May 25, 2009

Accountability of Environmental Groups

Political involvement is about much more than voting every four years. During the recent referendum on electoral reform, proponents frequently overestimated the importance of holding a seat in the legislature as opposed to having the capacity to influence public opinion. Who has greater political influence, David Suzuki or Green Party Leader Jane Sterk?

Contrary to what neophyte MLAs may believe, most community leaders have more influence on public policy than any government backbencher or opposition MLA. That makes it as important to understand who is behind the groups that sway public opinion as it is to understand who funds political parties.

In the early days of the recent BC election campaign, three environmental groups made the news kicking the NDP in the shins for its promise to scrap the carbon tax: the David Suzuki Foundation, the Pembina Institute and ForestEthics.

The David Suzuki Foundation is a good example of an organization that is open and accountable. You can click on the Revenue Canada Charities site and find its annual report to Revenue Canada, including key financial details and a full list of directors. (Of course, as Greenpeace discovered in 1999, being an advocate can result in an organization losing its ability to issue tax receipts and be a registered charity.) The Suzuki Foundation's website includes annual reports that are up to date. The only criticism I can make on the Foundations' disclosure is the apparent lack of a statement from its auditors in its annual report. While I disagree with some of the public policy positions of the Suzuki Foundation, it deserves credit for openness and accountability. The same cannot be said for all "environmental groups". Many are not registered as charities with Revenue Canada, and consequently are not subject to the kind of disclosure the Suzuki Foundation meets. Many environmental groups provide websites that are strong on fund raising and pathetic on disclosure.

I cannot find a listing on the Revenue Canada website for the well respected Pembina Institute. The most recent annual report on its website is 2007 (published July 28, 2008), in which it states it had revenue of $4.3 million in its fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, and expenses of $4.4 million. Since it took until late July 2008 for its 2007 financial data to become available, it is reasonable to presume its 2008 disclosure won't be available for a few months.

I cannot find a report for for ForestEthics on the Revenue Canada charities website. The most recent annual report on its website is for 2005, and it provides no financial statements.

An organization that has received increasing media attention on the environmental front is "PowerUp Canada". Its website makes a pitch for donations, and it lists a who's who of citizens who have backed its position on global warming, but it doesn't provide anything by way of disclosure of its governing structure or its finances. A search on the Revenue Canada charities website produces no results.

Many of BC's smallest environmental groups are too "politically" active and effective to meet Revenue Canada's rules to be registered as charities. Just as those groups ask government to be accountable, they should also be accountable by making as much information as possible about their organizations available on their websites.