New report ‘unearths’ environmental impact assessment trends of Canadian mine and quarry projects – Halifax Examiner

Report on Canadian Extractive Sector Impact Assessments and Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Alignment

Executive Summary

A 50-year analysis of impact assessments for Canadian mine and quarry projects has identified critical deficiencies in transparency, consistency, and data availability. These shortcomings present significant obstacles to Canada’s commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, particularly in relation to institutional accountability, environmental protection, and responsible resource management.

Key Deficiencies Identified

• Lack of Transparency: Insufficient public access to assessment processes and findings.
• Inconsistent Methodologies: A notable absence of standardized procedures across different projects and jurisdictions over the five-decade span.
• Poor Data Availability: Significant gaps in the accessibility and completeness of data used for, and generated by, impact assessments.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   The identified gaps directly undermine Target 16.6, which calls for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions. A lack of accessible data and consistent reporting prevents proper oversight and accountability in the extractive sector, hindering responsive and inclusive decision-making as per Target 16.7.

2. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

   Inconsistent and non-transparent impact assessments impede progress towards Target 12.2, the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources. Without reliable data, it is impossible to ensure that mining and quarrying activities are conducted in an environmentally sound manner.

3. Environmental Stewardship (SDG 6, SDG 14, SDG 15)

   The integrity of ecosystems is threatened by these procedural failings. Deficient assessments compromise the ability to protect water-related ecosystems (SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation) and terrestrial ecosystems (SDG 15: Life on Land), making it difficult to monitor and mitigate the long-term environmental impacts of resource extraction.

4. Socio-Economic Development (SDG 8, SDG 11)

   The lack of comprehensive data prevents a full evaluation of the socio-economic effects on local populations, impacting goals for sustainable economic growth (SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth) and the development of sustainable communities (SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities).

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article’s central theme of “significant gaps in transparency, consistency, and data availability” in the oversight of mining projects directly relates to the need for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions. The failure to provide accessible and reliable data on environmental impact assessments points to institutional weaknesses.
2. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Mining and quarrying are forms of natural resource extraction. Ensuring these activities are sustainable requires robust monitoring and assessment, which the article indicates is lacking. The gaps in data prevent a full understanding of whether natural resources are being managed efficiently and sustainably.
3. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Mine and quarry projects have a direct and significant impact on terrestrial ecosystems. Environmental impact assessments are the primary tool for understanding and mitigating this impact. The lack of consistent and transparent data means that the true effects on land, biodiversity, and ecosystems cannot be properly evaluated or managed.
4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • This goal emphasizes the importance of data, monitoring, and accountability. The article highlights a failure in the systems needed to collect and disseminate high-quality, reliable data, which is a key component for measuring progress on all other SDGs.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article’s finding of “gaps in transparency, consistency, and data availability” directly points to a failure to meet this target in the context of institutions that regulate and monitor mining projects.
   • Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements. The lack of data availability for researchers and the public on the impacts of mines is a clear challenge to achieving this target.
2. Under SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production):
   • Target 12.2: By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources. The inability to properly track the impacts of resource extraction due to poor data makes it impossible to verify if sustainable management is being achieved.
3. Under SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals):
   • Target 17.18: By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries… to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data… While Canada is not a developing country, the principle applies. The article shows a domestic gap in the availability of reliable data needed for sustainable development monitoring.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Implied Indicator for Target 16.6:
   • The article implies the need for an indicator measuring the completeness and public accessibility of environmental impact assessment data for industrial projects. The researchers’ work in creating a database and finding “significant gaps” is, in itself, a form of measurement against this implied indicator. Progress would be measured by a reduction in these data gaps over time.
2. Implied Indicator for Target 16.10:
   • The article points to the need to measure the existence and implementation of policies guaranteeing public access to environmental information. While an official policy might exist, the article suggests its implementation is flawed, as evidenced by the lack of “data availability.” An indicator could track the number of public requests for this data that are successfully fulfilled in a timely manner.
3. Implied Indicator for Target 17.18:
   • The article implies the need for an indicator on the existence of a national, standardized, and publicly accessible database for environmental impact assessments. The fact that researchers had to create their own database to track this information over 50 years shows that such an official, functional indicator of statistical capacity is missing.

Summary of Findings

Source: halifaxexaminer.ca