The Role of Integrated Environmental Impact Assessment for Mining
Projects in Canadian Aboriginal Communities: A Systematic Literature
Review of Current Trends and Challenges
James Wilkes
MA Candidate, Canadian Studies and Indigenous Studies
Trent University / April 2008
Selected papers:
Baker, D. C., & McLelland, J. N. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of British Columbia's environmental assessment process for
First Nations' participation in mining development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23(5), 581-603.
Couch, W. J. (2002). Strategic resolution of policy, environmental and socio-economic impacts in Canadian Arctic diamond mining:
BHP's NWT diamond project. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 20(4).
Dowlatabadi, H., Boyle, M., Rowley, S., Kandlikar, M. (2004). Bridging the gap between project-level assessments and regional
development dynamics: A methodology for estimating cumulative effects.
Galbraith, L., Bradshaw, B., & Rutherford, M.B. (2007). Towards a new supraregulatory approach to environmental assessment in
Northern Canada. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 25(1).
Gibson, R. B. (2002). From Wreck Cove to Voisey's Bay: The evolution of federal environmental assessment in Canada. Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal, 20(3), 151-159.
Gibson, R. B. (2006). Sustainability assessment and conflict resolution: Reaching agreement to proceed with the Voisey’s Bay
nickel mine. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(3-4).
Joyce, S. A., & MacFarlane, M. (2001). Social impact assessment in the mining industry: Current situation and future directions.
Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development, 46. International Institute for Environment and Development.
Kwiatkowski, R. E., & Ooi, M. (2003). Integrated environmental impact assessment: A Canadian example. Bulletin of the World
Health Organization, 81(6), 434-438.
Macharia, S. N. (2005). A framework for best practice environmental impact assessment follow-up: A case study of the Ekati
Diamond Mine, Canada.
Nunavut Impact Review Board. (2002). Environmental assessment guidelines for the Doris North Project. Nunavut Impact Review
Board.
Noble, B. F. & Bronson, J. E. (2005). Integrating human health into environmental impact assessment: Case studies of Canada's
northern mining resource sector. Arctic, 58(4), 395-404.
Stevenson, M. G. (1996). Indigenous knowledge in environmental assessment. Arctic, 49(3).
Stiff, K. (2001). Cumulative effects assessment and sustainability: Diamond mining in the Slave Geological Province. Environment
and Resource Studies, University of Waterloo.
Wiles, A., McEwen, J., & Sadar, M. H. (1999). Use of traditional ecological knowledge in environmental assessment of uranium
mining in the Athabasca Saskatchewan. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 17(2).
INTRODUCTION
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Canadian Aboriginal Communities
Failings of Environmental Impact Assessment
Emergence of Integrated Environmental Impact Assessment (IA)
James Wilkes (2008)
INTRODUCTION
In 1974, Mr. Justice Thomas Berger was appointed to head an inquiry into the
regional, environmental, social, and economic impacts of proposed pipeline construction
in the Mackenzie Valley corridor in the Canadian North. Known largely as the Berger
Inquiry, the investigation set many important precedents for environmental impact
assessment and northern governance, and called for a new social contract with Aboriginal
people (Couch, 2002, p. 267). Environmental impact assessment (EIA), broadly defined,
is a planning process to predict, assess and mitigate any significant adverse effects
associated with a proposed project, programme or policy (Kwiatkowski & Ooi, 2003, p.
435; Noble & Bronson, 2005, p. 396). Potential adverse effects of project development
are often defined largely as impacts on the biophysical environment, while some
definitions specifically include impacts on the human environment as well. The three
types of regulatory EIA that a proposed project can undergo include screening,
comprehensive study and Public Panel Review (Kwiatkowski & Ooi, 2003). The large
majority of EIAs are screenings, while comprehensive studies and Public Panel Reviews
are typically applied to large-scale projects with the potential for more significant adverse
effects.
Robert Gibson (2002) identifies the evolution of Canadian environmental
assessment moving from a reactive and closed government negotiation process to a
broader integration of impact considerations open to public review. Gibson (2006) also
discusses the trend towards integrated planning for sustainability and improved
Aboriginal involvement in EIA. The Berger Inquiry set in motion an evolution of the
assessment process that continues to this day.
According to Couch (2002), “The
1
James Wilkes (2008)
openness of Berger’s procedures, the breadth of issues considered and the inclusion of all
Northerners created a model that came to be expected thereafter for all future impact
assessments of Northern developments, including the BHP NWT Diamond Project” (p.
267). Indeed, the Berger Inquiry’s response to concerns about intensive resource
development in the Mackenzie Valley helped to set high standards for Aboriginal
participation in resource decision-making and for the broader integration of economic,
socio-cultural and ecological concerns in the EIA process (Armitage, 2005).
Due to their unique relationship with their environment, Aboriginal communities
in the Canadian North are often more vulnerable to simultaneous and cumulative impacts
beyond the scope of ordinary environmental impact assessments. Kwiatkowski and Ooi
(2003) write, “People living in Canada’s northern provinces, in particular Aboriginals,
have a holistic view of the environment and link their observations and appreciation of
the physical world with the cultural and social attitudes created and supported by close
interaction between the environment, health and lifestyle” (p. 434). This intimate
relationship with the natural world has enabled Canada’s Aboriginal peoples to
understand resource distribution, ecosystem function and the relationship between the
environment and culture (BHP Diamond Mine Environmental Assessment Panel, 1995,
as cited in Stevenson, 1996, p. 278). As a result of a close relationship with the
environment, Aboriginal peoples in Canada are also exposed to unique impacts not
commonly addressed by conventional environmental assessment processes.
Environmental impact assessment frequently fails to identify all of the potential
impacts of project development due to a series of systemic problems. First, the scoping
phase of EIA has often been considered too narrow in focus, thereby leading to
2
James Wilkes (2008)
inflexibility in design (Galbraith, Bradshaw, & Rutherford, 2007, p. 31; Baker &
McLelland, 2003, p. 582). Another concern is many EIA methods and designs are
inaccessible to the public and even decision-makers, resulting in an unaccountable
process (Lawrence, 2003, as cited in Galbraith et al., 2007, p. 32). In order to account for
these concerns, Kwiatkowski and Ooi (2003) suggest, “EIA must involve more than
identifying, assessing and mitigating the negative environmental impacts. It must also
identify and mitigate perceived concerns and enhance, where possible, the positive
aspects of a project” (p. 437). The authors argue that the scoping phase must be
broadened to include a more diverse range of impacts beyond the scope of conventional
EIA. Furthermore, the accessibility of the process must be improved in order to
precipitate the identification of perceived concerns and goals.
Assessing mineral exploration and extraction activities in Canadian Aboriginal
communities poses a particularly difficult challenge. “Historically, concerns raised by
Aboriginals about development projects in Canada’s territories include not only those of
the physical environment (air, water, food, soil, and plant and animal species) but also a
wide range of social, economic, cultural and health matters” (Kwiatkowski & Ooi, 2003,
p. 434). Responsible mining proponents can no longer merely assess the biophysical
impacts of their proposed developments considering the complexity of impacts that
threaten Aboriginal communities.
The EIA process also must become more accessible to the public in order to be
successful. According to Baker and McLelland (2003), “Although mining has had
significant impacts on rural First Nations’ communities and their traditional territories,
First Nations’ participation in mine development in British Columbia has historically
3
James Wilkes (2008)
been minimal” (pp. 581-582). Yet, despite its shortcomings, the EIA process remains one
of the only vehicles for Aboriginal communities to influence mining and infrastructure
development (Baker & McLelland, 2003, p. 582).
The emergence of integrated environmental impact assessment seeks to ratify
some of these concerns. According to Kwiatkowski and Ooi, “An integrated EIA, which
combines health, social, economic, cultural and psychological well-being as well as the
physical, biological and geochemical environments, provides a holistic understanding of
the complex interrelationships between the human and natural environments that are key
to human health” (2003, p. 435). To date, the framework detailed in the Canadian
Handbook on Health Impact Assessment (Health Canada, 1999) also provides guidance
on the integration of health and socio-economic impact assessment within an
environmental impact assessment. Together, these sources illustrate what Gibson (2002)
refers to as an evolved assessment process that integrates a broader range of impacts and
concerns, as well as one that is open and accessible to public review.
The Huckleberry mine project review in British Columbia reflects how additional
adverse impacts can be identified through the inclusion of Aboriginal voices in EIA for
developments that affect them. “First Nations’ interests such as hunting, fishing, berry
gathering, and the preservation of sacred sites were recognized as being potentially
impacted from the project and therefore should be considered during the EA process.”
(Baker & McLelland, 2003, p. 591). Jerry Ravetz (2004) discusses this precautionary
and extended peer community approach of post-normal science versus the reductionist
approach of conventional Western science. According to Ravetz (2004), post-normal
science lies at the contested interfaces of science and policy and it is best used when
4
James Wilkes (2008)
addressing issues where facts are uncertain, values are disputed and the stakes are high
(p. 349). In light of current and future pressures to develop mining activities on
Aboriginal homelands, the post-normal science of integration in environmental
assessment appears to provide the best move forward.
Integrated environmental impact assessment (IA) addresses many of the current
challenges of EIA, but it also represents a progression of thinking toward improved
assessment processes. There is still much work to be done and IA provides the means to
continue to address the emerging challenges considering the rapid pace and urgency of
some mineral development projects and the growing political power and selfdetermination among Aboriginal nations. With this in mind, a systematic literature
review was conducted to examine the leading research concerning the progression of the
environmental assessment process in Canada and to reveal how the roles of separate
impact assessment processes may be improved as part of a larger integrated assessment
process. By employing quantitative and qualitative analyses, this review provides insight
regarding current trends in Canadian environmental assessment, the development of the
integrated environmental impact assessment field, and future challenges of the integrated
assessment process for Canadian Aboriginal communities in the context of mineral
exploration and extraction.
* For more information, please contact jameswilkes@trentu.ca *
5
James Wilkes (2008)
Joint Review Panel: A Legitimate Request
Presentation to the Citizens’ Inquiry Into the Impacts of the Uranium Cycle
James Wilkes, MA Candidate
Canadian Studies & Indigenous Studies, Trent University
In Ontario today, numerous First Nations communities are coping with legal, economic
and political pressures to develop – against their wishes – without preliminary land use
planning or meaningful consultation.
On February 15, 2008, the leadership of the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation (AAFN),
including Robert Lovelace and Paula Sherman, were convicted of contempt for
disobeying an injunction to permit uranium exploration on Algonquin traditional lands.
One month later, six members of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation (KI),
including the Chief, Deputy Chief and Head Councilor, were each sentenced to six
months in prison for failing to obey a court order to allow Platinex to continue its mineral
exploration program.
Joint Panel Review
In January 2008, prior to the sentencing of their leaders, KI First Nation and Ardoch
Algonquin First Nation collaboratively requested a Joint Panel Review.
The Joint Panel would serve to investigate issues relating to mineral exploration and
mining within First Nations’ territories. The panel would also make timely
recommendations to Ontario and the concerned First Nations regarding:


the future of moratoriums on exploration and mining in the disputed areas
the reform of Ontario’s Mining Act to prevent future conflicts
5 people would comprise the Joint Panel:




1 member appointed by AAFN
1 member appointed by KI
2 members appointed by Ontario
1 Chairperson, chosen on the basis of his/ her qualifications to address the
complexity of issues
Unfortunately, the Government of Ontario, including Premier Dalton McGuinty
and Aboriginal Affairs Minister Michael Bryant, continue to ignore the request for
a Joint Panel Review.
6
James Wilkes (2008)
A Legitimate Request
Joint panel reviews have a long history dating back to the Berger Inquiry, 1974

Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB)
http://www.mveirb.nt.ca/

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board (YESAB)
http://www.yesab.ca/

Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB)
http://nirb.nunavut.ca/
Recent Decisions

Northwest Territories:
The Canadian Press, October 25, 2007
Federal minister upholds contested decision to block arctic uranium exploration
“In a letter to the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, Indian
and Northern Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl said he agreed with its
recommendation to block Ur-Energy's (TSX:URE) uranium exploration program
on the Upper Thelon area east of Great Slave Lake (NWT)”

Northern British Columbia:
The Globe and Mail, September 21, 2007
Native veto new reality in B.C.'s resource sector
A joint federal-provincial environmental assessment review panel rejected the
Northgate Minerals Corp project because of potential adverse environmental,
social and cultural effects.
Rationale
Resource management in the context of Aboriginal communities is steadily evolving
towards improved consultation protocols and integrated environmental assessment
processes.
For more information, please see the attached literature review
or email jameswilkes@trentu.ca
7