bes risk and impacts generally but references the impact assessment process only in passing.
The current focus of adaptation in assessing impacts of the environment on the project is of direct relevance to funding agencies, such as IFIs, and is gradually becoming integrated with the EIA process. This approach has developed from experience with projects particularly vulnerable to climate change, especially large water projects where precipitation is anticipated to change and coastal project potentially affected by sea level rise and increased storm magnitude or frequency.Footnotes:1
Burton, I. and M.K. van Aalst. 1999. Come Hell or High Water: Integrating climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation into Bank Work. World Bank Environment Department Paper No. 72. The World Bank, Washington DC.2
Burton, I. and M.K. van Aalst. 2004. Look Before You Leap: A Risk Management Approach for Incorporating climate Change Adaptation in World Bank Operations. Prepared for the Global Climate Change Team (ENV), The World Bank, Washington DC. 3
Lawrence, P. 2009. Equator Principles: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Sustainability. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 27(1): 3-6.
The Arctic is a barometer of climate change, as indicated by the 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment1
and more recent studies and assessments. Koivurova (2008) describes the complex issues surrounding EIA and transboundary assessments in the Arctic, including climate change2
In Canada's North, an area experiencing some of the most intense changes in climate, EIA terms of reference have to date exclusively focused on how climate change may affect the viability of a proposed project. For example, the Gahcho Kué Environmental Impact Review Panel, a panel responsible for reviewing a proposed De Beers diamond Mine in Canada's Northwest Territories, summarized a common Canadian position in the 2007 terms of reference for its review3
. It stated "(T)he scientific consensus is that the North is particularly vulnerable to impacts from a changing climate. The EIS must examine and evaluate the development as a potential greenhouse gas contributor. It must also examine potential climate change effects on the proposed development".
More recently, in a November, 2009 terms of reference for an EIA of a cobalt, gold, bismuth and copper mine4
, the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board required the developer to describe annual carbon emisions over the life of the mine and describe any offsets proposed to mitigate carbon emissions. The Review Board also required descriptions of potential effects of climate change on the development: It required the developer to describe how geotechincal stability of all engineered structures at the mine will be ensured against a range of climate scenarios, and how climate change was considered in the development of the mine's closure and reclamation plan to ensure the long-term physical integrity of permanent structures.Footnotes:1
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). 2004. Arctic climate Impact Assessment: Impacts of a Warming Arctic. Cambrdige University Press. Available at .
2Koivurova, T. 2008. Transboundary Environmental Assessment in the Arctic. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 26(4): 265-275.
3 Gahcho Kué Environmental Impact Review Panel. October 5, 2007. Terms of Reference for the Gahcho Kué Environmental Impact Statement. Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, Yellowknife, NT, Canada
4 Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. November 30, 2009. Terms of Reference for the Environmental Assessment of Fortune Minerals Ltd. NICO Cobalt-Gold-Bismuth-Copper Project (EA 0809-004). Mackenzie Valley Environmental Imapact Review Board, Yellowknife, NT, Canada.
IAIA organized a conference focused on Cumulative Impact Assessment in Calgary, AB, Canada in November of 2008. The focus themes for this conference were: uncertainty (from a scientific perspective); institutional integration; and practice versus theory. Two major statements were made by conference organizers: 1) climate change is