Comparative practice - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 322

The Dutch EIA Commission also promotes good EIA and SEA practice
internationally, both by funding international studies on EIA and by publishing many of
its documents (in English as well as Dutch) on its website.
10.8 Canada
Canada has also set up a powerful and evolving system of environmental legislation, but
under conditions different from those in the Netherlands. Its wealth of natural resources,
which were originally plundered indiscriminately by the giant “trusts” in coal, steel, oil
and railroads; its lack of strong planning and land-use legislation; and the conflicting
needs of its powerful provincial governments all prompted the development of a
mechanism by which widespread environmental harm could be prevented. Canada's EIA
system is characterized by a split between national and provincial procedures; quite
complex routeing of different types of projects through different types of EIA processes
and innovative approaches to mediation and public participation in EIA.
The responsibility for EIA in Canada is shared between the federal and the provincial
governments. The federal procedures apply to projects for which the Government of
Canada has decision-making authority. Early federal EIA guidelines (FEARO 1977) were
progressively strengthened throughout the 1970s and 1980s, and made legally binding in
1989. However concern over the limitations of this “Environmental Assessment and
Review Process” caused it, in turn, to be replaced in 1995 by the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. This was further strengthened by Bill C-9, which came
into force on 30 October 2003. SEA of policy has been required since 1993, and SEA
requirements were strengthened in 1999. Gibson (2002) gives a useful review of the
development of Canada's federal EIA system upto 2002.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) administers the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. An initial self-assessment by the responsible agency
proposing the action determines whether the action requires EIA under the Act, i.e.
whether it
• is a “project” as defined by the Act;
• is not excluded by the Act's Exclusion List regulation;
• involves a federal authority; and
• triggers the need for an EIA under the Act.
The Exclusion List Regulation identifies projects for which EIAs are not required
because their adverse environmental effects are not regarded as significant (e.g. simple
renovation projects).
Once an EIA is determined to be required, a decision is made as to which of four EIA
tracks to follow: screening, comprehensive study, mediation or review panel. Most
projects require a “screening” involving documentation of the project's environmental
effects and recommended mitigation measures. “Class screening” may be used to assess
projects with known effects that can easily be mitigated. “Model class screenings”
provide a generic assessment of all projects within a class: the responsible authority uses
a model report as a template, accounting for location- and project-specific information.