecological integrity, which we need to account for, and of particular concern for us is the impact it will have on woodland caribou.
Given these intense and large-scale impacts, conservation offsets are a primary opportunity and necessity that will be required to maintain the ecological integrity in the broader Mackenzie region. A key component of the conservation offsets will be protected areas. Protected areas are needed for a variety of reasons, but to sustain regional ecological processes, to protect representative examples of native ecological communities, and to maintain native biodiversity. If properly selected, protected areas can act as benchmarks for sustainable development and sustainable management strategies. Protected areas have been identified by conservation organizations, first nations, and industry.
The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society has identified potential sites within the oil sands region that have high ecological value and minimal conflict with petroleum resources. The largest forest company in the region, Al-Pac, is exploring how they can move forward on this within their licensed area. We see this as being fundamentally important to the overall development project. Protected areas proposed by the Deh Cho First Nations within their land use plan and by local communities up and down the valley under the NWT protected areas strategy present other opportunities that we see as integrally linked with the conservation offsets for oil sands development.
Therefore, we recommend that the committee support the advancement of conservation offsets through protected areas in the region around the oil sands themselves and in the broader Mackenzie watershed.
The second area we want to touch on is the issue of ecosystem services currently provided by the area and how these will be affected. We worked with the Pembina Institute to do a report on ecosystem valuation in the area of the oil sands. For those of you who may want it, I have a report called Counting Canada's Natural Capital. It has an interesting piece done by Mark Anielski from the Pembina Institute.
They estimated the non-market value of boreal ecosystem services at about $93 billion a year. Highest values among those are largely water filtering, flood regulation, carbon sequestration and storage, and pest control. The forest lands and peat lands contain an estimated 67 billion tonnes of carbon, worth an estimated $3.7 trillion.
Due to the energy intensity of oil sands production, they are expected to be the largest single contributor of greenhouse gas emissions growth and could be responsible for half the projected growth of Canada's emissions between 2003 and 2010. Managing these emissions is therefore an essential component of our greenhouse gas emissions strategy nationally.
Improved use of existing technology is certainly part of what is needed to achieve the goal, but we need to understand that Canada's forests are the world’s largest terrestrial storehouse of carbon. They are vital to the world’s response to climate change. To mitigate the overall impacts on the boreal forest, we need to put incentives in place to allow companies to invest in forest conservation that stores carbon to offset emissions.
There's a fundamental role for the federal government to play, along with provincial governments, in making this incentive real for companies. These types of incentives range from both market-based carbon trading systems to an incentive fund for carbon-intensive conservation. We recommend that the committee support the Pembina Institute’s proposal that the oil sands become carbon neutral by 2020 and that the government support incentives to preserve forest carbon as part of the strategy.
Finally, oil sands extraction is very water-intensive, as you all know. There has been much discussion throughout your hearings on the amount of water required and the water quality issues that have been related there, so I won't belabour that point. We know that anywhere from two to five barrels of water are required for every barrel of oil produced, and that the oil sands account for some 65% of the total amount of water diverted from the Athabasca River. This volume is expected to increase over coming years. The impacts on fish habitat and the integrity of the Peace–Athabasca Delta are significant.
Given that the water is not returned to the watershed but is instead stored in tailings ponds that require decades to reclaim—and we'll be hearing more about the reclamation efforts there—it is understood that there are a number of uncertainties and a long-term risk of water contamination unless we manage those lands and that water very carefully. It's clear that we don't understand as much as we need to understand on the water removal and the impact of that on the ecosystem, nor do we understand the risks presented by such toxins as the polyaromatic hydrocarbons.
Local communities downstream are currently very concerned and may be dramatically affected by changes in both the quality and quantity of water. They are calling for a better understanding of the impacts of the development on the water. This is a critical component of a lasting and just solution to this element of development.
The understanding is needed by all components of the region’s natural capital. The development of this knowledge would allow governments to consider ecological and socio-economic costs when making regional land use decisions.
The Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta are calling for a strategic-level environmental assessment of the full range of direct impacts and cumulative effects from present and future oil sands and heavy oil projects. Such an approach would provide an opportunity for the first comprehensive review of the current and projected footprint of these developments, and would allow decision-makers to consider a full range of impacts on a regional scale, rather than on a more limited project-by-project basis, which is inefficient for companies in many respects and often misses some of the core issues that could benefit all parties involved. Assessment and planning in this context should take into account both the pace and scale of proposed developments, and critical thresholds to the limits to growth, such as ensuring that the quantity of water used in oil extraction does not exceed a level that would impair ecosystem function or put communities at risk.
Other priorities for consideration within the strategic environmental assessment could include evaluations of impacts of oil sands development on fish habitat in the Athabasca River; impacts of road development in the oil sands region on both fish and wildlife; threats to the ecological integrity of the Peace–Athabasca Delta in Wood Buffalo National Park; and threats to wildlife, including caribou, which are already suffering a precipitous decline, and moose, which is a key species and the basis of livelihood for local first nations.
We recommend that the committee support the initiation of a strategic environmental impact assessment of the full range of direct and cumulative effects on the present and proposed oil sands and heavy oil projects within the Mackenzie Delta.
The time is ripe for new approaches that protect ecosystems and cultures and promote sustainable economies, which can even create a global competitive edge for Canadian companies and communities. The Canadian boreal region gives us a chance to think differently, partner differently, and do business differently. The Boreal Initiative is committed to working in this exact way and believes that solutions are at hand if we take the right approach and take the time now to get it right.
Thank you very much.