Content uploaded by Alana Westwood
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alana Westwood on Oct 06, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
FACULTY OF SCIENCE | School for Resource and Environmental Studies
Kenneth C. Rowe Management Building, Suite 5010 | 6100 University Avenue | PO Box 15000 | Halifax NS B3H 4R2 Canada
902.494.3632 | FAX: 902.494.3728 | sres@dal.ca | dal.ca/sres
DAL.CA
Premier, Hon. Tim Houston premier@novascotia.ca
Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Hon. Tim Halman Minister.Environment@novascotia.ca
MLA Halifax Citadel-Sable Island, Lisa Lachance, lisalachancemla@gmail.com
Department of Environment and Climate Change, Environmental Assessment Engagement
EAmodernization@novascotia.ca
October 3, 2023
Re: Environmental Assessment (EA) Engagement for modernizing EA in Nova Scotia
Dear Honorable Premier Houston, Honourable Minister Halman, MLA Lachance, and the EA
Engagement Team,
Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on the Government of Nova Scotia’s commitment to
modernize the environmental assessment (EA) process as defined in the Environmental Goals and
Climate Change Reduction Act. Given that the last major update of existing regulations was in
2008, and we now have several years’ experience with the federal Impact Assessment Act (2019),
it is an opportune time to align Nova Scotia’s EA regulations with global and national best practice.
The lead authors and signatories represent academic, practitioner, and policy experts in EA and
aligned disciplines from Dalhousie University and the University of King’s College. We have past
experiences as practitioners in EA in government, industry, and consulting roles. The lead authors
are engaged directly in research on best practices for EA in the domains of cumulative effects,
diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), scientific integrity, and water resource management. We
also are grateful to the work of our late colleague Dr. Meinhard Doelle, a premier scholar at the
Schulich School of Law in EA law and policy.
In this letter, we make targeted recommendations for modernized EA regulations in Nova Scotia.
We provide comment on the areas identified for input by the Department of Environment and
Climate Chang: improving EA’s incorporation of cumulative effects, independent review,
Netukulimk (the Mi'kmaq concept of living sustainably on the land through respectful co-
habitation), DEI, and climate change. We also identify areas where the regulations could be
strengthened by upholding sufficient review timelines and processes, closing loopholes in the post-
assessment phase, and adopting best practices for transparency. At the conclusion of this letter,
we provide a concise list of priority recommendations for EA modernization in Nova Scotia.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative effects assessment considers the potential for multiple impacts of a project (or
projects) acting together at the broad spatial and temporal scales encompassing past, present, and
2
FACULTY OF SCIENCE | School for Resource and Environmental Studies
Kenneth C. Rowe Management Building, Suite 5010 | 6100 University Avenue | PO Box 15000 | Halifax NS B3H 4R2 Canada
902.494.3632 | FAX: 902.494.3728 | sres@dal.ca | dal.ca/sres
DAL.CA
future infrastructure development or land-use change. Cumulative effects impact both ecosystem
resilience and human health and well-being. This is of particular concern in Nova Scotia, a
province with one of the highest degrees of anthropogenic disturbance in Canada in terms of land
use alteration and rising developmental pressure relating to an increasing population. For example,
with current industrial focus on mobilization of ‘critical minerals’, mining claims are rapidly
increasing [1], with expanding development expected to follow, adding to existing stressors on
ecological and social well-being from other sectors.
In recent decades, many studies have noted that cumulative effects assessments at the scale of an
individual project underestimate impacts, are overly narrow in scope, and are overwhelmingly
ineffective [2]–[6]. Given the pervasive failure of project-level assessments to account for
cumulative effects, we foremost recommend the Province lead land and water use planning at the
scale of watersheds and/or ecodistricts [7]. While led by the provincial government, we
recommend this planning be collaborative with Indigenous communities and representative
organizations, municipalities, non-profits, federal departments and agencies, districts, and citizens.
Specific frameworks the Province can look to include the regional assessment framework under
IAA 2019 or joint land use plans between jurisdictions (e.g., Wóoshtin Yan TOO.AAT Land Use
Plan established between the Taku River Tlingit First Nation and the Province of British
Columbia). The intent should be to develop forward-looking planning processes that establish a
collaborative conservation and long-term development vision for the area to avoid the pitfalls of
single-project cumulative effect assessments [2], [8]. This approach is generally regarded as best
practice for active (vs more passive) regulatory approaches to environmental management that
enable adaptative management and encourage stakeholder participation before, during and after
projects are developed [9].
Watershed or ecoregion-level committees should identify specific areas where certain
developments pose risks that cannot be mitigated and are not in the public interest, and thus should
not be permitted. This will require collaboration at provincial level within departments; an example
is British Columbia’s Water Quality Objectives program, a collaboration of the province’s
Environmental Assessment Office and other provincial departments with active planning and
monitoring participation of Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities [10].
Finally, Terms of Reference, Impact Statement Guidelines, or similar documents should be
prepared to guide proponents for all project types and classes, including the screening phase of
Class I undertaking (for example, like the IAA 2019’s ‘Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines).
This will improve rigour and consistency of report information and give certainty for proponents
in terms of knowing what information they must provide and collect. These include cumulative
effects as a detailed prediction lens for every Valued Component [11] and not merely a short
section stapled to the back of an impact statement.
DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION
Worldwide, resource extraction is inextricably linked to ongoing forms of colonial and gendered
violence. This is often tied to the sudden influx of transient male workers who are often from class-
3
FACULTY OF SCIENCE | School for Resource and Environmental Studies
Kenneth C. Rowe Management Building, Suite 5010 | 6100 University Avenue | PO Box 15000 | Halifax NS B3H 4R2 Canada
902.494.3632 | FAX: 902.494.3728 | sres@dal.ca | dal.ca/sres
DAL.CA
oppressed backgrounds. Workers may be housed onsite or using local infrastructure (e.g., hotels)
that are colloquially referred to as “man camps” (given male workers make up a high proportion
of employees compared to female and/or intersex/transgender workers). Workers often lack social
ties to the local communities nearby, and therefore, lack social accountability to the point where
“man camps” are described as “deeply embroiled in ongoing forms of coloniality and are
intimately intertwined with gender-based violence that has long-existed with theft of Indigenous
lands and resources” ([12], P. 411).
Overall, the impacts of “man camps” are heightened in smaller, rural communities resulting in
strain on community services, increased crime, traffic, congestion, and accidents, and higher
reports of sexual violence, racial violence, and harassment. This has been a controversial issue in
Nova Scotia, with Mi’kmaw grandmothers opposing the construction of ‘man-camps’ associated
with proposed mines and liquid natural gas projects [13]–[15].
As the Province reforms EA regulations, the government is in a unique position to better consider
intersectional social impacts. We call on the province to review the 2019 update of the Impact
Assessment Act (IAA) to emphasize Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) which is “a […] process
used to assess how diverse groups of […] people of all genders may experience policies, programs,
and initiatives”[16]. GBA+ has been added to the legislation because of Indigenous women and
scholars, scientists, and activists who have highlighted the negative experiences of those who are
most excluded from impact assessment processes and who experience the most harm because of
resource extraction.
We encourage the Province to add a requirement for GBA+ assessment in updated EA regulations
as part of all new Impact Statement Guidelines or guidelines for project documentation. Such
inclusion can highlight the pathways of impact (ie., how present/historic extraction has caused
harm to diverse community groups) which can inform, support, and reduce ongoing violence and
harm associated with resource extraction. The updated EA reforms must emphasize stakeholder
accountability and develop specific tools and resources that ensure accountability. They should
focus on community-driven approaches to assessment for intersectional social impacts that
emphasizes relationship-building, accessibility, and community and place-based knowledge.
Moreover, we caution that this work should not be led by proponents and/or the government who
may have a vested interest in the outcome. Instead, we suggest that the Province ensure GBA+
assessments are conducted by local community workers, organizations, and/or other third-party
groups through adequate resources to engage in this work over project lifetimes. The Province
should also be adequately resourced with experts in qualitative and community-based methods for
impact assessment to be able to perform expert review on presented documents [17].
INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Under the Province’s current model for EA, project proponents directly hire individuals or
companies to collect and present social and environmental information regarding potential project
impacts (a model often referred to as professional reliance). This process lacks independence and
makes consultants vulnerable to the power their proponents wield (directly or indirectly), which
4
FACULTY OF SCIENCE | School for Resource and Environmental Studies
Kenneth C. Rowe Management Building, Suite 5010 | 6100 University Avenue | PO Box 15000 | Halifax NS B3H 4R2 Canada
902.494.3632 | FAX: 902.494.3728 | sres@dal.ca | dal.ca/sres
DAL.CA
has been identified as a serious weakness of the EA process [18], and led to documented corruption
and under-reporting of risks and predicted impacts [19], [20]. EA practitioners themselves have
expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of science and impact prediction in EA documents [21].
These pressures may be exacerbated in Nova Scotia where, unlike other provinces, most
practitioners are not protected by regulatory bodies that represent and advocate for their
professions (e.g., the A.P. Biol designation in Alberta).
Ideally, Project Documents would be prepared by an independent organization outside of the
contract of the proponent [3]. In Canada, there is a much public and expert support for assessments
to be conducted by independent bodies [22]–[24]. We recognize that undertaking this would
require a massive overhaul of both EA and business-related processes in the Province and is
unlikely to pursued. However, we have recommendations to support independence, transparency,
and public accountability under the current system. We draw attention also to the fact that Canada’s
Office of the Chief Science Advisor, in part responding to the scholarship cited above, has
developed evaluative tools for enabling federal departments (including the Impact Assessment
Agency of Canada) to assess the strength of science (natural, social and human) that informs
impact assessments; these are in process of implementation. We urge the Province, if it has not
already done so, to coordinate with OCSA in implementing robust standards of scientific evidence
in line with such initiatives.
At minimum, like the federal participant funding program, Nova Scotia should create a fund to
support public engagement and Indigenous consultation during all project EAs. Moreover,
Ministerial EA decision statements should be more comprehensive and written in plain language,
translated into Mi’kmaw and French, and must include a description of all relevant factors that
were used to rationalize project decisions. The EA Regulations (and ideally the Environment Act
itself) should be updated to add a ‘scientific integrity’ clause like that of the IAA 2019 (“The
Government of Canada, the Minister, the Agency and federal authorities must, in the
administration of this Act, exercise their powers in a manner that adheres to the principles of
scientific integrity, honesty, objectivity, thoroughness, and accuracy.” [25]).
Currently, the process by which Industrial Approval permits are obtained post-EA for many
approved projects is unclear. Therefore, a scientifically robust assessment framework should be
developed and published for industrial approvals that require opportunities for public and Mi’kmaq
engagement. Any major changes to an EA-approved project that increases the footprint, outputs,
and/or production timelines should require a subsequent EA.
Furthermore, to support accountability to the public, the online EA Registry for Nova Scotia, while
an appreciated start, needs improvement. All EAs (including those prior to the year 2000) should
be immediately added to the portal, and the portal should be updated to allow users to filter projects
by categories (e.g., project type, status, location, year of review, industry). All industrial approvals
for approved projects should be linked, and these documents should be provided in full as at
present, only the most recent Industrial Approval is available for most projects. Finally, an
‘opportunities for input’ tab for all active proposed projects should be available, with clear
comment deadlines. All submitted comments should be posted online and viewable by the public.
We recommend the Province use the Canadian Impact Assessment Registry as a model.
5
FACULTY OF SCIENCE | School for Resource and Environmental Studies
Kenneth C. Rowe Management Building, Suite 5010 | 6100 University Avenue | PO Box 15000 | Halifax NS B3H 4R2 Canada
902.494.3632 | FAX: 902.494.3728 | sres@dal.ca | dal.ca/sres
DAL.CA
NETUKULIMK
Netukulimk is “a complex cultural concept that encompasses Mi’kmaq sovereign law ways and
guides individual and collective beliefs and behaviours in resource protection, procurement, and
management to ensure and honour sustainability and prosperity for the ancestors, present and
future generations” ([26], P.1). Given ongoing impacts of settler colonialism through land and
resource theft, we call upon the Province to consider the Mi’kmaq as equal legal rights holders to
the land and rectify historic injustice including through adopting the United Nations Declaration
of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into law (as has been done by British Columbia).
Specific steps future EA processes can take include prioritizing Indigenous-led Impact Assessment
(ILEA). The Canadian federal government has created guidance for collaborating with Indigenous
peoples in Impact assessments, and the CEAR lab out of UBC has created an introductory
document on Indigenous-led Impact Assessments. “Indigenous-led Impact Assessment is a
process designed and conducted by Indigenous governing bodies (IGBs) for evaluating potential
land use impacts of a proposed development”[2] ([27], , P. 2). Guidance documents for ILIA that
are co-authored by Indigenous communities will offer the province a good resource, even if from
other jurisdictions [28]. Specifically, there have been numerous examples of Indigenous-led
Assessment with several Nations in so-called British Columbia including the Stk’emlu’psems to
Secwepemc Nation, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, the Ktunaxa Nation, and the Mikisew Cree First
Nation, and Indigenous guidance relevant to cumulative effects assessment is available for the
province to draw from, with specific input from the Confederacy of Mainland Mi’kmaq [29].
While we recommend that Nova Scotia prioritizes Indigenous-led Impact Assessment, we caution
that such work must undertake an intersectional approach. Historically, Indigenous consultations
have excluded Indigenous women from Environmental Impact assessments. In recent years,
proponents have used impact benefit agreements (IBAs) with Nations, which are developed to
benefit local Indigenous communities, but can often be used to favour proponents interests over
those of Indigenous communities [30]. IBAs are conducted with the Elected Chiefs and Band
Councils (e.g., Indigenous governing bodies) which happen behind closed doors. Such IBAs may
specify transfer funds or requirements for hiring Indigenous staff at worksites. However,
Indigenous women have failed to be effectively included in IBAs. This is exemplified given that
both on and off the job site they face continued harassment and discrimination including racial and
sexual violence.
Moreover, on worksites, hired Indigenous women face systemic inequities from a lack of support
in accessing affordable childcare while at work, as well as having low-paid, entry-level jobs with
few opportunities for advancement. This, combined with growing evidence linking resource
extraction to Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, Two-Spirit, and gender-diverse
persons in Canada, highlights some of the ongoing negative colonial impacts of resource
extraction. Thus, while ILIA is a step that can be taken to rightfully return power and land decisions
to Indigenous Communities, broad and intersectional community engagement is needed to ensure
all voices are heard.
6
FACULTY OF SCIENCE | School for Resource and Environmental Studies
Kenneth C. Rowe Management Building, Suite 5010 | 6100 University Avenue | PO Box 15000 | Halifax NS B3H 4R2 Canada
902.494.3632 | FAX: 902.494.3728 | sres@dal.ca | dal.ca/sres
DAL.CA
CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate change is currently impacting Nova Scotia, particularly through extreme weather events
and sea level rise, with expectations that the severity and frequency of these impacts will continue
to increase in the future. A mitigation and adaptation strategy for responding to climate change has
rightly been put forward by the Province [31], with recognition that decarbonization is necessary.
Relatedly, EA is perhaps the most critical decision-making tool for regulating projects that help
meet climate mitigation and adaptation objectives [32]. Rather than solely relying on biophysical
data and predictive modelling, the inherent complexity of climate change in EA requires synthesis
through of regional information and diverse forms of knowledge [33] at much larger spatial scales
(e.g., watersheds, landscape units) than a single project footprint.
In the meantime, climate change should be a mandatory component of all EAs, not left to
Ministerial discretion. Moreover, climate change requires an all-of-government approach, and
cannot be siloed in one department. The pillars of Nova Scotia’s ‘Climate Change Plan for Clean
Growth’ and how a project aligns with existing greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets should
be written in the Terms of Reference or Impact Statement Guidelines as factors to address in every
EA, similar to IAA 2019. Included within should be a quantitative estimate of the carbon storage
potential of natural sinks (e.g., forests, soils, grasslands) at the proposed project site, and if/how
the conversion of these sinks for other uses can be rationalized. Life cycle emissions analysis can
be an effective tool for proponents to consider, with inclusion of potential spillover effects (e.g.,
upstream or downstream emissions in another jurisdiction), when addressing climate change
impacts in EA.
Furthermore, climate change has the potential to trigger catastrophic events (e.g., oil spills, tailings
dam failures [34]) from development projects, so EAs should require comprehensive risk
mitigation and emergency response measures. Healthy wetlands, freshwater ecosystems, and
groundwater resources are essential to mitigate climate change but are also highly vulnerable to
impacts [35]. Where risks to upstream or downstream aquatic systems are present, EA should
require science-based avoidance, mitigation, and (as a last resort) offsetting measures that account
for potential impacts occurring outside of the immediate footprint of a project. Relatively
undisturbed lands and waters should not be considered for development projects until disturbed or
degraded areas are examined for feasibility first.
Climate change will continue to increase sea level rise, storm surges, and coastal erosion in Nova
Scotia. For coastal development, EAs should require and strengthen the coastal risk factor
assessment methodology introduced under the proposed regulations [36] attached to the Coastal
Protection Act (2019), which has not been implemented to date. Natural shorelines should be
maintained wherever possible. We recognize that scientifically robust incorporation of climate
change in project-by-project EAs is difficult, which highlights the importance of a regional
landscape and waterscape planning approach that can enable a cumulative effects lens, crucial also
to assessing where climate change can be considered with across all valued components both
individually and holistically in relation to social and ecological systems.
7
FACULTY OF SCIENCE | School for Resource and Environmental Studies
Kenneth C. Rowe Management Building, Suite 5010 | 6100 University Avenue | PO Box 15000 | Halifax NS B3H 4R2 Canada
902.494.3632 | FAX: 902.494.3728 | sres@dal.ca | dal.ca/sres
DAL.CA
UPHOLDING LEGAL EXISTING REQUIREMENTS
Whereas many EA regimes include multiple streams depending on the level of risk associated with
the proposed project or activity, it is necessary that all streams undergo a standard of assessment
sufficiently rigorous for regulators and the public to understand predicted impacts, trade-offs, and
the sustainability of the proposed enterprise [37].
At present, almost all EAs in Nova Scotia go through the Class 1 undertaking process and are
approved 50 days after registration. However, this process is insufficient for the estimation and
consideration of the adverse effects. As detailed procedurally in the Environment Act (S. 34 (1)),
the 50-day period after registration is meant as a screening step, the outcome of which can be
Additional Information Required, Undertaking Approved, Focus Report required, EA Report
required, or Undertaking Rejected. Given that the Minister is required in the Act to request more
information if there is a “likelihood that [the project] will cause adverse effects or environmental
effects that cannot be mitigated”, it is baffling that the most common outcome is approval after the
50 day period.
At present, under a Class 1 EA, technical, public, and Mi’kmaq review happen concurrently rather
than as an iterative process whereby issues raised by these groups are subsequently addressed by
proponents. Areas of significant concern about adverse effects are put as a term and condition
rather than being provided as information to support further Ministerial decision-making. When
approvals happen immediately after the 50-day screening, public and Mi’kmaw concerns are
never addressed by the proponent.
Ideally, the Environment Act would have S. 34-49 completely overhauled to align with the
standards and timelines of EA in other jurisdictions (such as that from the IAA 2019 with a
‘Regular’ process and a ‘Review Panel’ process for projects deemed higher risk). The public,
provincial and federal government, and Mi’kmaw peoples should have ample opportunity to
review documents through several EA phases (screening, impact statement phase, impact
assessment phase, decision-making phase, and post-decision phase), and then the Province would
issue ‘Information Requests’ through each phase whereby the proponent must answer questions or
pose solutions to issues raised during the review period.
Currently, the system is unfair to the public, experts, Mi’kmaw communities, and regulators who
have insufficient time and information to robustly review project documents, Moreover, it is also
unfair to the proponents as they cannot clarify or propose solutions to issues that arise prior to a
decision being taken. Finally, it creates unfair pressure on the Minister who is forced to make a
decision with incomplete information. Overall, this poses risks of legal jurisdictional challenges,
given that there is insufficient time or information to appropriately engage with federal
departments on cross-jurisdictional responsibilities (air emissions, fish and fish habitat, species at
risk, toxic substances, shipping and navigation, etc.). Furthermore, requests for additional
information (EA Regulations S. 13 (2)), are not decisions that should burden the Minister given
the already-extreme obligations on their time. Rather, there should be robust Impact Statement
Guidelines and consideration of public and Mi’kmaw comments, and, as in other jurisdictions, it
should be a standard part of provincial EA Officer’s work to request additional information.
8
FACULTY OF SCIENCE | School for Resource and Environmental Studies
Kenneth C. Rowe Management Building, Suite 5010 | 6100 University Avenue | PO Box 15000 | Halifax NS B3H 4R2 Canada
902.494.3632 | FAX: 902.494.3728 | sres@dal.ca | dal.ca/sres
DAL.CA
PRIORITIES FOR THE 2024 MODERNIZATION WINDOW
While we encourage all recommendations in this report to be pursued and completed over the next
three years, we recognize the need to prioritize those most immediate for implementation by May
2024. These include:
1. We believe that approval of most projects after the 50-day screening phase may be an
error. Based on our understanding of the law, whenever regulators, governments, experts,
and the Mi’kmaw identify concerns of adverse effects, the decision taken should be either
Additional Information, Focus Report, or EA Report. We recommend the Office of the
Auditor General of Nova Scotia should investigate the history of the decision process for
Class 1 EAs to ensure the law is being appropriately interpreted by the Department of
Environment and Climate Change and the Minister.
2. Mandating GBA+ as a lens through which to assess impacts must be a mandatory part of
all new assessments; further, consideration of a project’s impact on sex, gender, and their
intersection with other identities should be added to the factors for Ministerial decision-
making. This would be coupled with increasing the Province’s in-house expert capacity for
technical review of sections of project document related to GBA+ and social and economic
impacts more generally.
3. A commitment on the part of the Province to uphold scientific integrity in reviews should
be added, explicitly,, to the EA Regulations.
4. The online EA Registry should be overhauled to improve searchability, include all EA
reviews (including pre-2000), and to link to all Industrial Approval permits for approved
projects. Such transparency and completeness of record will also facilitate adaptative
management.
5. Make use of S. 47 of the Environment Act to support joint assessments between the
Province and Mi’kmaw communities.
6. Develop a participant funding program in which Mi’kmaw communities and the public can
apply for funds to support their participation in, and independent study of, EA processes
for proposed projects.
7. Initiate a province-wide process of collaborative regional land and water-use planning
between governments, Mi’kmaw Nations, and communities at the level of watersheds or
ecodistricts. Nova Scotia is blessed with deep resources in academia, communities and
ENGO sectors to assist the government in this effort.
8. Include cumulative effects as a lens for impact predictions for all Valued Components in
project documents, rather than additional section at the end of documentation.
9. Climate change should be a mandatory prediction component in all project documentation
(including EA Reports, Focus Studies, etc.) and projects should not be approved without
providing estimates of both climate change on the project and the project’s impact on
climate change.
Thank you for considering our recommendations. The lead authors have experience in writing and
advising on policy, would be happy to discuss these in detail, including approaches for
operationalization, with staff in the public service and relevant parties.
9
FACULTY OF SCIENCE | School for Resource and Environmental Studies
Kenneth C. Rowe Management Building, Suite 5010 | 6100 University Avenue | PO Box 15000 | Halifax NS B3H 4R2 Canada
902.494.3632 | FAX: 902.494.3728 | sres@dal.ca | dal.ca/sres
DAL.CA
Yours truly,
LEAD AUTHORS,
Alana R. Westwood, PhD
Assistant Professor, School for Resource
and Environmental Studies
a.westwood@dal.ca
Ali Mackellar B.A.Sc.
Student, Master’s of Environmental Studies
Program
Ian G. Stewart, PhD
Adjunct Professor, Marine Affairs Program
Associate Professor, Humanities, University
of King’s College
Ben R. Collison, M.REM
Student, Interdisciplinary PhD Program
ADDITIONAL SIGNATORIES,
Andrew S. Medeiros, PhD, Assistant Professor, School for Resource and Environmental Studies
Kate Sherren, PhD, Professor, School for Resource and Environmental Studies
Karen Beazley, PhD, Professor Emerita, School for Resource and Environmental Studies
Melanie Zurba, PhD, Associate Professor, School for Resource and Environmental Studies
Mercy Fiamavle, BSc (Hons), MREM Candidate, School for Resource and Environmental Studies
Michelle Adams, PhD, P.Eng, Professor, School for Resource and Environmental Studies
Revant Sharan M.REM, M.BA, Research Coordinator, Ecological Forestry Research Initiative
Sara Lax, B.A., Student, Master of Resource and Environmental Management
Sherry Pictou, PhD, Associate Professor, Dalhousie University and District Chief, Confederacy of
Mainland Mi'kmaq
Tony R. Walker, PhD, Professor, School for Resource and Environmental Studies
FACULTY OF SCIENCE | School for Resource and Environmental Studies
Kenneth C. Rowe Management Building, Suite 5010 | 6100 University Avenue | PO Box 15000 | Halifax NS B3H 4R2 Canada
902.494.3632 | FAX: 902.494.3728 | sres@dal.ca | dal.ca/sres
DAL.CA
LITERATURE CITED
[1] A. Westwood, ‘Get with the times: old laws can’t keep up with Nova Scotia’s new gold
rush’, The Narwhal, May 05, 2023.
[2] P. N. Duinker and L. A. Greig, ‘The impotence of cumulative effects assessment in Canada:
Ailments and ideas for redeployment’, Environ Manage, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 153–161, 2006,
doi: 10.1007/s00267-004-0240-5.
[3] A. R. Westwood et al., ‘The role of science in contemporary Canadian environmental
decision-making: The example of environmental assessment’, UBC Law Review, vol. 52,
no. 1, pp. 243–284, 2019.
[4] M. L. Hunter, M. J. Bean, D. B. Lindenmayer, and D. S. Wilcove, ‘Thresholds and the
mismatch between environmental laws and ecosystems’, Conservation Biology, vol. 23, no.
4, pp. 1053–1055, 2009, doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01205.x.
[5] D. M. Franks, D. Brereton, and C. J. Moran, ‘The cumulative dimensions of impact in
resource regions’, Resources Policy, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 640–647, 2013, doi:
10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.07.002.
[6] G. G. Singh et al., ‘Scientific shortcomings in environmental impact statements
internationally’, no. December, 2018, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27409v1.
[7] C. J. Sergeant et al., ‘Risks of mining to salmonid-bearing watersheds’, Sci Adv, vol. 8, p.
17, 2022, [Online]. Available: https://www.science.org
[8] A. L. Whitehead, H. Kujala, and B. A. Wintle, ‘Dealing with Cumulative Biodiversity
Impacts in Strategic Environmental Assessment: A New Frontier for Conservation
Planning’, Conserv Lett, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 195–204, 2017, doi: 10.1111/conl.12260.
[9] B. K. Williams, ‘Passive and active adaptive management: Approaches and an example’, J
Environ Manage, vol. 92, no. 5, pp. 1371–1378, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.039.
[10] Government of British Columbia, ‘Water Quality Objectives’. Accessed: Oct. 04, 2023.
[Online]. Available: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-
water/water/water-quality/water-quality-objectives
[11] A. Sinclair, M. Doelle, and P. Duinker, ‘Looking up, down, and sideways: Reconceiving
cumulative effects assessment as a mindset’, Environ Impact Assess Rev, vol. 62, pp. 183–
194, 2017.
[12] V. S. Morgan, D. Hoogeveen, and S. De Leeuw, ‘Industrial Camps in Northern British
Columbia: The Politics of “Essential” Work and the Gendered Implications of Man Camps’,
ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 409–430,
2021.
FACULTY OF SCIENCE | School for Resource and Environmental Studies
Kenneth C. Rowe Management Building, Suite 5010 | 6100 University Avenue | PO Box 15000 | Halifax NS B3H 4R2 Canada
902.494.3632 | FAX: 902.494.3728 | sres@dal.ca | dal.ca/sres
DAL.CA
[13] S. Pictou and J. Conway, ‘Wolastoqiyik and Mi ’ kmaq Grandmothers - Land / Water
Defenders Sharing and Learning Circle : Generating Knowledge for Action’, 2021.
[14] T. Bousquet, ‘Mi’kmaw women object to “man camp” planned for Goldboro’, Halifax
Examiner. Accessed: Sep. 23, 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/morning-file/mikmaw-women-object-to-man-camp-
planned-for-goldboro/
[15] A. Moore, ‘Mi’kmaw grandmothers oppose “man-camp” that goes with massive LNG
project’, APTN National News, Sep. 22, 2022. Accessed: Sep. 23, 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/mikmaw-grandmothers-oppose-man-camp-that-
goes-with-massive-lng-project/
[16] Women and Gender Equality Canada, ‘Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus)’.
[17] H. Walker, J. Pope, A. J. Sinclair, A. Bond, A. Diduck, and J. Sinclair, ‘Qualitative Methods
for the Next Generation of Impact Assessment’.
[18] S. J. Green et al., ‘Oil sands and the marine environment: current knowledge and future
challenges’, Front Ecol Environ, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 74–83, 2017, doi: 10.1002/fee.1446.
[19] J. Thomson, ‘We Spoke to Consultants Forced to Alter Their Work to Benefit Industry on
How to Fix Canada’s Broken Environmental Laws’, The Narwhal, May 07, 2018. Accessed:
Sep. 23, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://thenarwhal.ca/we-spoke-consultants-forced-
alter-their-work-benefit-industry-how-fix-canada-s-broken-environmental-laws/
[20] T. Smith, K. Gibbs, A. Westwood, S. Taylor, and K. Walsh, ‘Oversight At Risk: The State
of the Government Science in British Columbia’, Evidence for Democracy, Ottawa, ON,
26p., 2017.
[21] J. Ma, P. N. Duinker, and T. R. Walker, ‘Scholar and practitioner views on science in
environmental assessment’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, vol. 36, no. 6, pp.
516–528, 2018, doi: 10.1080/14615517.2018.1519978.
[22] A. L. Jacob et al., ‘Cross-sectoral input for the potential role of science in Canada’s
environmental assessment’, FACETS, vol. 3, pp. 512–529, 2018, doi: 10.1139/facets-2017-
0104.
[23] M. Doelle and A. J. Sinclair, ‘EA Expert Panel Report: Reflections on Canada’s proposed
next generation assessment process’, SSRN Electronic Journal, p. 23, 2017, doi:
10.2139/ssrn.2959453.
[24] Nanos, ‘Energy and environmental leaders agree or somewhat agree that Canada needs to
better manage cumulative project effects on communities; “final say” on projects crossing
multiple communities should rest in the hands of government’, 2018.
[25] Parliament of Canada, Impact Assessment Act. Canada, 2019.
FACULTY OF SCIENCE | School for Resource and Environmental Studies
Kenneth C. Rowe Management Building, Suite 5010 | 6100 University Avenue | PO Box 15000 | Halifax NS B3H 4R2 Canada
902.494.3632 | FAX: 902.494.3728 | sres@dal.ca | dal.ca/sres
DAL.CA
[26] K. Prosper, L. J. McMillan, A. A. Davis, and M. Moffitt, ‘Returning to Netukulimk:
Mi’kmaq cultural and spiritual connections with resource stewardship and self-governance’,
Int Indig Policy J, vol. 2, no. 4, Oct. 2011, doi: 10.18584/iipj.2011.2.4.7.
[27] J. Nishima-Miller and K. Hanna, ‘Indigenous-led Impact Assessment: An Introduction’,
2022.
[28] G. Gibson, D. Hoogeveen, A. MacDonald, and The Firelight Group, ‘Impact Assessment in
the Arctic: Emerging Practices of Indigenous-Led Review’, Gwich’in Council International
(GCI) GCI, 2018.
[29] Indigenous Centre for Cumulative Effects, ‘Indigenous Centre for Cumulative Effects’.
Accessed: Oct. 04, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.icce-caec.ca/
[30] M. Papillon and T. Rodon, ‘Proponent-Indigenous agreements and the implementation of
the right to free, prior, and informed consent in Canada’, Environ Impact Assess Rev, vol.
62, pp. 216–224, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2016.06.009.
[31] Province of Nova Scotia, ‘Our Climate, Our Future: Nova Scotia’s Climate Change Plan
for Clean Growth’, 2022.
[32] M. Doelle, ‘Integrating Climate Change into EA: Thoughts on Federal Law Reform’, SSRN
Electronic Journal, pp. 1–8, 2016, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2854522.
[33] M. Doelle and A. Majekolagbe, ‘Meaningful public engagement and the integration of
climate considerations into impact assessment’, Environ Impact Assess Rev, vol. 101, Jul.
2023, doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107103.
[34] L. Piciullo, E. B. Storrøsten, Z. Liu, F. Nadim, and S. Lacasse, ‘A new look at the statistics
of tailings dam failures’, Eng Geol, vol. 303, Jun. 2022, doi:
10.1016/j.enggeo.2022.106657.
[35] S. J. Capon, B. Stewart-Koster, and S. E. Bunn, ‘Future of Freshwater Ecosystems in a
1.5°C Warmer World’, Front Environ Sci, vol. 9, Nov. 2021, doi:
10.3389/fenvs.2021.784642.
[36] Province of Nova Scotia, ‘Consultation on the proposed Coastal Protection Act Regulations:
What We Heard’, 2022.
[37] R. B. Gibson, M. Doelle, and A. J. Sinclair, ‘Fulfilling the Promise: Basic Components of
Next Generation Environmental Assessment’, Journal of Environmental Law and Practice,
vol. 29, pp. 257–283, 2016.
