home      project description      project alternatives      legal framework      public participation environmental & social impacts      lessons learned Q & A      references      links Power Point Presentation

Lessons Learned

o      Given that the project has not yet been approved it was extremely difficult to obtain RinsideS information, either from the federal agencies or from the proponent.

o      Each team member chose to address EIA issues which were not her/his area of expertise. With the technical level of some of the documentation, and the time constraints we had to adhere to, this prevented us from fully reviewing all aspects of the statement.

o      Political agendas can possibly have an impact on outcomes of the EIS guidelines or the EIS statement. The relationships between the proponent and government must be scrutinized. In the case of the Bruce Project, the provincial government appears to have a strong interest in the continued output at the Bruce site; the video below shows an example of this.

o      Public consultation is not just a means to gain support but can be very effective in providing the proponent with useful information. For example, public consultation resulted in new VECs and in finding an alternative for the infilling of MacPherson Bay which resulted in an 80% reduction in the area to be infilled.

o      The obtainment of Traditional Knowledge can be very complicated. Aboriginal communities are often not willing to provide this information if they do not think it will be beneficial for them to do so. The gathering of this information requires great sensitivity and patience on the part of the proponent.

o      Time constraints in EIA usually exclude the possibility of adequate baseline studies of the biophysical environment, which can highly compromise the prediction of impacts, and the integrity of the EIA.

o      Although a significant amount of work and resources are used in order to determine what the measurable impacts are and which components of the environment will be effected throughout what geographical extent, the methods for evaluating significance are of the utmost importance. If the methods for evaluating significance are meaningless, or if the definitions for the criteria used to evaluate are not appropriate, the integrity of the entire process is compromised, as the significance of the identified impacts will not be correctly determined.

o      Although an EIS might be extremely clear and diligent in following the terms of reference and displaying its results, this does not ensure that significant adverse effects will be appropriately labelled as so, and appropriate mitigation measures are committed to.

o      Alternative project considerations can offer a backdrop of information regarding different forms of meeting the project under questions specifications, however most of these are not taken seriously in light of the main goal of promoting the project under question.

o      Following the guidelines religiously with no deviation or outside thought should not be encouraged. This can leave room for information that has not been taken into consideration by the joint review panel to be ignored.

o      The Alternative Means of carrying out the project are the most important subjects to understand well – when reviewing an EIS – as they normally act as the backbone to which each assessment is based upon.