Failed environmental assessment process leaves backcountry at risk
A recent report by the Auditor General of British Columbia has confirmed what many in the area have already suspected: the Environmental Assessment Office’s (EAO) ability to protect environmental values has been proven to be sub-standard, says Columbia River – Revelstoke MLA Norm Macdonald.
The July 4 report entitled An Audit of the Environmental Assessment Office’s Oversight of Certified Projects concluded the following:
The EAO’s oversight of certified projects is not sufficient to ensure that potential significant adverse effects are avoided or mitigated.
Specifically, the EAO is not ensuring that:
- Certificate commitments are measurable and enforceable;
- Monitoring responsibilities are clearly defined; and
- Compliance and enforcement actions are effective.
The EAO is not evaluating the effectiveness of environmental assessment mitigation measures to ensure that projects are achieving the desired outcomes.
The EAO is not making appropriate monitoring, compliance and outcome information available to the public to ensure accountability.
“We rely on the Environmental Assessment process to first make good decisions about what projects should go ahead, and then to ensure that all mitigation measures are followed,” Macdonald said in a statement released on Friday. “But it is clear that the EAO does not have the facility to actually make sure this happens.”
An environmental assessment certificate is a legal document that a proponent of a project must adhere to for the life of the project. The certificate includes conditions, which are common to every project, and commitments, which are specific and critical to reducing adverse project impacts.
Commitments are made by a proponent to avoid or mitigate potential significant adverse environmental, economic, social, heritage and health effects of a project.
The EAO is then responsible for monitoring certified projects throughout their life.
“The Auditor General has said that the EAO is failing in its responsibility to monitor current projects,” Macdonald said. “So projects are going ahead, sometimes against the wishes of the people in the area, and even the most basic requirements that are put in place are being ignored.
“In the case of so many of these projects, local people have little or no say about how the land will be used. We are asked to just trust the government to make a decision and to trust the authorities to make sure that developers follow the rules. But not even that is happening.”
Macdonald has been an outspoken advocate for improvements to the democratic process that would ensure that local people have the largest say in land-use decisions. Local contentious projects include Jumbo Glacier Resort and the Beaver River private power project.
“People in this area are passionate about finding the best use for our backcountry. We deserve to have a process that includes and respects local knowledge and opinions. And we have to have confidence that the Environmental Assessment actually works.”
Click here to read the report.
I and so many others find MacDonald’s conclusions to different topics to be frightingly wrong.
He, in his infinite wisdom has missed the whole purpose of what the auditor general has stated – to whit, that the EAO has not done an adequate job of: see below as stated above in the article -
■Certificate commitments are measurable and enforceable;
■Monitoring responsibilities are clearly defined; and
■Compliance and enforcement actions are effective
MacDonald wants to imply so many other things that the Auditor General did NOT say or even imply, that MacDonald is now losing any credibility which he hoped to impart.
Why would Mr. MacDonald do such a thing ? It certainly is not to make the EAO better.
It certainly is not to be honest as shown in his remarks above.
It certainly is not to be accurate as shown again above.
The entire effort and purpose of the EAO, is to get input from the public. That is EXACTLY what one purpose of the EAO is all about. It has absolutely nothing, repeat nothing to do with democracy. It has every thing to do with input from the public on, get this, environmental issues. Environmental issues Norm. Read the by line pls.
Not democracy, not how a particular project fits into the Columbia River Treaty, not whether some thing is private or government run, but the Environment Norm. Again, read the name tags.
So since Norm does not seem to be able to read and understand, and Norm does not seem to know what the EAO is meant to address, and Norm does not know what the Auditor General has been critizing, ( the AG got it right by the way ), it’s just that Norm does not know what he is talking about – again.
So. . . . . what do you know Norm??
You don’t apparently know how to attract jobs to our economy – nothing is happening on that front.
You don’t know how to analyse the AG’s report – see comments in the article above.
You don’t know how to make governance better for communities – nothing happening there.
You don’t know how to improve the road systems in the Kooteny’s – nothing happening there.
So . . . what’s happen’in Norm?