The WHAT of EA
The WHO of EA
The WHY of EA
(BCEAA) BC Environmental Assessment Act
Policy, procedures and technical guidelines
The WHEN of EA
When a project is proposed that triggers an EA OR is given an EA by the Minister
Began in 1970 in US and 1972 in Canada
Why study EA?
EAO
Environmental Assessment Office
EA Process
VERY subjective
Major projects that trigger EA’s
Ministerial Designation
Minister of Environment has authority to have projects reviewed if it is believed to have adverse environmental, economic, health, social or heritage effects
Federal Gov’t is involved if…
Harmonization
When fed. and prov. EA’s are triggered
MOU on Substitution of EA’s
Memorandum of Understanding
Substitution: Under CEAA, there can be a single review but 2 decisions
BC EAO
Based in Victoria Started 1995 133 out of 263 projects have been approved 30 days to review applications Have ability to suspend timelines
GHG emission reduction targets
2020: 33% less than 2007
2050: 80% less than 2007
No link to EA process at all
“Climate tests”
“Significant impacts”
MAJOR issue in EA because lots of projects get away with adverse impacts because they are deemed “not significant”
Trade off’s in EA
Efficiency VS. Thoroughness
Flexibility: can be good or bad
Lenience on certain projects: can cause conflict
Balancing guidelines, circumstances and people’s concerns
Pros/cons of Proponent-led process
Pros:
-Saves tax payer money
-Allows proponent to fully understand impacts of project
-Reduces complication of process: if gov’t was following process as it went it would have many more steps
Cons:
-EA proposal could be biased because proponents hire scientists to do studies
-Proponent could pay people to make project get approved even though it has adverse impacts
FPIC
Free Prior Informed Consent
Recognizes indigenous peoples rights to their lands and
resources and respects their authority to enter into an equal
and respectful relationship with them, based on informed consent
Haida & Taku
WHY: resulted in “duty to consult and accomodate”
WHAT: Mining road through critical caribou habitat
WHEN: 2004
WHO: Haida and Tlingit tribes and Supreme court
WHERE: BC
“Duty to consult and accommodate”
Gov’t MUST consult any 1st nations peoples if a project is proposed on their territory
IF EA gets approved/there is adverse impacts, the proponent make royalty payments, education, work or cash compensation or provision of alternative lands
Red Chris Mine
WHY: Fed. authority tried to change scope so they wouldn’t have to conduct public hearings AND so an EA would only be triggered for tailing pond and use of explosives. Led to law preventing anyone to change the scope of a project to get around mandatory parts of an EA
WHO: Talhtan 1st Nations, Imperial Metals, DFO and NRC (natural resources canada)
WHAT: Open-pit copper, silver & gold mine
WHEN: Approved under CEAA in 2006
WHERE: “Sacred Headwaters” Skeena, Stikine & Naas watershed
Prosperity & New Prosperity Mine
WHY: Drew attention to concerns with BC’s EAO and process - Prov. said yes and Fed. said hell no
WHO: Taseko, Chilcotin & Xeni Gwi’tin, BC EAO and Fed. Gov’t
WHAT: Gold-copper mine rejected twice under CEAA
WHEN: 2015
WHERE: BC