Multi-jurisdictional environmental impact assessment: Canadian experiences

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 252-260

  Fitzpatrick, Patricia ^a   Sinclair, A John ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WINNIPEG   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Canada; Environmental impact assessment; Harmonization; Inter jurisdictional coordination; Public participation

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT PROCESS; BILATERAL AGREEMENTS; CANADA; HARMONIZATION; INTER-JURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION; PROCESS UNCERTAINTIES; PUBLIC PARTICIPATION;

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT;

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; STANDARDIZATION;

CANADA; NORTH AMERICA;

EID: 63749117260     PISSN: 01959255     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2009.01.004     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Albergaria R., and Fidelis T. Transboundary EIA: Iberian experiences. Environ Impact Assess Rev 26 (2006) 614-622
2. Albrecht E. Implementing the Espoo Convention in transboundary EIA between Germany and Poland. EIA Review 28 6 (2008) 359-365
3. Bjørnøy H. Impact assessment: A tool for sustainable development, Stavanger, Norway (2006)
4. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. A Canada-wide accord on environmental harmonization (1998). http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/accord_harmonization_e.pdf http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/accord_harmonization_e.pdf
5. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Joint Public Review Panel Report [The Sable Gas Project] (1997), Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Ottawa, Canada
6. Clean Environment Commission. Report on public hearings: Wuskwatim generation and transmission line projects (2004), Clean Environment Commission, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
7. Connelly R.G. The UN convention on EIA in a transboundary context: a historical perspective. Environ Impact Assess Rev 19 (1999) 37-46
8. Connelly R.G. Acceptance speech for the Rose-Hulman award, Stavanger, Norway (2006)
9. Creswell J.W. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. (2nd ed.) (2003), Sage Publications, Toronto, ON, Canada
10. deBoer J.J. Bilateral agreements for the application of the UN-ECE convention on EIA in transboundary context. Environ Impact Assess Rev 19 1 (1999) 85-98
11. Ebbesson J. Innovative elements and expected effectiveness of the 1991 EIA convention. Environ Impact Assess Rev 19 1 (1999) 47-55
12. Fafard P. Groups, governments and the environment: some evidence from the harmonization initiative. In: Fafard P.C., and Harrison K. (Eds). Managing the Environmental Union: Intergovernmental Relations and Environmental Policy in Canada (2000), School of Policy Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, ON 81-101
13. Fitzpatrick P. The environmental assessment process-learning nexus: a Manitoba case study. Prairie Perspectives 9 1 (2006) 1-30
14. Fitzpatrick P. In it together: organizational learning though participation in environmental assessment. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 8 2 (2006) 157-183
15. Fitzpatrick P., and Sinclair A.J. Learning through public involvement in environmental assessment hearings. Journal of Environmental Management 67 2 (2003) 161-174
16. Fitzpatrick P., and Sinclair A.J. Multi-jurisdictional environmental assessment. In: Hanna K. (Ed). Environmental impact assessment: Process and practice (2005), Oxford University Press, Toronto, ON, Canada 160-184
17. Friends of the Red Hill Valley. (2000, March, 2000). Five Year Review. Retrieved May 31, 2003, from http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/0007/0002/0004/0001/mclean_e.htm (accessed May 31, 2003).
18. Glasson J., Therivel R., and Chadwick A. Introduction to environmental impact assessment. (3rd ed.) (2005), Routledge, New York
19. Harrison K. Passing the buck: Federalism and Canadian environmental policy (1996), University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, Canada
20. Harrison K. Intergovernmental relations and environmental policy: concepts and context. In: Fafard P.C., and Harrison K. (Eds). Managing the environmental union: Intergovernmental relations and environmental policy in Canada (2000), School of Policy Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, ON 3-19
21. In: Harrison K. (Ed). Racing to the bottom? Provincial interdependence in the Canadian federation (2006), UBC Press, Vancouver, BC
22. Hartley N., and Wood C. Public participation in environmental impact assessment: implementing the Aarhus Convention. Environ Impact Assess Rev 25 4 (2005) 319-340
23. Hayward G., Diduck A., and Mitchell B. Research article: social learning outcomes in the red river floodway environmental assessment. Environ Practice 9 04 (2008) 239-250 %R doi:210.1017/S1466046607070561
24. Kennett S. Hard law, soft law and diplomacy: the emerging paradigm for intergovernmental cooperation in environmental assessment. Alberta Law Rev 31 4 (1993) 644-661
25. Kennett S. Interjurisdictional harmonization of environmental assessment in Canada. In: Kennett S. (Ed). Law and process in environmental management (1993), Canadian Institute for Resources Law, Calgary 297-318
26. Kennett S. Boundary issues and Canadian environmental legislation. In: Caldwell L.K., and Bartlett R.V. (Eds). Environmental policy: Transnational issues and national trends (1997), Quorum Books, Westport, Connecticut 131-155
27. Kennett S. Meeting the intergovernmental challenge of environmental assessment. In: Fafard P.C., and Harrison K. (Eds). Managing the environmental union: Intergovernmental relations and environmental policy in Canada (2000), School of Policy Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, ON 107-131
28. Knox J.H. Assessing the candidates for a global treaty on transboundary environmental impact assessment. NYU Environmental Law Journal 12 (2004) 153-168
29. Kwasniak, A. (2008). Harmonization in environmental assessment in Canada: The good, the bad and the ugly. Unpublished manuscript, Ottawa, ON.
30. Lawrence D. Multi-jurisdictional environmental assessments (1999), Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Ottawa
31. National Energy Board. Sable Gas Panel Review Transcripts (1997), National Energy Board, Halifax
32. National Energy Board. (2005 (November)). NEB Substitution under the CEA Act: Discussion paper. Calgary, AB: National Energy Board.
33. Petts J. Public participation and environmental impact assessment. In: Petts J. (Ed). Handbook of environmental impact assessment: Environmental impact assessment: process, methods and practice vol. 1 (1999), Blackwell Science, Oxford, United Kingdom 145-177
34. Schneider G., Sinclair A.J., and Mitchell L. Environmental assessment process substitution: A participant's view (2007)
35. Sinclair A.J., and Diduck A.P. Public involvement in Canadian environmental assessment: enduring challenges and future directions. In: Hanna K. (Ed). Environmental impact assessment: Process and practice (2005), Oxford University Press, Toronto, ON, Canada 53-74
36. Sinclair A.J., and Doelle M. Using law as a tool to ensure meaningful public participation in environmental assessment. J Environ Law Prac 12 1 (2003) 27-54
37. Stewart J., and Sinclair A.J. Meaningful public participation: perspectives from participants, proponents and government. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 9 2 (2007) 1-23
38. Tesli A., and Husby S.R. EIA in a transboundary context: principles and challenges for a coordinated Nordic application of the Espoo convention. Environ Impact Assess Rev 19 1 (1999) 57-84
39. Valiante M. Legal foundations of Canadian environmental policy: Underlining our values in a shifting landscape. In: VanNijnatten D., and Boardman R. (Eds). Canadian environmental policy: Context and cases. 2nd ed. (2002), Oxford University Press, Don Mills, ON 3-24