Environmental Assessment Case Study

Environmental assessment case study
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
Introduction
Environmental impact assessment is a global tool that was established mainly to predict and evaluate the environmental impacts associated with a proposed project prior to its implementation. EIA process ensures all environmental issues have been raised and the concerns addressed during the project plan discussions as the project gains momentum towards implementation. The recommendations suggested within the EIA process may necessitate further studies of the project, the remodelling of some elements within the project, propose some modifications that may alter the efficiency of the project and even delay its implementation. Like any other state, Canada has an obligatory environmental Act within the environmental sector responsible for conducting environmental impact assessments. A guide is provided for all federal environmental assessments in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This paper will explore the timelines associated with Canada’s Environmental Impact Assessment process, the process used in differentiating the good proceess regulatory criteria, and finally evaluate the Ksi Lisims LNG Canadian project under a Time Limit Suspension (TLS).
Comparison between the CEAA 2012 and IAA-2019 Impact Assessment timelines.
The timeline for the environmental assessment is paused during periods when a proponent is conducting studies or collecting information. According to the guidelines issued by the CEAA 2012, 30 days is issued for reviewing a new or significantly revised environmental assessment statement (CEAA, 2016). The period is also meant to address major project redesigns and give an opinion of whether the timelines have been met without the timeline resuming. CEAA (2016) also stipulates that the agency is obligated to issue 15 days’ period for reviewing the response of a proponent to supplemental requests and building an opinion of whether the information that was requested has been availed fully without resuming the timeline. In case of a minor information request, the timeline will not be paused since there is sufficient information to carry on an environmental assessment.
On the other hand, the IAA has variable timelines in which the first 80 days, the proposed project is introduced into the impact assessment process whereby the public and indigenous people are engaged to identify any concerns associated with the project (CEAA,2019). The agency prepares a summary of the issues discussed, and then the proponent takes on a period of 30 days to provide a detailed description of the project constituting their response to the issues provided on the issue summary. The agency now determines if an impact assessment is required with the responses provided. According to CEAA (2019), the remaining 100 days require the agency to draft a tailored impact statement guideline, issue a notice of commencement, and post a tailored impact statement guideline. Phase 2 of the process has a maximum of 3 years in which the project impacts are outlined and evaluated. In a 300 days’ maximum timeline, the impact statement is reviewed by the agency and sent to the environmental Minister (CEAA,2019). The Ministerial decision statement is provided within 90 days, and the agency promotes, educates, and facilitates compliance. There is a difference between the two acts with which the impact assessment process is conducted.
Differentiating the “good process” regulatory process in different environmental Acts
The good process impact assessment criteria include representation, deliberateness, being well-informed, integration, efficiency, legitimacy, equity, sustainability, transparency, accountability, and impartiality. The regulatory process in Canada is outlined and described in various ways by different environmental Acts. In representation, the CEAA 1992 promoted meaningful, early, and timely public participation. Anyone interested in the project was allowed to participate, and participant funding was provided. On the other hand, CEAA 2012 allowed limited participation, and funding was only provided to the persons directly affected by the project. The Expert Panel commended inclusive participation in all segments of the impact assessment, with participant funding proportionate to outlays. IAA 2019 established a participant funding program without specifying the specific funding costs required.
According to Hunsberger, Froese, & Hoberg (2020), CEAA 2012 scored poorly on six of the nine good process criteria when compared to CEAA 1992. The only improved areas were efficiency and integration. In terms of total scores, the 2012 policy is rated 3 points lower than the 1992 Act, whereas the 2019 IAA is rated 7.5 points higher than 1992 and 10.5 points higher than 2012. While there is some subjective judgment involved in the ranking, it is reasonable to conclude that the IAA is an improvement over previous legislation based on the good process criteria.
Despite this, IAA 2019 falls short of the Expert Panel’s high expectations. Many of the Expert panel’s proposals, notably those linked to integration, legitimacy, and sustainability, were downsized in IAA 2019 in order to obtain a political consensus. &nbs...