Hope may finally be in sight for fixing Canada’s environmental assessment process, after a four-member expert panel released a promising report on the heels of consultations in 21 cities across the country.

Historically, the focus of Canada’s environmental assessment has been on “avoiding harm” and “significant adverse impacts” associated with new projects, but the new approach recommended by the panel would shift the focus to a “net contribution to sustainability,” said Anna Johnston, staff counsel at West Coast Environmental Law.

“The recommendations that the panel has made address a number of the concerns that were raised by the scientific community,” said Aerin Jacob, conservation scientist for the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. “I was pleasantly surprised.”

A key recommendation is to establish an arms-length independent agency with a broad mandate to administer environmental assessments — including gathering information, conducting the review and making the final decision (although cabinet would retain the ability to appeal). This recommendation would take reviews out of the hands of other agencies, such as the National Energy Board.

Another crucial recommendation is for government to move to a model in which the proponent continues to fund the science, but the actual science itself will be provided by independent professionals hired by the government.

“It recognizes that environmental assessment has to be integrated with assessments of the various other impacts, the costs and the benefits,” said Chris Tollefson, executive director of Pacific Centre for Environmental Law and Litigation and a law professor at the University of Victoria. “So we’re moving from an environmental assessment regime to an impact assessment regime, which is a major step forward.”

Major Overhaul of Environmental Laws Possible

There are four expert review panels currently preparing reports for the federal cabinet on environmental and regulatory processes.

Each is taking on a distinct but interrelated piece of legislation: the National Energy Board Act, the Fisheries Act, the Navigation Protection Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Those pieces of legislation were dramatically altered in 2012, during the Conservative government’s overhaul of Canada’s environmental laws — which sparked widespread protests across the country.

The environmental assessment panel went to 21 cities, received more than 500 online submissions and  welcomed more than 1,000 participants at engagement sessions,” according to the government.

Shift Towards ‘Impacts Assessments’ Recognizes Holistic Nature of Project Impacts

The recommended shift from an “environmental assessment” to “impact assessment” might sound like a mere semantic quibble.

But Johnston said it represents a significant move towards a more holistic “sustainability approach” that considers social, cultural and economic impacts in addition to environmental impacts. The report also recommended that environmental assessments should be conducted and decisions made in collaboration with Indigenous governments.

“It makes it clear that we have to not just look at the biophysical impacts of the project — whether there’s going to be significant adverse environmental effects — but instead to look at projects and other proposals in a more holistic way that looks at their impacts on social, economic, cultural and other important components of Canadian society,” Tollefson explained.

However, Johnston notes the report didn’t include a recommended expansion of assessment for cumulative impacts, meaning the negative effects of development from smaller projects on a landscape may still not be adequately evaluated.

Information from Environmental Assessments to Be Made Public

There’s also the issue of information sharing.

Jacob of the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative says that one of the things she’s most excited about is a recommendation to make all data from environmental assessments publicly available. While the details are still unclear, Jacob says it would include information sharing and both baseline and monitoring data.

“That’s really key,” she says. “It goes much beyond an individual project: this is about helping Canadians know more about our country. If implemented, that would be tremendously important.

“If you want to know that somebody did something carefully and following particular standards, you have to be able to see all the details of their methods,” she adds. “It helps us build upon the shared body of knowledge. That’s critical.”

However, Jacob notes there’s still ambiguity about the independence of information collecting: although the report is “really explicit” that the new body would be impartial and the lead authority, she says there would still be a reliance on proponent-driven data.

That’s where clarification on what “best available information” looks like is needed.

“I really want to emphasize that scientists of all stripes — whether they’re at universities, working in consultancy companies or NGOs — really care about being involved in this,” she said.

Federal Government Now Seeking Responses to Report

There’s now a public comment period that’s open until May 5, 2017, giving individuals or organizations the ability to respond to the recommendations in the report. Following that, the federal cabinet will decide on changes to legislation, regulations and policies, with the government listing the estimated window of fall 2017.

Johnston said she’s been working closely with government leading up to report, and confirms the government is considering significant legislative amendments. Tollefson added that there will be “momentum towards implementation.”

“This is a real opportunity to make a huge step forward; there may be disagreements on the details but in terms of the broad sweep this is an opportunity that should not be missed,” he said.

Only time will tell how many of the panel’s recommendations are implemented. But experts agree the review process itself has bolstered confidence in the government’s interest in public consultation, which Johnston said stands in stark contrast to the processes that resulted in the changes to the 2012 legislation.

“The panel has recognized that you just don’t get quality decisions when you don’t have public values and input included in that process, and you don’t have community buy-in if the community hasn’t been able to provide their thoughts,” she said.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Canada’s great, white north seems to be getting a little less white as the years go by thanks to above-average increases in Arctic temperatures and increasing levels of industrial development.

Still, the north remains great, and there’s nothing more emblematic of that greatness than the astounding 1,000-kilometre seasonal migration of the region’s barren-ground caribou herds.

Named for their habitat — sprawling Arctic tundra which extends beyond the northern tree line — barren-ground caribou have experienced alarming population declines for years, according to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), and those declines are occurring alongside unprecedented levels of climate change and habitat disturbance.

The committee recently changed the status of barren-ground caribou herds from a species of ‘special concern’ to the more dire category of ‘threatened’ — one step away from ‘endangered.’

“These caribou are in trouble,” Justina Ray, co-chair of the Terrestrial Mammals Subcommittee with COSEWIC, a group of cross-country wildlife experts and scientists, told DeSmog Canada.

“We did a large analysis of 15 herds, which hasn’t been done before.”

Some of these far north caribou herds have experienced population losses of more than 90 per cent over recent decades, slowly caving to the layered pressures of a warmer climate, development, resource extraction and hunting.

Image: WWF Canada

Cumulative Impacts Overlooked in Project Approvals

The caribou’s threatened status comes about just as a federal panel is reviewing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act under which major projects must seek approval.

Ray can’t help but see the link between the status of the caribou and the status of Canada’s environmental assessment laws.

“The problem for these caribou is a combination of cumulative impacts and novel disturbance — new things that are occurring in these barren ground ranges that weren’t there before,” Ray said.

The failure to connect the overall impacts of resource development and human disturbance on these travelling species is a major factor in their decline, Ray said.

“It’s very illustrative of this piecemeal decision-making,” Ray said. “No one is looking at establishing limits to that or checking in in an overarching fashion.”

Right now with major project approvals, we’re simply “chipping away one decision at a time in a way that leads to this gradual destruction.”

Ray said the recent COSEWIC review of at risk species identified a number of migratory species that are not faring well in today’s environment, including Coho salmon, Nuttall’s cottontail bunnies and monarch butterflies. 

“It really struck us, how impacted migratory species are.”

A 2013 report from the Conference Board of Canada predicted a 91 per cent increase in mining in northern Canada.

The race for resources in the north has prompted the Canadian World Wildlife Fund to campaign for revoked mining licences in caribou calving grounds.

Ray said researchers don’t know just how much development barren-ground caribou can tolerate.

“Sometimes just one new road in an area can have a disproportionate effect because it’s this novel disturbance that can be a disproportionate issue for caribou that is experiencing truck traffic, dust, etc. for the first time.”

“That can be incredibly disruptive. If you combine that with harvest, resource development, climate change and these other uncertainties, that can add a lot of pressure and stress to a caribou population over time.”

Finding a Lifeline for Canada’s Threatened Arctic Caribou https://t.co/5UQJI5G9CA #Yukon #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) January 20, 2017

Seizing the Opportunity to Modernize Environmental Assessment

Ray recently presented to the panel, tasked with reviewing Canada’s environmental assessment process.

In her submission, Ray emphasized that, as it currently stands, the process has significant gaps when it comes to ensuring the veracity and independence of science used within the process.

For example, she said, as the legislation currently stands, there’s no procedure to guarantee the independence of science used by consultants hired by project proponents.

Ray’s concerns about the role of science in the assessment process have been echoed by numerous other academics, scientists and researchers who also made submissions to the panel.

“I think the whole process has been plagued by a lack of robust science. It’s actually a more interesting question to ask where science has been robustly assessed in a review process.”

“Even the recent federal Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline decision didn’t take into consideration what an oil spill would result in,” Ray added.

Still, if Canada gets it right, we could pave the way in the creation of a modernized assessment process, Ray said.

“We could potentially be a model for the rest of the world.”

Image: Caribou in Alaska. Photo: Paxon Woebler/Expedition Arguk via Flickr cc 2.0

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

British Columbia’s environmental review process simply isn’t strong enough to protect Alaskan communities and rivers from the province’s mining boom, Jill Weitz, American campaigner with Salmon Beyond Borders, recently told a panel reviewing Canada’s environmental assessment process.

Weitz, who works to protect Alaska’s wild salmon runs, traveled to Prince Rupert to tell a trio of experts appointed by the federal government how a more robust federal environmental assessment process could help address transboundary concerns arising in the wake of B.C.’s major push for new mines.

The federally appointed panel is currently reviewing the environmental assessment process managed by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency which is responsible for reviewing major development projects including pipelines, oil and gas development and mines. Changes made under the previous federal government excluded major mines in British Columbia from the federal environmental assessment process — a legislative change Weitz and others say left Alaska in an uncomfortable position.

The transboundary region traversing the border of northwest B.C. and southeast Alaska is home to three major salmon rivers, the Taku, Stikine and Unuk. The rivers flow into Alaska from an area in B.C. that is home to 10 new mines either proposed or already under construction.

Weitz said one of those mines, the controversial KSM mine, is the largest open pit mine in North America.

Despite living directly downstream from the mine, Alaskans were frustratingly prevented from meaningful participation in the project’s environmental review, Weitz told DeSmog Canada.

“The project would be located 22 miles upstream from the Alaska border,” she said. “The environmental assessment process determined there would be no significant environmental impacts.”

Weitz said this assessment was made despite the fact that the term ‘environmental impacts’ was not precisely defined and there was a problematic lack of the basic information needed to measure those impacts going forward.

“Not only is the B.C. process flawed in terms of identifying whether KSM would have significant environmental impacts but the baseline data needed to say that — it doesn’t exist.”

Weitz said Salmon Beyond Borders began campaigning on the issues of transboundary watersheds and the KSM mine after Alaskans from many different backgrounds start voicing their concern about the project.

A 2014 tailings pond collapse at the Mount Polley mine raised serious concerns about B.C.’s mine management and permitting process.

Many Alaskans representing fishing, tourism and indigenous groups voiced fears that something similar to the Mount Polley disaster, which left the pristine Quesnel Lake watershed contaminated with 24 million cubic metres of mining waste, could happen in U.S. waters.

The KSM tailings pond is projected to entail a massive 239-metre tailings dam, perched above the Bell Irving/Nass watershed in B.C. near the Sulpherets Creek, which runs into the Unuk River.

“We continue to push on the notion that there needs to be further transboundary watershed management in a shared way,” Weitz said.

In her presentation to the environmental assessment review panel, Weitz made the case that legislative changes made under the former Harper government that narrowed the purview of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act increased the threat felt by southeast Alaskans.

Projects that have immediate implications for transboundary watersheds should automatically trigger federal environmental assessments, Weitz argued, saying the provincial process in B.C. is not comprehensive enough and does not consider cumulative impacts of industrialization in the region — a top concern for many scientists and conservation groups.

Weitz said although B.C. invited the participation of Alaskans in the KSM mine assessment, she felt like their input was ultimately ignored.

Provincial approval of the KSM mine in 2014 angered many Alaskans. Fifteen federally registered native tribes, as well as a number of non-governmental organizations, made formal requests for a joint provincial-federal review of the project’s approval.

That request was denied.

“There is no equity in this process,” Weitz said.

Nikki Skuce, who also presented to the panel on behalf of the Northern Confluence initiative out of Smithers, B.C., said even British Columbians feel the provincial review system is inadequate.

“Some of us here in the northwest have participated in some really faulty review processes,” Skuce told DeSmog Canada.

“In some cases it’s clear the decision on the project is made even before the process begins so these processes feel very tokenistic and often rely entirely on information from industry.”

Skuce said a serious review of Canada’s environmental assessment process should take into consideration how domestic projects can affect cross-border communities.

“For folks in southeast Alaska, if we’re going to consider impacting a water or airshed upstream, there should be a federal review where there is greater opportunity for those downstream or down-air communities.”

Skuce said Canada’s federal review process should honour international commitments, like Canada’s pledge to engage in a bilateral process to manage transboundary waters.

Skuce says improvements to the federal environmental assessment process could help restore public trust in the review system.

“This process should prioritize indigenous rights that Canada has promised to honour under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” Skuce said.

She added an emphasis on independent science is key to restoring trust in the process.

“We need to delineate the project proponent promoter from the project regulator,” she said.

“Right now you have the regulator cheerleading for the project. That needs to be taken out, separated out to help regain public trust.”

Skuce said she is feeling optimistic about the review of the federal environmental assessment process. The panel has worked hard to engage meaningfully with presenters, she said.

“With so many mining projects proposed in the northwest and given the potential transboundary impacts we need federal engagement,” she said.

“This is a good opportunity to look in-depth at cumulative impacts of development and at our bilateral agreement obligations with Alaska.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.