B.C. Study finds that mine environment safeguards have been compromised by amendments

Article content

According to new university research, some environmental safeguards that were built into British Columbia mine approvals have been gradually removed without enough scientific oversight.

Article content

Recent research from Dalhousie University’s School for Resource and Environmental Studies concluded that mining companies were able to modify their operating conditions in a way that could have serious consequences for water resources. These amendments are often granted without any scientific justification or follow-up.

We are concerned that the amendments process is being used as an escape route to avoid the rigours and scrutiny of the full process of environmental assessment, said Ben Collison. He was the lead author of the paper in the journal Facets.

Collison stated that while his research was limited to B.C. the same thing could be happening across the country.

Article content

He said that this could be part of a larger picture.

David Karn (spokesman for B.C.s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change) disputed the conclusions of these papers.

He said that the Environmental Assessment Office has a robust process for reviewing any request to amend an environmental assessment certificate.

Collison and his associates looked at 23 British Columbia mines that were approved in 2002 to 2020 after an environmental assessment. 15 of these mines required 49 amendments to their operating licences, most of which were requested within three years.

Nearly all 98 percent of them were granted.

The researchers concluded that 20 of the amendments approved were likely to cause water resource damage. These amendments allowed for changes in effluent discharge, increased water withdrawals, and damage to fish habitat. One allowed a mine’s production to rise by 50%.

Article content

Collison stated that these amendments were not accompanied by any scientific justification, oversight, or monitoring.

It was very, very difficult for us to find the information we needed in the amendment documents. These were often approved without any followup monitoring or enforcement actions.

This report contains examples of amendments that were granted despite the B.C. The Environmental Assessment Office acknowledged the lack of information about their effects. One mine was allowed in 2017 to change its tailings storage, on condition that a water plant would be up-and-running a plant that, according to Collison, was not yet operating as of this year.

Article content

He said that there were some changes that could have serious consequences.

Karn however stated that the paper didn’t cover the whole story.

This research project was conducted only using documents from the (assessment office) project information website. He said that it does not give a complete account (its) rigorous assessment process or project information.

Karn stated that all amendments are carefully evaluated. First Nations are consulted, and public participation may be sought.

Karn stated that amendments will not affect the requirements for proponents to safeguard environmental values, conditions, and actions. These requirements are part of their environmental assessments certificates. In many cases, however, they will lead to stronger requirements.

Collison stated that the situation in the province has improved since the new environmental assessment legislation was passed in 2019. This is because more information has been made public.

However, he cautioned that his study was very narrow. It only covered mines, water impact and one province. The amendments it considered are still in force.

Collison said that this is only one piece of the puzzle.

The credibility of the entire environmental assessment process is in question, according to these findings. I believe there are other impacts that researchers should consider.