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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

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 143–161

    Google 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 43–60

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baxter W., W. A. Ross, H. Spaling. 2001. Improving the practice of cumulative effects assessment in Canada. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 19:253–262

    Google 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 pp

  5. Beanlands G. E., P. N. Duinker. 1984. An ecological framework for environmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 18:267–277

    Google 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 pp

  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, Quebec

  8. CEARC. 1988. The assessment of cumulative effects: A research prospectus. Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council, Hull, Quebec

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cornish E. 2004. Futuring: The exploration of the future. World Future Society, Bethesda, Maryland, 313 pp

    Google 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 165–176

    Google 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 11–24

    Google Scholar 

  12. Duinker P. N., G. L. Baskerville. 1986. A systematic approach to forecasting in environmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 23:271–290

    Google 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, Ontario

  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, Ontario

    Google 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, Ontario

    Google 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, Alberta

    Google 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, Quebec

    Google Scholar 

  19. Holling C. S. (ed.). 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom, 377 pp

    Google 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 77–96

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kennedy A. J. (ed.). 1994. Cumulative effects assessment in Canada: From concept to practice. Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, Edmonton, Alberta, 333 pp

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kennedy A. J. (ed.). 2002. Cumulative environmental effects management: Tools and approaches. Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, Edmonton, Alberta, 487 pp

    Google 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 pp

  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 17–29

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kingsley L. 1997. A guide to environmental assessments: Assessing cumulative effects. Parks Canada, Hull, Quebec

    Google 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 233–246

    Google 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 377–393

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mulvihill P. R. 2003. Expanding the scoping community. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23:39–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Munn R. E. (ed.). 1979. Environmental impact assessment: principles and procedures. SCOPE 5. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 160 pp

    Google 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 Alberta

  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 pp

  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 1–9

    Google 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 pp

  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 pp

  35. Ward D. V. 1978. Biological environmental impact studies: Theory and methods. Academic Press, New York, NY, 157 pp

    Google Scholar 

  36. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 400 pp

    Google 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 319–326

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter N. Duinker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Duinker, P.N., Greig, L.A. The Impotence of Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada: Ailments and Ideas for Redeployment. Environmental Management 37, 153–161 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0240-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Biological diversity
  • Forestry management
  • Pine plantations
  • Basque country
  • Pinus radiata