The role of federal guidelines in the Evolution of cumulative effects assessment research in the Canadian forest ecosystem

• Published in: Ecological indicators Vol. 166; p. 112333
• Main Authors: Kwabena Antwi, Effah, Toloo Yohuno (Apronti), Priscilla, Boakye-Danquah, John, Abolina, Evisa, Dabros, Anna, Nyamekye Darko, Akua
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Ltd 01.09.2024
• Subjects: Canada; Cumulative Effects Assessment; Forests; Gender-based Analysis Plus; Impact Assessment; Indigenous Engagement; Public Engagement; Canada; Forests; Public Engagement; Impact Assessment; Gender-based Analysis Plus; Cumulative Effects Assessment; Indigenous Engagement
• ISSN: 1470-160X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112333

•We identify how changes in Canada’s CEA policy landscape impact CEA research.•We analyzed and compared Canada’s 2012 CEA and 2019 IAA policies and guidelines.•We systematically review CEA research in Canada’s forest ecosystem.•We found few research considered indigenous and public engagement.•We recommend training to provide researchers with the tools for comprehensive CEA. Cumulative effects assessment (CEA), as a subset of environmental impact assessment, has been used over the past half-century to evaluate the impact of anthropogenic and natural processes on the integrity of forest ecosystems. In 2019, the Canadian federal government launched the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) and the Practitioner’s Guide to Federal Impact Assessment to replace the 2012 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and the Practitioner’s Guide. The new act emphasizes, among other issues, the need for CEA research to actively engage Indigenous communities and the public and apply a gender-based analysis (GBA) plus framework in their assessment. This paper aims to identify how cumulative effects research in Canadian forestry has progressed over time and how it aligns with federal government guidelines under the Impact Assessment Act of 2019. Through a systematic review of CEA research in Canada since 1992 and a document analysis, we examine the conduct of CEA research and compare the 2012 CEAA and the 2019 IAA and their respective practitioners’ guides to identify key similarities and differences and establish the influence of the 2019 IAA on CEA research. This accounts for how adaptive CEA research in Canada is to the changing landscape, specifically in measuring and addressing the impacts of disturbances on different interest groups. While much of CEA research followed the impact identification and reporting requirements of the 2012 CEAA and 2019 IAA, few research projects, particularly those written after 2019, paid much attention to Indigenous and public participation, while none considered GBA Plus in their analysis. This is despite the availability of GBA Plus, Indigenous, and public engagement guidelines and resources identified in the 2019 practitioners guide. We recommend active engagement between federal regulatory agencies and industry to ensure that industry and researchers have the proper training and resources to facilitate more meaningful consideration and integration of GBA Plus, including Indigenous and public engagement processes in their CEA research.