Improving the practice of cumulative effects assessment in Canada

This paper presents the findings of a critical evaluation of 12 Canadian cumulative effects assessment (CEA) documents, and offers responsive interpretation and recommendations. The evaluation focused on environmental impact assessment (EIA) documents for which CEAs have been required. A variety of types of document have been reviewed — different jurisdictions (both provincial and federal), different types of project, and different levels of EIA (comprehensive studies and major panel reviews). Findings show that: CEA is inadequately distinguished from EIA; scoping is inadequate; and cumulative effects analysis and follow-up are weak. Based on the results of the evaluation, four actions are recommended to improve the professional practice of CEA: include CEA considerations in terms of reference; use context scoping; use more follow-up studies; and link project and regional CEA.