Officials spark backlash with controversial multibillion-dollar project: 'Significant adverse effect'

The planned expansion of a major port in Canada could threaten a critical stopover for millions of migratory birds and their unique food source.

What's happening?

The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is reportedly moving forward with the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project, initially priced at $3 billion Canadian, or over $2 billion USD. The expansion of the busy cargo port in British Columbia is anticipated to increase the port's capacity by more than 2 million 20-foot shipping containers each year, according to Construction Briefing, and potentially grow trade by billions of dollars. 

Now, The Narwhal has reported that the federal government may be fast-tracking the expansion even as environmentalists continue to raise concerns about the project's implications for the area's plant and animal life. This includes the western sandpiper and the microscopic organisms the bird consumes.

The tiny birds rely on this rich, slimy biofilm as a food source, and both could be impacted by port expansion affecting the Fraser estuary. Its wetlands are a vital refueling station for about 3.5 million sandpipers on their epic migration between South America and Alaska. But the existential threats aren't reserved for the tiny birds alone.

Why is this concerning?

Scientist Bob Elner told The Narwhal that the biofilm also supports salmon fisheries, which in turn feed orcas and other marine mammals. Elner warned the project could "fundamentally, ecologically destroy" the estuary. Generally speaking, detractors worry that the expansion could wreck food webs, jeopardize biodiversity, and hinder progress toward a cleaner, healthier future.

A 2020 federal assessment concluded that the project "would result in a significant adverse effect on wetlands." It's a point in line with the ultimately-rejected legal bid mounted by multiple groups to halt the project. They argued that construction would contravene the Species at Risk Act, particularly by disrupting the food web essential to orcas. 

What can be done?

The federal government's approval of the project required that the expansion comply with numerous conditions, including, as The Narwhal explained, "convening an arm's-length panel of scientists to oversee research and monitoring of biofilm and shorebirds up until construction begins."

Environmentalists say there is still cause for concern. As noted by the Raincoast Conservation Foundation — one of the environmental groups behind the legal challenge rejected in January — previous research has "stressed that offsetting measures are rarely effective at making up for destroyed habitat."

While the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project appears to be moving ahead, groups like Raincoast remain vigilant about the valuable and fragile Fraser estuary.

In the meantime, global coalitions might further consider the impacts of international trade on essential ecosystems, especially given that negative effects on these habitats can influence wildlife worldwide as animal populations migrate from region to region.

Innovation in transportation and supply chain management is still possible. As Elner told The Narwhal: "This isn't that ports are bad. Biofilm is really valuable, and we've got options in terms of how we get containers from wherever back to wherever, so trade doesn't trump the environment," suggesting that changes at the level of supply chains could make a positive difference.

Which of these factors would most effectively convince you to support nuclear energy projects in your area? Lower energy bills 💸 Safety and reliability ✅ More local jobs 👷‍♀️ Environmental benefits 🌎 Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.

💰Get TCD's free newsletters for easy tips to save more, waste less, and make smarter choices — and earn up to $5,000 toward clean upgrades in TCD's exclusive Rewards Club.