Comparative practice - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 323

“Replacement class screenings” apply to projects for which no location- or project-
specific information is needed.
A small number of projects will require a fuller “comprehensive study”. These are
listed in the Comprehensive Study List Regulations and include, for instance, nuclear
power plants, large oil and gas developments and industrial plants.
If a screening requires further review, it is referred to a mediator or review panel.
Similarly, early in a comprehensive study, the Minister of the Environment must decide
whether the project should continue to be assessed as a comprehensive study, or whether
it should be referred to a mediator or review panel. Projects are normally referred to a
mediator or review panel—essentially changing them from self-assessment by the
responsible agency to independent, outside assessment—where the significance of their
impacts is uncertain, where the project is likely to cause significant adverse
environmental effects and there is uncertainty about whether these are justified, or where
public concern warrants it (CEAA 2003).
The mediation option, new since 1995, is a voluntary process in which an independent
mediator appointed by the Minister helps the interested parties to resolve their issues
through a non-adversarial, collaborative approach to problem-solving. A review panel is
a group of experts approved by the Minister of the Environment which reviews and
assesses a project with likely adverse environmental impacts. Any project requiring
comprehensive study, mediation or a review panel must consider alternative means of
carrying out the project, the project's purpose and its effects on the sustainability of
renewable resources; and must include a follow-up programme. The responsible authority
must take the results of the comprehensive study, or the mediator's or review panel's
recommendations into account when making a decision on the project (CEAA 2003).
Public comments must be considered at various stages of the EIA process, though it is
more restricted for screenings. A participant-funding programme allows stakeholders to
participate in comprehensive studies, panel reviews and mediation. A specific
consultation process for Aboriginal people was established by Bill C-9 (Sinclair &
Fitzpatrick 2002).
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency publishes many of its reports on the
Web. Between 1995 and 1999, more than 25,000 federal EIAs had been carried out: 99
per cent were screenings, but 62 comprehensive studies (37 completed) and 11 panel
reports (9 completed) had also been carried out (Gibson 2002).
Most of Canada's provinces have quite widely varying EIA regulations for projects
under their own jurisdictions. These include Ontario's EA Act of 1976, very advanced at
the time, but subsequently weakened in 1997; and Manitoba's sustainable development
code of practice of 2001 which requires public officials to promote consideration of
sustainability impacts in EIA. In early 1998, federal and provincial environment ministers
signed an accord on EIA harmonization which promotes cooperative use of existing
processes to reduce duplication and inefficiency (Gibson 2002).
10.9 Australia and Western Australia
Like Canada, Australia also has a federal (Commonwealth) system with powerful
individual states. Its environmental policies, including those on EIA, have some