This paper provides a comparative review of environmental impact assessment (EIA) processes in two Canadian provinces: British Columbia and Alberta. Beginning with an overview of EIA principles and purposes, the paper details British Columbia's eight-stage EIA process — from Early Engagement through Post-Certificate Compliance — and Alberta's four-step process, before examining the similarities and differences between the two provincial frameworks. Key distinctions include the number of approving authorities, the specificity of regulatory guidance, and the treatment of Indigenous nations' participation rights. The paper concludes that while the two processes differ in administrative structure, they are more alike than different in practice.
This paper demonstrates effective comparative analysis by establishing a common evaluative framework — purpose, stages, stakeholder roles, and Indigenous participation — and applying it consistently to both provinces. This technique allows the author to draw meaningful conclusions about similarities and differences without privileging one jurisdiction over the other.
The paper opens with a brief introduction contextualizing the topic within global climate concerns, then provides a general EIA overview before moving into province-specific sections. Each provincial section is organized by procedural stage. The penultimate section synthesizes findings through direct comparison. A concise conclusion summarizes key takeaways. An appendix provides a reference table for side-by-side provincial data.
Today, climatologists warn that the adverse effects of global warming are threatening the future of humankind, and governments around the world have responded by implementing various mitigation strategies and environmental impact assessment processes (Mann et al., 2022). The purpose of this paper is to discuss environmental impact assessment (EIA) processes and how they differ depending on the Canadian jurisdiction. To this end, an overview of EIA processes as well as the provincial EIA processes used in British Columbia and Alberta are compared and contrasted, followed by a discussion of their respective similarities and differences. Finally, the paper provides a summary of the key findings that emerged from the research.
Regardless of the jurisdiction, the systematic, step-wise EIA process is essentially the same. Generally, a proposed project triggers an EIA review through some type of mechanism — such as a new mining operation with potential environmental implications — after which relevant government agencies collect information about the proposed project and provide primary stakeholders with the opportunity to have their views and concerns heard. This is followed by an assessment of any environmental impacts the project may cause, a final approval phase, and a follow-up phase in which compliance with regulatory guidance is monitored. Although the specifics may vary and additional steps may be included, the foregoing describes the basic EIA process.
The purpose of an EIA is to provide a timely evaluation of the potential positive and negative impacts — typically negative — that proposed development projects can have on the natural and human environments (Noble, 2013). In addition, the EIA process facilitates the identification of appropriate strategies that can be used to prevent or mitigate negative impacts of proposed projects prior to any final decisions being made and formal contractual commitments extended (Noble, 2013). Some of the types of projects that require an EIA include an extension of an existing highway, the construction of a new mine, or the installation of a liquefied natural gas plant (Overview of impact assessment, 2022). Although they vary somewhat, the EIA processes used in British Columbia and Alberta are similar in nature, as discussed further below.
The EIA process in British Columbia is triggered when the Reviewable Projects Regulation (RPR) identifies proposed projects that have the potential for causing significant harmful effects. In addition, the RPR establishes criteria to determine those instances where a proposed project requires an environmental assessment (Environmental Assessment Process, 2022). The British Columbia EIA process is comprised of eight discrete stages, described below.
The first stage begins the EIA regulatory process in coordination with British Columbia's Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) and serves two purposes: (1) providing all participants with the opportunity to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the various aspects of the proposed project, and (2) establishing the foundation needed for the remaining stages of the EIA process to proceed. In this regard, the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office reports that "Early Engagement is an important preparatory phase where meaningful conversations among participants begin about the proposed project to identify engagement approaches, potential interests, issues, and concerns early in the EA process and chart a path for resolution" (Environmental Assessment Process, 2022, para. 4). In addition, the Environmental Assessment Office closely coordinates with members of Indigenous Canadian nations who wish to participate in the EIA process in order to develop consensus-seeking strategies early in the application process.
The second stage builds on the foundation established in the first stage, and a decision is made during this stage concerning the viability of moving forward with the proposed project. Although the Early Engagement stage generally provides project participants with sufficient information to confirm their readiness to initiate an environmental assessment, this stage also provides participants with the opportunity to have any final questions answered and any unresolved issues tabled for future resolution. In some cases, a proposed project may receive an exemption from the environmental assessment process altogether, or it may be terminated during this stage. This stage also allows any participating Indigenous nations representatives the opportunity to provide their consent — or, conversely, their lack of consent — for the proposed project in cases where an exemption to the environmental assessment process is granted.
During the third stage, plans are finalized concerning the manner in which the environmental assessment will be conducted, including: (1) identifying the required information; (2) defining who does what, when, and how; and (3) determining how participants will collaborate for the remainder of the environmental assessment as well as future engagement approaches. All process orders are specifically tailored to the proposed projects and build on the foundation developed during the preceding stages to establish the scope, procedures, and methods that will be used for the environmental assessment.
This stage is used to fully develop the application for an environmental assessment certificate in coordination with any Indigenous nations participating in the proposed project as well as other participants. This is an important stage in the EIA process, since the feedback received can serve to identify potential problem areas that might arise later and introduce delays. The Environmental Assessment Office, the Technical Advisory Committee, participating Indigenous nations, and the Community Advisory Committee review the draft application for an environmental assessment certificate, and any recommendations for changes to the final version are communicated to the requesting entity.
Everything starts to come together during this stage of the environmental assessment process with the drafting of an assessment report and conditional certificate. This is based on previous coordination and collaboration with the Technical Advisory Committee, the Community Advisory Committee, and representatives from any participating Indigenous nations, who indicate their consent or lack thereof along with any rationale supporting that decision. Prior to its submission for final approval, the public is afforded an opportunity to comment on the draft assessment report. Any conditions of the proposed project that must be complied with during its pendency — in the event a certificate is approved and issued — are also formalized during this stage.
Following the submission of the referral package from the Environmental Assessment Office to the appropriate British Columbia ministers, the assessment report, any recommendations from the chief executive assessment officer, and any other issues relevant to the public interest are considered during this penultimate stage of the environmental assessment process. In those cases where the recommendations provided to the chief executive assessment officer are inconsistent with the notice of consent or lack of consent received from participating Indigenous nations, those nations must be provided with the opportunity for a meeting to reconcile these differences. At this stage, ministers may elect to either approve or disapprove the issuance of a certificate but must support their decision by publishing a supporting rationale. Likewise, any deviations from the consensual feedback received from Indigenous nations must also be published.
Finally, in the event an environmental assessment certificate is granted, activities during this stage include the compilation and publication of reports concerning the effectiveness of any mitigation efforts undertaken, as well as any relevant amendments to the certificate, extensions of deadlines, transfers of responsibilities, and audits. In British Columbia, the Environmental Assessment Office's Compliance and Enforcement branch is tasked with conducting regular inspections of the ongoing project to verify compliance with all mandated regulations. In those instances where violations are identified, enforcement proceedings may be implemented to ensure that the project is successfully designed, constructed, administered, and subsequently decommissioned or reclaimed pursuant to relevant national or provincial laws (Environmental Assessment Process, 2022).
The research was consistent in showing that as the second-largest country in the world, Canada has a great deal of environment to protect, and environmental impact assessments are the main strategy currently in use. The EIA process varies somewhat by jurisdiction, but the research also consistently demonstrated that the EIA process in British Columbia and Alberta is similar, with a few notable differences. These differences were attributable in part to provincial administrative preferences and priorities, but both EIA processes were more similar than they were different. Finally, it is reasonable to conclude that the EIA process will remain an important part of Canada's environmental protection regime for the foreseeable future, given that many of the nation's extractive industries can cause severe environmental damage without ongoing oversight.
About Minerals. (2022). Government of Alberta. Retrieved from https://www.alberta.ca/about-minerals.aspx
Alberta's Environmental Assessment Process. (2015, December). Government of Alberta. Retrieved from https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/25654f70-8686-407b-b683-0a0521ba50d7/resource/2b4f7770-fd7a-499c-a81d-f0ac2fdee8c3/download/environmentalassessmentprocess-dec2015.pdf
Bharadwaj, L., & Goldstein, B. D. (2015). Shale gas development in Canada: what are the potential health effects? CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal, 187(3), E99–E100.
Energy and natural resources. (2022). Government of Alberta. Retrieved from
Environmental Assessment Process. (2022). Government of British Columbia. Retrieved from
Mann, A., Saxena, P., Almanei, M., Okorie, O., & Salonitis, K. (2022). Environmental impact assessment of different strategies for the remanufacturing of user electronics. Energies, 15(7), 2376–2379.
Natural resources in British Columbia. (2022). The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/natural-resources-in-british-columbia
Noble, B. (2015). Introduction to environmental impact assessment: A guide to principles and practice. Oxford.
Overview of impact assessment. (2022). Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/impact/whatis.shtml
Prno, J., Pickard, M., & Kaiyogana, J. (2021). Effective community engagement during the environmental assessment of a mining project in the Canadian Arctic. Environmental Management, 67(5), 1000–1015.
Province provides renewed focus, support for B.C. mining sector. (2022). Government of British Columbia. Retrieved from https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2020EMPR0004-000318
Similarities and Differences: British Columbia and Alberta's EIA Processes
Trigger Mechanism
British Columbia: The eight-stage regulatory process is triggered when the responsible governmental authority identifies proposed projects that may cause significant harmful effects to the environment, human health, the province's culture, or economy (Environmental Assessment Process, 2022).
Alberta: EIAs are triggered by a decision of the Environmental Assessment Director to proceed with an assessment for a submitted proposed project. Projects involving industrial activities are regulated by Alberta Environment and Parks, while energy-related projects — specifically upstream oil and gas, oil sands, and coal projects — are regulated separately.
Indigenous Nation Provisions
British Columbia: Indigenous nations are provided with the opportunity to voice their views and concerns during the initial stages of the EIA process as well as throughout, prior to final approval of a proposed project.
Alberta: Indigenous nations are provided with the opportunity to approve the proposed project before the process can continue (the province also refers to "Indigenous nations" as "First Nations").
Natural Resources
British Columbia: Forests (including some protected old-growth Western Red Cedars), agricultural land, fish, minerals, natural gas, and hydroelectricity (Natural resources in British Columbia, 2022). More than 30,000 people are employed in mineral exploration, mining, and related sectors in this province (Province provides renewed focus, support for B.C. mining sector, 2022).
Alberta: Oil sands, oil, natural gas, coal, minerals, electricity, and renewable energy (Energy and natural resources, 2022). The mining industry in Alberta (excluding oil and gas) includes salt, limestone, sand, gravel, sandstone and other building stone, iron and magnetite, gold, and diamonds (About minerals, 2022). Although there are currently no underground mines in Alberta, there are four major quarries.
Public and Private Sector
British Columbia: All proposed public and private sector projects that fall within the scope of the trigger mechanisms described above.
Alberta: All proposed public and private sector projects that fall within the scope of the trigger mechanisms described above.
Population
British Columbia: 5.071 million
Alberta: 4.371 million
Size
British Columbia: 364,764 mi²
Alberta: 255,541 mi²
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.