Steps in Preparing the Paper

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.      Introduce Topic 

a.      Introduce the environmental assessment process (EIA, REA, SEA) and legal framework

b.      Introduce the regional context

c.      Introduce study objectives and area of concentration

2.      Introduce Methodology 

a.      Literature review on topic, including case studies aboard and Canada

b.      Interview procedure and questions

c.      Explain the methodology used for this study

d.      Comparative analysis and gap analysis

e.      How solutions were determined

f.       Identify study limitations

3.       Identify the major environmental issues facing the NWT with focus on the Beaufort Sea and Mackenzie Delta 

4.      Identify and analyze the environmental impact assessment process within the Northwest Territories

a.      Identify the common deficiencies of the process from literature review

5.      Discuss and analyze legislative issues and key aspects of legislation for consideration in the environmental assessment process

6.      Discuss and analyze the role and responsibility of Authorities

7.      Synthesize interview responses supporting with literature reviewed

8.      Conduct comparative analysis (in a table format, cross listing findings)

a.      By comparing methods for screening, reviewing and authorizing by responsible authority

b.      By comparing how responsibility is delegated

c.      By comparing coordination and collaborating

d.      By comparing their perceptions on the process

e.      By comparing their perception of cumulative effect assessment

9.      Synthesis findings

a.      What are the significant missing links, loopholes, deficiencies which are gaps in environmental protection

b.      Identify how are the role and responsibilities limited through EIA process

                                                i.     How does REA and SEA make up for these limitations

10.    Summarize Results

a.      Establish solutions and recommendations on the subject matter for government agencies, boards and authorities

11.    Provide brief summary and concluding remarks

 HYPOTHESIS:

1) The screening, review, and authorization of an EIA is not harmonized.  Each department will have their methods as guided by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.  However the perception from one department to another varies

2) Responsible Authorities are not fully aware of their power.  Therefore their roles and responsibilities are not clear – as with the case in cumulative effects assessment. If Responsible Authorities are aware, then capacity and lack of guidance is the issue

3) Coordination between government, agencies, boards need to be strengthen

4) REA and SEA are a solution to addressing the problems.

-        REA and SEA will give guidance, prevent duplication, provide clear objective, targets and goals to be followed, identify what is not acceptable in terms of environmental effect and cumulative effect assessment. 

-        However both need to implemented into the context of law as 1) integrity of EA is not enough and REA cannot be enforced

5) To be effective all three: EIA, REA and SEA need to be in place.  Canadian law is based on hierarchy therefore that needs to occur in EA:

SEA:  One could argue that SEA should be developed at each level of government: -à Municipal à Regional à Provincial/ Territorialà Federal.  SEA needs to address environmental objectives, target and goals that trickle down to both REA and EIA.  In addition to assessing effects (environmental, social, economic) and applying mitigation strategies. 

REA: Has to set regional environmental objectives, targets and goals relevant to the activities (past, present and future) in addition to regional needs.  This way all project in a given area are adhering to the REA. In addition to assessing effects (environmental, social, economic) and applying mitigation strategies.  Cumulative effects assessment

EIA à To assure proponents are developing projects in an environmental friendly manner (pre, post and during construction phase) and mitigating environmental effects.  An EIA should be responsible for linking their environmental impacts with other activities in the area and matching it against REA and SEA objective, targets and goals. 

SEA, REA, and EIA are both planning and decision-making tools.  All need to plan for the future and all need to make decisions with regards to what is acceptable to their objectives, targets and goals.

Lets take the hazardous waste issue:

· “Majority of the 92% of hazardous waste spills come from oil-gas extraction and mine tailing, spills have rapidly increased since 2000.” This has been identified by the NWT state of environment report, which is at the strategic level.  To ensure the NWT is in compliance with CEPA, an objective in its SEA would be to reduce, mitigate and manage hazardous spills.   REA would address the issue specific to their needs ex. are the projects in the region mostly oil and gas? Mining? Mixed?  The REA would identify specific to the region their objectives, targets and goals.   EIA’s adhere to REA even if hazardous spills are not foreseeable or even listed as an environmental impact.  

o       The conclusion is that individual EIAs cannot predict the impacts of collective activities