pre screening

purpose of prescreeing

 process used to determine WHETER PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRES AN EA

•  Pimary purpose= narrow field of countless potential projects to only those that warrant assessment due to their potential for adverse environmental effects

proponents role in prescreening

submit a detailed project description to gov.

gov role in prescreening

makes formal screening determination

• conclusions - no EA, Full Ea, Limited EA, report not comprehensive enough, more study needed

what are the 3 appraoches to screening

• list based - prescriptive

• case by case - discretionary

• hybrid - cherry picks best part of approach 1 and 2

list based screening

predetermined list of project types that either AUTOMOATICALLLLY REQUIRE AN ASSESSMENT or are exempt.

• rigid, clear and based on specfic numbers - project size, length, output etc.

pros of list based 

• clear and certain

  • both proponent and public knows the rules upfront

• efficent

  • reduces adminstrative burden by authomoatically in/exclusion

• consistent

  • similar projects treated the same

  • less subjectivity

cons of list based

• ignores context

  • thresholds are same everywhere - even sensitive environments

• inflexible 

  • misses projects that JUST fall below threshold

• outdated - may not reflect new tech or scientific understandings

• may lack scientific basis

  • some thresholds may be set for adminstrative convience rather tahn based on envormetnal science

case by case screening

evaluates  each project individually against a set of environmental criteria, without relying on prescriptive lists

• allows for flexibility and consideration of a project's unique context

• creteron based screening

• uses check list of critera

pros of case by case

• really fexible and comprehensive

  • can be highly sensetive to project context and capture harmful projects missed by lists

• adaptive 

  • criteria can evolve with new science

cons for case by case

• potential for inconsistency

  • subjective and similar projects can recive differnt decsisons

• lack of certainity and resource intensive

  • proponents face uncertainty

  • each unique evaluation is time- consuming and costly for regulators

• can be polticiized

  • subjective- easily influeced by poltical will or public pressure

hybrid screening

uses a list for mandatory assessments of major projects while allowing for discretionary review for others.

• It aims to balance regulatory certainty with flexibility.

how hybrid works

• inclusion threshold

  • list of projects that always need full EIA

• exclusion threshold

  • list of projects that are exempt except if proposed in sensitive area

• case by case ( indicative threshold) 

  • projects that are inbetween the two or arent on list  are assesed on if needed, case by case basis

pros of hybrid

• balance

  • combines certainity/effiency of lists with flexbilty of discretionary review

• more comprehensive

  • less likely to miss problamatic prjects that fall just below threshold

• efficent triage/filter

  • filters out clearly major and minor projects allowing regulators to focus on gray area/complex cases

cons of hybrid

• more complexity

  • can be more complex to design and adminster than a single - approach systen

• has some subjectivity

  • case by case still allows for some potential incosistency and poltical influence in decsion making

under the Impact assesment act after screening confirms assesment is required, based on project complexit, potential for adverse effects ad level of public concern what paths of asessemtn are there

• by agency or independent review pannel

charcerstics of asseesment by agency

• default

• process = IAAc manages and leads entire assemnt process themselves

• propent develops detailed impact statmetn based on agency guidlelines

wht are assemnt by independt reveiw panel best suited for

• large scale, complex controversal rpojects where public trust and scietnifci credibily are really important

what does it mean if project is assesed by indpendent review panel

project is = complex, signffivant potential adverse effects, and lots of public backlash, impacts on dingenous rightss for this project,

processs and outcome of inddpendt review panel

process = more formal with a review panel, call witnesses, panel, like acourt case

process 

• review panel sublits own report and recommendations directly to minister and minsiter is in charge for final decsion

when is a TOR made and who makes it

once an EA is required, gov. prepares it

what doees the TOR do

sets expectations, ensures transparncy through public and idngieous reviea nd acts as final qualty control checklist

• if submitted EIS doesnt meet TOR’s requiremtns = returned for revision

core componets of TOR

• project purpose, need and alternatives

  • justifiacation for project and alternatives considered

• assement scope and boundaries

  • - define study limts and key VCs

• baseline data requirements

  • specifies requried info on the EXISTING envornment

• impact prediction and mtigagin

  • outline methods for assesent and mitigation measures

• follow up and montoring programs

  • details post approal montoring requriemnts

• conduct assemetn and ensure public access

  • specify scop of the asseemnt and mandiate that all info used is pbulicly avaialbe

• facilate menaigful public particpation

  • outlines requriemens for pubic hearings in the final report

challenges of PP: tension with evidence based ethos

tension with an evidence based ethos

• EA is fundamentally built on ethos of making decsions basedon sound, verifiable infomation and science

• principle of acting before theres conclusive proof of harm conflicts with this

  • creaign diffcult positon for regulators who must justify their decsion

precautionary principle and screening

guidline for action in face of uncertainty

• When activity raises threats of harm to human health or the enviroment, precautatnory measures should be taken evein if some cause and effect relationships arent fully established sceitnifcally

why pp matters for screening

• Screening stage is inherently a moment of high uncertainty

• Often impossible for a regulator to prove a projects impacts will be significant with limited info available

• provides a framework for deciding what constitutes a sufficiently credible basis for requiring a full EA

applications of PP in screening

1. erring on side of caution 

   1. if credibel uncertaintiy exist to wheter project will cause sig. adverse effects= require EA

2. shifting burden of proof - most critical

   1. w/o precaution = regulator feels they need to prove a project will be harmful to justify an EA

   2. with precaution = responsibliy shifts to pronent to provide evidece deonostrating projects insinfigance - propoent has to do homeword

chanllege with pp: poential for misue and inefficeny

can be misused to justify anything from minor project changes to outright rejects

• = concerns over efficiey of EA process and fears that p can be used to excessively constrain necessary development

challenge with PP:  Defining the Threshold for Action:

How much uncertainty is enough to trigger precaution?

• princpole doest devien the threshold, ambuigity = incositency and makes it difficut to defend screening ecsiosn whehter they require an EA or not

•  ambuigyt makes it difficult to apply this princicipel CONSISTENTLY

ultimate goal of balance with PP

• bojective not to halt developemtn but to use precaution as aftye net

• ensures that projects with plausible, significant risks are captured and fully investigated

  by the EA process, fostering a more robust and protective approach to environmental management