Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Social acceptance of the project impacts of a psychosocial nature. Still others feared the emergence of psychosocial problems among those living near the project, if it goes ahead. Social research studies, based on the life experience of residents living near facilities considered risky, have established a link between the perception of risk and certain social and psychological consequences arising from controversial projects or accidents. The Comité de santé environnementale du Québec adds that “anxiety constitutes one of the most frequent disruptions in mental health among populations in proximity to a facility or site that they view as risky or undesirable, and some psychosocial impacts can be imputed to these” 1 . From this perspective, the survey conducted by the Agences de la santé et des services sociaux claims that 59% of those surveyed, who live within the 2.5-km perimeter of the proposed project, say that they feel “enough” or “a lot” of fear related to the project (DB97, p. 17). Although of a different nature, the rehabilitation and construction of the storage facilities for the Gentilly 2 nuclear power station is an example of a project where the public perception of the risk involved and the associated psychosocial impacts were assessed in an impact study (BAPE Report 207). Moreover, other recent projects, such as the site of a sanitary landfill or an aluminium smelter, were also the objects of assessments and follow-up on psychosocial impacts by professionals 2 . According to Howe, “the public’s perception of risk can be positively influenced through efficient communication (about risk) 3 .” The proponent made a commitment to inform the public and the authorities in advance about any activity likely to cause inconvenience in the surrounding area by posting signs and issuing news releases. The proponent also made a commitment to maintain a climate favourable to good relations with the different communities. During the operation of the LNG terminal, an oversight committee is planned that would stay abreast of activities to ensure that they are running smoothly and, where necessary, suggest improvements. Beyond this, the proponent will hold two crisis simulations annually. One would be theoretical, “a table top exercise”, the other would be more practical, a full simulation involving regional authorities responsible for security. Regular follow-up with media would ensure that the project maintains its community commitment. Also, the proponent would hold an annual open house at its facilities. (PR3.2, p. 5-6 and 5.7). 1. Comité de santé environnementale du Québec, Introduction à I’évaluation des impacts sociaux, drawn from a series of introductory texts on the assessment of health impacts of major projects, Québec, 1993, p. 15. 2. N. Caron and M. Simard, Groupe de recherche et d’intervention régionale, Programme de recherche sur la modélisation du suivi des impacts sociaux du mégacomplexe industriel d’Alcan à Alma, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, 2001 [On-line: www.uqac.uQuébec.ca/~msiaa/Rapport%20Final/francais/html/Annexes/Annexe%2011.pdf]. 3. H.L. Howe, “A comparison of actual and perceived residential proximitv to toxic waste sites”, Archives of Environmental Health, 43 (6), November and December 1988, p. 415-419. 178 Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure
Social acceptance of the project ♦ Recommendation 7 — The Panel recommends that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs give greater weight to psychosocial impacts in the guidelines that they issue for projects that present potential risks for neighbouring communities aiming at a better assessment of this category of impacts. Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure 179
Page 1 and 2:
Bureau d’audiences publiques sur
Page 3:
Ms. Line Beauchamp Minister of Sust
Page 6 and 7:
In terms of its integration into th
Page 9 and 10:
Table of contents Opinions and reco
Page 11 and 12:
Table of contents Land use and appl
Page 13:
Table of contents Project impacts o
Page 16 and 17:
List of figures and tables Table 5
Page 18 and 19:
Opinions and recommendations reques
Page 20 and 21:
Opinions and recommendations Opinio
Page 22 and 23:
Opinions and recommendations needs
Page 24 and 25:
Opinions and recommendations Enviro
Page 27 and 28:
Introduction The Rabaska LNG termin
Page 29 and 30:
Introduction The terminal would als
Page 31:
Introduction encompasses biophysica
Page 38 and 39:
Opinions of participants firmly opp
Page 40 and 41:
Opinions of participants One partic
Page 42 and 43:
Opinions of participants DT33, p. 1
Page 44 and 45:
Opinions of participants Many were
Page 46 and 47:
Opinions of participants “a price
Page 48 and 49:
Opinions of participants Climate ch
Page 50 and 51:
Opinions of participants reached, t
Page 52 and 53:
Opinions of participants l’enviro
Page 54 and 55:
Opinions of participants In contras
Page 56 and 57:
Opinions of participants Moreover,
Page 58 and 59:
Opinions of participants Some parti
Page 60 and 61:
Opinions of participants […] we w
Page 62 and 63:
Opinions of participants monuments
Page 64 and 65:
Opinions of participants area […]
Page 66 and 67:
Opinions of participants On another
Page 68 and 69:
Opinions of participants A certain
Page 70 and 71:
Opinions of participants participan
Page 72 and 73:
Opinions of participants from perpe
Page 74 and 75:
Opinions of participants proponent
Page 76 and 77:
Opinions of participants We are per
Page 78 and 79:
Opinions of participants The risk a
Page 80 and 81:
Opinions of participants Should an
Page 82 and 83:
Opinions of participants Some parti
Page 84 and 85:
Opinions of participants use our co
Page 86 and 87:
Opinions of participants It can see
Page 88 and 89:
Opinions of participants underscore
Page 90 and 91:
Opinions of participants There is a
Page 92 and 93:
Opinions of participants Moreover,
Page 95 and 96:
Chapter 2 Project energy context Th
Page 97 and 98:
Project energy context ♦ Finding
Page 99 and 100:
Project context at the Quebec - Ont
Page 101 and 102:
Project energy context As for Quebe
Page 103 and 104:
Project energy context The proponen
Page 105 and 106:
Figure 3 Territorial breakdown of G
Page 107 and 108:
Project energy context and the comm
Page 109 and 110:
Project energy context implementati
Page 111 and 112:
Chapter 3 Economic context of the p
Page 115 and 116:
The project’s economic spin-offs
Page 117:
The structuring potential of the pr
Page 120 and 121:
Territorial context of the project
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Assessing the risks related to the
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155: Assessing the risks related to the
Page 158: Assessing the risks related to the
Page 199 and 200: Chapter 6 Social acceptance of the
Page 201 and 202: Social acceptance of the project By
Page 203: Social acceptance of the project -
Page 208 and 209: Impacts on the inhabited area and h
Page 226: Impacts on the natural environment
Page 230: Impacts on the natural environment
Page 234 and 235: Impacts on the natural environment
Page 252 and 253: Conclusion In order to optimize the
Page 255 and 256:
References ASSOCIATION DES PLUS BEA
show all

Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?