Towards increasing the utility of follow-up in Canadian EIA

The importance of follow-up in the EIA process is clearly recognized in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (Act) in which, where it is considered appropriate, the responsible authority for a project will design a follow-up program and ensure its implementation. The Act is also explicit in recommending that the results of follow-up programs be used to improve the quality of environmental assessments (EAs). The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the specific requirements for follow-up under the Act in fact provide the best opportunity for such quality improvements. The definition of follow-up under the Act requires the verification of the accuracy of the environmental assessment and determination of the effectiveness of measures taken to mitigate the adverse environmental effects of a project. We argue that the Act, generally, and the requirements for follow-up specifically, adopts a negative perspective towards project effects by focusing on the mitigation of adverse effects and discourages the follow-up of important social or economic effects which are independent of project-related changes to the biophysical environment. Secondly, we argue that verification of accuracy places an unwarranted emphasis on ‘what was expected’ rather than on ‘what was wanted’ in terms of environmental outcomes. Using examples from Canadian experience, we illustrate the limitations of the current approach to follow-up and suggest that greater utility would be achieved by focusing on whether the environmental objectives of the project in question have been achieved.