Provisions for more meaningful public participation still elusive in proposed Canadian EA Bill

Sinclair, A. John; Fitzpatrick, Patricia

doi:10.3152/147154602781766636

Cited by 18 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Key themes identified in the 2000 public consultation were improvement in public participation, Aboriginal involvement, and access to information. The latter included the use of "new technology", a centralized registry, and all material related to EA (Sinclair and Fitzpatrick 2002). When comparing recent efforts to engage Canadians on EA reform (i.e., in 2016) as opposed to earlier (i.e., 2000), it is possible that (1) interested Proportion by Sector Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, we evaluated more than twice as many unique written submissions than the exercise conducted by Sinclair and Fitzpatrick (2002): 26% classified as industry, 25% as environmental NGO, 23% as NGO, 13% as public, 21% as Aboriginal, 11% as academic, 4% as consultants, and 3% as government. Key themes identified in the 2000 public consultation were improvement in public participation, Aboriginal involvement, and access to information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We repeat, in part, the exercise of Sinclair and Fitzpatrick (2002), which focused on general aspects of EA review such as consultation and regulatory oversight. Here, we focus on support for science in federal EA rather than consultation processes, in part because of previously identified concerns over scientific rigour in the current EA processes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 1999, a legislatively-mandated five-year review of CEAA 1995 was launched alongside a discussion paper to establish context (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 1999). At this time, Sinclair and Fitzpatrick (2002) qualitatively evaluated public input received during the review and Jacob et al…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Cross-sectoral input for the potential role of science in Canada’s environmental assessment

Jacob

Moore

Fox

et al. 2018

FACETS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since being elected in 2015, Canada's federal Liberal government has taken steps to overhaul major environment-related laws and policies, including federal environmental assessment (EA) and regulatory processes. During 2016-2017, a government-appointed panel toured Canada and received >1000 suggestions from diverse sectors of society regarding EA reform. Yet, different sectors of society may have different views concerning scientific components of EA. We analyzed written submissions during public consultation (categorized into five sectors) regarding five key scientific components of EA: (1) openly sharing information, (2) evaluating cumulative effects, (3) scientific rigour, (4) transparency in decision-making, and (5) independence between regulators and proponents. On the whole, submissions from Indigenous groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals/academics supported strengthening all five components. In contrast, most contributions from industry/industry associations, and, to a lesser extent, government bodies or agencies, suggested that there was no need for increased scientific rigour or increased independence. These findings indicate that there is cross-sectoral support for strengthening some scientific aspects of EA. However, the degree to which the Government of Canada strengthens the scientific rigour and independence of EA will indicate whether environmental decision-making in Canada is aligned with preferences from industry or the rest of Canada.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cross-sectoral input for the potential role of science in Canada’s environmental assessment

Jacob

Moore

Fox

et al. 2018

FACETS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally and in relation to our fourth challenge of communication and participation, the need to improve public participation in EA has been a key concern for years (e.g., Petts, 1999;O'Faircheallaigh 2010, Esteves et al, 2012Rega and Baldizzone, 2015) with some attempts at offering remedies (e.g., Renn et al, 1993;Sinclair and Fitzpatrick, 2002). In the context of power shifts and technological innovation in particular (two of the megatrends), we can anticipate increasing emphasis on the need for good public participation (e.g., Sinclair et al, 2009;Partidario and Sheate, 2013).…”

Section: Implications Of Key Global Megatrends For Ea Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Global megatrends and their implications for environmental assessment practice

Retief

Bond

Pope

et al. 2016

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A game theory perspective on environmental assessment: What games are played and what does this tell us about decision making rationality and legitimacy?

Bond

Pope

Morrison‐Saunders

et al. 2016

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Game theory provides a useful theoretical framework to examine the decision process operating in the context of environmental assessment, and to examine the rationality and legitimacy of decision-making subject to Environmental Assessment (EA). The research uses a case study of the Environmental Impact Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal processes undertaken in England. To these are applied an analytical framework, based on the concept of decision windows to identify the decisions to be assessed. The conditions for legitimacy are defined, based on game theory, in relation to the timing of decision information, the behaviour type (competitive, reciprocal, equity) exhibited by the decision maker, and the level of public engagement; as, together, these control the type of rationality which can be brought to bear on the decision. Instrumental rationality is based on self-interest of individuals, whereas deliberative rationality seeks broader consensus and is more likely to underpin legitimate decisions. The results indicate that the Sustainability Appraisal process, conducted at plan level, is better than EIA, conducted at project level, but still fails to provide conditions that facilitate legitimacy. Game theory also suggests that Sustainability Appraisal is likely to deliver 'least worst' outcomes rather than best outcomes when the goals of the assessment process are considered; this may explain the propensity of such 'least worst' decisions in practice. On the basis of what can be learned from applying this game theory perspective, it is suggested that environmental assessment processes need to be redesigned and better integrated into decision making in order to guarantee the legitimacy of the decisions made.

show abstract

Provisions for more meaningful public participation still elusive in proposed Canadian EA Bill

Cited by 18 publications

References 5 publications

Cross-sectoral input for the potential role of science in Canada’s environmental assessment

Cross-sectoral input for the potential role of science in Canada’s environmental assessment

Global megatrends and their implications for environmental assessment practice

A game theory perspective on environmental assessment: What games are played and what does this tell us about decision making rationality and legitimacy?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About