| Summary: | This study examines the degree of public and private sector adherence to the Environmental Assessment Review Panel recommendations and the National Energy Board terms and conditions with respect to the Norman Wells oilfield development and pipeline project. The main objective of this study is to review and assess project monitoring implemented or proposed by the public and private sectors in response to the EAR Panel recommendations, NEB terms and conditions, and subsequent commitments made by the public and private sectors. The study reviews the relevant literature to develop a theoretical perspective on project monitoring and its relationship to the broader planning issues of project assessment and impact management. In addition, the relevant literature on native claims, northern development planning, and federal-territorial resource revenue sharing is reviewed. A case study of the Norman Wells oilfield development and pipeline project is the basis for analyzing the extent to which government and project proponent commitments are implemented. The decision documents of the EAR Panel and the NEB were examined to obtain the recommendations and terms and conditions set by the EAR Panel and NEB respectively, to obtain specific information on the issues and concerns raised at the formal public reviews, and to identify public and private sector responsibilities and commitments made at the reviews and subsequent to them. To obtain more specific information on the case study, personal and/or telephone interviews, and correspondence with government, project proponent, and native group representatives were conducted. The study concludes that the approach to project monitoring and project management taken in this project suggests a situation of missed opportunities to learn about, and to understand the impacts of large projects, and to try out new approaches to deal with the impacts that do occur. More specifically, the basic questions of what is to be monitored and why, who is responsible for the monitoring, and what is done with the results, have not been systematically addressed. There is no framework, of the type suggested by the above questions, for the monitoring activities that are planned or in place for the Norman Wells project. Important deficiencies in the proponents1 plans were noted by the EAR Panel and the NEB. The processes of project review and subsequent project planning have been characterized as a situation where the proponents set the pace of project development and control the flow of information about their intentions and plans to government and the public. This lack of detail provided by proponents affects project review and government planning and preparedness. Government departments and agencies should play a more active role in program design and planning at the project assessment and review phases. Their presentations to the EAR Panel should be more than a critique of the proponent's EIS. FEARO involvement in the Environmental Assessment Review Process appears to end after the Panel report is released. FEARO follow-up to the Panel recommendations is essential to determine the effectiveness of the EAR Process. Coordination of the many project construction and initial operation activities by government is critical. There is a need for a Project Management and Liaison Office under the authority of the Minister of DIAND to facilitate DIAND's coordination role and to provide feedback to all project participants on the proponents' handling of project implementation. This Office must have both management and coordination responsibilities. It is important that what, is learned from this and subsequent projects whether it be in the form, of research reports, program evaluations, follow-up findings, and the like, be made available at suitable locations in Canada, to all interested government and non-government groups and individuals. Such information, should be made available as soon as it is gathered and analyzed, for use in the design, evaluation and assessment of subsequent proposals. We are looking at a critical point in northern development. The Norman Wells project will provide the impetus for more industrial development in the Mackenzie valley. This project presents an opportunity to learn about the social, economic, and environmental consequences associated with this type of industrial development. This preliminary review of project monitoring and management, indicates however, that this opportunity to learn from experience is not being seized. Applied Science, Faculty of Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), School of Graduate
|
|---|