Jill A.E. Gunn

Strengthening impact assessment: a call for integration and focus

We suggest that the impact assessment community has lost its way based on our observation that impact assessment is under attack because of a perceived lack of efficiency. Specifically, we contend that the proliferation of different impact assessment types creates separate silos of expertise and feeds arguments for not only a lack of efficiency but also a lack of effectiveness of the process through excessive specialisation and a lack of interdisciplinary practice. We propose that the solution is a return to the basics of impact assessment with a call for increased integration around the goal of sustainable development and focus through better scoping. We rehearse and rebut counter arguments covering silo-based expertise, advocacy, democracy, sustainability understanding and communication. We call on the impact assessment community to rise to the challenge of increasing integration and focus, and to engage in the debate about the means of strengthening impact assessment.

Institutional considerations in watershed cumulative effects assessment and management

This paper examines the role of institutional arrangements as either facilitating or constraining the practice of watershed cumulative effects assessment and management (W-CEAM) within the context of the Grand River watershed (GRW), Canada. The research is based on document review, a focus group and 29 interviews conducted with academic experts, project proponents, government and watershed agencies representatives, non-governmental organization researchers, First Nations, and others with interest in the GRW. Information was gathered on existing policy and planning instruments, and relationships among the authorities and other partners that enable water resource management. Key facilitating factors for W-CEAM in the GRW include established institutions, a mature conservation authority and an ecological focus to resource management strategies, while constraining factors include obfuscation of leadership roles and lack of multi-scalar approaches to watershed science. We conclude that it is useful to conceptualize W-CEAM as characterized by both a managerial and a scientific ethos – the former facilitating the latter – and that institutional goodwill, political will and institutional capacity for innovation and creativity are additional institutional core requisites to W-CEAM.

Analysis of uncertainty consideration in environmental assessment: an empirical study of Canadian EA practice

Identifying and communicating uncertainty is core to effective environmental assessment (EA). This study evaluates the extent to which uncertainties are considered and addressed in Canadian EA practice. We reviewed the environmental protection plans, follow-up programs, and panel reports (where applicable) of 12 EAs between 1995 and 2012. The types of uncertainties and levels of disclosure varied greatly. When uncertainties were acknowledged, practitioners adopted five different approaches to address them. However, uncertainties were never discussed or addressed in depth. We found a lack of suitable terminology and consistency in how uncertainties are disclosed, reflecting the need for explicit guidance, and we present recommendations for improvement. Canadian Environmental Impact Statements are not as transparent with respect to uncertainties as they should be, and uncertainties in EA need to be better considered and communicated.

Selection of valued ecosystem components in cumulative effects assessment: lessons from Canadian road construction projects

Valued ecosystem component (VEC) selection is a core component of cumulative effects assessment (CEA) and gives direction to impact analysis, mitigation and monitoring. Yet little is known about CEA VEC selection practices. This paper examines 11 Canadian road infrastructure project CEAs completed between 1995 and 2011 to determine how VEC selection in CEA is performed, and whether these practices are sensitive to the linear project development context. Document review and semi-structured interviews reveal an absence of VEC selection guidance, late timing of cumulative effects considerations in impact assessment, lack of sensitivity in CEA VEC selection to the unique, linear nature of the road construction projects and a general lack of insightful, creative approaches to CEA VEC selection – ones that better reflect potential impacts to social and economic aspects of the environment – despite it being shown to be a values-driven, subjective process. There is a clear need for regional databases to support consistent CEA VEC selection processes, and the development of CEA-specific VEC selection guidance.

International perspectives on the strengthening of impact assessment through integration and focus

This paper consolidates international responses to the argument that there is a need to strengthen impact assessment (IA) through greater integration and focus. It is based on invited reflections by various international authors in the field of IA. The main conclusions are that power and context are important underlying reasons for the diversity of IA types; that in certain instances IA legislation works against achieving integration and focus; and that there is a pressing need to be able to measure and demonstrate added value and effectiveness in practice. The paper concludes by setting a research agenda reflecting the need to better understand why diversity exists in IA, what stakeholders expect from the process and how to improve practice based on greater understanding of what the various types of IA deliver.

Challenges to integrating planning and policy-making with environmental assessment on a regional scale – a multi-institutional perspective

Abstract Regional environmental assessment (EA) requires the participation of policy- and plan-making institutions to formulate, implement and monitor regional environmental management strategies. However, there is little understanding of what effective integration is in the context of regional EA and from the perspectives of planners and policy-makers involved. This paper seeks to explore how institutional actors perceive cross-domain integration vis-à-vis their own involvement in regional EAs. Thirty-eight participants from four regional EA initiatives in Canada shared their perspectives in an online survey. Three types of silo effects are identified: (1) institutional – intricately linked to factors such as coordination, goals and expectations, leadership and capacity; (2) disciplinary – characterized by limited communication and scepticism around data sharing; and (3) transactional – tendency of actors to emphasize individual narrow perspective rather than collective social and environmental outcomes. Additional findings reveal the importance of learning and multiple domain expertise as opportunities for enhancing cross-domain integration in regional EA practice. Finally, the study concludes that proactive consideration of potential silo effects is necessary for improved regional EA outcomes, and to facilitate more effective regional resource governance.

First steps toward best practice SEA in a developing nation: lessons from the central Namib uranium rush SEA

The intent of this study is to contribute to the discussion of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) best practice based on experience gained in a recent SEA initiative: the central Namib (Namibia) uranium rush SEA. We evaluate this SEA process against internationally established characteristics of ‘best practice’ SEA to improve and strengthen future practice in Namibia. The study draws primarily on the final assessment report as well as inputs from six informants involved in the assessment. The results reveal some elements of good practice as well as areas for improvement, and in particular, the need for improved baseline data collection; adequate consideration of alternatives; committing to preferred scenario/options; enforceability; and a more robust institutional capacity. We offer insight into how consideration of these factors may help to strengthen SEA practice in Namibia. Overall, the SEA may not represent a ‘best practice’ example according to international standards, but it does suggest a potentially bright future for SEA practice in Namibia.