Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 153–161 | Cite as

The Impotence of Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada: Ailments and Ideas for Redeployment

  • Peter N. Duinker
  • Lorne A. Greig
FORUM

ABSTRACT

Cumulative effects assessment (CEA) in Canada is in dire straits. Despite a huge amount of talk and a flurry of developmental activity associated with CEA concepts, it has not lived up to its glowing promise of helping to achieve sustainability of diverse valued ecosystem components. This article aims to articulate that failure, to examine it in terms of six major problems with CEA, and to propose solutions. The six problem areas include (1) application of CEA in project-level environmental impact assessments (EIAs), (2) an EIA focus on project approval instead of environmental sustainability, (3) a general lack of understanding of ecologic impact thresholds, (4) separation of cumulative effects from project-specific impacts, (5) weak interpretations of cumulative effects by practitioners and analysts, and (6) inappropriate handling of potential future developments. We advocate improvements not only within the purview of project-specific EIAs, but also mainly in the domain of region-scale CEAs and regional environmental effects frameworks (or perhaps land use planning). Only then will the CEA begin to approach the promise of securing sustainability of valued ecosystem components.

Keywords

Biological diversity Forestry management Pine plantations Basque country Pinus radiata 

Literature Cited

  1. Antoniuk T., 2002. Cumulative effects assessment of pipeline projects. in A. J. Kennedy (ed.) Cumulative environmental effects management: Tools and approaches. Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, Edmonton, Alberta Pages 143–161Google Scholar
  2. Barnes J. L., C. L. Horvath, L. Matthews. 2002. Addressing cumulative environmental effects: Scoping and the implications of recent court decisions. in A. J. Kennedy (ed.) Cumulative environmental effects management: tools and approaches. Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, Edmonton, Alberta. Pages 43–60Google Scholar
  3. Baxter W., W. A. Ross, H. Spaling. 2001. Improving the practice of cumulative effects assessment in Canada. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 19:253–262Google Scholar
  4. Beanlands G. E., and P. N. Duinker. 1983. An ecological framework for environmental impact assessment in Canada. Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, Hull, Quebec, 132 ppGoogle Scholar
  5. Beanlands G. E., P. N. Duinker. 1984. An ecological framework for environmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 18:267–277Google Scholar
  6. Beanlands G. E., W. J. Erchmann, G. H. Orians, J. O’Riordan, D. Policansky, M. H. Sadar, and B. Sadler. 1985. Cumulative environmental effects: A binational perspective. Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, and US National Research Council, Washington, DC, 175 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. CEAA. 1999. Operational Policy Statement Addressing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Operational Policy Statement–OPS-EPO/3–1999. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull, QuebecGoogle Scholar
  8. CEARC. 1988. The assessment of cumulative effects: A research prospectus. Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council, Hull, QuebecGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornish E. 2004. Futuring: The exploration of the future. World Future Society, Bethesda, Maryland, 313 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Damman D. C. 2002. The challenge of developing regional frameworks for cumulative effects assessment. in A. J. Kennedy (ed.) Cumulative environmental effects management: Tools and approaches. Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, Edmonton, Alberta Pages 165–176Google Scholar
  11. Duinker P. N. 1994. Cumulative effects assessment: What’s the big deal? in A. J. Kennedy (ed.) Cumulative effects assessment in Canada: From concept to practice. Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, Calgary, Alberta Pages 11–24Google Scholar
  12. Duinker P. N., G. L. Baskerville. 1986. A systematic approach to forecasting in environmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 23:271–290Google Scholar
  13. Duinker, P. N., C. Daniel, W. Stafford, R. Morash, R. Plinte, and C. Wedeles. 1996. Integrated modelling of moose habitat and population: Preliminary investigations using an Ontario boreal forest. Final Report prepared under the Northern Ontario Development Agreement for the Canadian Forest Service. Faculty of Forestry, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  14. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2004. Introduction to the ESSIM Initiative. Available at: http://www.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/e/essim/essim-intro-e.html (Accessed November 17, 2004)
  15. Greig L. A., P. N. Duinker, R. R. Everitt, K. Pawley. 2003. Scoping for cumulative effects assessment. Prepared for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Environment Directorate, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory. ESSA Technologies Ltd., Richmond Hill, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  16. Greig L., K. Pawley, P. Duinker. 2004. Alternative scenarios of future development: An aid to cumulative effects assessment. Prepared for Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Gatineau, Quebec. ESSA Technologies Ltd., Richmond Hill, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  17. Griffiths A., E. McCoy, J. Green, G. Hegmann. 1998. Cumulative effects assessment. Prepared for Alberta Environmental Protection. MacLeod Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AlbertaGoogle Scholar
  18. Hegmann G., C. Cocklin, R. Creasey, S. Dupuis, A. Kennedy, L. Kingsley, W. Ross, H. Spaling, D. Stalker. 1999. Cumulative effects assessment practitioners guide. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull, QuebecGoogle Scholar
  19. Holling C. S. (ed.). 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom, 377 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Jeffrey B., P. N. Duinker. 2002. A comparative analysis of cumulative impact assessments involving mining developments and species at risk. in A. J. Kennedy (ed.) Cumulative environmental effects management: Tools and approaches. Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, Edmonton, Alberta. Pages 77–96Google Scholar
  21. Kennedy A. J. (ed.). 1994. Cumulative effects assessment in Canada: From concept to practice. Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, Edmonton, Alberta, 333 ppGoogle Scholar
  22. Kennedy A. J. (ed.). 2002. Cumulative environmental effects management: Tools and approaches. Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, Edmonton, Alberta, 487 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Kennett, S. A. 1999. Towards a new paradigm for cumulative effects management. CIRL Occasional Paper #8, Canadian Institute of Resources Law, Calgary, Alberta, 55 ppGoogle Scholar
  24. Kennett S. A. 2002. Lessons from Cheviot: Redefining government’s role in cumulative effects assessment. in A. J. Kennedy (ed.) Cumulative environmental effects management: Tools and approaches. Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, Edmonton, Alberta Pages 17–29Google Scholar
  25. Kingsley L. 1997. A guide to environmental assessments: Assessing cumulative effects. Parks Canada, Hull, QuebecGoogle Scholar
  26. Komers P. E. 2002. Nonlinear responses of ecosystem components to provide threshold values for cumulative effects management. in A. J. Kennedy (ed.) Cumulative environmental effects management: Tools and approaches. Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, Edmonton, Alberta Pages 233–246Google Scholar
  27. Logan B., R. Ferster. 2002. Cumulative environmental effects assessment and management: The Cheviot Mine experience. in A. J. Kennedy (ed.) Cumulative environmental effects management: Tools and approaches. Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, Edmonton, Alberta Pages 377–393Google Scholar
  28. Mulvihill P. R. 2003. Expanding the scoping community. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23:39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Munn R. E. (ed.). 1979. Environmental impact assessment: principles and procedures. SCOPE 5. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 160 ppGoogle Scholar
  30. Northeast Slopes Resource and Environmental Management Strategy (NESREMS) Regional Steering Group. 2003. The Northern East Slopes Sustainable Resource and Environmental Management Strategy. Prepared for the Alberta Minister of the Environment. Government of AlbertaGoogle Scholar
  31. Peterson, E. B., Y.-H. Chan, N. M. Peterson, G. A. Constable, R. B. Caton, C. S. Davis, R. R. Wallace, and G. A. Yarranton. 1987. Cumulative effects assessment in Canada: An agenda for action and research. Prepared for Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council (CEARC), Hull, Quebec, 63 ppGoogle Scholar
  32. Ross W. A. 1994. Assessing cumulative environmental effects: Both impossible and essential. in A. J. Kennedy (ed.) Cumulative effects assessment in Canada: From concept to practice. Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, Calgary, Alberta Pages 1–9Google Scholar
  33. Sadler, B. 1996. Environmental assessment in a changing world: Evaluating practice to improve performance. Final Report, International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull, Quebec, 248 ppGoogle Scholar
  34. Sonntag, N. C., R. R. Everitt, L. Rattie, D. L. Colnett, C. P. Wolf, J. Truett, A. Dorcey, and C. S. Holling. 1987. Cumulative effects assessment: A context for further research and development. Prepared for Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council (CEARC), Hull, Quebec, 91 ppGoogle Scholar
  35. Ward D. V. 1978. Biological environmental impact studies: Theory and methods. Academic Press, New York, NY, 157 ppGoogle Scholar
  36. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 400 ppGoogle Scholar
  37. Ziemer R. 1994. Cumulative effects assessment impact thresholds: Myths and realities. in A. J. Kennedy (ed.) Cumulative effects assessment in Canada: From concept to practice. Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, Edmonton, Alberta Pages 319–326Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School for Resource and Environmental StudiesDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  2. 2.ESSA Technologies LtdRichmond HillCanada

Personalised recommendations