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