environmentalimpactassessmentin the arctic: nordic & north...
TRANSCRIPT
Environmental Impact Assessment intheArctic:Nordic &NorthAmericanModels
Ecologic Institute– Arctic SummerCollege2016
L E S S E R P A M E L A 2 7 . 0 7 . 2 0 1 6
INTRODUCTION
Fo rm e r f e l l o w a t E c o l o g i c I n s t i t u t e i n Wa s h i n g t o n D C .
N o w a r e s e a r c h e r a t t h e A r c t i c C e n t r e , U n i v e r s i t y o f L a p l a n d i n R o v a n i e m i , F i n l a n d .
PRESENTATION– PARTII
• EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentintheArctic:AGuidetoBestPracticeo Broadenedstakeholderso Organizationofbook
• MethodologyreBestPracticeso DefiningandbenchmarkingbestpracticesusingtheAEPS1997ArcticEIAGuidelines
• Context:Arcticvs.Non-ArcticIssues
• Finlando EIAlegislation,processo Bestpractices
• Canadao EIAlegislation,processo Bestpractices
ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTASSESSMENTINTHEARCTIC:AGUIDETOBESTPRACTICE
• FoundationistheTekes-fundedprojectfocusingonprivatesectorbestpracticesinArcticEIA.
• WidenedrangeofstakeholderstoincludeallrelevantactorsinEIAprocess.
• Book approach to EIA:
A policy instrument manifesting principles of sustainabledevelopment… Although there are differences betweenthe national EIA procedures, certain basic elements formits foundation (disclosure, public participation, etc.)
Goalofbook:to disseminateinformationaboutnational(andselectedsectoral)EIAprocessesandprovidespecificexamplesofbestpractices.
BOOKORGANIZATION
1. National EIA systemsof all eight countries
2. Exception: Norway(appendix to Planningand Building Act),Greenland (extractiveprojects), and Canada(Alberta Province andYukon Territory)
3. Stages in the EIA processfollowed by an EIA systemchart
4. Distinctive features in theEIA process, administrativeguidance on EIA practice inthe north, examples of bestpractices grouped by stageof the EIA process
METHODOLOGY
FOR BEST PRACTICES
• Define ‘best practice’
• Criteria established for determining what constitutes a best practice based on the1997 Arctic EIA Guidelines.
• Semi-structured interviews via phone, email and in person via benchmarking visitsto all 8 arctic countries
• Total number of interviews = 154
• Attempted to interview all actors involved in the EIA process: local communityrepresentatives and organizations, government officials, companies, NGOs andother stakeholders that might be particularly relevant to a given locality
• Not a comprehensive survey.
DEFINITIONOFBESTPRACTICE
Best , good , smar t p rac t i ce s a l l have the same mean ing e . g . ways o f imp lement ing E IA i n an i dea l manner, wh i ch a lways exceeds the m in imum leve l o f what the l aw requ i re s , i n a s i tuat ion where many opt ions a re pos s ib l e .
AEPS1997GUIDELINES
Background• Finnishinitiative(1994)underArcticEnvironmental
ProtectionStrategy(AEPS)• Maderigorouslyandwithinputfromexpertsfromevery
Arcticcountry• ApprovedinthefinalAEPSministerialmeetinginAltain
1997duringthetransitionfromAEPStotheArcticCouncil
Whatarethey?• Recommendations(bestpractices)forbetter
implementationofEIAintheArctic
Whyusethemascriteriatodeterminebestpractices?• Pan-Arcticconsensusbyexpertsandministers• ManyintervieweesduringtheBVsreiteratedtheir
relevance
GUIDELINES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) IN THE ARCTIC
ARCTIC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STRATEGY
ARCTICVSNON-ARCTICEIA
EmphasisondifferentissuesinArcticregions:
• Climateandtheeffectsofclimatechange
• Indigenouspopulations
• Traditionalknowledgeandlivelihoods
• Landownership(settlementterritories)
• Infrastructureandaccessibility
• Fragileecosystems
• Naturebasedtourism
FINNISHLAPLAND
Locationsource:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people
FINLAND– EIAACTANDDECREE
EIAprocess:pre-screeningandscreening,assessmentprogram,EIAreport,publicconsultationandcommentsontheEIAreport,andlastlythecoordinatingauthority’sstatementontheEIAreport
Distinctivefeatures:• Strongroleofprivatesector• MoreproactivethanauthoritiesindevelopingbetterpracticesinEIA
o IncludethepublicearlierinandcontinuouslythroughouttheEIAprocesso Devisemoresophisticatedmitigationmeasuresthatincorporaterecent
technologies
Criticisms:overwhelmingnumberofpublicmeetingsandhearingsbecausetheEIAandpermitprocessesareseparate.
EIAAct-national legislation specifying categories ofimpacts,process,etc.
EIADecree– implementationoftheAct
FINLAND– EIAPROCESSFLOWCHARTChart 5.1.1: FINLAND'S EIA SYSTEM
List of the EIA Decree (sec. 6)
Step 1
Step 2
Screening Decision (for discretionary project)
Step 2a
Decision No EIA requirement
Mandatory Project
Assessment Program
Identification of the necessary studies, scope of impacts and alternatives for the project.
Step 3
Public Announcements
Public comments can be submitted.
Statements of the municipalities and other authorities are also submitted at this stage.
Coordination Authority's Statement
Assessment Report
Information on the project, its alternatives and their likely environmental impact is included.
Suggestions for mitigation measures should also be presented in the report.
Step 4 Step 5 Step 6
Public Announcements
Public again has the opportunity to comment.
Statements from the municipalities and other authorities are also given again.
Step 7
Coordination Authority's Statement
END OF EIA PROCESS
Step 8
Other Decisions
(e.g. permits, land use plans, etc.)
These must take the EIA into account
Step 9
Implementation and Follow-up
Step 10
Verified by Timo Jokelainen, Director, Environment and Natural Resources, Ely Centre (Lapland)
Adapted from Ismo Polonen's Finnish EIA process chart)
FINLAND– EIABESTPRACTICES
Twomaincategories:
DevelopingusabletoolsforSIA• Measuresocialimpacts&effectivenessofmitigationstrategiesovertime
• Ensurecomprehensivestakeholdermapping
Developingstrategiestobetterengagethepublic
• Personalcontactwithstakeholdersatconceptstage
o Example:Windfarmdevelopercalledeverysummerhome-owner(200+)todiscussproject&answerquestions
• Assigningacompanyrepresentativeasthepermanentliaisontoa community
CANADA– ANOVERVIEW
Multi-layeredgovernmentalsystem- manydifferentenvironmentalimpactassessmentsystems.
Tenprovincesandthreenorthernterritories,allofwhomhavetheirownenvironmentalstatutesandEIAprocesses.
BookdiscussesnationalEIAlegislation,ProvinceofAlbertaandthreeofthenorthernterritories– Yukon,NorthwestTerritoriesandNunavut
Thispresentation– very,very,verybriefoverviewofnationalEIAprocess,ProvinceofAlbertaandYukonTerritory
NORTHERNCANADA
CANADA, ALBERTAANDYUKON
Federal legislation- CanadianEnvironmentalAssessmentAct2012(CEAA2012)
ProvinceofAlberta - EnvironmentalProtectionandEnhancementAct(EPEA)• Forprojectsotherthanenergy• StagesintheEIAprocess:submittalofprojectproposal,screening,preparationofproposedtermsofreference,preparationofEIAreport,submissionandtechnicalreviewofEIAreport,completenessofEIA
Distinctivefeatures:vastmajorityofEIAprojectseithercoaloroilsands,thusissueofcumulativeimpactsextremelyimportant
YukonTerritory - DesignatedOfficeEvaluation(smallerprojects),ExecutiveCommitteeScreenings(miningprojects,etc.),andPanelsoftheBoardReview(neverused)
Distinctivefeatures:paymoreattentiontothesocial ratherthantheenvironmentalaspectofimpactassessment,includingtheincorporationoftraditionalknowledgeandmethodologiesthateffectivelycombinetraditionalecologicalknowledge(TEK)with‘western’science.
CANADA– PROVINCEOFALBERTA
Chart 5.6.2.1: PROVINCE OF ALBERTA'S EIA SYSTEM
Step 1PROPOSED ACTIVITY
Applicant informs ESRD Environmental Assessment Director (Director) of a new project and submits a project summary table and map to the Director for screening decision.
Director reviews project description to determine if the project is a mandatory activity, requires further study to determine, or is exempt.
Exempt Activity No EIA required.
DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT & SCREENING REPORT
Applicant prepares Disclosure Document. Director considers document and notifies applicant of decision.
Affected public can submit comments.
If further assessment needed, Director prepares screening report. Public Notice issued on Decision to Screen a project.
NO EIA REQUIRED (determined by the
Disclosure Document)
Verified by A. Neil Craik, Director and Associate Professor of Law, School of Environment, Enterprise and Development, University of Waterloo and his colleague, Jacob Winter.
Note: ESRD is the Environmental and Sustainable Resource Department
Adapted from the EIA chart available on the website of the Province of Alberta at http://aep.alberta.ca/lands-forests/land-industrial/programs-and-service/environmental-assessment/documents/EnvironmentalAssessmentProcess-Mar2013A.pdf
Mandatory Activity
PROPOSED TERMS OF REFERENCE (PTOR)
If EIA report required, PTOR prepared by applicant and submitted to Director.
Public Notice is issued to gather input on the PTOR.
First Nations Consultation Plan has to be prepared if applicable.
Advertising Plan must also be approved.
Step 2
FINAL TERMS OF REFERENCE (FTOR)
Director considers input from public and other government agencies and issues FTOR.
Public notice that FTOR issued.
Step 3
Step 4EIA REPORT & SUBMISSION
Draft EIA report prepared and submitted to Director.
Public notice that EIA report submitted.
Step 5TECHNICAL REVIEW OF EIA REPORT
Coordinated by ESRD and involves multi-disciplinary team of experts.
Director may issue Supplemental Information Request.
Step 6
EIA REPORT COMPLETE
Director must determine that the report is consistent with the FTOR.
If complete, Director then refers report to the Board or Minister to become part of the Public Interest Decision.
Step 7
PUBLIC INTEREST DECISION
REGULATORY APPROVALS
PROCESS
Step 8Step 9
CANADA– YUKONTERRITORYChart 5.6.1.1: YESAB EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE SCREENING PROCESS
APPLICANT SUBMITS PROPOSAL TO YESAB
ADEQUACY
YESAB reviews proposal for adequacy and can request more information from proponent.
PUBLIC NOTICE OF SCREENING (aka draft EIA report)
Public, NGOs and government authorities provide input to YESAB.
Again, additional information can be requested from proponent.
SCREENING
YESAB completes draft Screening Report and includes all comments submitted to date.
The public, NGOS and government authorities comment on the draft report.
YESAB assesses comments and determines need for more information.
RECOMMENDATION SENT
Final report submitted to decision bodies.
Relevant decision body gives full and fair consideration to recommendation.
Executive Committee can also decide at this stage to require a Panel of the Board to review the proposal.
DECISION
Decision body receives recommendation and can either issue a Decision Document or the decision body refers the proposal back to YESAB.
If the decision is referred back to YESAB, a Notice of Referral is published.
There is an opportunity for the public and others to comment, and then a recommendation is sent to the decision body who subsequently issues the Decision Document.
REGULATORY PHASE
Regulators issue authorizations where applicable. Authorizations include recommended mitigations (terms and conditions) from the Decision Document.
Verified by Julie Stinson, Development Assessment Process Manager, Development Assessment Branch, Executive Council Office, Yukon Government
Note: YESAB is the Yukon Environmental and Social Assessment Board
Chart adapted from YESAB's flowchart of its Executive Committee Screening Process at http://www.yesab.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Excomm-Screen-Process-Chart-April-25_-2014.pdf
Step 1Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
Step 5Step 6Step 7
CANADA– EIABESTPRACTICESPROVINCEOFALBERTA
• Developerspaystakeholderstohiretechnicalexpertsinordertohelpthembetterunderstandaproject.Companiesthinkthisbuildscommunitytrustandgoodwill.
• Developerstendtoholdtheirownmeetingswherepeopleareimpactedandwillevenflypeopletomeetings.
• Onecompanyfleweldersuptotheprojectsiteinordertogather,fromatraditionalknowledgestandpoint,theappropriatebaselinedataforthesite.
YUKONTERRITORY
• Culturalsensitivityextremelyimportant - criteriaforassessmentreflectlocalvaluesandmethodologychangedtosuitlocalconditions
o InGreenland,accessroadstobebuiltforhydropowerprojectviewedbyhuntersasbeneficialforthecommunity;inDenmark,similarprojectbelievedtohaveverydetrimentalimpactonthevisuallandscape.
• Consultationwithstakeholdersmustbetransparentandearlyintheprocess.
• Assignonecompanyrepresentativeascontactpointandhaveongoingpersonalcontactwiththecommunity.
FINDINGSCompaniesaremoreinnovativethangovernment
• Tools&methodologies• Publicoutreachstrategies
Socialissuesaremoreimportantthanenvironmentalones
Companiesareassuminggovernmentfunctions• Reindeerherderscompensationagreements• Impactandbenefitagreements
Comparisonwith1997ArcticEIAGuidelines
CompanypracticesexceedGuidelines:stakeholderengagement,trust-building,technologytomitigateimpacts
Areasneedingimprovement:Arcticspecificthresholds,alternatives,cumulativeimpactanalysis,betterbaselineinformation(combiningtraditionalandscientificknowledge),monitoring
Newareas:Climatechange,corporatestewardship,privategovernanceinnovations,SIA,analyticaltools
Newterminology:Sociallicense(notexclusivelylinkedtoEIAbutamajordriverofcompanybehavior),ImpactandBenefitAgreements,public/privatepartnerships(i.e.withuniversities)
