Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Follow-up to environmental impact assessment: Learning from the Canadian Government experience

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The environmental impact assessment procedure for Canadian federal government projects is briefly described. In the non-legislated Canadian system, follow-up to assessments is one of the major means of encouraging and improving the implementation of environmental impact assessment and the quality of environmental work done around development projects. The results of a study on the status of follow-up in the Canadian Government are presented. Factors that limit and that are conducive to follow-up are discussed. The effectiveness of follow-up depends as much on the circumstances surrounding a project and the concerned parties as on the follow-up techniques used; both of these aspects can be addressed in the planning and management of follow-up and of environmental impact assessment overall. Areas for improving the management of follow-up are identified and discussed: planning of follow-up activities, coordination of concerned parties, generation of clear understandings, information management, resource allocation, and maintenance of credibility. A method for planning follow-up activities for specific projects is presented.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. For a detailed description of the Process, refer to the ‘Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order' SOR/84-467, 22 June 1984, Canada Gazette Part II, July 11, 1984 (also available in Canadian Environmental Law, Vol. VI: Statutes and Regulations, Franson, R. T. and Lucas, A. R. (eds.), The Butterworth Publishing Group (Canada) Ltd., Scarboro, Ontario), and to the Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process’, available from the Executive Chairman, Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A OH3.

  2. Throughout this document the terms ‘assessment’ and ‘assessment phase’ are used in the limited sense, referring to the stage when the environmental impacts of a proposal are predicted and plans are prepared to mitigate such impacts where necessary. The environmental management of a project beyond this stage (including follow-up as defined in this paper) is referred to as being ‘post-assessment’, or coming after the assessment. Other authors have used ‘assessment’ or ‘environmental impact assessment’ in a broader sense, to refer to the overall environmental management of a proposal/project, and to include the measurement of the actual environmental impacts of a project.

  3. The references in quotations to various types of audits (e.g., ‘Implementation Audit’) refer to the terminology presented by P. Tomlinson and S. F. Atkinson in a paper elsewhere in this journal.

  4. For projects receiving only initial assessment, the initiating agency (the agency responsible for federal decision making regarding the proposal) is to ensure that mitigation and compensation measures are implemented by the proponent (the industry or federal agency actually undertaking the project, which may or may not be the same group as the initiating agency). Thus, for what is the majority of cases, the follow-up requirement is limited to surveillance. For the minority of projects (those that receive formal public review) the initiating agency is to ensure that Ministerial decisions resulting from the Panel Report are ‘...incorporated into the design, construction and operation of that proposal and that suitable implementation, inspection and environmental monitoring programs are established...’ (Canada Gazette, Part II, July 11 1984, pages 7–8). The proponent, in this minority of cases, is to ‘...ensure that appropriate post-assessment monitoring, surveillance and reporting, as required by the initiating department, are carried out’. (Canada Gazette, Part II, July 11 1984, p. 8). See also note [10].

  5. The term ‘environmental agency’ is used in this paper to refer to any group in the federal government (department or part thereof) that: (1) provides data and or advice to those doing assessments; (2) enforces environmentally related regulations; or, (3) has a mandate to advocate environmental concerns.

  6. ‘Follow-up/Audit of Environmental Assessment Results Conference’, October 13–16, 1985. Sponsored by the Environmental Protection Service of Environment Canada, 15th floor, Place Vincent Massey, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 1C8, Canada, and the Banff Centre School of Management, P.O. Box 1020, Banff, Alberta, TOL 0C0, Canada.

  7. McCallum, D. R., ‘Environmental Follow-up to Federal Projects’, Draft report for Environmental Impact Systems Division, Environmental Protection Service, Environment Canada, 15th Floor, Place Vincent Massey, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 1C8, December 1984, 107 pp.

  8. See note [6].

  9. Dorcey, A. H. and Martin, B. R., ‘Reaching Agreement in Impact Management: A Case Study of the Utah and Amax Mines’, paper presented at ‘Follow-up/Audit of Environmental Assessment Results conference’, October 13–16, 1985, the Banff Centre, Banff, Alberta, TOL 0C0, Canada.

  10. The only statements addressing auditing in the Order-in-Council that defines the Process (‘Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order’, Canada Gazette Part II, July 11, 1984) are in Sections 16 and 18: (1) Section 16. Regarding initial assessment, the initiating department ‘...shall provide the Office (the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office-FEARO) on a regular basis, with information, on its implementation of the Process with respect to the proposals for which it is the decision making authority’. (2) Section 18. ‘It is the responsibility of the Office (FEARO) to... (d) inform the Minister (of the Environment) on a periodic basis, in a report to be made public, on the implementation of the Process by initiating departments’. FEARO has used these sections to support the requirement, noted in the text of this paper, which enables them to report annually to the Minister of the Environment on the decisions taken in initial assessment. FEARO has asked initiators essentially for the number of decisions taken, whether they were for or against the proposal, with or without mitigations, and at what stage in initial assessment the decision was made.

  11. Bisset, R.: 1980, ‘Problems and Issues in the Implementation of EIA Audits’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1, 379–396.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See note [6].

  13. Culhane, P. J., from the abstract of ‘The Precision and Accuracy of U.S. Environmental Impact Statements’, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 9.

  14. McCallum, D. R.: 1984 op. cit.

  15. Phillips, W. C. and Day, J. C., ‘Environmental Managemnt During Pipeline Construction: the Foothills (South B.C.) Experience’, paper presented at Follow-up/Audit of Environmental Assessment Results Conference, October 13–16, 1985, the Banff Centre School of Management, P.O. Box 1020, Banff, Alberta, TOL 0C0, Canada.

  16. Ibid.

  17. Munro, D. A. and Bryant, T. J., ‘Learning From Experience: A State of the Art Review and Evaluation of Environmental Impact Assessment Audits’, paper presented at ‘Follow-up/Audit of Environmental Assessment Results Conference’, October 13–16, 1985, the Banff Centre School of Management, P.O. Box 1020, Banff, Alberta, TOL 0C0, Canada.

  18. McCallum, D. R., ‘Planned Follow-up: A Basis for Acting on EIAs’, paper presented at the annual conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment, Utrecht, the Netherlands, June 27–28, 1985, 12 pp.

  19. Pederson, R. C., ‘Post-Construction Study of the Shakwak Highway Environmental Assessment Review’, Masters Thesis, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive, N. W., Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, 1982, 173 pp. plus 1 Appendix.

  20. Spencer, R. B., ‘Shakwak Project Follow-up Studies’, paper presented at ‘Follow-up/Audit of Environmental Assessment Results Conference’, October 13–16, 1985, the Banff Centre, P.O. Box 1020, Banff, Alberta, TOL 0C0, Canada.

  21. Morgan, W. B. and Moody, R., ‘Implementation of Environmental Impact Assessment Recommendations, the Roberts Bank Port Expansion Experience’, paper presented at ‘Follow-up/Audit of Environmental Assessment Results Conference’, October 13–16, 1985, the Banff Centre School of Management, P.O. Box 1020, Banff, Alberta, TOL 0C0, Canada.

  22. Janes, S. H. and Ross, W. A., Environmental Management for the Banff Highway Project', paper presented at ‘Follow-up/Audit of Environmental Assessment Results conference’, October 13–16, 1985, the Banff Centre School of Management, P.O. Box 1020, Banff, alberta, TOL 0C0, Canada.

  23. Letter to the author from N. Skinner, Regional Environmental Coordinator, Architectural and Engineering Services, Western Region, Public Works Canada 28 March, 1984.

  24. Philips and Day, 1985, op. cit.

  25. Boyle, J. A., ‘Environmental Protection and Construction Contract’, Masters Thesis in the Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, 79 pp.

  26. Personal communication, C. P. Mason, Manager, Environmental Affairs, NOVA an Alberta Corporation, P.O. Box 2535, Station M, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2N6, Canada, 1985.

  27. Pederson, 1982, op. cit.

  28. Valued ecosystem components are identified through social scoping, an activity undertaken to identify the attributes or components of the environment for which there is significant public or professional concern. The assessment should primarily address the issues so identified. Valued ecosystem components may incorporate public concerns related to social, cultural, economic or aesthetic values and may also reflect the technical and scientific concerns of the professional community. For further discussion, see Beanlands, G. E. and P. N.Duinker, ‘An Ecological Framework for Environmental Impact Assessment in Canada’, Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, Hull, Quebec, Canada, K1A 0H3, 1983, 132 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Environment Canada, a series of reports entitled: ‘Environmental Canada, A Review of the EARP Concerning the Advisory Role of DOE/RSCCs as of June 30, 1982’, 21 pp. plus 5 Appendices; ‘Program Evaluation of the Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process (E.A.R.P.) in the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (F.E.A.R.O.)’, 31 pp. plus 2 Tables and 4 Exhibits; ‘The Environmental Assessment and Review Process in Public Works Canada’, 29 pp. plus 7 Exhibits and executive summary; ‘Program Evaluation of EARP in EMR’, 39 pp. plus executive summary; ‘Evaluation of the Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) in Indian and Northern Affair’, 31 pp. plus 12 Appendices and executive summary; ‘A Program Evaluation of the Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) in the Department of National Defence’, 34 pp. plus 18 Appendices and executive summary; ‘The Environmental Assessment and Review Process in the Department of Transport’, 39 pp. plus 1 Appendix and executive summary. Evaluation Branch, Planning and Evaluation Directorate, Corporate Planning Group, Environmental Canada, Terrasses de la Chaudière, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 1G2, June 1982.

  30. Reed, J., ‘Environmental Auditing in the Canadian Private Sector’, manuscript Series # IP-18, Environment Canada, Environmental Protection Service, Place Vincent Massey, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 1C8, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Impact Systems Division, Environmental Protection Service, Environment Canada, 15th. Floor, Place Vincent Massey, K1A 1C8, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

    David R. McCallum

Authors
  1. David R. McCallum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McCallum, D.R. Follow-up to environmental impact assessment: Learning from the Canadian Government experience. Environ Monit Assess 8, 199–215 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00404265

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00404265

Keywords

Search

Navigation