Perspectives on Driving Changes in Project-based Cumulative Effects Assessment for Biodiversity: Lessons from the Canadian Experience

Abstract

Cumulative effects assessment (CEA), as a required practice for the environmental assessment (EA) of projects in many countries, faces several practical challenges, especially related to biodiversity. Drawing on the perspectives and experiences of Canadian EA practitioners, this paper explores options or drivers of change for improving project-based assessment to better tackle cumulative effects on biodiversity. An on-line survey was conducted with 40 professionals from the private sector, government departments/agencies, universities, and non-governmental organizations, examining the current challenges and opportunities regarding: CEA process for biodiversity; responsibilities for undertaking CEA tasks; resources to support and promote good CEA practice. In terms of process, there is shared understanding on: (i) the need of EA terms of reference to provide specific directions on CEA; (ii) CEA should capture both human and natural drivers of cumulative change; (iii) spatial boundaries for CEA should be based on ecological boundaries. There are dissenting views about: (i) whether CEA should consider all valued components (VCs) potentially affected by a project or only those for which residual effects are predicted; and (ii) delimitation of future temporal limits. In terms of responsibilities, participants agreed that project proponents should retain a central role in conducting CEA, but government agencies should lead the collection/provision of information about other projects in the study area and baseline VC conditions. Information and knowledge management resources could be also applied in the context of governmental agencies and consultancy firms to support CEA for biodiversity.

Extirpation despite regulation? Environmental assessment and caribou

“…That is, there is a widespread failure to meaningfully consider cumulative effects. As Sinclair et al (, p. 192) conclude, “at a time when incisive assessment of cumulative effects is desperately needed to arrest the ongoing decline of … ecosystems at large, CEA practice is woefully deficient or simply absent from contemporary decision‐making on economic development.” Other research concludes that cumulative effects on biodiversity are poorly addressed in Canada (Dibo, Noble, & Sánchez, , p. 930) and elsewhere (Bigard, Pioch, & Thompson, ; Khera & Kumar, ; Mandelik, Dayan, & Feitelson, ). This study finds that even threatened, charismatic species like caribou are no exception.…”

Same Space, Different Standards: A Review of Cumulative Effects Assessment Practice for Marine Mammals

“…To accompany and support a more standardised approach across industries, the development of a systematic database used as a source and archive for CEA associated guidance, data, evidence and good practice would be highly beneficial (Clarke Murray et al, 2014;Foley et al, 2017;Dibo et al, 2018;Durning and Broderick, 2019;Hodgson et al, 2019;Caine, 2020). This would provide a standard platform of activities and their associated effects to be recorded, and when required, incorporated within baseline characterisations and CEAs, encouraging a more collaborative overall 'CEA mindset' (Sinclair et al, 2017;Gușatu et al, 2021).…”

“…This would likely be more cost effective than the current disjointed approach, where data are not readily shared due to being commercially sensitive and expensive to collect (Connelly, 2011). Further, sharing of data with subsequent dissemination of long-term pre-, duringand post-construction monitoring data would allow industries to learn from past developments and improve the collective knowledge of the true cumulative effects and consequent impacts of consented projects (Masden et al, 2010;Hawkins et al, 2017;Dibo et al, 2018;Caine, 2020).…”

Rendering Technical, Rendering Sacred: The Politics of Hydroelectric Development on British Columbia’s Saaghii Naachii/Peace River

“…Procedural fragmentation and governance gaps-typical of environmental governance in Canada (Bakker and Cook 2011;Harrison 1996;Hill et al 2008)-have led to systemic failures to assess the impact of multiple resource development projects on Indigenous territories. This issue is repeatedly observed in the international literature and has led to calls for reconceiving environmental impact assessment (e.g., Dibo et al 2018;Larsen 2018;Larsen et al 2017;Noble 2015;Sinclair et al 2018).…”