GUIDELINES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA… · Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment ... The environmental impact An environmental impact assessment document should

GUIDELINES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) IN THE ARCTIC

ARCTIC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STRATEGY

Responsible Institution :Finnish Ministry of the EnvironmentPaula Kankaanpää

Producer:Finnish Environment InstituteEeva Furman, Mikael Hildén

Drafting Group:Tord Céwe, SwedenJohn McEwen, CanadaMikael Hildén/Eeva Furman/Seija Korhonen, FinlandJoe Nazareth, Denmark/GreenlandMarianna Novikova, RussiaRichard Wildermann, USAKjell Moe, Gunnar Futsæter, NorwayHolmfridur Sigurdardottir, IcelandViolet Ford, ICC/AEPS Indigenous Peoples SecretariatThe Sami Council

Drawings: Mantsi Rapeli

Layout: Heikki Laurila/lIlusia

English language editing: Terry Forster

Printed at: Kirjapaino Auranen, Forssa 1997

Publisher:Finnish Ministry of the EnvironmentP.O.Box 399FIN-00251 Helsinkitel: +358 9 19911fax: +358 9 9545

Citation:Arctic Environment Protection Strategy 1997: Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in the Arctic. Sustainable Development and Utilization.Finnish Ministry of the Environment, Finland, 50 p.

ISBN: 951-731-039-0

Copies available from:Finnish Ministry of the EnvironmentP.O.Box 399FIN-00251 Helsinkitel: +358 9 19911fax: +358 9 9545

&

http://www.vyh.fi/fei/intercoo/arctic/index.htm, where additionally can be found information on EIA procedures in the eight arctic countries

2

Contents1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 5

2 Application of EIA ........................................................................................ 11

3 Scope of the assessment ................................................................................ 13

4 Baseline information ..................................................................................... 16

5 Impact prediction and evaluation ................................................................. 18

6 Mitigation ..................................................................................................... 24

7 Monitoring .................................................................................................... 27

8 The environmental impact assessment document ........................................ 30

9 Public participation ....................................................................................... 32

10 Traditional knowledge .................................................................................. 37

11 Transboundary impacts ................................................................................. 39

Contributors ............................................................................................................ 42

Appendices I Common arctic features ................................................................................ 45

II Areas demanding particular attention in the Arctic ...................................... 46

III Definitions .................................................................................................... 47

IV Sources of information .................................................................................. 49

Information on the EIA procedures in the eight arctic countries available on the www at http://www.vyh.fi/fei/intercoo/arctic/index.htm

3

In 1991 at Rovaniemi, Finland, ministersfrom all arctic countries approved theArctic Environment Protection Strategy(AEPS), which seeks to protect theArctic environment. The Arctic Councilwas established in September 1996 andthe programs of AEPS continue underits umbrella. One of the key objectivesof the Arctic Council is to promote sus-tainable development. Sustainabledevelopment is defined as developmentthat meets the needs of the presentgeneration without compromising theability of future generations to meettheir needs. Sustainable developmentrequires a planning approach whereenvironmental integrity is maintained atpermissible levels of development.Environmental impact assessment mayassist this planning approach, and,therefore, is one of the important meansfor achieving this objective.

At their meeting in Inuvik in March1996, the Arctic EnvironmentalMinisters asked that guidelines for en-vironmental impact assessment (EIA) beprepared. The Ministers recommendedthat the guidelines should focus oncircumstances and issues of specialimportance in the Arctic, and exploreways of dealing with cumulativeimpacts, transboundary issues, the parti-cipation of indigenous people, and the

use of traditional knowledge. Finlandwas asked to act as a lead country forthe writing of the guidelines.

EIA provides opportunities for localpeople to participate and communicatewith developers and administrators, andto have a say in matters that affect theirenvironment. These guidelines aim atreaching a wide audience of private per-sons, support groups, local adminis-trators and developers, federal adminis-trators and ministers of arctic countries,and at giving practical advice for pract-itioners in carrying out environmentalimpact assessment in arctic areas.

■ The Arctic Environmental ProtectionStrategy (AEPS) was adopted by Canada,Denmark/Greenland, Finland, Iceland,Norway, Russia, Sweden and the UnitedStates through a Ministerial Declarationat Rovaniemi, Finland, in 1991. Theprograms under the AEPS are: Sustain-able Development and Utilization (SDU),Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna(CAFF), Arctic Monitoring and Assess-ment Program (AMAP), EmergencyPrevention, Preparedness and Response(EPPR) and Protection of the ArcticMarine Environment (PAME). In future,the AEPS programs will continue underthe auspices of the Arctic Council.

These guidelines are the result of a trulyinternational effort. After an initiativeby the Finnish Minister of theEnvironment, Sirpa Pietikäinen (1994),international workshops and active cor-respondence among the Arctic countriesconcerning texts and ideas have carriedthe process to this point. A list of all

persons and organizations that took partin producing these guidelines can befound on page 42. The support of theTask Force on Sustainable Developmentand Utilization and the encouragementof the Senior Arctic Affairs Officialshave also been crucial to the preparationof these guidelines.4

Preamble

Acknowledgments

Environmental impact assessment,hereafter called EIA, aims at avoidingdeleterious effects on the arctic environ-ment, including all its fauna and flora,abiotic components, natural resources,and human health, security and well-being.

What is the aim of these guidelines?These guidelines aim at giving practicalguidance for environmental assessmentsto all parties involved in developmentactivities in the northern circumpolarareas, but especially to local authorities,developers and local people. The guide-lines raise issues that are unique to arcticassessments – such as permafrost – butthey also emphasize universal issues thatare particularly important in the Arctic –such as public participation and the useof traditional knowledge.

These guidelines are not intended toreplace existing procedures adopted byinternational, national or provinciallaws, land claim agreements, regulationsor guidelines. As they do not recom-mend any particular procedure for EIA,these guidelines are applicable acrossjurisdictional boundaries and in differentEIA processes. They aim at providingsuggestions and examples of goodpractice to enhance the quality of EIAsand the harmonization of EIA in diffe-rent parts of the Arctic.

What are the key tasks of an EIA?

EIA is a process of identifying, commu-nicating, predicting and interpretinginformation on the potential impacts ofa proposed action or development onthe environment, including humans, andto propose measures to address and miti-

5

1 Introduction

6

Table 1. Tasks in an arctic EIA processApplication of EIA The decision to conduct an EIA for a project should take into

account the special conditions in the Arctic; arctic-specificthresholds and sensitivity criteria are strongly recommended.

Scope of the assessment The scope of an assessment should include all potentialenvironmental, socio-cultural and economic impacts, especiallyimpacts on the traditional uses of resources and livelihoods ofindigenous people and also the consideration of alternatives.

Baseline information The following key issues should be considered: combiningtraditional and scientific knowledge, using methods compatibleto existing data collection programs in the Arctic, includingsocio-economic matters, using both qualitative and quantitativeinformation and allowing sufficient time for collecting andcompiling baseline information.

Impact prediction Issues identified through scoping are analyzed and and evaluation expected impacts defined by identifying the type of impacts, by

predicting the magnitude, the probability of occurrence andthe extent of the impacts and by determining the significanceof the impacts. In the Arctic, cumulative impacts are of specialconcern.

Mitigation Mitigation aims at avoiding or lessening impacts. In consideringmitigation measures, special arctic features should be takeninto account and the public should also be involved.

Monitoring Monitoring should include follow up of impacts, verification ofpredictions and feedback on mitigation and project operations.The environmental conditions in the Arctic make monitoring ademanding task requiring careful planning.

The environmental impact An environmental impact assessment document should beassessment document prepared and provided to all involved parties. The document

describes the project and its likely impacts upon the environment.

Public participation An EIA should ensure effective public participation andconsultation. Unique features such as the culture, the socio-economic situation and the remoteness of the Arctic shouldbe considered in planning and carrying out public consultationsin the Arctic.

Traditional knowledge In the EIA process, traditional knowledge should be used inthe understanding of possible consequences of predictedimpacts and in reducing uncertainties.

Transboundary impacts Assessments of transboundary impacts require projectdevelopers and authorities to make allowances for differentlegal systems, to provide translations when necessary, and tomake special arrangements for public participation acrossjurisdictional borders.

gate these impacts. An overview of thetasks in the EIA process, as covered bythese guidelines, is given in Table 1.

EIA should be initiated at an early stageof project development so as to becomean integral and influential part of plan-ning. In addition, EIA is a means of im-proving decision-making, because itallows for the input of public opinion,and other knowledge and information,to ensure fairness and balance in thefinal decisions.

■ The Panel of the Northwest Territories(NWT) Diamonds project in Canadaconcluded that, provided the project isdeveloped as proposed and subject to the Panel’s recommendations, the pro-ject can be an example of sustainabledevelopment in the mining industry. In coming to this conclusion, the Panelobserved the determination expressed bythe proponent to draw on project rev-enues to invest in the social- and human-resource capital of the NWT through itsemployment preference, its work withthe indigenous communities, and its edu-cation and training programs. The Paneldraws this conclusion in the context of arapidly expanding and young population,and in an economy limited in its ability toprovide for the livelihood and well-beingof this growing population.

NWT Diamonds Project, Review PanelReport, Canada 1996.

What are the objectives of an arctic EIA?The objectives of an arctic EIA are:

◆ to estimate and describe the natureand likelihood of environmentallydamaging events to provide a basisfor decision-making;

◆ to provide for the incorporation oftraditional knowledge andconsultations with the developer,

the public, regulatory and non-regulatory authorities to guidedecision-making;

◆ to assist project design and planningby identifying those aspects oflocation, chosen technical solutions,construction, operation and decommissioning that may causeadverse environmental effects,including social, cultural, health and economic impacts;

◆ to identify environmental optionsand to evaluate the environmentalimplications of all viable alternatives.Project proposals should balanceenvironmental protection and theconservation of natural resourceswith other social, health andeconomic considerations; and

7

◆ to devise and implement remedialmeasures for eliminating orminimizing undesirable impacts.

EIA is used extensively throughout theworld in the initial stages of project pre-paration. In many countries, includingall the Arctic countries, EIA is mandato-ry for specific, often large-scale activ-ities. EIA will also be an integral part ofthe Arctic Offshore Oil and GasGuidelines, which is being preparedunder PAME (Protection of ArcticMarine Environment, AEPS). The keyconcepts of EIA are defined in appendixIII. Information provided on the WorldWide Web (WWW or Internet) gives anoverview of the EIA process in theArctic countries, including the requiredcontents of environmental impact state-ments (see Contents for Web site).

What makes EIA special in the Arctic?The objectives of environmental impactassessment in the Arctic cannot be metwithout paying attention to the specialfeatures of the Arctic. Although theArctic is not a uniform area with respectto topography, population density, landuse or politics, many common featurescan be recognized in the climate, thesocio-cultural conditions and thefunctioning of the ecosystems. Theseaffect the investigations that are carriedout, the choice of methods and ap-proaches and the time span of theassessments. For example, the simpleecosystems and the slow breakdown ofcontaminants may influence fundamen-tal assumptions in predicting the fate ofpollutants. The lack of baseline informa-tion may lengthen the EIA process com-pared with EIAs in temperate regions,and the importance of traditionalknowledge in the Arctic demands newways of collecting information.

A first step in planning an arctic EIA isto identify those features that are parti-

cularly relevant to the project in ques-tion. A list of such features is providedin appendix I. More extensive descrip-tions of the Arctic are given in thesources of information, which includeInternet links to extensive bibliographi-cal lists (appendix IV).

The Arctic also has several unique areasthat require special attention in assess-ments. These areas may represent uni-que or sensitive geomorphological char-acteristics or biotopes, have specialimportance for the functioning of arcticecosystems or are sites with specialspiritual, cultural and other socio-econo-mic values (appendix II). Some of theseareas may be protected by law or trea-ties, such as national parks or areas ofspecific interest; however, the vastnessof the Arctic necessitates that everyassessment should identify such areaswithin the area of potential impact at anearly stage in the assessment.

8

What are the important elements for an arctic EIA?EIA in the Arctic should be based uponthe same principles and include thesame elements that characterize EIAs inother parts of the world. The elementsthat are of particular importance inarctic conditions include the following.

1. Multidisciplinary nature

Many different fields of study and inte-rests are normally covered by an EIA,such as biology, geology, engineering,socio-economics and cultural heritage.This multidisciplinary approach is evenmore important in the Arctic, where theconnection between the natural envi-ronment and socio-economic featuresmay be stronger than in other regions.The use of many different types of infor-mation also includes accepting traditio-nal knowledge as an important source ofinformation in assessing potentialimpacts.

2. Flexibility

EIA is a flexible process that can dealwith the complexity and the diversity ofcultural settings, and can provide aforum for the exchange of differingviews and interpretation of information.EIA can also be adjusted to the size andscope of individual projects.

3. Participatory function

The EIA process allows for the partici-pation of a wide range of stakeholderswho often hold different views and havedifferent values, including non-monet-ary values of the Arctic and its environ-ment. The demographics of the peoplein the Arctic regions varies, but somecharacteristics are shared. Many Arcticpeople live in sparsely populated areas,and most still have livelihoods thatdepend upon large geographical areas.Iceland is the only area in the Arctic notinhabited by indigenous people. Russia

is the most complex of the Arctic count-ries in the sense that it is inhabited by alarge number of very distinct indigenousgroups, each speaking a unique lan-guage.

4. Cumulative effects

In the Arctic, cumulative impacts are ofspecial concern because of the sensitiv-ity of the area and the long recoverytimes.

5. Precautionary principle andassessment

The pre c a u t i o n a ry principle or appro a c h ,which is a part of numerous inter-national treaties and declarations, hasemerged as an important issue in EIA. Asreflected in Principle 15 of the RioDeclaration, the precautionary approachprovides “where there are threats of seri-ous or irreversible damage, lack of fullscientific certainty shall not be used as a 9

reason for postponing cost effectivem e a s u res to p re v e nt e n v i ronmental degra-dation”. This approach is particularlyrelevant in the Arctic, where baselinedata are scarce and there are gaps in theunderstanding of the important ecologi-cal functions in the Arctic systems. Theprecautionary approach should there-fore be encouraged when carrying outEIAs in the Arctic. Similarly, environ-mental risks of development activitiesshould be assessed in arctic EIAs.

How should EIA be included at other levels of planning?

While cumulative impacts are recog-nized during the assessment of projects,many cumulative impacts on the arcticenvironment cannot be dealt witheffectively at the individual projectlevel. Land use and resource use plans orarea plans are often developed for parti-cular regions. These plans can be usedto guide the future direction of a sector,for example, the forest sector or rein-deer husbandry, by taking into accountsustainability criteria. The assessementof these plans, often called strategic

environmental assessment, includessimilar tasks to those used during theenvironmental impact assessment ofindividual projects. At the same time,these plans can be a basis for the assess-ment of individual projects and specifyconditions a project has to meet toavoid significant adverse impacts.

■ In Ny Ålesund, Svalbard, Norway, anassessment of environmental impacts hasbeen initiated at the strategic level. Theobjective is, among other things, to assessthe environmental impacts caused byhuman activities in specified areas, toassess the conflicts between variousscientific research and monitoring pro-jects in the same geographical area andto recommend actions to reduce theseimpacts to a minimum level and, to theextent possible, maintain and restore thequalities of the Ny Ålesund area as anundisturbed reference area suitable for awide spectrum of environmental monito-ring and scientific research.

More information: Fred Theisen,Norwegian Polar Institute, P.O.Box 5072,Majorstua, Norway.

10

The decision to conduct an EIA for aproject in the Arctic should take intoaccount the special conditions in theArctic. Arctic-specific thresholds andsensitivity criteria are strongly recom-mended. The decision to identify andspecify the type of assessment to beapplied to a project is commonly calledscreening.

When should EIA be applied?In the Arctic, EIA should be applied toactivities associated with the exploita-tion of both renewable and non-renew-able natural resources, public use, mili-tary activities and the development ofinfrastructure for different purposes thatmay cause significant environmentalimpacts. The growing development inthe Arctic may also bring new types of

activities, whose impacts have so faronly been found in more temperateareas.

The two main approaches for decidingon the application and the extent of EIAprocedures are mandatory assessmentbased on lists of environmentally harm-ful projects and case-by-case decisions.The use of these approaches variesamong jurisdictions (see Arctic site onWWW). An intermediate approachusing threshold levels has also beenused. Some jurisdictions also apply liststhat exclude certain minor developmentactivities from assessment.

Why specific arctic thresholds?Threshold levels ensure the applicationof EIA processes to activities that may

11

2 Application of EIA

have significant adverse impacts. Sincemost Arctic countries have only part oftheir territorial lands and waters in theArctic, national laws do not always takeinto account the sensitivity of arcticareas, which may require lower thres-hold levels. In jurisdictions that do nothave case-by-case selection criteria,assessment decisions should be based onthreshold levels specific to arctic condi-tions, for example, production levels,capital expenditure, land demands, orquantities of emissions.

■ According to the Icelandic EIA Act, anynew road construction requires an EIA,whereas in other countries EIA is oftenapplied only to major infrastructure pro-jects. The EIA led the developer of theDragsnesvegur road project to proposemitigation measures in theEnvironmental Impact Statement as follows:

◆ where possible, integration of the roadinto the existing landscape;

◆ avoidance of damage or loss to specialfeatures of shores and bays; and

◆ revegetation of the gravel extraction sites.

More information: HolmfridurSigurdardottir, National PhysicalPlanning Agency, Laugavegur 166, IS-150Reykjavik, Iceland, email: [email protected]

How to use the sensitivitycriteria in the Arctic?Sensitivity criteria, in terms of land areaand time period, are particularly usefulin case-by-case decisions. These criteriadraw attention to the possibility ofcumulative impacts, and can be used inplanning for the avoidance and mitiga-tion of impacts. A list of potentially sen-sitive areas in the Arctic can be found inappendix II. Because almost every activi-ty in the Arctic will be close to one orseveral sensitive areas, further specifica-tion is usually necessary to make themuseful as application criteria. Land usedescriptions or plans, which identify thesensitivity of different areas, and theCircumpolar Protected Area Network ofCAFF (Conservation of Arctic Fauna &Flora, AEPS) provide further informa-tion. Additional criteria for selectingprojects may include social, cultural andsocio-economic conditions, and regionaland global natural values.

■ In 1991, the Swedish icebreaker Odencarried out its first scientific expedition inArctic waters. An Environmental ImpactAssessment was undertaken because ofconcerns about the effects of underwaternoise, interference with marine mam-mals and exhaust emissions.

More information: SSPA MaritimeConsulting AB, P.O.Box 24001, S-400 22Gothenburg, Sweden

12

The scope of an assessment shouldinclude all potential environmental,socio-cultural and economic impacts,especially impacts on the traditionaluses of resources and livelihoods of indi-genous people and also the considera-tion of alternatives.

What is scoping?Scoping determines the environmentalimpacts of the proposed project, bringsinto consideration alternative means ofcarrying out the project, includingtechnical and technological alternatives,identifies the potential effects on thesustainability of resources in the projectarea and clarifies the mitigation measu-

res that will be analyzed in the EIA pro-cess. Scoping should specify the projectand its alternatives in sufficient detail toidentify potential direct and indirectimpacts, including cumulative effects.Additionally, scoping should set realistictemporal, spatial and jurisdictionalboundaries for the assessment, and spe-cify key environmental criteria to beaddressed and methods to be used in theassessment.

■ “Northerners are anxious to participa-te and to share both the challenges, therisks and the benefits but they obviouslymust be partners. The impacts are clear-ly going to be there, both good and bad.They are inevitable but with due process,planning and management, they aremanageable. The impacts, risks and prob-

13

3 Scope of the assessment

lems will be reduced by allowing moretime, more resource and small scale pro-jects. The most difficult area is that ofsocial change.”

G.N. Faulkner, DIAND, Beaufort SeaHydrocarbon Production andTransportation, Review Panel Report,Canada, 1984

Why determine the scope?By determining the scope systematically,the assessment of the project and itsalternatives can be focused on theimportant environmental issues andrisks, taking into account special arcticfeatures and areas of particular impor-tance. Additionally, a well-defined scopewould reduce overall assessment costs.

Why alternatives?The recognition, discussion and consi-deration of alternatives, including thealternative of no action, are necessaryfor determining the scope of an assess-ment. Alternatives permit a com-parison of likely impacts and mitigationmeasures. As a result of uncertainties indata and a lack of detailed knowledge ofecological and socio-cultural conditionsand functions, many impacts can onlybe examined through the relative diffe-rences between alternatives.

For many activities, reasonable alternati-ve sites within a region are usually avail-able. However, some activities are site-specific, such as mining, extraction anduse of natural resources, shipping (portfacilities often depend on deep-wateraccess), oil and gas operations, majorrestoration and rehabilitation projects,additions and extensions to existing in-stallations (e.g. oil refineries), housingdevelopments and military installations.In all cases, alternatives based on differ-ent approaches to the realization of the14

project should be considered. In addi-tion to no action, these might bechoices on scale, appearance, techno-logy, waste discharges, mitigationmeasures, and traffic management.

What is specifically arctic in scoping?Because of the close connectionsbetween the environment, culture andeconomics in the Arctic, it is importantthat scoping takes a broad view of theissues to be dealt with in the assessment.Clearly, one of the most important fea-t u res in arctic assessment is the early andfull involvement of indigenous peopleand other local communities, who holdspecial knowledge of the Arctic. Publicparticipation in scoping is necessary forthe efficient use of this knowledge.Without public participation it is virtual-ly impossible to cover the full range ofdiverse and complex values andviewpoints typical of the Arctic inhabi-

tants. The participation of the publiccould lead to a negotiated agreementbetween the researchers and indigenousor other local communities so that infor-mation can be shared in an organizedand acceptable way, and the roles andresponsibilities of all parties can bedescribed clearly.

Public involvement in determining thescope of assessments is useful especiallyfor controversial activities. Scoping mayidentify problems or conflicts, whichcan be alleviated or solved while theproposed project is still being devel-oped. Scoping may also be used to coor-dinate actions of the various agenciesinvolved in the assessment and decision-making processes.

An open process while determining thescope of an EIA is also a crucial first steptowards building mutual confidence infair environmental assessment and prob-lem-solving, and ultimately in a fairdecision-making process.

15

In determining and obtaining baselineinformation, the following key issuesshould be considered: combining tradi-tional and scientific knowledge, usingmethods compatible to other programsfor gathering baseline information in theArctic, including socio-economic mat-ters, using both qualitative and quantita-tive information and allowing sufficienttime for collecting and compiling baseli-ne information.

What is baseline information?Baseline information characterizes theconditions at the time the project is pro-posed. Some of the baseline informationcan be quantitative, for example,concentrations of heavy metals in orga-

nisms. Other baseline information isqualitative, illustrating socio-culturalconditions or general features oflandscapes.

Why is baseline information needed?

Baseline information is needed on allcentral issues in the assessment, takinginto account a broad definition of theenvironment. Baseline information pro-vides a reference for all assessments, andfor the comparison of alternatives andmitigation measures. It is used as a star-ting point in the prediction of likelyimpacts resulting from the project andof naturally occurring changes in theenvironment.

16

4 Baseline information

How can baseline information be obtained?Baseline information is found in docu-ments and data banks, but field studiesand interviews with indigenous andother local people are often necessary.Existing scientific programs may be toogeneral to give sufficiently detailed datafor specific projects. It is important toassess the availability and quality of dataand information sources so that thecompilation of baseline information fora specific project can be linked to othermonitoring and baseline programs,including their techniques and metho-dologies.

Many indigenous people in the Arctichold accumulated knowledge regardingthe Arctic environment and on the sus-tained use of Arctic resources. Theirknowledge of local cultural, social andecological systems and the changes inthese systems over time, includingrecent trends, may be an essential com-plement to scientific observations.Indigenous knowledge of the indicatorsof stress in sensitive ecosystems mayalso be crucial for planning the assess-ment. Communities and individuals thathold this knowledge about the environ-ment may be identified during the sco-ping phase of the EIA.

■ Baseline information on issues specificto the Arctic are included in the ArcticMonitoring and Assessment Programme(AMAP). This information can also befound on the WWW(http://www.grida.no/add/).

What data and information are available?Appropriate baseline and monitoringinformation may be accessible from

established international arctic pro-grams, scientific organizations and non-governmental organisations. AppendixIV lists important sources of data andinformation concerning the Arctic.

Seasonal and year-to year-variation andinvestigation costs

Because the Arctic environment is fre-quently subjected to large fluctuations inseasonal and year-to-year conditions,long-term observations are needed tounderstand the potential perturbationsin the Arctic environment. This in-creases even further the usually highcosts of conducting investigations in theArctic. Coordination of assessment acti-vities with early exploration can reducesome costs. Cost saving can also beachieved through efficient use of diffe-rent sources of information and traditio-nal knowledge. 17

In the impact prediction and evaluationstage of an EIA, issues identifiedthrough scoping are analyzed andexpected impacts are defined. This ana-lysis should:

a)identify the types of impact;

b)predict the magnitude, the probabilityof occurrence, and the extent of theimpact; and

c)determine the significance of theimpact.

5.1 Types of impactImpacts on the environment can lead tochanges in existing conditions; theimpacts can be direct, indirect or cumu-

lative. These changes can be found atdifferent ecological (species to ecosys-tem) and social (individual to communi-ty) levels, can vary over space and time,and can be either positive or negative.

Direct impacts refer to changes in envi-ronmental components that result fromd i rect cause-effect consequences of inter-actions between the environment andproject activities. Indirect impacts resultfrom cause-effect consequences of inter-actions between the environment anddirect impacts. For example, the effectof pollution may not only be seendirectly in the loss of local vegetation,but indirectly as a degeneration of thehealth, culture and social structure oflocal people. Cumulative impacts referto the accumulation of changes to theenvironment caused by human activities(e.g. past, existing and proposed activi-ties, including activities associated with

18

5 Impact prediction and evaluation

the project under assessment). Thesechanges occur over space and time andcan be brought about by environmentaleffects that are additive or interactive.Marine mammals in the Arctic, forexample, can be affected by hunting, oilspills, loss of habitat, and commercialfishing pressure on prey species.

■ The initial assessment of potentialimpacts of oil exploration in the Fyllaarea, Greenland, focused on the generalecology of the area, offshore fish andshrimps and their fisheries, seabirds,marine mammals, and the coastal zoneand the exploitation of its resources.Potential impacts of oil exploration acti-vities, seismic activities and oil spills wereassessed, taking into account that theconsequences of, for example, oil spillsare more severe during the winter seasonthan during other seasons.

Oil exploration in the Fylla Area, Ministryof Environment and Energy, the NationalEnvironmental Research Institute,Technical Report, no. 156, March 1996.

5.2 Cumulative impacts

Why are cumulative impactsaddressed in an EIA?It is important to describe and analyzethe accumulation of change to the envi-ronment due to project-related impacts,even though the projects may be smalland their impacts minor. Cumulativeimpacts resulting from developmentactivities should be considered at theresource and land use planning level.Cumulative impact assessment at theproject level, along with an understan-ding of environmental impacts at theresource and land use planning level,helps set that project and its impacts ina broader ecological and developmentcontext.

What are the types ofcumulative impacts to beconsidered?Cumulative impacts may be characteri-zed by the intensity, type and extent(spatial and temporal) of human activityor source of change to the environment,and by the influence this change mayhave on the environment. The source ofchange could be:

◆ activities resulting from severaldevelopments occurring at the sametime or sequentially (e.g. minedevelopment, construction of accessroads);

◆ activities resulting from manydifferent developments overextended time periods and space (e.g. mine development, constructionof access roads, urban development);and

◆ activities resulting from globaloccurrences widely dispersed overtime and space. 19

What should be considered when assessingcumulative impacts?Some key issues to be considered whenassessing cumulative impacts associatedwith the project:

◆ focus should be on valued ecologicalcomponents, including arcticsensitive areas;

◆ spatial boundaries should be definedwith respect to valued ecologicalcomponents;

◆ temporal boundaries will vary withprojected life span of project impacts;

◆ assessment should be kept atreasonable and manageable levels.

The spatial and temporal boundaries ofthe cumulative impact assessmentshould be established, and the activities(past, existing and proposed activities,including those associated with the pre-sent project under assessment) that willbe addressed in the assessment shouldbe identified. Time and resources, andthe roles and responsibilities in cumula-tive impact assessment, should also bedetermined.

5.3 Impact PredictionThe accumulated knowledge and thefindings of the environmental investiga-tions form the basis for the prediction ofimpacts. The requirements for exact pre-dictions are not necessarily met becauseof uncertainties in the data and a lack ofbaseline data. Claims of exact pre-dictions do not necessarily indicateassessments of high quality or accuracy,in fact, detailed predictions may be mis-leading and direct attention andresources away from central issues thatare important to the assessment. Hence,it is important that the predictions outli-

ne different scenarios and that theunderlying assumptions are presentedtransparently.

Once a potential impact has been deter-mined during the scoping process, it isnecessary to identify which project acti-vity will cause the impact, the probabili-ty of occurrence of the impact, and itsmagnitude and extent (spatial and tem-poral). This information is important forevaluating the significance of theimpact, and for defining mitigation andmonitoring strategies.

What are the importantconsiderations for impactprediction?Baseline condition. The baselinecondition of a resource, ecosystem, orcommunity without the potential effectsof the proposed project must beestablished before the impact predictionprocess begins. 20

Uncertainty. Arctic EIAs containuncertainties resulting frommeasurement error and absence ofinformation, particularly in the case ofcumulative and socio-cultural impacts.Qualitative risk and scenario analysesmay alleviate some of the problemscaused by the uncertainties.

Spatial limits. Impact assessment,including cumulative impacts, mustconsider all activities that affectenvironmental components, even thosecomponents that lie outside theimmediate area affected by the project.Because of the natural conditions in theArctic, the affected area often is largerthan in temperate areas.

Temporal boundaries. Impactassessment, particularly for assessmentsof cumulative impacts, may extendbeyond the period of time required forthe assessment of the project activities.This is especially true in the Arcticbecause most physical, chemical andecological processes are slower than inmore temperate regions. Assessmentsshould take into account the impacts ofpast, existing and planned activities aswell as those activities associated withthe present project.

Incremental condition. An impactprediction process should describe theincremental contribution of the projectto impacts on the environment.Thresholds and additional criteria canbe identified for some specific resources,which establish levels of impact beyondwhich resources cannot be sustained.

Interactions. Assessments of theinteractions between impacts,particularly when consideringcumulative impacts, should be includedin the impact prediction process; forexample, transfers of material betweenecosystems or ecosystem components,and connections between humanculture, resource use and theenvironment.

Quantitative and qualitativemethods. Qualitative impactdescriptions, combined with theconsideration of key uncertainties andquantitative data where appropriate,may provide a means for comparingalternatives.

Are there importantconsiderations for impactprediction in the Arctic?The understanding of the complex inte-ractions of effects is particularly impor-tant in the Arctic because of its slow,non-linear, and potentially irreversibleecological and physical processes.Several arctic characteristics play amajor role in impact prediction; forexample, the effect of temperature onchemicals, the recovery rate of vegeta-tion after the construction phase andchanges in the perm a f rost after a disturb-ance. There are common arctic features(see appendix I) that need to be consi-dered, and which play a major role inimpact prediction.

21

5.4 Evaluation of impacts

The purpose of impact evaluation is toassign relative significance to predictedimpacts associated with the project, andto determine the order in which impactsare to be avoided, mitigated or compen-sated.

The significance of impacts may bedetermined during many phases of anassessment; however, determinationusually occurs during impact prediction.Consideration of impact significancecould affect the scoping exercise, andmonitoring results could lead to a re-evaluation of impact significance.Decisions on impact significance shouldbe presented clearly, and in the case ofdisagreement, the different points of22

view on significance should be presen-ted.

■ A migratory animal, such as caribou orreindeer, may only be affected by theproposed project within a 10-kilometreradius of the project site; however, duringmigration, these animals may be affectedby other activities a hundred kilometresaway.

How is impact significancedetermined?Decisions on significance should bebased on existing standards, discussions,judgement and agreement. These deci-sions should take into account the cha-racteristics of the impact such as the number of affected persons, and the magnitude, extent, duration andreversibility of the impact. The appliedmethods and the criteria used for ranking significance should be clearlypresented. The key elements for assessing the significance of impactsinclude:

◆ level of public concern;

◆ scientific and professional judgement;

◆ measure of disturbance to ecologicalsystems;

◆ impacts on social values and qualityof life;

◆ existence of environmental standards,that is, international, national,provincial or local agreements; and

◆ availability of mitigation practice andtechnology to ameliorate impacts.

Which arctic features influencethe determination of significance?Environmental impacts in the Arctic areoften complex, multidimensional andwidespread, and the associated socialand political issues are value-laden andconflict-prone. The interpretation of theassessment findings should recognizethat:

◆ many important impacts cannot bequantified;

◆ there is no common base forcomparing the significance ofdifferent types of impacts such asimpacts on flora and fauna andimpacts on cultural values;

◆ developers, indigenous people andother groups can have widelydiffering world views through whichthey interpret assessment findings,and judge the significance of thefindings;

◆ the different structure of knowledgegained from local and indigenouspeople has to be analyzed andevaluated using suitable methods fordetermining the significance ofimpacts;

◆ the sensitivity of the arcticenvironment demands specialattention, possibly in the form ofspecial arctic thresholds forsignificance; and

◆ the uncertainties in the Arctic stressthe importance of the precautionaryapproach.

23

In considering mitigation measures, spe-cial arctic features should be taken intoaccount and the public should also beinvolved.

What is mitigation?

Mitigation is the action taken to avoidor lessen the adverse effects of an activi-ty. Mitigation may address ecological,economic or socio-cultural effects.Project planning and implementationmay include mitigation in several ways.

◆ Plan the location or timing of anactivity to avoid affecting specificresources or sensitive areas.

◆ Include mitigation measures inproject design to reduce the impact.For example, pipelines can bedesigned to allow for passage ofmigratory animals.

◆ Undertake a mitigation programconcurrently with a project toalleviate impacts. A program forinhibiting thawing of permafrostwould be an example.

◆ Undertake a mitigation program afteran activity to restore an affectedresource or area, or to replace lost ordamaged resources in the affectedarea or elsewhere. For example,damaged freshwater fisheries can bemitigated by stocking of fish orrestoring river habitats.

When are mitigation measuresidentified?Mitigation measures can be identifiedany time during project planning, imple-mentation, and operations. In particular:

◆ as a result of public consultations orpast experience, mitigation measures

24

6 Mitigation

can be identified early and includedin the design and assessment of aproposal;

◆ mitigation measures may bedeveloped in response to specificimpacts identified in the EIA and adopted at the time a project isimplemented; and

◆ measures may be developed tomitigate impacts that are notidentified until after a project hasbeen implemented.

■ In the Fylla area, oil spill response planswith operational environmental sensitivi-ty maps for enhanced damage controlduring spills were proposed as mitigationmeasures.

Oil exploration in the Fylla Area 1996,Ministry of Environment and Energy, the National Environmental ResearchInstitute, Technical Report, no. 156,March 1996.

Why is mitigation considered inthe EIA process?Careful planning and project implemen-tation can reduce or avoid unwantedenvironmental impacts. This can best beaccomplished if the development ofmitigation is an integral part of the EIAprocess. Public participation in the EIAprocess allows adverse effects and miti-gation measures to be identified andevaluated prior to a decision. In theArctic, mitigation measures are oftendeveloped in consultation with indige-nous communities. This ensures thateffective measures can be adopted whena project is implemented. The descrip-tion of the nature and magnitude ofpotential impacts in the EIA also can bea basis for designing specific mitigationto reduce those effects. Finally, if mitiga-tion is identified during the EIA process,monitoring of the activity can be desig-ned to assess the effectiveness of thosemitigation measures that are part of theproject.

Who is responsible formitigation?The party who initiates the proposaland conducts the activity is usually res-ponsible for mitigation. Governmentagencies approving or regulating a pro-ject must ensure that approved mitiga-tion measures have been implementedand are working effectively.

Are there mitigation measuresspecific to the Arctic?To be most effective, mitigation shouldbe tailored to the anticipated effects of aproposed project on a specific compo-nent of the environment. Some aspectsof the arctic environment that are espe-cially susceptible to adverse effectsshould be examined routinely in an EIAas candidates for mitigation.

◆ Oil spills in sea ice or pack ice aredifficult to clean up and pose aparticular risk to marine mammals. 25

Projects that may cause oil spillsshould include plans for containmentand clean-up of spills, including adescription of the location andcapabilities of oil spill clean-upequipment.

◆ Coastal areas in the Arctic includeessential habitats for migratory birdsand other species that may beparticularly vulnerable to disturbanceby aircraft and other humanactivities. If a project involvestransport by air, minimum altitudesor specific flight paths can bedesignated near essential habitats tominimize impacts on nesting birdsand other species.

◆ Traditional hunting and fishingactivities by indigenous peopleusually take place during fairly well-defined periods of the year.Mitigation measures can bedeveloped in consultation withindigenous communities to avoid orminimize conflicts with theseactivities.

◆ Damage to permafrost can causelong-term adverse effects such asdifferential settlement, terraininstability, and erosion. Mitigationmeasures to avoid or reduce theseeffects should be included in projectplans.

◆ Vegetation grows very slowly in theArctic. Therefore, facilities should besited to minimize disturbance tovegetation.

How is the effectiveness of mitigation determined?Once a project is implemented, moni-toring the activity will assess the effecti-veness of mitigation measures. In somecases, a monitoring program can beestablished as part of the project, inorder to measure actual environmentaleffects and to assess the extent to whichmitigation measures are reducingimpacts. Some impacts may occur thatwere not anticipated or that are moreserious than predicted. Monitoring ofthe activity and the affected environ-ment may suggest new or revised miti-gation measures.

To assess the effectiveness of mitigation,information on the environment shouldbe collected into a well-defined baselineprior to project implementation. Once aproject is implemented, measuring thechange in environmental conditionsrelative to the baseline conditions willgive an indication of the effectiveness ofmitigation measures in avoiding or redu-cing impacts.

26

Monitoring should include a follow-upon the impacts, a verification of the pre-dictions and feedback on the mitigationand project operations, as appropriate todomestic EIA practices. The environ-mental conditions in the Arctic makemonitoring a demanding task requiringcareful planning.

What is monitoring?Monitoring is the systematic observa-tion or tracking of an activity to deter-mine whether it is proceeding orfunctioning as expected. Through moni-toring, the accuracy of environmentalimpact predictions are also assessed. Agood monitoring program will provideadequate information to measure envi-ronmental change and assess the effecti-veness of procedures employed to miti-gate adverse impacts. This informationshould be the basis for modifying the

activity or mitigation measures. If neces-sary, those responsible for the activityare required to further reduce environ-mental effects, protect resources, orimprove the efficiency of the activity.

Why is monitoring considered inthe EIA process?

A good EIA describes the proposed acti-vity in sufficient detail to predict withsome degree of specificity the nature,magnitude, and duration of significantenvironmental impacts. However, theextent to which the descriptions andpredictions are accurate can only bedetermined through post-project moni-toring. Therefore, the EIA provides abasis for designing a monitoringprogram. The monitoring verifies theenvironmental effects and the effective-ness of mitigation.

27

7 Monitoring

Public concern for projects often inclu-des questions about follow-up on theproject activities once a decision to pro-ceed is made, and the need for assu-rances that problems will be identifiedand corrected. A good monitoringprogram, developed during the EIA pro-cess, can be an important step to addressthis concern effectively.

■ Planning for the Kiruna borderhighway, nr 98, in Swedish Lapland star-ted in 1974, and the final section was ope-ned for traffic in 1982. The road is 132kilometres long and includes 26 bridges.For most of its length, the road follows amining railway. Monitoring has shownthat land use has changed because of theroad. The infrastructure (towns, reststops, etc.) covers as large of an area asthe actual road, and has required anequal amount of investment. Vegetationplanted next to the roadside has not thri-ved, and planted ground vegetation hasnot done well. Banks higher than 2 met-res were still without vegetation 10 yearsafter the construction of the road.

Bäck, L., Jonasson, C. and Strömquist, L.Environmental impact studies of thehighway construction between Kirunaand Riksgränsen, Long term impact 1985-1987. UNGI Report Nr 75, VIII+78 pp,Uppsala. Abstract in English.

What should be monitored?A determination as to what to monitorshould be done selectively, based on thenature of the proposed activity and theresults of the EIA.

What are the basic elements ofsuccessful monitoring?A good monitoring program shouldinclude:◆ clearly defined objectives;

◆ an environmental baseline formeasuring change;

◆ environmental criteria, if availableand applicable, for certainenvironmental components such aswater or air;

◆ a method to measure the amount ofchange to an environmental resourceoccurring over a specific period oftime, the change should be measuredquantitatively if possible;

◆ a method to determine the extent towhich the activity in questioncontributes to the environmentalchange;

◆ a method to assess the effectivenessof mitigation measures adopted withthe action;

◆ regular review and revision, whennecessary, to ensure that the programobjectives are being met as cost-effectively as possible; and28

◆ standardized methodologies that arecomparable with those usedelsewhere in the Arctic as well asinternationally.

Who is responsible formonitoring?Monitoring may be performed by theproject operator, a contractor, an inde-pendent monitoring institute or agovernment agency. Monitoring respon-sibilities and procedures should bedescribed in the documentation givingapproval for the project. Governmentagencies responsible for project appro-val or regulation must ensure that anymonitoring program adopted with theproposal is conducted as planned.

Are there aspects of monitoringspecific to the Arctic?The greater year-to-year variability inarctic biological resources (i.e. speciespopulation) compared with non-arcticregions, and the high degree of uncer-tainty in measurements of environmen-tal components and in predictingimpacts in the Arctic, requires that a

longer period of time to establish baseli-ne conditions for monitoring be consi-dered.

The costs of monitoring programs, aswith other research, may be greater inthe Arctic than in other regions becauseof the remoteness of many areas and theextreme environmental conditions.Monitoring programs should take intoaccount that the Arctic is particularlyvulnerable to disturbance because it is anatural sink for water- and airborne pol-lutants.

Indigenous and local communitiesshould be consulted about the designand implementation of monitoringprograms that directly or indirectlyaffect their life. Their traditionalknowledge should be incorporated intothese programs along with standardscientific data.

What should be reported frommonitoring?All monitoring reports should be publis-hed and made available to administra-tors, proponents, people affected by theproject, and the public.

29

An environmental impact assessmentdocument should be prepared and pro-vided to all involved parties. The docu-ment describes the project and the likelyimpact upon the environment of theproposed activity.

The information should include:

1. A description of the proposed project and itsalternatives, including information about thelocation and the design and size or scale of theproject. This includes physical, technical

and engineering characteristics of theproposed development, and land userequirements during the constructionand operational stages. It should statethe main characteristics of the develop-ment processes proposed, including thetype and quantity of resources to beused;

2. A description of the environment that couldbe affected by the proposed project oralternatives. This should also include adescription of the baseline state with

30

8 The environmental impactassessment document

which predicted changes are to be com-pared;

3. The data and other information that havebeen used to identify and assess the main effectswhich the project is likely to have onthe environment, including a descrip-tion of the traditional knowledge incor-porated into the EIA. The documenta-tion of traditional knowledge should becarried out in cooperation with thecommunity;

4. The estimated type and quantity of expectedimpact factors resulting from the proposedproject when in operation;

5. The methods used in the assessment such asidentification and forecasting of any effects onthe environment, descriptions of the use, assess -ment and evaluation of available traditionalknowledge, and methods used to compare alterna -

tives. Difficulties such as uncertainties orproblems in compiling specified data,should also be reported;

6. Based on the above, an identification ofthe impact area;

7. The likely significant impacts (see defini-tion in section 5.1, page 18) on theenvironment of the proposed activityand its alternatives. The effects mayresult from activities including the use ofnatural resources, the emission of pollu-tants, the creation of nuisances, and theelimination of waste;

8. Where significant adverse effects areidentified, a description of the measures propo -sed to avoid, reduce or rectify these effects takinginto consideration the slow recoveryand regeneration factors in the Arctic.This should also include a description ofmonitoring programs to detect unfore-seen impacts, and that could provideearly warning of any adverse effects, inaddition to dealing promptly and effi-ciently with accidents;

9. An evaluation of the different alternatives,including the alternative of no action;

10. A description of the integration of EIA,public participation and public consultationinto planning and decision-makingthroughout the process; and

11. A summary in non-technical language,assisted with figures and diagrams, ofthe information specified above. If needbe, other means of displaying this infor-mation should be based on the culturalheritage of the local and indigenouspeople. The non-technical summaryshould be presented in national andlocal language(s).

31

An EIA should ensure effective publicparticipation and consultation. Uniquefeatures such as culture, socio-economicand remoteness factors should be consi-dered in planning and carrying out pub-lic consultations in the Arctic.

Who is the public?When used in the context of the EIAprocess, the “public” means the indivi-duals, indigenous people, groups, orga-nizations, or communities that have aninterest in or could be affected by theproposed action.

■ In 1981, the federal government estab-lished an intervenor funding program toprovide financial assistance to those wis-hing to present their views to the Panel.Intervenor funding enabled many partici-pants to prepare briefs and to travel topublic sessions to present the briefs.Although this program was independentof the Panel’s review responsibilities,

nevertheless, the Panel concludes thatthe review process was materially assis-ted and that intervenor funding enhancedthe quality and substance of interventionsfrom northern residents whose interestswould be most directly affected if thedevelopment were to go ahead. ThePanel recommends that intervenor fun-ding be made available for all future pub-lic reviews, and that funding be restrictedto those participants who would be signi-ficantly affected by the proposal underreview.

Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon Productionand Transportation, Review PanelReport, 1984.

What is public participation?In EIA, public participation provides theaffected and interested public an oppor-tunity to influence planning, assessmentand monitoring of projects. Public parti-

32

9 Public participation

cipation includes public hearings, publicmeetings, public access and public rightto comment.

It is an effective way to integrate envi-ronmental, cultural, social, economic,and technological considerations. It pro-vides a forum for the expression, discus-sion, analysis and evaluation of issues,information, values, perspectives, andinterests. It facilitates the fair and reaso-nable resolution of conflicts throughmediation, negotiation, and publicreview.

Why involve the public in the EIA process?There are several reasons to involve thepublic in the planning and analysis ofproposed activities that could affectpeople’s environment and quality of life,including:

◆ To provide a means for those whomay be affected by a project toprovide input into the planning,assessment and monitoring of theproject.

◆ To inform people about thecharacteristics, location, and designof the proposed activity. People needinformation about a project to lessenanxiety and to plan accordingly.

◆ To determine the scope of the EIA.People who will be affected by anactivity have a stake in identifyingthe important issues or concerns andalternatives to be analyzed, and insetting the temporal boundaries ofthe EIA.

◆ To acquire information. Theindividuals and communities affectedare a primary source of informationfor the EIA.

◆ To establish mutually agreed rulesand procedures for conducting publicmeetings and consultations.

Public participation ensures the open-ness of the EIA and, ultimately, theacceptability, accountability, and credi-bility of EIA decision-making.

Effective community involvement is cri-tical to successful public participation.Understanding and trust must be estab-lished among the public, project pro-ponents, and regulators, if affected com-munities are to accept and contributepositively to a proposal. This requires asincere commitment by all parties towork cooperatively throughout the EIAprocess and once the project is imple-mented.

When does public participationoccur in the EIA process?

Public participation occurs before andthroughout the EIA process and conti-nues afterwards if the project is imple-mented. Participation should be as con-tinuous as possible to avoid the loss ofinterest from the participating parties.Specific points for scheduling publicparticipation include: 33

◆ The public should be informed whena project is first proposed(application of EIA), and giveninformation on how to get involved.An early plan should be made forincorporation of traditionalknowledge.

◆ The public should participate in thescoping and baseline monitoringphases during the initial EIA planningwhen the environmental issues, and,in some cases, mitigation measuresare identified.

◆ The public should have theopportunity to review and commenton each phase of the EIA.

◆ After the EIA is completed, thepublic should be able to review thefinal analysis and recommendations,and submit comments to the actingagency or party before projectimplementation.

◆ Once a project is implemented, thepublic should be routinely informedabout the activity, including havingaccess to information about anyenvironmental effects, monitoringprograms and the effectiveness ofmitigation.

■ In 1989, the State Committee forNatural Resources and Ecology con-ducted an EIA on the technical and eco-nomic plan for the extraction of naturalgas at Bovanankovo and Kharasavey (theYamal peninsula). Experts from, amongothers, the State Committee for NaturalResources, the Academy of Sciences, theState Sanitary Service, the Ministry ofHealth, and the StateHydrometeorological Service, as well aslocal authorities and representatives ofindigenous peoples living in the area ofpossible impact participated in the proce-dure. The assessment concluded that thefollowing sensitive natural features wouldbe affected: permafrost, coastal zone, wettundra, reindeer pastures and migrationroutes. Two indigenous settlements werelocated nearby. The assessment led to a

negative decision on the project. Theexpert commission did, however, allowfor new studies to find adequate technicalsolutions to the problems. At present,these studies are underway. A programfor social support of the indigenous popu-lation has also been put forward.

More information: Marianna Novikova,the State Environmental Review of theState Committee of the RussianFederation for Environmental Protection,ul. Kedrova, 8/1, Moscow.

What are the important elementsof effective public participation?Clear rules and procedures for con-ducting meetings and consultationsshould be established, for example, whois able to participate, by which meansand on which terms. Public participationand awareness will be increased througheasy access to EIA documentation andclear, concise communication of infor-mation.34

A variety of methods can be used bygovernment agencies or project pro-ponents to involve the public. In addi-tion to traditional means of informingthe public through letters and mediaannouncements, public participationmay be encouraged by:

◆ visits to communities by governmentstaff or project proponents, or theestablishment of local offices;

◆ public hearings held by panels,commissions or advisory committees,which include members of thepublic; and

◆ teleconferences to allow participationin meetings when travel is notpossible.

The methods of communicating withthe public should be tailored to eachstage in the EIA process, and shouldaccommodate the needs and preferencesof those segments of the public involvedat each stage.

■ With the implementation of land claimagreements in the Canadian Yukon andNorthwest Territories, new environmen-tal impact assessment processes havebeen and will be established.Environmental assessment processes pur-suant to the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit)Claim (1984) and the Nunavut LandClaim Agreement (1993) are already inplace. Legislation is being developed toimplement the Gwich’in (1992) and Sahtu(1993) land claim agreements, and it isanticipated that the proposed MackenzieValley Resource Management Act(MVRMA) will be passed by Parliament in1997. The MVRMA will establish an integ-rated system of land and water manage-ment and environmental assessmentthroughout the Mackenzie Valley (thatportion of the Northwest Territories thatdoes not include the InuvialuitSettlement Region and Nunavut). TheMVRMA will establish the EnvironmentalImpact Review Board, which will beappointed by the government of Canada

through equal nomination of governmentofficials (federal and territorial) and indi-genous groups. Legislation is also beingdeveloped to implement in the Yukon theenvironmental assessment process inclu-ded in the 1995 Umbrella FinalAgreement.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada

Which aspects of publicparticipation demand specialattention in the Arctic?The Arctic is culturally and socio-eco-nomically a non-uniform and complexarea. Therefore, the participation ofArctic communities is needed to resolveconflicts and disputes between peoplewith different values, perceptions, andgoals, and frequently exhibiting a lackof mutual trust and understanding. Asuccessful EIA process should acknowl-

35

edge different opinions, perceptions andperspectives fairly to foster commonunderstanding.

Government agencies, project pro-ponents, and researchers need to deve-lop an understanding of indigenouspeople, their culture and socio-econo-mic structure, and need to work to-gether with their community leaders.Methods of communication should notbe intrusive and should be sensitive toindigenous peoples’ customs and life-styles. The use of translators and inter-preters who master local languages isoften essential.

Indigenous people should be providedwith the opportunity to contribute theirtraditional knowledge throughout theprocess. Requests for information anddocuments should recognize the diffe-rences between science and traditionalknowledge. Contacts within communi-ties should be established early so thatindigenous people who are experts intraditional knowledge can be identified

and liaisons established.

Time frames for EIA in arctic environ-ments are often longer than for a non-arctic EIA. This is to take into conside-ration the cultural and socio-economicfactors and the remoteness of towns andcommunities. Therefore, sufficient time,within reasonable limits, is needed bythe public to review and respond to theinformation.

When scheduling meetings, the remote-ness of many arctic communities shouldbe taken into consideration, and com-munity activities should be accommoda-ted whenever possible. Additional fun-ding may be needed to enable peoplefrom isolated locations to participate inpublic meetings. Meetings should beplanned imaginatively with cultural dif-ferences in mind. The standard hearingformat, with a hearing panel and testi-mony read into the record by indivi-duals under time constraints, may not beappropriate, in most cases, in indigenouscommunities.

36

In the EIA process, traditional knowl-edge should be used for understandingthe possible consequences of the pre-dicted impacts and for reducing theuncertainties. Traditional knowledge iscommonly referred to as knowledgeheld by indigenous people. Local knowl-edge, non-indigenous or indigenous,also has an important role to play inEIA. Nevertheless, in recent years, indi-genous people have upheld traditionalknowledge in international fora.

What is traditional knowledge?Traditional knowledge has been definedin many ways and is an evolvingconcept. For the purposes of these gui-delines, traditional knowledge is definedas accumulated knowledge held by indi-genous people on the arctic environ-

ment, and the management of itsresources for present and future genera-tions. This knowledge is passed down toyounger generations through activitiesof actual resource use, and by storytel-ling, dance, songs and legends. It ensu-res the survival and integrity of the indi-genous people in the arctic regions.Traditional knowledge is the intellectualproperty of indigenous communities andthe holders of this knowledge.

Traditional knowledge is recognized bythe newly formed Arctic Council as akey element in the sustainable develop-ment of arctic resources and is rapidlygaining global recognition as an essen-tial component in the management ofnatural resources. It is now included inthe Convention on Biological Diversity.

37

10 Traditional knowledge

What is the role of traditionalknowledge in environmentalimpact assessment?Traditional knowledge is recognized as avital source of information in the envi-ronmental impact assessment process. Ithas become a key component in currentresearch on arctic ecology and the envi-ronment, and is intended to comple-ment and support scientific and ecologi-cal findings.

Traditional knowledge is used to gain abetter understanding of the conse-quences of predicted impacts, to reduceuncertainties in predictions, and to assistin establishing baseline conditions andmonitoring programs.

■ The Minerals Management Service(MMS) integrated the Inupiat Elders’statements about sea ice, fish, birds,polar bears, marine mammals, bowheadwhales, caribou, and subsistence into thetext of the September 1966 Beaufort Sealease sale Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) and other decision docu-ments. These statements came fromlease sale public hearings and workshopsconducted in North Slope Borough com-munities, and from village outreach tripreport notes, synthesis meetings, and avariety of other written sources. At com-munity workshops conducted in August1995 in Barrow, Kaktovik, and Nuiqsut,MMS asked for each community to iden-tify people who were considered localauthorities on particular subsistence

practices and biological resources, andwhose input would be included in theFinal EIS. Then, prior to publication,MMS asked Tom Albert, biologist forAlaska’s North Slope Borough, andothers to review the EIS analysis sectionson subsistence, bowhead whales, marinemammals, and marine and coastal birdswhere indigenous knowledge had beenincorporated.

How is traditional knowledge tobe used in the EIA process?

The use of traditional knowledge in anarctic EIA requires careful planning. Allparties have to know how and on whatbasis the traditional knowledge is to beused, and how it is to be evaluated.Modern scientists should recognize thevarious methods by which this knowl-edge is received, assessed, and evaluated.The holders of traditional knowledgemust be given respect by the scientistsresearching traditional values. Once aliaison with those who possess traditio-nal knowledge has been established, itshould be sustained through continuousmutual consultations. Because traditionalknowledge is the intellectual property ofthe people who hold it, it is essential toagree with those people on the rules forthe use of traditional knowledge.Adequate compensation is to be provi-ded for this information, based on termsand conditions agreed on by all partiesinvolved. Researchers are to abide bythe ethical research guidelines set out bythe respective communities.

38

In the EIA process, possible transboun-dary impacts should be considered,when appropriate. Assessments of trans-boundary impacts require project deve-lopers and authorities to make allo-wances for different legal systems, toprovide translations when necessary, andto make special arrangements for publicparticipation across jurisdictional bor-ders.

■ The Outokumpu factories in Tornio,Finland, are major producers of ferro-chrome and steel products. In 1996 thedeveloper announced an EIA would beprepared on the proposed enlargementof the factories. The document describingthe scope of the assessment was open topublic inspection from 29 April to 17 May1996 in municipal offices and in regionalenvironment authority offices both inFinland and Sweden, since the factoriesare based only two kilometres from theSwedish-Finnish border. The Finnishregional environment centre that wasoverseeing the assessment publicly

announced invitations to a hearing on thescope of the assessment in newspapers,both in Finland and Sweden. Theannouncement was also sent to theNorrbotten county administrators andHaparanda municipality, both in Sweden.

Further information: Outokumpu PolaritOy, 95400 Tornio and Lapland RegionalCentre, P.O. Box 8060, Rovaniemi,Finland.

What are transboundaryimpacts?Transboundary impact means anyimpact within a country (the affectedcountry) that is caused by an activitylocated in another country (the countryof origin).

Proposed projects that may causeimpacts across provincial or municipalborders, and the assessment of theseimpacts, may have features in commonwith transboundary impacts and assess-

39

11 Transboundary impacts

ments between countries. However, pro-vincial or municipal border projectsshould be dealt with according to thenational legislation or land claim agree-ments.

How should impacts acrossborders in the Arctic be dealt with?When a proposed project may lead toimpacts across jurisdictional boundaries,the country of origin and the projectdeveloper should ensure that theaffected country and its citizens withinthe area of likely impact are given theopportunity to participate in the envi-ronmental impact assessment. Thecountry of origin should thus provideinformation on the assessment at anearly stage in the assessment process,when a decision to apply an EIA is madeor when the scope of the assessment isdetermined. Open dialogue and infor-mation exchange should be establishedbetween the country of origin and theaffected country or countries.

While determining the scope of theassessment, the potential transboundaryimpacts should be identified and themethods to be used for assessing themshould be agreed upon. During theassessment, harmonization of baselineinformation, and assessment of appro-aches and assessment methodologiesmay be required to ensure compatibilitybetween results of the assessment onboth sides of the border. Joint study orsteering groups may provide a forum forexchanges of information.

Public participation should be madeavailable to the public in the areas oflikely impact on both sides of the bor-der. Everyone should receive the sameinformation, and be given the sameopportunity to participate in the assess-ment and comment on the results.Where necessary, translation of keydocuments should be provided for.

The UN ECE Convention on EIA in aTransboundary Context, the EspooConvention (1991, entered into force in1997), provides a comprehensive frame-40

work for dealing with activities likely tohave significant adverse transboundaryimpacts. Further details can be laiddown in bi- or multilateral agreementsor other arrangements to provide for aneffective transboundary assessment inregions with special features such as theArctic.

Which activities may causetransboundary impacts in the Arctic?All activities assessed according to thenational EIA legislation should be scree-ned for the likelihood of transboundaryimpacts. The ECE Convention includesa list of activities for which transboun-dary impact assessment is mandatory. Bi-or multilateral agreements may alsomandate activities to be covered bytransboundary assessments. Because ofthe sensitivity of the Arctic environ-ment, relevant activities requiring EIA,other than those listed in the ECEConvention, should be agreed upon forthe Arctic region. In addition, for thoseactivities already on the ECEConvention list, lower threshold levelsmay be needed for projects in theArctic.

In the Arctic, the development of oiland gas resources, large-scale hydro-electric projects, and extensive miningand smelter works are activities thathave already led to transboundaryimpacts. For these activities the scale of

operation is often so large that trans-boundary impacts can occur eventhough the border is far away. In addi-tion several smaller activities, such asforestry development, land drainage androad building have caused transbounda-ry impacts, when these activities haveoccurred close to borders. Planned acti-vities, for example, the opening of newsea routes in the high Arctic and theirrequired port facilities are also likely tocause transboundary impacts. In manycountries, detailed lists of activities thatmay cause adverse environmentalimpacts have been compiled. In the bor-der areas in the Arctic, these lists shouldbe compared and harmonised throughbi- or multilateral agreements.

How should public participation be arranged for a transboundary EIA?Communities in the area of anticipatedimpacts should be given an opportunityto participate, irrespective of their loca-tion relative to the border. The InuitCircumpolar Conference, the SamiCouncil and the Indigenous PeoplesSecretariat are accredited non-govern-mental organisations on the ArcticCouncil, and which are active in severalarctic countries. They may thus provideuseful links to the public on both sidesof the border. Other international non-governmental organisations such as theWWF Arctic also have extensive trans-boundary networks in the Arctic region.

41

Aikio Leena, the Sami Council, Utsjoki, Finland

Alexandrovsky Yuri, Ministry of Protection ofthe Environment and Natural Resources,Moscow, Russia

Artobolevsky Valery, Murmansk RegionalEnvironmental Committee, Murmansk, Russia

Bäck Lennart, Institute of Cultural Geography,Uppsala, Sweden

Bengtson John, Alaska Fisheries Science Centre,National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle,Washington, USA

Bourtsev Sergei, Russian Federation Ministry ofEnvironment Protection, Moscow, Russia

Brelsford Taylor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Anchorage, Alaska, USA

Céwe Tord, Swedish Environment ProtectionAgency, Stockholm, Sweden

Childers Dorothy, Greenpeace Alaska, USA

Cunningham Bob, National Science Foundation– OPP, Arlington, Texas, USA

Dahl Reidar, Directorate for NatureManagement, Trondheim, Norway

Denisov Vladimir, Murmansk Marine BiologicalInstitute, Russian Academy of Sciences, KolaScience Centre, Russia

Diskurssi Ltd., Helsinki, Finland

Donnelly Annie, Environmental Planning Group,IIED, London, UK

Dupuis Sylvie, Canadian EnvironmentalAssessment Agency, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Elling Henrik, Danish Polar Centre,Copenhagen, Denmark

Engraf Anette, Greenland Homerule, Nuuk,Greenland

42

Contributors

Fayen Molly, OES/OA/PA c/o US Departmentof State, Washington, D.C., USA

Forbes Bruce, Arctic Centre, University ofLapland, Rovaniemi, Finland

Ford Violet, Inuit Circumpolar Conference,Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Futsaeter Gunnar, Norwegian Polar Institute,Oslo, Norway

Gibson Robert, Department of Environmentaland Resource Studies, University of Waterloo,Ontario, Canada

Gresham P.H., EA Service, IUCN, Switzerland

Halonen Leif, the Sami Council, Kautokeino,Norway

Heininen Lassi, Arctic Centre, Rovaniemi,Finland

Henry David, UNEP/GRID-ARENDAL, Arendal,Norway

Hovorka Mark, WWF Arctic Programme,Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Howard Kerry, Division of GovernmentalCoordination, State of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska,USA

Hukkinen Janne, Arctic Centre, University ofLapland, Rovaniemi, Finland

Hume Valerie, Department of Indian Affairs andNorthern Development, Quebec, Canada

Huntington Henry, Inuit CircumpolarConference, Anchorage, Alaska, USA

Hurwich Evelyn, Circumpolar ConservationUnion, Washington D.C., USA

Husby Stig Roar, NIBR, Oslo, Norway

Jansson Anders, Finnish National RoadAdministration, Helsinki, Finland

Joki-Heiskala Päivi, Finnish EnvironmentInstitute, Helsinki, Finland

Kalabin Gennady, Kola Science Centre, Apatity,Russia

Karjalainen Yrjö, Lapland RegionalEnvironmental Centre, Rovaniemi, Finland

Kennedy William, EBRD, London, UK

Kinnunen Kari, Lapland Regional EnvironmentalCentre, Rovaniemi, Finland

Klein Heidi, Mackenzie Valley EnvironmentalImpact Review Working Group, Yellowknife,North West Territories, Canada

Koivurova Timo, University of Lapland,Rovaniemi, Finland

Kontio Matti, Geological Survey of Finland,Rovaniemi, Finland

Kontio Panu, Finnish Environment Institute,Helsinki, Finland

Korhonen Seija, Ministry of the Environment,Helsinki, Finland

Kostin Alexandr, Murmansk RegionalEnvironmental Committee, Murmansk, Russia

Lange Manfred, Arctic Centre, Rovaniemi,Finland

Langlais Richard, Arctic Centre, University ofLapland, Rovaniemi, Finland

Larsen Lars-Henrik, Akvaplan-Niva AS, Norway

Laughlin Tom, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, Office ofInternational Affairs, Washington, D.C., USA

LeBlanc Patrice, Policy and ProcessDevelopment, Canadian EnvironmentalAssessment Agency, Hull, Quebec, Canada

Leskelä Tuula, Nature Conservation Centre,Rovaniemi, Finland

Mannio Jaakko, Finnish Environment Institute,Helsinki, Finland

McEwen John, Canadian EnvironmentalAssessment Agency, Hull, Quebec, Canada

McFarland Fred, Department of Indian andNorthern Affairs, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Mehr Katreen, Swedish EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Solna, Sweden

Moberg Rainer, Neste Ltd., Finland

Moe Kjell, Norwegian Polar Institute, Oslo,Norway

Molander Tuomo, Lapin liitto, Rovaniemi,Finland

Montgomery Joe, Environmental ProtectionAgency, Washington, D.C., USA

Mähönen Outi, Ministry of the Environment,Helsinki, Finland & Lapland RegionalEnvironmental Centre, Rovaniemi, Finland 43

Nazareth Joe, Ministry of Environment andEnergy, Copenhagen, Denmark

Novikova Marianne, The State Committee ofthe Russian Federation for EnvironmentalProtection, Moscow, Russia

Oja Robert, U.S. Regulatory Branch, ArmyEngineer District, Alaska, USA

Osherenko Gail, Institute of Arctic Studies,Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire,USA

Pagnan Jeanne, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Paukkunen Marika, Ministry of the Environment,Helsinki, Finland

Petersen Hanne, National EnvironmentalResearch Institute, Department of ArcticEnvironment, Copenhagen, Denmark

Petersen Aevar, Icelandic Institute of NaturalHistory, Reykjavik, Iceland

Rädeker Hanne, Ministry of the Environment,Copenhagen, Denmark

Raulinaitis Mindaugas, University of Turku,Turku, Finland

Rautio Milla, Finnish Environment Institute,Helsinki, Finland

Receveur Olivier, Centre for Nutrition and theEnvironment of Indigenous Peoples, McGillUniversity, Quebec, Canada

Richter Marianne, Federal EnvironmentalAgency, Berlin, Germany

Riska Kaj, Helsinki University of Technology,Ship Laboratory, Espoo, Finland

Rogne Odd, International Arctic ScienceCommittee Secretariat, Norway

Rouhinen Sauli, Ministry of the Environment,Helsinki, Finland

Ruza Sandra, Ministry of EnvironmentalProtection and Regional Development of Latvia,Riga, Latvia

Salminen Pekka, Finnish Environment Institute,Helsinki, Finland

Schrage Wiek, Economic Commission forEurope, Geneva, Switzerland

Scrivener David, Keele University, Departmentof International Relations, Staffordshire, UK

Sigurdardottir Holmfridur, National PhysicalPlanning Agency, Reykjavik, Iceland

Sippola Anna-Liisa, Arctic Centre, University ofLapland, Rovaniemi, Finland

Soumina Elena, Department of Arctic andIslands Territories, Russian State Committeefor the Development of the North, Moscow,Russia

Torikka Ritva, Sami Council, Inari, Finland

Tuovinen Pekka, Neste Ltd., Finland

Valve Helena, Finnish Environment Institute,Helsinki, Finland

Vanhanen Erkki, Geological Survey of Finland,Rovaniemi, Finland

Virtanen Risto, University of Oulu, Finland

Watson Jeter, Environmental ComplianceServices, Inc. & Circumpolar ConservationUnion, USA

Whitby Leslie, Environment and RenewableResources, Department of Indian Affairs andNorthern Development, Hull, Quebec, Canada

Wildermann Richard, Minerals ManagementService, Herndon, Virginia, USA

Wilson William, LGL Alaska ResearchAssociates, Inc., USA,

Wilson Simon, AMAP, Norway

Young Oran, Institute of Arctic Studies,Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire,USA

Zwaag van der David, Marine andEnvironmental Law Program, Dalhousie LawSchool, Nova Scotia, Canada

The initial discussion paper for the Guidelineswas prepared by Pekka Salminen, FinnishEnvironment Institute, Finland

44

Appendix ICommon arctic features

Climate, geographic and geological features

◆ extent of ice-cover on waters◆ typified by cold areas (cryosphere)

– permafrost – periglacial features– glaciers/ice sheets– stored greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane– stored fresh water

◆ ink for airborne/waterborne pollutants◆ slow break down of contaminants◆ large variations in conditions between years

Ecosystems and biological resources

◆ young ecosystems and numerous sensitive areas (see appendix II)◆ sharp gradients in the environment and ecosystems both in time and space◆ low productivity levels in general, but some areas of very high productivity◆ short food chains◆ slow recovery/regeneration rates◆ risk of irreversible processes/cascades (e.g. as a consequence of erosion)◆ low carrying capacity◆ high concentration of stocks (groups of certain species) ◆ biodiversity at genetic and landscape levels ◆ unspoilt landscapes that are large enough to allow ecological processes and

wildlife populations to fluctuate naturally

Socio-cultural and economic features

◆ cultural variability: indigenous/other local/settler population◆ high percentage of local inhabitants are dependent on renewable resources◆ extensive (vs intensive) patterns of land use – forestry, herding, hunting ◆ areas of very low to very high population densities◆ growth of industrial development and exploitation of non-renewable

resources

Knowledge of the systems

◆ lack of baseline environmental knowledge◆ traditional knowledge

45

Appendix IIAreas demanding particular attention in the Arctic

Areas or sites of great sensitivity or unique geomorphologicalcharacteristics:

◆ permafrost terrains and insulating layers, ◆ ice-edges, leads, polynyasespecially unique permafrost land forms ◆ glacier rivers

◆ wet tundra ◆ glaciers, eskers◆ coastlines ◆ timberline forests◆ thermoabrasion coastlines ◆ large deltas◆ soils and waters prone to acidification,

in some cases alkalinization◆ continental dunes

Areas of special importance to wildlife:

◆ fish spawning and nursery areas ◆ denning areas for large ◆ nesting, rearing and staging areas predators and rearing areas

for waterfowl and other birds for other animals◆ migrating and calving areas for ◆ seal pupping areas

moose and caribou◆ marine mammal migration routes

Areas with valuable, sensitive and representative biotopes:

◆ palsa bogs ◆ vegetation on scree slopes◆ snowbed habitats ◆ calcareous rock walls◆ eutrophic, calcareous tundra heaths◆ tundra steps

Areas of spiritual, cultural and other socio-economic value as well asareas of special importance for traditional resource use:

◆ sacred and spiritual places ◆ traditional trails◆ burial grounds ◆ marine mammal harvest areas◆ reindeer round-up sites◆ traditional fishing or hunting campsites

46

Appendix IIIDefinitions

Cumulative environmental effects (CEEs) are additive (aggregate),synergistic, or antagonistic (neutralizing) environmental changes of multipleimpacts from past, present, and future development activities that degradevaluable ecosystem components. The pathways of CEEs can be difficult todetermine because direct and indirect impacts can crowd or lag in time andspace or become apparent only after specific triggers or thresholds areexceeded.

Environment encompasses the natural (biological and physical)environment and the human (social, cultural and economic) environment.The conceptualization of the environment, from the point of view of eacharctic country, can be found at the information site on the WWW or fromthe national EIA authorities (see appendix IV).

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a process for identifying,predicting, evaluating, and mitigating the biophysical, social, and otherrelevant effects of proposed projects and physical activities prior to majordecisions and commitments being made.

Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is a process of priorexamination and appraisal of policies, plans, and programs and other higherlevel or pre-project initiatives.

Sustainable development is, according to the Bruntland Commission(1987), a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, thedirection of investments, the orientation of technological development andinstitutional change are all in harmony and enhance the current and thefuture potential to meet human needs and aspirations.

The precautionary principle used by the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development is as follows: Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

Traditional knowledge (TK) is the accumulated knowledge of naturalecosystems, based on the spiritual health, culture, and language of thepeople, and which is passed to successive generations through stories, song,dance, and myths to ensure the survival of the people and the integrity of thesocio-cultural and socio-economic systems of the people. Indigenousknowledge is dynamic, based upon an intimate understanding of the

47

components of the abiotic and biotic environments – land, water, snow, ice,weather, plants, and wildlife – and the interactions between them. TKsystems are grounded in the practicality, reasoning, and logic of historicalexperiences, and provide guidelines and governance on the respect, use, andsharing of natural resources (from Roberts 1996). TEK = traditionalecological knowledge.

48

Appendix IV Sources of informationNational Contacts:

Canada

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Northern AffairsNatural Resources and Environmental BranchEnvironment and Renewable Resources Directorate10 Wellington StreetHull, Quebec, CanadaK1A [email protected]

Finland

Ministry of the Environment Lapland Regional Environment CentreP.O. Box 399 P.O. Box 8060, FIN-00121 Helsinki, Finland FIN-96101 Rovaniemi, Finlandtel: 358 9 19911 tel: 358 16 329 4111fax: 358 9 9545 fax: 358 16 310 340http://www.vyh.fi/yva/index.htm

Greenland/Denmark

Department for the Arctic Greenland Institute of Natural Environment Danish National ResourcesEnvironmental Research Institute P.O. Box 570Ministry of Environment and Energy 3900 Nuuk, GreenlandTangensvej 135, 4. Sal tel: 299 2 10 952200 Copenhagen N, Denmark fax: 299 2 59 57tel: 35 82 14 15fax: 35 82 14 [email protected]

Iceland

Ministry for the Environment National Physical Planning AgencyVonarstraeti 4 Laugavegi 166IS-150 Reykjavik, Iceland IS-150 Reykjavik, Icelandtel: 354 560 9600 tel: 354 562 4100fax: 354 562 4566 fax: 354 562 4165http://www.mmedia.is/umhverfi/ http://www.islag.is

Norway

Miljöverndepartementet Norwegian Polar InstituteMinistry of the Environment Middelthuns gt. 29P.O. Box 8013 Dep P.O. Box 5072 Maj.N-0030 Oslo, Norway 0301 Oslo, Norwaytel: 47 22 249090 tel: 47 22 959500fax: 47 22 242759 fax: 47 22 959501

49

50

Russia

The State Environmental ReviewState Committee of the Russian Federation forEnvironmental ProtectionUl. Kedrova, 8/1, Moscow, Russiatel: 7 095 254 7256fax: 7 095 254 8283

Sweden

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency BoverketBlekholmsterrassen 36 P. O. Box 534S-106 48 Stockholm, Sweden S-37123 Karlskrona, Swedentel: 46 8 698 1000 tel: 46 455 53000fax: 46 8 698 1 253 fax: 46 455 53121

USA

Council on Environmental QualityExecutive Office of the President722 Jackson Place, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20503, USAhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/CEO

Internet sites:

Arctic linkshttp://www.urova.fi/~arktinen/pverkkot.htm

Canadahttp://www.inac.gc.ca/nin/nin.html

Danish Polar [email protected]

Finnish Environment Institutehttp://www.vyh.fi/fei/intercoo/arctic/index.htm

Icelandhttp://www.mmedia.is/umhverfi/

International Arctic Environmental Data Directory (ADD)http://www.grida.no/add/

International Legislationhttp://sepac.ciesin.org/pidb/pidb-home.html

Polar pointershttp://www-bprc.mps.ohio-state.edu/polarpointers/PolarPointers.html

Environmental impact assessment aims at avoiding deleterious effects on the arctic environment,including all its fauna and flora, abiotic components,

natural resources, and human health, security and well-being.

These guidelines aim at giving practical guidance forenvironmental assessments to all parties involved in

development activities in the northern circumpolar areas,but especially to local authorities, developers and localpeople. The guidelines raise issues that are unique to

arctic assessments – such as permafrost – but they alsoemphasize universal issues that are particularly important

in the Arctic – such as public participation and the use of traditional knowledge.

These guidelines are the result of a truly international effort. All of the Arctic countries,

representatives of indigenous peoples and the WWF Arctic Programme has taken part in

producing these quidelines.

Documents

GUIDELINES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA… · Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment ... The environmental impact An environmental impact assessment document should