If you have been involved in a federal or joint federal/ provincial environmental assessment we encourage you to take the time to fill out this important report card prepared by the Environmental Assessment and Planning Caucus of the Canadian Environmental Network (the EA Caucus).
In the year 2000, Canada's federal environmental assessment law, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA or the Act), will be subject to a review and recommendations for change. To help environmental and citizen's groups participate in this review the EA Caucus has prepared this report card as a tool for input from people who have been involved in federal environmental assessments. We want to hear your views on what worked well and what didn't and how future review processes can be improved
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Environmental Assessment (EA) has been done in Canada for a number of years under a variety of laws and regulations. Federally, environmental assessment was done under a "guideline order" of federal Cabinet until 1995 when CEAA came into force. Several provinces also have environmental assessment legislation. Joint federal/provincial EA is done through individual agreements between the relevant governments.
The Act requires that it be formally reviewed five years after coming into force, beginning in January 2000, and that a report be submitted to Parliament within a year, including a statement of any changes the Minister may recommend.
This report card is part of the review activities being undertaken by environmental and citizen organisations, and will feed into a broader evaluation of the effectiveness of environmental assessment and how EA in Canada can be improved.
WANTED: EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
If EA is done well, it can improve decisions--and the decision-making process--on projects or policies that will have environmental effects. Improved decisions mean that only projects that are environmentally sound will be allowed to proceed. It also means proponents save time and money by implementing their project in an environmentally responsible manner, avoiding later conflicts, expensive after-the-fact mitigation measures, and litigation.
To be effective, a "good" environmental assessment must have the following characteristics:
Review of projects must begin early
The EA process must be open and accountable
There should be consistent application of environmental assessment legislation.
The language should be clear, and include a broad definition of the environment.
The process must enable effective public involvement.
Decisions must reflect what was considered during the review process.
Instructions
Please complete a separate questionnaire for each federal or federal/provincial review process or project you wish to comment on. You may respond either as an organization or as an individual. Your level of involvement will determine how many questions you answer, but all input will help. Space is available at the end of each section to give details or identify issues that the questions may not have addressed. All personal information will remain confidential.
Please Return Completed Questionnaires to the Canadian Environment Network 945 Wellington Street, Suite 300, Ottawa, K1Y 2X5 or by FAX 613 728 2963 by March 2, 2000 or by email: jannis@cen-rce.org. Thank you for your time and look at our website: www.cen-rce.org for an other copy of this document and more information on EA !
Your name
Organisation which participated in the review (if applicable)
Your Contact Information
Describe your involvement / role in the review
Describe any training in CEAA or EA processes you have received
Title of Project and Name of Proponent
Government agency(s) with principal responsibility
Type of Environmental Assessment: Federal Joint Federal/ Provincial Other:
If under CEAA, Type of EA: __Screening; __Comprehensive Study; __Panel Review; __Mediation
Date:
Signature:
1. ACCESS TO THE PROCESS
Public involvement should happen at the earliest stages in a project's development and review. For the public to be involved, a number of "ingredients" must be present in a review process: public notice, access to information about the project, access to any information sessions or hearing sessions, access to all of the comments and documentation generated during the hearing process, and access to sound technical advice.
1a.At what stage did you learn that the project would be the subject of an EA process?
__Beginning/During Public Comment Period
__After Public Comment Period
__Don't know
__Not applicable
__ Other:
1b.Would you have been able to participate more effectively if you had learned about it earlier?
__ Yes __No rDon't know rNot applicable
1c. How did you first learn about the project EA review?
__Proponent __Regulator __Assessment Agency
__Environmental organisation __Public Library
__Media rInternet __Federal or Provincial EA Registry
__Public notice
__Other:
1d. Were you able to find as much information about the project as you needed in order to be effectively involved?
__Yes __No __Don't know __Not applicable
1e. What (or who) did you find to be your best source of information about the project?
__Proponent __Regulator __Assessment Agency
__Environmental organisation __Public Libraries
__Media __Internet __Hearing __Other:
1f. Did you have access to information being generated during the project's review? (e.g. public comments, government reviews, environmental studies or reports, additional information from the proponent)
__Always __Most of the time __Occasionally
__Not at all __Not sure __Other:
1g. Were you able to access the information early enough for it to be useful to you?
__Always __Most of the time __Occasionally
__Not at all __Not sure __Other:
1h. Were you able to participate in information or hearing sessions related to the project's review?
__All __Some __None __Don't know
1i. What forms of participation in the review were available to you?
__written submissions __presentations __question to proponent __Other:
Additional comments on access to the EA process:
2. SCOPE
The project evaluation should examine all potential adverse effects, including direct and indirect effects and physical, biological, health, social, cultural, economic, and cumulative effects. The likelihood of effects and the potential effects of malfunction or accidents should be included in the review, and related activities should be assessed under the principle of "one project, one review." The review should also address alternatives to the project, including whether the project is needed.
2a. Was the proponent required to produce a comprehensive environmental impact statement?
__Yes __No __Don't know __Not applicable
2b. Did the project review examine the need for the project and alternative ways to meet that need?
__Yes __No __Don't know __Not applicable
2c. Was the alternative of not proceeding with the project examined?
__Yes __No __Don't know __Not applicable
2d. Was any study of cumulative effects included?
__Yes __No __Don't know __Not applicable
2e. Did the project review include the range of possible effects? (circle one)
__Full range __Acceptable range __Minimal range __None
2f. Did the project review include a review of contingency plans and worst-case scenarios?
__Yes __No __Don't know __Not applicable
2g. Did the project review include all appropriate related activities? (eg. road construction, energy supply)
__Yes __No __Don't know __Not applicable __Other:
Additional comments on the scope of the project:
3. CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
For a project review to be effective, the potential impacts have to be reviewed in sufficient scope, but also with enough rigour to provide confidence that the environmental effects are being appropriately and expertly considered and that the significance of the effects are fully understood. A key element in ensuring that potential impacts and significant effects are properly examined is the use of independent experts through peer review of the project proposal and through consideration of independent advice.
3a. Were you able to get advice from independent experts?
__Yes __No __Don't know __Not applicable
3b. Did you receive the legal assistance you needed?
__Yes __Limited __No __Don't know
3c. Was there sufficient time allowed for the project review?
__Yes __No __Don't know __Not applicable
3d. Did the review process rely on peer review or independent experts' review of the proponent's work?
__Yes __No __Don't know __Not applicable
3e. Did the project review provide expert information or studies for each potential effect?
__Yes __No __Don't know __Not applicable
3f. Were you satisfied with the quality of the documents produced for screening or comprehensive studies?
__Yes __No __Don't know __Not applicable
3g. If there was a hearing, were you given adequate time and resources to question the representatives of the proponent and government and to test their evidence?
__Yes __No __Don't know __Not applicable
3h. Were you able to present your critique and evidence?
__Yes __No __Don't know __Not applicable
Additional comments on the consideration of potential impacts:
4. PARTICIPANT FUNDING
Participant funding supports public involvement in environmental assessments by reimbursing expenses incurred as a result of participating in a hearing, information session, or on a decision-making table, including travel, communication expenses, purchase of information, and the ability to retain independent expert advice.
4a. Was there a program providing participant funding to support public participation in the review?
__Yes __No __Don't know __Not applicable __Other:
4b. If "no" to the above, was your ability to participate effectively negatively affected?
__Yes __Yes __No __Don't know __Not applicable
4c. If "yes", did you apply for and receive funding through the Participant Funding Program?
__Yes __No __Didn't apply __Don't know
4d. Did participant funding allow you to participate more effectively in technical or legal aspects of the review?
__Yes __No __Don't know __Not applicable
4e. Did conditions placed on the funding award limit or restrict which experts could be retained?
__Yes __No __Don't know __Not applicable
4f. Was the participant funding decision made and money provided in time for it to be useful to you?
__Yes __No __Don't know __Not applicable Other____________________________________
4g. Please estimate what percentage of the costs of your participation was covered through participant funding? (Circle one)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Additional comments participant funding:
5. REVIEW AGENCY
Review processes are managed by a government agency. In some cases, the review is managed by the agency responsible for issuing the approval or permit that is being sought by the proponent. In other cases, the review is managed by a body established for the specific purpose of managing environmental assessment processes. In all cases, the public has a right to expect that agency to act in a fair and impartial manner, and to conduct a process that is not predisposed towards approval of the project without rigorous review and confidence in the outcome.
Additional comments on the review agency:
5a. Did you feel the review was managed impartially?
__Completely __Moderately __Not very __Not at all
5b. Do you feel that the review agency staff provided reasonable assistance in support of your participation?
__Completely __ Moderately __Minimally __Not at all
5c. Did the review agency staff appear to promote the interests of the proponent or their industrial interests?
__Completely __Moderately __Not very __Not at all
6. OUTCOMES
Review processes are only as good as their final result, with the most critical test being : Does the decision protect the environment? Review outcomes may be simple "yes" or "no" verdicts, but more often they will result in a qualified approval, allowing the project to proceed but only under certain conditions.
And after an environmental assessment review comes to a conclusion, the government makes the final decision on how - or whether - to implement the review's conclusions.
6a. Were the review conclusions based on and supported by the evidence and public input provided during the review?
__Completely __Moderately __Minimally __Not at all
6b. Do you feel the review conclusion, if implemented, would protect the environment?
__Completely __Moderately __Minimally __Not at all
6c. Does the final decision by government reflect the assessment process and its conclusions?
__Completely __Moderately __Minimally __Not at all
6d. Do you feel the final decision protects the environment?
__Completely __Moderately __Minimally __Not at all
6e. Was the socio-cultural environment protected?
__Completely __Moderately __Minimally __Not at all
6f. Did other decision-making done outside the assessment process have a significant effect on the review decision?
__Completely __Moderately __Minimally __Not at all
6g. If an approval was granted, was an environmental effects monitoring program included in the decision?
__Yes __No __Don't know __Not applicable
6h. If yes, did it include provisions for citizen involvement?
__Yes __No __Don't know __Not applicable
6i. Was the decision implemented?
__Yes __No __Not yet __Don't know
6j. Were any mitigating measures which were included as conditions of the decision (ie. in an approval) implemented?
rAll __Some __None __Not sure
6k. Was the outcome more protective of the environment than would have been likely without an environmental assessment?
__Completely __Moderately __Minimally __Not at all
Additional comments on the review outcome:
7. FINAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Please add any comments/observations you have on the EA process you were involved in, and make any recommendations you feel would improve future EA processes Use an extra page if necessary.
Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire. Please return the completed form by Mach 2, 2000 to the Canadian Environmental Network, 945 Wellington Street, Suite 300, Ottawa, K1Y 2X5 or by FAX 613 728 2963. Please look at our website: www.cen-rce.org for another copy of this document and more.