How effective is the federal Impact Assessment Act (IAA) likely to be given the triggering process and coverage of projects under the IAA and its regulations? Do the triggering and coverage provisions facilitate its use in practice in addressing the climate change and biodiversity loss crises?
Ecovision’s Stephen Hazell examines these questions in a chapter entitled “Project Impact Assessments: Triggering and Coverage” published this summer in The Next Generation of Impact Assessment: A Critical Review of the Canadian Impact Assessment Act edited by Meinhard Doelle and John Sinclair.
His chapter examines several key angles of the process for determining which types of projects are subject to an impact assessment (called “triggering”), including what that triggering process is, how it differs from previous laws, what the key policies the government says it used in designating the types of projects subject to the IAA and the lack of transparency in applying these policies, and finally, whether or not the types of project subject to the IAA advance the purposes of the law.
In examining the triggering of projects, the chapter ultimately concludes that the Impact Assessment Act is unlikely to be effective in addressing climate change and biodiversity loss because of its narrow triggering mechanism and the consequently limited number of projects that fall under the purview of the IAA. For example, fewer coal mines and pipelines are required to be assessed than under previous laws.
While some elements of the IAA do improve on previous laws, its limited reach on projects, in practice, means that the IAA is not a step forward in terms of avoiding and mitigating climate and biodiversity impacts.
The Next Generation of Impact Assessment: A Critical Review of the Canadian Impact Assessment Act can be purchased through Irwin Law here.