Environmental impact assessment process substitution: Experiences of public participants

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 85-93

  Sinclair, A John ^a   Schneider, Gary ^b   Mitchell, Lisa ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA   (Canada)

^b Macphail Woods Ecological Forestry Project Prince Edward Island   (Canada)

^c LJM Environmental Law and Consulting   (Canada)

Author keywords

Canada; efficiency; public participation; streamlining; substitution

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; FEDERAL SYSTEM; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; STATE ROLE;

CANADA;

EID: 84863433294     PISSN: 14615517     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2012.667238     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Brunswick Pipeline, 2010. About the pipeline [online], Available from: http://www.brunswickpipeline.com [Accessed 24 January 2011]
2. Canadian Environmental Network, Environmental Planning and Assessment Caucus. 1988. A federal environmental assessment process: the core elements [online], Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Environmental Network, Environmental Planning and Assessment Caucus. Available from: http://www.cen.org [Accessed 13 October 2011]
3. Canadian Environmental Regulatory and Compliance News (CERC News). 2011. CEAA releases MOU on substitution for pipeline, power line and nuclear facilities. CERC News, 22(4): 3968
4. Cashmore, M., Bond, A. and Sadler, B. 2009. Introduction: the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(2): 91-95.
5. CEA Agency, 2008a. Public participation guide [online], Available from: http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca [Accessed 27 January 2011]
6. CEA Agency, 2008b. Substitution under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: a report on the evaluation of the substitution of the National Energy Board Review Process for a Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Review Panel for the Emera Brunswick Pipeline Project [online], Available from: http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/Content/E/5/C/E5C188AA-2D80-483C-8207-4B84437250E5/report-eng.pdf [Accessed 24 January 2011]
7. Devlin, J.F., Yap, N.T. and Wier, R. 2005. Public participation in environmental assessment: case studies on EA legislation and practice. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, XXVI(3): 487-500.
8. Doelle, M. 2008. The federal environmental assessment process: a guide and critique, Markham, ON: LexisNexis.
9. Elling, B. 2009. Rationality and effectiveness: does EIA/SEA treat them as synonyms?. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(2): 121-132.
10. Fitzpatrick, P. 2006. The environmental assessment process-learning nexus: a Manitoba case study. Prairie Perspectives, 9(1): 1-30.
11. Fitzpatrick, P.J. and Sinclair, A.J. 2003. Learning through public involvement in environmental assessment hearings. Journal of Environmental Management, 67(2): 161-174.
12. Fitzpatrick, P. and Sinclair, A.J. 2009. Multi-Jurisdictional environmental impact assessment: Canadian experiences. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(4): 252-260.
13. Gibson, R.B. 1993. Environmental assessment design: lessons from the Canadian experience. Environmental Professional, 15: 12-24.
14. Harriman Gunn, J. and Noble, B.F. 2009. A conceptual basis and methodological framework for regional strategic environmental assessment (R-SEA). Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(4): 258-270.
15. House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, 2012, Report of the Statutory Review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, March 2012. Available athttp://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/411/ENVI/Reports/RP5300807/411_ENVI_Rpt01_PDF/411_ENVI_Rpt01-e.pdf. [Accessed 16 March 2012].
16. Keen, M., Brown, V.A. and Dyball, R. 2005. Social learning in environmental management: towards a sustainable future, London: Earthscan.
17. Kwasniak, A. 2009. Environmental assessment, overlap, duplication, harmonization, equivalency, and substitution: interpretation, misinterpretation, and a path forward. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice, 20: 2-35.
18. Lawrence, D.P. 2003. Environmental impact assessment: practical solutions to common problems, New Jersey: Wiley-Interscience.
19. Lynn, S. and Wathern, P. 1991. Intervenor funding in environmental assessment process in Canada. Project Appraisal, 5(3): 169-173.
20. Middle, G. and Middle, I. 2010. The inefficiency of environmental impact assessment: reality or myth. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28(2): 159-168.
21. National Energy Board. 2005. NEB substitution under the CEA Act: discussion paper, Calgary, Canada: National Energy Board.
22. Noble, B.F. 2008. Strategic approaches to regional cumulative effects assessment: a case study of the Great Sand Hills, Canada. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 26(2): 78-90.
23. Palerm, J.R. 2000. An empirical-theoretical analysis framework for public participation in environmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(5): 581-600.
24. Petts, J. 1999. "Public participation and environmental impact assessment". In Handbook of environmental impact assessment, Edited by: Petts, J. 145-177. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
25. Roberts, R. 1998. Public involvement in environmental impact assessment: moving to a 'Newthink'. Interact, 4(1): 39-62.
26. Rutherford, S., and Campbell, K., 2004. Time well spent: a survey of public participation in federal environmental assessment panels [online], Vancouver: West Coast Environmental Law. Available from: http://www.wcel.org/resources/publication/time-well-spent-survey-public-participation-federal-environmental-assessment-p [Accessed 13 October 2011].
27. Sadler, B. 1996. International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment: final report. Environmental assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance, Ottawa, Canada: International Association for Impact Assessment, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
28. Schneider, G., Sinclair, A.J. and Mitchell, L. 2007. Environmental assessment process substitution: a participant's view [online], Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Environment Network. Available from: http://www.cen.org [Accessed 13 October 2011]
29. Sinclair, A.J. and Diduck, A.P. 2001. Public involvement in EA in Canada: a transformative learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21(2): 113-136.
30. Sinclair, A.J. and Diduck, A.P. 2009. "Public participation in Canadian environmental assessment: enduring challenges and future directions". In Environmental impact assessment process and practices in Canada, 2nd ed., Edited by: Hanna, K.S. 56-82. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
31. Sinclair, A.J. and Doelle, M. 2010. "Environmental assessment in Canada: encouraging decisions for sustainability". In Resource and environmental management in Canada: addressing conflict and uncertainty, 4th ed., Edited by: Mitchell, B. 462-495. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
32. Snell, T. and Cowell, R. 2006. Scoping in environmental impact assessment: balancing precaution and efficiency?. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(4): 359-376.
33. Stewart, J.M. and Sinclair, A.J. 2007. Meaningful public participation in environmental assessment: perspectives from Canadian participants, proponents and government. Journal of Environmental Assessment and Policy Management, 9(2): 1-23.
34. Tàbara, J.D. and Pahl-Wostl, C. 2007. Sustainability learning in natural resource use and management [online]. Ecology and Society, 12(2) article 3.Available from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art3/ [Accessed 13 October 2011]
35. Wood, C.W. 2003. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review, 2nd ed., London: Prentice Hall.