ABSTRACT
Most Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) processes in the world mandate public participation. However, studies show that the types and levels of participation vary significantly within and across jurisdictions. Moreover, studies have long concluded that practice tends to fall short of expectations. Pressures are mounting for more meaningful participation in EIA, but the extent to which this is happening remains unclear. This chapter set out to: 1) review contemporary thinking surrounding participation in EIA; 2) explain how several public participation issues have been regulated and practiced in democratic EIA jurisdictions, using Brazil and Canada as empirical contexts; 3) compare the Brazilian and Canadian experiences; and 4) understand how close or distant both countries are from best practice and how likely they are to overcome historical barriers to more meaningful participation in impact assessment. Based on content analysis of regulations and integrative literature reviews, this study revealed a sharp difference between Brazil and Canada. Public participation in the Brazilian federal EIA system still reflects the realities of the 1990s. At the federal level, Canada improved its regulatory framework in 2019 to ensure that the public is involved earlier in the process. Nonetheless, both in Canada and Brazil, the public tends to be involved in operational decisions, having a weak capacity to question broad development assumptions and alternatives. While public participation in the federal process in Canada reflects some key elements of best practice, the country is still far away from empowering the public to influence high-stakes decisions. This chapter finally argues that the road to overcoming this gap is likely a long and winding one in both developing and developed economies.
