Module 1: Introduction to Environmental Assessment

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this module you will be able to:

• Define the term “environmental assessment”
• Describe the general EA process
• Discuss how the term “environment” is defined by various legislative bodies and why it is important to have a broad definition of “environment”

Key Terms

• Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): The formal process of identifying, predicting, evaluating, and mitigating the effects of development proposals on the environment.
• Activity: A project undertaking such as a mine or coal plant that has a physical component. An activity can also include government policy, programs, or plans.
• Environment: The biophysical, social, economic, and cultural surroundings in which a project takes place. The definition varies significantly across jurisdictions (see Section 1b below).
• Designated Project: As defined in the IAA 2019, one or more physical activities that are carried out in Canada or on federal lands and are designated by regulations made under paragraph 109(b) or designated in an order made by the Minister under subsection 9(1). It includes any physical activity that is incidental to those physical activities but does not include a physical activity designated by regulations made under paragraph 112(1)(a.2).
• Proponent: As defined by the IAA 2019, the person or entity – federal authority, government, or body – that proposes the carrying out of, or carries out, a designated project.

1a. What is an Environmental Assessment (EA)?

Setting the Stage

“Environmental assessment should be hugely popular these days… The reality, however, is less positive… No existing environmental assessment regime in Canada today is well equipped to meet the rising challenges of a world that is both economically wobbly and sliding into deeper unsustainability. And even the better assessment processes are more likely to be treated as scapegoats than as saviours by the governments they serve. After 40 years of environmental assessment law and practice in Canada, it is time to review and renew.”

– Dr. Robert Gibson, University of Waterloo (Gibson, Meinhard, and Sinclair, 2016:1)

This quote sets the stage for the study of environmental assessment in Canada. The course explores both the challenges (review) and opportunities (for renewal) of environmental assessment in Canada.

Defining Environmental Assessment

Throughout the literature there have been many terms used synonymously with environmental assessment (e.g., impact assessment and environmental impact assessment). The core body of assessment literature and many international assessment legislations use the term “EA” to refer to an environmental assessment.

In 2019, the Government of Canada introduced a new federal Impact Assessment Act (IAA) and one major change from the 2012 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was replacing the term EA with the term IA (impact assessment). This was done to take the focus off the assessment of the “environment” in a biophysical way, and to move towards a more holistic approach to impact assessment where factors beyond the biophysical environment are considered – such as social, cultural, and economic impacts.

Two key definitions of EA:

1. “The process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating, the biophysical, social and other relevant effects of development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and commitments being made” (Noble, 2015:1-3; IAIA and IEA, 1999)

2. “A process having the ultimate objective of providing decision makers with an indication of the likely consequences of their actions” (Wathern, 2013:6)

EA as Part of a Larger Process

In an ideal scenario, EA would not be seen as a stand-alone process that is another legislative hoop to jump through to proceed with business as usual – but EA would be part of a larger, decision-making and environmental management process based on sustainability principles (Hanna, 2016:3). The main function of EA is to provide comprehensive scientific information (ideally including values, knowledge, and understanding of the environment by stakeholders) to help inform the decision-making process surrounding the implementation of an activity (Koivurova et al., 2016:5).

Generally, EA is a process that (adapted from Hanna, 2016:2):

1. Describes a proposed activity (e.g., mine, hydroelectric plant) and the baseline conditions (abiotic, biotic, and social) in the place where it will happen.
2. Identifies possible environmental effects of the activity including both the likely positive and negative effects.
3. Proposes measures to mitigate or eliminate adverse effects while promoting positive benefits.
4. Provides some sense of the remaining impacts and their significance.
5. Hopefully provides a plan for follow-up and monitoring.

Hanna (2016) uses the term “hopefully” when referring to follow-up and monitoring. Historically this step in EA has been poorly done – if done at all. Follow-up and monitoring is a key step in impact mitigation and determining cumulative impacts and sustainability assessments.

“EA is as much about politics as it is about science.” (McCarthy, 2018)

Objectives of EA in Canada

The objectives of EA are often different depending on who is being asked. Regardless of this underlying tension, the main objectives of EA are:

1. Identify and predict the negative impacts of proposed development
2. Ensure that development decisions are made in the full knowledge of their environmental consequences
3. Find ways to avoid or minimize significant negative biophysical and social-economic impacts
4. Identify, enhance, and create potentially positive impacts

Benefits of Carrying Out an EA

The purposes and benefits of the new Canadian IAA 2019 are:

(a) To foster sustainability

(b) To protect the components of the environment, and the health, social and economic conditions that are within the legislative authority of Parliament from adverse effects caused by a designated project

(b.1) To establish a fair, predictable and efficient process for conducting impact assessments that enhances Canada’s competitiveness, encourages innovation in the carrying out of designated projects and creates opportunities for sustainable economic development

(c) To ensure that impact assessments of designated projects take into account all effects – both positive and adverse – that may be caused by the carrying out of designated projects

(d) To ensure that designated projects that require the exercise of a power or performance of a duty or function by a federal authority under any Act of Parliament other than this Act to be carried out, are considered in a careful and precautionary manner to avoid adverse effects within federal jurisdiction and adverse direct or incidental effects

(e) To promote cooperation and coordinated action between federal and provincial governments – while respecting the legislative competence of each – and the federal government and Indigenous governing bodies that are jurisdictions, with respect to impact assessments

(f) To promote communication and cooperation with Indigenous peoples of Canada with respect to impact assessments

(g) To ensure respect for the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, in the course of impact assessments and decision-making under this Act

(h) To ensure that opportunities are provided for meaningful public participation during an impact assessment, a regional assessment, or a strategic assessment

(i) To ensure that an impact assessment is completed in a timely manner

(j) To ensure that an impact assessment takes into account scientific information, Indigenous knowledge, and community knowledge

(k) To ensure that an impact assessment takes into account alternative means of carrying out a designated project, including through the use of best available technologies

(l) To ensure that projects, as defined in section 81, that are to be carried out on federal lands, or those that are outside Canada and that are to be carried out or financially supported by a federal authority, are considered in a careful and precautionary manner to avoid significant adverse environmental effects

(m) To encourage the assessment of the cumulative effects of physical activities in a region and the assessment of federal policies, plans or programs and the consideration of those assessments in impact assessments

(n) To encourage improvements to impact assessments through the use of follow-up programs

Challenges of EA

Since the passing of CEAA 2012 and the IAA 2019, many projects that previously required an EA under the CEAA 1995 legislation now no longer require the completion of an EA. Such projects include many private sector projects and projects that fall under a certain threshold level – such as smaller scale mining operations (extracting under a pre-set amount). Although smaller scale projects might be seen as having little environmental impact on their own, one of the preserved purposes of EA as stated by CEAA is the ability to “encourage further studies of the cumulative effects of physical activities in a region and the consideration of the study results in environmental assessments” (CEAA, 2012). However, the IAA is devoted mainly to assessments on major scale projects (Gibson, 2020). There is a real discourse between what is a perceived benefit of EA and the reality of the EA process.

Often EAs are seen as an afterthought in the development process. A project design has already been selected and the EA is seen as a legislative hurdle to be undertaken before construction can begin. In this case EAs are often rushed to save time and money and are narrow in scope, failing to properly address cumulative impacts and complex regional issues (e.g., Aboriginal interests). Further, historically there has been poor performance in regards to follow-up and monitoring of impacts resulting from project development. With the introduction of CEAA 2012, and more recently the IAA, there has been a push to promote EA efficiency; however, we cannot improve EA efficiency at the cost of effectiveness (CEAA, 2012).

1b. Environmental Change and Effect

Environmental Change vs. Environmental Effect

Most students are familiar with the term “environmental change” and many have heard the term “environmental effect.” At times these two terms have been used interchangeably. However, for their use in EA these two terms must be treated differently:

• Environmental change is the progression of a system towards a state regardless of the implementation of a proposed activity.
• Environmental effect refers to changes attributable to a proposed activity or project.

What is Meant by the Term “Environment”?

One of the greatest changes in EA practice is the definition of “environment” and the scope of its use. How environment is defined has a profound implication for EA and the determination of environmental effect.

At the federal level, both the older Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 (CEAA 2012) and the new IAA 2019 have narrowly defined environment as:

“Components of the Earth, and includes: (a) Land, water and air, including all layers of the atmosphere; (b) all organic and inorganic material and all living organisms; and (c) the interacting natural systems that include components referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b)”

Provincial Definitions of “Environment”

The EA process in Canada is a mixture of federal and provincial EA legislation and therefore the definition of environment varies greatly by province:

Why Definition Matters

How “environment” is defined varies across the legislative landscape. Broad definitions that include a more defined social, cultural, and economic understanding will lead to a different prediction of likely impacts resulting from proposed activities. The definition of “environment” plays a central role in discussions of sustainability assessment. There is a sliding scale of “environment” definitions and environment within the context of EA should include the physical, economic, cultural, and social environment at play as well as a fluid understanding of multiple time (temporal) and spatial scales.

1c. Generic EA Process

The environmental assessment process follows a series of steps. Each step is outlined below:

1. Project Description

As defined in the Federal Coordination Regulations, “project description” means any information in relation to a project that includes, at least:

• A summary description of the project
• Information indicating the location of the project and the areas potentially affected by the project
• To the extent possible, a summary description of the physical and biological environments within the areas potentially affected by the project
• The mailing address, e-mail address, and phone number of a contact person who can provide additional information about the project

The project description should provide sufficient information for a federal authority to determine whether it has a decision-making responsibility that triggers the need for an assessment.

2. Screening

Screening determines what type of EA is required (if any). If done correctly, screening ensures that the proper level of EA is undertaken to avoid unnecessary assessments and to ensure projects requiring an EA due to likely significant environmental impacts undertake the required level of assessment.

3. Scoping

The scoping stage determines the boundaries of the EA and focuses the scope of the EA. Scoping includes:

• The components that define the project (spatial and temporal boundaries) and the environment to be assessed
• Environmental baselines, trends, and history of the environment
• The key issues to be taken into consideration as defined through public consultation

The result of the scoping stage is a Terms of Reference (ToR) which is written by the proponent and contains the scope of the EA and the contents of the EA report.

4. Impact Prediction

Ideally involving extensive public consultation, impact prediction aims to identify and predict the likely environmental impacts (ecological, social, and economic) resulting from the development of a project or combination of projects.

5. Impact Management

Measures and plans that can be implemented throughout the lifecycle of a project to help mitigate environmental impacts.

6. Submission and Review

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is the formal EA document produced and there is a technical and public review of the EIS where feedback is considered. The EIS is reviewed to ensure there have been no oversights or errors. Further, impact predictions are reviewed and assumptions are evaluated.

7. Decision

The final decision as to if the project will be allowed to proceed and if so – how it will proceed and under what conditions.

8. Implementation and Follow-up

The project or plan is implemented based on the conditions set out in the EA decision. Follow-up occurs to verify compliance by the proponent, the accuracy of impact predictions, and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Follow-up is vital in helping to determine any unforeseen environmental impacts that might have occurred.

Module 1 Required Readings

• Course Syllabus
• Video: Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. March 26, 2018. In a Nutshell: The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z68H1RaCQLg
• Textbook: Chapter 1: Aims and Objectives of Environmental Assessment, pages 1-14
• Academic Reading: Morgan, R.K. (2012, February 23). Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 30:1, 5-14.

Optional:

• International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). (1999, January). Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice. In cooperation with Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA), UK.

Module 1 Review Questions

1. How is the term “environment” defined under CEAA 2012 and IAA 2019? Compare and contrast the definition of “environment” used by two provinces under their provincial EA legislations.
2. Why is a broader understanding of “environment” important to the EA process?
3. What are two potential benefits to undertaking an EA from a proponent’s perspective?
4. What are two potential benefits to undertaking an EA from the perspective of community members who are affected by a development?
5. How does Canada’s EA process compare to other countries? Are we more advanced or falling behind? Explain your answer.

Module 2: History of Environmental Assessment (EA)

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this module you will be able to:

• Understand the importance of Silent Spring
• Describe how EA in Canada began
• Discuss why the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry was so important in the development of the EA process in Canada
• Compare CEAA 1995, CEAA 2012, and the new IAA 2019

Key Terms

• EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment): The formal process for assessing the environmental consequences of proposed development, originating from the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969.
• Traditional Knowledge: According to the Assembly of First Nations, this term is “commonly understood to refer to collective knowledge of traditions used by Indigenous groups to sustain and adapt themselves to their environment over time. This information is passed on from one generation to the next within the Indigenous group.”

2a. The Beginnings

“We are now at our last frontier. It is a frontier that all of us have read about, but few of us have seen. Profound issues, touching our deepest concerns as a nation, await us there.”

The Influence of Rachel Carson and Silent Spring

The evolution of the modern environmental protection movement and EIA legislation in Canada has been credited to the United States’ environmental movement that began in the 1950s. At a time of war and uncertainty there was a sense of dominance over nature in science. However, this mentality was challenged by environmentalist and biologist Rachel Carson and her ground-breaking book Silent Spring.

With the release of Silent Spring, public awareness of the environment, and concerns over environmental contamination, skepticism of the government and large chemical corporations began to pressure the government to act to protect the environment.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

In response to public pressure, the U.S. government passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969. Within this piece of legislation there were a few vaguely worded lines regarding the process of environmental assessment and development (Gibson and Hanna, 2016). This was the first time that the environment was to be considered in project-level proposals.

After the court rulings in the United States, the Government of Canada took notice as concerns over the state of the Canadian environment and the need for accountability spread across the country.

2b. The 1970s

1972 to 1975: The Canadian Federal Cabinet

June 8, 1972: The Canadian Federal Cabinet introduced a policy-based environmental regulation that all new proposed projects be screened for potential environmental pollution effects. Unlike the environmental legislation in the United States that had the backing of the law, in Canada the government did not use a legislative process in its environmental regulations at the time for the following reasons:

1. There was fear that there would be an increase in litigation and that the courts would be given more power over the decision-making process leading to increased delays in the proposal process.
2. There was concern that legislation would be too rigid and binding for the government and there would be a loss in the flexibility and discretion on projects that served the government’s interests.
3. There was a sense of fear that having a legislative backing to these new environmental regulations would open up the government’s policy, plans, and programs to public criticism and move governmental influence from other departments to the Department of Environment.

December 1973: A period of “self-assessment” began in the evolution of EA in Canada. The Cabinet developed and approved a more formal process for the environmental examination of proposed projects with more focus on federal projects that require federal money, land, and/or approval. At this time, the government defined the environment as including both social and biophysical components. Projects that are likely to have significant environmental impacts and/or have wide public concern would now undergo an informal panel review. Each governmental department was responsible for the review of their own projects, plans, and policies for possible environmental impact. However, each department was also given the ability to decide if, how, and when this would take place. This led to a less rigorous and more voluntary environmental process.

1975: The province of Ontario was the first province in Canada to make environmental assessment a legislative process. The definition of environment defined by the province was a broad one and includes both the biophysical environment along with the social, economic, and cultural environment. The new environmental legislation applied to all provincial undertakings (other than those granted exemption).

2c. 1974 to 1977: The Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry

Overview

The Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry was a pivotal point in the development of the EA process and resource management in Canada and set the precedence of how an EA should be conducted (Gibson and Hanna, 2016).

The 1970s were characterized by increased interest in oil and gas development across the Canadian Arctic. In 1974, two gas companies, Canadian Arctic Gas Pipeline Ltd. and Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd., proposed the development of a pipeline that crossed through the environmentally sensitive Mackenzie River Valley.

The Berger Inquiry

On March 21, 1974, the Canadian Federal government established the Mackenzie River Valley Pipeline Inquiry, led by Mr. Justice Thomas Berger:

“…to consider the social, environmental and economic impact of a gas pipeline and an energy corridor across our northern territories, across a land where four races of people – Indian, Inuit, Metis and white – live, and where seven languages are spoken. The inquiry was also empowered to recommend terms and conditions that ought to be imposed to protect the people of the North, their environment, and their economy, if the pipeline were to be built.”

The inquiry was the first to consider the potential social impacts alongside the potential environmental ones resulting from resource development. Prior to the inquiry the Canadian North was seen by much of Canada as an isolated and desolate place – the last frontier. A place that, other than for resource development, held little value. Thomas Berger changed this view – he opened up the North to the rest of Canada, showing that this region was rich in nature and the people who lived in this region were themselves rich in culture.

Berger’s Methodology

In order to understand what impact gas development would have on this region, Thomas Berger:

• Travelled to all 35 communities across the Mackenzie River Valley
• Spent as much time as was needed to hear the concern of each and every community member
• Hired local translators to help facilitate the community meetings
• Broadcasted each of the local meetings on CBC radio – in each of the local languages and in English, allowing the rest of Canada to hear the community meetings and the perspectives of each community member

By doing this, Thomas Berger showed that this region is not the “last frontier” it was considered by most to be, but was in fact a homeland. Each meeting allowed for the inquiry to gather evidence from close to 1,000 people across the Mackenzie Valley communities.

Integration of Traditional Knowledge

Together with this traditional knowledge, Thomas Berger collected evidence from 300 northern experts. This was the first time that traditional knowledge was held to the same level as scientific knowledge in a Canadian assessment process.

Berger’s Conclusions

Based on this collection and synthesis of information, Thomas Berger came to the conclusion that:

“The evidence led irresistibly to the conclusion that, if a pipeline were built now in the Mackenzie Valley, its economic benefits would be limited, its social impact devastating, and it would frustrate the goals of native claims.”

According to his report to the Federal Government, Thomas Berger advised:

“…that certain adverse consequences of the construction of a pipeline and the establishment of an energy corridor could not be mitigated, and that it was unrealistic to proceed as if they could. I did say, however, that if the pipeline were postponed, and if steps were taken now to strengthen native society and the native economy through a settlement of native claims, the pipeline might be built in ten years’ time, when the benefits of pipeline construction could be enlarged, and the adverse consequences mitigated.”

2d. The 1980s to the Present

The 1980s

With the desire to make the EA process mandatory and backed by legislation, the Environment Minister asked the Cabinet to give more strength to the EA process. The Cabinet ordered a review to be made of the current state of EA in Canada. When completed, this report was leaked to the public and showed gross departmental mismanagement and disregard for the principles of EA policy. Facing public pressure, the government pushed for legislative backing of the EA process.

In 1984, the new Minister of Environment took up office and the task of receiving legislative power for Canadian EA. Without going to the extent of making the EA process legislated, the Cabinet introduced a “Guidelines Order”, which had tougher regulations on how and when the EA process should be applied. However, self-assessment still applied, as did the flexibility of the process.

In 1989, a Supreme Court ruling on a water management project in Saskatchewan stated that the “Guidelines Order” is a mandatory, non-flexible process.

The 1990s

The 1990s was an important time period for EA development, culminating in the passage of the first legislated federal EA process – CEAA 1995 (Canadian Environmental Assessment Act).

The 2000s

The CEAA review was concluded in March 2001 with the introduction of Bill C-19, which mainly focused on:

• Strengthening public participation
• Streamlining the EA process

Bill C-19 was passed into law in June 2003.

In July 2012, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act took a step backwards with the introduction of a new bill proposing the elimination of EAs for minor projects, leaving only 10% of projects that had previously been assessed under CEAA 1995 requiring an EA under the new CEAA 2012. This was seen as a monumental step backwards in the evolution of EAs in Canada, signaling that the Federal Government was no longer concerned with the environmental consequences of development on the environment but instead was pushing for economic development at all costs.

Environmental Assessment at Present

Since the Liberal government took office in 2015, there was a push to update and improve upon the shortcomings of CEAA 2012, with the goal of providing greater clarity, consistency, and trust from the public in the EA process in Canada. The new IAA received Royal Assent on June 21, 2019 and came into force on August 28, 2019. Some have described the new act as “CEAA 2012+”, since upon a deeper and more critical inspection, the new IAA is more of a bulked-up version of CEAA 2012. Despite these sentiments, there are some modest improvements in the new IAA.

2e. What Does the New IAA Look Like in Comparison to CEAA 2012?

The proposed changes to CEAA underwent review in Parliament and it was a long time before these changes were given legislative power. The proposed changes made significant adjustments at each step of the EA process.

The New System

The new system creates a more efficient and predictable process with more timely decision-making. Key differences include changes to the planning and assessment phases, enhanced Indigenous consultation requirements, and a broadened scope of factors to be considered during assessments.

Conclusion

There has been a rocky evolution of the EA process in Canada. The difference between what CEAA had been in 1995 and what it became under CEAA 2012 is vast and, according to many scholars, devastating for social, economic, and ecological sustainability. The IAA represents an attempt to restore some of the protections lost under CEAA 2012, though critics argue it does not go far enough.

Module 2 Required Readings

• Video: Grace H-B. Nov 18, 2014. History of Environmental Policies in Canada. [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLKiwbE_Vuw
• Textbook: Chapter 2: Environmental Assessment in Canada, pages 17-34
• Academic Reading: Gibson, R.B. (2012). In full retreat: the Canadian government’s new environmental assessment law undoes decades of progress. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30:3, 179-188.
• Case Study: Berger, T. (1977, April 15). Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry: Letter to the Minister. Prince of Wales, Northern Heritage Centre.

Optional:

• Graci, S. (2009). Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act. In K.S. Hanna, Environmental Impact Assessment: Practice and Participation, Oxford University Press. Chapter 19, pp. 361-379.

Module 2 Review Questions

1. What are some of the critical events that have shaped the course of Canadian EA at the Federal level?
2. What are some of the critical events that have shaped the course of Canadian EA at the Territorial level (e.g., Nunavut, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories)?
3. What are some of the critical events that have shaped the course of Canadian EA at the Provincial level?
4. What were Thomas Berger’s final recommendations to the Minister? And why did he make those recommendations?
5. What are three major differences between CEAA 1995 and CEAA 2012? Do you feel that these changes strengthened the Canadian EA? Explain your answer.

Module 3: Introduction to Systems Thinking and Environmental Assessment

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this module you will be able to:

• Discuss the importance of perspective in systems thinking
• Explain how understanding of a system is important to understanding how the EA process fits into planning, policy, economic, and political context in Canada

Key Concepts

This module is delivered through a series of video lectures by Dan McCarthy, Associate Professor and Associate Director, Undergraduate Studies in the School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability at the University of Waterloo. McCarthy discusses complex EA scenarios through the lens of systems thinking, explaining how it is critical to stand back and look at systems as a whole instead of focusing on one project. A systems thinking approach allows you to see connections that can, or have, influenced a project in profound ways.

3a-3b. Introduction to Systems Thinking and Bounded Rationality

What is Systems Thinking?

Systems thinking is an approach to understanding complex problems by examining the relationships and interactions between components rather than isolating individual parts. In the context of EA, systems thinking requires practitioners to look beyond the immediate project and consider the broader web of social, political, economic, and ecological connections that influence and are influenced by a project.

The Cynical, Alternative Definition of EA

McCarthy offers a cynical, alternative definition of environmental assessment that highlights how EA can sometimes be used as a rubber-stamp process rather than a genuine tool for environmental protection. This perspective helps students understand the gap between EA as intended and EA as practiced.

Bounded Rationality

Bounded rationality is a concept that recognizes the inherent limitations in human decision-making. Decision-makers operate under constraints – limited information, limited time, limited cognitive capacity, and limited understanding of complex systems. In the EA context, bounded rationality means that:

• No single person or organization can fully understand all the environmental, social, and economic implications of a project
• Decision-makers simplify complex problems, often ignoring important system-level connections
• The boundaries we draw around a problem determine what we see and what we miss
• Systems thinking helps to counteract bounded rationality by expanding the frame of analysis

3c. Perspective

The Importance of Perspective

Perspective is fundamental to understanding any system. Different stakeholders view the same project, ecosystem, or policy through different lenses shaped by their experiences, values, knowledge, and interests. What one observer sees as the “whole picture” is always a partial view.

In EA, perspective matters because:

• Different stakeholders have different values, priorities, and knowledge systems
• The choice of whose perspective is centered in an EA process fundamentally shapes the outcome
• Indigenous perspectives, community perspectives, and scientific perspectives may reveal very different aspects of the same situation
• A failure to consider multiple perspectives leads to incomplete and potentially harmful assessments

3d. The Harper Government’s Omnibus Budget Bills

Changes to Environmental Legislation

McCarthy examines how the Harper Government’s omnibus budget bills had profound implications for environmental legislation in Canada, particularly:

Implications for the Navigable Waters Protection Act: The changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act (renamed the Navigation Protection Act) removed protections from the vast majority of Canada’s waterways. Previously, any project affecting navigable waters required federal review. Under the changes, only a small number of specifically listed waterways retained protection, leaving thousands of lakes and rivers without federal oversight.

Implications for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: The omnibus budget bills introduced CEAA 2012, which dramatically reduced the number of projects requiring federal environmental assessment. This represented a fundamental shift from a comprehensive, trigger-based system to a limited, list-based system.

These changes illustrate how systems thinking reveals connections: changes to budget legislation affected environmental protection, waterway management, Indigenous rights, and resource development in ways that were not immediately apparent from examining any single piece of legislation in isolation.

3e. Systems Thinking and EA: Canadian Aboriginal Issues

System Context: Canadian Aboriginal Issues

Systems thinking helps reveal the deep connections between EA processes and Indigenous rights, land claims, and self-determination. EA does not occur in a vacuum – it operates within a system that includes:

• Historical colonialism and its ongoing impacts
• Unresolved land claims and treaty rights
• Constitutional obligations under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982
• The duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous peoples
• Traditional land use and knowledge systems

System Context: Ontario First Nations

McCarthy examines how Ontario First Nations communities are affected by and interact with the EA process, highlighting the systemic inequalities that shape how these communities participate in environmental decision-making.

3f. Ontario: Far North Planning Process

The Far North Act

The Ontario Far North Act (2010) established a framework for land use planning in Ontario’s Far North, covering approximately 42% of Ontario’s land mass. The Act requires that community-based land use plans be completed before significant new development can proceed.

McCarthy discusses how this planning process connects to the EA system by:

• Setting the context for project-level assessments
• Establishing protected areas and development zones
• Requiring joint planning between First Nations and the Ontario government
• Creating a planning framework that precedes and shapes individual EA processes

3g. Reinforcing Feedback Loops

Understanding Feedback in Systems

Reinforcing feedback loops are self-amplifying cycles where a change in one part of the system leads to further changes in the same direction. In the context of EA:

• Resource development can create economic dependencies that drive demand for more development
• Political relationships between government and industry can create cycles of regulatory weakening
• Environmental degradation can reduce ecosystem resilience, making further degradation more likely
• Community capacity to participate in EA processes can be undermined by repeated negative experiences

Understanding these feedback loops is essential to understanding why certain patterns persist in EA practice despite evidence that they are not achieving sustainability goals.

3h. The Victor Diamond Mine: Systems Concepts and Connections

Case Study: Victor Diamond Mine

The Victor Diamond Mine is located in the James Bay Lowlands of northern Ontario, near the Attawapiskat First Nation community. It was Ontario’s first diamond mine, operated by De Beers Canada. McCarthy uses this case study to illustrate systems concepts and the importance of looking for connections between:

• Mining operations and local communities
• Economic benefits and social impacts
• Environmental effects and cultural values
• Project-level decisions and regional-scale consequences

3i. Victor Diamond Mine: Multiple Perspectives

Perspectives I and II

McCarthy explores how different stakeholders perceive the Victor Diamond Mine project very differently:

Fort Albany First Nation Perspective on the EA Public Consultation Process:

• Concerns about impacts on traditional lands, waterways, and wildlife
• Questions about the adequacy of consultation processes
• Worries about the long-term legacy of mining on community health and well-being
• A holistic view that sees the mine within the context of centuries of colonial resource extraction

De Beers’ Perspective:

• Economic benefits including employment and revenue
• Technical mitigation measures for environmental impacts
• Compliance with regulatory requirements
• A project-focused view that emphasizes manageable, bounded impacts

What Different Groups See

What the Fort Albany First Nation Community Might See:

• A continuation of historical patterns of resource extraction on Indigenous lands
• Threats to water, land, and wildlife that sustain their way of life
• Inadequate consultation and power imbalances in the assessment process

What Others Might See:

• Economic opportunity and development
• Job creation in a remote region
• Well-managed environmental impacts with technical solutions

The gap between these perspectives is a key theme in understanding why EA processes often fail to satisfy all stakeholders.

3j. Cross-Scale Connections: York Region Case Study

Systems Thinking and EA at Multiple Scales

McCarthy presents the York Region case study to illustrate how EA operates at multiple scales and how projects at one scale are connected to decisions at other scales:

Project Level EA: A specific infrastructure project (such as the twinning of a sewage pipeline) undergoes project-level EA examining its immediate environmental impacts.

Infrastructure Master Plan: The project exists within the context of a regional infrastructure master plan that determines what infrastructure is needed and where.

Official Plan Review: The infrastructure plan is driven by the region’s official plan, which establishes growth targets and land use designations.

The Scale Problem

The key insight is that project-level EA examines a narrow slice of a much larger system. The decision to build the pipeline was effectively made at higher planning scales (the official plan, the infrastructure master plan) before the project-level EA was even initiated. The project-level EA can evaluate how to build the pipeline but not whether it should be built at all – that decision has already been made at a higher scale.

3k. Higher-Scale Connections

Places to Grow: Ontario’s Growth Plan

Ontario’s Places to Grow Act (2005) established growth targets that directed population growth into specific urban areas. These growth targets drove municipal official plans, which drove infrastructure master plans, which drove specific projects – each of which might require its own EA. Systems thinking reveals that the most consequential decisions (how much growth, where) are made at scales that are not subject to project-level EA.

Federal Immigration Policy

Federal immigration policy determines, in part, population growth rates. These growth rates feed into provincial growth plans. Thus, a federal policy decision about immigration targets has downstream effects on infrastructure needs, environmental impacts, and the number and type of EA processes triggered.

Global Capitalist Growth Imperative

At the broadest scale, the global capitalist growth imperative drives economic policies that prioritize GDP growth, which drives immigration policy, which drives growth plans, which drives infrastructure development, which drives individual projects. Systems thinking in EA requires acknowledging these macro-scale drivers even though they are far removed from any individual project assessment.

3l. Neoliberal Political-Economic Agenda and Systems Thinking

The Connection Between Political Economy and EA

McCarthy connects the global capitalist growth imperative to a neoliberal political-economic agenda that favors deregulation, privatization, and the reduction of environmental protections. In this context:

• CEAA 2012’s reduction in the number of projects requiring EA can be understood as part of a broader neoliberal agenda
• The emphasis on “efficiency” in EA processes can serve as cover for reducing environmental scrutiny
• The relationship between government and industry interests shapes which projects are assessed and how

Systems Thinking and EA: Summary

Systems thinking provides a framework for understanding:

1. Context: EA does not occur in isolation but within complex political, economic, social, and ecological systems
2. Connections: Changes in one part of the system (e.g., federal policy) create ripple effects throughout (e.g., specific project impacts)
3. Perspective: Different stakeholders see different aspects of the same system, and whose perspective is centered matters
4. Scale: Decisions made at higher scales (policy, planning) constrain what is possible at lower scales (project-level EA)
5. Feedback: Systems contain reinforcing loops that can perpetuate unsustainable patterns
6. Bounded Rationality: Our understanding is always limited, and systems thinking helps expand the boundaries of what we consider

Module 3 Required Readings

• Video: Systems Innovation. Mar 2, 2015. Systems Thinking. [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Miy9uQcwo3U
• Academic Reading: Waltner-Toews, D. and Kay, J. (2005). The Evolution of an Ecosystem Approach: the Diamond Schematic and an Adaptive Methodology for Ecosystem Sustainability and Health. Ecology and Society, 10(1): 38.
• Book Section: Kay, J. (2008). An Introduction to Systems Thinking. In Kay, J., Waltner-Toews, D., and Lister, N. (Eds.), The Ecosystem Approach: Complexity, Uncertainty, and Managing for Sustainability. Columbia University Press. pp. 3-14.

Module 3 Review Questions

1. What is meant by bounded rationality?
2. Using a metaphor, describe what is meant by perspective. Why does perspective matter? What role does perspective play in the EA process?
3. Draw (by hand or by computer) a systems map of the Berger Inquiry and the Mackenzie Valley pipeline assessment. Include the components/elements and structure of this case study.
4. Explain how the Places to Grow Act ultimately impacted the York Region twinning of the sewage pipeline case study.
5. What are the environmental implications of the Navigable Waters Protection Act?

Module 4: Screening Procedures

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this module you will be able to:

• Understand the role and purpose of screening in the EA process
• Begin to develop an understanding of when and why an EA is required
• Discuss the types of screening approaches and the advantages and disadvantages of the different types
• Understand the screening process under CEAA 1995, CEAA 2012, and the new IAA

Key Terms

• EA: Environmental Assessment
• Screening EA: Under CEAA 1995, the basic level of EA applied to projects not listed on the Comprehensive Study List. It identifies potential environmental effects, proposed mitigation measures, project modifications, and recommends further evaluation if needed.
• Comprehensive Study EA: Under CEAA 1995, a higher level of EA for projects listed on the Comprehensive Study List Regulations (threshold-based). These are large-scale, complex projects in ecologically sensitive sites (e.g., large mines, energy projects, industry plants).
• Review Panel EA: The highest level of EA. Appointed by the federal Minister of the Environment and comprised of various experts who evaluate the proposal through public hearings.
• Regulations Designating Physical Activities: A regulatory list that identifies which activities may require an EA by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, or the National Energy Board.
• Project Description: A document containing project information, site information, federal involvement, and predicted environmental effects. Under the IAA, proponents submit both an Initial Project Description and a Detailed Project Description.
• EA by a Responsible Authority (RA): Under CEAA 2012, an EA conducted by one of the designated responsible authorities (the Agency, CNSC, or NEB).
• EA Conducted by Agency: Under the IAA, an impact assessment conducted by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.

4a. What is Screening?

Definition and Purpose

Screening is the first step in an EA and can be defined as “the narrowing of the application of EA to projects that require assessment because of perceived significant environmental effects or specific regulations.” Essentially, screening is the “Trigger” for EA and asks “is an EA required?” (Noble, 2015:72).

Generally, the results of the screening process will be one of the following:

1. The project goes ahead without an EA
2. An EA is required (either conducted by the Agency or a review panel)
3. A limited EA is required involving a mitigation plan or modified assessment
4. Further studies are required to determine if an EA is required

Responsible Authorities

Screening is often conducted by the Responsible Authority (RA) of the proposed project. Under CEAA 2012, the responsible authority was one of three RAs:

1. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency – for most projects designated under CEAA 2012
2. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission – for projects that fall under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act
3. National Energy Board – for projects that include activities under the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act

The introduction of the new IAA saw the number of RAs go from three to one. The newly formed Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (the Agency) is now the single federal body responsible for conducting impact assessments and coordinating Crown consultations. A notable change is the removal of the term “environmental” from the title of the Agency – done to broaden the scope of assessments from a biophysical focus to one including health, economic, and social issues.

As documented in the IAA, the Agency has 9 primary objectives (IAA, 2019:155):

(a) To conduct or administer impact assessments and administer any other requirements and procedures established by this Act and the regulations

(b) To coordinate consultations with Indigenous groups that may be affected by the carrying out of a designated project (during the period from project description posting to decision statement issuance)

(c) To promote harmonization in relation to the assessment of effects across Canada at all levels of government

(d) To promote or conduct research in matters of impact assessment and to encourage the development of impact assessment techniques and practices

(e) To promote impact assessment in a manner that is consistent with the purposes of this Act

(f) To promote, monitor, and facilitate compliance with this Act

(g) To promote and monitor the quality of impact assessments conducted under this Act

(h) To develop policy related to this Act

(i) To engage in consultation with the Indigenous peoples of Canada on policy issues related to this Act

Purpose of Screening

Screening of proposed projects allows for those activities that have little to no likely environmental effects to not require unnecessary EAs, saving time and money for larger projects. Further, screening can streamline projects that have known effects. Finally, screening can help to ensure that projects likely producing significant environmental effects carry out an EA.

Types of Screening

There are four main approaches to screening:

1. Case-by-Case Screening

A project is evaluated against a set of screening criteria to determine the type of EA required.

Example: Under the Saskatchewan EA Act, “the proponent submits a project proposal that describes the project purpose, manner of operation, location and impacts to the surrounding environment as well as any environmental protection measures that will be applied. On the basis of information submitted, the Ministry considers if the project is likely to have impacts significant enough to warrant an EA.”

2. Threshold-based Screening

Categories of projects with similar thresholds are associated with each type. Thresholds might be based on:

• The size of the project
• The level of emissions
• Amount of resource extraction
• The level of pollution being emitted

Examples of thresholds under CEAA 2012:

• The proposed construction, decommissioning, or abandonment of a new fossil fuel-fired electrical generating facility with a production capacity of 200 MW or more
• The construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of a new oil sands mine with a bitumen production capacity of 10,000 m3/day or more
• The construction of a new all-season runway with a length of 1,500 m or more

3. List-based Screening

Applicable under CEAA 1995. This type of screening approach has a list of projects that state whether or not an EA is required, either due to significant environmental effects or because the proposal is based on regulatory requirements and responsibilities (Noble, 2015:73).

There are two types of lists:

• An inclusion list where an EA is required
• An exclusion list where an EA is not required

Inclusion list example (CEAA 1995): The destruction of fish by any means other than fishing, where the destruction requires the authorization of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Exclusion list example (CEAA 1995): The proposed modification of a domestic or farm irrigation system if the project does not involve the likely release of a polluting substance into a water body.

4. Hybrid Screening Approach

Addresses some of the weaknesses associated with the threshold-based screening approach and some of the benefits of a case-by-case approach. In this type of screening approach there is a list-based approach with thresholds for projects. Projects that fall below the thresholds or off the inclusion/exclusion list are then subject to a discretionary case-by-case screening approach (Noble, 2015:74).

4b. Screening under CEAA 1995

Four Triggers for EA

Under CEAA 1995 there were four triggers that led to an EA being required:

1. All projects proposed by federal authorities
2. All projects involving federal funding
3. All projects involving federal lands
4. All projects requiring some type of license or permit

Types of EA under CEAA 1995

Screening EA

If the project was not listed on the Comprehensive Study List, it would undergo a screening level EA. Prior to CEAA 2012, the majority of EAs in Canada underwent a screening level EA. A screening EA identifies:

• Any potential environmental effects
• Proposed mitigation measures to those impacts
• Any project modifications required
• Whether further evaluation of the project is needed

A screening EA must address (Noble, 2010:78):

• The environmental effects of the project and the effects of possible accidents
• The significance of the environmental effects
• Technically and economically feasible measures that would reduce or eliminate any significant adverse effects
• Public comment

Comprehensive Study EA

If the project was listed in the Comprehensive Study List Regulations (a threshold-based list), then the project must undergo a Comprehensive Study EA. Such projects are likely to have significant environmental impacts and are often large in scale, complex, and located in ecologically sensitive sites. Examples include large mines, energy projects, and industry plants.

A comprehensive study must address the same factors as those in a screening EA. Due to the likelihood of significant environmental effects, comprehensive studies must also address:

• A detailed description of the project
• Alternative means of carrying out the project that are technically and economically feasible and that consider the environmental effects of the alternative means
• The capacity of renewable resources likely to be affected
• The need for, and any requirement of, a follow-up program (Noble, 2010:78)

Review Panel EA

The highest level of EA in CEAA 1995. Any project that has unknown environmental impacts, or if there are likely to be significant environmental effects, or if there is significant public concern over the project, then the Environment Minister can elevate an EA to a Review Panel EA. Review panels are appointed by the federal Minister of the Environment and are comprised of various experts that will evaluate the proposal. It is the Environment Minister who will give the go-ahead to the project based on the report from the review panel.

4c. Screening under CEAA 2012

Criteria for EA

Under CEAA 2012, projects are only subject to an EA if they meet one of three criteria:

1. The project is a designated project
2. The project will require certain authorities to make decisions for a project on federal lands
3. The project falls outside of Canada (Noble, 2015)

Further, a project can be designated by the Minister of the Environment if there is enough public concern or potentially significant adverse environmental effects.

What is a Designated Project?

According to CEAA 2012, a project is designated if:

• It is carried out on federal lands
• It is listed on the Regulations Designating Physical Activities
• It is designated by the Minister of Environment
• It is linked to the same federal authority as specified in those regulations

Examples of Designated Projects (Noble, 2015:80-81; McCarthy, 2018):

• The expansion of an existing military base or military station that would result in an increase in the area of 50% or more
• The decommissioning and abandonment of an existing military base or military station
• The testing of military weapons for more than five days in a calendar year in an area other than the training areas, ranges and test establishments established before October 7, 1994

When Projects Are Not on the Designated List

There are situations where a project is not included in the designated list or is below a threshold level. In these situations, if:

• The project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects
• The site location is ecologically sensitive
• There is considerable public concern

The Minister of the Environment has the authority to require an EA (Government of Canada, 2015).

The Screening Process under CEAA 2012

The screening process applies to designated projects linked to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) in the Project List. The process does not apply to designated projects assessed by other responsible authorities under CEAA 2012 – the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and the National Energy Board (NEB).

According to the federal government and sections 8 to 10 in CEAA 2012, screening is used to “determine whether an environmental assessment of a proposed project is required for projects identified on the Regulations Designating Physical Activities (Project List).”

4d. Requirements for an EA Screening

What Information is Required to Determine the Need for an EA?

Under the IAA, designated projects may be subject to an impact assessment if the project is designated by regulation or through Ministerial discretion. A project is designated by regulation if one or more activities are carried out in Canada, on federal lands, or outside of Canada, and are designated by regulations (listed in the Physical Activities Regulations or commonly termed the Project List).

Important note: Consideration of Indigenous rights is not included in projects outside of Canada.

Similar to CEAA 2012, projects can also be designated by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change if the activity “may cause adverse effects within federal jurisdiction or adverse direct or incidental effects, or public concerns related to those effects warrant the designation” (IAA, 2019).

Transitional provisions: Generally, any project that started under CEAA 2012 and that the Agency feels has provided the required information and studies will continue under CEAA 2012 legislation. If the Agency believes that the information provided has been inadequate, then the assessment will continue under the IAA. Any project already being completed by the former National Energy Board or Nuclear Safety Commission will continue under CEAA 2012.

Detailed Project Descriptions under the IAA

Under the IAA, proponents are required to submit two types of project descriptions – an Initial Project Description and a Detailed Project Description.

Detailed project descriptions contain seven categories of required information (Government of Canada, 2019):

1. General Information – project name, proposed location, and contact information
2. Planning Phase Results – summary of engagement with the public and other participants, list of affected Indigenous groups and summary of engagement with them, inclusion of relevant regional plans, projects, or strategic assessments
3. Project Information – purpose, the need for the project, size, capacity, description of all activities, waste production, anticipated schedule, and a list of potential alternative means and alternatives to the project
4. Location Information and Context – geographic coordinates, site maps, legal description of land, brief description of the physical and biophysical environment and the health, social, and economic context of the region; proximity to residences, federal land, and Indigenous land including traditionally used land
5. Federal, Provincial, Territorial, Indigenous and Municipal Involvement and Effects – financial support, federal lands, permits
6. Potential Effects of the Project – list of changes that might impact fish and fish habitat, aquatic species, and migratory birds under federal authority; description of environmental changes that might be caused by the project; description of any impact to Indigenous land use, culture, heritage, and structure/site
7. Summary – a plain language summary made accessible to the public in both French and English

Once the project description is completed by the proponent, it is submitted to the Assessment Agency (the Agency) for review. The project description is then posted to the Agency’s website along with the Response to the Summary of Issues. The Agency then determines if an impact assessment is required and posts the decision and the reasons for the decision on the Registry.

Types of EA under the IAA

Under the IAA 2019, there are two types of EAs:

IA by the Agency: An impact assessment conducted by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. This type systematically documents the likely impacts (positive and adverse) of the proposed project on the environment, health, social, and economic components while ensuring the rights of Indigenous people. The Agency highlights problems, proposes mitigation measures, and makes recommendations to the project design to mitigate likely adverse impacts while promoting positive ones (Noble, 2015:88). An IA by the Agency is very similar to comprehensive studies undertaken by CEAA 1995 and the EA by Responsible Authority under CEAA 2012.

IA by Review Panel: An impact assessment undertaken by a panel of individual experts chosen based on their experience, expertise, and backgrounds by the Minister of Environment and the Agency. The Review Panel holds public hearings and reviews in-depth environmental impact data to make a recommendation on the approval and mitigation measures of a proposed project (Government of Canada, 2018; Noble, 2015:88).

Federal Substitution

If an IA is being conducted by the Agency and there is a legal requirement at both the federal level and the provincial level for an IA to be carried out, then the Minister of the Environment can appoint the province/territory (or Aboriginal land claim body) to conduct the IA if the provincial IA legislation meets the legislative requirements of the IAA and/or any other requirements set out by the Minister. This substitution or equivalency built into the IAA is designed to reduce redundancy in the IA system and require one IA per project.

4e1. The Main Steps of an EA Process Conducted by the Agency

The following 20 steps outline the complete EA process when conducted by the Agency:

Step 1 – Project Description Submitted: The proponent provides the Agency with a description of the designated project including the information set out in the Prescribed Information for the Description of a Designated Project Regulations.

Step 2 – Project Description Accepted: The Agency accepts the project description once it is considered to be complete.

Step 3 – Notification and Comment Period: The Agency posts a notice on its Registry Internet site that it is considering whether an environmental assessment will be required. A summary of the project description is posted along with a notice of a 20-day public comment period.

Step 4 – Determining Whether an EA is Required: The Agency must decide within 45 days of posting the notice. The Agency considers: the project description, the possibility of adverse environmental effects, public comments received within 20 days, and the results of any relevant regional studies.

Step 5 – EA Commencement: If an EA is required, the Agency posts a notice of commencement on the Registry.

Step 6 – Comment Period on Draft EIS Guidelines: The proponent must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Agency prepares and posts draft EIS guidelines for public comment on the proposed studies, methods, and information required.

Step 7 – Final EIS Guidelines Issued: After considering public comments (including from Aboriginal groups) and input from federal departments, the Agency issues the final EIS guidelines to the proponent.

Step 8 – Participant Funding: Eligible individuals, not-for-profit organizations, and Aboriginal groups may apply for participant funding. The President of the Agency makes the final decision on each funding request.

Step 9 – Proponent Submits EIS: The proponent prepares its EIS according to the Agency’s guidelines and submits it for review.

Step 10 – Completeness Review: The Agency reviews the proponent’s EIS to verify that it clearly provides the required information. Additional information may be required before starting the sufficiency review.

Step 11 – Sufficiency Review: The Agency reviews the EIS for sufficiency and accuracy. Clarification or further information may be required.

Step 12 – Public Comment on EIS: A summary and the EIS report are posted on the Registry. The Agency solicits public comments on the potential environmental effects and proposed mitigation measures.

Step 13 – Proponent Revisions: The proponent submits revisions and additional information as requested by the Agency.

Step 14 – Draft EA Report: The Agency drafts the EA report including: conclusions regarding potential environmental effects, mitigation measures taken into account, significance of remaining adverse environmental effects, and follow-up program requirements.

Step 15 – Comment Period on Draft EA Report: The Agency solicits public comments on the draft EA report.

Step 16 – Final EA Report Submitted to Minister: The Agency finalizes the EA report and submits it to the Minister of the Environment to inform the EA decision.

Step 17 – Determination of Significant Effects: If the Minister’s decision is that the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, the matter is referred to the Governor in Council (Cabinet) who then decides if the significant adverse effects are justified in the circumstances.

Step 18 – Decision Statement Issued: The Minister issues the EA decision statement with enforceable conditions, including mitigation measures and follow-up program requirements.

Step 19 – Regulatory Decision-making: Federal decisions (regulatory permits, licenses, funding) can only be made after the EA is complete. Federal authorities may proceed only if the decision statement indicates that, with conditions, the project is not likely to cause significant adverse effects, or that significant effects are justified.

Step 20 – Implementation and Follow-up: Mitigation measures are incorporated into design plans. A follow-up program is implemented to verify EA accuracy and mitigation effectiveness.

4e2. The Main Steps of an EA Process Conducted by a Review Panel

The Review Panel process follows a 22-step procedure that is similar to the Agency-led process but includes additional steps:

Steps 1-7 are identical to the Agency-led process (project description, acceptance, notification, determination, commencement, EIS guidelines).

Step 8 – Referral to Review Panel: Within 60 days of the commencement of an EA, the Minister may decide to refer the EA to a review panel. The Minister considers:

• The potential for significant adverse environmental effects
• Public concerns related to those effects
• Opportunities for coordination with another jurisdiction

The Minister establishes time limits (combined not to exceed 24 months) for panel establishment, report submission, and decision statement issuance.

Step 9 – Participant Funding: Same as in Agency-led process.

Step 10 – Comment Period on Draft Terms of Reference: For federal-only review panels, the Agency prepares draft terms of reference. For joint review panels, the Agency works with the other jurisdiction to draft a joint review panel agreement.

Step 11 – Final Terms of Reference Issued: After public comment, the Minister issues the final terms of reference.

Step 12 – Proponent Submits EIS: Same as in Agency-led process.

Step 13 – Completeness Review: The Agency conducts a thorough completeness review, soliciting public comments and potentially requiring additional information.

Step 14 – Review Panel Appointed: The Minister appoints the review panel from a roster of candidates assessed for relevant knowledge, expertise, and absence of bias or conflict of interest.

Step 15 – Proponent Revises EIS: The proponent revises the EIS based on feedback from the completeness review.

Step 16 – Sufficiency Determination: The review panel determines if the information is sufficient to proceed to public hearings. Additional information may be required, with a 30-day comment period on any additional submissions.

Step 17 – Public Hearings: The review panel holds public hearings, offering any interested parties an opportunity to participate. The primary purpose is to obtain the information required to complete the assessment.

Step 18 – Panel Report: The review panel prepares its report with conclusions, rationale, and recommendations, and submits it to the Minister. For joint review panels, recommendations are also made to the other jurisdiction.

Step 19 – Determination of Significant Effects: Same as Agency-led process – if significant adverse effects are likely, referred to Cabinet.

Step 20 – Decision Statement Issued: Same as Agency-led process.

Step 21 – Regulatory Decision-making: Same as Agency-led process. For joint review panels, each jurisdiction retains its independent decision-making responsibility.

Step 22 – Implementation and Follow-up: Same as Agency-led process.

4f. What Happens After the Screening Process?

Once the screening process has been completed and it has been determined whether an IA is required (and if so, what type), the IA process begins. If an IA is required:

1. The Agency develops draft Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (TISG) and draft plans
2. After allowing time for both public engagement and Indigenous engagement and partnerships, the Agency issues a final TISG and plans
3. The Agency posts a Notice of Commencement
4. At this point the Minister may elevate the project from an IA by the Agency to an IA by a Review Panel

Module 4 Required Readings

• Video: Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Fall 2014. Canada’s New Environmental Assessment Act Finds Early Challenges with Project List and Public Participation. [Video]. https://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_vid_e_39872.html
• Textbook: Chapter 4: Determining the Need for Assessment, pages 58-68
• Academic Reading: Geneletti, D., Biasiolli, A., and Morrison-Saunders, A. (2017). Land take and the effectiveness of project screening in Environmental Impact Assessment: Findings from an empirical study. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 67, 117-123.
• Government Resource: Minister of Justice. (2019, August 9). Regulations Designating Physical Activities. Government of Canada. [IAA] pp. 1-15. https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2019-285/page-1.html
• Case Study: KGS Group. (2018, April). Project Description Executive Summary: Insect Control Branch Heliport Relocation. pp. 1-41.

Optional:

• Minister of Justice. (2014, December 31). Regulations Designating Physical Activities. Government of Canada. [CEAA 2012] pp. 1-14.

Module 4 Review Questions

1. What is the purpose of the screening stage? Do you feel that all developments should be subject to an EA? Why or why not?
2. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a thresholds-based screening approach, case-by-case approach, and list-based approach. Give an example of a country/province that uses each approach.
3. Define the term “responsible authority” (RA). Under CEAA 2012 and IAA 2019, who are the RAs and what type of project(s) are the different RAs responsible for?
4. Do you think it is beneficial to have one or multiple different RAs carrying out Federal EAs? Why or why not?
5. Explain some of the issues that might result from having a designated list to determine if an EA is required.
6. Go to the Impact Assessment Registry (https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations) and click on Browse Active Assessments. Choose an assessment that interests you and note down Project Type, Proponent, Authorities, and Assessment Type. The aim here is to acquaint you with the Impact Assessment Registry website.

Module 5: Scoping Procedures

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this module you will be able to:

• Understand the role and purpose of scoping in the EA process
• Begin to develop an understanding of the role that public participation plays in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
• Recognize the importance of alternatives during the scoping phase
• Be aware of the processes for establishing Terms of Reference and boundaries for EIA studies

Key Terms

5a. The EA Scoping Process

“Almost everything about environmental impact assessment is controversial. Needless to say, the role of scoping in environmental impact assessment is contentious.” — Peter Mulvihill, 2017

“If the quality of an EIA were measured by how much shelf space (or DVDs) the EIS required, then the state-of-practice must be improving. Complex projects do require a significant volume of information and analysis; however, the number of volumes and maps contained in an EIS and the total page count are not indicators of the quality of an assessment. Good EIA is focused on those issues most important to managing the impacts of the proposed project and to informing the decision at hand. Too often, EIAs are rich in description and weak in analysis.” — Noble, 2015:95

The scoping phase of an EIA allows the temporal and spatial boundaries to be set around a project while allowing for the focus of the EIA to be on the most relevant and valued concerns as determined from the engagement of key stakeholders (DFO, 1995; Noble, 2015).

The key to a good EIA is correctly-done scoping, and some have even gone so far as to argue that scoping is the most important step in the entire EA process (Barnes et al., 2010). Scoping must set boundaries that are broad enough to include significant impacts of the project; however, if the boundaries are set too wide, extra time and expense will be used to evaluate environmental components that are not likely to be impacted or are of least concern to key stakeholders.

In general, the scoping phase of an EIA is carried out to determine (from DFO, 1995:15):

1. What undertakings and activities must be assessed as part of the project
2. What factors and issues need to be considered in the EA
3. The parties that should be involved in the project and their interests and concerns
4. The appropriate level of effort for the EA

What is Scoping?

At this time there is no consensus on how scoping should be defined, and the definition of what scoping means and how it is carried out varies from region to region and project to project (Mulvihill and Baker, 2001). According to Noble (2015:95), scoping is about:

• “Determining the important issues and parameters that should be addressed in an environmental assessment”
• “Establishing the spatial and temporal boundaries of the assessment”
• “Focusing the assessment on the relevant issues and concerns”

Kennedy and Ross (1992:476) define scoping as:

“An EIA activity in which a process is followed to identify the attributes of the environment for which there is concern (public and scientific) and a plan is provided that enables the EIA to be focused on these attributes.”

The scope of the assessment entails information-gathering and the selection of Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) that are carried forward into the next stage of the EA process.

Objectives of Scoping

The main objectives of the scoping phase are to:

• Identify and focus the assessment on the most important issues
• Establish the temporal and spatial boundaries of the assessment
• Identify and engage key stakeholders
• Determine reasonable alternative means and alternatives to the project
• Identify how the environmental conditions of the project site might impact the project
• Establish baselines and trends

5b. Types of Scoping

Scoping can be thought of as a sliding scale — at one end there is open scoping and at the other closed scoping. Often the practice of scoping is found anywhere along the scale. There is no set standard for what scoping methods and type of scoping should be carried out, and often the type of scoping possible is predetermined by project/proponent constraints.

Open Scoping

Open scoping has also been referred to as ambitious scoping by some EA practitioners. In open scoping, the focus and scope of the assessment is determined through a transparent process consisting of a broad range of stakeholder engagement and consultation with regulators and the proponent (Noble, 2015). This type of scoping approach is adaptable and can address any concerns or new information that is brought forward during the decision-making process. Further, the opportunity for a broader range of alternatives is more likely.

Closed Scoping

Unlike the flexibility of open scoping, in closed scoping the scope of the project is often set by legislative regulations or jurisdictional boundaries. Consultation often occurs behind closed doors, usually without any meaningful stakeholder engagement. Closed scoping is more likely to result in unforeseen impacts and unmanaged cumulative impacts. This type of scoping is often seen in many proponent systems — for example, when there are set budget constraints that pressure the project to be scoped narrowly. Municipal and city planners usually have a set timeline given for them to work within, and larger corporations have five-year development plans. All of these restrictive timelines narrow the scope of an EA (Mulvihill, 2017).

5c. Establishing Valued Ecosystem Components

One of the most important objectives of scoping is to determine the most valued environmental components that are likely to be impacted by the project. Valued ecosystem components (VECs) are broad environmental, social, or cultural components of the environment that are socio-ecologically valued by key stakeholders (e.g., regulatory agencies, Aboriginal groups, scientists, and the general public) and are likely to be altered by the project in either a positive or negative manner (Milne and Bennett in Hanna, 2016). Through the scoping process, issues concerning the project development are discussed, analyzed, and categorized to help develop the list of VECs that will define the scope of the project, the factors to be considered, and the scope of the factors to be considered (Stantec, 2013).

With the new IAA, the term valued ecosystem component has been replaced with valued component to show a more holistic approach. However, in texts and readings you will still encounter the term VEC, so it is retained in this course.

Project Alternatives

All too often in IA, the type, design, operation, purpose, and location of a project is already set prior to the beginning of the IA process. This does not allow for the flexibility to modify the project based on information gathered from public consultation and ecological data collection.

Section 22 of the IAA identifies factors to be considered in the IA of a designated project, including:

• The purpose of and need for the designated project, as per paragraph 22(1)(d)
• “Alternative means” of carrying out the designated project that are technically and economically feasible, including through the use of best available technologies, and the effects of those means, as per paragraph 22(1)(e)
• “Alternatives to” the designated project that are technically and economically feasible and are directly related to the designated project, as per paragraph 22(1)(f)

“Alternatives To”

Alternatives to a project, or an alternative to the purpose of the project, can be described as different ways of meeting the need and purpose of the proposed project. Often this type of alternative is poorly considered in environmental impact assessments.

As defined by the IAA, the purpose of the project includes (Government of Canada, 2019):

• A statement of purpose of and need for the project, including any potential benefits
• The purpose of the project is what is to be achieved by carrying out the project
• The need for the project is the opportunity that the project is intended to solve or satisfy — the “need for” establishes the fundamental justification or rationale for the project
• The “purpose of” and “need for” the project should be established from the perspective of the project proponent and provide the context for the consideration of alternatives to and alternative means

“‘Alternatives to’ are best addressed much earlier in the policy and planning cycle during the stages of strategic environmental assessment. In practice, however, ‘alternatives to’ are rarely considered comprehensively in project EA.” — Noble, 2021:39

One alternative that is rarely seriously considered by the proponent, but must be considered, is the “do nothing” option where the project does not go ahead. Consider for example that there is a road development proposed to improve traffic conditions (the initial project is considered the preferred alternative). The purpose of this project is to improve traffic, so some alternatives to this would be: do nothing, HOV lanes, public transit, etc.

“Alternative Means”

Alternative means of a project are often the most likely type of alternative to be considered and implemented. According to the IAA, alternative means “are the various technically and economically feasible ways, including through the use of best available technologies, which would allow a designated project and its physical activities to be carried out” (Government of Canada, 2019).

There are many alternative means to a project that can be considered, including the design, building materials, construction, operation, technologies employed, site location, infrastructure, lifecycle, and the ultimate decommissioning of the project. Some of these alternative means are not always feasible for certain types of EAs. For example, there is no alternative to the location of an iron/ore mine since the mineral deposit only occurs in a certain location.

Identifying Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs)

The requirement to collect and analyze environmental baseline information for an EA is significant. However, the ability to focus the baseline data collection on only those environmental/social components that have been shown to be valued by key stakeholders allows for more time and resources to be used in determining the magnitude and significance of impact and likely mitigation measures. By taking the time to focus the EA on the key issues of concern and to set the boundaries of the EA around these VECs, subsequent steps in the EA process will be more timely and efficient (Noble, 2015).

VECs can be concrete ecosystem components such as:

• Fish, wildlife, birds, clean water, air

Or social components such as:

• Jobs, fair wages, education

While other components can be more abstract, such as ecological integrity (Noble, 2015).

Methods for selecting VECs for a project can be varied, including:

• Reviewing VECs from similar projects
• Literature reviews
• Regional environmental studies
• Stakeholder engagement (arguably the most important method)

Table 5.3. Scoping the Biophysical Environment (from Noble, 2015:103)

Table 5.4. Scoping the Human Environment (from Noble, 2015:104)

5d. Establishing Assessment Boundaries

One of the main objectives, along with determining the VECs of a project, is the setting of boundaries, both spatial and temporal.

Spatial Boundaries

The spatial boundaries of a project are related to the VECs selected and other considerations such as biophysical boundaries, jurisdictional boundaries, and various other constraints. The boundaries must be large enough to monitor the likely impact of the project on a particular VEC but small enough to focus on the main impacts from the project itself.

Basic Principles for Spatial Bounding:

• Boundaries must be large enough to include relationships between the proposed project, other existing projects and activities, and the affected environmental components (Cooper, 2003)
• The scope of assessment should cross jurisdictions if necessary and allow for interconnections across systems (Shoemaker, 1994)
• Natural boundaries should be respected (Beanlands and Duinker, 1983)
• Different receptors will require assessment at different scales (Shoemaker, 1994)
• Boundaries should be set at the point where effects become insignificant by establishing a maximum detectable zone of influence (Scace, Grifone, and Usher, 2002)
• Both local and regional boundaries should be established (Canter, 1999)

Geographic boundaries for any particular assessment will vary depending on a number of factors, including: the nature of the project itself, sensitivity of the receiving environment, the nature of the impacts, extent of transboundary impacts, availability of baseline data, jurisdictional boundaries and cooperation, and natural physical boundaries.

Temporal Boundaries

Temporal boundaries are the timeline that will be considered in the EA — this should include a consideration of past, present, and future environmental conditions, as well as past, present, and future development in the region. The real question that needs to be addressed is how far into the past and future to go (Noble, 2015).

Generally, the most agreed upon method for determining temporal boundaries in the past is to go as far back as required to the point when “the VEC of concern was the most or before the current drivers of change in the region were most dominant” (Noble, 2015:112). The literature even suggests that all EAs look to the 1960s as the temporal boundary, since this is when there were significant changes to land use and development across Canada (Noble, 2015).

Future boundaries must take into account the entire lifecycle of the project and the ultimate decommissioning of the site back to baseline conditions — typically a decade beyond decommissioning (Noble, 2015). However, this viewpoint is problematic when it comes to sustainability, which is discussed further in the context of sustainability assessment.

Required Readings

• Video: Inter-American Development Bank. Oct 24, 2018. Environmental impact assessments: identifying relevant issues and concerns from the beginning. [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWtT0EfhNsE&t=190s
• Textbook: Chapter 5: Scoping and Baseline Assessment, pages 71–90
• Academic Reading: Mulvihill, P.R. and Baker, D.C. (2001, July). “Ambitious and Restrictive Scoping: Case Studies from Northern Canada.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp. 363–384
• Government Resource: CEAA. (2013, December). The Operational Policy Statement: Addressing “Purpose of” and “Alternative Means” under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Government of Canada
• Case Study: Manitoba Infrastructure. (2018, March). Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin Outlet Channels Project: Environmental Assessment Scoping Document. Environmental Approvals Branch, Manitoba Sustainable Development

Review Questions

1. Why are the evaluations of project alternatives important in the scoping process?
2. Define what is meant by environmental baseline.
3. Using a hypothetical example, describe the shifting baseline syndrome.
4. Explain the terms open scoping and closed scoping. What are the benefits of scoping overall?
5. Define the term VC (previously VEC).
6. Go to the Impact Assessment Registry and click on Browse Active Assessments. Choose an assessment that interests you and: a. Determine two VCs that may be associated with this project. b. Draw an environmental baseline for the project for one of the VCs (use the data provided and apply logic). You will need to use an indicator to “measure” your VC — for example, if your VC is fish, then fish population is an indicator.

Module 6: Impact Prediction and Evaluation

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this module you will be able to:

• Discuss what impact prediction is and why it is important
• Understand how a baseline is established and what methods can be used to establish it
• Describe the use of indicators and why they are required
• Discuss impact prediction tools and the advantages and disadvantages of these tools

Key Terms

6a. Impact Prediction: Establishing an Environmental Baseline

“Impact prediction requires both forethought and foresight about the potential implications of a proposed development project.” — Noble, 2015:118

Impact Prediction

According to Milne and Bennett (2016:35):

“The success of environmental impact assessments depends on the ability of practitioners to obtain and interpret information about the project or policy, to determine if changes will affect the surrounding environment and community and to assess the significance of those changes.”

One of the most enduring challenges in impact predictions is determining the significance of the impacts of the project. The ability to accurately gather and interpret data in order to predict the likely impact (or effect) of a project is vital to a good EA. Predicting how a valued environmental component will respond to a project is complex, often relying on poorly understood cause-effect relationships. Despite this difficulty, impact prediction is one of the most important steps in a good EA.

Making a prediction involves making an informed decision as to how selected indicators will change as a result of a project, resulting in likely impacts (either negative or positive) on a project’s valued ecosystem components (Noble, 2015). VECs are selected through transparent and meaningful consultation with stakeholders, government agencies, and Aboriginal groups during the scoping phase.

VECs act as a guide that:

• Focuses the scope of the EA
• Guides the collection of baseline data about past, present, and future conditions
• Determines the indicator(s) and the method(s) used to predict the impacts of a project and its alternatives

Establishing an Environmental Baseline

An environmental baseline describes the “past, present and likely future state of the environment without the proposed project.” It describes “conditions existing at points in time against which subsequent changes can be detected through monitoring.” The aims of establishing baseline conditions are to address the following questions (from McCarthy, 2018):

1. What do we need to know about the baseline environment to make a decision on the project?
2. What are the relevant background conditions that have influenced the current environment?
3. What is the likely baseline condition in the future in absence of the project?

The determination of baseline conditions and the description of the environment where the project is proposed is integral to the development of the Impact Statement, which is used in preparing the Impact Assessment Report that informs the Minister’s decision on the project. The IAA requires a detailed description of all changes to the environment or to health, social, or economic conditions and the positive and negative consequences of these changes likely caused by carrying out the project (Government of Canada, 2019).

According to the Act, the Impact Statement must include a stand-alone chapter on baseline conditions or clearly linked discussion of baselines and valued ecosystem components that:

“Provide a description of the environmental, health, social and economic setting directly and incidentally related to the designated project. This should include the existing environmental, health, social and economic components, interrelations and interactions as well as the variability in these components, processes and interactions over time scales and geographic boundaries appropriate to the project. Meaningful, two-way dialogue with communities and Indigenous groups provides input that may describe how these components and processes are interrelated.” — Government of Canada, 2019

Baseline Condition Categories Required by the IAA

6.1 Project Setting and Baseline Conditions

The Impact Statement must establish appropriate study area boundaries to describe baseline conditions. The study area boundaries need to encompass the spatial boundaries of the project, including any associated project components or activities, and the anticipated boundaries of the project effects. Considerations in assigning appropriate study areas include biophysical, human health, social, and economic factors. Consultation with Indigenous peoples is highly important for many projects.

6.2 Baseline Conditions — Biophysical Environment

The following elements within the existing biophysical environmental setting for all designated projects could be identified as VCs and would require a detailed baseline description:

• Changes to the Atmospheric Environment: Changes in air quality; changes in ambient noise levels; changes in night-time light levels
• Changes to Groundwater and Surface Water: Changes to turbidity, oxygen level, water temperature, ice regime, water quality; changes to hydrological and hydrometric conditions; changes to groundwater recharge/discharge areas; changes to water quality in associated water bodies
• Changes to Territorial Landscape: Overall description of changes related to landscape disturbance; changes to migratory bird habitat; changes to habitat for federal listed species at risk; changes to key habitat for species important to Aboriginal current use of resources

Where baseline data are available in GIS format, this information is to be provided as electronic geospatial data file(s) compliant with the ISO 19115 standard.

6.3 Baseline Conditions — Human Health

Baseline information must include the current state of physical, mental and social well-being and incorporate a social determinants of health approach. This approach recognizes that health is more than the absence of disease but includes broad factors that support well-being. The proponent must:

• Describe context-specific definitions of health and well-being, including from the perspective of relevant Indigenous cultures
• Describe relevant community and Indigenous history or context, including historical impacts on health
• Use a social determinants of health approach (physical environments, employment and working conditions, social environments, health services, income and social status, education and literacy, gender)
• Complete a community health profile (birth rates, death rates, chronic disease rates, mental health status, etc.)
• Describe drinking water sources, consumption of country foods (traditional foods), and food security status
• Support Gender-Based Analysis (GBA+) with disaggregated data for diverse subgroups

6.4 Baseline Conditions — Social

Baseline information must include social well-being and social activities for individual communities and Indigenous groups. The proponent must identify the social area of influence and prepare a community profile describing:

• Influences on community well-being
• Access, ownership and use of resources
• Capacity of institutions to deliver public services and infrastructure
• General patterns of human occupancy and resource use
• Rural and urban settings
• Existing local and regional infrastructure and services
• Sites or areas used by local populations and Indigenous peoples
• Structures, sites and things of historical, archaeological, paleontological, cultural, spiritual or architectural significance

6.5 Baseline Conditions — Economic

The economic baseline should document local and regional economic conditions and trends, including:

• Main economic activities in the study area
• Labour force (availability of skilled and unskilled workers, working conditions, wages)
• Availability of businesses that may provide supplies and services
• Employment rates and economic well-being
• Current use of land and water bodies (hunting, recreational and commercial fishing, trapping, agriculture, forestry)
• Marine commercial fisheries where applicable

6.6 Baseline Conditions — Indigenous Peoples

Proponents are encouraged to engage with Indigenous groups in developing baseline conditions to identify and understand potential impacts on Indigenous peoples, and to incorporate Indigenous knowledge into the impact assessment. Where possible, the Impact Statement should include:

• The physical and cultural heritage of each Indigenous group
• The current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes
• The health, social, and economic conditions of Indigenous peoples
• Nature and extent of the rights exercised

6b. Environmental Indicators

An indicator is a single variable in the environment that can be measured. That measurement (qualitative or quantitative) is then compared to past, present, and future conditions to determine the state (baseline) of that environmental condition and what might have triggered the change.

According to Turner and Canter (2008:1-2):

“The general concept is that such indicators should encompass measures related to the most important contributing factors to potential impacts and/or to the most important parameters affected by the factors.”

More simply, an indicator is “a sign or signal that relays a complex message, potentially from numerous sources, in a simplified and useful manner” (EPA, 2000:vii).

Considerations in Selecting Indicators

The determination of an indicator needs to be a transparent process that makes clear the rationale behind selecting the indicator and the methods for evaluating it. Key challenges include selecting an indicator that has a clear cause-and-effect relationship with the project action being studied and that is sensitive enough to show environmental impacts (Turner and Canter, 2008).

General questions that need to be addressed when determining indicators (from Turner and Canter, 2008:3-1 to 3-2):

• Are the indicators appropriate to the proposed action and the resource of interest?
• Are the indicators clear and understandable to stakeholders and members of the public?
• Is the list of indicators complete and is their complexity appropriate to the resource of interest?
• Can the proposed indicators be measured and the information reasonably gathered?
• Is it appropriate to use certain indicators for addressing construction phase impacts and others for operational phase impacts?
• Do pertinent professional societies or other agencies provide information on recommended indicators for particular resources?

Example: National Air Quality Indicators

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has selected five air quality indicators used to report daily air quality at the national level:

1. Ground-level ozone
2. Particulate matter
3. Carbon monoxide
4. Sulfur dioxide
5. Nitrogen dioxide

Each indicator’s concentration is set to an air quality index of 100, equal to the ambient concentration set to the nationally-recognized air quality standard. Concentrations over this index are categorized as unhealthy for sensitive groups, unhealthy, very unhealthy, or hazardous; concentrations under 100 are given a category of good or moderate (EPA, 2003 as cited in Turner and Canter, 2008:B-8).

World Bank Indicator Selection Criteria (Table A-3)

(Source: Lisa Segnestam/World Bank Environment Department, 1999:9-12)

Case Example: Montreal Process Criteria for Forest Conservation

In 2010, the U.S. Forest Service released their National Report of Sustainable Forests as part of an intergovernmental response for the need for sustainable forest management across temperate and boreal forests. Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russian Federation, United States, and Uruguay came together to develop seven criteria and indicators for the conservation of global forests:

1. Conservation of biological diversity
2. Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems
3. Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality
4. Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources
5. Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles
6. Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple socioeconomic benefits to meet the needs of societies
7. Legal, policy, and institutional framework

Example — Criterion 1, Indicator 1.05: Number and Status of Native Forest-Associated Species at Risk

This indicator provides information on the number and status of forest-associated species at risk or in serious decline by monitoring the number of native species identified by conservation science or mandate to be at risk of global extinction. Among forest-associated species (vascular plants, vertebrates, and select invertebrates):

• 77 (less than 1%) were determined to be presumed or possibly extinct
• 4,005 (27%) were determined to be at risk of extinction
• 10,576 (71%) were determined to be apparently secure

The greatest proportion of possibly extinct and at-risk species is found among select invertebrates (32%), followed by vascular plants (28%), and vertebrates (16%). Within vertebrates, amphibians show the greatest proportion (34%). At-risk species associated with forest habitats are concentrated geographically in Hawaii, the arid montane habitats of the Southwest, chaparral habitats of California, and coastal and inland forests of northern and central California (USDA, 2010).

6c. Predicting Impacts Using Data

Predicting Impacts Using Primary Data

Successful EAs require an investigator approach. Practitioners need to gather data, organize and analyze it, and present it transparently. Primary data collection is data collected by the practitioners themselves, often field data or live images (Milne and Bennett, 2016). Although often associated with biological data such as water and air samples, primary data can also include social data collection such as focus groups and interviews.

Methods used to collect primary data include:

• Site assessments — often focus on indicators and assess the likelihood of impacts and their effect on specific VECs; based in scientific theory and research
• Community resources — information gathered during community meetings, focusing on gathering traditional knowledge and building land-use maps
• Photo interpretation — high-resolution satellite images used to detect environmental changes over time (e.g., IPCC use of Arctic satellite imagery to track sea ice decline)

Predicting Impacts Using Secondary Data

Secondary data collection draws upon information and data from other sources that have previously been inventoried (Milne and Bennett, 2016). Desktop studies are one of the most commonly used sources of data. Literature searches can draw upon data from similar studies and projects.

Examples of secondary data sources:

• Canadian Census — provides demographic and socioeconomic data to supplement baseline information
• Citizen science databases — e.g., the Christmas Bird Count (begun in 1900), where thousands count bird species in fixed 24 km circles across the Northern Hemisphere, creating one of the world’s largest wildlife databases
• Geographic Information Systems (GIS) — spatially and temporally referenced information analyzed against the distribution of human activity, disturbance, or ecological features
• Computer models — based on environmental patterns to make inferences about particular environmental features

6d. Assessment Methods: Tools to Organize Data

Information organized in a systematic way helps not only the practitioner to assess impacts, but can allow for increased and more meaningful stakeholder and Aboriginal engagement. According to Milne and Bennett (2016:45), organization tools serve several purposes:

• To assist the practitioner in organizing the data into manageable files
• To organize the data for a faster assessment of the impacts
• To provide an easily understood visual display of the data for presentations and public forums

These tools can be adapted to the audience. For academics, more complex tools can be used; for a general audience, less complex organization and display is required. The practitioner must always keep in mind the need for transparency and availability to stakeholders and Aboriginal groups.

Checklists

Checklists are the most common method used to display environmental data. They are relatively cheap to produce and display information in a format that is clearer for the public to interpret. Generally, checklists organize a project’s VECs as a list and then identify which impacts are likely to occur.

Advantages: Can be completed quickly; require lesser expert input; clear for public interpretation Disadvantages: Impact information is oversimplified; cause-effect relationships cannot be conveyed; nearly impossible to convey magnitude of impact

Example — Programmed-Text or Questionnaire Checklist (Noble, 2015:43):

These propose a set of questions that must be answered when considering the potential effects of a proposed development (e.g., “Will the project cause pollution of air, water, or soil?” with Yes/No/Unsure responses and follow-up sub-questions about specific discharge types).

Matrices

A variation of a checklist, a matrix allows for multiple comparisons of development activities with a list of combined actions of the project (Milne and Bennett, 2016:46-47). Matrices are essentially two-dimensional checklists that can convey more complex information and better display a visual understanding of project activities and their first-order (direct) impacts.

Advantages: Can convey more complex information than checklists; better visual understanding of project activities and direct impacts Disadvantages: Large amounts of data can make them cumbersome and challenging to understand

Types of matrices include:

• Simple matrices — basic grid of project activities versus environmental components
• Magnitude matrices — can display the magnitude, importance, or timeframe of impacts
• Weighted matrices — assign relative importance of identified project impacts; “value or judgments assigned to represent the potential impacts of a particular project action on an environmental component are multiplied by a weight to represent the relative importance of that component” (Noble, 2015:44). Weights are distributed such that total weights sum to “1”; increasing the importance of one component requires a trade-off decreasing the importance of others.

Networks

Networks are used to display visually complex relationships between project activities and their impacts on environmental components. They can take on various forms such as flow charts, tree diagrams, and cause-effect system maps. Within networks, the relationships of components of the biophysical environment are linked to those of the socio-economic environment (Milne and Bennett, 2016).

Nodes, representing key system components or VECs, link together to show the relationships and interactions between the elements. Networks are particularly good at showing cumulative effects — how multiple projects in the same area create combined impacts on VECs of concern.

Challenges: Determining the direction of relationships, showing whether influence is positive or negative, portraying magnitude of influence; all require large datasets and complex system analysis.

Spatial Analysis (GIS)

EAs rely on spatial analysis for much of their impact predictions, with the majority done through GIS modelling. GIS mapping consists of computer-based methods of recording, analyzing, combining, and displaying geographic information that is highly accurate and accessible over time.

Advantages: Can handle large data sets; provides visual representation of data; easy to interpret visually Disadvantages: Costly to operate (requires GIS experts); remote locations often lack data sets and imagery, making it unobtainable for some stakeholder groups

Scenario Analysis

By using algorithms, practitioners simulate different futures under various factors and stressors over a defined period of time. With scenario building, various project activities can be analyzed alongside any alternative project decisions.

“Scenario analysis allows impacts to be assessed based on not only what has happened in the past but also on potential future trends, which may include a number of surprises.” — Noble, 2015:62

Scenario analysis requires large amounts of data and expertise in developing the algorithms, making it more often used in large-scale proposals or projects with many unknown impacts.

Guidelines for Selecting Evaluation Tools

Consider the following before selecting evaluation tools (Hegmann et al., 1999:29):

• Ability to organize, analyze, and present information
• Stage of the assessment (e.g., scoping, baseline data collection, analysis)
• Types of issues
• Types of disturbances and effects
• Types of VECs
• Quality and extent of baseline data
• Level of expertise available
• Resources available to complete an acceptable assessment to meet the needs of decision-makers

Required Readings

• Video: Let’s Learn Public Health. June 8, 2018. Risk and How to use a Risk Matrix. [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E-jfcoR2W0
• Textbook: Chapter 6: Impact Prediction and Characterization, pages 93–123
• Academic Reading: Kirchhoff, D. and Oberstein, B. (2006). “Pipeline risk assessment and risk acceptance criteria in the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 221–234

Review Questions

1. List three questions that are important to ask when establishing a baseline study. Why are these questions important?
2. Describe, using a hypothetical example, an additive environmental effect and a synergistic environmental effect.
3. What are some of the challenges of making impact predictions concerning biophysical and social change?
4. Define the term “uncertainty.” Discuss one way that uncertainty can be addressed during impact prediction.
5. A road development is proposed across a wetland in Waterloo. Construct a simple checklist for four VECs of your choice and the predicted impact on the VECs from the proposed project.
6. Define the term VEC indicator and describe four characteristics of a good VEC indicator. Re-examine your environmental baseline drawing from Module 5 Review Questions — what changes would you make to it with the new knowledge from Module 6?
7. If one of your VECs for a project was clean air, what two indicators would you measure to predict the impact of a proposed gold mine?

Module 7: Determining Impact Significance

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this module you will be able to:

• Explain what is meant by determining significance
• Describe why impact significance is important and describe methods used in determining significance

Key Terms

7a. What is Impact Significance?

“Good EAs should focus on the impacts that matter the most.” — Ehrlich and Ross, 2015:87

Determining impact significance is a problem that assessment practitioners have been struggling with since CEAA 1995. The idea of determining which effects from a development are likely to be significant — that is, what impacts are important, desirable, or acceptable — is vital. There is little point focusing on impact determination, monitoring, and mitigation of impacts that hold little ecological or social value to stakeholders. This would waste time and resources, and might draw the focus away from impacts that are actually important and of value.

Within EA practice there is consensus on the importance of determining impact significance — it is not only vital, but critical to a successful EA (Lawrence, 2007). However, this is where the consensus ends. There is considerable controversy and uncertainty surrounding how to determine whether or not a project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. One of the main challenges is that there is no formal single definition of “significance.”

Common Features of Significance Definitions

Significance (Noble, 2015):

• Is an informed judgement
• Depends, in part, on the characteristics of anticipated environmental impacts and the nature of the receiving environmental components
• Is both biophysical and socio-economic in context
• Involves some level of change, including cumulative change, which is perceived to be acceptable to the interested parties

What is Impact Significance? (Lawrence, 2007:757-759)

Lawrence (2005) developed a comprehensive depiction of the factors and judgements involved in defining impact significance:

• Focus on relevance to EIA decision-making (e.g., Which projects to consider? What is an acceptable impact? Which impacts require mitigation?)
• Consider the interplay between impact characteristics (magnitude, duration, frequency, spatial distribution, reversibility, positive or negative, likelihood, direct/indirect or cumulative) and the characteristics of the receiving environment (environmental significance, sensitivity, resilience, scarcity, stability, capacity)
• Vary by context (spatial — global, national, regional, local; temporal — short term, long term; physical, ecological, social, cultural, economic, and political conditions)
• Are structured and partially determined by institutional arrangements — bounded by EIA legislation, regulations, guidelines, legal precedents, and government policies regarding the environment, land use, resources, and sustainability
• Vary depending on perspective (legal or institutional recognition, political or public recognition, professionally judged to be important)
• Take place at both the regulatory level and at the applied level (key issues during scoping, ranking criteria for evaluating alternatives, what represents valued components, when mitigation is warranted)
• Apply procedures (staged evaluation procedures, community involvement, shared decision-making) and/or methods (threshold application, scaling of criteria, quantitative aggregation)
• Can be defined narrowly (only adverse impacts, statistical significance only, only as defined in legislation) or broadly (positive and negative impacts, direct and indirect effects, all forms of significance, interpretations from multiple perspectives)

Significance under CEAA 2012

Under CEAA 2012, three basic considerations must be included when determining impact significance (Noble, 2015:167):

1. Determining whether the environmental effects are adverse
2. Determining whether the adverse environmental effects are significant (what is the value associated with the environmental impacts for the stakeholders?)
3. Determining whether the adverse environmental effects are likely

The focus under CEAA 2012 was on determining the significance of likely impacts on the environment and whether or not these impacts were considered to be adverse. CEAA 2012 did not make the consideration of positive impacts central in the decision-making process.

Significance under the IAA

Under the new IAA, there is a focus on adverse impacts, but there is now a requirement to prove that the project is in the “public interest” rather than simply whether it would be likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

To be in the “public interest,” five factors must be considered (IAA, 2019):

(a) The extent to which the designated project contributes to sustainability

(b) The extent to which the adverse effects within federal jurisdiction and the adverse direct or incidental effects indicated in the impact assessment report are significant

(c) The implementation of the mitigation measures that the Minister or the Governor in Council considers appropriate

(d) The impact that the designated project may have on any Indigenous group and any adverse impact on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982

(e) The extent to which the effects of the designated project hinder or contribute to the Government of Canada’s ability to meet its environmental obligations and its commitments in respect of climate change

Under the IAA, the concept of contribution to sustainability is central — listed not only as a purpose of the IAA but also as a key factor in determining if a project is in the “public interest.”

When Is an Effect Considered Significant?

In general, significance determination is about making an informed and educated judgement about the importance, acceptability, or desirability (Lawrence, 2007). An effect resulting from a project can be considered significant if its impacts are (Noble, 2015:168):

• Adverse
• Intensive in concentration or associated with significant levels of change
• Associated with a high degree of probability
• Frequent and long-lasting
• Likely to occur at a broad spatial scale
• Irreversible
• Associated with cumulative change
• Going to detract from the sustainability of environmental and socio-economic systems
• Likely to affect ecological functions or exceed assimilative capacity of the environment
• Associated with variables of societal importance and public concern
• Not in compliance with existing standards or regulations
• Likely to exceed desired levels of change

Impact Significance Formula

Impact Significance = Impact Characteristic (e.g., duration, extent) x Impact Importance (e.g., value of receptor)

(Noble, 2015:168)

7b. How Do You Go about Determining Impact Significance?

Baseline Information for Determining Impact Significance

One of the first steps required in determining impact significance is the collection of baseline data and the production of a future state or condition of a VEC with and without the project. This is vital to determine if the impact is likely to be adverse. However, there may be difficulty acquiring baseline information, which would make adverse impact determination difficult.

Table 1. Examples of Factors Used to Determine if an Effect is Adverse (Adapted from Noble, 2015)

Changes in the Environment:

• Increased habitat fragmentation
• Increased discharge of contaminants into the ecosystem
• Impacts on at-risk, threatened, and endangered species
• Loss of genetic material from the environment
• Increased road mortality
• Decline in birth rates
• Reduction in species diversity and abundance
• Removal of non-renewable resources
• Increased nutrient loading into water systems
• Obstruction of waterways, changes to flow and migration patterns

Human Impacts Resulting from Changes:

• Economic impacts to local industry
• Declines or changes to culturally important species
• Negative impacts on human health (e.g., increased asthma)
• Loss of accessibility to land for traditional land use practices
• Changes to land and aesthetics of land that is valued and holds a sense of place for stakeholders
• Loss of or changes to the number and type of jobs
• Loss of non-renewables that hold future resource use
• Increased emissions adding to rise in greenhouse gases and impacts of climate change

Magnitude of the Effect

When considering the impact characteristic of an impact, the magnitude or the level of change in the VEC is an important consideration. Beginning with the baseline information, the magnitude of change is related to the difference in state (a measurable change) of the VEC from the baseline.

Magnitude is often represented as a measurement of change or described qualitatively. Both approaches have benefits, but each must be fully explained and in an accessible format for stakeholders.

For example, the magnitude of change in a fish population has been predicted to be a loss of 5% of spawning adult salmon per year. If one of the key partners in the EA is a First Nations group with a strong oral tradition, describing the change in percent terms might not be as understandable as depicting these effects in a culturally appropriate manner — such as having a community member discuss this effect in their own language and in relation to their own cultural traditions.

Probability of an Impact or Effect Occurring

If an impact or effect on a VEC is likely to occur regularly, then overall there is a greater likelihood that an impact is considered significant. There are two considerations in determining probability: the likelihood of occurrence and the scientific certainty around it.

Table 8.6. Impact Probability Classifications (Based on BHPB, 1998; Noble, 2015:171)

Additional Characteristics of an Impact

Many other characteristics need to be understood and described for significance determination:

• Timing — If an impact only occurs during a specific season, this may be more significant depending on the VEC (e.g., an impact during spring is more significant if your VEC is caribou and this is during calving season)
• Frequency — How often the impact occurs
• Duration — Length of time the impact is felt
• Temporal and spatial boundaries — All assumptions must be grounded in extensive and meaningful stakeholder engagement

Spatial Extent

Spatial extent is an important contextual factor in determining impact significance (Noble, 2015), but is one of the more challenging characteristics to predict because its accuracy depends on the narrow or broad nature of the spatial boundaries set for the EA.

Key questions regarding spatial extent:

• Where do you draw your boundaries in determining the significance of impacts?
• Which communities are considered within the boundaries and which are not?
• As you increase your boundaries you increase uncertainty; if you narrow your boundaries you increase certainty but might miss impacts that are significant

Mitigation

Within EA practice, impacts and effects that are mitigatable are often seen as being less significant than those which cannot be mitigated.

Example: A highway is proposed through an area important for turtle breeding. Turtle populations throughout Canada are on the decline and many are threatened. Roadway deaths are one of the leading factors in turtle deaths. Mitigation options include:

• Picking an alternative route where the road will not bisect migration paths
• Exclusion fencing
• Culverts to facilitate safe crossing

If an impact on a VEC is likely to be mitigatable to an acceptable level of impact (as decided on through meaningful public consultation), then the significance of this impact would likely be considered not to be significant.

7c. Importance and Value of VEC

Alongside determining the various characteristics of an impact or effect, understanding the value and importance that the VEC in question holds is vital.

Ecological Value

VECs can hold ecological value — they play an important role in the ecosystem (ecological service). For example, many turtles eat dead plants and animals (described as “garbage disposals” of the ecosystem) and play a valuable role in nutrient cycling. VECs that play a functional role in the ecosystem hold higher ecological value compared to those with roles that are redundant or common.

Similarly, landscapes that are rare (e.g., tallgrass prairie systems) would be considered more valuable than those that are relatively common (e.g., maple-dominant forests). However, these valuations can only be determined through careful consideration of:

• Surrounding landscape features
• The project’s boundaries
• Historical land uses
• Extensive and meaningful public consultation and Aboriginal partnership

Social and Cultural Value

Often VECs are social and cultural, such as jobs, health, and aesthetics of a landscape. These are more difficult to place a “value” on and are often personal and subjective. Public consultation and extensive Aboriginal partnerships with meaningful and ongoing communication can help unravel the social value that different VECs hold.

Conclusions

Determining impact significance requires an in-depth understanding of many ecological and social factors surrounding each VEC. In theory, it should be relatively straightforward to estimate the impact significance of an effect on a VEC. However, in practice there are always judgements to be made, assumptions to be taken, and trade-offs to be accepted.

The only way to really be confident with significance determination of impacts or effects on VECs is to talk with stakeholders, the public, and Aboriginal groups. Meaningful consultation must take place early and often throughout the entire EA process.

Significance determination becomes more challenging — but also more important — when considering cumulative impacts and sustainability assessments, which are addressed in subsequent modules.

Required Readings

• Video: ArcGIS. March 29, 2017. Environmental Screening. [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auwFZE0zKkw
• Textbook:
  • Chapter 7: Managing Project Impacts, pages 127–144
  • Chapter 8: Significance Determination, pages 147–168
• Academic Reading: Megan Jones & Angus Morrison-Saunders (2016). “Making sense of significance in environmental impact assessment.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 34:1, 87–93. DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2015.1125643
• Government Resource: Government of Canada. (2018, March). Determining Whether a Designated Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.

Optional:

• Lawrence, D.P. (2007, November). “Impact significance determination — Pushing the boundaries.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(8), 770–788

Review Questions

1. Give two different definitions of the term “impact significance.” Discuss any similarities/differences between the two definitions.
2. Do you think it is important to have only one definition of impact significance? Why or why not?
3. Describe three impact characteristics used to determine impact significance.
4. Describe three aspects of impact importance used to determine impact significance.
5. Discuss in detail two different approaches to determining impact significance. Can you see any challenges to any of these approaches?
6. Explain why, when you broaden your boundaries, you increase the uncertainty of the likely significance of impacts. Similarly, explain why, when you narrow your boundaries, you increase the certainty of the likely significance of impacts but miss the opportunity to understand the project in a larger context — why would this be a problem?
7. Go to the Impact Assessment Registry and click on Browse Active Assessments. Choose an assessment that interests you and: a. Determine two VCs that may be associated with this project. b. Based on the information provided and any additional data you can research, how would you classify the impact probability for the VCs you’ve determined? Justify your classification. c. How can you measure changes in the two VCs you’ve determined (i.e., what are the VC indicators)?

Module 8: Public Participation and Indigenous Issues

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this module you will be able to:

• Discuss what public participation is and why it is important
• Understand who should be participating and why you need to do it
• Describe how to engage the public and have a meaningful relationship
• Discuss challenges to public participation
• Describe what duty to consult and accommodate is

Key Terms

• Public Participation: The active involvement of the public in the EA process through various means, ranging from open houses to panel reviews. More broadly, “the involvement of individuals and groups that are positively or negatively affected by a proposed intervention subject to a decision-making process or are interested in it” (Andre et al. 2006:1).

8a. Public Participation

“Those who live on the land and harvest its resources have an intimate knowledge of the distribution of resources, the functioning of ecosystems, and the relationship between the environment and their culture.”

— Stevenson, 1996:278

Public participation has been called the cornerstone of the entire environmental assessment process and provides legitimacy to the entire EA process (Sinclair and Diduck, 2016 in Hanna). As stated in the IAA, public participation is “an essential part of an open, informed and meaningful impact assessment process” (Government of Canada, 2019). Throughout Canada, across all provinces, there is some level of public participation that is legally required during an EA. Terms similar to “public participation” appear in the literature, such as stakeholder engagement, public engagement, and public involvement/consultation. These terms all refer to the process of obtaining the opinions, values, beliefs, and knowledge to help make informed judgements concerning projects, plans, or policies. What varies across the provinces is the quality and timing of public participation. In general, public participation still remains limited and at the discretion of the project proponent.

What is Public Participation?

Public participation at the most basic level can be defined in several ways:

1. “The active involvement of the public in the EA process through various means, ranging from open houses to panel reviews” (Sinclair and Diduck, 2016:65).

2. “The involvement of individuals and groups that are positively or negatively affected by a proposed intervention subject to a decision-making process or are interested in it” (Andre et al. 2006:1).

3. “A process of engagement, where people are enlisted into the decision process to contribute to it…provide for exchange of information, predictions, opinions, interests and values…[and] those initiating the process are open to the potential need for change and are prepared to work to develop plans or amend or even drop existing proposals” (Petts, 1999:147).

Similar to the definition of “environment” in the EA process, there is also a narrow and broad view of what “public participation” is. It has not been until recently that a broader definition of public participation has been embraced. Now, more often than not, there is a focus on creating meaningful and active public participation. Many use the term “meaningful consultation”; however, the term “consultation” has been described as having a narrow focus, often making reference to the act of information-gathering, which has been described as a form of tokenism where those involved lack power for change (Sinclair and Diduck, 2016).

Legislative Definitions

Under CEAA 2012, there was no legislative definition of public participation, but the Preamble stated:

“The Government of Canada is committed to facilitating public participation in the environmental assessment of projects to be carried out by or with the approval or assistance of the Government of Canada and providing access to the information on which those environmental assessments are based.” (CEAA, 2016)

Under the IAA, the Preamble provides a more focused commitment to meaningful public participation:

“Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of public participation in the impact assessment process, including the planning phase, and is committed to providing Canadians with the opportunity to participate in that process and with the information they need in order to be able to participate in a meaningful way.” (Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, 2020)

Despite there being no legislative definition of public participation in the IAA, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada released a Public Participation Fact Sheet defining public participation as meaning “that members of the public who want to engage in public consultations have an opportunity to do so. It means that they have access to the information they need to take part in an informed way, and that their perspectives inform and influence decisions” (Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, 2020).

International Public Participation Initiatives

Public participation initiatives began to develop in the 1960s in response to large-scale transportation and industrial developments. Today there are international provisions with respect to public participation in EIA including:

• 1991 Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context
• 1998 Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making, and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters
• Many national EIA systems have specific requirements for public participation in project evaluation, such as the UK’s Article 6 of Directive 85/337/EEC

Public Participation in Canada

Public participation in the Canadian EA process has been “two steps forward and one step back.” Key developments:

• CEAA 1995-2003: Revisions strengthened the requirement for early public involvement. Accommodations for the incorporation of public and traditional knowledge during the assessment process were added.
• CEAA 2012: Greater support for public participation, especially Aboriginal/Indigenous consultation. However, CEAA 2012 also restricted participation in the hearing process to written submissions unless the individual or organization was an “interested party.”
• IAA: Removed the “interested party” requirement and included provisions for broad and transparent meaningful engagement through the entire assessment process (except in post-decision monitoring) (Gibson, 2020).

Meaningful Public Participation

Sinclair and Diduck (2016:65) describe meaningful public participation as:

“Participatory processes that incorporate all of the essential components of participation, from information sharing to education, including the active and critical exchange of ideas among proponents, regulators and participants.”

The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada defines meaningful public participation as a consultation process that is “open, transparent and inclusive and that occur in a timely manner” (Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, 2020).

Basic Principles for Public Participation Best Practice

How the basic principles should be applied in the EA process (Noble, 2015:236-237):

• Adapted to context
• Informative and provocative
• Adaptive and communicative
• Inclusive and equitable
• Educative
• Cooperative
• Imputable

Operating Principles for Public Participation Best Practice

How the operating principles should be applied in the EA process (Noble, 2015:237):

1. Initiated early and sustained
2. Well planned and focused on negotiable issues
3. Supportive to participants
4. Tiered and optimized
5. Open and transparent
6. Context-oriented

8b. Benefits of Public Participation

Why Involve the Public? What are the Benefits?

“Members of the public are experts on their own needs and values, and on whether the decisions and actions intended to benefit them are appropriate (Wolf, 2002).”

— Lawrence, 2007:760

The benefits of public participation have been described in the literature in terms of theoretical benefits and practical benefits (Sinclair and Diduck, 2016:66). In theoretical terms, meaningful public participation supports the democratic process and the fundamental principles behind democracy: the equality of all citizens.

In a more practical light, according to Sinclair and Diduck (2016:66-67), public participation has multiple and varied benefits:

• Provides access to local and traditional knowledge
• Helps proponents define the problem and suggest socially accepted solutions
• Permits a comprehensive consideration of factors upon which decisions can be based
• Ensures that projects meet the needs of the public in terms of the purpose and design
• Brings various ethical perspectives into the decision-making process
• Furnishes access to financial, human, and in-kind resources
• Prevents “regulatory capture” of EA agencies by project proponents
• Encourages more balanced decision-making
• Increases accountability
• Helps avoid costly and timely litigations
• Clarifies goals and objectives
• Minimizes conflict
• Promotes social learning
• Social license to operate

However, the potential to realize these benefits is often directly tied to which legislative processes are in place during the EA undertaking. Generally, public involvement and meaningful participation throughout the entire EA process leads to the most beneficial and enduring gains.

Objectives of Public Involvement Throughout the EIA Process

(Noble, 2015:219)

Public Participation Provisions Under the IAA

Under the IAA, all Canadians have the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the IA process. Unlike CEAA 2012, where only those deemed to be “interested parties” were allowed to participate, in the new IAA, any member of the public who wishes to participate has an opportunity to do so and is given the capacity to participate in a meaningful way (Government of Canada, 2019). The opportunity to participate occurs throughout the assessment process – even before it has been determined that an impact assessment is required.

Similar to CEAA 2012, the IAA sets out timelines for completion of the IA. Any public views received during the 180-day Planning Phase and the 300-600-day impact assessment phase will be used to inform the decision-making process on the project.

Guiding principles for meaningful participation under the IAA (Government of Canada, 2019):

1. It starts early and continues throughout each step of the process, including timely notification of proposed engagement.
2. It is supported with funding through the Agency’s Participant Funding Program, enhanced to improve public and Indigenous participation.
3. It is transparent and information is available and accessible on the proposed Impact Assessment Registry, unless subject to valid exceptions (e.g., confidential financial information).
4. It is designed to increase knowledge of participants and government and foster relationships. Citizens and communities are able to contribute to the science and evidence base for decision-making.
5. It is designed to prioritize participation of those most affected by the proposed project, while ensuring interested public members can share their views.
6. Methods are flexible, innovative and consider the assessment context and legislated timelines, including techniques accessible to diverse groups (women, men, gender-diverse people and underrepresented Canadians).
7. It influences decision-making and participants see that their input was considered.
8. It continually adapts and improves. Each assessment contributes to greater understanding of participation practices.

8c. When Should Public Participation Occur?

Who Should be Involved?

The process should properly be termed “publics” since there are many different and unique groups involved. Each group has their own opinions, values, and beliefs. There are various levels of engagement by these publics:

• Active publics: Those whose inputs can affect decisions (e.g., environmental organizations)
• Inactive publics: Those less likely to be involved in environmental planning and decisions (the general citizen)

Deciding who to involve and at what stage depends on their influence and their “stake in the outcome” (Noble, 2015:222). Generally, those not likely to be significantly impacted and with little power/influence can be involved on the periphery through general communication and public notices. However, publics such as active members and Aboriginal groups, who have greater influence and the greatest stake in outcomes, will have the most significant involvement in the entire EA process from the very beginning. Meaningful participation with these publics may be facilitated through participant funding, or as in the Berger Inquiry, holding meetings directly in remote northern communities.

The “Interested Party” Restriction Under CEAA 2012

One of the most challenging changes under CEAA 2012 was the designation that public participation need only involve “interested parties.” Participation was limited to written submissions unless the individual or organization was an “interested party.” According to CEAA 2012:

• Subsection 2(2) defines an “interested party” as a person who, in the opinion of the Panel, is either “directly affected by the carrying out of the designated project” or “has relevant information or expertise.”
• Subsection 19(1)(c) requires the Panel to take comments from the public into account.
• Paragraph 43(1)(c) requires the Panel to “hold hearings in a manner that offers any interested party an opportunity to participate.”

When Should Public Participation Occur?

The public should be involved in the EA process before any of the project’s decisions have been made – ideally before the location and design of the proposed project has been set.

Under CEAA 2012: There was a narrowing in the time allocated to meaningful public consultation, with only five stages (six for review panel) during an EA where there was opportunity for public participation by interested parties.

Under the IAA: Public participation begins in the Planning Phase, where the Agency engages with jurisdictions, Indigenous groups and the public to receive initial feedback on the proposed project. Within the Planning Phase, the Agency prepares a Public Participation Plan (with other jurisdictions if required). This plan explains participation objectives, opportunities, and methods that will meet the needs of the various publics (Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, 2020). Throughout the assessment, the Agency or Review Panel refers to this plan and consults the public accordingly. All feedback and comments are openly documented online and in the Impact Assessment Report, ultimately being considered in the public interest decision on the project.

Types of Public Hearings (EA by Review Panel)

When an EA by Review Panel is involved, there is opportunity for public hearings after the proponent has produced their environmental impact statement. There are three types:

1. Community hearing sessions: Encourage full and open participation of people living in or adjacent to the project area. Provide a more informal setting for community members to make presentations and present community knowledge or Aboriginal traditional knowledge.

2. General hearing sessions: Provide an opportunity for interested parties and the proponent to make presentations on both technical and non-technical subjects. Provide the opportunity for participants to question information submitted during the review process.

3. Technical hearing sessions: Allow participants who possess specialized knowledge or expertise to present the results of their analysis to the review panel. Allow for scrutiny by participants who have conducted a technical review of the project.

How Do You Involve the Public in a Meaningful Way?

The Agency uses many approaches to involve the public. All Canadians have the opportunity to engage online. Those most impacted or considered information experts will be prioritized for in-person sessions.

Open houses are the most widely used method, but they often lack the knowledge-sharing, mutual learning, and problem-solving dialogue vital to meaningful public participation (Sinclair and Diduck, 2016:81).

Four main approaches under the IAA (Impact Assessment Agency, 2019):

1. In-person sessions: Information sessions, open houses, workshops, technical meetings, focus groups, and informal meetings held within affected communities. Public comments in face-to-face events must be documented on the public record.
2. Online and interactive tools: A modern, user-focused public Registry serving as a one-stop shop for information, facilitating increased interactive dialogue.
3. Social media platforms: Used to share information about impact assessments.
4. Plain-language documents: Accessible, publicly-available information, including scientific information.

Public Participation Techniques Available for Use in EA

(Sinclair and Diduck, 2016:81)

8d. Aboriginal Consultation: The Duty to Consult

Prior to the beginning of EA in the 1970s, community concerns regarding a development were rarely considered. Likewise, the interests and rights of Aboriginal groups were ignored and large-scale developments went ahead without the consent or compensation to affected groups (Gibson et al. 2016:159 in Hanna). Since then, fundamental changes have resulted from key court rulings, legislative changes, and land claim outcomes.

The Berger Inquiry and Early Aboriginal Consultation

One of the first examples of Aboriginal consultation occurred during the Berger Inquiry. Justice Thomas Berger led the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline inquiry. This case was the first time that Aboriginal groups were consulted in a meaningful way – where their values and knowledge on the potential social and environmental impacts of the pipeline were gathered and used to inform one of Justice Berger’s recommendations that the pipeline not go ahead until land claim agreements were settled. This case placed new pressure “to complete land claims and self-government agreements” across Canada’s North (Gibson et al. 2016:160).

The Constitution Act, 1982 – Section 35

1982 saw the passing of the Constitution Act, 1982, Section 35, which gave recognition of the pre-existing and priority Aboriginal treaty rights. Section 35 recognizes and affirms, but neither defines nor creates, Aboriginal rights. It has been various court decisions that have pushed for a greater understanding of how Aboriginal and treaty rights are defined and upheld.

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982

35.(1) The existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

(2) In this Act, “Aboriginal peoples of Canada” includes the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada.

(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) “treaty rights” includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

– Government of Canada, 1982

Pivotal Aboriginal Case Laws

The following cases have led to the requirement for Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation in EAs (Adapted from McCarthy, 2017; Whitelaw and McCarthy, 2016, in Hanna):

Calder v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 1973

• Case Details: Aboriginal title existed at the time of the Royal Proclamation (1763) and is neither defined by, nor a construct of the colonial system.
• Decision and Implications: No ruling on the legal foundation of Aboriginal title or whether Nisga’a title had been extinguished. Set legal precedent regarding the existence of Aboriginal title; initiated the field of Aboriginal Law in Canada and abroad. Shifted political will regarding treaty negotiations which had been halted since 1923. Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau stated: “perhaps you have more legal rights than we thought you had when we did the white paper” (Cumming, 1974:59). Led to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, 1975.

Delgamuukw-Gisdayway, 1997

• Case Details: Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs claimed Aboriginal title and self-government to over 58,000 km2.
• Decision and Implications: First major Aboriginal title decision since Calder in 1973. Defined the nature and content of Aboriginal title. Established a test for determining whether Aboriginal title had been extinguished. Outlined a process to determine whether or not infringement is justified. Marked the first instance that Aboriginal oral histories were admissible as evidence: “The implication of the trial judge’s reasoning is that oral histories should never be given any independent weight and are only useful as confirmatory evidence in aboriginal rights litigation. I fear that if this reasoning were followed, the oral histories of aboriginal peoples would be consistently and systematically undervalued by the Canadian legal system” (Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010).

Campbell, 2000

• Case Details: In Campbell v. British Columbia (Attorney General), the court considered whether elements of the Nisga’a Treaty regarding self-government violated Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
• Decision and Implications: Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution includes the inherent right to self-government. Therefore, self-government is now a constitutionally protected right. “The right to aboriginal title ‘in its full form, including the right for the community to make decisions as to the use of the land and therefore, the right to have a political structure for making those decisions, is, I conclude, constitutionally guaranteed by Section 35’” (Campbell v. British Columbia, 2000).

Haida, 2004

• Case Details: At issue was a tree farm license to harvest timber on Haida Gwaii (T.F.L. 39), which was transferred by the Province without consulting the Haida Nation. “The government holds legal title to the land. Exercising that legal title, it has granted Weyerhaeuser the right to harvest the forests in Block 6 of the land. But the Haida people also claim title to the land – title which they are in the process of trying to prove – and object to the harvesting of the forests on Block 6 as proposed in T.F.L. 39” (Haida Nation v. BC, 2004:518).
• Decision and Implications: “The government’s duty to consult with Aboriginal peoples and accommodate their interests is grounded in the principle of the honour of the Crown, which must be understood generously…the Crown, acting honourably, cannot cavalierly run roughshod over Aboriginal interests where claims affecting these interests are being seriously pursued” (Haida Nation v. BC, 2004:513). The ruling requires that consultation and accommodation takes place regardless of whether rights have been proven, such as in British Columbia where treaties have not been made.

Mikisew Cree, 2005

• Case Details: Treaty 8 guarantees hunting, trapping, and fishing rights to signatory Aboriginal nations, except on lands “as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes.” This case was brought in response to the Crown’s proposal to “take up lands” to build a winter road near the Mikisew Cree reserve. Hunting grounds and trapping lines would be disrupted.
• Decision and Implications: The Crown must act honourably when “taking up” treaty lands. The duty to consult and accommodate is triggered when the Crown contemplates actions which may impact treaty rights. The duty to consult and accommodate is extended to treaty contexts.

Tsilhqot’in, 2014

• Case Details: In 1989, after a commercial logging license was issued by BC on Tsilhqot’in traditional territory, the Tsilhqot’in nation began one of the longest legal battles in Canadian history to prove Aboriginal title over their ancestral lands.
• Decision and Implications: Aboriginal title is proven in the Canadian courts for the first time. Approximately 1700 km2 declared Tsilhqot’in title lands. The decision clarified the requirements for establishing Aboriginal title and that consent is required where title has been proven.

Duty to Consult and Accommodate: Challenges and Opportunities

There is now a legal obligation for the government to consult with Aboriginal groups when there is a possibility that Aboriginal or treaty rights might be infringed upon. This is called “the duty to consult.” Many, if not all, projects across Canada are located in the traditional territory of one or more Aboriginal groups (Gibson et al. 2016:163). Proponents must first understand the nature of the treaties, titles, and land claims associated with the preferred location of their project and which Aboriginal groups recognize the land as traditional territory. Each Aboriginal group must be consulted independently and their unique beliefs, values, and knowledge integrated into the EA process.

One of the enduring challenges is how to consult with Aboriginal groups. Many of the cases in the table above are a result of poor and even non-existent consultation. According to the literature:

“Many government agencies and proponents lack the ‘capacity, knowledge, and/or willingness to understand Aboriginal world views. Many proponents do not understand Aboriginal rights and many EA regulatory regimes lack measures requiring consideration of traditional knowledge and any opportunity for decision-makers to hear information derived from traditional knowledge’” (Gibson et al. 2016:166; Haddock, 2011).

Currently, government is responsible for the legal duty to consult but aspects of consultation are often delegated to project proponents, which leads to Aboriginal perspectives not being adequately included and meaningful participation not occurring.

Principles for Meaningful EA on Aboriginal Rights

• Cumulative effects on Aboriginal rights must be measured separately for each First Nation or culture group, taking into account the quality of the VC within the relevant spatial unit and temporal boundaries.
• Cumulative effects assessments must include both Western scientific knowledge and traditional knowledge inputs, descriptions, observations, stories, and narratives of change, gain and loss.
• The significance of total cumulative effects must be examined against past conditions or lesser-disturbed conditions to clearly describe the sensitivity and resilience of the VC, not the current or accumulated state, which represents a “damaged baseline” that masks total change.
• CEA must include identification of all agents that cause cumulative effects, rather than limiting the focus to a narrow conception of what is “reasonably foreseeable.”
• Knowledge of historic changes and trends over time to a VC is essential for determining a threshold or limit. CEA must therefore include trend analysis and must focus on establishing rates of change over time.
• Infringements of Aboriginal rights result from agents causing multiple impacts across multiple pathways, many of which act in mutually reinforcing ways to compound effects.
• Thresholds of acceptable change must be defined and agreed upon by all parties. Thresholds should be precautionary.
• CEA must entertain the possibility that there may be significant adverse impacts or serious infringements already in existence, prior to the project case being added.
• Sufficient evidence and analysis must be provided to support conclusions about potential cumulative effects and their significance.

(Gibson et al. 2016; Macdonald, 2014)

Case Study 4: Incorporating Traditional Knowledge Early in the EA of a Mining Access Road

By Chuck Hubert, Associate Manager, Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, NWT, Canada

Key Messages:

• Gather Traditional Knowledge early during initial community engagement
• Incorporate Traditional Knowledge information during project design
• Traditional Knowledge can assist in modifying project components such as access road routing
• Use of Traditional Knowledge can address First Nation concerns and improve a project

Context: The existing Prairie Creek Mine is located 90 km northwest of Nahanni Butte in the Northwest Territories. The Nahanni Butte Dene Band (NBDB) is a small First Nations community who retain traditional and cultural ties to the land and rely on healthy fish and wildlife populations for subsistence harvesting. In 2009, owners submitted permit applications to place the mine into production. A new environmental assessment was required.

TK Information Gathering: The NBDB commissioned a Traditional Knowledge Study. Through a confidentiality agreement between the mine developer and the NBDB, TK information was shared. Traditional knowledge determined that important traditional use areas exist along portions of the winter access route and that archaeological artifacts may be present. Wildlife overwintering areas and mineral licks were found along the route.

TK Study Recommendations:

• Re-alignment of portions of the winter access road to avoid sensitive wetland areas and important wildlife habitat
• Move start of the winter road closer to the community of Nahanni Butte to allow for monitoring
• Conduct an archaeological assessment with an NBDB elder and interpreter
• Use traditional knowledge approaches to monitoring the access route

Outcome: The developers held community meetings during early EA phases and integrated the access route re-alignments recommended by the NBDB into project design. This demonstrates how TK informed an EA early during project design, addressed First Nation concerns, and resulted in a better project.

(Hubert, 2017:26-28, in Arnold and Hanna, 2017)

Case Study 5: Raglan Mine, Quebec

By Peter Croal, International Environment and Development Advisor

The Raglan Mine is one of the world’s richest sulphide-based nickel deposits, situated in the remote Ungava Peninsula in Nunavik, 1,800 km north of Montreal. The mine went into production in 1997 after more than 30 years of exploration, negotiation and development. The Inuit have inhabited the region for over 4,000 years with a current population of about 8,000 people.

EA Process: Key issues for local people were minimizing water effluent, water consumption, air emissions, acid rock drainage, and progressive reclamation of mine tailings. To safeguard permafrost, worker residences were built on iron pilings. An Arctic Char monitoring program relied heavily on Inuit Traditional Knowledge through the Joint Scientific Fishing Program. TK was also used to determine marine mammal migration routes, resulting in the decision to shorten the ore-shipping season and avoid ice breaking in Deception Bay from March to June.

Community Engagement: The company hired a local Inuit advisor, made community visits, met with mayors, councilors and elders, participated in local radio broadcasts, and arranged visits by community members to operating northern mines. These initiatives created a strong relationship based on trust and transparency.

The Raglan Agreement (1995): An Impact Benefit Agreement signed between the mine operator, two Landholding Corporations, two communities, and Makivik Corporation. It addressed environmental and cultural issues identified during the EA. Of 600 mine employees, about 95 Inuit (16%) were employed. Qualified Inuit businesses received preferential selection for goods and services. The company flies Inuit employees to their home communities at the end of two-week shifts and provides access to freezers and kitchen facilities for country foods.

Key Lessons:

• Early and continued involvement of Inuit communities
• Use of Traditional Knowledge in the environmental assessment
• Genuine efforts by all parties to resolve issues
• Development of an effective Raglan Committee
• Recognition that the Inuit have unique land and cultural rights

(Croal, 2017:28-29, in Arnold and Hanna, 2017)

Benefits of Co-Management with Aboriginal Groups

Despite enduring challenges, there is a push for governments to move towards involving Aboriginal groups not only through consultation, but as equal partners in the management of environmental assessment. Co-management can lead to:

• Better baseline and trend-over-time data collection for VCs, including identification and use of VCs and indicators relevant to affected Aboriginal groups
• Direct proponent engagement with the affected Aboriginal group throughout the EA process
• Increased access to and consideration of TK and Aboriginal land use and occupancy data, with more rigorous and accurate assessment of effects
• More rigorous and defensible assessment of project-specific adverse effects on traditional practices, and on Aboriginal rights and title
• Rigorous and defensible assessment of cumulative effects on Aboriginal people
• Deep consideration of Aboriginal group-specific social, economic, and cultural effects with appropriate mitigation and monitoring
• Collaborative application and permitting process
• Creation of a long-term working relationship between proponent and affected Aboriginal group
• Greater legal certainty, positive public relations, better project planning, and reduced cost and timelines

(Gibson et al. 2016)

Module 8: Required Readings

• Video: APTN News. Jan 26, 2018. Canada’s Top Court Dives Deep into Duty to Consult Issue.
• Textbook:
  • Chapter 3: Pre-project Planning and Public Engagement (pages 37-55)
  • Chapter 10: Indigenous Consultation and Engagement (pages 192-207)
• IAIA Resource: Andre, P., B. Enserink, D. Connor and P. Croal. (2006). Public Participation International Best Practice Principles. Special Publication Series No. 4. IAIA.
• Academic Reading: Stevenson, M.G. (1996). Indigenous Knowledge in Environmental Assessment. Arctic, 29(3): 278-291.
• Optional: Waldron, Ingrid. (2020). Environmental Racism in Canada. The Canadian Commission for UNESCO’s IdeaLab.

Module 8: Review Questions

1. What is “meaningful participation”? Use a definition not found in the textbook, modules, or readings. Why is it important to ensure that public participation is meaningful?
2. What are the provisions and requirements for public participation in Canada under IAA 2019? How does this compare to the provisions and requirements for public participation under CEAA 2012?
3. What is “traditional ecological knowledge” (TEK) or “traditional knowledge” (TK)? Use a definition not found in the textbook, modules, or readings. Discuss some benefits and challenges to integrating TEK/TK into EAs.
4. What is the Duty to Consult and when does it apply? What are some guidelines in carrying out successful consultation? What are some constraints/challenges?
5. Explain how Thomas Berger consulted Indigenous groups during the Berger Inquiry. Why was this consultation considered successful and meaningful?
6. Assume you are the proponent of a new light rail transit system that will cut across agricultural lands North of Toronto. Name two publics you would reach out to regarding the project (explain why you would involve them). When in the EA process would you consult them? Explain why.
7. Go to the Impact Assessment Registry and choose an assessment that interests you: (a) Provide a list of publics that should be consulted and explain why; (b) List valued (ecosystem) components (VC) for each public with respect to the project and suggest indicators for each VC.

Module 9: EA Follow-up and Monitoring

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this module you will be able to:

• Define what is meant by follow-up
• Describe the main objectives of follow-up
• Discuss the changes in follow-up requirements from CEAA 1995 to CEAA 2012
• Explain benefits and challenges of follow-up
• Describe what an Impact and Benefit Agreement (IBA) is and why it is important

Key Terms

• Proponent: The individual, organization, or government body proposing a project subject to EA
• Enforcement Officers: Persons designated by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to enforce the conditions of an EA decision
• Auditing: A periodic review of monitoring results and comparison to set criteria and standards; provides a comparative analysis that determines the significance of monitoring results
• Post-Decision Monitoring: Monitoring activities conducted after a project decision has been made, to ensure compliance, confirm predictions, and generate knowledge

9a. What is Meant by Follow-up?

“We can learn so much by taking the time to look at where we have been.”

— Christine Barbeau, 2018

When is an EA finished? That question cannot be easily answered. It relates to the temporal boundaries set early in the scoping phase and also depends on the VECs of the project and the results of the monitoring program. The extent of follow-up is therefore dependent on many factors unique to each project.

Definitions

Follow-up can be defined as:

“The monitoring and evaluation of the impacts of a project or plan (that has been subject to EA) for management of, and communication about, the environmental performance of that project or plan.”

— Morrison et al., 2007:176

Under CEAA 1995, follow-up is defined as:

“A program for: verifying the accuracy of the environmental assessment of a project, and determining the effectiveness of any measures taken to mitigate the adverse environmental effects of the project.” (CEAA, 2011)

Under CEAA 2012 and the IAA, a follow-up program means a program for:

• Verifying the accuracy of the environmental assessment of a designated project, and
• Determining the effectiveness of any mitigation measure.

(Noble, 2015:194)

Government of Canada objectives for follow-up programs:

• Increase confidence that conditions in the Minister’s Decision Statement are being complied with
• Increase opportunity for meaningful participation in monitoring activities
• Encourage improvements to impact assessments through the use of follow-up programs

It is important to note that under the IAA there is no mention of the requirement of compliance and enforcement of compliance.

According to Noble (2015), follow-up needs to be a dynamic and adaptive process that involves:

“Mitigation performance evaluations, state-of-the-art environmental monitoring and ongoing revision of mitigation programs, and project impact management measures.” (Noble, 2015:194)

Follow-up must be considered as part of a larger process in the post-decision stage and plays a pivotal role in the learning process that feeds information into future projects and the ability for sustainable development (Noble and Macharia, 2004).

Compliance and Enforcement Under CEAA 2012 and the IAA

One of the greatest criticisms of follow-up has been a lack of compliance. Historically, proponents were not legally required to implement their follow-up programs, leading to weak or non-existent follow-up with few repercussions.

Improvements in CEAA 2012 and the IAA: The Minister of Environment and Climate Change can designate enforcement officers responsible for enforcing EA decision conditions. These officers can issue orders requiring proponents to address non-compliance. The IAA introduced a new penalty scheme with increased fines ranging from $25,000 for an individual to $4,000,000 for larger corporations (IAA, 2019, Section 144).

Under the IAA, all approval decisions must include follow-up monitoring, moving past biophysical effects to sustainability-related effects. A description of results must be made accessible to the public, with continued participant funding up to implementation of the follow-up program. However, the implementation and reporting still falls mainly onto the proponent. As Gibson (2020:27) states: “the Act’s provisions do not ensure improved performance in comparing actual to predicted effects to learn from experience or timely response to emerging problems and opportunities. Mobilization of independent expertise is not emphasized.”

Who is Responsible for EA Follow-up?

Generally, monitoring and follow-up fall under the responsibility of the proponent, with various roles carried out by other stakeholders:

(Adapted from Andronak, 2017 and Government of Canada, 2018)

Benefits of Follow-up and Monitoring

According to the CEAA Operational Policy Statement, follow-up and monitoring data provides information that:

• Verifies the predictions made in an environmental assessment
• Determines the effectiveness of mitigation measures in order to modify or implement new ones if required
• Supports the implementation of adaptive management measures
• Provides information on environmental effects and mitigation measures that can be used to support future assessments
• Supports project environmental management systems
• Enhances community acceptance of a project and proponents’ future projects

9b. Enduring Challenges to EA Follow-up

Two Main Challenges

According to Andronak (2017) and Noble and Storey (2005), two main challenges remain regarding the effectiveness of follow-up:

1. Inability to Verify Predictive Accuracy

Despite verification being a requirement under the Act, many predictive statements in EA are:

• Vague, imprecise, and untestable statements about potential outcomes, including little indication of when impacts are likely to occur
• Based on non-existent, insufficient, inadequate, or inaccessible monitoring data, both pre-project baseline and during implementation
• Obsolete predictions resulting from changes in environmental conditions between the time the prediction was made and the monitoring activity, or changes in project design, schedules, etc.

(From Noble and Macharia, 2004:218)

The ability to test predictive accuracy is challenging because direct comparisons often cannot be made, frequently due to lack of accessible monitoring data. Practitioners and government agencies that collect baseline and monitoring data often keep this information private.

2. Lack of Effective Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures are often determined early in the EA process, usually before the extent of environmental effects is known. Proponents may assume their mitigation measures will lead to residual impacts being overlooked because the project has already been approved (Andronak, 2017; Noble and Storey, 2005).

Additional Barriers to EIA Follow-up and Monitoring

(Adapted from Morrison-Saunders et al., 2005)

When is Follow-up Required and for How Long?

Under CEAA 1995:

“Follow-up programs are mandatory for all projects assessed by a comprehensive study, mediation or review panel, but discretionary for projects assessed by screening.” (CEAA, 2011:2)

The majority of EAs followed screening and therefore follow-up was at the discretion of the responsible authority. Prior to 2012, follow-up was a series of often false promises by proponents who agreed to programs and then failed to carry them out with few, if any, repercussions.

Under CEAA 2012:

“Follow-up programs are mandatory after all environmental assessments. These programs are intended to verify the accuracy of the predictions regarding potential environmental effects and to determine if mitigation measures are working as intended.” (Government of Canada, 2018:3)

Under the IAA: Follow-up is now enforceable and mandatory for all impact assessments. More extensive programs are required when a project “involves a new or unproven technology or new or unproven mitigation measures, it is located in a sensitive environmental setting, or there is some uncertainty about the conclusions of impact assessment on a particular valued component” (Government of Canada, 2019).

The final report to the Minister must contain “the Agency’s recommendations with respect to any mitigation measures and follow-up program and the Agency’s rationale and conclusions” (IAA, 2019, Section 28(3.2)).

It is notable that despite all project files being accessible online to the public, access is only maintained until the day the follow-up program is completed. This loss of access impacts the purpose of follow-up – to evaluate effectiveness and use that information to improve future IA.

9c. Monitoring

Monitoring is a vital component of the follow-up process. It can be described as a process or method designed to determine if/how a system has changed.

What will be monitored and how must be determined during the first stages of EA, when VECs are selected and baselines are established. The effectiveness of monitoring is only as good as the indicators selected during the beginning of the EA process.

Characteristics of a Good Indicator

A good indicator is:

• Cost effective to monitor
• Directly representative of changes to the VEC
• Can be repeatedly sampled in a consistent manner
• Understood by stakeholders

Definition

Monitoring “is a data collection activity undertaken to provide specific information on the characteristics and functioning of environmental and social indicators.” (Noble, 2015:196)

When carried out correctly, monitoring of social and biophysical impacts can help to identify early-on trends in impacts, whether positive or negative. Monitoring can also inform us on how specific environmental indicators respond to environmental stressors resulting from a project (Noble and Macharia, 2004).

Related to monitoring, auditing (a periodic review of monitoring results and comparison to set criteria and standards) provides a comparative analysis that further determines the significance of monitoring results (Noble, 2015).

Three Main Reasons for Post-Decision Monitoring

1. Compliance: To ensure a project is operating within the regulations, permits, and predictions of the EIS and EA decision.
2. Confirmation: To confirm the project is progressing as predicted by the EIS. Monitoring acts as the “watchdog” – an early warning system alerting managers and the agency of any unpredicted adverse impacts (Noble, 2015). Coordination of monitoring efforts can help identify changes on a systems level, including cumulative effects.
3. Knowledge: To allow for better understanding of the complex social and ecological system the project is situated in and how this knowledge can be applied.

Best Practice Principles for Follow-up and Monitoring

According to Noble and Macharia (2004:222), in order to “do a better job” of EA follow-up, these best practice principles need to be upheld:

1. Adopting legislation that sufficiently covers the scope of EA follow-up, including biophysical and socioeconomic components
2. Ensuring a clearer statement of follow-up goals and objectives
3. Establishing pre-project environmental baseline data
4. Maintaining consistency in monitoring data collection using analytical procedures consistent with project impacts over space and time
5. Re-focusing EA and follow-up efforts on the real and desired effects and outcomes rather than predicted ones
6. Adopting hypotheses or threshold-based approaches when impact predictions are made
7. Implementing mechanisms, such as an independent monitoring agency, to ensure institutional and proponent accountability in follow-up actions and reporting
8. Clarifying the roles and responsibilities for follow-up procedures early in the project life cycle

9d. Impact and Benefit Agreements

Impact Benefit Agreements (IBAs) are agreements created to facilitate impact management in a project. They are also known as:

• Negotiated socio-economic agreements
• Environmental agreements
• Impact management agreements
• Other agreements between project proponents and most often Indigenous communities

Within these agreements, terms and conditions for fulfilling follow-up and monitoring programs are often agreed upon. Outside of a few jurisdictions in Canada (such as Nunavut), these IBAs are voluntary, but when agreed upon they are legally binding documents between communities and proponents. Ideally, they promote enhanced impact mitigation and benefits to communities willing to support a project development (Bradshaw et al. 2016).

Companies undertake IBAs to help avoid/mitigate conflict and promote community-industry relationship-building.

“Routinely, IBAs provide benefits such as payments, training and employment, and preferential treatment of community business; less routinely, IBAs offer a means for would-be impacted communities to influence project design and operation. For example, as a condition of their support for Inco’s Voisey’s Bay nickel mine, the Labrador Inuit Association secured limits on winter shipping to and from the mine in order to protect winter ice travel by Inuit hunters.”

— Bradshaw et al., 2016:2

Despite IBAs becoming commonplace in mining projects across Canada, in some cases they are not sufficient to mitigate adverse environmental impacts or promote positive ones. Communities can feel frustrated and backed into a corner when signing an IBA (Bradshaw et al. 2016). For example, in 2009, members of the Attawapiskat First Nations in Northern Ontario blocked the winter road leading to the DeBeers Victor Diamond mine as a result of discontent over DeBeers not living up to their agreed-upon IBA terms.

IBAs are not meant to replace the Crown’s Duty to Consult or any aspect of the EA process, but to complement the EA process and help realize benefits of the development to local communities.

Module 9: Required Readings

• Videos:
  • Observatorio de Politica Ambiental. Nov 15, 2019. Monitoring and Auditing in Environmental Impact Assessment: Interview with John Glasson.
  • The Legitimacy Project. Dec 7, 2016. #LetsTalkEA - Monitoring and Follow-up.
  • ABC Catalyst. Sept 20, 2012. Gladstone Dredging.
• Textbook: Chapter 9: Follow-Up and Monitoring (pages 172-188)
• Academic Reading: Noble, B. and Storey, K. (2005). Towards increasing the utility of follow-up in Canadian EIA.
• IAIA Resource: IAIA. (2017). EIA Follow-up International Best Practice Principles.
• Case Study: Pacific NorthWest LNG. (2016). Example of a Follow-up Program and Compliance Report.

Module 9: Review Questions

1. Why do we undertake monitoring activities? Discuss the three broad reasons.
2. What are Impact Benefit Agreements (IBA)? What role can they play in successful follow-up and monitoring programs?
3. Why has follow-up and monitoring been labelled as the most poorly done step in EA?
4. What are three challenges to follow-up?
5. Who do you believe should be responsible for undertaking the follow-up and monitoring program for an EA? Explain your reasoning.
6. What is a definition of follow-up? What is a definition of monitoring? How do follow-up and monitoring relate to one another?
7. The effectiveness of monitoring is only as good as the indicators that are selected during the beginning of the EA process. (a) What are characteristics of a good indicator? (b) Re-examine the VCs and indicators that you chose in Module 7 Review Questions for the assessment you chose from the Impact Assessment Registry. Would you consider them to be good indicators? Justify your answer.

Module 10: Cumulative Effects Assessment

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this module you will be able to:

• Define the term “cumulative effects”
• Describe the types of cumulative effects
• Discuss the steps to undertaking a cumulative effects assessment
• Explain the challenges of the current cumulative effects assessment process
• Discuss the opportunities to improve the cumulative effects assessment process

Key Terms

• Cumulative Effects: The total effect, including direct and indirect, on a given resource, ecosystem, or human community of all actions taken; may result from the accumulation of similar effects or the synergistic interaction of different effects
• Cumulative Environmental Change: Changes to the environment that are caused by an action in combination with other past, present, and future human actions
• Cumulative Impacts: Used interchangeably with cumulative effects to describe the accumulated environmental effects on a valued ecosystem component
• Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA): The assessment of cumulative effects over a larger area and longer time period than standard EIA, considering interactions of impacts from various sources (past, present, and future)
• Additive: A type of cumulative effect where impacts combine in a straightforward, linear fashion
• Interactive: A type of cumulative effect where impacts from different sources interact with one another
• Synergistic: A type of cumulative effect where the combined effects are greater than the sum of the individual effects
• Irregular: A type of cumulative effect that occurs sporadically or unpredictably
• Zone of Influence (ZOI): The area beyond which residual impacts of a VEC from a project are no longer detectable; used in setting VEC-centred spatial boundaries

10a. Introduction to Cumulative Effects Assessment

Case Study: Arctic Drilling

“Think of this like a snowball fight. It’s easy to dodge snowballs when you’re up against one other person. But when five people are throwing snowballs at you, it’s much harder to avoid getting hit. And the more hits you take, the more bruises you’re bound to get.”

— Ocean Conservancy, 2013

Arctic systems are rapidly changing due to the impacts of both climate change and resource development. Changes to sea ice concentrations have “opened the Arctic for business.” It is estimated that approximately one-third of the world’s recoverable oil and gas reserves are located under the Arctic Ocean. With melting sea ice, these reserves are becoming more accessible.

The American Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has been given the mandate to oversee energy resource developments off the coast of Alaska. Historically, BOEM has done a poor job addressing cumulative impacts:

“When assessing the cumulative impacts from an Arctic lease sale, BOEM reasoned that because there were 11 existing offshore projects, the proposed project would contribute approximately one-tenth the cumulative effects of waste water, construction, transportation and oil spills influencing water quality. Here, BOEM divided the number of proposed offshore projects (one) by the total number of offshore projects (11) to assess cumulative impact… This is a deeply flawed approach. Under this logic, each successive project would be responsible for incrementally less impact. With 100 projects, the new proposed project would only be responsible for 1/100 of the impact – but the cumulative effect of 100 projects would likely be far greater than the impacts of 10 projects. Also, this approach does not account for the scale and location of each offshore facility.”

— Ocean Conservancy, 2013

What are Cumulative Effects?

Cumulative effects, cumulative environmental change, and cumulative impacts are often used interchangeably. The definition of cumulative effects assessment is the accumulation of environmental effects on a valued ecosystem component. This accumulation can take many forms – additive, interactive, synergistic, or irregular – but together these effects have a greater impact on the environment over space and time than they do alone.

The most widely used definition (US Council on Environmental Quality, 1997):

Cumulative effects:

• Are the total effect, including direct and indirect, on a given resource, ecosystem, or human community of all actions taken
• May result from the accumulation of similar effects or the synergistic interaction of different effects
• May last for many years beyond the life of the action that caused them
• Must be analyzed in terms of the specific resources, ecosystem, or human community affected and not from the perspective of the specific action that may cause them
• Must be approached from the perspective of carrying capacity, thresholds, and total sustainable effects levels

(Noble, 2015:243)

Under CEAA 2012, cumulative environmental effects were simply defined as: “changes to the environment that are caused by an action in combination with other past, present, and future human actions” (Hegmann et al. 1999:3). This is a narrow definition mainly focused on cumulative biophysical effects (Government of Canada, 2007).

Under the IAA, factors to be included must take into account (IAA, 2019, Section 22(1)):

• (ii) any cumulative effects that are likely to result from the designated project in combination with other physical activities that have been or will be carried out, and
• (iii) the result of any interaction between those effects

The vagueness in the use of “cumulative effects” in the Act leaves the Agency to determine which social, cultural and/or economic cumulative effects should be considered.

How CEA Differs from Standard EIA

A cumulative effects assessment differs from regular environmental impact assessment in that it:

• Assesses effects over a larger area and over a longer time period
• Considers the interactions of impacts from various sources (past, present, and future), not a single project
• Evaluates the significance of cumulative effects together on the broader system, not just at the local level

10b. Sources of Cumulative Effects

There are a variety of sources of change that contribute in both time and space to cumulative environmental effects (Noble, 2015:244):

(Noble, 2015:244)

Types of Cumulative Effects

As stated by Noble (2015), there are multiple types of activities and impacts that can lead to cumulative effects, characterized into different types: additive, interactive, synergistic, and irregular.

10c. Cumulative Effects Assessment Under the IAA

Under the IAA, cumulative effects are defined as “changes to the environment, health, social and economic conditions as a result of the project’s residual effects combined with the existence of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable physical activities” (Government of Canada, 2019). Any designated project must take into account cumulative environmental effects on valued ecosystem components, along with consideration of cumulative effects to the rights of Indigenous peoples and Indigenous cultures. The Act also requires consideration of information and results gathered under any relevant regional or strategic assessment.

General Approach to Completing a CEA

The Government of Canada provides EA practitioners with technical guidelines under CEAA 2012 (which continue to be applied). The Operational Policy Statement, “Addressing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act,” outlines requirements. Any designated project must include an assessment of cumulative effects on VECs, done in five steps across the entire EA process.

Cumulative Effects and Scoping

The first step occurs during the scoping phase. VECs likely to be impacted are selected, scoping documents are created, mitigation measures proposed, residual effects predicted, and significance discussed.

A cumulative effects assessment begins when residual effects of a project on a VEC are assessed, regardless of whether they are considered significant. (Note: VEC and VC refer to the same component; different groups use different abbreviations.)

For each VEC with residual impact, the proponent must:

1. Gather information on the VC of particular relevance to the CEA (e.g., comments from the public, Indigenous groups, experts, government and non-governmental organizations)
2. Determine the spatial boundaries within which cumulative effects will be examined
3. Determine the temporal boundaries within which cumulative effects will be examined
4. Identify the other physical activities to be considered in the CEA
5. Identify the VCs that will be carried forward to Step 2 of the CEA Process

If a VEC will not be carried forward to Step 2, the proponent must still show reasonable effort was given to scoping. The level of effort considers:

• The characteristics of the project
• The risks associated with potential cumulative environmental effects
• The state (health, status, or condition) of VCs that may be affected
• The potential for mitigation and extent to which mitigation measures may address adverse effects
• The level of concern expressed by Indigenous groups or the public

The decision to move a VEC forward or not must be defensible.

10d. Determination of Boundaries

Spatial Boundaries

One of the most important steps in CEA scoping is determining spatial boundaries. They should be clearly identified and justified, encompassing the likely environmental effects on a VEC from physical activities that have been and will be carried out (Government of Canada, 2016).

There are four recommended methods:

1. VEC-Centred Spatial Boundaries

Generally the most recommended method. Spatial boundaries are set based on the geographic range and the zone of influence (ZOI) – boundaries beyond where the residual impacts of a VEC from the project are no longer detectable.

Example: A caribou herd hunted by local Indigenous groups ranges within a 5,000 km2 area. This full area would be the primary basis for the spatial boundary. The population is predicted to be directly affected by habitat loss within a 3 km radius of the project in the southern part of its range. The herd is also being affected by transport roads and seismic lines in the northern part of its range. Effects may include loss of habitat, decreased access due to avoidance of crossing seismic lines, and increased potential for interaction with predators. Noise from a proposed new airport could limit habitat use in proximity to the airport. The spatial boundaries should allow for consideration of all of these cumulative effects. When considering caribou in the context of “current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes,” practitioners should consult with potentially affected Indigenous groups about whether accessing hunting opportunities in other parts of the range is an option, and set those spatial boundaries separately from the biophysical caribou VC. (Government of Canada, 2016)

2. Ecosystem-Centred Spatial Boundaries

Based on ecosystem features such as hydrology, climate, and geology to understand how a VEC interacts with an ecosystem. This allows for a more holistic understanding of the complex system. However, it requires extensive understanding of the ecosystem, and information is often complex or not publicly accessible.

Example: “An ecological boundary, such as a watershed, may define the geographic range of a VEC, for example a population of fish. If sufficient knowledge base is available, the setting of the VEC-spatial boundary is done relative to the system in which the VEC occurs so the fish species would be examined across its occurrence in the watershed.” (Government of Canada, 2016)

3. Activity-Centred Spatial Boundaries

Historically favoured by proponents despite potentially leading to narrowly focused boundaries and poor understanding of cumulative effects. Spatial boundaries are set based on the range of influence of physical activities of the project.

Example: Analyzing cumulative effects on a rare species of lichen using only the zone where trees were cleared for a mine would fail to encompass impacts not directly from the project. Questions left unaddressed: Does this lichen occur elsewhere? What is the population like in its geographic range?

4. Human-Made Spatial Boundaries

Political, federal, or municipal boundaries. Recommended for social VECs such as tourism, recreational land-use, and health. May also reflect management areas (e.g., conservation group or park boundaries). Not appropriate when the VEC is mobile and likely to spend time outside the boundaries.

Temporal Boundaries

Temporal boundaries should be identified and justified clearly, set based on timelines associated with the construction, operation, decommissioning, and abandonment of the project. The Operational Policy Statement clarifies:

“Temporal boundaries for assessing a selected VC should take into account past and existing physical activities, as well as future physical activities that are certain and reasonably foreseeable. They should also take into account the degree to which the environmental effects of the physical activities overlap those predicted from the designated project.” (Government of Canada, 2016)

Retrospective Analysis

Cumulative effects best practice must focus on how far into the past a proponent should look to determine VEC changes from other actions and activities. Retrospective analysis is concerned with:

• Establishing past conditions
• Assessing thresholds
• Predicting trends over time of a VEC

Often direct causation between changes in the VEC over space and time cannot be established, but associations and correlations can be determined through scenario-building and system diagrams.

Prospective Analysis

Drawing on baseline information from retrospective studies and current direct baseline information, EA practitioners try to predict and evaluate how a VEC or indicator will respond to future stresses from additional projects and activities having cumulative impact. Predicting future impacts is difficult and results in a high degree of uncertainty due to incomplete data and the challenge of estimating future activities/projects.

10e. Enduring Challenges of Cumulative Effects Assessment

Despite apparent progress in CEA, many enduring challenges remain (Canter and Ross, 2010). According to Canter and Ross (2010:265), the following areas need to be addressed to make CEA more meaningful:

1. Poor understanding of system complexity: Understanding of how multiple stressors act in an ecosystem at different scales is not often translated into practical and accessible guidance for EA professionals and stakeholders (Foley et al. 2017).

2. Lack of holistic policy: Lack of policy that takes into account the holistic nature of cumulative effects (social and economic impacts along with biophysical).

3. Lack of collaboration and information sharing: Between developers, proponents, regulatory agencies, stakeholders, governments, and Indigenous groups.

4. Lack of consistent methodology: Lack of consistent methodological practice in implementing CEA and clear justification for decisions made.

5. Narrowly scoped baselines: Baselines have historically been narrowly scoped and not reflective of ecosystem baseline conditions, often only concerned with project-by-project conditions.

6. Disenchantment approach: Impact assessment has been conducted in isolation, one project at a time.

7. Lack of understanding of regional carrying capacity: How much stress can an ecosystem hold before crossing a threshold?

Opportunities for Improvement

According to Foley et al. (2017:128), recommendations for improving CEAA practice include:

(Foley et al., 2017:128)

Module 10: Required Readings

• Video: JaxStrong. Oct 22, 2010. Cumulative Impacts.
• Textbook: Chapter 10: Cumulative Effects Assessment (pages 211-233)
• Academic Reading: Canter, L. and Ross, B. (2010). State of practice of cumulative effects assessment and management: the good, the bad and the ugly. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. Volume 28, Issue 4: 261-168.
• Practitioner’s Document: Hegmann, G. et al. (1999). Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioner’s Guide. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
• Optional: Duinker, P.N. and Greig, L.A. (2006). The Impotence of Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada: Ailments and Ideas for Redeployment. Environmental Management, Volume 37, Issue 2: 153-161.

Module 10: Review Questions

1. Define cumulative effects and critically discuss the definition. Use a definition not found in the textbook, modules, or readings. Is this a different definition from how CEAA 2012 defines it? Why might different definitions matter?
2. Discuss what a “retrospective analysis” is. Why is this one of the most important baseline assessments for determining cumulative effects?
3. What are some of the challenges surrounding determining cumulative effects of a project?
4. Explain the role that the setting of boundaries plays in a cumulative effects assessment.
5. Discuss two sources of change that contribute to cumulative environmental effects. Use an example to discuss each of them.

Module 11: Real World EA Application

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this module you will be able to:

• Discuss how your perspective and the understanding of the system you are in is important to understanding how the EA system fits into planning, policy, economic, and political context seen in Canada

Readings and Resources

• There are no required readings for this module.
• All readings in Course Reserves are Optional.

Introduction

This module presents two guest speakers from different sectors of the environmental assessment landscape, followed by a panel discussion. The speakers provide perspectives on how EA works in practice — from a regulatory agency viewpoint and from a community activist viewpoint — complementing the theoretical and procedural knowledge covered in earlier modules. The module illustrates the real-world tensions, limitations, and possibilities of EA through the lens of the Greater Toronto Area and the Oak Ridges Moraine.

11a. Ryan Ness: Environmental Assessment and Urban Growth in the Toronto Region

Speaker Background: Ryan Ness served as Senior Manager at the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), one of Ontario’s largest and most active conservation authorities. His expertise spans watershed planning, environmental assessment review, and managing the impacts of urban growth across the Greater Toronto Area.

Environmental Assessment and Impacts of Urban Growth

The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is one of the fastest-growing urban regions in North America, with population projections anticipating the region growing from roughly 5.5 million to over 8 million by 2031 under the Places to Grow Act (2005). This explosive growth places enormous pressure on natural heritage systems, causing loss of wetlands, woodlands, riparian corridors, and agricultural lands.

Key environmental impacts of urbanization include:

• Increased impervious surfaces leading to altered hydrology and increased stormwater runoff
• Degraded water quality from urban runoff, construction sediment, and pollution
• Loss of biodiversity and habitat fragmentation
• Increased flood risk from altered watershed dynamics
• Loss of agricultural land and natural heritage features

The Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (1990) governs EA for public-sector projects such as infrastructure, transportation, water, and wastewater facilities. Municipal Class EA is the most common EA process encountered in the Toronto region — used for roads, bridges, water mains, sewers, and stormwater management facilities. This streamlined process, developed by the Municipal Engineers Association, allows municipalities to conduct EAs for common infrastructure projects without requiring individual EA approval for each one.

The Humber River Watershed

The Humber River watershed is one of the largest in the GTA, covering approximately 911 square kilometres from the Oak Ridges Moraine to Lake Ontario. It was designated a Canadian Heritage River in 1999, recognizing its cultural, recreational, and natural heritage values.

The watershed exemplifies the full gradient of urbanization:

• Rural headwaters on the Oak Ridges Moraine
• Suburban development in the middle reaches
• Heavily urbanized lower reaches through the City of Toronto

Key environmental issues include flooding (Hurricane Hazel in 1954 was a defining event for conservation authority mandates), water quality degradation, loss of fish habitat, and channelization of streams. The Humber serves as a case study for how cumulative development decisions — each subject to individual EAs — collectively transform a watershed.

Conservation Authority Mandate

Conservation Authorities (CAs) were established after Hurricane Hazel (1954) with a primary mandate of flood control and water management. Over time, the mandate has expanded to include:

• Natural hazard management — flooding, erosion, slope instability
• Watershed-based resource management — integrated environmental monitoring and planning
• Natural heritage protection — preserving ecological systems and corridors
• Environmental planning advisory services — technical review of EA and planning applications

Under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, CAs regulate development and site alteration in or adjacent to watercourses, wetlands, shorelines, and other hazardous lands. CAs review and comment on Environmental Assessments, Planning Act applications, and other development proposals. They are not the decision-makers on EAs but serve as key technical agencies with specialized watershed knowledge.

Conservation Authorities of Ontario

Ontario has 36 Conservation Authorities, organized on a watershed basis — a governance model unique in Canada. CAs are created under the Conservation Authorities Act and funded through a combination of municipal levies, provincial grants, and self-generated revenue. They are partnerships between municipalities and the provincial government, coordinated by Conservation Ontario as the umbrella organization.

CAs play a unique role in EA: they bring watershed-scale ecological knowledge to project-level assessments, bridging a critical gap in the EA process where individual project assessments may fail to account for broader landscape dynamics.

TRCA Jurisdiction

TRCA’s jurisdiction covers nine watersheds: Etobicoke Creek, Mimico Creek, Humber River, Don River, Highland Creek, Rouge River, Petticoat Creek, Duffins Creek, and Carruthers Creek. It spans parts of nine municipalities including the City of Toronto, Peel Region (Brampton, Caledon, Mississauga), York Region (Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Markham), and Durham Region (Pickering, Ajax). The jurisdictional map illustrates how natural systems (watersheds) do not align with political boundaries — a fundamental challenge for EA and environmental management.

Watershed Plans

Watershed plans are comprehensive, science-based documents that characterize the environmental conditions of a watershed and set targets for environmental protection and restoration. Key components include:

• Subwatershed studies — detailed assessments of smaller drainage areas
• Water budgets — quantifying water inputs, outputs, and storage
• Aquatic and terrestrial habitat assessments — cataloguing ecological features
• Stormwater management strategies — controlling runoff from development
• Natural heritage system mapping — identifying and connecting ecological features

These plans provide the cumulative, landscape-scale context that individual EAs often lack. TRCA’s watershed plans inform their review of EAs — they can assess whether a proposed project, combined with other past and future projects, will push cumulative impacts beyond acceptable thresholds.

Cumulative Effects and Urban Sprawl

Cumulative effects — the combined environmental impacts of multiple projects and activities over time and space — represent arguably the most critical weakness in the current EA system. The Ontario EA Act does not explicitly require cumulative effects assessment (unlike the former federal CEAA 2012).

Municipal Class EA is particularly weak on cumulative effects: each road widening, sewer extension, or stormwater pond is assessed individually without systematic consideration of combined effects. Urban sprawl in the GTA has resulted in massive cumulative environmental impacts:

• Loss of over 50% of wetlands in southern Ontario
• Fragmentation of the regional natural heritage system
• Degradation of water quality in Lake Ontario tributaries
• Increased greenhouse gas emissions from car-dependent development patterns

The Greenbelt Act (2005) and Places to Grow Act (2005) were provincial responses to sprawl, but development continues to intensify within the urban boundary and at its edges.

11b. Debbe Crandall: Municipal EA and the Oak Ridges Moraine

Speaker Background: Debbe Crandall is one of the most prominent environmental activists in Ontario, known for her decades-long advocacy for the protection of the Oak Ridges Moraine. She was a founding member and long-time coordinator of the Save the Oak Ridges Moraine (STORM) Coalition, a citizens’ coalition formed in the early 1990s. Her perspective represents the NGO/community activist viewpoint on EA.

The Oak Ridges Moraine

The Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) is a geological landform stretching 160 km from the Niagara Escarpment in the west to the Trent River system in the east, covering approximately 190,000 hectares. It is one of the most significant geological and hydrological features in southern Ontario:

• Headwaters of 65 river systems flowing north to Lake Simcoe and Georgian Bay, and south to Lake Ontario
• Functions as a massive groundwater recharge area
• Serves as a biodiversity corridor connecting ecological regions
• Provides critical ecological services including water filtration, flood attenuation, and habitat connectivity

The Threat: Urban Development on the Moraine

Through the 1980s and 1990s, the ORM faced intense development pressure as the GTA expanded northward. Subdivisions, highways, aggregate extraction, and infrastructure projects threatened the moraine’s ecological integrity. Key battles included developments in Richmond Hill (the “Big Pipe” sewer project that would have enabled massive development), the Town of Uxbridge, King City, and areas in the Region of York.

The Limitations of EA for Landscape Protection

From Crandall’s perspective, Municipal Class EA proved inadequate for protecting the moraine because:

1. Individual project focus — It assessed projects individually, not cumulatively
2. Growth bias — It was biased toward finding solutions to accommodate growth rather than questioning whether growth should occur on the moraine
3. Weak alternatives analysis — It did not adequately consider alternatives, particularly the “do nothing” alternative
4. Limited public participation — Participation opportunities were limited and often perfunctory
5. Proponent-controlled process — The process was controlled by the proponent (the municipality), creating an inherent conflict of interest

STORM Coalition’s Advocacy Strategy

The STORM Coalition employed multiple strategies to protect the moraine:

• Participating in EA processes — providing detailed comments and technical submissions
• Requesting Part II Orders — “bumping up” Class EAs to individual EAs to force more rigorous assessment
• Intervening at Ontario Municipal Board hearings — challenging development approvals
• Public education campaigns — raising awareness about the moraine’s ecological significance
• Media advocacy and political lobbying — building political pressure for legislative protection
• Commissioning scientific studies — building an evidence base on hydrogeology, ecology, and land use

The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act (2001)

After years of advocacy, the province passed the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act in 2001, followed by the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2002). The Act established a land use planning framework that designated the moraine into four categories:

This represented a paradigm shift from project-by-project EA to landscape-level planning — essentially achieving what EA should have accomplished but could not through its project-level focus.

EA Within a Protected Landscape

After the ORM Conservation Plan was implemented, EA did not disappear but operated within a new planning framework:

• EAs for projects on the moraine now had to conform to the Conservation Plan’s requirements, including restrictions on land use, requirements for hydrological studies, vegetation protection, and connectivity
• The “do nothing” alternative became more viable under the plan’s protection framework
• The range of alternatives was constrained by Conservation Plan requirements
• Challenges remained: enforcement, interpretation of provisions, and ongoing pressure for exceptions and amendments

The Greenbelt and Broader Protection

The ORM Conservation Act was followed by the Greenbelt Act (2005), expanding protection to a larger area including the Niagara Escarpment, the ORM, and adjacent agricultural lands. Together, these created a framework of protected landscapes in southern Ontario. EA for infrastructure projects (particularly transportation corridors like Highway 404 extensions) continued to be contentious within and adjacent to these protected areas.

Lessons Learned

The Oak Ridges Moraine experience yields critical insights for understanding EA in practice:

1. EA alone is insufficient for protecting regionally significant landscapes from cumulative development impacts
2. Legislative protection was necessary because EA is a process tool, not a planning tool — it assesses individual projects but does not set landscape-level objectives
3. Community activism and scientific evidence were essential to achieving legislative protection
4. Watershed-based thinking connects local project impacts to regional environmental dynamics (linking to Ness’s TRCA presentation)
5. Citizen vigilance is essential for maintaining environmental protections over time

11c. Panel Discussion: Christy Barbeau, Ryan Ness, and Debbe Crandall

The panel discussion brings together three distinct perspectives on the EA process:

Three Perspectives on EA

Christy Barbeau — Consulting/Private Industry Perspective: As a course instructor with industry experience, Barbeau brings the perspective of an environmental consultant preparing EAs for proponents. This includes navigating regulatory requirements, managing the tension between client interests and environmental protection, and the practical mechanics of conducting assessments and public consultation. The consulting perspective views EA as a structured decision-making framework where following proper procedures and conducting rigorous technical studies (traffic, noise, natural environment, archaeology) leads to better outcomes.

Ryan Ness — Regulatory Agency Perspective: As a TRCA representative, Ness offers the conservation authority’s view as a reviewing and commenting agency. This involves receiving EA documents, providing technical review, and requesting additional studies or mitigation measures. Key challenges include reviewing numerous EAs with limited staff resources, providing the same comments on cumulative effects repeatedly with limited ability to compel changes, and the value of watershed plans as a framework for evaluating individual EAs.

Debbe Crandall — NGO/Community Activist Perspective: Crandall brings the citizen experience of EA: navigating complex technical documents, responding within tight comment periods, confronting power imbalances between proponents and the public, and using EA as a tool for community engagement and resistance to harmful projects. Her perspective emphasizes the limitations of EA as a mechanism for environmental protection and the need for broader legislative frameworks.

Key Panel Themes

1. Is the EA process working? Each panelist offers a different assessment based on their role in the system
2. Public participation: How meaningful is it? Does it genuinely influence outcomes? What barriers exist?
3. EA and land use planning: Should EA be more integrated with planning processes? The ORM experience suggests that planning frameworks can fill gaps that EA cannot
4. Cumulative effects: All three perspectives converge on this as a fundamental weakness of the current EA system
5. The role of science in EA: How well does scientific evidence inform EA decision-making?
6. Municipal Class EA: The most commonly encountered EA process in the GTA, and all three speakers have direct experience with its strengths and limitations

Key Legislation Referenced in This Module

Note: This module was delivered through video presentations. The notes above are synthesized from the module’s topic structure, speaker backgrounds, and research on the organizations and issues discussed. Sections 11a1–11a9 covered Ryan Ness’s presentation in nine video segments; sections 11b1–11b9 covered Debbe Crandall’s presentation in nine segments; and section 11c1 was the panel discussion.

Module 12: Strategic Environmental Assessment and Sustainability Assessment

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this module you will be able to:

• Define Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and why it is important.
• Explain the differences between an EA and a SEA and the eight key SEA principles.
• Describe the challenges and opportunities of SEA in Canada.
• Use case study analysis to develop an understanding of the role of SEA in sustainable development.
• Describe the key criteria for Sustainability Assessment (SA).
• Discuss the key requirements when addressing sustainability tradeoffs.
• Explain why the Voisey’s Bay case was a landmark case for sustainability assessment.

Key Terms

• SEA (Strategic Environmental Assessment): A higher-order assessment process applied to policies, plans, and programs (PPPs) rather than individual projects, aimed at incorporating environmental and sustainability considerations into strategic decision-making.
• Pre-Assessment Phase: The initial stage of SEA involving scoping, identification of strategic issues, and establishment of the assessment framework before detailed analysis begins.
• Impact Assessment Phase: The core analytical stage of SEA in which strategic options are evaluated against environmental, social, and economic criteria.
• Post-Assessment Phase: The follow-up stage of SEA involving monitoring, reporting, and adaptive management after strategic decisions have been made.

12a. What is Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)?

“We are the first generation to know we are destroying our planet and the last one that can do anything about it.”

– Tanya Steele, Chief Executive of the World Wildlife Fund, 2018

The Evolution from Project-Level EA to Sustainability Assessment

In earlier modules, the course examined cumulative effects assessment as an additional tool in an EA practitioner’s repertoire. Module 12 traces how the EA process has evolved from the project-level EA to a paradigm shift moving towards sustainability thinking and sustainability assessment. The first approach discussed is Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), which complements the project-level environmental assessment that has been the focus of most of the course. After discussing SEA, the module moves to an even higher-order EA – sustainability assessment – which is intended to guide not only SEA but also project-level and regional-level EAs.

Table 1. Evolution of EA/SEA

Source: Adapted from Sadler, 1996/1999; Kirchhoff et al., 2011

Defining Strategic Environmental Assessment

SEA is a response to the challenges and shortcomings of the project-level EA and the much larger socio-ecological failings at local, national, and international scales. SEA is one part of the process of moving policy-making and planning towards a more sustainable future. Within the environmental assessment field, there is no single agreed-upon definition of “strategic” in environmental assessment. According to Partidario:

“Despite its diversity of forms, SEA is often presented as the assessment tool that addresses the environmental implications of decisions made above project level.”

– Partidario, 2000:654

Multiple definitions exist for how SEA has been framed in the EA field:

• Broad definition: “A higher order process by which projects, plans and policies are developed and assessed based on a much broader set of objectives and constraints.” (Noble and Gunn, in Hanna 2016:96)

• Cabinet Directive definition: According to the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, strategic environmental assessment is “a tool that contributes to informed decisions in support of sustainable development by incorporating environmental considerations into the development of public policies and strategic decisions.” (Government of Canada, 2010)

• Accountability function: The Government of Canada further states that SEA serves to hold the government accountable to the public so that their decisions are being made in consideration of the environment and sustainable development.

SEA Under the Impact Assessment Act (IAA)

Under the IAA, anyone – including members of the general public and Indigenous groups – can submit a request to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change for a strategic environmental assessment. Upon request, the Agency will advise the Minister on whether or not to complete a SEA. Several factors are considered when determining if a SEA will take place instead of a project-level EA (Government of Canada, 2019):

• Whether the strategic assessment could inform, or improve the efficiency of, future federal impact assessments
• Whether the policy, plan, program, or issue is related to an area of federal jurisdiction
• Whether the strategic assessment could address impacts, including cumulative impacts, to the rights of Indigenous people
• Whether there has been considerable public interest related to the policy, plan, program, or issue
• Whether an existing or planned initiative would adequately address the issues raised in the request
• Information from proponents, provinces, territories, or Indigenous groups that the Agency might have from other areas of its work
• Available resources to conduct regional or strategic assessments

SEA’s Broad Focus

SEA is focused on answering broad questions such as:

• What are the values and objectives for a particular region or resource?
• What are the key drivers of change?
• What are the strategic options?
• What are the critical policy objectives to be met?

(Noble and Gunn, in Hanna, 2016:97)

Project-level EAs, by contrast, are often only focused on the adverse impacts of a project on its environment and the best mitigation strategies to address these impacts. With a project-level EA, there is often less consideration of whether the project itself or the development of a region/resource is actually the best approach to supporting and promoting sustainability.

Table 2. Aims and Benefits of SEA

To help achieve sustainable development by promoting:

• Integrated environment and development decision-making
• Design of environmentally sustainable policies and plans
• Consideration of best practicable environmental options and alternatives

To strengthen and streamline project EIA by:

• Early identification of potential impacts and cumulative effects
• Addressing strategic issues related to the justification and location of proposals
• Reducing the time and effort necessary to assess individual schemes

Source: Sadler, 1998, in Partidario, 2000:650

Six Key Defining Characteristics of Strategic Environmental Assessment

1. Strategically Focused

Similar to a strategic plan developed for a company, the strategic portion of SEA is concerned with evaluating and setting goals and then developing a plan (direction) on how to reach those future goals. Generally, SEA (Partidario, 2012, in Noble and Nwanekezie, 2016):

• Positions itself flexibly in relation to the decision-making process
• Integrates biophysical, social, institutional, and economic issues
• Assesses environmental and sustainability opportunities and risks of strategic options to help drive development into sustainability
• Ensures active stakeholder engagement and a collaborative process to help achieve win-win situations
• Is better set to address cumulative impacts

2. Futures-Oriented

Since SEA and sustainability are so inherently linked, it is natural to think of SEA as being focused on the future and specifically about building a desired future. As with strategic plans, a desired future state of a system is determined, and then the steps in obtaining this state are analyzed and evaluated against each other.

For example, a project-level EA for a highway would be concerned with determining the impacts of the development and the best way to mitigate any residual impacts. However, a SEA would have begun long before the highway proposal and would have assessed the feasibility of meeting the demands of the transportation system. The SEA would propose and assess alternative means to meeting this demand, such as a rapid rail system or ways to reduce transportation requirements, such as urban densification. SEA looks at the infrastructure of the transportation system as a whole – what a sustainable future with transportation would look like – while EA looks at the impact of one project.

3. Explores Strategic Options

SEA has been described as being exploratory in nature (Noble and Gunn, 2016, in Hanna, 2016). SEA tries to better understand the various pathways that could lead to the desired future. Unlike a project-level EA, SEA does not have a “no go” option, but assumes that there is always a path forward to address the need of the assessment, including the status quo (just continuing to do what you are currently doing). If the status quo is selected as the pathway, it is under the assumption that how you are currently operating will lead to a desirable future state. Alternatives to the status quo are based on your broader environmental vision, such as sustainability, and are selected and evaluated against the principles that govern this vision.

4. Proactive

Unlike project-level EAs that are reactionary in nature (responding to already designed and selected undertakings), SEA acts in a proactive manner that identifies desired/ideal futures and selects the best path and actions from various alternatives to meet that future state. According to Noble and Gunn (2016):

“SEA acts in anticipation of future problems, needs, or challenges and creates and examines alternatives leading to the identification and establishment of preferred options.”

– Noble and Gunn, 2016, in Hanna, 2016:99

5. Sensitive to the Context of Policy, Plans, and Programs

Unlike project-level EAs, which operate under legislative guidelines, an SEA is more flexible and used in many diverse situations ranging from legislative processes to more informal, ad hoc situations (Noble and Gunn, 2016, in Hanna, 2016). SEA must have the flexibility to adapt to a range of uses, often to new situations that have not been explored previously. Further, SEA needs to be sensitive to the varying contexts (the political climate and culture of the organization undertaking the SEA) in which it is applied. However, there needs to be an underlying backbone of structure that allows for accountability, value, and credibility throughout all SEAs.

6. Nested

As noted by Noble and Gunn (2016):

“SEA is not intended to operate in isolation; rather, SEA is intended to operate in a tiered or nested system of planning and decision-making and to provide a means of addressing strategic issues and priorities.”

– Noble and Gunn, 2016, in Hanna, 2016:99

The tiering of SEA does not always operate in a top-down approach where the assessment of policies, plans, and programs informs processes lower down, such as project-level EAs. Decisions and lessons learned from project-level EAs can inform from the bottom-up, helping to guide the strategic decisions made by government agencies and organizations. The nesting of SEA in the middle of a broader set of strategic goals can help to inform the development of policies, plans, and programs at a higher tier as well as lower-tiered, project-level EAs.

IAIA Best Practice Characteristics for SEA

The International Association for Impact Assessment has stated that a best-practice SEA has several basic characteristics (Noble and Nwanekezie, 2016):

• Integrated into planning and policy development
• Focused on sustainability
• Accountable
• Participative
• Iterative

12b. SEA Methods

A Framework for SEA

Unlike project-level EAs that are carried out in a structured and rigid approach, SEAs do not have a single best methodology. Instead, Noble and Nwanekezie (2016) conceptualize “SEA as operating along a spectrum from less to more strategic.” The less strategic end is similar to the traditional EA process of impact-based assessment. On the opposite end are the broader and more conceptualized processes and strategic decisions.

The Canadian federal Cabinet Directive on SEA focuses SEA on a more impact-based approach. This approach is characterized by focusing SEA on assessing the impacts of a proposed or existing plan or program and finding ways to minimize the adverse impacts and promote the positive impacts (Noble and Gunn, 2016:101, in Hanna, 2016). Despite there being no universally accepted methodology for how to undertake an SEA, Noble and Gunn have developed a generic methodological framework for SEA (Figure 5.1, Noble and Gunn, 2016, in Hanna, 2016:103).

SEA Systems in Canada

It was not until 1990 that a federal-level SEA requirement was established, by way of a federal directive, on the implementation of SEA separate from project-level EAs. This cabinet directive was revised in 1993, 1999, 2004, and 2010. Each revision required a greater separation between project-level EAs and SEAs, therefore keeping SEA separate from any legislated EA process (Noble and Gunn, 2016, in Hanna, 2016).

It was not until 2004, with the introduction of the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plans and Program Proposals, that government agencies were required to complete a SEA and share the statement with the public. The Cabinet Directive was produced to give guidance to federal departments and agencies who are required to carry out an SEA when developing new policies, plans, and programs.

According to this Cabinet Directive, ministers are required to undertake a SEA if the following criteria are met (Government of Canada, 2016):

• The proposal is submitted to an individual or Cabinet for approval; and
• Implementation of the proposal may result in important environmental effects, either positive or negative.

Advanced Features of the Cabinet Directive:

The Cabinet Directive has many advanced features that will help government agencies and departments implement sustainability goals and respond to strong public concerns. The Cabinet Directive defines the term “environment” similar to CEAA 2012, but also aims to optimize positive environmental effects. Further, the directive helps to better consider potential cumulative effects of policies, plans, and programs (despite there being no requirement to do so). The directive also emphasizes the integration of environmental considerations into the overall analysis of different options and alternatives.

Shortcomings of the Cabinet Directive:

Despite the SEA process being audited by the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development, there are some shortcomings to the process:

• SEA often occurs late in the planning and development process, too late to fully evaluate alternatives.
• Public consultation and involvement has occurred on a “when appropriate” basis.
• The process and methods behind how the SEA was undertaken remain invisible.
• Reports that are produced are often vague in nature, with detailed conclusions reported to Cabinet and not made publicly accessible.

Case Study: York Region Growth Strategy

The Regional Municipality of York is one of Canada’s fastest-growing municipalities. It is located in southern Ontario and lies on the northern boundary of the City of Toronto. The landscape that makes up the region of York is dominated by farmland, wetlands, forests, lakes, and the Oak Ridges Moraine. The Oak Ridges Moraine is an environmentally important ecosystem that functions as a water recharge/discharge area and has been labelled southern Ontario’s “rain barrel.”

In 2005, the Ontario government established the Greenbelt Plan that protects over 720,000 hectares of land from development. There has been immense development pressure for new and updated infrastructure in the form of water/wastewater and transportation needs. The region had a history of some controversial and highly publicized projects where there was considerable critique of the efficacy of the project-level EAs by community members, environmental organizations, and politicians.

To address this pressure, along with the introduction of the Places to Grow Act by the Ontario Provincial Government, York Region started a growth management initiative, “Planning for Tomorrow.” According to Kirchhoff et al.:

“The Places to Grow Act provides a framework for the provincial government to coordinate planning and decision making for long-term growth and infrastructure renewal in Ontario. The Act gives the provincial government the power to designate geographical growth areas and to develop growth plans in collaboration with local officials and stakeholders to meet specific needs across the province.”

– Kirchhoff et al., 2011:17

At the time of their planning development, the Region of York was unaware of SEA, but their strategic approach to developing their master plans involved many aspects of an SEA. According to Kirchhoff et al. (2011:19), in order to transform the idea of sustainability into practical application and the development of the York Region Sustainability Strategy, the region turned to public engagement with extensive communication among the public, decision-makers, and other stakeholders involved. This sustainability strategy and strategic planning ultimately guided the region’s master plans for water/wastewater and transportation needs and flowed down to the lower tier of project-level EAs.

Further, this strategy guided how alternatives were considered and assessed at the project level. Ultimately, Kirchhoff et al. found:

“That York Region’s approach to planning and EA processes appears to have recently changed to a more strategic, long-term, participative, integrated and tiered approach reflecting a commitment to sustainability.”

– Kirchhoff et al., 2011:22

This case study highlights the importance of an SEA and its application to planning through the use of a tiered, integrated, and informed approach, one that is guided by a sustainability lens.

12c. The Basic Sustainability Challenge

As of October 30, 2018, according to the World Wildlife Fund, there has been a 60% decline in bird, fish, and mammal populations since 1970. We are now using about 120% of the planet’s carrying capacity while approximately 40% of people live on less than $2.00/day. This gap between the rich and poor is only growing.

We stand at a crossroads – we can continue on in this downward spiral or we can collectively decide that every decision that is made must contribute towards sustainability. Under CEAA 2012, the purpose of the act was to “encourage federal authorities to take actions that promote sustainability.” However, in reality the process under CEAA 2012 was focused on determining the likely adverse impacts of a project on the environment instead of promoting long-lasting, positive contributions to sustainability.

Under the new IAA, Canada now has a commitment to a more comprehensive, sustainability-based agenda (Gibson, 2020). The Act was built around the recognition that there was a need to be forward-facing and to not approve projects in isolation but to aim to make long-term, positive contributions to the greater good and federal climate commitments. The Act now establishes that all projects subject to the IAA must be in the public interest and contribute to sustainability.

Sustainability and Sustainable Development

With the release of the report Our Common Future by the Brundtland Commission in 1987, there has been a buzz surrounding the term “sustainable development.” As defined by the report, sustainable development means:

“Meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Unfortunately, the concepts and processes around what constitutes sustainable development are vague. Often this vagueness has led to the term sustainable development being applied to all types of development, whether or not the development is truly sustainable. As Gibson (2018) states, there have been temptations on all sides to continue to favor interpretations of sustainable development to serve some more or less immediate development priority.

Sustainability Assessment

Gibson et al. (2005) and Gibson (2018) describe sustainability as having emerged as three things:

1. A critique of our dominant historical and current practices which have led to the current state of our environment
2. A set of principles that imply positive objectives
3. A focus for strategies for change

In order for sustainable development to create progress towards a sustainable future, it must:

• Provide viable possibilities and opportunities for future generations
• Recognize the interdependence of social, economic, ecological, and cultural considerations
• Reverse unsustainable trends – not just focus on implementing mitigation measures
• Respect the complexity and uncertainty of socio-ecological systems
• Accept limits and pursue opportunities for creative innovation

Gibson’s Eight Requirements for Progress Towards Sustainability

Dr. Robert Gibson (2006), from the University of Waterloo, has developed eight requirements that must be considered in order to progress towards sustainability and must be, at some capacity, the focus of a sustainability assessment.

1. Socio-Ecological System Integrity

Requirement: Build human-ecological relations to establish and maintain the long-term integrity of socio-biophysical systems and protect the irreplaceable life-support functions upon which human as well as ecological well-being depends.

Illustrative Implications:

• Need to understand systemic implications of our own activities
• Need to reduce indirect and overall as well as direct and specific human threats to system integrity and life-support viability

2. Livelihood Sufficiency and Opportunity

Requirement: Ensure that everyone and every community has enough for a decent life and that everyone has opportunities to seek improvements in ways that do not compromise future generations’ possibilities for sufficiency and opportunity.

Illustrative Implications:

• Need to ensure provision of key prerequisites for a decent life (which, typically, are not now enjoyed by those who have little or no access to basic resources and essential services, who have few if any satisfactory employment opportunities, who are especially vulnerable to disease, or who face physical or economic insecurity)
• Need to appreciate the diversity, and ensure the involvement, of those whose needs are being addressed

3. Intragenerational Equity

Requirement: Ensure that sufficiency and effective choices for all are pursued in ways that reduce dangerous gaps in sufficiency and opportunity (and health, security, social recognition, political influence, etc.) between the rich and the poor.

Illustrative Implications:

• Need to build sustainable livelihoods for all, including practically available livelihood choices and the power to choose
• Need to emphasize less materially and energy intensive approaches to personal satisfactions among the advantaged, to permit material and energy sufficiency for all

4. Intergenerational Equity

Requirement: Favour present options and actions that are most likely to preserve or enhance the opportunities and capabilities of future generations to live sustainably.

Illustrative Implications:

• Need to return current resource exploitation and other pressures on ecological systems and their functions to levels that are safely within the perpetual capacity of those systems to provide resources and services likely to be needed by future generations
• Need to build the integrity of socio-ecological systems, maintaining the diversity, accountability, broad engagement, and other qualities required for long-term adaptive adjustment

5. Resource Maintenance and Efficiency

Requirement: Provide a larger base for ensuring sustainable livelihoods for all while reducing threats to the long-term integrity of socio-ecological systems by reducing extractive damage, avoiding waste, and cutting overall material and energy use per unit of benefit.

Illustrative Implications:

• Need to do more with less (optimize production through decreasing material and energy inputs and cutting waste outputs through product and process redesign throughout product life cycles) to permit continued economic expansion where it is needed, with associated employment and wealth generation, while reducing demands on resource stocks and pressures on ecosystems
• Need to consider purposes and end uses, recognizing that efficiency gains are of no great value if the savings go to more advantages and more consumption by the already affluent

6. Socio-Ecological Civility and Democratic Governance

Requirement: Build the capacity, motivation, and habitual inclination of individuals, communities, and other collective decision-making bodies to apply sustainability requirements through more open and better-informed deliberations, greater attention to fostering reciprocal awareness and collective responsibility, and more integrated use of administrative, market, customary, and personal decision-making practices.

Illustrative Implications:

• Need governance structures capable of integrated responses to complex, intertwined, and dynamic conditions
• Need to mobilize more participants, mechanisms, and motivations, including producers, consumers, investors, lenders, insurers, employees, auditors, reporters
• Need to strengthen individual and collective understanding of ecology and community, foster customary civility and ecological responsibility, and build civil capacity for effective involvement in collective decision-making

7. Precaution and Adaptation

Requirement: Respect uncertainty, avoid even poorly understood risks of serious or irreversible damage to the foundations for sustainability, plan to learn, design for surprise, and manage for adaptation.

Illustrative Implications:

• Need to act on incomplete but suggestive information where social and ecological systems that are crucial for sustainability are at risk
• Need to design for surprise and adaptation, favouring diversity, flexibility, and reversibility
• Need to prefer safe-fail over fail-safe technologies
• Need to seek broadly comprehensible options rather than those that are dependent on specialized expertise
• Need to ensure the availability and practicality of backup alternatives
• Need to establish mechanisms for effective monitoring and response

8. Immediate and Long-Term Integration

Requirement: Apply all principles of sustainability at once, seeking mutually supportive benefits and multiple gains.

Key Considerations:

• Integration is not the same as balancing
• Because greater efficiency, equity, ecological integrity, and civility are all necessary for sustainability, positive gains in all areas must be achieved
• What happens in any one area affects what happens in all of the others
• It is reasonable to expect, but not safe to assume, that positive steps in different areas will be mutually reinforcing

Illustrative Implications:

• Need positive steps in all areas, at least in general and at least in the long term
• Need to resist convenient immediate compromises unless they clearly promise an eventual gain

Source: Gibson, 2006:174

Gibson’s Six Rules for the Evaluation of Trade-Offs

Every decision that is made has trade-offs associated with it – a sustainable future is only obtainable through the least number and smallest magnitude of trade-offs possible. Dr. Robert Gibson has also developed a set of rules to help govern the evaluation of trade-offs and to help protect the most vulnerable victims. These are general rules; however, Dr. Gibson cautions that more specific guidance should be considered in different cases and contexts. The six rules are (Gibson, 2006:176):

1. Maximum net gains – Seek overall net gains across all sustainability requirements.
2. Burden of argument on trade-off proponent – Those proposing a trade-off must demonstrate that the trade-off is justified.
3. Avoidance of significant adverse effects – Avoid trade-offs that cause significant adverse effects on any sustainability requirement.
4. Protection of the future – Favour options that protect future generations’ ability to live sustainably.
5. Explicit justification – All trade-offs must be explicitly justified with full transparency.
6. Open process – Trade-off decisions must be made through an open and participatory process.

Case Study: Voisey’s Bay Mine-Mill Project

In 1993, a rich nickel-copper-cobalt deposit was discovered at Voisey’s Bay in northern coastal Labrador. The deposit has surface dimensions of approximately 800 metres by 350 metres, extends to depths of about 125 metres, and was to be mined using open-pit methods. The deposit contains estimated proven and probable mineral reserves of 30 million tonnes, grading 2.85% nickel, 1.68% copper, and 0.14% cobalt. There is an additional estimated 54 million tonnes of mineral wealth grading 1.53% nickel, 0.70% copper, and 0.09% cobalt, as well as 16 million tonnes of inferred mineral resources.

The project proponent, Voisey’s Bay Nickel Company Limited (a subsidiary of Inco Limited), submitted a proposal in 1997 for the development of a mine-mill complex and related infrastructure. In the absence of Aboriginal land claim agreements, the Voisey’s Bay project was subject to review under Canadian federal and Newfoundland provincial environmental assessment processes and pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between the provincial and federal governments, the Labrador Inuit Association, and the Innu Nation.

The public review panel for the Voisey’s Bay project issued guidelines requiring the proponent to discuss explicitly the extent to which the project would “make a positive overall contribution towards the attainment of ecological and community sustainability, both at the local and regional levels” (Voisey’s Bay Panel, 1997). This was the first major resource development project in Canada for which the impact statement guidelines explicitly identified the sustainability criterion, noting that EIA should go beyond seeking to minimize damage to requiring that an undertaking maximize long-term durable net gains to the community and the region. Construction of the mine-mill project commenced in 2002.

Source: Noble, 2015:13

Case Study: Newmont’s Boddington Gold Mine in Western Australia

By Angus Morrison-Saunders, Associate Professor of Environmental Assessment, Murdoch University, Australia

This case study highlights the alignment of mine closure planning with EA using the example of Newmont’s Boddington Gold Mine in Western Australia.

Internationally, there is a well-established expectation within the mining sector that mine closure planning should be an intrinsic element of the entire life cycle of mining – from initial project design to assessment for mining approval purposes, continuing through implementation, decommissioning, and final rehabilitation and closure. Mine closure planning should be proactive, commence early, and become progressively more detailed as the end of the life cycle of a mining operation approaches.

Western Australia has a well-developed mining sector and a well-established EA process with dedicated agencies responsible for each. Both the Mining Act 1978 and EA of mining projects under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 allow for mine closure planning to be addressed during initial assessment and approval of new mines, and thereafter to be periodically reviewed and updated. Joint guidelines issued by the Department of Minerals and Petroleum (DMP) and Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) specify details, and the cooperative approach avoids overlap in agency activity.

The mine closure plan is initially produced along with the EA document (in Western Australia called a “public environmental review”) and an environmental management plan (EMP) for public review. While the approval decision is a one-off event, the mine closure plan and EMP are “living” documents that are periodically reviewed and updated, including ongoing participation with the affected stakeholders around progress and the planned post-mining land-uses.

This case study demonstrates best-practice EA and mine closure planning working together under a cooperative governance arrangement. The mining company has secured community and government support for its operations, has a clear vision for the future, while regulators and the community know what final land use and environmental performance they can expect the company to deliver.

Source: Arnold and Hanna, 2017:13-14

Module 12 Required Readings

• Video: UNECE. (2016, January 18). The UNECE Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTHKqx-C_C8
• Textbook: Chapter 12: Strategic Environmental Assessment, pages 238–269
• Academic Reading: Gibson, R.B. (2020). An Initial Evaluation of Canada’s New Sustainability-based Impact Assessment Act. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice, 33(1):1-34. (Course Reserves)
• IAIA Resource: International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). (2002, January). Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Performance Criteria. Special Publication Series 1. https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/sp1.pdf
• Government Resource: Government of Canada. (2010). Strategic Environmental Assessment: The Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals. CEAA. https://www.canada.ca/en/environmental-assessment-agency/programs/strategic-environmental-assessment/cabinet-directive-environmental-assessment-policy-plan-program-proposals.html

Optional Readings:

• Gibson, R.B. (2018). Sustainability in the proposed new federal assessment law as proposed: an initial report card. Supplementary submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development concerning its review of the proposed Impact Assessment Act in Bill C-69. (Course Reserves)
• Gibson, R.B., Doelle, M., and Sinclair, J.A. (2016). Journal of Environmental Law and Practice, 29:257-283. (Course Reserves)

Review Questions (Modules 12 and 13)

1. Define sustainability assessment (SA) and critically discuss the definition. Use a definition not found in the textbook, modules, or readings.

2. Compare and contrast “Strategic Environmental Assessment” (SEA) and “Sustainability Assessment” (SA).

3. In SA, every decision made has trade-offs associated with it. Briefly discuss the six rules for the evaluation of trade-offs. Which do you feel is the most important rule and why?

4. There were many changes implemented in the new Impact Assessment Act (through Bill C-69). Discuss one change/feature that you feel made the most beneficial and significant impact to how EAs will be carried out. Discuss one new change/feature that you feel adds a challenge to the EA process.

5. Richard Fuggle, former president of the IAIA, raised a question as to whether EA has passed “its sell by” date. What do you think this statement might mean? And do you agree or disagree? Why?

Module 13: What is Next for Canadian Environmental Assessment?

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this module you will be able to:

• Understand current concerns for EA reform.
• Summarize key features of the Impact Assessment Act.
• Discuss future EA trends.

Key Terms

• Gender-Based Analysis: An analytical process used to assess how diverse groups of women, men, and gender-diverse people may experience policies, programs, and initiatives, now required as a consideration under the IAA.
• Life-Cycle Regulator: A regulatory body (such as the Canadian Energy Regulator or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission) that oversees a project throughout its entire life cycle, from planning through decommissioning, and works collaboratively with communities and Indigenous peoples to enhance monitoring, follow-up, and compliance.
• Indigenous Knowledge: Traditional ecological knowledge, cultural heritage, and land-based wisdom held by Indigenous peoples, which the IAA now explicitly requires to be considered in impact assessment decision-making alongside scientific evidence.
• Reconciliation: The process of establishing and maintaining a mutually respectful relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada, a commitment reflected in the IAA through provisions for Indigenous partnership, consultation, and recognition of rights throughout the assessment process.

13a. What is Next in Canadian EA?

Canada’s Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) has been replaced by a new act named the Impact Assessment Act (IAA). The new act proposed many changes from CEAA 2012, as detailed in the Government of Canada’s document Better Rules for Major Project Reviews: To Protect Canada’s Environment and Grow the Economy (Government of Canada, 2018).

One of the most significant changes is the Canadian government’s commitment to sustainability. Under Section 22 of the IAA (Government of Canada, 2018), all decisions must be made considering “the extent to which the designated project contributes to sustainability.” The implication of this remains to be seen as to whether or not this new act will achieve this mandate.

What is Canada Doing Now?

The government launched a comprehensive process in June 2016 to review existing laws and seek Canadians’ input on how to improve environmental and regulatory processes. Improvements aimed to address concerns about previous reforms to environmental assessments, including:

• Lost protections for fisheries and waterways
• The need to modernize the National Energy Board

(Government of Canada, 2018:2)

The government delivered on its promise by proposing better rules for environmental and regulatory processes. This milestone was informed by over 14 months of public, stakeholder, and Indigenous consultations, Expert Panel reports, and Parliamentary studies.

The new legislation reflects the values that are important to Canadians, including:

• Early, inclusive, and meaningful public engagement
• Partnerships with Indigenous peoples
• Timely decisions based on the best available science and Indigenous knowledge
• Sustainability for present and future generations

(Government of Canada, 2018:2)

The new legislation aims to restore confidence that good projects can move forward in a responsible, timely, and transparent way that protects the environment, creates jobs, and builds a strong economy.

Key Features of the Impact Assessment Act

• Proactive strategic and regional assessments would evaluate big-picture issues (e.g., climate change, biodiversity, species at risk), the cumulative effects of development, and provide context for impact assessments.

• An early planning and engagement phase for all projects would build trust, increase efficiency, improve project design, and give companies certainty about the next steps in the review process.

• Indigenous engagement and partnership throughout the process.

• Increased public participation opportunities.

• Legislated timelines to provide clarity and regulatory certainty:

  • The legislated timeline for Agency-led impact assessments would be reduced from 365 days to a maximum of 300 days.
  • More complex projects or projects involving a life-cycle regulator would be assessed by a panel, and efficiencies gained through early planning and engagement will enable a reduction in the timeline from 720 days to 300 days, up to a maximum of 600 days.

• Monitoring, follow-up, enforcement, and permitting: Life-cycle regulators and permitting departments would work collaboratively with communities and Indigenous peoples to enhance monitoring, follow-up, and compliance.

(Government of Canada, 2018:7)

What Needs to Happen Next?

Until these new laws are applied to new projects, the existing laws and principles for project reviews will apply. The government hopes that this new legislation will:

• Protect the environment
• Regain public trust
• Strengthen the economy
• Support reconciliation with Indigenous peoples

(Government of Canada, 2018:15)

These better rules would lead to more predictable and timely project reviews, more trustworthy decisions, and more responsible development of Canada’s natural resources. This would position Canada to remain globally competitive, attract investment, develop natural resources responsibly, and advance a clean growth economy.

Writing Briefing Notes: Professional Practice Skill

Module 13 includes instruction on writing briefing notes, a key professional skill for EA practitioners. Briefing notes are concise documents used to inform decision-makers about issues, present options, and recommend courses of action.

Style and Structure

There are various types of briefing notes, depending upon the purpose of the communication. Some are for information only; others provide recommendations and seek decisions.

The Opening generally begins with either:

• Purpose Section: A clear statement identifying the purpose of the note. This is the preferred approach when presenting options and a recommendation, as it alerts the reader that this is a “decision” note.
• Issue Section: A clear and concise statement of the issue. This is common when the note will go into a briefing book where the purpose is defined elsewhere. It is not appropriate to use the Issue format when presenting options and a recommendation.

The Body may include any combination of the following:

• Background: Begins with the most recent developments (rather than a chronological ordering). The purpose is to identify and frame issues and problems.
• Current Situation: A “snapshot” of where things stand right now (not a chronological story or sequence of events).
• Key Considerations: An outline of the variables to be taken into consideration regarding the issue. The various “pros and cons” or “sides of the story” are presented in a less structured format than Options.
• Conclusions or Next Steps: “Softer” than Recommendations. They represent the writer’s opinion or a conclusion flowing from the preceding sections.
• Options and Recommendations: A more formal, balanced, and objective presentation of choices and the preferred course of action. If the note provides Recommendations, they should be preceded by an Options section outlining the costs and benefits (pros and cons) of each option.

Briefing Note Examples from the Course

The course provides three student exemplar briefing notes analyzing Canada’s Impact Assessment Act (IAA) 2019, each demonstrating the professional format and critical analysis expected:

Example 1 (Frances Hallen) addresses three areas for improvement: (1) establishing quantitative statutory thresholds for GHG emissions to trigger assessment, (2) establishing legally binding adherence to UNDRIP through collaborative assessment arrangements with Indigenous peoples, and (3) defining “meaningful public participation” in the legislation.

Example 2 recommends: (1) adopting a “hybrid approach” combining list-based screening with case-by-case evaluation to determine which projects require impact assessment, (2) requiring co-governance with Indigenous peoples and compliance with UNDRIP, and (3) providing clear guidelines for follow-up, enforcement, and permit revocation.

Example 3 focuses on Indigenous rights, recommending: (1) including a precise definition of meaningful engagement in the legislation, (2) implementing a nation-to-nation decision-making approach between Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders, and (3) removing Section 84(2) from the Act so that Indigenous Knowledge considerations apply to projects outside of Canada as well.

Module 13 Required Readings

• Textbook:
  • Chapter 13: Professional Practice and Ethics, pages 272–282
  • Chapter 14: Environmental Assessment Prospects, pages 283–285
• IAIA Resource: Fuggle, R. (2005, January). “Have Impact Assessments Passed Their ‘Sell By’ Date?” Newsletter: International Association for Impact Assessment, 16(3), pp. 1–8.
• Government Resource: Government of Canada. (2018, September 5). Better Rules for Major Project Reviews: To Protect Canada’s Environment and Grow the Economy. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/themes/environment/conservation/environmental-reviews/ia-handbook-e.pdf
• Academic Reading: Gibson, R.B., Doelle, M., Sinclair, A.J. (2016). “Fulfilling the Promise: Basic Components of Next-Generation Environmental Assessment.” Journal of Environmental Law and Practice, 27, pp. 251–276. (Course Reserves)

Optional Reading:

• Gibson, R.B. (2018). Supplementary submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development concerning its review of the proposed Impact Assessment Act in Bill C-69. (Course Reserves)

Review Questions (Modules 12 and 13 – Shared)

See Module 12 Review Questions above. The review questions for Modules 12 and 13 are combined.

Notes compiled from ERS 215 lecture content, University of Waterloo. Sources as cited throughout.

Course developed by Christine Barbeau with instructional design and multimedia development support provided by the Centre for Extended Learning. Instructional Technologies and Multimedia Services provided additional media production.