November 26 2012 Notes BC EA Law

advertisement
BRITISH COLUMBIA
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT LAW
NOVEMBER 26, 2012
Overview
• Environmental Assessment Act Elements
• Environmental Assessment Act – Issues
• BC Auditor General Report
• Northwest Institute Report comparing
Federal/Provincial EAs for Prosperity
Mine
Environmental Assessment Act
• Environmental Assessment Act (EAA)
passed in 1994, amended in 2002
• Environmental Assessment Office
(EAO) established under EAA to
provide “open, accountable and
neutrally administered process” to
assess “reviewable projects”
• Reviewable Projects Regulation
identified projects to be reviewed
(energy, mining, industry)
Purposes
• “promote sustainability by protecting the
environment and fostering a sound
economy and social well-being”
• “prevent or mitigate adverse effects of
reviewable projects”
• Repealed in 2002 amendments
Key Elements
• Projects reviewable by virtue of
regulation, EAO executive director
discretion, ministerial order
• Reviewable projects not be constructed
without provincial EA certificate
• EAO reviewable project determination
• EAO makes order on scope,
procedures, methods for project EA
• Proponent proposes terms of reference
for EAO approval
Key Elements
• Proponent assembles required
information and public input, applies for
EA certificate
• EAO reviews application and
assessment report for two or more
ministers with jurisdiction
• Ministers decide to issue certificate,
specify conditions, or refer for further
assessment
Key Elements (1994)
• Mandatory project committees to advise
ministers (provincial, federal, municipal,
regional, First Nations representatives)
• Public advisory committee to make
recommendations to project committee
• Mandatory public notice provisions at
each of four EA process stages
• Environmental Assessment Board to
conduct hearings on projects referred
by Ministers
Key Amendments (2002)
• Provided decision-making flexibillity for
EAO and Ministers (“less regimented”
“more timely and cost-efficient”)
• Mandatory project committees replaced
by working groups with reduced role
• Public advisory committees eliminated
• Public consultation mainly by proponent
• Mandatory public notice provisions
replaced by policy guidance
Reviewable Project Regulations
• Coal Mine – 100,000 t/yr (1994),
250,000 t/yr (2002)
• Mineral Mine - 25,000 t/yr (1994),
75,000 to/yr (2002)
• Energy Project - 20 MW (1994), 50 MW
(2002)
• Urban Transit Rail - 8 km (1994), 20 km
(2002)
Implications of Thresholds for
Reviewable Project Regulations
• Vancouver Airport Light Rail Project
would not have been reviewed (less
than 20km)
• BC Energy Plan opened up hydro
development to private sector
– January 2009 – 145 water power licences
plus 621 applications (many at 49MW);
only 25 subject to BC EA process
Key Issues
•
•
•
•
Project Thresholds
Links to land use planning, strategic EA
Adequacy of public participation
Suitability of EA to meet Crown
consultation responsibilities
• Rigour of Process
Prosperity Gold/Copper Mine
Prosperity Mine
Prosperity Mine
• Proponent Taseko re-activated BC EA
process in 2002, federal process in 2006
• RAs: DFO, Transport Canada, NRCan
• DFO referred project to Environment
Minister for panel review in February 2007
• BC decided to proceed with provincial
review in June 2008 not joint panel review
• Environment Minister referred to federal
review panel in January 2009
Prosperity Mine
• EA processes conducted separately with
province approving project before federal
panel review completed
• BC approved mine; feds rejected mine on
recommendation of federal panel
• Why different findings and conclusions?
Comparison of BC and
Federal EA Processes
• Analysis by Northwest Institute July 2011
• BC EAO “only one significant adverse
effect” “limited to a discrete location” loss
of fish and fish habitat at Fish Lake/Little
Fish Lake
• BC ministers advised adverse effects
justified by “very significant employment
and economic benefits” and proponent’s
fish habitat compensation program
Comparison of BC and
Federal EA Processes
• Federal panel found eight additional
significant eight adverse effects: grizzly
bears, navigation ,local tourism, grazing,
First Nation’s trapline, First Nations’
traditional land use and cultural heritage,
Aboriginal rights, future generations.
• Proponent’s fish habitat compensation
program not viable, mitigation not
sufficient
Comparison of BC and
Federal EA Processes
• Why divergent outcomes?
• Process: BC “review and comment”
process vs. federal panel hearings
• Information: Federal panel had more
complete information (DFO, First Nations)
• Expertise: Federal panel members highly
qualified (chair with 27 years experience);
EAO four staff on working group
Comparison of BC and
Federal EA Processes
• Participant Funding – feds yes; BC no
• Significance Determination - EAO used
large geographic area as baseline; feds,
CEA Agency guidelines
• Mitigation: BC lacked clear mitigation and
compensation policies, deferred to future
planning efforts; feds “no net loss” fish
habitat policy
Comparison of BC and
Federal EA Processes
• Standards and Criteria: BC lacks
standards/criteria to guide decisionmaking comparable to Fisheries
Act/SARA
• Legislation: BC Environmental
Assessment largely procedural, lacked
many substantive aspects of CEAA
• Independence: Federal Panel
independent unlike EAO Working Group
Comparison of BC and
Federal EA Processes
• Federal panel found eight additional
significant eight adverse effects: grizzly
bears, navigation,local tourism, grazing,
First Nation’s trapline, First Nations’
traditional land use and cultural heritage,
Aboriginal rights, and future generations.
• Proponent’s fish habitat compensation
program not viable, mitigation not
adequateWhat accounts for such
divergent outcomes? This report reviews
Report of BC Auditor General on
BC EAO July 2011
• Focused on post-certification
• EAO’s oversight of certified projects not
sufficient to ensure that potential
significant effects are avoided/mitigated
• EAO not ensuring that:
– certificate commitments are measureable,
enforceable
– monitoring responsibilities are clearly defined
– compliance and enforcement actions are
effective
Report of BC Auditor General on
BC EAO
• EAO not evaluating effectiveness of
environmental assessment mitigation
measures to ensure projects are achieving
desired outcomes
• EAO not making appropriate monitoring,
compliance and outcome information
available to public to ensure accountability
Download
Related flashcards

Political science

34 cards

Types of organization

17 cards

Liberalism

46 cards

Liberal parties

74 cards

Types of organization

26 cards

Create Flashcards