CLOSE
Advanced searchCitation search
Suggested Terms:
Skip main navigation

Search Result

1 - 5of5
per page:
Relevance
Filters

You do not have any saved searches

  • OPEN ACCESS
    Cross-sectoral input for the potential role of science in Canada’s environmental assessment
    FACETS • Vol. 3 • No. 1 • pp. 512 - 529
    Since being elected in 2015, Canada’s federal Liberal government has taken steps to overhaul major environment-related laws and policies, including federal environmental assessment (EA) and regulatory processes. During 2016–2017, a government-appointed panel toured Canada and received >1000 suggestions from diverse sectors of society regarding EA reform. Yet, different sectors of society may have different views concerning scientific components of EA. We analyzed written submissions during public consultation (categorized into five sectors) regarding five key scientific components of EA: (1) openly sharing information, (2) evaluating cumulative effects, (3) scientific rigour, (4) transparency in decision-making, and (5) independence between regulators and proponents. On the whole, submissions from Indigenous groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals/academics supported strengthening all five components. In contrast, most contributions from industry/industry associations, and, to a lesser extent, government bodies or agencies, suggested that there was no need for increased scientific rigour or increased independence. These findings indicate that there is cross-sectoral support for strengthening some scientific aspects of EA. However, the degree to which the Government of Canada strengthens the scientific rigour and independence of EA will indicate whether environmental decision-making in Canada is aligned with preferences from industry or the rest of Canada.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    Protecting biodiversity in British Columbia: Recommendations for developing species at risk legislation
    FACETS • Vol. 4 • No. 1 • pp. 136 - 160
    British Columbia has the greatest biological diversity of any province or territory in Canada. Yet increasing numbers of species in British Columbia are threatened with extinction. The current patchwork of provincial laws and regulations has not effectively prevented species declines. Recently, the Provincial Government has committed to enacting an endangered species law. Drawing upon our scientific and legal expertise, we offer recommendations for key features of endangered species legislation that build upon strengths and avoid weaknesses observed elsewhere. We recommend striking an independent Oversight Committee to provide recommendations about listing species, organize Recovery Teams, and monitor the efficacy of actions taken. Recovery Teams would evaluate and prioritize potential actions for individual species or groups of species that face common threats or live in a common area, based on best available evidence (including natural and social science and Indigenous Knowledge). Our recommendations focus on implementing an adaptive approach, with ongoing and transparent monitoring and reporting, to reduce delays between determining when a species is at risk and taking effective actions to save it. We urge lawmakers to include this strong evidentiary basis for species recovery as they tackle the scientific and socioeconomic challenges of building an effective species at risk Act.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    Undermining environmental assessment laws: post-assessment amendments for mines in British Columbia, Canada, and potential impacts on water resources
    FACETS • Vol. 7 • pp. 611 - 638
    In British Columbia (BC), Canada, there is increased attention on mines and their impacts on water resources. In BC, many proposed mines undergo provincial environmental assessment (EA), which predicts a mine’s risks and involves government oversight and public engagement. After approval, mines can apply for amendments that alter the project’s undertakings, including in ways that may harm water resources. We examined all amendment documents for mines undergoing provincial EA in BC from 2002 to 2020. Of the 23 approved mines, 15 (65%) requested a total of 49 amendments, of which 98% were approved. Most mines applied for their first amendment within 3 years of approval. We deemed 20 of the approved amendments (associated with 10 projects) likely to have negative impacts on water resources, including changes to effluent discharge, increased volume of water extraction, or degradation of fish habitat. Amendment applications and approval documents lacked specific, quantitative information to reinforce claims or decisions. We present the first known summary of EA amendments in any jurisdiction. Given that most mines in BC receive amendments, and many are related to water, we express concern that amendment processes increase risk to water resources without meeting standards of evidence and public scrutiny required by the regular EA process.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    Interference in science: scientists’ perspectives on their ability to communicate and conduct environmental research in Canada
    FACETS • Vol. 8 • pp. 1 - 31
    When researchers are sufficiently resourced to conduct research and communicate their findings, the knowledge produced can benefit the environment and society through policy. However, interference with the research process and its subsequent knowledge mobilization (“interference in science”) has been observed in several countries, particularly for environmental researchers. Using a mixed-methods approach, we surveyed environmental researchers in Canada (n = 741) to investigate the perceived prevalence, source, and effects of interference and considered whether these perceptions differ by region, career stage, research area, and membership in any scientific society. Although over half of researchers were not restricted from speaking to the media (54%), and most had never been asked to make “undue modifications” to their work (84%), the vast majority (92%) reported at least some degree of interference in their work during their careers. Consequences of interference were more prevalent among early-career researchers and included negative impacts on job satisfaction, mental health, and undue modification to work leading to inaccurate or incomplete science communication. Although environmental researchers in Canada deem themselves overall better able to conduct and communicate their work than under previous federal governments, reports of ongoing political interference remain concerning. We recommend increased support for researchers and further investigations into interference.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    Do environmental researchers from marginalized groups experience greater interference? Understanding scientists' perceptions
    FACETS • Vol. 8 • pp. 1 - 23
    Researchers in the environmental studies and sciences play a critical role in influencing real-world decision-making and policies. However, interference during research and sharing of results has been documented in Canada and around the world. Further, research has shown that workers from marginalized social identitie(s) experience discrimination in the workplace. Whether interference in research is related to social identity has never been examined. Using a mixed-methods design, we surveyed 741 environmental researchers in Canada to understand the relationship between social identity (gender, disability status, 2SLGBTQI+ status, race, and perception of racial identity) and reported experiences of interference. Results found that researchers with marginalized identities experienced worse outcomes across 11 of the 25 quantitative measures. For example, most marginalized groups experienced significantly greater fear of misrepresentation by media and (or) fear of negative career consequences due to public commentary, and racialized and disabled persons reported greater external interference in their work (e.g., from management and workplace policy). Given these findings, we express concern that the experience of interference in research can (1) threaten the personal well-being of marginalized researchers, (2) limit the representativeness of information disseminated, thererby impacting environmental decision-making and policy, and (3) contribute to inequities in representativeness of marginalized researchers in environmental sciences in Canada.