Abstract
Cumulative effects assessment (CEA), as a required practice for the environmental assessment (EA) of projects in many countries, faces several practical challenges, especially related to biodiversity. Drawing on the perspectives and experiences of Canadian EA practitioners, this paper explores options or drivers of change for improving project-based assessment to better tackle cumulative effects on biodiversity. An on-line survey was conducted with 40 professionals from the private sector, government departments/agencies, universities, and non-governmental organizations, examining the current challenges and opportunities regarding: CEA process for biodiversity; responsibilities for undertaking CEA tasks; resources to support and promote good CEA practice. In terms of process, there is shared understanding on: (i) the need of EA terms of reference to provide specific directions on CEA; (ii) CEA should capture both human and natural drivers of cumulative change; (iii) spatial boundaries for CEA should be based on ecological boundaries. There are dissenting views about: (i) whether CEA should consider all valued components (VCs) potentially affected by a project or only those for which residual effects are predicted; and (ii) delimitation of future temporal limits. In terms of responsibilities, participants agreed that project proponents should retain a central role in conducting CEA, but government agencies should lead the collection/provision of information about other projects in the study area and baseline VC conditions. Information and knowledge management resources could be also applied in the context of governmental agencies and consultancy firms to support CEA for biodiversity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The category of government departments or agencies includes participants affiliated with provincial, territorial and federal governments, as well as co-management boards or agencies under Northern EA jurisdictions.
References
Argote L, McEvily B, Reagans R (2003) Framework and review of emerging themes managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Manag Sci 49:571–582. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.4.571.14424
Aura Environmental Research and Consulting Ltd. (2016) A review of the application of cumulative effects assessment in the context of Section 22 project environmental assessments conducted in the James Bay Northern Quebec Territory
Ball M, Somers G, Wilson JE et al. (2013) Scale, assessment components, and reference conditions: Issues for cumulative effects assessment in Canadian watersheds. Integr Environ Assess Manag 9:370–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1332
Baxter W, Ross WA, Spaling H (2001) Improving the practice of cumulative effects assessment in Canada. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 19:253–262. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154601781766916
Bérubé M (2007) Cumulative effects assessments at Hydro-Québec: what have we learned? Impact Assess Proj Apprais 25:101–109. https://doi.org/10.3152/146155107X197913
Bigard C, Pioch S, Thompson JD (2017) The inclusion of biodiversity in environmental impact assessment: policy-related progress limited by gaps and semantic confusion. J Environ Manag 200:35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.057
Broderick M, Durning B, Sánchez LE (2018) Cumulative effects. In: Therivel R, Wood G (eds) Methods of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, 4th edn. Routledge, New York, NY, pp 649–677
Canter LW, Atkinson SF (2011) Multiple uses of indicators and indices in cumulative effects assessment and management. Environ Impact Assess Rev 31:491–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2011.01.012
CBD – Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) Text of the Convention. Article 2. Use of Terms. https://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/default.shtml?a=cbd-02. Accessed 9 June 2018
CCME - Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2014) Canada-wide Definitions and Principles for Cumulative Effects. https://www.ccme.ca/files/Resources/enviro_assessment/CE%20Definitions%20and%20Principles%201.0%20EN.pdf. Accessed 15 March 2018
CEAA - Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (2014) Technical Guidance for Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (Draft). https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/canada/environmental-assessment-agency/migration/content/b/8/2/b82352ff-95f5-45f4-b7e2-b4ed27d809cb/cumulative_environmental_effects-technical_guidance-dec2014-eng.pdf. Accessed 15 March 2018
CEAA - Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (2015) Operational Policy Statement: Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/canada/environmental-assessment-agency/migration/content/1/d/a/1da9e048-4b72-49fa-b585-b340e81dd6ae/cumulative-20effects-20ops-20-20en-20-20march-202015.pdf. Accessed 15 March 2018
Connelly RB (2011) Canadian and international EIA frameworks as they apply to cumulative effects. Environ Impact Assess Rev 31:453–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2011.01.007
Costanzo BP, Sánchez LE (2014) Gestão do conhecimento em empresas de consultoria ambiental. Production 24:742–759. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-65132014005000015
Cronmiller JG, Noble BF (2018) Integrating Environmental Monitoring with Cumulative Effects Management and Decision-Making. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4034
Duarte CG, Dibo APA, Siqueira-Gay J, Sánchez LE (2017) Practitioners’ perceptions of the Brazilian environmental impact assessment system: results from a survey. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 5517:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2017.1322813
Dubé M, Munkittrick K (2001) Integration of effects-based and stressor-based approaches into a holistic framework for cumulative effects assessment in aquatic ecosystems. Hum Ecol Risk Assess Int J 7:247–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/20018091094367
Duinker PN, Burbidge EL, Boardley SR, Greig LA (2013) Scientific dimensions of cumulative effects assessment: toward improvements in guidance for practice. Environ Rev 21:40–52. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2012-0035
Duinker PN, Greig LA (2006) The impotence of cumulative effects assessment in Canada: ailments and ideas for redeployment. Environ Manag 37:153–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0240-5
Foley MM, Mease LA, Martone RG et al. (2017) The challenges and opportunities in cumulative effects assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 62:122–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.06.008
González A, Keneghan D, Fry J, Hochstrasser T (2014) Current practice in biodiversity impact assessment and prospects for developing an integrated process. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 32:31–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2013.850839
Government of Canada (2018) 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. Accessed 25 April 2018
Hegmann GC, Cocklin R, Creasey S et al. (1999) Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide. Prepared by AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. and the CEA Working Group for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull, Quebec
IAIA – International Association for Impact Assessment (2005) Biodiversity in Impact Assessment. Special Publication Series n. 3
IFC – International Finance Corporation (2013) Good Practice Handbook: Cumulative Impact Assessment and Management, Guidance for the Private Sector in Emerging Markets
Jaeger JAG (2015) Improving environmental impact assessment and road planning at the landscape scale. Handb Road Ecol 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568170.ch5
Johnson JE, Patterson DA, Martins EG et al. (2012) Quantitative methods for analysing cumulative effects on fish migration success: a review. J Fish Biol 81:600–631. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2012.03369
Johnson B, Christensen L (2017) Educational research: quantitaive, qualitative, and mixed approaches, 6th edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks
Kågström M (2016) Between ‘best’ and ‘good enough’: how consultants guide quality in environmental assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 60:169–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.05.003
Karlson M, Mörtberg U, Balfors B (2014) Road ecology in environmental impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 48:10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.04.002
Khera N, Kumar A (2010) Inclusion of biodiversity in environmental impact assessments (EIA): a case study of selected EIA reports in India. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 28:189–200. https://doi.org/10.3152/146155110X12772982841005
Leung W, Noble BF, Jaeger JAG, Gunn JAE (2016) Disparate perceptions about uncertainty consideration and disclosure practices in environmental assessment and opportunities for improvement Environ Impact Assess Rev 57:89–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.11.001
MacDonald LH (2000) Evaluating and managing cumulative effects: process and constraints. Environ Manag 26:299–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010088
Masden EA, Fox AD, Furness RW et al. (2010) Cumulative impact assessments and bird/wind farm interactions: developing a conceptual framework. Environ Impact Assess Rev 30:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009.05.002
Neri AC, Dupin P, Sánchez LE (2016) A pressure–state–response approach to cumulative impact assessment. J Clean Prod 126:288–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.134
Nitschke CR (2008) The cumulative effects of resource development on biodiversity and ecological integrity in the Peace-Moberly region of Northeast British Columbia, Canada. Biodivers Conserv 17:1715–1740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9376-6
Noble B (2015) Cumulative effects research: achievements, status, directions and challenges in the Canadian context. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 17:1550001. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333215500015
Noble B, Gunn J (2013) Review of KHLP’s Approach to the Keeyask Generation Project Cumulative Effects Assessment. Prepared for the Public Interest Law Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Noble B, Liu J, Hackett P (2017) The contribution of project environmental assessment to assessing and managing cumulative effects: individually and collectively insignificant? Environ Manag 59:531–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0799-7
Olagunju A, Gunn J (2013) What influences valued ecosystem component selection for cumulative effects in impact assessment? J Environ Assess Policy Manag 15:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333213500221
Olagunju AO, Gunn JAE (2015) Selection of valued ecosystem components in cumulative effects assessment: lessons from Canadian road construction projects. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 33:207–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2015.1039382
Piper JM (2000) Cumulative effects assessment on the Middle Humber: barriers overcome, benefits derived J Environ Plan Manag 43:369–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560050010400
Piper JM (2001) Barriers to implementation of cumulative effects assessment. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 3:465–481. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333201000819
Ruggiero LF, Hayward GD, Squires JR (1994) Viability Analysis in Biological Evaluations: Concepts of Population Viability Analysis, Biological Population, and Ecological Scale Conserv Biol 8:364–372. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08020364
Sánchez LE, André P (2013) Knowledge management in environmental impact assessment agencies: a study in Québec, Canada. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 15:1350015. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333213500154
Sánchez LE, Morrison-Saunders A (2011) Learning about knowledge management for improving environmental impact assessment in a government agency: the Western Australian experience. J Environ Manag 92:2260–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.04.010
Schneider RR, Stelfox JB, Boutin S, Wasel S (2003) Managing the cumulative impacts of land uses in the western Canadian sedimentary basin: a modeling approach. Conserv Ecol 7:8
Schultz CA (2010) Challenges in connecting cumulative effects analysis to effective wildlife conservation planning. BioScience 60:645. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.7.10
Schultz CA (2012) The U.S. Forest Service’s analysis of cumulative effects to wildlife: a study of legal standards, current practice, and ongoing challenges on a National Forest. Environ Impact Assess Rev 32:74–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2011.03.003
Sherrington M (2005) Biodiversity assessment in the Oil Sands region, northeastern Alberta, Canada. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 23:73–81. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154605781765715
Sinclair AJ, Doelle M, Duinker PN (2017) Looking up, down, and sideways: reconceiving cumulative effects assessment as a mindset. Environ Impact Assess Rev 62:183–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.04.007
Therivel R, Ross B (2007) Cumulative effects assessment: does scale matter? Environ Impact Assess Rev 27:365–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.02.001
US Army Corps of Engineers (1980) A habitat evaluation system for water resources planning. Planning Division. Lower Mississippi Valley Division, Vicksburg, Mississippi
US CEQ – Council on Environmental Quality (1997) Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act
US CEQ – Council on Environmental Quality (2005) Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis
US EPA – Environmental Protection Agency (1999) Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents
US Fish and Wildlife Service (1980) Habitat Evaluation Procedures Handbook. Division of Ecological Services, Washington
Westbrook CJ, Noble BF (2013) Science requisites for cumulative effects assessment for wetlands. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 31:318–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.08.001
Acknowledgements
We thank all participants that responded our survey and shared their views on the topic. This research was supported by a grant of the Brazilian Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) to the first author.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dibo, A.P.A., Noble, B.F. & Sánchez, L.E. Perspectives on Driving Changes in Project-based Cumulative Effects Assessment for Biodiversity: Lessons from the Canadian Experience. Environmental Management 62, 929–941 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1086-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1086-6