A Comparative Review of EIA Processes in British Columbia and Alberta

Today, climatologists warn that the adverse effects of global warming are threatening the future of humankind, and governments around the world have responded by implementing various mitigation strategies and environmental impact assessment processes (Mann et al., 2022). To determine how these processes operate in real-world settings, the purpose of this paper is to provide a discussion about environmental impact assessment (EIA) processes and how EIA processes differ depending on the Canadian jurisdiction. To this end, an overview of EIAP processes as well as the provincial EIA processes that are used in British Columbia and Alberta are compared and contrasted, followed by a discussion concerning their respective similarities and differences. Finally, the paper provides a summary of the key findings that emerged from the research in the conclusion.

Environmental Impact Assessment Overview

Regardless of the jurisdiction, the systematic, step-wise EIA process is essentially the same. Generally, a proposed project triggers an EIA review due to some type of mechanism such as being for a new mining operation with potential environmental implications, relevant government agencies collect information concerning the proposed project and provide primary stakeholders with the opportunity to have their views and concerns heard, an assessment of any environmental impacts the project may cause, a final approval phase and a follow-up phase where compliance with regulatory guidance is monitored. Although the specifics may vary and additional steps may be included, the foregoing is the basic EIA process.

In sum, the purpose of an EIA is to provide a timely evaluation concerning the potential positive and negative impacts (typically negative) that proposed development projects can have on the natural and human environments (Noble, 2013). In addition, the EIA process also facilitates the identification of appropriate strategies that can be used to prevent or mitigate negative impacts of proposed projects prior to any final decisions being made and formal contractual commitments extended (Noble, 2013). Some of the types of projects that require an EIA include an extension of an existing highway, the construction of a new mine or the installation of a liquefied natural gas plant (Overview of impact assessment, 2022). Although they vary somewhat, the EIA process used in British Columbia and Alberta are likewise similar in nature as discussed further below.

British Columbia and Albertas Provincial EIA Processes

British Columbia

The EIA process in British Columbia is triggered when the Reviewable Projects Regulation (RPR) identifies proposed projects that have the potential for causing significant harmful effects; in addition, the RPR also establishes criteria to determine those instances where a proposed project requires an environmental assessment (Environmental Assessment Process, 2022). The British Columbia EIA process is comprised of eight discrete stages as described below:

Early Engagement

The first stage begins the EIA regulatory process in coordination with British Columbias Environment Assessment Office (EAO) and is used to 1) provide all participants with the opportunity to develop a more comprehensive understanding concerning the various aspects of the proposed project; and, 2) establish the foundation that is needed for the remaining stages of the EIA process to proceed. In this regard, the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office reports that, Early Engagement is an important preparatory phase where meaningful conversations among participants begin about the proposed project to identify engagement approaches, potential interests, issues, and concerns early in the EA process and chart a path for resolution (Environmental Assessment Process, 2022, para. 4). In addition, the Environmental Assessment Office also closely coordinates with members of Indigenous Canadian nations who want to take part in the EIA process in order to develop consensus-seeking strategies early on in the application process.

EA Readiness Decision

The next stage of the EIA process builds on the foundation established in the first stage described above, and a decision is made during this stage concerning the viability of moving forward with the proposed project. Although the Early Engagement stage generally provides project participants with sufficient information to confirm their readiness to initiate an environmental assessment, this stage also provides participants with the opportunity to have any final questions answered and any unresolved issues are tabled for future resolution. In some cases, a proposed project may receive an exemption from the environmental assessment process altogether or it may be terminated during this stage. In addition, this stage is also used to allow any participating Indigenous nations representatives with the opportunity to provide their consent or, conversely, their lack of consent, for the proposed project in those cases where an exemption to the environmental assessment process is given.

Process Planning

During the third stage, plans are finalized concerning the manner in which the environmental assessment will be conducted, including the following: 1) identifying the required information; 2) defining who does what, when, and how; and, 3) determining how participants will collaborate for the remainder of the environmental assessment as well as future engagement approaches. All process orders are specifically tailored to the proposed projects are build on the foundation that was developed during the preceding stages to establish the scope, procedures and methods that will be used for the environmental assessment.

Application Development and Review

This stage is used to fully develop the application for an environmental assessment certificate in coordination with any Indigenous nations that are participating in the proposed project as well as other participants. This is an important stage in the EIA process since the feedback that is received can serve to identify potential problem areas that might arise later on which would introduce delays. The Environmental Assessmnt Office, the Technical Advisory Committee, participating Indigenous nations and the Community Advisory Committee review the draft application for an environmental assessment certificate and any recommendations for changes in the final version are communicated to the requesting entity.

Effects Assessment and Recommendation

Everything starts to come together during this stage of the environmental assessment process with the drafting of an assessment report and conditional certificate...

…that the British Columbia and Alberta environmental impact assessment processes for many proposed projects are essentially the same and both operate in the same fashion in real-world practice as described above. Nevertheless, the research did identify some important differences between British Columbia and Albertas EIA processes. For instance, on the one hand, British Columbia only routinely uses one or two approving authorities for EIA certificate applications.

On the other hand, Alberta has multiple governmental agencies that have the regulatory authority to approve or disapprove applications for environmental impact certification as well as overseeing the general administration of the EIA process in areas that are their responsibility (see table at Appendix A). Furthermore, Albertas provincial boards and ministries each have their own specific regulatory guidelines for those energy-related industries and commercial operations that are their respective responsibility. In sum, Albertas regulatory agencies appear to wield more power compared to British Columbia, at least on paper, but as noted above, the processes are likely essentially the same in practice.

Both British Columbia and Alberta have substantial natural resources, including oil and gas reserves, that are the target of commercial mining and extraction industries, and these enterprises can have profoundly adverse, long-lasting effects on the environment and human health without ongoing governmental oversight (Bharadwaj & Goldstein, 2015; Prno et al., 2021). Here again, it is also reasonable to suggest that the intensive of the EIA review process is directly related to a proposed projects nature, scope, intended purpose, length of time it will be operated and its potential positive and negative effects, with more complex projects such as oil and gas industry initiatives requiring a far lengthier and comprehensive assessment compared to a modest addition to a municipal gold course.

It should be noted, however, that while British Columbia describes the provisions for Indigenous nations participation in the EIA process in detail, Alberta only provides a brief description concerning their role in that provinces EIA process in its regulatory guidance. Nevertheless, Indigenous nations in Alberta appear to possess the legal authority to derail a proposed project before it ever gets started by denying the EIA certification process if they disapprove of it for valid reasons, while the views and concerns of Indigenous nations in British Columbia can be overridden if the decision is considered in the publics overarching best interests.

Finally, a summary table of the key similarities and differences between British Columbia and Albertas EIA processes is provided at Appendix A that follows below.

Conclusion

The research was consistent in showing that as the second-largest country in the world, Canada has a lot of environment to protect and environmental impact assessments are the main strategy that is currently in use. The EIA process varies somewhat by jurisdiction, but the research was also consistent in showing that the EIA process is similar in British Columbia and Alberta, with a few notable differences. These differences were attributable in part to provincial administrative preferences and priorities, but both EIA…