UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL LICENSE
The government's introduction of a moratorium on shale gas development, confirming its preelection commitment, was a great relief to the thousands of N.B. residents who are opposed to the
industry. People are relieved, but skeptical.
Those who are familiar with New Brunswick's political and economic history know that
the province has been, for many decades, a fierce supporter of the oil and gas industry and that
resource development, from forestry to oil and gas exploration has never been questioned.
Until now.
The skepticism on the part of many residents has been provoked by recent Brunswick
News newspaper articles that have turned the government's intention "that we will impose
a moratorium until the risks to the environment, health and water are understood" into industry's
interpretation "to develop a timeline for lifting the ban on shale gas exploration in the province".
It might be worth mentioning here that a ban is a permanent decision; it cannot be lifted. A
moratorium, however, is temporary.
All five of the conditions that must be met to sanction the establishment of a shale gas industry in
the province will only be met if both industry and government are willing to learn, understand and
act upon the many experiences and associated research that has been provided by jurisdictions
around the world.
The five conditions are as follows:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Clear and credible information: The government plans to convene a committee of
experts to accumulate and assess information on whether shale gas is safe or not. Will they
welcome members of the anti-fracking fraternity as well as those connected to business and
industry? Will they examine any or all of the 400 peer-reviewed scientific studies that are
available, all of which unequivocally state that shale gas exploration cannot be practiced in a
manner that does not threaten human health? Or will they suggest that the industry can
proceed safely if the proper regulations are in place?
An infrastructure plan: The aforementioned studies include much information on the
dilemma of fracking wastewater disposal. It can't be treated in ordinary chemical treatment
plants or through sewage treatment facilities. Wastewater is most commonly stored in
open ponds or re-injected back into the Earth; both methods have serious repercussions
that lead to land and water contamination and human exposure to dangerous chemicals.
Maximized benefits: The government can speculate on different revenue streams and
royalty structures, but documents from heavily fracked areas indicate that the cost to
produce shale gas exceeds the revenues received.
Aboriginal consultation: After the Supreme Court decision on Aboriginal land claims, it is
not consultation that is required; it is consent.
V.
Social license: The definition of Social License is: "a local community's acceptance or
approval of a company project or ongoing presence in an area. It is recognized
by stakeholders and communities as a prerequisite to development". Social
License requires that public policy puts human well being and environmental
protection before corporate gain.
Social License to Operate is a phrase that was coined by the mining industry 15 years
ago, coincidentally right around the time that unconventional shale oil and gas mining was starting.
The new technology that started in Texas in 1999 is a far more complex and hazardous process
than the conventional gas exploration that has been in practice since the turn of the 20th century.
This new industry was originated in secret, with no information given to municipalities about the
questionable methods it uses. The deep wells’ usage of chemicals, water and sand to shatter the
shale rock and the resulting increase in air and water pollution – inevitable, through methane
flaring and underground gas leaks polluting aquifers – were all unknown to residents unfortunate
enough to be living near these early drilling sites.
As people connected their proximity to gas wells with ill health, contaminated water, noise and
traffic, the idea of prior consultation and consent became a "social license," a way to protect
citizens’ rights. The once popular notion of Corporate Social Responsibility touted by industry has
failed to take the practical steps necessary to protect local communities. Social License and
Corporate Social Responsibility are very different concepts.
Social License recognizes the significance of a community's right to protect itself, decisions
made by the public for the public good, whereas, Corporate Social Responsibility is a
voluntary obligation and depends entirely upon industry's goodwill.
Social License to Operate is granted when good relations are established, long before development
begins.
Social License rejects antisocial practices such as unfair wages, gender discrimination, child labor
and unacceptable risks to the environment. It cannot be regulated by government or industry and,
as such, has become fundamental to individual and community rights, stressing transparency,
accountability, clarity, and due diligence.
In a world where corporations want to be increasingly involved in delivering essential goods and
services, from health care to clean water, Social License is clearly linked to the effort to recover
democracy. Social License takes the moral high ground so social risks are considerably reduced.
There are some industrial technologies that are so inherently harmful that they will never be able
to brook the concerns and disapproval of a community that feels threatened by their activities.
The demand for Social License by Indigenous, French and English people in N.B. might be the
biggest obstacle that the government will have to deal with if industry seriously challenges the
moratorium. Government and industry can whitewash information, dither about royalties and find
willing municipalities for wastewater, but the final outcome may depend on people in communities
across the province that continue to say NO to shale gas.