Arts and Sciences, Irving K. Barber School of (Okanagan)
DSpace
UBCO
Peletz-Bohbot, Nicole
Master of Arts - MA
University of British Columbia
This research helps support the impact assessment (IA) process in Nunavut through an improved understanding of marine baseline information needs and the important role of Inuit Knowledge in project review. The Canadian Arctic is experiencing unprecedented environmental and social-economic change. IA, as a process and tool, is in a key position to assess and mitigate potential impacts of resource development and other activities and aid planning in a rapidly changing Arctic. However, the effectiveness of IA in Arctic jurisdictions has been questioned, and many challenges have been identified including broad gaps in baseline data, notably related to marine environments. Agencies responsible for IA, such as the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB), may employ adaptive approaches where local and Inuit Knowledge is used to address information needs, and broadly support and shape the assessment process. This research was developed and undertaken in collaboration with the NIRB. Through a document analysis of completed NIRB IA reviews, and focus groups with NIRB staff and board members, this research sought to, 1) identify and acknowledge gaps in marine baseline data and associated challenges, 2) understand the role of Inuit Knowledge alongside and in absence of western science in marine baseline data collection and understanding, and 3) assess long-term options and outline opportunities to address information needs. The results highlight that better marine information is needed across Nunavut, and associated challenges are complex and interconnected. However, through the unique composition and functions of the NIRB, and the integration of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit / Qaujimaningit (IQ) and local knowledge, IA in Nunavut is in a valuable position to address baseline information needs and further challenges, as well as act as a potential model towards Indigenous-led IA in other settings. The recommendations outline the need to address barriers and promote enablers to addressing information needs. Barriers include uncertainty regarding responsibilities, broad capacity constraints, and coordination of monitoring programs, while enablers focus on the continued and improved engagement of knowledge-holders and resource-users in the process, as well as the promotion of IQ values among all stakeholders and within the process.
GAPS IN MARINE BASELINE DATA AND THE ROLE OF INUIT KNOWLEDGE IN THE NUNAVUT IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS by Nicole Peletz-Bohbot BEng., McGill University, 2017 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Interdisciplinary Studies) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Okanagan) April 2019 © Nicole Peletz-Bohbot, 2019 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the College of Graduate Studies for acceptance, a thesis/dissertation entitled: Gaps in Marine Baseline Data and the Role of Inuit Knowledge in the Nunavut Impact Assessment Process submitted by Nicole Peletz-Bohbot in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts Dr. Kevin Hanna, Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Science Supervisor Dr. Bram Noble, University of Saskatchewan Co-supervisor Dr. Jon Corbett, Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Science Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Kasun Hewage, Faculty of Applied Science University Examiner Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. iii Abstract This research helps support the impact assessment (IA) process in Nunavut through an improved understanding of marine baseline information needs and the important role of Inuit Knowledge in project review. The Canadian Arctic is experiencing unprecedented environmental and social-economic change. IA, as a process and tool, is in a key position to assess and mitigate potential impacts of resource development and other activities and aid planning in a rapidly changing Arctic. However, the effectiveness of IA in Arctic jurisdictions has been questioned, and many challenges have been identified including broad gaps in baseline data, notably related to marine environments. Agencies responsible for IA, such as the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB), may employ adaptive approaches where local and Inuit Knowledge is used to address information needs, and broadly support and shape the assessment process. This research was developed and undertaken in collaboration with the NIRB. Through a document analysis of completed NIRB IA reviews, and focus groups with NIRB staff and board members, this research sought to, 1) identify and acknowledge gaps in marine baseline data and associated challenges, 2) understand the role of Inuit Knowledge alongside and in absence of western science in marine baseline data collection and understanding, and 3) assess long-term options and outline opportunities to address information needs. The results highlight that better marine information is needed across Nunavut, and associated challenges are complex and interconnected. However, through the unique composition and functions of the NIRB, and the integration of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit / Qaujimaningit (IQ) and local knowledge, IA in Nunavut is in a valuable position to address baseline information needs and further challenges, as well as act as a potential model towards Indigenous-led IA in other settings. The recommendations outline the need to address barriers and promote enablers to addressing information needs. Barriers include uncertainty regarding responsibilities, broad capacity constraints, and coordination of monitoring programs, while enablers focus on the continued and improved iv engagement of knowledge-holders and resource-users in the process, as well as the promotion of IQ values among all stakeholders and within the process. v Lay Summary The purpose of this research is to support the impact assessment process in Nunavut through an improved understanding of marine-related information needs and the role of Inuit Knowledge. Impact assessment is a process used to help regulate and approve projects or activities, such as mines. Impact assessment requires a large amount of information about the environment to identify potential impacts of proposed activities. A large quantity of marine-related information is unavailable in Nunavut. Inuit Knowledge consists of the body of knowledge, cultural beliefs, and values of the Inuit. This research explored gaps in marine-related information, as well as the role of Inuit Knowledge in the impact assessment process. The results of this research support the existing literature and outline key challenges to addressing information needs in Nunavut, as well as highlight the invaluable role of Inuit Knowledge in the impact assessment process and in addressing knowledge gaps. vi Preface This research opportunity was made possible through a collaboration between the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB), the University of Saskatchewan, and the University of British Columbia’s (UBC) Centre for Environmental Assessment Research. The research project purpose and design were developed by Dr. Kevin Hanna, Dr. Bram Noble, and in collaboration with the NIRB. The objectives were developed based on identified needs outlined by the NIRB regarding the advancement of marine-related baseline knowledge and support for community information needs in impact assessment. Two complementary projects were undertaken to best address the overarching research purpose. Two graduate students were brought on to undertake the projects; Bethany Thiessen based at the University of Saskatchewan, and myself based at UBC. Bethany’s project focused on communication needs related to marine impacts and mitigation, while my project was focused on marine baseline information needs and the role of Inuit Knowledge in project review. Results from the two projects will be used to inform the development of a community toolkit for the NIRB. The draft focus group question set was developed by Dr. Kevin Hanna. Bethany and I worked together to refine and finalize the focus group question sets. This thesis and the underlying research were completed independently with close guidance from my supervisors and committee, Dr. Kevin Hanna, Dr. Bram Noble, and Dr. Jon Corbett. Figure 1 was reproduced in accordance with the National Energy Board’s Terms and Conditions. Figure 3 was reproduced and adapted with permission from the original publisher, Oxford University Press, and the book editor (Hanna, 2016) and chapter authors (Barry, Granchinho, & Rusk, 2016). All other tables and figures are original works. I began the research in September 2017, and completed field work in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, in July 2018. Preliminary research results were presented at the Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies (ACUNS) student conference in November 2018. vii Through discussions with the University of British Columbia Okanagan’s Behavioral Ethics Review Board, it was determined that a complete ethics review was not required due to the research design and the formulation of focus group questions. The focus group questions (Appendix B) addressed the Nunavut IA process and the NIRB’s role in carrying out the process. Therefore, the focus group members were considered “authorized personnel” who were contacted “to release information or data in the ordinary course of their employment about organizations, policies, procedures, professional practices or statistical reports” (Government of Canada, 2014, pp. 14–15). As such it was determined that the individuals were not considered participants as defined by the Tri-Council Policy Statement 2 - Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. A Nunavut Research License application was submitted to the Nunavut Research Institute in September 2017 and was issued on April 23rd 2018 (# 04 027 18N-A). viii Table of Contents Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... v Preface ......................................................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... viii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... x List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. xi List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. xii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. xiii Dedication ................................................................................................................................. xiv Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Research Objectives and Study Design ................................................................... 4 1.1.1 Terminology ...................................................................................................... 5 1.2 A Pragmatic Approach .............................................................................................. 6 1.3 Thesis Structure ........................................................................................................ 7 Chapter 2: Arctic Shipping, Impact Assessment, and Inuit Knowledge ................................ 9 2.1 Marine Environments, Resource Development, and Arctic Shipping ....................... 9 2.1.1 Climate Change and Arctic Marine Environments ............................................ 9 2.1.2 Resource Development Trends in Nunavut .................................................... 10 2.1.3 Arctic Shipping Trends and Challenges .......................................................... 11 2.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 12 2.2.1 Arctic IA in Canada ......................................................................................... 14 2.2.2 Challenges: Information and Communication Needs ...................................... 15 2.3 Traditional Knowledge and Inuit Knowledge ........................................................... 18 2.3.1 In Impact Assessment ..................................................................................... 21 Chapter 3: Resource Management in Nunavut ....................................................................... 26 3.1 History and the Nunavut Agreement ....................................................................... 26 3.1.1 Land and Resource Co-Management in Nunavut ........................................... 28 3.2 Impact Assessment in Nunavut .............................................................................. 31 3.2.1 Land-Use Conformity ...................................................................................... 32 3.2.2 IA Conducted by the Nunavut Impact Review Board ...................................... 33 3.2.3 IQ in the Nunavut IA Process .......................................................................... 37 Chapter 4: Methodology ........................................................................................................... 39 4.1 Document Review of NIRB Project Assessments .................................................. 39 4.1.1 Project and Document Selection ..................................................................... 40 4.1.2 Data Collection and Analysis .......................................................................... 43 4.2 Focus Groups ......................................................................................................... 45 4.2.1 Focus Groups Design ..................................................................................... 46 4.2.2 Focus Groups Analysis ................................................................................... 47 4.3 Limitations ............................................................................................................... 47 4.3.1 Reliability and Validity ..................................................................................... 48 Chapter 5: Results and Analysis of Document Review ......................................................... 50 5.1 Description of Projects and Documents .................................................................. 50 5.2 Thematic Review Results: Gaps in Marine Baseline Data ..................................... 52 ix 5.2.1 Marine-Related Topics .................................................................................... 53 5.2.2 Presentation and Identification of Gaps .......................................................... 56 5.3 Thematic Review Results: The Role of IQ in NIRB IA Documents ......................... 61 5.3.1 How is IQ Collected? ...................................................................................... 61 5.3.2 How is IQ Presented? ..................................................................................... 64 5.3.3 How is IQ Discussed? ..................................................................................... 65 Chapter 6: Results and Analysis of Focus Groups ................................................................ 73 6.1 Information and Data Challenges ........................................................................... 73 6.1.1 Availability – “here it’s normal” ........................................................................ 73 6.1.2 Suitability – “it would be a lot easier to hunt whales if they didn’t move” ........ 75 6.1.3 Accessibility - “IQ isn't a dataset on a shelf” ................................................... 76 6.2 Addressing Information Needs ............................................................................... 79 6.2.1 Responsibility and Capacity - “Understanding who does what is a big gap” .. 79 6.2.2 Collaboration and Coordination - “We become the eyes of the community” ... 81 6.3 IQ as an Indispensable Component of the Process ............................................... 83 6.3.1 Use - “The expectations are well beyond just giving lip service” .................... 84 6.3.2 Integration - “not incompatible at all but in fact mutually reinforcing” .............. 86 6.3.3 Value - “we have more confidence in our predictions” .................................... 87 6.4 “We are the model now” ......................................................................................... 88 Chapter 7: Discussion of Research Objectives ...................................................................... 91 7.1 Objective 1: Gaps in Marine Baseline Data ............................................................ 92 7.2 Objective 2: The Role of Inuit Knowledge ............................................................... 96 Chapter 8: Recommendations and Conclusion .................................................................... 101 8.1 Opportunities and Recommendations .................................................................. 101 8.1.1 Addressing Barriers ...................................................................................... 102 8.1.2 Promoting Enablers ...................................................................................... 103 8.2 Summary ............................................................................................................... 105 8.2.1 Original Contributions of the Research ......................................................... 106 References ............................................................................................................................... 107 Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 118 Appendix A: List of Project Documents used in the Review ............................................. 118 Appendix B: Focus Group Information Sheet and Question Sets .................................... 122 x List of Tables Table 1: Primary Roles and Responsibilities of the Institutions of Public Government .............. 28 Table 2: Selected Projects and Associated Marine Components .............................................. 41 Table 3: Document Types and Key Questions Guiding the Review ........................................... 43 Table 4: Inclusion of IQ/TK and Marine Data Gaps by Document Type ..................................... 51 xi List of Figures Figure 1: Impact Assessment Legislation in Northern Canada .................................................... 2 Figure 2: NIRB Impact Assessment Process ............................................................................. 33 Figure 3: Major IA Projects in Nunavut ....................................................................................... 36 Figure 4: Marine Baseline Data Gaps by Topic .......................................................................... 54 Figure 5: Marine Mammal Gaps by Sub-Topic ........................................................................... 55 Figure 6: Type of Marine Data Gap and Who Identified the Gap ............................................... 57 Figure 7: Methods of IQ Presentation in Final Impact Statement ............................................... 64 xii List of Abbreviations EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement FHR Final Hearing report IA Impact Assessment IPG Institution of Public Government IQ Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit / Qaujimaningit IR Information Request NIRB Nunavut Impact Review Board NGMP Nunavut General Monitoring Plan NLCA Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (Nunavut Agreement) NMC Nunavut Marine Council NPC Nunavut Planning Commission NSA Nunavut Settlement Area NTI Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated NuPPAA Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act NWB Nunavut Water Board NWMB Nunavut Wildlife Management Board PHR Public Hearing Report SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment TK Traditional Knowledge TEK Traditional Ecological Knowledge VEC Valued Ecosystem Component xiii Acknowledgements This research and thesis would not have been possible without the guidance and support from a number of individuals and institutions. Foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Kevin Hanna for his instrumental direction, invaluable insight and advice throughout graduate school, as well as for his excellent cooking while in Nunavut. I am grateful for the support, valued feedback, and engaging insight from my co-supervisor, Dr. Bram Noble, and committee member, Dr. Jon Corbett. The development and fruition of this project would not have been possible without Ryan Barry and the dedicated staff and board members at the Nunavut Impact Review Board. Thank you for kindly answering countless emails and providing helpful insight throughout the project. Thank you Bethany Thiessen for your company in Nunavut and Edmonton as well as your feedback, encouragement, and friendship. Thank you Lauren Arnold for your support, mentorship, and guidance in navigating graduate school. I am grateful for financial support from the Nunavut Research Institute, Irving Shipbuilding, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the Northern Scientific Training Program. I am thankful for the support from my IGS cohort, with a special mention to Darcen and Eva-Lena. Thank you for the many needed coffee breaks and friendships extending beyond academic life. I owe a big thank you to my girl gang, Sabrina and Annabel, for helping me maintain a work / life balance with a lot of bike rides and laughs along the way. I would also like to thank the Shortreed and Solonenko family for welcoming me and being a home away from home. I owe an immense thank you to my personal chef and the most dedicated cheerleader, Kip Shortreed. Finally, my deepest gratitude extends to my family, Brenda, Alain, Xana, b and z, and mami. Merci mami Lison pour les appels hebdomadaires et pour s’être assurée que je ne perde pas mon français. From wherever they are, my parents and family continue to inspire me, offer encouragement when most needed, and wholly support my ambitions and endeavors. xiv Dedication Dédié à daddy Lou 1 Chapter 1: Introduction The Canadian Arctic is experiencing unprecedented environmental and social-economic change. Various pressures in the region are often interconnected, such as biophysical impacts due to climatic changes, and social-economic pressures due to growing resource development and tourism industries, while coupled with a dynamic social-political context due to land claims and devolution negotiations (Arctic Council, 2016; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2014). The increasing development of the region is leading to increased pressure for effective environmental management and planning mechanisms. Impact assessment (IA) is increasingly important in the Arctic as the primary tool to identify, assess, and mitigate potential environmental and social impacts of resource development and other activities (Noble & Hanna, 2015). Ideally, IA promotes and contributes to sustainable environmental management and planning (Hanna, 2016). However, the effectiveness of IA in Arctic jurisdictions has been widely questioned, and many challenges have been identified. Broad gaps in baseline data have been widely recognized as a challenge to IA in Arctic regions, notably related to marine environments (Dubé, 2003; Nunami Stantec Limited, 2018; Wright, 2014). Arctic IA processes often employ adaptive approaches to inform baselines through the inclusion of Traditional Knowledge (TK) (Gondor, 2016). However, the integration of TK in IA extends beyond baseline data collection, and has been highlighted as a challenge to meaningful and effective practice (Ellis, 2005; Rathwell, Armitage, & Berkes, 2015; Usher, 2000). As a result, there have been recent calls throughout the Arctic for the improved integration of TK in IA. For instance, the 2017 Pan-Territorial Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Board Forum and the 2018 Sustainable Development Working Group’s Canadian Arctic EIA Workshop both resulted in key outcomes regarding the integration and inclusion of TK in IA (Onfoot Consulting, 2018; Stratos, 2017). In Nunavut, Inuit Knowledge, or more specifically, Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit / Qaujimaningit (IQ), is used comprehensively throughout the IA process (Barry, Granchinho, & 2 Rusk, 2016). The Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) is the agency responsible for IA for all project proposals within the Nunavut Settlement Area (NSA) and the outer land-fast ice zone, as established under the Nunavut Agreement. The jurisdiction of the NIRB, the study area of this research, is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Impact Assessment Legislation in Northern Canada The Nunavut Settlement Area and land-fast ice zone, as established under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA), are displayed in red. This figure is a copy of a map available on the National Energy Board website entitled “Environmental Legislation in Frontier Areas”. This map has been used according to the National Energy Board website’s Terms and Conditions and has not been reproduced in affiliation with, or with the endorsement of the NEB. Map available at: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrth/nvrnmntlprtnrshp-eng.html (accessed Dec. 20, 2018) Inuit Nunangat is the geographical, political, and cultural region of the Inuit of Canada, encompassing the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (Northwest Territories), Nunavut, Nunavik (Northern Quebec), and Nunatsiavut (Northern Labrador) (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2018). Nunavut is the largest of the four regions in Inuit Nunangat, as well as the largest of all territories and provinces in Canada, occupying 20.4% of the country (Statistics Canada, 2017). The area is vast and sparsely populated, with the lowest population density in the country of 0.02/km2 (Statistics Canada, 2017). The population is dispersed between 25 communities in which all but one are coastal settlements, demonstrating the vast importance of, and dependence on the marine 3 environment. Inuit are referred to as maritime people, with a significant connection to marine environments (Nunavut Impact Review Board [NIRB], 2018a). Moreover, it has been highlighted that isolated Arctic communities and fragile marine environments are particularly vulnerable to climatic changes and associated impacts (Arctic Council, 2009; IPCC, 2014). In Nunavut, a decline in sea-ice is leading to more navigable arctic waters, where vessel traffic in the region has doubled in 25 years (Dawson, Mussells, Copland, & Carter, 2017; Pizzolato, Howell, Dawson, Laliberté, & Copland, 2016). Increased shipping is also due to increases in natural resource development, cargo transport, fishing and tourism opportunities, and community resupply needs in the territory (Dawson et al., 2017; Pizzolato, Howell, Derksen, Dawson, & Copland, 2014). The recent increase in shipping has led to growing community concerns regarding associated environmental and social-economic impacts (Barry et al., 2016). Regulatory processes, such as IA and land-use planning, are now tasked with managing and protecting fragile marine ecosystems in a rapidly changing climate, as well as ensuring that sustainable development benefits Nunavummiut, the people of Nunavut (NIRB, 2018a; Nunavut Marine Council [NMC], n.d.). Although changing climatic conditions and further development pressures will inevitably pose strain on IA systems, IA, as a key environmental management tool, is in a unique and valuable position to address the growing challenges of proposed developments in a rapidly changing environment (R. K. Morgan, 2012; Noble & Hanna, 2015). Furthermore, the incorporation of IQ in IA can reduce uncertainties in impact predictions due to a holistic understanding of environmental and social relationships, and the dynamic nature of IQ through its ability to learn, evolve, and adapt to unprecedented and unpredicted change (Barry et al., 2016; Ford, Smit, & Wandel, 2006). In the NIRB’s 2018-2022 five year strategic plan, two of the six overarching goals include the incorporation and reflection of IQ values through their work, and the collaboration and coordination to manage marine issues in Nunavut (NIRB, 2018a). This research was conducted in collaboration with the NIRB. 4 In aligning with the NIRB’s goals and addressing present challenges in Nunavut, the purpose of this research was to support the IA process through an improved understanding of marine baseline information needs and the role of Inuit Knowledge and local knowledge in baseline data collection and understanding. The results of this research provides insight into the current state of marine baseline information needs in Nunavut and the invaluable role of IQ throughout the IA process, as well as contributes to Arctic IA research. 1.1 Research Objectives and Study Design This research supports the IA process in Nunavut with specific attention to information needs and the role of Inuit Knowledge in project review. The objectives were to: 1) identify and acknowledge recurring gaps in marine baseline data and associated challenges, 2) determine how Inuit Knowledge is used alongside and in absence of western science in marine baseline data collection and understanding, and 3) assess long-term options and develop recommendations to address information needs. Understanding how information needs are presented and the associated challenges, is integral to the development of recommendations to support the IA process pressed with greater uncertainty due to information needs. Research exploring how different knowledge systems are currently being used in the IA process is an important step towards informing more meaningful integration. An understanding of the role of IQ can help develop outcomes that can enhance communities’ understandings of the importance of sharing their knowledge, as well as demonstrate to proponents the importance of meaningfully collecting and using IQ throughout the process. This research was completed in two stages. The first involved a document review of all projects with a significant marine component that have gone through a complete NIRB review. The second stage was completed in Nunavut in July 2018 and involved two focus groups with NIRB staff and board members. 5 As the research was intended to support the IA process in Nunavut, collaboration with the NIRB was necessary to ensure that applied needs could be addressed and that the outcomes ultimately benefit IA in Nunavut. Collaboration entailed the joint development of research outcomes based on identified needs, as well as discussions and feedback regarding the design of the document review, the focus group question sets, as well as the preliminary and final research results. Throughout the months preceding the trip to Nunavut, there were three conference calls with the research team and the NIRB director, as well as various email exchanges to further discuss the project. In Nunavut, the first week was spent engaging with the community and NIRB staff and board members prior to the focus groups. This involved attending a community barbecue with the NIRB and community members, participating in a group tour of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station, sitting-in on NIRB deliberations, and partaking in a nearby hike with some staff and board members. Finally, the results of this research will support the creation of a community toolkit to facilitate the communication and enhance the understanding of routine marine-related impacts and information needs, as well as facilitate meaningful community engagement in the IA process. 1.1.1 Terminology When applicable, the terminology I use in this thesis is consistent with the terminology used by the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB). The key terms used in this thesis are described here. The NIRB is the primary agency responsible for impact assessment (IA) in Nunavut. Many parties interact with the NIRB and participate in the IA process. Regulators refer to any agency, organization, or party, responsible for the issuance of licenses, permits, or other authorizations for a project to proceed. Intervenor is a broader term that describes any party participating in NIRB proceedings either through questioning or bringing forward issues and evidence. Intervenors may include, regulators, Inuit or community organizations, government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and any other party or individual granted intervenor 6 status by the NIRB. Collectively, all parties and individuals involved, affected, or interested in the IA process are referred to as stakeholders. In this thesis I use the terms Inuit Knowledge or Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit / Qaujimaningit (IQ). The NIRB explains that, “[t]he term Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit refers to Inuit “Traditional Knowledge” while Inuit Qaujimaningit refers to Inuit Traditional Knowledge as well as Inuit epistemology without reference to temporality” (NIRB, n.d.-b, par. 1). In this thesis the abbreviation “IQ” is used for the collective use of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit / Qaujimaningit. I also use the term local knowledge to refer to the traditional and contemporary knowledge of resource-users and community members who do not necessarily identify as Inuit or Indigenous. I borrow from Tomaselli et al., (2018) who define local knowledge as the “local body of knowledge, not associated with aboriginal ethnicity, but characterized by both historical and contemporary knowledge acquired through extensive observation of the environment and its species” (p.338). In cases where I am referencing other literature, I use the terminology consistent with that of the author(s). The term western science is used to describe the conventional knowledge system that is often contrasted with Traditional Knowledge and IQ, and most often used in conventional IA processes. Western science is defined as a knowledge system that is based on the application of the scientific method, through use of empirical observations, rational, and logic (Usher, 2000). However, as Usher (2000) notes, western science is not exclusively “western”, and within western science there are various competing knowledge claims. A more comprehensive discussion on Traditional Knowledge and IQ is provided in Chapter 2 of this thesis. 1.2 A Pragmatic Approach A pragmatic approach was taken throughout this research. Pragmatism is an approach that recognizes value of different epistemologies, and rather than choosing to follow specific theories or ideas, pragmatism supports the use of methods and information that are best suited to the research purpose and objectives (D. L. Morgan, 2014; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). Morgan 7 (2007) outlines a pragmatic approach as an alternative to the qualitative/quantitative duality through three key concepts: pragmatism uses abductive reasoning to connect ideas with data, which involves moving back and forth between induction and deduction; pragmatism refutes the ideas of complete objectivity and complete subjectivity, and rather argues for an intersubjective approach, which emphasizes reflexivity and acknowledging multiple perspectives; pragmatism rejects the need for knowledge to be either contextual/specific or generalized/universal, and rather suggests the idea of transferability which seeks to focus on what can be done with the knowledge produced, and how much of the knowledge can be used in other settings. Although the purpose of this research is to support the IA process in Nunavut, a focus on transferability promotes the application of certain results to other settings when relevant and appropriate, such as other Arctic IA jurisdictions. Furthermore, in a pragmatic approach it is the research objectives that ultimately determine which methods to employ and what information or data to gather (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). This is important as the research objectives are based on identified needs outlined by the NIRB, and the purpose is to connect the results to practitioner needs and support best practices in IA. Finally, as this research is exploring the integration of knowledge systems with different epistemological groundings, a pragmatic approach is appropriate as it allows for openness and flexibility in the means of addressing the research purpose (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). Therefore, both scientific and Traditional Knowledge systems can be used to inform the research as long as the information is pertinent and applicable to the research objectives. 1.3 Thesis Structure This thesis is organized in 8 chapters. Chapter 2 provides a review of relevant literature related to Arctic shipping, impact assessment, and Inuit Knowledge. Chapter 3 outlines the resource management context in Nunavut including the history of the Nunavut Agreement, the institutions of public government including the NIRB, and the IA process as practiced in Nunavut. Chapter 4 explains the methodology used in this research including the design and analysis of 8 the document review and focus groups, as well as a discussion on limitations. Using the design outlined in chapter 4, chapters 5 and 6 provide the results and analyses of the document review and the focus groups, respectively. Chapter 7 provides a discussion of the research results while outlining key themes and addressing the research objectives. Chapter 8 outlines opportunities and recommendations to address information needs and support the IA process in Nunavut. 9 Chapter 2: Arctic Shipping, Impact Assessment, and Inuit Knowledge This chapter outlines the scholarly context and literature relevant to the foundation of this research. The first section describes the current context, trends, and challenges associated with marine environments, natural resource development, and shipping in the Arctic. The second section outlines the literature on impact assessment (IA) with an emphasis on Canadian Arctic jurisdictions and associated challenges. The final section highlights the literature on Inuit Knowledge, or more specifically Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit / Qaujimaningit (IQ), with a focus on its role in IA. As the body of literature on Inuit Knowledge in IA is small, a broader scope is taken that encompasses literature on other Traditional Knowledge systems in IA. In taking such an approach it is important to be cautious of the fact that while similarities may exist between Inuit Knowledge and Traditional Knowledge, they are not interchangeable (Wenzel, 2004), and as such their applications and roles in IA may differ. 2.1 Marine Environments, Resource Development, and Arctic Shipping An overview of changing Arctic marine environments, the growing natural resource sector, and increases in Arctic shipping is important given the focus of this research on marine-related baseline data, and for the reason that Arctic shipping is the primary marine-related activity or project component assessed in NIRB reviews of natural resource development projects. This section is not intended to be extensive, but it provides the context and an overview of marine environments, resource development, and Arctic shipping to help contextualize this research. 2.1.1 Climate Change and Arctic Marine Environments The Arctic is experiencing an unprecedented amount of social-economic, political and environmental change. In polar regions, the climate is changing at a disproportionate rate compared to other global regions (IPCC, 2014). For instance, the Arctic-wide trend demonstrates 10 an increase of 1.9 °C in mean temperature over a 30-year time period, which is three times the average rate of global temperature increase (Comiso & Hall, 2014). Temperature increase and further climate change impacts are often interconnected and exacerbated by other pressures in polar regions such as economic development from resource extraction and tourism, as well as globalization and population increase (Dawson et al., 2017; IPCC, 2014). It has been further highlighted that isolated Arctic communities and fragile marine environments are particularly vulnerable to climatic changes and associated impacts (Arctic Council, 2009; IPCC, 2014). The livelihoods of local communities further depend on marine environments for sustenance hunting, tourism opportunities, and cultural value (Nuttall et al., 2005). Climate change is just one of many human-induced threats to Arctic marine environments including, environmental contaminants, offshore oil and gas activities, mineral resource development, shipping, hunting, and commercial fisheries (Huntington, 2009). 2.1.2 Resource Development Trends in Nunavut Based on the Conference Board of Canada’s Territorial Outlook (2018), the economic growth in Nunavut is projected at 7.3% annually by 2020, and then 4.6% annually for the following five years. The growth is largely due to the mining sector, citing the development and expansions of the Meliadine, Meadowbank, and Back River gold mines, where annual gold production is projected to double by 2020 (Jamasmie, 2018). As of the 2017 Nunavut Mineral Exploration Overview, there were 53 active exploration, development, and production projects in the territory including 39 gold projects, 7 diamond projects, 2 uranium projects, 2 base metal projects, and 3 active mines (2 gold, 1 iron ore) (Senkow, Russer, Bigio, Scott, & Sharpe, 2017). Alongside mineral resource development, the future of oil and gas exploration and production in Nunavut is favorable when the vast resource potential is considered. Unexplored oil and gas reserves in the territory are estimated at a minimum of 18 billion barrels of oil and 180 trillion cubic feet of gas (Government of Nunavut, 2017). Although there is presently a moratorium 11 on new offshore oil and gas activity in the Canadian Arctic, the federal government has announced plans to review the decision every five years (Government of Canada, 2016). The government committed to supporting stakeholders in research and development of resources to assist in the decision-making process regarding the future of offshore oil and gas development in the Canadian Arctic. One such project is the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait, Nunavut, to determine the potential risks and benefits of various types of offshore oil and gas activities that may be possible in the region (Nunami Stantec Limited, 2018). The mineral and petroleum resource potential in the territory is expected to provide great opportunities for Nunavummiut (Senkow et al., 2017). However, challenges to resource development in Nunavut are widespread and include a lack of infrastructure, harsh environmental conditions, as well as ongoing devolution negotiations (Government of Nunavut, 2008, 2017). The adequate implementation of policy and natural resource management is essential moving forward to ensure the protection of marine environments, while promoting resource development and its benefits for Nunavummiut (NMC, n.d.). 2.1.3 Arctic Shipping Trends and Challenges As the resource development sector continues to grow, associated project activities such as Arctic shipping, increasingly pose strain on marine environments. Resource development is one of many drivers of shipping increases in the Arctic. A decline in sea-ice is leading to more navigable arctic waters, where it has been documented that vessel traffic in the Nunavut Marine Area has doubled in 25 years (Dawson et al., 2017; Pizzolato et al., 2016). Increased shipping is also due to increases in natural resource development, cargo transport, fishing and tourism opportunities, and community resupply needs (Dawson et al., 2017; Pizzolato et al., 2014). Shipping in the Canadian Arctic is desirable due to the cost-effectiveness compared to air travel, as well as somewhat necessary due to the lack of road and rail infrastructure connecting many communities in the North (Guy & Lasserre, 2016). It has been demonstrated that vessel traffic in 12 the Northwest Passage has been significantly increasing since 1990, and it is estimated that the trend will continue, with a projection of 300 more voyages per year by 2020 (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2014). Furthermore, the opening of the Northwest passage has led to international interest regarding the potential for an alternative trade route as well as a means of accessing the resource-rich Arctic seabed (Pamel & Wilkins, 2011; Pizzolato et al., 2016). Both the challenges and opportunities related to increased shipping for communities and natural environments are difficult to assess. Identifying and predicting shipping impacts in the Arctic often involves the extrapolation of data from other regions, or from the limited available data in Arctic regions (Arctic Council, 2009). Identified impacts of shipping activities on marine environments, notably marine mammals, include noise pollution, introduction of invasive species from ballast water discharge, ship strikes, and habitat disturbance (Arctic Council, 2009; Huntington, 2009; Prowse, Furgal, Wrona, & Reist, 2009). While benefits may be related to greater economic opportunity through employment and tourism commerce, development of new and existing infrastructure, and opportunities for improved marine safety (Arctic Council, 2009). Prior to benefiting from increased shipping, widespread challenges should be considered such as, navigation in an unpredictable Arctic environment; a lack of baseline information, notably regarding hydrographic data; a lack of infrastructure such as deep-sea ports, and a lack of capacity of key services including the Canadian Hydrographic Service, the Canadian Coast Guard, and local emergency response (Arctic Council, 2009; Guy & Lasserre, 2016; Mussells, Dawson, & Howell, 2017; Ng, Andrews, Babb, Lin, & Becker, 2018). 2.2 Impact Assessment Impact assessment (IA) is a planning and decision-making process and tool used to identify, predict, and assess the potential impacts of a proposed action, and plan mitigation measures accordingly. IA has evolved and expanded overtime, with an increasing number of diverse and distinct forms of practice (Pope, Bond, Morrison-Saunders, & Retief, 2013). IA is often 13 used interchangeably with other terms such as, environmental assessment (EA), environmental impact assessment (EIA), and assessment (Hanna, 2016). Alongside the array of terms, there are many types of IA. In practice, IA is most often applied to projects and developments, though other forms exist such as strategic assessment, which focuses on the potential impacts of plans, policies, and programs (Noble & Gunn, 2016); cumulative effects assessment, where the combined impacts of past, present, and foreseeable future actions are considered (Whitelaw & McCarthy, 2016); as well as social impact assessment and health impact assessment, which focus on specific impact-spheres and are often integrated into broader EA (Esteves, Franks, & Vanclay, 2012; Harris-Roxas et al., 2012). Morgan (2012) cautions that, in light of all of the emerging forms of IA, a key challenge will be ensuring that the principles of IA are well-understood and that the various fields of IA can work in an integrated and complementary manner towards the same underlying goals. In general, IA involves collecting and applying information so that decision-makers can determine if and how to implement an action using the best-available information regarding potential consequences and benefits (Hanna, 2016). However, the purposes and capacities of IA are debated. Cashmore (2004) outlines a broad spectrum of theoretical perspectives regarding the role of science in EA, and thus how science influences the purpose of EA. On one end of the spectrum the scientific method is viewed as the underlying driver of theory and practice, resulting in EA as an analytical tool to provide stakeholders and decision-makers with adequate information related to potential impacts and mitigation (Cashmore, 2004; R. K. Morgan, 2012). While at the other end of the spectrum, EA is viewed as a civic science, with the purpose of empowering communities and promoting social justice (Cashmore, 2004). Despite varying perspectives regarding theory and practice, IA is now widely recognized as a key component in environmental management (R. K. Morgan, 2012). 14 2.2.1 Arctic IA in Canada The first formal EA process was enacted in 1970 under the United States National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) following growing political and public interest regarding environmental consequences of economic and industrial development, as well as a lack of adequate tools and processes to address the growing concerns (Cashmore, 2004). The emergence of EA in Canada quickly followed through the 1970s, and has since gone through significant theoretical and practical changes (R. B. Gibson & Hanna, 2016). IA in Canada is legislated federally, as well as provincially and territorially. The history of IA in Canada is particularly influential in the territories. Regarded as Canada’s first major EA, the 1974 Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry, led by Justice Thomas Berger, set instrumental standards regarding public involvement and expectations of how EA should be conducted, both in the Arctic and internationally (G. Gibson, Galbraith, & MacDonald, 2016; R. B. Gibson & Hanna, 2016). Following extensive consultations with communities throughout the NWT and the Yukon, and the consideration of environmental, economic, and social impacts of the proposed pipeline, the inquiry determined that the development should not proceed until Northern land claims were settled (Berger, 1977). As a result of comprehensive land claim agreements in the North, IA systems in the territories have developed and are administered through various co-management boards and agencies including the Nunavut Impact Review Board, the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, and the Western Arctic and Yukon North Slope Environmental Impact Screening Committee and Environmental Impact Review Board (Noble & Hanna, 2015). Furthermore, it has been argued that due to the various co-management boards, EA is better integrated into regional resource development planning in the territories compared to the provincial jurisdictions (Noble & Hanna, 2015). For instance, it has been suggested that IA in Nunavut “may well emerge as an illustration of the ideal application of EIA as planning” (Hanna, 15 2016, p. 13). However, issues and challenges related to IA in the Arctic are none the less prevalent. 2.2.2 Challenges: Information and Communication Needs The challenges related to Arctic IA are widespread and are often interconnected and exacerbated by further pressures in the region. Challenges related to information and communication needs are further examined here as they relate most closely to the research objectives of this project. An underlying issue to IA practice is a lack of baseline data and the adequate communication and transfer of information. While this issue is common across regions, in the Arctic it is especially prevalent, and largely due to a lack of recent baseline research as well as a need to better integrate historical data into scientific literature (Wassmann, Duarte, Agustí, & Sejr, 2011). Furthermore, rapid environmental and social changes in Arctic regions result in rapidly changing baselines, and further uncertainty in impact predictions (Arctic Council, 2016). Broad gaps in baseline data have been widely recognized as a challenge to IA in Arctic jurisdictions, and notably related to marine environments (Dubé, 2003; Nunami Stantec Limited, 2018; Wright, 2014). Wood (2008) outlines potential issues with baseline data throughout the IA process that lead to greater uncertainty in impact predictions, including unavailable data and irrelevant data during scoping, as well as challenges estimating future baseline changes (in the absence of human-interference), and measurement or methodological errors in data collection and analysis during the impact prediction stage. Tedsen et al. (2014) refer to “gaps” as “unfulfilled needs of an information user”, where information users are any individuals or groups who use information throughout the EA process, this includes stakeholders such as community members, or any actor who has an interest in the development, as well as decision and policy-makers (p.22-23). They further outline that “information gaps” may be due to a lack of complete information, or inadequate quantity or quality 16 of information. While synthesis and dissemination gaps are due to misinterpreted or misunderstood information, and information not reaching the user, which often leads to a failure in adequately conveying information and are referred to as “communication gaps” (Tedsen et al., 2014, p. 22). In their gap analysis of information and communication needs of EA stakeholders, Tedsen et al. (2014) determined that gaps were largely related to a lack of information and understanding of changing Arctic conditions. Although the analysis was primarily focused on the EU Arctic states, a limited evaluation of information needs in North American Arctic jurisdictions was included. The North American evaluation determined that there is limited information on the needs and interests of Northern communities, as well as specific data gaps related to climate change, land-use planning, cumulative effects of resource extraction activities, current regulations, and maritime shipping (Tedsen et al., 2014). The report provides valuable insight into the information and communication needs of IA stakeholders, as well as clear and practical means of framing and discussing different types of gaps, however recommendations which seek to address gaps on more regional and local levels are needed moving forward. Further challenges arise when known gaps in baseline data are not adequately communicated in the process. Challenges have been identified related to information bias and a lack of uncertainty disclosure in IA (Duncan, 2008; Tennøy, Kværner, & Gjerstad, 2006; Wood, 2008). There have been calls for more stringent requirements regarding the disclosure of uncertainty and data gaps in IA, as well as for improved documentation and communication of uncertainty to better inform decision-makers and stakeholders, and increase confidence in the IA process (Lees, Jaeger, Gunn, & Noble, 2016; Leung, Noble, Gunn, & Jaeger, 2015; Pavlyuk, Noble, Blakley, & Jaeger, 2017). There have also been identified capacity constraints related to a lack of information available to proponents regarding baseline conditions, as well as regarding the needs and interests of community members, resulting in further participation and engagement challenges (Udofia, Noble, & Poelzer, 2016). Moreover, community members have expressed frustration regarding consultation and engagement processes in project-based IA where they are 17 repeatedly answering the same questions due to a lack of available or accessible broad-scale information (Noble, Ketilson, Aitken, & Poelzer, 2013). There have been approaches in the Canadian Arctic, which seek to address baseline information needs at a regional level through strategic environmental assessment (SEA), or regional environment assessment (REA). The Beaufort Regional Environmental Assessment (BREA) is a federally-led initiative that emerged in 2008 through the the Beaufort Sea Strategic Regional Plan of Action following a formal request by the Inuvialuit Game Council for an SEA of offshore oil and gas activity in the Beaufort region of the Western Arctic (Noble & Gunn, 2016; Noble & Hanna, 2015). BREA was designed as a science-based research initiative to gather information related to the potential impacts of foreseeable offshore oil and gas development in the region, as well as to identify and address baseline data gaps related to the marine environment and potential development activities (Noble & Hanna, 2015). The regional baseline data gathered through BREA can further support future environmental management and streamline project-based EA in the region through time and cost savings, improved community engagement, and greater certainty to IA stakeholders (Fidler & Noble, 2013; Noble et al., 2013). Similarly, the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait in Nunavut, is currently being undertaken by the Nunavut Impact Review Board to determine the potential risks and benefits of various types of offshore oil and gas activities that may be present in the region (Nunami Stantec Limited, 2018). The initial report, Environmental Setting and Review of Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Activities, describes the environmental setting of the region, including detailed baseline data which could be used to inform future project-based EAs (Nunami Stantec Limited, 2018). The report further identifies broad baseline data gaps in the region. Information gaps were presented for valued-ecosystem components associated with physical, biological, and human environments. Baseline data gaps were largely related to the current status of marine mammal, bird, and fish populations as well as uncertainty regarding the response of populations to rapidly changing environmental conditions (Nunami Stantec Limited, 2018). It was emphasized 18 that “the identification of knowledge and data gaps is an important step in developing policy and programs for managing sustainable development”, the identified gaps can be taken into account when developing follow-up measures and monitoring programs with an aim of addressing data gaps (Nunami Stantec Limited, 2018, p. 25). Regional and strategic initiatives, as well as detailed land-use plans and other research programs may provide valuable information for project-based IA. However, as noted by Fidler and Noble (2013), there is an underlying challenge “to determine how the data and knowledge generated can best be translated and used to actually influence lower-level decision making” (p.187). Although baseline data gaps may be identified and even addressed through such initiatives, the value of the information is limited to how it can be transferred, accessed, and communicated to proponents, communities, and decision-makers. Moving forward, further research is needed to identify opportunities and develop mechanisms to better link upper-level regional initiatives and land-use plans to project-based IA and local-level decision-making (Fidler & Noble, 2013; Noble & Hanna, 2015). 2.3 Traditional Knowledge and Inuit Knowledge The challenges of easily defining and neatly differentiating Traditional Knowledge (TK), Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), Indigenous Knowledge, local knowledge and an array of other terms, has been widely acknowledged as well as criticized (Battiste & Henderson, 2000; Berkes, 2008; Ellis, 2005; Mazzocchi, 2006; Tester & Irniq, 2009; Usher, 2000; White, 2006). An oft-cited definition of TEK is provided by Berkes as “a cumulative body of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of the living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment” (Berkes, 2008, p. 7). Whereas Traditional Knowledge (TK) is often described as a broader term that is meant to encompass knowledge related to many facets including the ecological aspects at the focus of TEK (Bolton & Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2011). The 19 inclusion of the terms “relationship” and “adaptive” in Berkes’ definition of TEK is important. First, it emphasizes the concepts of relationality and fluidity which are common to many Indigenous ways of knowing (Battiste & Henderson, 2000), while the terms “evolving” and “adaptive” challenge the idea that “traditional” in TK and TEK implies a static or obsolete system, rather than a dynamic system capable of changing over time and adapting to changing conditions (Mazzocchi, 2006; Usher, 2000). However, as a means of avoiding this potential misconception, other terms have been suggested, such as Indigenous Knowledge and local knowledge. Stevenson (1996) refers to Indigenous Knowledge as having two sources: Traditional Knowledge and Non-traditional knowledge. Other definitions of Indigenous Knowledge simply refer to it as the collective local knowledge of a group of Indigenous people, without reference to temporality (Warren, Slikkerveer, Brokensha, & Dechering, 1995). However, the term “Indigenous” has also been criticized, as it may restrict knowledge to populations who identify as Indigenous and conversely, may overlook knowledge from those who are not recognized as Indigenous (Berkes, 2008; Mazzocchi, 2006). The term local knowledge moves beyond this critique, and has been defined as “a local body of knowledge, not associated with aboriginal ethnicity, but characterized by both historical and contemporary knowledge acquired through extensive observation of the environment and its species” (Tomaselli et al., 2018, p. 338). While the term adequately addresses the aforementioned critiques, it may not be suitable in certain applications as it does not explicitly include the beliefs, practices, and values associated with a way of knowing. Other scholars have argued that the very nature of defining such terms is inappropriate and grounded in eurocentrism, as the “quest for universal definitions ignores the diversity of the people of the earth and their views of themselves” (Battiste & Henderson, 2000, p. 23). Battiste (2005) further asserts that Indigenous people should determine if and how to define and contextualize their knowledge systems. The Inuit of Nunavut refer to their unique way of knowing as “Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit” (IQ) which directly translates to “what has always been known” (Barry et al., 2016, p. 293). However, 20 Arnakak (2002) emphasizes that the direct translation of IQ does not adequately embody what the term means. Similar to the other terms (TK, TEK, etc.), adequately defining IQ has become a point of contention. Although there are many similarities between TK, TEK and IQ, they are not interchangeable (Wenzel, 2004). Tester and Irniq (2009) highlight how “seamless” definitions often emphasize the aspects of IQ that are easily compatible with western science at the exclusion of other aspects, such as cosmology and values. The term “IQ” was first proposed by the Nunavut Social Development Council at the 1998 Nunavut Traditional Knowledge Conference as a means of moving beyond the confined term “Inuit Traditional Knowledge” (Arnakak, 2002; Lévesque, 2014). In 1999, the Government of Nunavut established the Sustainable Development IQ Working Group to help better define IQ and create an IQ framework to support its integration into government policy and development (Lévesque, 2014). Six guiding principles were first established by the working group and two were later added, the resulting eight IQ guiding principles are: • Pijitsirniq – Serving • Aajiiqatigiingniq – Consensus decision-making • Pilimmaksarniq – Skills and knowledge acquisition • Piliriqatigiingniq – Collaborative relationships, working together for a common purpose • Avatimik Kamattiarniq – Environmental stewardship • Qanuqtuurunnarniq – Problem solving • Inuuqatigiitsiarniq – Respecting others, relationships and caring for people • Tunnganarniq – Fostering good spirit by being open, welcoming and inclusive (Government of Nunavut, 2007) Alongside the guiding principles, the working group suggested a definition of IQ as “that which tries to capture past, present and future experience, knowledge and values of the Inuit” (Arnakak, 2002, p. 35). However, as previously noted, the direct translation of IQ does not adequately reflect the meaning of the term. Arnakak (2003) outlines a distinction between Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit 21 and Inuit Qaujimaningit, emphasizing that the latter term more accurately reflects the discussions surrounding IQ. “I would first like to suggest a distinction between the quite well-known expression Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ), widely used in Nunavut, and another expression, Inuit Qaujimaningit... IQ implies Inuit knowledge, something from the past. There is an element of passivity in the "jaq", making IQ look almost as an object to be seen. I believe there is a problem with the use of "jaq" in the expression. So what I propose is that we take out "tuqaq", the temporal element and change "jaq" to “niq", meaning "regarding in general", as in naasausiriniq for mathematics. IQ could then be defined not only as an objectified Inuit knowledge relating to the past, but as a past, present and future knowledge of Inuit culture” (Arnakak, 2003, p. 167). Similarly, in a letter to the NIRB, the Qikiqtani Inuit Association recommended that both Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and Inuit Qaujimaningit be used in the Nunavut IA process (Qikiqtani Inuit Association, 2009). The NIRB has since emphasized the use of both terms where “[t]he term Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit refers to Inuit “Traditional Knowledge” while Inuit Qaujimaningit refers to Inuit Traditional Knowledge as well as Inuit epistemology without reference to temporality” (NIRB, n.d.-b, par. 1). 2.3.1 In Impact Assessment The value and necessity of involving resource-users and their distinct ways of knowing in resource management and environmental decision-making has been widely recognized (Berkes, 2008; Huntington, 2000; Nakashima, 1990; Stevenson, 1996). Berkes (2008) highlights how resource-users and individuals who depend on the surrounding environment for their livelihoods are better able to recognize impacts and associated changes to the environment. The incorporation of TK is also thought to provide a more holistic understanding of the environment and the relationships with living and non-living beings (Huntington, 2000). Referring to Inuit Knowledge, Nakashima (1990) notes that the temporal aspect of the knowledge can help place present day baselines and environmental change in perspective. Furthermore, not including resource-users and community members in environmental research and decision-making processes can lead to a lack of trust, as well as issues with the implementation of plans and 22 programs (Dowsley, 2009). In IA specifically, omitting TK considerations can result in inadequate baseline data and challenges in linking ecological and social components in the process (Sallenave, 1994). While the incorporation of TK and resource-users in IA can result in more efficient and timely data collection compared to costly scientific methods (Nakashima, 1990). In the Nunavut IA process, the integration of IQ helps ensure that the process is “inclusive, thorough, and meaningful” as well as helps to reduce uncertainties associated with impact predictions (Barry et al., 2016, p. 294). Despite the long-recognized advantages of incorporating IQ and TK into IA, numerous calls by regulators and agencies for meaningful and effective use and incorporation have been highlighted strongly more recently. For instance, during the 2017 Pan-Territorial Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Board Forum (a meeting which brings together IA and land and water board representatives from the three territories), the incorporation of TK in IA and licensing was identified as a priority, it was indicated that “Incorporating TK into project design and regulatory decision making can help to build support and social license” (Stratos, 2017, p. 7). Similarly, an outcome of the 2018 Sustainable Development Working Group’s Canadian Arctic EIA Workshop was the theme: “The importance of recognizing, understanding, and taking into account appropriate knowledge systems, including Indigenous knowledge” (Onfoot Consulting, 2018, p. 3). Alongside calls for improved integration, in the three Canadian territories the consideration of IQ or TK in IA is a policy requirement. However, the integration and application of Indigenous Knowledge in IA has been widely inconsistent (Stevenson, 1996). As Usher (2000) highlights, “there is virtually no guidance on how to implement [TK] in the public arenas where knowledge claims must be tested” (p.184). While others have argued that TK is only incorporated into resource management regimes when it fits well with the western structures of such processes (Nadasdy, 2003). As such, many challenges arise both in practice and regarding the underlying, and differing, values of TK and IA. 23 2.3.1.1 Challenges Many challenges related to the integration of TK and western science in a variety of contexts and settings have been discussed in the literature. The following challenges and tensions will be discussed here in more detail as they relate to the integration of TK and IQ in IA: communication and translation barriers; unequal documentation and presentation of information; and underlying differences in knowledge systems and processes (Ellis, 2005; Huntington, 2000; Peters, 2003). Tensions due to the communication and translation of information are common in processes where knowledge-holders may be communicating in a different language to that of the other stakeholders. As a result, translators must have a thorough understanding of both traditional values and knowledge, as well as an understanding of the scientific concepts that often come up in IA. It is often the case that certain concepts don’t exist in the same way in different languages and through different ways of knowing (Ellis, 2005). Misinterpretations and poor translations of TK often arise as many concepts are fundamentally different compared to the western counterpart, which could result in TK being oversimplified or incorrectly understood and used as such in the EA process (Ellis, 2005). Furthermore, there is the challenge of having TK and IQ equally respected and valued compared to western science. Sallenave (1994) notes that there is often skepticism among scientists regarding the validity and objectivity of information from other ways of knowing, notably when such information is derived through interviews, which is common in IA and resource management. Alongside means of collection, the way data and information are presented might result in similar challenges. Usher (2000) explains that western science is often presented in organized and categorized systems, whereas TEK may not always be structured similarly, and may lead to the knowledge being perceived as “untestable”. Peters (2003) argues that TEK must be documented and presented equivalently to western science, though notes that the means of 24 documenting and presenting information does not need to be identical. As certain uses of TK may be inappropriate in written documents, its integration in other phases of the IA process, such as hearings, may be more suitable (Gondor, 2016; Usher, 2000). Moreover, it must be understood that different knowledge systems may have different means of validating and testing the accuracy of knowledge claims, therefore for TK to be effectively integrated into IA and resource management processes, this must be acknowledged and respected by all stakeholders and decision-makers (Stevenson, 1996; Usher, 2000). Alongside process challenges, others have argued that the conceptual frameworks and western-based structures within which regulatory boards operate, lead to inherent incompatibilities to the effective and meaningful incorporation of TK (White, 2006), and that due to differences in systems of understanding and underlying values, the Euro-Canadian EA system should adapt and reformulate its values and practices rather than attempting to fit TK into the conventional assessment process (Ellis, 2005). Indigenous-led IA is becoming common in the Arctic, and is advancing elsewhere in Canada, with key characteristics of the process as being “…derived from and steeped in the culture, traditional knowledge, and stewardship approach of the nation” and where “Indigenous laws and norms are at the centre of the process and decision-making” (G. Gibson, Hoogeveen, & MacDonald, 2018, p. 13). However, not all Indigenous-led IA processes completely stray from established IA frameworks and approaches. There are generally three types of partnerships in Indigenous-led IA: co-developed with the proponent, co-managed with the crown, and independently organized and carried out by the nation (G. Gibson et al., 2018). In the Arctic, where well-supported co-management boards often have key roles in decision-making, meaningfully integrate Indigenous Knowledges, and are supported by strong legislative backgrounds, independent IA processes may not need to be developed (G. Gibson et al., 2018). Nonetheless, there is a need for clearer methods of integration between TK or IQ and western science, as well as a need to develop a better understanding of differences and 25 compatibilities between the two knowledge systems, and opportunities to bridge knowledge systems in a variety of settings, including IA (Bolton & Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2011; Rathwell et al., 2015). There are suggestions regarding ways to integrate types of TK into environmental decision-making. For example, in the Northwest Territories, TK is defined for the EA process as including three primary components: 1. Knowledge about the environment; 2. Knowledge about use and management of the environment; 3. Values about the environment (MVERB, 2005). Gondor (2016) suggests that viewing TK in such a way allows the knowledge system to move beyond the realm of specialized information. Further categorizations of TK in EA and resource management include those by Usher (2000) and expanded on by Houde (2007). Usher (2000) classifies TEK into four typologies: 1. Factual knowledge about the environment; 2. Knowledge about past and current use of the environment; 3. Culturally based value systems about how things should be; 4. Culturally based cosmology. While Houde (2007) classifies TEK for use in natural resource co-management based on six interconnected typologies or “faces” in an attempt to understand differences and develop methods of integration of different ways of knowing. The six typologies are: 1. Factual observations; 2. Management systems; 3. Past and current uses; 4. Ethics and values; 5. Culture and identity; 6. Cosmology. In IA in Nunavut, TK of types 1 (factual observations) and 3 (past and current uses) are most commonly used, and most often in the collection of baseline data (Gondor, 2016). Its use in baseline data collection is particularly important as this early phase of the process allows TK to be directly applied to the project objectives (Gondor, 2016). However, the role of TK and IQ should extend beyond baseline data. Simpson (2004) argues that TEK is often used solely for practical reasons, such as informing baselines, at the exclusion of the spiritual or cosmological aspects. Many of the aforementioned challenges may be readily addressed with meaningful participation of knowledge-holders and resource-users in the process (Usher, 2000), and even more so when knowledge-holders, resource-users, and community members are directly supported and involved in decision-making. 26 Chapter 3: Resource Management in Nunavut This chapter describes the resource management context and impact assessment (IA) process in Nunavut. The first section outlines a brief history of Nunavut in relation to resource governance including the establishment of the territory and the Institutions of Public Government (IPGs), with a focus on the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB). The second section explains the IA process presently practiced in Nunavut. An understanding of the history of Nunavut, in the context of this research, is important for a number of reasons: it helps contextualize the resource management regime, including the IA process in the territory; recent land claim settlements and ongoing devolution negations have led to unique relationships between stakeholders; and the recent establishment of Nunavut and the IPGs, relative to other jurisdictions, has resulted in continuously evolving, and arguably improving, resource management processes. 3.1 History and the Nunavut Agreement Prior to the establishment of the Territory of Nunavut, the Canadian Inuit were represented by the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada (ITC) who undertook a study in 1973 to highlight Inuit land-use and land occupancy in the Northwest Territories. This led to the Inuit Land Claims Settlement Proposal which sought to establish an area of majority Inuit people, where they would be empowered through self-governance and decision-making authority regarding lands and resources (Inuit Tapirisat of Canada [ITC], 1976). It was brought forward that the Inuit did not want a place in the Indian Act, defined by the creation of reserves, and rather sought an autonomous territory where they could better promote their cultural values and protect their traditional ways of life (Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated [NTI], 2004). Following seventeen years of negotiations, the Agreement Between the Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Nunavut Agreement) was signed on May 25th 1993, between the Inuit of the 27 Northwest Territories, represented by the Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut (now Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated), the Government of Canada, and the Government of the Northwest Territories (Government of Canada, 1993; NTI, 2004). The coming into force of the Nunavut Agreement led to the establishment of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI) to ensure the successful implementation of the Agreement. The NTI highlights that the Nunavut Agreement was not a “gift” but rather a contract that required Inuit to surrender Aboriginal title to their traditional lands in exchange for rights and benefits including ownership of 18% of the surface land in the Nunavut Settlement Area and 2% of the subsurface land; a $1.173 billion settlement; and the establishment of the Territory of Nunavut and the Government of Nunavut (NTI, 2004). The Nunavut Act, signed in 1993, resulted in the territory of Nunavut joining confederation on April 1st, 1999, as well as the establishment of the Government of Nunavut. It is important to note the main difference between NTI and the Government of Nunavut; the latter is referred to as a public government and represents the entire population of Nunavut, while NTI is a private organization representing the interests of the 85% Inuit population (NTI, 2004). This distinction is important when discussing resource governance in the territory. Wenzel (2004) argues that there are two Nunavuts; the land claim area, and the political unit or the Territory of Nunavut. The former was primarily introduced to recognize Inuit rights to self-determination and decision-making authority regarding resources in the Settlement Area, while the Territory of Nunavut was originally a political endeavor to ultimately transfer responsibilities from the Government of the Northwest Territories to the new Government of Nunavut (Hicks & White, 2000; Wenzel, 2004). Initial expectations of Nunavummiut were that the Government of Nunavut would be structured and operate in a way that reflected Inuit values and culture, rather than modelling or mirroring the structure of other public governments (Wenzel, 2004). Although the Government of Nunavut does attempt to incorporate IQ values and Inuit culture into their practices, it has been argued that no substantial institutional reforms resulted from the Nunavut Act (Wenzel, 2004; White, 2006). As a result, the NTI is often in a position to act “as arbiter of 28 “Inuitness” of GN policy” as well as “a “loyal opposition” to Nunavut’s elected government” (Wenzel, 2004, p. 240). Similarly, the Institutions of Public Government (IPGs), also referred to as co-management boards, established under the Nunavut Agreement have a joint responsibility to manage resources for the benefit of Nunavummiut and to underline Inuit perspectives, values, and priorities through their practices and to the Government of Nunavut (NTI, 2004; Wenzel, 2004). 3.1.1 Land and Resource Co-Management in Nunavut The Nunavut Agreement established five IPGs, or co-management boards, to manage various aspects of lands and resources. The boards include the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB), the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB), the Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC), the Nunavut Water Board (NWB), and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal (NSRT). The boards work in a coordinated manner to manage and regulate lands and resources in the territory. The primary roles and responsibilities of the co-management boards are described in Table 1. Table 1: Primary Roles and Responsibilities of the Institutions of Public Government Created by Nicole Peletz-Bohbot based on information in Road to Improvement (McCrank, 2008) and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act (Government of Canada and Tungavik Federation of Nunavut, 1993). Institutions of Public Government Status Primary Roles and Responsibilities Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB) Regulatory To regulate harvesting including hunting, trapping, fishing, berry picking, and foraging, as well as to regulate the establishment and operation of conservation areas Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) Advisory To assess how proposed developments impact communities and the environment, and to advise on whether or not projects should proceed to development Recommends decisions to Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC, formerly INAC) Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC) Advisory To create, regulate, and manage land use plans, assuring that all plans respect the best interests of the Inuit as well as the environment Recommends decisions to Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC, formerly INAC) Nunavut Water Board (NWB) Regulatory To manage water use in the NSA, issue licensing, and coordinate with the NIRB for licensing of projects under the assessment process Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal (NSRT) Dispute Resolution To assist in the resolution of disputes regarding surface land access, and compensation due to loss and/or damage from development projects 29 Offshore waters, referred to as marine areas, are highlighted in Article 15 of the Nunavut Agreement, where a Nunavut Marine Council (NMC) was established to work with the federal government regarding marine development in Nunavut. The Marine Council consists of committees from the NWB, NIRB, and NPC. The NMC was formally established in 2010 to advise and assist in decision-making recommendations regarding marine development in Nunavut, however it was not until 2015 that the NMC began to receive annual funding from the federal government (NMC, 2018). The available funding will enable the NMC to be better utilized in the near future and act on identified key issues and topics including marine protected areas, climate change, oil and gas development, commercial fisheries, marine transportation, and marine infrastructure (NMC, 2016). 3.1.1.1 Nunavut Impact Review Board The NIRB is the IPG responsible for conducting IAs in Nunavut for all project proposals in the NSA including freshwater and marine areas. Regarding marine areas, the IA process is triggered when a project proposal involves activities or development related to marine impacts such as, shipping for mines, marine infrastructure, or offshore resource developments, while cruise ships, community resupply, and personal/individual ship movements are not subject to the IA process unless there is an associated land-based activity (Barry et al., 2016). The NIRB’s fundamental purpose is described through their mission statement, “To protect and promote the well-being of the Environment and Nunavummiut through [their] work” (NIRB, 2018a, p. 12), while their vision statement outlines their primary goal and direction for the future, “To be a leader in Impact Assessment by incorporating Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit / Qaujimaningit and promoting public engagement” (NIRB, 2018a, p. 12). The unique organizational structure of the NIRB facilitates this. The NIRB consists of staff and board members. The board is made up of a chairperson and up to nine members, and reports to Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada 30 (CIRNAC, formerly INAC). Two board members are appointed by Ministers of the Government of Nunavut, two members are appointed by Ministers of the Government of Canada, and the remaining four members are nominated by NTI and the three regional Inuit Organizations, then appointed by the Federal Minister of Northern Affairs (NIRB, 2018a). As a result of the appointment structure, it is often the case that board positions are filled by local Inuit community members (Gondor, 2016). Barry et al., (2016) highlight the uniqueness of the board compared to other EA boards in Canada due in part to the fact that the board and their stakeholders are almost exclusively Inuit. The NIRB further emphasizes that “although [the board] relies upon Government and Inuit Organization partners for advice and for technical assistance, the members of the NIRB make their decisions on behalf of Nunavummiut (public of Nunavut) and the rest of Canada, and not as agents of their appointing bodies” (NIRB, n.d.-a, par. 8). The NIRB staff interact with the public and assist with communications, finances, administration, and technical services (NIRB, n.d.-c). The board and staff members work together to ensure that the public is informed and engaged in the process, and that decisions are undertaken in the best interests of Nunavummiut. In the NIRB’s latest Five Year Strategic Plan (2018-2022) they describe their primary strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, as well as outline six key goals for the agency moving forward. Relevant to this research, present strengths of the NIRB include the strong working relationship and respect between staff and board members, while a weakness includes the difficulty of integrating IQ into highly technical NIRB documents. Threats to the NIRB include uncertainty regarding devolution and political changes, as well as uncertainties related to climate change and the increase in volume of information needed in the review process. Primary opportunities include the use of existing IQ databases to better access and share information, as well as the active participation in the NMC to better monitor the marine environment (NIRB, 2018a, pp. 14–15). The main goals of the NIRB for 2018-2022 are; 1. The NIRB will comply with the requirements and spirit of the Nunavut Agreement and all applicable legislation. 31 2. The NIRB will conduct high quality impact assessments. 3. The NIRB will maintain long-term organizational stability. 4. The NIRB will reflect the principles of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit/Qaujimaningit through its work. 5. The NIRB will promote public confidence and participation in Nunavut’s regulatory system and the NIRB’s processes. 6. The NIRB will collaborate to manage marine issues. (NIRB, 2018a, p. 16) Through collaboration with the NIRB, the results of this research align with, and promote, a number of the identified goals. 3.2 Impact Assessment in Nunavut Relative to other Canadian jurisdictions, the IA process in Nunavut is in its infancy and is continuing to evolve as broad political, economic, and environmental changes take place in the territory (Barry et al., 2016). While initially outlined in the Nunavut Agreement as a process regulated in part by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), the Agreement was amended in 2008 to remove any role of CEAA in the IA process in Nunavut (Government of Canada & Indigenous and Northern Affairs, 2012). The NIRB is the agency responsible for IA and coordinates with the NPC and the NWB to consider and grant approvals for developments in the NSA (Barry et al., 2016). The IA process is further outlined in the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act (NuPPAA), which was first proposed in Article 12 of the Nunavut Agreement, signed in 2013, and finally came into force on July 9th 2015 (Government of Canada, 2013). The NuPPAA was intended clarify and simplify the project assessment process. Primary changes to the process include: improving and clarifying project entry points in the review process; the establishment of legislated timelines for multiple stages in the process; precisely defining “project” to exclude those with minimal environmental impacts, as well as certain municipal projects, and emergencies; the addition of enforceable terms and conditions and the introduction of fines; a clarification of NIRB’s role in assessing transboundary projects, including 32 projects related to shipping; and the addition of guidelines related to emergencies, including necessary post-emergency reporting (Government of Canada & Indigenous and Northern Affairs, 2015). While the coming-into-force of the NuPPAA was well overdue, the Act effectively addresses key areas of concern in the project assessment process, and has since led to an improved IA system in the territory. The IA process under the NuPPAA is described in the following sections. It should be noted that in Nunavut, IA, environmental assessment (EA), and more generally, project assessment, are often used interchangeably (Barry et al., 2016). For consistency, in this research I use the term IA to refer to the assessment process in Nunavut. 3.2.1 Land-Use Conformity As outlined in the NuPPAA, project assessment begins with a project proposal by the proponent sent to the NPC who is responsible for determining whether the project conforms to established land use plans (Government of Canada, 2013). While there are currently two established land use plans in Nunavut, the Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan, and the North Baffin Regional Land Use Plan, the NPC is currently working on an extensive Nunavut Land Use Plan, which will replace the two plans and cover the entirety of the NSA, as well as provide provisions for areas of mineral development, and tourism activities, both of which were overlooked in the initial two land use plans (Nunavut Planning Commision [NPC], 2016). The Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan was made publicly available on June 23rd 2016, and is currently undergoing public consultation. As of now, if conformity to one of the two land use plans is confirmed, the project proposal is sent to the NIRB for impact assessment (Barry et al., 2016). The “single window” entry point implemented by the NuPPAA offers an improvement to the previous system where project reviews were initiated by various regulatory agents, leading to confusion and redundancy regarding the steps and order in which a project review should be undertaken (Government of Canada & Indigenous and Northern Affairs, 2015). 33 3.2.2 IA Conducted by the Nunavut Impact Review Board The IA process in Nunavut has three parts; screening, review, and monitoring. A figure of the process is available in Figure 2 and is further described in the following sections. Figure 2: NIRB Impact Assessment Process Created by Nicole Peletz-Bohbot based on information in the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act (NuPPAA) (Government of Canada, 2013) and “Proponent’s Guide: NIRB Technical Guide Series” (NIRB, 2018b). 3.2.2.1 Screening Following land-use conformity, the project proposal is sent to the NIRB for an initial screening to assess whether the project will potentially result in significant environmental or social-economic impacts, and whether a more thorough review is necessary by either the NIRB or a federal EA panel for projects involving matters of national interest (Government of Canada, 2013). The screening process is outlined in Sections 86-98 of the NuPPAA. The NIRB begins by checking for completeness of the proposal and consults the proponent as needed. Public consultations and public commenting follow this. The public commenting period at the screening stage is crucial to the IA process in Nunavut as it allows for an exchange of knowledge between IPGs, Hunting and Trapping Organizations, and communities (Barry et al., 2016). 34 Through the use of public comments as well as other necessary information, and pursuant to Section 92(1) of the NuPPAA, the NIRB completes and submits a screening decision report to the responsible Minister outlining whether or not the proposed project requires further review, or whether the proposal should be modified or abandoned (Government of Canada, 2013). The report must include factors affecting the significance of impacts, as outlined in clause 90 of the NuPPAA, which includes the size of the geographic area and wildlife areas affected, ecosystem sensitivity, historical and cultural significance, probability, frequency, and duration of impacts, as well as the reversibility of impacts, and the possible cumulative impacts resulting from the combination of impacts from the proposed project and other projects either carried out or to be carried out (Government of Canada, 2013). Once the Minister receives the report, they have 90 days to agree with or reject the NIRB’s decision. If there is agreement that a review is required, the Minister will determine whether the review is to be carried out by the NIRB or a federal EA panel. To date, all projects that have been recommended for further review have been allocated to the NIRB rather than a federal review panel (Barry et al., 2016). 3.2.2.2 Review The NIRB review follows a three-phase process outlined in sections 99-133 of the NuPPAA (Government of Canada, 2013). The review begins with the scoping and guideline development phase (approximately 90 days), where the NIRB seeks to identify the scope of the project and outline key issues needing to be further assessed. This is in large part achieved through extensive public consultation, where NIRB representatives travel to all of the communities deemed to be affected by the project and hold community scoping sessions to help determine the scope of the project (Barry et al., 2016). Using the resulting information and the criteria outlined in Section 101 (3) of the NuPPAA, the NIRB develops Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Guidelines and issues them to the proponent following further public comments (Government of Canada, 2013). 35 Phase two of the review (approximately 160 days) begins with the proponent submitting a Draft EIS to the NIRB. Once the NIRB determines that the Draft EIS conforms to the requirements as outlined in the EIS guidelines, the Draft EIS undergoes an internal technical review by the NIRB. Initial comments from the technical review are meant to identify gaps in knowledge or areas of uncertainty in the EIS, referred to as information requests (IRs) (Barry et al., 2016). The IRs are then forwarded to the proponent who is to prepare an IR response package. Once received, the Draft EIS is made publicly available and is open to comments from all stakeholders. During this time, the NIRB hosts community information sessions, which are followed by a technical meeting attended by the NIRB, the proponent, technical experts, as well as open to the public. The technical meeting is meant to resolve technical issues prior to the pre-hearing conference (PHC). The PHC is a public meeting involving the affected communities, the NIRB, the proponent, and relevant parties. Following the PHC, the NIRB will prepare a PHC report identifying the relevant issues that have come up in the aforementioned meetings, as well as expectations and timeline commitments required for the proponent’s Final EIS (Barry et al., 2016). Phase three (approximately 125 days) of the review process begins with the submission of the Final EIS. The NIRB performs an internal review to determine compliance with the given Guidelines. If compliance is granted, the Final EIS is made publicly available and may undergo a technical review, followed by community information sessions. At this stage, parties are invited to submit Final Written Comments to the NIRB outlining any outstanding issues and concerns with the project. A final public hearing is held to assure that the needs and concerns of the public have been adequately addressed. The opinions of Inuit elders as well as the inclusion of IQ are highly regarded at this stage (Barry et al., 2016). The review process ends with the preparation and submission of a Final Hearing Report (FHR) by the NIRB to the responsible Minister. Pursuant to Section 104(1) of the NuPPAA, the FHR should include the NIRB’s assessment of the project and associated impacts, the determination of whether or not the project should proceed to monitoring, as well as any recommendations and terms and conditions which may be accepted, denied, or 36 altered by the Minister (Government of Canada, 2013). If a positive determination is accepted, the NIRB will organize a meeting with all regulatory agencies involved in the project to determine responsibilities regarding project implementation. A project certificate, including all terms and conditions, will then be issued to the proponent by the NIRB (Barry et al., 2016). To date, eleven projects have gone through a complete review phase since the ratification of the Nunavut Agreement in 1996 and are outlined in Figure 3. Figure 3: Major IA Projects in Nunavut All projects that have gone through a complete NIRB review since the ratification of the Nunavut Agreement in 1996 are shown. This figure is an adaptation of a figure available on p.270 Ch.13 in Environmental Impact Assessment: Practice and Participation (3rd ed), Dr. Kevin Hanna (ed.), entitled “Map of Nunavut Settlement Area and outer land-fast ice zone”. This figure has been reprinted and adapted by Nicole Peletz-Bohbot with permission from © 2016 Oxford University Press. 3.2.2.3 Monitoring Monitoring programs and implementation of projects are outlined in Sections 135-140 of the NuPPAA (Government of Canada, 2013). The NIRB is responsible for coordinating the 37 monitoring program, assuring that there is little redundancy and that all parties are participating as designated in the project certificate. The purpose of the monitoring program, as indicated in Section 135(3) of the NuPPAA, is to measure environmental and social-economic impacts of the project; determine compliancy with the terms and conditions; provide other agencies with the necessary information to undertake their monitoring responsibilities; and assess the accuracy of impact predictions described in the Final EIS (Government of Canada, 2013). The NIRB annually compiles monitoring reports from the proponent, as well as compliance reports from the coordinated agencies’ undertaking specific monitoring of a given project, and prepares a comprehensive report identifying shortcomings in the monitoring program, and offering recommendations to improve the process moving forward (Barry et al., 2016). Alongside project-specific monitoring is general monitoring under the Nunavut General Monitoring Plan (NGMP), established under Article 12.7.6 of the Nunavut Agreement, and carried out by a steering committee of representatives from the NPC, NTI, Government of Nunavut, and the Government of Canada (Nunavut General Monitoring Plan [NGMP], 2013). The purpose of the NGMP is to “support, facilitate and coordinate the collection, analysis, management and dissemination of information regarding the long-term state and health of the environment in Nunavut” and is largely modelled after the Northwest Territories Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program (CIMP) (NGMP, 2010, p. 1). The NGMP is intended to collaborate with IPGs, including the NIRB, to undertake co-monitoring, however funding to support collaborative monitoring activities is limited (NGMP, 2010). 3.2.3 IQ in the Nunavut IA Process The Nunavut process is unique in that it includes one of the most rigorous public consultation processes in Canada, or indeed anywhere, and mandates the use of both Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit / Qaujimaningit (IQ) and the scientific method in the IA process (Barry et al., 2016). The NIRB states that in their documents when referring to IQ and TK they intend to 38 encompass “local and community based knowledge, and ecological knowledge (both traditional and contemporary), which is rooted in the daily life of Inuit people, and has an important contribution to make to an environmental assessment” (NIRB, n.d.-b, par. 3). IQ is incorporated into the process at all stages. Proponents are required to collect and use IQ in the preparation of the Impact Statements, while the NIRB includes IQ through the numerous consultation and community engagement opportunities, as well as through the decision-making and monitoring processes (Barry et al., 2016). Furthermore, the NIRB emphasizes that IQ should not solely be used to inform environmental baselines, but that the values of IQ should be incorporated into the process and ultimately guide the process (NIRB, n.d.-b). This is further reflected in the NIRB’s recent five year strategic plan, where the fourth goal indicates that “[T]he NIRB will reflect the principles of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit/ Qaujimaningit through its work” (NIRB, 2018a, p. 16). The NIRB outlines five primary means of achieving the goal: 1. Better incorporate IQ throughout the assessment, 2. Promote the use of Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun by NIRB staff, 3. Improve staff understanding of and respect for IQ, 4. Ensure that all communications reflect the values of IQ, 5. Improve IQ sharing and exchange of knowledge with other agencies and organizations (NIRB, 2018a). In light of recent calls in the Arctic for more meaningful integration of TK in IA (Onfoot Consulting, 2018; Stratos, 2017), the NIRB can act as a model of effective knowledge integration. 39 Chapter 4: Methodology The following chapter highlights the methods of data collection and analysis used in this research. Data collection involved two stages: 1) a document review of all complete NIRB project assessments with a significant marine component, and 2) focus groups with NIRB staff and NIRB board members. A review and analysis of relevant project assessment documents allowed for a systematic identification of recurring baseline information needs and an overview of where and how IQ is used throughout the IA process. Focus groups with board members and staff offered an opportunity to validate and elaborate on the document review findings while obtaining a rich organizational perspective regarding the challenges associated with information needs, and the role of IQ. For both methods, content and thematic analysis were used. 4.1 Document Review of NIRB Project Assessments Document review is a method used to identify key elements of interest through the classification and categorization of data and information available in documents (Bowen, 2009). A document review involves the selection of relevant documents, systematically organizing content in the documents related to the research questions, and interpreting the content often through identification of emergent themes (Bowen, 2009). The latter two steps can be referred to as content analysis and thematic analysis (Bowen, 2009). Document analysis can be quantitative and/or qualitative, where quantitative content analysis seeks to answer “what” questions, while qualitative analysis responds to “why” and “how” questions (Given, 2008). As a method, document reviews have been commonly employed in Arctic IA research. A review of IA documents of the Meadowbank gold mine was the primary method employed by Gondor (2016) in his study on the types and applications of TK in the Nunavut IA process. Other studies have used document reviews in combination with other research methods. For example, 40 in their approach to a gap analysis of EA in Arctic regions, Noble and Hanna (2015) undertook a review of government research and policy documents, alongside other methods. In this research, the document review was the first of two stages of data collection and was completed by May 2018. The objectives of the document review were to 1) identify marine baseline data gaps and understand how they are presented and 2) understand where and how IQ is used throughout the IA process in marine baseline data collection and understanding. 4.1.1 Project and Document Selection The first step of the review involved the selection of projects and associated documents. Projects were chosen based on two criteria: 1) they have gone through a complete NIRB IA review process (under Article 12 Part 5 of the Nunavut Agreement or Sections 99-114 of the NuPPAA) and 2) there is a significant marine component determined from the inclusion of marine-related volumes or chapters in project documents. A list of target projects was sent to NIRB staff for consultation and feedback to ensure that all relevant projects were identified. Through the feedback process, two documents were discarded due to a lack of significant marine-components, and one project was added. Since the ratification of the Nunavut Agreement in 1996, 11 projects have gone through a complete NIRB review. Eight projects were selected for this research. The selected projects and their associated marine components are described in Table 2. 41 Table 2: Selected Projects and Associated Marine Components Project Title (Type) Proponent Marine Components Final Project Recommendation (Date) Back River (Gold Mine) Sabina Gold and Silver Corp • Saline water discharge at marine laydown area (Bathurst Inlet) • Shipping (cargo/fuel) Revised FHR recommended for approval (July 2017) Doris North (Gold Mine) Miramar Hope Bay Limited, TMAC Resources Inc. (2013-present) • Effluent discharge via marine pipeline into Roberts Bay • Shipping (cargo/fuel) FHR recommended for approval (March 2006) PHR recommended for approval (June 2016) Kiggavik Project (Uranium Mine) AREVA Resources Incorporated • Baker Lake dock facility (considered freshwater component in assessment) • Shipping (cargo/fuel) Recommended to not proceed (May 2015) Mary River Project (Iron Mine) Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation • Milne port, nearshore port activities • Open-water shipping of ore product, cargo, fuel FHR recommended for approval (Sept 2012) PHR recommended for approval (March 2014) Meadowbank (Gold Mine) Cumberland Resources (Acquired by Agnico Eagle in 2007) • Navigation of chesterfield narrows • Shipping (cargo/fuel) FHR recommended for approval (August 2006) Meliadine (Gold Mine) Agnico Eagle Mines • Related activities at Melvin Bay (existing infrastructure) • Shipping (cargo/fuel) FHR recommended for approval (October 2014) Phase 2 Hope Bay (Gold Mine) TMAC Resources Inc. • Activities at Roberts Bay including effluent discharge via marine pipeline (new and existing infrastructure) • Shipping (cargo/fuel) FHR recommended for approval (June 2018) Whale Tail Pit (Gold Mine) Agnico Eagle Mines • Activities at marine infrastructure in Baker Lake (existing) • Shipping (cargo/fuel) FHR recommended for approval (November 2017) A complete NIRB project assessment often involves thousands of documents of various types, varied lengths, and different contributors. In this research, three primary types of documents were reviewed for each identified project: 1) Final Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines (Final EIS Guidelines or Guidelines), 2) Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS or Impact Statement), and 3) Final Hearing Report (FHR) or Public Hearing Report (PHR). Final EIS Guidelines are prepared by the NIRB and issued to the proponent indicating detailed instructions on what is expected to be included in the Final EIS. Guidelines were reviewed for all 42 projects except for the Whale Tail Expansion project as the proponent submitted their project proposal application as the Impact Statement (pursuant to Section 12.5.2 of the Nunavut Agreement and Subsection 101(3) of the NuPPAA). The Final EIS is prepared on behalf of the proponent, often by hired consultants, and issued to the NIRB for review. The Final EIS is a multi-volume document containing all of the information required by the NIRB in the Guidelines, this often includes detailed information regarding the project description, project design, consultation practices, information baselines, potential impacts, mitigation and management of the project. The FHR is prepared by the NIRB and contains a summary of the entire review process including identified impacts, views and concerns of interested parties, and the board’s final recommendation to the minister including any terms and conditions. The PHR has the same purpose and content of a FHR, though is issued for project amendments that require a complete review. PHRs were reviewed in instances where the project amendment or expansion influenced the original marine component or included a new and significant marine component. For example, the latter was the case for the Doris North project where the amendment included a proposal to discharge tailings effluent to the marine environment at Roberts Bay. In this thesis I refer to FHRs and PHRs collectively as Hearing Reports. Furthermore, it should be noted that since the completion of this document review (June 2018) the NIRB has released a draft of Standardized Impact Statement Guidelines (NIRB, 2018c). The standardized guidelines will replace the need to provide complete project-specific guidelines for every review, and will result in more meaningful and higher quality assessments (NIRB, 2018a). Although projects were chosen based on the inclusion of a significant marine component, certain types of documents, such as the Final EIS, cover a range of topics in addition to marine environments. As this research is focused on marine baseline information and the role of IQ related to marine environments, only relevant marine volumes of Final EIS documents were reviewed. In cases where marine components were not the focus of volumes but were included in the table of contents, such as the main/overview Final EIS volumes, data collection, public 43 consultation, and IQ-specific volumes, the volumes were included in the review. Project documents were identified and accessed through the NIRB public registry1. A complete list of the projects and specific documents including reference links to the NIRB public registry are available in Appendix A. Table 3 outlines the types of documents and the specific research questions that guided the document review. Table 3: Document Types and Key Questions Guiding the Review Document Type Section(s) of Document Primary Contributor Key Questions for Document Review Final Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines All sections NIRB • What are the guidelines for identifying and addressing uncertainties and gaps related to baseline data? • What are the guidelines for IQ collection and use regarding baseline data? • What marine baseline information is required? Final Environmental Impact Statement Main volume, Data collection/ IQ volume, Marine volume(s) Proponent • What are known/identified marine baseline data gaps? • How was IQ collected for baseline data? • Where is IQ used in the reports? • What topics are discussed when referring to IQ • Did IQ address data gaps? Final Hearing Report (FHR) or Public Hearing Report (PHR) All sections NIRB • What are known/identified marine baseline data gaps? • How are gaps and uncertainty related to marine baseline data presented and addressed? • What is the final project recommendation? • How did IQ and gaps in marine baseline data influence the decision? 4.1.2 Data Collection and Analysis All identified documents were imported into NVivo 12 (QSR International Pty Ltd., 2018). NVivo is a useful tool for handling wide cross-sections of data through its ability to allow the researcher to organize and code data into categories and/or themes and compare the themes through queries (Bazeley, 2007). Within NVivo, documents were read and coded to respond to the questions listed in Table 1. Common to a pragmatic approach, the key questions for each 1 http://www.nirb.ca/application?strP=r 44 type of document were used to guide the review and to assure that the review remained focused on the research objectives; to discuss marine baseline data gaps, understand how they are presented, and to determine where and how IQ is used throughout IA documents regarding marine baseline data collection and understanding. Often in document reviews, text and keyword searches are used to efficiently step-through large sections of documents to identify relevant sections and topics (Bazeley, 2007). I initially planned to use two keyword searches for the review; one related to data gaps and another related to IQ. However, after an initial trial I determined that due to the nature of the documents and my research questions, keyword searches would not be effective for this project. Baseline data gaps were not always presented explicitly as “gaps”, and were described differently among projects and documents, which made it difficult to confidently identify a list of relevant keywords to use in the search. As well, a keyword search for “IQ”, “TK”, and related terms resulted in an immense amount of references irrelevant to baseline information and marine environments. Reading the complete texts allowed me to remain focused on relevant document sections and better understand the specific projects, marine issues, and the contexts surrounding baseline data gaps and the role of IQ. Furthermore, the use of text searches in interpretive work has been cautioned due to its mechanical nature (Richards, 2009). The analysis of documents began with descriptive coding. Descriptive coding is often used in content analysis where information is organized into categories related to the research questions (Bowen, 2009). In this case, information was categorized based on the key research questions for each type of document. Descriptive coding involved identifying specific sections of documents directly related to marine baseline environments, IQ and/or TK, and gaps or information needs. Once all of the documents were initially coded, the coding results were reviewed and re-coded analytically. This was the first step of the thematic analysis which included topic, analytic and thematic coding. Thematic analysis is often performed after content analysis and is used to identify emergent themes and patterns through the re-reading and re-coding of 45 data (Bowen, 2009). Finally, a third re-coding was performed using thematic coding to categorize data based on emerging themes developed throughout the analysis. Themes were discussed with the research team throughout the process. Quantitative information from the coding results, such as frequencies of occurrence, was imported into Microsoft Excel to better visualize the information through charting. The document review was used to develop a more in-depth understanding of the Nunavut IA process through analyzing what and how information is presented by the primary agency (NIRB) and the proponents. Document reviews are often not meant to stand on their own, but rather to inform other methods used in combination with the review as a means of triangulation (Bowen, 2009). Triangulating data through the use of various research methods allows the researcher to enhance credibility and reduce the chance of bias through the convergence of various sets of data (Patton, 2002). Data obtained from document reviews can also be used to effectively contextualize information collected through interviews or focus groups (Bowen, 2009). The following method used was focus groups with NIRB staff and board members. 4.2 Focus Groups The second stage of this research was completed in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, in July 2018. Two focus groups were conducted with NIRB staff and board members. A focus group is defined as a guided discussion with a group of individuals who all relate to the discussion topic (Curry, Nembhard, & Bradley, 2009). Focus groups are generally advantageous as they can provide an efficient means to obtain diverse perspectives and beliefs on a central topic (Patton, 2002). Though it is important to note that in this research the focus groups acted as a lens into the organization rather than an account of various individual perspectives. In this case, the focus groups were advantageous as they provided collective insight into the organization (NIRB) as board members and staff were able to reflect on their work and collectively respond to and discuss the questions and related topics. 46 In this research, the purpose of the focus groups was to expand on and validate the information collected in the document review and develop an understanding of the challenges associated with addressing information needs and an understanding of the role of IQ in the process and its influence on decision-making. 4.2.1 Focus Groups Design The first focus group was conducted with eight NIRB board members and the second one was conducted with ten NIRB staff. Both focus groups were carried out on the same day during a trip to Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, in July 2018. Directly engaging with the NIRB board members was important as it helped to develop insight and understanding on how marine-related uncertainty and IQ influence decision-making. The focus group with the NIRB staff allowed for rich insight regarding the operations and challenges of an agency responsible for carrying out IA, as well as insight into the integration of IQ and western science in the process. Information of this kind is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain through solely a review of project and process documents. The focus groups were conducted as a part of the larger project in collaboration with the NIRB and the University of Saskatchewan. The final question sets were developed collaboratively with the research team, and were sent to the NIRB director for further review and comments. The question sets are available in Appendix B. As the focus groups were intended to address the objectives of both this research and the objectives of the larger project, some of the questions are not directly applicable or relevant to this research. A pragmatic approach allowed me to remain focused on the information that directly addressed the research questions of this project. At the beginning of each focus group, participants were reminded that the purpose is not to share their individual opinions or perspectives but rather to act as a window into the NIRB and collectively share the organizational perspective. The participants were clearly asked if they agreed to be in the focus group before the discussions began. There was no employment 47 requirement to partake in the discussions. Participants were also asked for their permission to record the audio of the focus groups and have the recordings transcribed. Notes were taken throughout the focus groups. The focus group with the NIRB board members was completed in just under two hours, and the focus group with the NIRB staff lasted three hours. 4.2.2 Focus Groups Analysis Audio recordings of the focus groups were imported and directly transcribed in NVivo. Notes were taken throughout the transcription and were reviewed prior to coding. As the focus group questions aimed to address research objectives for both this research and the larger project, descriptive coding was initially used to identity sections in the transcripts related to this research, specifically related to the role of IQ, baseline information needs, and challenges. Descriptive coding is used to initially sort or organize relevant information by topic, and is often followed by analytic coding and the identification of themes (Richards & Morse, 2013). The second stage of analysis involved thematic analysis where topics were further categorized and themes began to emerge. The themes were both new and unique to the focus groups as well as themes carried forward and expanded on from the document review. The themes that emerged from the document review and the themes developed from the focus groups were shared and discussed with the research team and my supervisory committee. 4.3 Limitations There are limitations to both methods used in this research. The document review assessed all projects that have gone through a complete NIRB review and included a significant marine-component. Projects that did not make it further than the screening stage (due to either approvals or rejections), or that are currently undergoing the review phase, were not assessed in this research, and therefore their associated marine-components were not considered. As only 11 projects have gone through a complete review since the ratification of the Nunavut Agreement, 48 the sample size was small. Bounding the review in this way was necessary to ensure the consistency of types of documents available for the review, as well as to capture all major marine-related activities triggered by the NIRB IA process. A primary consideration in document reviews is the bias of content and selection of documents (Bowen, 2009). In this research it was important to be mindful of the authors and targeted audiences of the documents, as well as their potential biases. For instance, the Impact Statement is produced by, or on behalf-of, the proponent who evidently would like for the project to be approved. Similarly, as the NIRB produces the Hearing Reports, the summary of the process, including the technical comments and community concerns, are a reflection of what the NIRB believes should be included. As such, it was necessary to be aware of document biases as well as my own biases throughout the review. Triangulating data through the use of multiple methods further reduced potential biases. The two focus groups conducted with NIRB staff and board members helped develop a better understanding of the organizational perspective regarding information needs and the role of IQ in the IA process. While the NIRB was able to comment on the roles of other agencies, intervenors, and communities in the IA process, a direct engagement with other parties could have enriched the research through the addition of various perspectives. However, due to logistical challenges common to working in the North, engagement with other parties can be a challenge. Speaking to NIRB staff and board members was essential to gain insight into all facets of the NIRB, as well as to develop a comprehensive understanding of the organization to help better address their identified needs regarding marine baseline information and IA process challenges. 4.3.1 Reliability and Validity Although reliability and validity are key aspects of any research, their considerations (or lack-of) in qualitative inquiries are often criticized (Cypress, 2017). In qualitative research, 49 reliability is based on consistency and neutrality, and has been defined as, “the consistency of the analytical procedures, including accounting for personal and research method biases that may have influenced the findings”, while validity refers to “the precision in which the findings accurately reflect the data” (H. Noble & Smith, 2015, p. 34). Reliability is necessary to obtain validity (Cypress, 2017). In this research, reliability and validity were ensured through the transparency of the research methodology including the limitations, the use of purposive sampling for the documents analyzed in the review and the focus groups with NIRB board and staff, the triangulation of data through use of multiple methods including a document review and focus groups, as well as through feedback and discussions with the research team regarding the research methods, results, emerging themes and analyses. 50 Chapter 5: Results and Analysis of Document Review This chapter provides the results and analysis from the document review. The document review sought to 1) identify recurring gaps in marine baseline information as well as understand how baseline information needs are presented, and 2) determine how local knowledge and IQ are used to inform marine baselines and how the knowledge is presented in IA documents. The first part of this chapter describes the projects and documents in relation to their inclusion of IQ and discussions of information needs. The second and third parts of the chapter outline the results of the thematic reviews related to gaps in marine baseline data and the role of IQ, respectively. The results highlight that data gaps are often presented very broadly, with a large focus on marine-mammals, emphasizing their value and importance to communities and the IA process. Discussions surrounding the role of IQ highlight a focus on marine-mammals, a positive trend of improved integration over time, the consistent recognition of the role and value of IQ, and the use of IQ alongside and in absence of western-science to inform marine-related baselines. 5.1 Description of Projects and Documents All projects with a significant marine component that have gone through a complete NIRB review were selected for the analysis. The eight identified projects range in project type, scope, and scale of development. Six of the selected projects are gold mine developments. The remaining two projects include an iron ore mine development and a proposed uranium mine development. The marine components of the selected projects vary in scope, scale, and level of stakeholder concern, and as a result, the amount and types of marine-related baseline information gaps varied among projects. The documents were initially coded descriptively to identify where certain information is explicitly located and to develop a broad understanding of how IQ and marine-baseline data gaps are presented. The results from descriptive coding by document type are presented in Table 4. 51 Table 4: Inclusion of IQ/TK and Marine Data Gaps by Document Type # of projects with a significant marine component to go through a complete NIRB Review Final EIS Guidelines Final EIS and/or Final EIS Addendum Final / Public Hearing Report Requirements to include: Explicit Volume / Sections Discussed in decision statements / terms and conditions IQ/TK Data Gaps IQ/TK (general) IQ/TK (Marine specific) Data Gaps Marine Environment IQ/TK Marine Data Gaps 8 7* 7* 8 3 1 8 8 5 * 1 project did not include Final EIS Guidelines as the proponent chose to submit their proposal as the EIS. It was determined that all of the Final EIS Guidelines included requirements to identify data gaps and use IQ/TK throughout the project review. All Guidelines provided similar prescriptions regarding the collection and use of IQ, with an emphasis on collection through consultation and engagement, as well as how data gaps should be identified, presented, and how uncertainty in baseline information should be made explicit. Furthermore, all Guidelines included a requirement to “describe how and where TK is being used to address gaps in currently available scientific data” (279377, 2012, 33). This is important for this research as an objective is to determine how IQ is used alongside and in absence of western science in marine baseline data collection and understanding. However, it must be noted that the purpose of the review was not to evaluate whether or not guidelines were followed by the proponent in the Final EIS, but rather to inform an understanding of the organization of the Final EIS, as well as to better understand the expectations set out by the NIRB related to IQ and information needs. Descriptive coding of the Impact Statements outlined specific volumes and sections related to baseline data gaps and IQ/TK. All eight projects included a volume or specific section explicitly related to IQ and/or TK. Three of the eight projects included a section in the Final EIS on IQ/TK specifically related to marine environments, while only one Impact Statement included an explicit section on data gaps. In the Hearing Reports all projects included a discussion on 52 marine environments and the use of IQ/TK. Five projects included a discussion of data gaps in the decision statements or a need to address data gaps through the terms and conditions. 5.2 Thematic Review Results: Gaps in Marine Baseline Data The first part of the thematic review sought to identify and discuss gaps in marine baseline data, while the second part sought to understand how IQ is collected, presented, and discussed in IA reports. The results and analysis of the second part of the thematic review are presented in section 5.3. The first objective of the document review was to identify recurring gaps in marine baseline information as well as understand how baseline information needs are presented. Documents were read and all instances of marine baseline data gaps were coded based on three factors; marine-related topic, type of gap, and who identified the gap (proponent, NIRB, or intervenors). It is important to note that data gaps are often identified and presented in various stages throughout the review process. For example, intervenors, such as Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), and Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), may identify and present data gaps in submitted technical comments or as information requests (IRs). Throughout the process, the proponent will generally attempt to address the gaps and concerns brought up in the comments and IRs. Any outstanding or additional data gaps are intended to be discussed by the proponent in the Impact Statement and/or discussed by the NIRB in the Hearing Report. That said, through review of the Impact Statements and Hearing Reports, this research was only concerned with the outstanding and additional data gaps. This focus is important as it allows for insight into the information that was not readily addressed throughout the process, as well as highlights the information needs that were persistent and of greater value to communities and to the assessment. In total, 64 recurring/outstanding marine-related data gaps were identified in the eight projects. However, the total number of identified gaps should not be taken as a clear indication of 53 the total amount or level of marine-related information needs. As mentioned, the marine components of the identified projects vary in scope, scale, and level of stakeholder concern, and as a result, the amount and types of marine-related baseline information gaps varied among projects and varied considerably in depth and detail. Rather than attempting to draw concrete conclusions regarding information needs based on the total number of identified gaps or the distribution of gaps among projects, through an analysis of the common topics and depth of content discussed regarding data gaps, how the gaps are presented, and who presents them, we can better assess marine-related information needs in Nunavut, and be in a better position to work towards addressing data gaps. 5.2.1 Marine-Related Topics The identified baseline data gaps were coded by marine-related topic. Marine-related topic refers to the primary content topic of the gap. A total of eleven topics were coded as well as multiple sub-topics for marine mammals and marine fish codes. Marine mammals were the most commonly discussed topic regarding a gap in baseline data (30 gaps), followed by marine fish (8) and marine birds (5). Other marine-related topics included bathymetry (3), marine water quality (3), sea-ice (2), oceanography (2), and marine invertebrates (2), as well as general topic categories including marine environment (4), marine wildlife (3), and an “other” category including one gap related to zooplankton and another gap related to subsea permafrost. Figure 4 outlines the topic codes by number of identified gaps. 54 Figure 4: Marine Baseline Data Gaps by Topic An understanding of the topics most commonly discussed regarding gaps in baseline data is important for a number of reasons. First, it offers insight into the topics that are most significant, critical, and valued in the assessment. Expectedly, marine mammals, marine fish, and marine birds were selected as valued ecosystem components (VECs) in the majority of the projects reviewed. A VEC is defined by the NIRB as any environmental aspect or component which is of vital importance and value to a particular community or region (NIRB, 2007). The presence of VECs in the primary marine-related topic codes further highlights the significance of the identified marine components to communities, as well as to the project assessments. As marine mammals, marine fish, and marine birds are of vital importance to communities and regions, it is fitting that more information on the topics would be requested to better inform impact predictions. That said, the number of identified data gaps associated with each topic should not be taken as an indication of the amount or level of information that is lacking. For example, it would be incorrect to infer that there is considerably more information on marine invertebrates (only two identified gaps), compared to the amount of information on marine mammals. Rather, what the topic results could 55 indicate is that more information on marine mammals is needed to make adequate impact predictions compared to the amount of information related to the other topic categories. For example, marine mammals may be more directly impacted by certain project activities and as a result, more baseline information would be required. The depth and detail of the identified gaps may be a better indication of the amount of available information. The topic categories further demonstrate how the content of the gaps vary in depth and detail. As demonstrated from the topic categories, gaps are often discussed in terms of broad and generalized categories, such as marine environments or marine wildlife. Even the marine fish and marine bird categories lacked further detail, where only two of the 13 identified gaps discussed specific species. The exception was the marine mammal category where 24 of the 30 identified gaps were discussed in more detail regarding the specific groups of marine mammals and individual species. Marine mammal sub-topics were coded and are outlined in Figure 5. Figure 5: Marine Mammal Gaps by Sub-Topic Alongside broad topic categories, the content discussed in the gaps was often general or vague, with little temporal or spatial focus. For instance, in the Whale Tail Pit Project FHR a broad gap was outlined regarding the assessment of project activities on marine birds, “ECCC identified that limited baseline data was available for the assessment and insufficient mitigation measures 56 were proposed” (314232, 2017, 138). While the omission of details including temporal or spatial aspects may hinder the ease of addressing the information needs, it may also be an indication of the amount of available information. In contrast, other gaps, notably those related to marine mammals, were often presented in more detail. For example, in the Kiggavik Final EIS, an identified gap indicated that “Site specific information of habitat use by beluga whales in Chesterfield Inlet (and western Hudson Bay) is limited” (278906, 2014, 8). The fact that gaps surrounding marine mammals are discussed in greater detail can further support the aforementioned results where more information, and more specific information, on marine mammals is sought in the review to better evaluate marine-related impacts. However, it is important to note that more information does not necessarily result in a “better” evaluation of impacts. Rather, the type and quality of information as well as how it is used will further influence the impact predictions. This is important to keep in mind when discussing information and data needs. Finally, the discrepancy of detail and focus among marine topic categories and content of gaps can also potentially be explained by the common phrase “you don’t know what you don’t know”. This highlights the idea that as more information on marine mammals is known and available, there is a greater understanding and awareness of the information that is unknown or lacking, and as a result, there are a greater number of identified gaps related to marine-mammals and a greater amount of detail presented in the gaps. 5.2.2 Presentation and Identification of Gaps The way that gaps were presented and who they were identified by varied in the reports. Alongside topic codes, gaps were coded based on the key words used to describe the gap, and then re-coded and grouped by theme to attempt to best describe the type of gap. The themes included insufficient/incomplete data (34 codes), unavailable/unknown data (13), inadequate methodology (8), uncertain data (5), and unsuitable data (4). The themes are described as 57 follows: insufficient/incomplete data refers to gaps that were presented as not having enough information to make adequate impact predictions; unavailable/unknown data refers to gaps that identified a complete lack of information available on a topic or where no information was known on a topic; inadequate methodology refers to gaps that were caused by inadequacies in the design or implementation of baseline studies; uncertain data refers to gaps that were caused by ambiguous information or where consensus was not reached regarding the validity of the information presented; and unsuitable data refers to gaps where the presented information was not suitable to the baseline environment which it attempted to inform. Identifying and understanding how baseline data gaps are presented and who presents them is important as it can provide insight into why data gaps are present and therefore help to develop concrete recommendations to address specific gaps. In the documents reviewed, gaps may be identified by either the proponent, the NIRB, or an intervenor. Figure 6 outlines the types of gaps and who identified the gap. Figure 6: Type of Marine Data Gap and Who Identified the Gap 58 An analysis of the relationship between type of gap and who presented the gap demonstrates that information needs caused by insufficient/incomplete data and unavailable/unknown data were most often presented by proponents in the Impact Statement, whereas gaps presented as inadequate methodology, uncertain data, and unsuitable data were often identified by intervenors and presented in the Hearing Report. This result is expected when the structure of the IA process is considered. Throughout the process, and notably in preparation of the Impact Statement, proponents are required to identify baseline conditions and should outline where information gaps are present. In contrast, intervenors and the NIRB review the proponents’ submissions, including the Impact Statement, and identify issues and concerns with the information presented. This often includes issues with baseline study design, uncertainty about the presented information, and unsuitability of the data used to inform baselines and assess impacts. That said, it was common in sections of the Impact Statements where the environmental baselines were described, to include references to data deficiencies as outlined in the literature or in other reports and status acts, including the Species at Risk Act (SARA) and the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). The data deficiencies identified in the Impact Statement were often presented as insufficient/incomplete data, and as unavailable/unknown data. For instance, in the baseline information summary of marine mammals in the Mary River Project Final EIS, it was indicated that, “The bearded seal has no status under SARA and is listed as Data Deficient by COSEWIC” (286007, 2012, 140), and in the marine fish baseline section of the Phase 2 Hope Bay Project, it was described that, “Very little is known about the Bering Wolffish habitat and habits, most of the information was derived from the latest COSEWIC (2002) status report” (314844, 2017, 9). In other instances, such as the Mary River project, the proponent discussed the challenges of undertaking baseline data collection in the Arctic and outlined how the inherent challenges often lead to greater uncertainty in the impact predictions, 59 “Collection of baseline environmental data in the high arctic has challenges... Further, the lack of basic infrastructure means an increased reliance on helicopters, adding cost and logistical challenges. This is a reality faced by any proponent working in Nunavut or other cold-climate regions. Consequently, baseline data collection is biased to three seasons (spring, summer and fall) for many aspects of the program” (285324, 2012, 37). In the documents reviewed, 31 of the baseline gaps were identified by intervenors and presented in Hearing Reports. It can be assumed that intervenors identify a greater number of gaps throughout other phases of the review through technical comments and information requests. The remaining information needs included in the Hearing Reports are often the ones that were either significant to the assessment (involved a lot of discussion, controversy, etc.), or the ones that were not addressed and are relevant to the project recommendation. As mentioned, in fitting with IA process responsibilities, intervenors often identified types of gaps in the categories of inadequate methodology, uncertain data, and unsuitable data. This was the case in the Kiggavik FHR where NTI and the Kitikmeot Inuit Association identified a gap regarding the unsuitability of species used in the baseline study, “Beluga whales and ringed seals were the only species used to assess potential interactions. While they are the most common marine mammals in the region they are not necessarily the best for use in assessing some important shipping impacts… Focusing on belugas and ringed seals to the exclusion of other species does not provide a complete assessment of the potential shipping impacts to marine mammals” (279296, 2015,145). The use of detail in the identified gap, both regarding the specific marine mammal species as well as the detail provided in the explanation of the gap, can help better address information needs as targeted and focused approaches may be developed. Similarly, in the Mary River FHR a comment from the Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA) was summarized, describing the issues associated with limited baseline data and the use of unsuitable data, “QIA states that a lack of baseline information and experience drawn from similar project at comparable scale in a similar environment, leads to high level of uncertainty for significance of predicted potential impact and very much highlights the need for Baffinland to continue to develop baseline information, conduct on-going monitoring of actual effects and develop effective and responsive adaptive management plans” (286425, 2012, 109). The QIA recommended that the proponent continue to conduct baseline studies and effects monitoring. In such instances, data gaps that were presented by intervenors throughout the 60 review were included in the Hearing Report as a term and condition. For instance, in the PHR of the Mary River project, a term and condition indicated that, “The Proponent, working with the Marine Environment Working Group, shall consider and identify priorities for conducting the following supplemental baseline assessments… The collection of additional baseline data in Steensby Inlet on walrus, beluga, bearded seal anadromous Arctic Char abundance, distribution ecology and habitat use.; and in Milne Inlet on narwhal, bowhead and anadromous Arctic Char abundance, distribution ecology and habitat use” (291200, 2014, 193). The inclusion of baseline data gaps in terms and conditions ensures that the gaps are addressed through the monitoring component of the NIRB IA process. Similarly, in the Mary River FHR a comment by Environment Climate Change Canada (formerly Environment Canada (EC)) outlined the importance of monitoring to help address information needs, “EC emphasized the limitations imposed by the unprecedented nature and scale of the Mary River Project and lack of current baseline data on the arctic environment. EC’s view is that these shortcomings underscore the need for a precautionary approach and a rigorous and comprehensive suite of monitoring programs that can address gaps in baseline knowledge” (286425, 2012, 52). By requiring the coordination and cooperation of different stakeholders through working groups, such as the Marine Environment Working Group, gaps may be more efficiently and effectively addressed as multiple individuals and organizations are pooling resources and capacity to work together. Lastly, as baseline data gaps are often identified by intervenors, it is reasonable that the topics discussed are related to key areas of interest of the organization or department who identified the gap. For instance, of the 13 marine mammal gaps that were identified by intervenors, eight of the gaps were identified by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, who has a strong interest in marine mammals including an expansive marine mammal research plan (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2018). This further supports the results outlined in the previous section, where the topic of identified gaps reflects the value or importance of the topic, in this case it reflects the interests of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Furthermore, as government departments are often responsible for research and baseline monitoring, the identification of baseline gaps by government 61 intervenors may result in proponents helping the agencies address information needs through coordinated monitoring programs, such as the Marine Environment Working Group. 5.3 Thematic Review Results: The Role of IQ in NIRB IA Documents The second document review objective examined how IQ is collected, presented, and integrated in NIRB IA reports to inform marine baselines. The documents were coded analytically and thematically. Analytic coding was used to develop a better understanding of how IQ is collected and presented in the reports. The thematic analysis offered insight into the key themes surrounding the discussions of IQ related to baseline information. The thematic review is presented in three parts: marine-related topics commonly discussed when referring to IQ; recognition of the role and value of IQ; and discussions of IQ related to baseline information needs. In this second section of the document review, I was not concerned with the frequency of occurrence, but rather focused on content and emerging themes to better understand the role of IQ in NIRB IA documents. 5.3.1 How is IQ Collected? Understanding the role of IQ in marine baseline data collection in the IA process was one of the document review objectives. Collection methods varied among projects, though for the most part, all projects collected IQ through a variety of means. In the Final EIS Guidelines, an emphasis was often placed on IQ collection through consultations, workshops, and/or meetings. For example, in the EIS Guidelines for the Back River project it was indicated that, “The Proponent shall present and justify its definition of TK and shall explain the methodology used to collect TK, including: Format and location of meetings; Description of background information provided at meetings; Level of community participation and composition of participants…” (279549, 2013, 35). 62 Similar, if not identical, prescriptions were included in all of the reviewed Guidelines. Other collection methods outlined in the Guidelines included any IQ or TK to which the proponent has access to. This generally included established databases, previous IQ or TK studies, as well as other literature. In the Impact Statements, all projects indicated that IQ was collected through consultation methods including workshops, interviews, and focus groups. As explained in the Kiggavik Final EIS, IQ collection through direct engagement, such as consultations and field collections with community members and knowledge holders, is important as it can ensure that the methods of gathering knowledge better align with the principles of IQ, “Consistent with the IQ principles of Pilimmaksarniq and Piliriqatigiingniq, the involvement of local people in baseline studies not only contributed to the knowledge collected but how to best collect that information” (278658, 2014, 70). Similarly, in the Meadowbank project local community members were hired to undertake the collection activities, “…well-known and respected Inuit were hired as surveyors and in other capacities to help in the collection of scientific and traditional baseline data” (281512, 2005, 9). However, challenges and frustrations regarding IQ collection were identified in various projects. A community representative comment in the PHR of the Whale Tail Pit Project expressed frustration regarding a lack of remuneration, “When our Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit is collected, Inuit do not earn anything. We need to see the Elders compensated for this information; Inuit are the experts and should be compensated for sharing their expertise” (314232, 2017, 47). Furthermore, despite the involvement of community members in field collections and workshops, it was often unclear in the documents how IQ directly informed how knowledge and information were collected. Workshops and interviews were often described as being based on a central theme or topic outlined by the proponent, as well as being organized by the proponent. In such cases, issues were frequently identified related to how the approaches of baseline collection methods did not reflect values and important aspects of IQ. The Doris North Final EIS included a description on how the proponent dealt with this issue, 63 “During the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Workshop, participants felt that the approach of placing value on particular environmental components or VECs did not reflect the interconnection of the spiritual, biophysical and human world. To respect these sentiments, [the proponent] documented key environmental concerns and then systematically reviewed the workshop minutes to determine which components of the ecosystem were mentioned as being “important” or “critical”, even if they were not framed within the term “valued environmental components””(282135, 2005, 9). Certain projects included the use of Inuit organizations or Inuit companies to guide the consultation process through workshop facilitation and the organization of field collections as a means of better ensuring that the approaches reflect the values of IQ. The establishment of Inuit Knowledge working groups for IQ collection and integration was identified solely in the Mary River project. The dynamic and purpose of the working groups was explained in the Final EIS, “Working groups were selected to represent a cross-section of people in the community with respect to gender, age, lifestyles, and occupation… The working groups have provided valuable insights into community and cultural values, priorities, fears, and hopes, and helped researchers prepare culturally sensitive and appropriate research methodologies and plans. Additionally, the presence of working groups facilitates information flow between the company and the communities” (285303, 2012, 56). As highlighted, working groups can help ensure that the methodologies for IQ collection better align with the values of IQ, and that consultation processes are designed and carried out in a meaningful and respectful manner. Furthermore, it was indicated that the working groups were able to help identify prominent and knowledgeable elders in the respective working group communities to gather valuable knowledge and insight regarding project activities and information baselines that may have otherwise been overlooked or missed completely. As one of the document review objectives was to understand the role of IQ in NIRB IA reports, an analysis of how IQ is collected is important to better understand the type of community involvement and knowledge-holder participation in informing baselines. However, an understanding of how the collected knowledge is presented, discussed, and integrated into the reports is essential to determine the role of IQ in the NIRB IA process. 64 5.3.2 How is IQ Presented? How IQ was presented and integrated in the NIRB IA reports varied among projects. Certain projects included IQ baseline reports as appendices and integrated the information throughout the sections of the Final EISs, while other projects included geographic maps where IQ and western science were overlaid to inform environmental baselines. Figure 7 outlines the primary means of IQ presentation in the various project Final EISs. Figure 7: Methods of IQ Presentation in Final Impact Statement A breakdown of IQ presentation and integration in project assessments can help inform how the integration of IQ has changed over time. For instance, it is demonstrated in Figure 7 that the early assessments, such as the original Doris North project included a single IQ baseline report, while the more recent project reviews, such as the Phase 2 Hope Bay project included discussions of IQ in every baseline section of the Impact Statement, baseline maps informed by IQ and western science, as well as discussions regarding the incorporation of IQ values in the project. 65 This positive trend of integration is to be expected when considering the relatively recent onset of the NIRB and other co-management boards’ operations in Nunavut. The NIRB has been conducting IA reviews since the ratification of the Nunavut Agreement in 1996. The IA regime in the territory is still evolving (Barry et al., 2016). Therefore, the trend reflects the growing and maturing nature of the NIRB and the IA process. Likewise, many projects are being undertaken by proponents who have already gone through a NIRB review process, and are more familiar with the expectations of the NIRB as well as the expectations of communities in Nunavut. For instance TMAC Resources Incorporated acquired the Doris North project from the original proponent, and has since gone through the IA process for the Doris North Amendment, as well as a complete IA review for the Phase 2 Hope Bay project. As well, as the NIRB continues to evolve and develop, they are able to fulfill more of their mandates and goals, and continue to improve their process. The recent development of the Draft Standardized Impact Statement Guidelines is an example of this. 5.3.3 How is IQ Discussed? 5.3.3.1 Topics discussed when referring to IQ IQ was consistently used to inform marine-related baselines. Unsurprisingly, the common marine-related topics discussed align with the common topics of identified gaps. Marine mammals and marine fish were commonly discussed when referring to IQ in baseline sections of the reports. This was contrasted with certain marine-related topics where gaps in available IQ were identified. For instance, in the Back River project, gaps in available IQ related to marine invertebrates, marine water quality, and marine sediment quality were highlighted in the Final EIS. One example stated that, “The NTKP [IQ database] did not contain data on marine invertebrates, and this was identified as a major data gap” (300901, 2016, 60). The amount, detail, and depth, of IQ on certain topics relative to others is highly variable, and may be best understood as an indication of value 66 and importance of certain topics. Marine environments, marine mammals and marine fish were most commonly discussed due to their importance and value to knowledge-holders and community members. The discrepancy of the amount of IQ in various chapters and sections was described in the Meliadine Final EIS, “The amount of IQ in each chapter is not consistent because the technical disciplines assessed in the [Final EIS] are not consistently important to community members. Much of the IQ collected for the Project focused on wildlife and fish species, as well as land use" (287484, 2014, 3). Similarly, the amount of IQ and local knowledge available on certain topics relative to others could be an indication of topics or ecosystem-components that community members are more likely to interact with, and as a result, develop further observational and experiential knowledge, which could be applied to the review process. As well as being used to inform baselines, IQ was commonly used to identify VECs in the proposed projects. VECs are identified based on value and importance to specific areas and communities. In the FHR of the Kiggavik project, the use of IQ to identify and select marine-related VECs was summarized, “[the proponent] noted that it selected marine mammals and marine fish as valued ecosystem components for its assessment on marine wildlife through both Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and public engagement, where it identified potential affects by marine transportation activities as of cultural and ecological importance in the Hudson Bay region” (279296, 2015, 140). The role of IQ in identifying VECs, notably related to marine environments, was broadly described in many of the projects reviewed. As outlined in Section 5.2.1, marine mammals and marine fish were identified VECs in the majority of projects reviewed. As IQ was often used to identify VECs, it is not surprising that a greater amount of IQ related to marine mammals and marine fish was available and discussed in the reports. 67 5.3.3.2 Recognition of the role and value of IQ Throughout the reports, the role and value of IQ for baseline data collection and understanding, both alongside and in absence of western science, was consistently acknowledged. The specific collection of IQ and TK to inform environmental baselines was highlighted in all of the Final EIS Guidelines, “In all sections of the EIS, the Proponent shall discuss how it weighed and incorporated TK in areas such as baseline data collection…” (278049, 2011, 31). However, the Guidelines specify that the integration of IQ and TK should not only be used to inform baselines, “but further outline where management strategies, mitigation and monitoring plans, and/or operational considerations employ values of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit” (279549, 2013, 6). In all Impact Statements, proponents indicated that IQ and/or TK was collected and used to inform baselines, and complement western science, used alongside science, or simply add new insight and information to the review. For example, in the Final EIS of the Back River project, the proponent stated that, “TK has been integrated into various environmental and socio-economic baseline studies conducted for the Project. This information helped complement existing scientific and socio-economic information, provide new and otherwise unrecorded information, and/or provide alternative views and/or interpretations to be considered” (300890, 2016, 3). There were similar discussions in all projects reviewed. This is to be expected considering the Final EIS Guidelines, which repeatedly emphasized the importance and necessity of IQ/TK collection and use throughout the project, notably its role in baseline studies. Similarly, the importance and significance of IQ to the assessment process was consistently highlighted by the NIRB in the Hearing Reports. In all Hearing Reports reviewed, the NIRB indicated that, “Inuit Qaujimaningit has played a significant role in this assessment by contributing to the development of accurate baseline information; comparing predictions of effects with past experience; and assisting in the assessment of the magnitude of projected effects” (287854, 2014, 13). In certain cases, the NIRB offered more project-specific detail regarding the incorporation of IQ for future project proposals, or to incorporate IQ in project monitoring. This 68 more explicitly demonstrates the role and influence of IQ on decision-making regarding how the project should best proceed, or why it should be recommended to not proceed. The former was the case in the FHR of the Phase 2 Hope Bay project where the importance of marine-related IQ to inform baselines through monitoring was highlighted, “The Board encourages the Proponent to continue engaging with local Inuit when finalizing its management and monitoring plans as there is a wealth of local and traditional knowledge regarding the marine environment in Roberts Bay and Melville Sound” (318393, 2018, 186). Similarly, in the FHR of the Kiggavik project, the NIRB indicated that, should the proponent submit a future project proposal, the inclusion of IQ related to marine wildlife is recommended, “The Board would like to highlight the importance of Inuit Qaujimaningit related to Marine Wildlife, as the Board believes that the potential impacts of the Project on the abundance and distribution of culturally valued species (e.g., beluga, seal, walrus, and polar bear) warrants further attention in any future project proposal” (279286, 2015, 151). The Kiggavik project was recommended to not proceed due to uncertainty regarding a project start date as well as inadequate baseline information (279286, 2015). As demonstrated, throughout the FHR the NIRB indicated that the inclusion of IQ to help inform marine-related baselines would strengthen the proposal. Further discussions regarding the importance and value of IQ were related to the complementary relationship between the two knowledge systems. It was often emphasized in the reviews that IQ and western science were complementary rather than contradictory, and that the incorporation of IQ strengthened the assessment process. This was described in the Final EIS of the Kiggavik project, “Available IQ information was presented with scientific information. In many cases, IQ and western scientific information was in agreement, validating and strengthening the assessment and confidence in assessment determinations” (278684, 2014, 3). Similarly, in the Meadowbank Final EIS it was indicated that, “In the process of gathering both scientific and traditional knowledge, [the proponent] found that this complimentary relationship indeed exists… In effect, exploration research and the traditional knowledge gathered to date have not conflicted in any way” (281173, 2005, 3). The complementary relationship between the knowledge systems 69 may be further described through an understanding of how IQ and western science are integrated into the assessment to inform marine-related baselines. 5.3.3.3 IQ and baseline information needs In all projects reviewed, IQ was consistently used to inform marine-related baselines. Knowledge from IQ was most often discussed alongside western scientific information, where information from both ways of knowing was used to inform baselines. However, there are cases where discussions of IQ in baseline sections of the Impact Statements were centered around the role of IQ in the absence of western science or in the face of uncertainty due to limited baseline information. As highlighted in the previous section, the role and value of IQ for baseline data collection and understanding was consistently recognized by proponents and the NIRB. Likewise, the value of IQ in addressing data gaps, specifically in the absence of western science, was acknowledged in the majority of projects. For instance, in the Final EIS of the Phase 2 Hope Bay project, it was explained that “In remote areas such as the Arctic, TK can also be used to obtain information where scientific data is lacking, and the information can often be collected more efficiently than through scientific procedures” (314923, 2017, 2), or in the Back River project Final EIS it was stated that “[the proponent] also acknowledges that TK can be used to help address gaps in currently available scientific data” (300890, 2016, 2), and similarly in the Meadowbank Final EIS, “As the aggregate experience of many generations, traditional knowledge is a powerful tool, especially used in its original context to support and fill in the gaps left open by scientific study” (281173, 2005,10). However, throughout the documents, there were few examples of how IQ was in fact explicitly addressing data gaps. More often, IQ was presented alongside other information without indication of whether a gap was being addressed. In instances where IQ was used explicitly in the absence of western science to inform marine baselines, the way that IQ was presented and discussed varied. Certain cases, notably in 70 earlier reviews, discussed IQ as a secondary source of information used in the absence of science. An example was highlighted in the Mary River project Final EIS where IQ was used in the absence of available scientific information on feeding, calving, and mating areas for beluga whales and narwhals. It was highlighted that, “There are assumptions to be made about the biology, distribution and abundance of some of the indicator species. For example, feeding, calving and mating areas have not been definitively identified for belugas and narwhals in the RSA. In such cases, the assessment has relied on the available IQ. While acknowledging these assumptions and cautions, the best available information has been used to identify the numbers of animals that will interact with the Project” (286007, 2012, 152). While IQ is described as “the best available information”, further wording suggests that the knowledge was treated as an “assumption” in the face of uncertainty regarding a lack of “definitive" information. This is contrary to the consistent recognition of IQ previously described as adding confidence and certainty to impact predictions. However, further examples demonstrated how the use of IQ in the absence of literature and scientific studies helped address information uncertainties and added confidence to impact predictions. For instance, in the face of uncertainty regarding walrus population numbers and distribution, the proponent indicated that IQ was used to identify calving areas and inform population density estimates. “The degree to which walruses occur in Steensby Inlet is uncertain, but IQ reports that walruses regularly occur there in small numbers. IQ also identifies that walruses calve in areas west of Rowley Island, along the ice floe edge or on moving pack ice. Timing of calving in the RSA is uncertain but in northwest Greenland, calves are born from early April to mid-July (Born, 1990; COSEWIC, 2006), and IQ states that calves are born between March and July in Foxe Basin” (286007, 2012, 175). In this case the information from IQ was compared to the available scientific information on calving times of a similar species in Greenland and demonstrates how the use of IQ strengthened the assessment by adding confidence to the baselines previously informed by less suitable information. However, this is not to say that IQ was only used because there was an absence of available scientific information. While there were examples of IQ being used in the absence of western science to address information needs, it was more common in the reports to present IQ alongside information from 71 literature and scientific studies, without indication of whether the information was being used to address information needs. For instance an example is highlighted in the Mary River Final EIS, where literature and collected IQ were used alongside each other to help inform a baseline for ringed seals, “Landfast ice is preferred for breeding rather than pack ice (McLaren 1958; Kelly 1988). IQ also suggests that ringed seal dens will not be constructed on moving pack ice in areas of strong ocean currents. The population of ringed seals in the Canadian Arctic is estimated to be at least a few million (Reeves 1998)” (286021, 2012, ix). In this case, IQ provided new information and helped develop a more accurate baseline. It is important to note that it is often not specified in the reports whether the information from the cited literature is derived from science, IQ, a combination, or other sources. In certain cases this was specified, for instance in the Kiggavik Final EIS information from western science and IQ were described as complementary in their use to inform the baseline for beluga whales, “Scientific literature, IQ and field surveys conducted by [the consultant] all substantiate that belugas are clustered in the Churchill River estuary;… their numbers are greatest from late July through mid-August (COSEWIC 2004a)… This is supported by Inuit traditional knowledge, the fact that southern Kivalliq communities hunt belugas earlier in the season (July – August) than do those to the north (August-September)” (278908, 2014, 8). In this case, the use of IQ resulted in a more confident baseline prediction through the convergence of various sets of information. Similarly, in the recent Hope Bay Impact Statement IQ and information from personal communications were able to outline deviations from the documented historical data and provide a more relevant and accurate baseline, “Beluga whales are infrequent summer visitors to Bathurst Inlet based on historical evidence (Stewart and Burt 1994; Priest and Usher 2004; NPC 2008), but were recently detected in 2011 (>100 individuals) in Melville Sound [IQ database]. Narwhal are observed infrequently in western Queen Maud Gulf as far east as Cambridge Bay (NPC 2008), but have recently been observed (in 2011) in Cambridge Bay when summer ice conditions were uncharacteristically open (Alex Buchan, pers. Comm. 2011) and on the northeast side of the Kent Peninsula near the Mac Alpine Islands in 2013 [IQ database]” (314843, 2017, 11). In all projects reviewed, the use of IQ and western science alongside each other was the most common way of integrating and discussing IQ in marine-related baseline sections. Although 72 proponents acknowledge the role of IQ in addressing information needs in the absence of science, the integration of IQ into the reports most often demonstrates the use IQ alongside other information, without indication of whether a gap is being addressed. In instances where IQ is used explicitly in the absence of western science to address a gap, the ways of discussing IQ varied. While there were instances in earlier reports where IQ was discussed as secondary to western science, or used solely because there was no other available information, in most cases and notably in recent reports, it is demonstrated that IQ is used as available information in its own right. Alongside potentially addressing information needs, the integration of IQ in baseline sections is demonstrated to provide new information, add confidence to predictions through convergence with other information, as well as improve the relevancy of previous baselines informed by dated information. 73 Chapter 6: Results and Analysis of Focus Groups This chapter outlines the results and provides an analysis of the focus groups. The goal of the focus groups was to obtain an organizational perspective on the barriers to identifying and addressing information needs, as well as to develop a better understanding of the role of IQ in the IA process. The key themes that emerged from the focus groups are outlined, including information and data challenges, barriers and enablers to addressing data gaps, the indispensable role of IQ within the NIRB and their IA process, and the uniqueness of the NIRB and the process. The themes will be discussed in the following sections. 6.1 Information and Data Challenges The lack of baseline information in Nunavut is a recognized challenge to the IA process, and to resource management in general, and was brought up repeatedly in both focus groups. Further challenges associated with a lack of information include the use of unsuitable data to reduce uncertainties caused by data gaps; and accessibility challenges related to baseline data as well as documented IQ. 6.1.1 Availability – “here it’s normal” The lack of available and reliable baseline information in the Arctic has been widely discussed in the literature and was repeatedly brought up in both focus groups. The absence of available data is “normal” in Nunavut and in the Arctic, despite similar data often being readily available and accessible in Southern jurisdictions. As was put in the staff focus group, “In terms of insufficient baseline data, there are even things like basic mapping. In Ontario there would be outrage if there wasn't mapping of certain areas, but here it's normal”. This notion of normalcy speaks to the breadth of the issue. This was echoed by another staff member noting that, “almost everything up here from a scientific basis is lacking a baseline”. 74 Throughout a discussion regarding baseline information needs, it was highlighted in the board focus group that there is baseline data informed by western science, as well as baseline data informed by IQ, “I think it's important to differentiate when we talk about baseline data, there is western baseline data but then there is also Inuit Qaujimaningit”. Alongside a lack of data informed by science, there were also comments regarding a lack of available IQ, notably related to the marine environment. The board focus group explained, “look at the marine environment… we don't have that kind of baseline, all of the IQ that people have about the ocean hasn't been captured, I haven't seen anything where it has been captured in that detail”. Regarding the availability of IQ, it was further highlighted that there is often an assumption among certain stakeholders that there is available IQ that potentially has not yet been captured, though this is not always the case, “[they] have to be careful about assuming that there is available Inuit Qaujimaningit about issues that are not historic and issues that are very contemporary in nature” (staff focus group). This adds another element to the challenge of available data. Alongside the challenge of collecting and capturing data, there is another issue of understanding what information or data is potentially available to gather, notably when informed by IQ. A lack of available information is coupled with, and exacerbated by, a rapidly changing environment in Nunavut. The influence of environmental change on the IA process was described to be complex and widespread, ultimately resulting in greater uncertainty regarding environmental baselines and, as a result, uncertainty regarding impact predictions. The board focus group noted, “today is very different, we have gone through a very big change in a short time and it is hard for us to predict what might happen next year or so because there are so many things that are happening on our land”. The IA process is tasked with describing environmental baselines in an area of unprecedented environmental change. It was explained that data previously collected to describe baselines are often no longer accurate due to environmental changes. Likewise, during the staff focus group it was described how rapidly changing conditions result in uncertainties regarding information that was previously known to be true: 75 “The fact that the conditions now are changing so fast, especially related to climate change and ice formation... We hear a lot from elders that they don't know the current ice conditions anymore”. The availability of accurate baseline knowledge informed by both western science and IQ was described to be a challenge and notably due to rapidly changing conditions. A challenge moving forward will inevitably be the ability of the IA process to cope with and adapt to greater uncertainty caused by environmental change, as well as the ability to identify and address unprecedented information needs. 6.1.2 Suitability – “it would be a lot easier to hunt whales if they didn’t move” While the lack of available information is a challenge in itself, further challenges arise when inadequate alternatives and unsuitable data are used to inform baselines and address gaps. Board and staff members explained that a primary concern of community members is regarding the use of unsuitable species in the review, “[communities] don't care about a whale in Australia, it is not comparable, but sometimes it is all available”. A specific example of unsuitable data being used to inform impact predictions, and the resulting consequences, was offered in the staff focus group. It was explained that during the review of the Mary River project, a regulator developed a model to predict whale strikes from shipping. However, the baseline information regarding whale populations and movement patterns in the area was lacking, therefore the regulator developed the model based on another species in another geographical setting. The results of the model predicted an unusually high number of whale strikes from shipping. However, when other reviewers took a closer look at the model they realized that, in the model, the whales did not move. It was recounted by staff that in the public hearing, when this topic was being addressed, a board member stated that “it would be a lot easier to hunt whales if they didn’t move”. This demonstrated how a lack of information led to the use of largely inadequate models resulting in further challenges and more uncertainty in the IA process. As staff explained, “it leads to them using available knowledge or data that they rely on 76 that is not suitable for the file they are looking at, and that leads to outlandish claims that we and communities have to deal with”. It was highlighted that this can further lead to a lack of confidence in the IA process. As such, there is greater strain on the NIRB as they have to put time and effort towards dealing with the issues caused by the use of unsuitable data, as well as reconciling community concerns and maintaining their trust and confidence in the process. 6.1.3 Accessibility - “IQ isn't a dataset on a shelf” The accessibility of available data and information is another challenge to the IA process. Although information may be gathered and available for use, constraints related to accessibility impede the usability of the information in the process. As noted in the staff focus group, “One of the gaps is also not just having this information in a book but getting it across in a way that people can understand it and access it”. Issues regarding information accessibility and communication were determined to effect various stakeholders, including communities, proponents, the NIRB, and other agencies. It was noted that community members often comment on not having access to information, or not knowing how to access information, and as a result, there is confusion regarding what information regarding impacts is available: “The communities don't hear much and it’s not because the discussions haven't happened. They haven't been privy to them and don't understand the steps made to make them happen and to look at the impacts and understand the appropriate mitigation in those plans that the proponent submits” (staff focus group). Where information is available, developing mechanisms and tools to adequately present and communicate the information in ways that are accessible to communities may benefit the process and improve community participation. However, a key challenge described was getting intervenors and regulators to participate in hearings with community members, “we don't hear enough from the regulatory agencies sometimes at hearings as we would like” (staff focus group). The technical information may be available, and may be discussed through technical meetings, 77 however the regulators are not making an effort to communicate and transfer the available information to community members, resulting in greater community concerns regarding project impacts. This adds further pressure and responsibility on the NIRB to communicate information from other parties to community members. There is also the challenge of transferring and applying the vast amount of knowledge and information from one IA to other project reviews or to other agencies for use in their processes. A considerable amount of time and effort goes into undertaking and completing a NIRB review that, alongside a decision recommendation, produces significant information and contains detailed data that could be of value to other information-users in other situations. This was highlighted in the staff focus group: “I think the amount of effort that goes into putting a process through a NIRB EA, including baseline data collection, community participation, submissions, everything else, it’s an iterative process that culminates in a final hearing report that exhausts all of this in 400 pages. The hearing report is only a very condensed summary of everything coming before that could be a couple thousands of documents and 15000 pages of really valuable knowledge that can be applied to other things too”. All of the information collected and produced in a NIRB IA is available on the public registry, however the way that documents and information are organized and presented, limits the usability of the information or data: “we have all this information scattered but collectively it is all there” (board focus group). This could result in unnecessary efforts at gathering data that is already available, adding further time and cost to the process. The accessibility of information informed by IQ for use in the IA process is met with further challenges. As was noted in the staff focus group: “I think the problem is that IQ has been documented but accessibility whether it be proprietary towards that knowledge, some person has gone to a public hearing and collected this, or it is in a Final EIS document, the accessibility for other people to use is challenging”. While the NIRB and other IPGs state that IQ is valued equally to western science, there is often an issue extending that view to proponents, consultants, and sometimes regulators. As put by one staff member, “more often than not [IQ and western science] agree and there is a challenge 78 in having them both respected to the same degree and accounted for and listened to and generated and everything else”. It was explained that varying levels of respect and value can lead to community members being reluctant to share their knowledge in the IA process. Financial compensation was used as an example of the unequal value between IQ and western science, where the remuneration offered to consultants was compared to that offered to community knowledge-holders. This was highlighted in the board focus group: “You have a consultant come in who is getting paid on a very valuable contract and they are getting paid a lot of money and then you have an elder coming in getting paid 50 bucks an hour to share what they know, when it is their knowledge and experience that they are providing that is really going to provide a foundation to inform a project but they are not equally valued in terms of financial compensation.” Furthermore, there are challenges related to knowledge-holders not sharing information due to consultation fatigue. As explained by staff, “IQ holders are getting tired of sharing the same information over and over”. Developing ways to better explain to communities and IQ holders the importance of sharing their information due to the influence that IQ has on the process and on decision-making, as well as getting proponents to respect and value IQ and western science equally will be integral to addressing information needs moving forward. However, It is often the case that the knowledge previously shared by community members is applied to the specific project review, then remains “scattered” in the documents and public registry, inaccessible to other information-users. In certain cases, IQ is collected and stored in databases that are maintained by regional Inuit organizations, where the accessibility of the information is highly safeguarded. In order to access information proponents are often required to sign agreements with the organizations ensuring that ownership-rights are maintained and that the knowledge is used respectfully and not taken out of context. Although this may limit how readily accessible the information is, this protection is exceedingly important. Due to the highly contextual and dynamic aspects of IQ, the way that the knowledge is applied may vary between two situations. 79 “IQ isn't a dataset on a shelf, it is inherently the application of that knowledge. That is why you might get two very different answers to a question, it’s because it is how it’s applied. Part of the value of asking a question for the 5th time is because maybe it was asked a decade ago offering to another type of mining, and now things have changed and they are applying the data very differently” (staff focus group). In light of changing environmental and social-economic conditions in Nunavut, the application of IQ may be especially different. Therefore, it is of even greater importance that previously captured knowledge is protected, while still being accessible under specific circumstances and terms and conditions of use. The NIRB staff explained that, as an agency, they understand and respect the proprietary nature of IQ, and are in a position to deal with that moving forward, “For our process, the challenge is that we walk a double line, we are open and have to make opportunity for public engagement and knowledge sharing, we have to look at documented sources of knowledge and we can deal with confidential information, we have to be able to treat proprietary information and everything. We are prepared for that and I think we will continue to be tested on that in the near future”. 6.2 Addressing Information Needs Not surprisingly, it was determined that the challenges associated with addressing data gaps are complex and interconnected. Identified challenges were largely related to uncertainty regarding responsibilities, broad capacity constraints, as well as challenges related to collaboration and coordination among stakeholders. However, the latter challenge was also identified as a potential enabler to addressing information needs. Recent examples of meaningful-collaboration among stakeholders demonstrated that information needs might be better addressed through coordinated efforts. 6.2.1 Responsibility and Capacity - “Understanding who does what is a big gap” The uncertainty regarding roles and responsibilities were repeatedly brought up by board and staff members. The project review process in Nunavut is coordinated between various agencies and involves the participation and cooperation of a large number of regulators, intervenors, and organizations. However, as described in the staff focus group, “Understanding 80 who does what is a big gap”. There is often uncertainty regarding where responsibilities of the NIRB, the proponent, regulators, intervenors, and agencies, start and end. Examples were offered regarding participation, it was explained that certain regulators and intervenors may participate solely at the beginning of the process, “we have had to pin them down during our proceedings that they will continue to participate... and for some reason they don't budget for that, it is strictly a budgetary thing, where a lot of regulators don't see it as within their core responsibilities” (staff focus group). A lack of participation throughout the full process poses added pressure on the NIRB to follow up with the regulators and “pin them down” to remind them of their responsibilities in the IA process. It was further explained that the participation of regulators is often limited due to “competing priorities” and a lack of understanding regarding what is involved in an IA process, resulting in inadequate budgeting to fully participate in the process. This uncertainty and confusion regarding responsibility and expectations often results in greater pressure placed on certain parties to address issues that may not fall directly under their legislated responsibilities. This is coupled with a broad lack of capacity among regulators and intervenors. Regardless of legislated duties, the capacity of regulators in the North is often limited and results in more pressure being placed on the proponents to address other responsibilities, such as baseline information needs, through the IA process. Proponents are often tasked to help address the data needs of regulators alongside their process requirement of describing baseline environments in an area with limited available baseline information. As staff indicated, “because of this lack of data there is a lot more expectation or pressure and responsibility put on the proponent to collect the data as there would be in other jurisdictions”. Furthermore, this places greater pressure on the NIRB and the IA process as a whole. The monitoring component which is regulated and carried out by the NIRB, assumes a large portion of this added pressure and responsibility. While monitoring programs may be an effective means of addressing information gaps, it also results in more pressure placed on an already strained process. Project monitoring related to addressing baseline information needs is often included in the terms and conditions of 81 the Hearing Reports. It was further explained that although the NIRB indicates in the terms and conditions that monitoring responsibility should be shared between proponents and regulators, “the regulators are not fully participating in regulatory activities that fall under their mandate” (staff focus group), and that it is more often the case that greater pressure is placed on the proponents to carry out monitoring. Similarly, it was highlighted that regulators sometimes take advantage of the monitoring component of the IA process to fulfill their legislated requirements, “It's led to governments [regulators] trying to endorse adaptive management approaches that help to fill their gaps in research areas that they are responsible for. It is a government responsibility that they have never done anything about regarding research, so the onus is being beard more by proponents because they think they have limitless funds to do these things” (staff focus group). Furthermore, as workloads continue to increase due to the greater quantity of projects under review as well as due to the added complexities, such as climate change impacts, to the reviews, increased capacity constraints of all stakeholder can be expected, posing further pressure on the process. 6.2.2 Collaboration and Coordination - “We become the eyes of the community” The need to work together in the process, notably to address data gaps, was repeatedly brought up in both focus groups. Meaningful collaboration between the NIRB and other stakeholders, as well as within the NIRB, was identified as a key component of an effective IA process, as well as a requisite to better address information needs. The NIRB’s unique monitoring role, where the agency coordinates and assesses the accuracy of impact predictions and enforces terms and conditions, involves the coordination of many stakeholders. As monitoring can often include the collection of additional baseline data through terms and conditions, this stage of the IA process is integral to addressing information needs. However, its effectiveness is limited by the coordination and collaboration of stakeholders. As previously mentioned, there is a gap in understanding where responsibilities start and end, as well as capacity constraints regarding the ability to fulfill legislated requirements. Developing a 82 wide understanding among stakeholders that addressing information needs is a coordinated process could be the first step towards facilitating meaningful collaboration. It was explained that the monitoring process is more effective when project monitoring is aligned with broad-scale regional monitoring initiatives, such as the Nunavut General Monitoring Plan. In the board focus group it was explained that, “We encourage proponents to align with the regional initiatives so that an individual proponent for a mine has responsibilities for fulfilling their obligations, but they're empowered to do so through a regional mechanism”. The coordination of monitoring programs can offer more resources and support to both regional and project-specific monitoring, while also helping to address baseline information needs in both the project as well as in government areas of research. It was explained that in the past, the regional initiatives aligning with IA monitoring programs tended to focus on social-economic monitoring, however recently coordinated biophysical monitoring is becoming more common, “On the biophysical side, there are increasing examples of where we're trying to [coordinate monitoring], especially where governments are needing to fill baseline gaps in scientific data, and trying to do that through environmental working groups, like DFO and others, to make sure that proponents help them fulfill government priority areas for research. Where they can bring in multiple proponents, from different projects and align those purposes, it's an encouraged monitoring part” (board focus group). While community members can be involved in monitoring through environmental working groups, and community-based monitoring programs, when these opportunities are not available the NIRB continues to work with community members to ensure that project monitoring is being undertaken in a way that respects their values and addresses their needs and concerns. This was explained in the staff focus group, “We listen to what they are saying on any marine and environmental issue and we take it into consideration when we are going on the site. So the communication is always open and ongoing, and we become the eyes of the community when we go on site” The opportunity for open dialogue between the community and NIRB is important and necessary to maintain transparency and trust in the process. However, for this to be effective communities have to be aware of the opportunities and understand how to communicate their concerns to the 83 NIRB, or to other responsible agencies. This also means that community members need to have the resources to further understand who is responsible for addressing different types of concerns. The staff focus group noted that, “communities don't care about nuances of regulations, they just want to know who will address their concerns”. While on the other hand, all agencies and intervenors need to have the capacity to take-in and potentially address concerns brought to them by the stakeholders. The need for all parties to be adequately resourced was highlighted by board and staff members. “we need all the stakeholders to be supported and resourced… when government departments aren't properly resourced then our process suffers and the board’s decision making becomes harder… when [the proponents] are not resourced to come into the communities and engage to inform their own submissions, it becomes that much harder. If communities don't have the resources they need to show up to inform themselves and to take advantage of the process then everything becomes that much harder” (staff focus group). The importance of involving all stakeholders is crucial, as well as making sure that everyone understands their roles and has the capacity to fulfill their duties without drawing on the resources of other stakeholders. 6.3 IQ as an Indispensable Component of the Process The importance of IQ to the NIRB and the IA process was strongly emphasized throughout the focus groups. This was evident just minutes into the first focus group with the board members. All members had the question set in front of them (Appendix B). The first question addresses regional differences of marine-related concerns (no mention of IQ in the question), the comment during this first part of the board focus group was: “What Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit is to me is a knowledge that has been collected for hundreds of years to survive up here… I always say that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit means not going to school and learning from that, it's a matter of doing it, it's part of our survival, that's how we learn it. So that's where we came from when we say Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.” 84 The immediate deferral of the question to the topic of IQ demonstrates its importance and priority to the board members. It was essential for the board members to ensure that what was meant by IQ was explained and understood by the research team prior to any further questions. The concept of IQ was further discussed throughout the focus groups, both as directly related to the questions being asked as well as brought up when discussing other questions. This, in itself, speaks to the role of IQ as an indispensable component of the NIRB and the IA process. The following sections are organized by theme related to the role of IQ: the use of IQ as available knowledge in its own right; IQ and western science as complementary rather than contradictory; and a stronger, more confident, IA process through the incorporation of IQ knowledge and values. 6.3.1 Use - “The expectations are well beyond just giving lip service” One of the central points discussed regarding the use of IQ in the process was that IQ is not simply used to fill gaps in the absence of science, but rather it is used because it is the available knowledge on that certain topic. IQ is used as available knowledge regardless of the availability of western science. As explained in the staff focus group, “For baseline, I would almost go the other extreme and say that almost everything up here from a scientific basis is lacking a baseline, and that has led to the board often filling those, not even fair to say filling the gaps, but often having to rely more heavily, solely on, existing Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit. So it is not that it is filling a gap because there are gaps in available scientific baseline data, but it's not saying that there are gaps in available knowledge on those same things”. Although the NIRB does rely heavily on IQ due to the lack of available scientific data, it is not being used to solely prove and reinforce data informed by science, or solely when science is lacking, rather it is being used in its own right. The idea of IQ as an “add-on” to western science was described as being limited, “Realistically I think there are some times where the knowledge that people are sharing, the IQ, is add-ons to what the agency is presenting as scientific knowledge, but it is way more limited than you may normally think” (staff focus group). 85 Furthermore, the use of IQ and integration into the process was described as being more than simply “giving lip service” to IQ. It was highlighted that there is a trend towards improved integration of IQ, where the knowledge is not being used to solely address gaps or to fulfill guideline requirements, but rather because it is equally valued and available knowledge. As explained in the staff focus group, “Through time there is a positive trend and it really stands out now when a proponent doesn't get it… The expectations are well beyond just giving lip service to Traditional Knowledge, it is completed different to that these days”. The integration of IQ extends beyond including IQ in IA documents. It was explained by board members that communities will tell them whether or not the values of IQ are being incorporated into the project, both during the review as well as during operations. The importance of engaging with community members throughout the entire process, rather than solely during data collection phases, was repeatedly highlighted throughout the focus groups: “Incorporating IQ shouldn't be done just initially but has to be continually done throughout the project” (staff focus group). However, a lack of company presence in the communities was described as a limiting factor to the incorporation of IQ throughout the project. The influence of IQ values during the review as well as on decision making was described by board and staff members. An example was offered of the Doris North project amendment, which proposed the use of an underwater pipeline to discharge saline effluent into the marine environment at Roberts Bay. It was explained that the primary concern and request of community members as well as board members was that the pipeline be removed during the decommissioning stage, despite the proponent explaining that the environmental impacts associated with removing the pipeline would be greater than the impacts of leaving it undersea. As explained in the staff focus group, “The proponent said it would do more harm than good to take it out, it would be colonized by mussels etc., and would be less impact to leave it in long term, and the board was having none of it. The thought of leaving it there long term was too disturbing for community members”. 86 This resulted in the board developing terms and conditions requiring the removal of the pipeline and ecological restoration at Roberts Bay. Staff described the situation as “eye opening”, explaining that they then realized and better understood the cultural values at play. “So for the staff that was eye opening at the time because we are explaining objectively the merits of leaving it in long term and it is not an ecological issue… That really speaks to cultural values, it was not acceptable to leave it in long term once it was no longer needed”. While this previous example highlighted a difference in values between IQ and western science, throughout the focus groups the relationship between IQ and science was more often discussed as being complementary. 6.3.2 Integration - “not incompatible at all but in fact mutually reinforcing” Throughout both focus groups there was a mutual understanding regarding the value of IQ and the compatibility of the knowledge system with western science in the IA process. The integration of IQ and western science in the IA process was repeatedly described as complementary rather than contradictory. In the staff focus group it was explained that, “the information was actually not incompatible at all but in fact mutually reinforcing”. Board members had similar thoughts regarding the compatibility of IQ and western science, although emphasized the need of both sides to work together to better respect and value each other’s knowledge. This was later echoed by staff members. They brought up the “misconception” regarding the integration of IQ and IA that is often described in the literature, and emphasized that the actual challenge lies in having IQ and western science equally respected and valued in the process, “In EA and academia particularly there is often, and I think it is a misconception, that there is an inherent challenge in aligning tradition knowledge and scientific knowledge. Usually, in my limited experience, more often than not they agree and there is a challenge in having them both respected to the same degree and accounted for and listened to and generated and everything else” (staff focus group). 87 This speaks to the need for academic literature and research to move beyond comparing and contrasting IQ and western science, and rather focus on developing tools and mechanisms to ensure equal respect and value of the knowledge systems and their use in IA. When discussing the integration of IQ and western science in baseline data collection, it was explained that rather than being identical or opposing, “They more have each other’s backs” (staff focus group). Staff members continued to highlight how when western science models and describes concise baselines, IQ and local knowledge may be used to describe variabilities and patterns that did not emerge through the specific scientific modelling, such as irregularities in wind patterns and snow fall. As explained in the staff focus group, “Probably 9 times out of 10 when we go through public hearings, the knowledge that people are sharing aligns very well with what the proponent or others are presenting. Sometimes you have to listen to both very carefully and read into it a little bit”. The last point speaks to the importance respecting and valuing IQ, and understanding that information may not be presented or communicated in the same way, and as a result, greater effort has to be put into adequately interpreting and understanding the meaning of what is being presented. It was described that an advantage of having IQ knowledge-holders on the board is that they are better able to adequately interpret and apply the knowledge to the IA process. 6.3.3 Value - “we have more confidence in our predictions” Throughout the focus groups it was emphasized that when IQ and western science are equally respected and valued, then integration into the process may be done in a more meaningful manner. It was thoroughly highlighted that meaningful integration and incorporation of IQ throughout the process adds confidence and certainty to impact predictions and ultimately leads to a stronger assessment process. The importance of incorporating IQ into the process early on was found to be pivotal to achieving more meaningful integration: “we have more confidence in our predictions because we incorporated the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit earlier and in saying the same thing” (staff focus group). 88 Furthermore, throughout the focus groups it became evident that the meaningful integration of IQ may also lead to an IA process that is better able to adapt to changing conditions, and cope with greater uncertainty. Changing environmental and social conditions are also influencing the use of IQ, “Our knowledge, Inuit knowledge, is being used very differently now then 10, 15, 20 years. Now, we've noticed that people are coming around and asking when is the best time to go on the sea ice, when is the best time to start trap on the main land, people will say not right now maybe a month later because caribou are calving later, at different times” (board focus group). The local and Inuit Knowledge systems are adapting and evolving with the changing conditions. If the IA process can adequately deal with evolving knowledge, then it may be in a position to better deal with the changing realities and better address information needs. As noted in the staff focus group, “All of the knowledge is evolving and changing and the process is equipped to deal with that”. 6.4 “We are the model now” The unique composition of the NIRB facilitates the meaningful-integration of IQ and western science, where both knowledge systems are used to complement each other, as well as better ensures that IQ and local knowledge influence decision-making. While unique components of the NIRB’s IA process such as community roundtables and the monitoring component, facilitate meaningful community engagement as well as help to coordinate the process with other stakeholders and, as a result, better address community concerns and information needs. As previously discussed, meaningfully integrating IQ and western science requires equal respect and value. The unique make-up of the NIRB facilitates this integration. The board focus group emphasized this point when discussing the composition of the NIRB board and staff, “As you can see we have our board of directors who are from the land and have a strong belief in our people and at the same time we have 17 of the best brilliant educated staff that have PhDs and legal knowledge. We use them because they have that other knowledge that we don't have, and they also say the same thing to us, that they need our knowledge to be able to make an informed decision that is not only going to compliment 89 what is in front of us but what will affect us in the long run and I think that continuously has to be evolved within our governments not just within IPGs like us. Ours, we're perfect because we respect each other’s knowledge and respect each other ”. The respect that members have towards each other and their counterparts was evident throughout the focus group meetings. It was further highlighted that an advantage of the composition of the NIRB is regarding their ability to better balance both western science and IQ. This was explained in the staff focus group, “A challenge especially coming from the south is that in western science it is easy to critique what science is saying, methodology etc., in most cases it is inappropriate for me to critique or question what an elder is saying. The board is able to weigh and question whereas for us it is inappropriate”. A better understanding of the differences between knowledge systems and an equal respect and value between systems, facilitates the meaningful integration of IQ in the process, notably in decision-making. Two important components of the NIRB IA process were highlighted in the focus groups regarding the uniqueness of the NIRB and their ability to effectively engage with communities and actively participate and coordinate the larger regulatory review process, to better cope with changing realities and address information needs. The first component is the inclusion of community roundtables. A community roundtable is a process step that occurs at the pre-hearing conference prior to the review stage and allows for an organized means of early and meaningful engagement between community members and the proponent. This component was repeatedly brought up in the focus groups related to discussions on knowledge integration and community engagement. Staff members described the purpose of the community roundtable as “flagging for proponents how this really has to be done” as well as “testing the validity of a proponents assumptions”. This early engagement process ensures that proponents understand how IQ must be incorporated into the process beyond “checking boxes”. It can further be used to identify early concerns and information needs, as well 90 as allows for IQ to be incorporated early in the process, which has been previously discussed as a key enabler to more meaningful integration. The second component, which has been briefly discussed, is the NIRB’s monitoring function. As highlighted in the staff focus group, “The unique part about the NIRB is that we do monitoring, we don't leave the process at EA and walk away, we have an active feedback mechanism that we do monitoring, we are unique and very proud of it”. This is unique in that most other IA jurisdictions in Canada do not include the monitoring component as a responsibility of the regulating agency. As previously highlighted in this chapter, monitoring can provide a means coordination and collaboration to effectively collect additional baseline information and address data gaps. A staff member explained, “It is [the NIRB’s] responsibility as part of [the NIRB’s] monitoring process to be more proactive”. This improved level of engagement in the process on the part of the NIRB provides greater accountability and adds to the effectiveness of the IA process by better supporting compliance and developing an improved understanding of the validity of impact predictions, as well as better addressing information needs through a coordinated monitoring process. These unique components of the process coupled with the NIRB’s unique make-up of board and staff members speak to the NIRB’s ability to act as a model of effective IA for other jurisdictions. There is always room for improvement, though the NIRB is moving in the right direction. “We are the model now though, the feds and others are looking at us as the example. There are days where it feels like we are so far behind and haven't done enough to incorporate IQ and we are just not there, people are looking at us and going how have you come that far, and it is an enlightening moment. We still have a way to go but we are doing well” (staff focus group). 91 Chapter 7: Discussion of Research Objectives This chapter brings together the results and analyses of the previous two chapters, as well as the relevant literature and the resource management context in Nunavut, with an aim to discuss the research objectives. The purpose of this research was to support the IA process in Nunavut through a better understanding of marine baseline information needs and the role of local and Inuit Knowledge in project review. A mounting challenge to IA, notably in the Arctic, is the ability to grow and adapt management and assessment approaches to rapidly changing environmental and social-economic conditions. In Nunavut, this challenge is coupled with a significant lack of scientific baseline data. Traditional Knowledge (TK) has been identified as a valuable component to inform environmental baselines, and strengthen IA through the incorporation of knowledge and values, however the effective and meaningful integration of TK in IA processes is met with challenges. Throughout the Arctic there have been recent calls for the development of more effective practice regarding the integration of TK in IA. Research exploring how different knowledge systems are currently being used in the IA process is an important step towards informing more meaningful integration, while understanding how information needs are presented and the associated challenges, is integral to the development of recommendations to support the IA process. Through a document analysis of all completed NIRB IA reviews of mining developments with a significant marine component, and two focus groups with NIRB staff and board members, this research sought to, 1) identify and acknowledge gaps in marine baseline data and associated challenges, 2) examine the role of Inuit Knowledge alongside and in absence of western science in marine baseline data collection and understanding, and 3) assess long-term options and outline opportunities to address information needs. The third objective is discussed in the concluding chapter. 92 7.1 Objective 1: Gaps in Marine Baseline Data The first objective of this research was to discuss marine baseline information needs and associated challenges to the Nunavut IA process. A lack of available marine baseline information in the Arctic has been broadly identified as a challenge to environmental management and IA (Dubé, 2003; Nunami Stantec Limited, 2018; Wright, 2014). The results from the document review and focus groups corroborate this. Challenges may be viewed broadly as related to the information and data itself, as well as challenges related to addressing the lack of information. The results highlighted that information challenges are largely linked to availability, suitability, and accessibility of data, while challenges to addressing information needs are related to capacity, responsibility, and cooperation. While the two categories of challenges are not mutually exclusive, it is useful to take such an approach to develop an understanding of how information needs are effecting the IA process, as well as to better understand where the IA process, including all stakeholders, need support to address information needs. The document review identified recurring marine baseline data gaps in the eight projects that have gone through a complete NIRB review. Information needs associated with marine mammals were most commonly discussed in the IA reports, highlighting their importance and value to communities, intervenors, and the IA process. Likewise, the focus groups described a significant lack of marine baseline information in Nunavut as well as the importance of marine environments to communities in Nunavut. This is supported by the fact that Nunavummiut have been referred to as maritime people, with a significant connection to marine environments (NIRB, 2018a). Similarly, the ongoing Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait, Nunavut, identified baseline data gaps related to the current status of marine mammal, bird, and fish populations as well as uncertainty regarding the response of populations to rapidly changing environmental conditions (Nunami Stantec Limited, 2018). The results of this research align with the initial findings of the SEA regarding marine baseline data gaps in Baffin 93 Bay and Davis Strait, as well as extend spatially throughout the three regions of the territory. While identifying data gaps is an important step towards sustainable development and can be used to better guide monitoring programs (Nunami Stantec Limited, 2018), the ability to address data gaps is dependent on the depth and detail of the identified gaps as well as the capacity of participating stakeholders to undertake effective monitoring to help address gaps. Challenges associated with information and data availability have been linked to environmental and social changes in Arctic regions, where baselines are rapidly changing and the ability to understand and predict impacts is met with greater uncertainty (Arctic Council, 2016; Tedsen et al., 2014; Wood, 2008). The results of the focus groups supported the notion that a lack of available data leads to greater uncertainty in impact predictions, as well as highlighted issues related to the suitability and accessibility of information, posing further challenges to the IA process. Irrelevant or unsuitable baseline data and methodological errors in data collection and analysis have been identified as contributing to greater uncertainty throughout IA processes (Wood, 2008). The Nunavut IA process is no exception to this. The document review results determined that gaps are most often identified by intervenors, and discussed as insufficient and incomplete data, unsuitable data, or as being due to inadequate methodology. This is expected when the structure of the IA process is considered. Throughout the process, intervenors review the proponents’ submissions, including the Impact Statement, and identify issues and concerns. This often included issues with baseline study design, uncertainty of the presented information, and unsuitability of the data used to inform baselines and assess impacts. It has also been identified that regulators and intervenors often seek an unattainable level of certainty in the IA process (Leung et al., 2015). This could be manifested by the identification of data gaps and the request for more information by regulators and intervenors, which are demonstrated in the results of this research. However, contrary to much of the literature, the results of this research demonstrated that proponents routinely identified marine-baseline data gaps in their Impact Statements and often discussed the gaps as insufficient and incomplete data or as unavailable 94 data. A lack of disclosure of uncertainties, notably by proponents, in IA has been widely acknowledged (Duncan, 2008; Tennøy et al., 2006; Wood, 2008). Although proponents are identifying information needs and outlining uncertainty in the Nunavut process, the broad and general discussions that they present surrounding data gaps limits the ability to develop effective mitigation and monitoring to work towards addressing the uncertainty. In Nunavut, similar to other contexts, there is a need for improved documentation and communication of uncertainty to better inform decision-makers and stakeholders, develop effective mitigation and monitoring, and increase confidence in the IA process (Lees et al., 2016; Leung et al., 2015). The focus group results offered more detailed discussion regarding specific gaps, notably related to unsuitable data, and highlighted how the use of unsuitable data results in more strain on the NIRB and the IA process as significant time and effort have to be put into dealing with the issues as well as addressing the communities’ concerns regarding the use of unsuitable data. The IA process suffers when the availability of and access to knowledge, as well as the ability of stakeholders to use the knowledge, is inadequate (Greig & Duinker, 2011). The accessibility of information was identified as a challenge to multiple stakeholders, including the NIRB. The results highlight that although there is a large amount of collected and available baseline knowledge and data (informed by science and IQ) in a NIRB IA, the accessibility of the information for use in future projects is a significant challenge. Following a completed assessment, the data is “scattered” throughout the public registry either as baseline reports or integrated into Impact Statements and Hearing Reports. This often results in duplicate efforts being undertaken to gather data that may be already available, adding further cost and time to the IA review. The use and maintenance of data repositories by regulators, such as the NIRB, have been encouraged as a means of organizing and providing easily-accessible data for environmental planning and decision-making (Zwart, Robson, Rankin, Whittingham, & McGowan, 2015). 95 Broad capacity constraints and questions of responsibility were identified as key challenges to addressing information needs. The results of this research highlight that there is often uncertainty regarding who is responsible for addressing information needs, which often results in greater pressure placed on certain parties, such as proponents, to address issues that may not fall directly under their legislated responsibilities. Clear descriptions of roles and responsibilities of regulators and intervenors is integral to an effective regulatory system, however in the North much of these responsibilities are not clearly defined (McCrank, 2008). Similarly, the interactions of different types of capacity have been identified as a key component of effective IA (Darling, Ogden, & Hickey, 2018). Research capacity has been referred to as “the ability of an actor, organization or network to engage, produce, maintain and use knowledge through individual and collective development”, and is central to IA processes (Darling et al., 2018, p. 168). While institutional capacity; the ability of a group or organizations to collaborate to understand, integrate, and use information; and community capacity, the collective ability to access and use resources and skills to meaningfully engage and participate towards the maintenance and improvement of community well-being, are important components of effective IA (Darling et al., 2018). In Nunavut, proponents are often tasked with addressing information needs that may be in the mandates or regulatory responsibilities of other government departments or agencies, however capacities of the departments or agencies is often limited. Similarly, the results outlined how communities do not have access to available information and access to adequate resources to meaningfully participate in the IA process and share their knowledge. This is not unique to the Nunavut regulatory process. A lack of institutional, community, and research capacities in the Arctic have been identified as limiting factors to meaningful stakeholder participation (Fidler & Noble, 2013; McCrank, 2008), and to adaptive management (Stratos, 2017). Through terms and conditions in the Hearing Reports, the responsibility of addressing information needs is often attached to the monitoring component of the NIRB IA process. Project monitoring is essential for the development of reliable knowledge (Greig & Duinker, 2011). The 96 results of this research highlight that an encouraged part of monitoring is getting various stakeholders, including community members, government departments, and proponents to collaborate through working groups, and align project monitoring with regional initiatives, to work together to better address information needs. However, for this to be effective, all stakeholders need to be adequately informed and resourced to ensure that they are not drawing on the resources of others, and that they have the means to meaningfully participate. 7.2 Objective 2: The Role of Inuit Knowledge The second objective of this research was to understand the role of Inuit Knowledge alongside and in absence of western science in marine baseline data collection and understanding. The results of the document review and focus groups support the key role of local knowledge and IQ in informing marine baselines. IQ is invaluable in reducing uncertainty associated with impact predictions and supporting the IA process through informing baselines in a rapidly changing environment. However, the results further demonstrate that the role of IQ extends beyond solely addressing information needs. IQ is an indispensable component of the NIRB and the IA process. The significant role of TK and IQ in informing environmental baselines in IA has been widely acknowledged (Gondor, 2016; Nakashima, 1990; Sallenave, 1994). The use of IQ and local knowledge for baseline data collection and understanding is exceedingly important as resource-users and knowledge-holders tend to have a holistic understanding of environmental relationships, and are in a better position to identify impacts and potential changes (Berkes, 2008; Huntington, 2000). The results of the document review outlined that IQ was collected and used to inform marine-related baselines in all of the reviewed Impact Statements, as well as highlighted a positive trend of improved integration over time. However, much criticism on the role of TK in IA has centered around the view that TK is solely used for practical reasons, such as informing baselines, and only incorporated into IA when it fits well with the existing structures of such 97 processes (Nadasdy, 2003; Simpson, 2004). The integration and documentation of certain aspects of IQ in Impact Statements or other IA documents is not always suitable due to the structure and organization of the documents and their focus on factual knowledge, however other stages of the IA process are in better positions to incorporate other aspects of IQ such as values and cosmology (Gondor, 2016; Usher, 2000). This was reflected in this research. The document review results highlighted the role of IQ in identifying valued ecosystem components and informing marine-related baselines, while the results of the focus groups emphasized the role of IQ values throughout the process, notably in decision-making, as well as highlighted the need to consider all aspects of IQ in the process to ensure meaningful integration. Furthermore, the literature surrounding the use of IQ generally emphasizes the need “to prove that IQ supports western science” rather than using IQ and science together and in their own rights (Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, 2014, p. 21). While the ways of discussing IQ in the reviewed documents varied, it was more often the case that IQ was used alongside western science to inform baselines rather than solely used in the absence of western science, or as “secondary” information. In the focus groups, the NIRB acknowledged the body of academic literature highlighting the incompatibilities between IQ and western science, however it was described as a “misconception”, and the results of the document review and focus groups emphasized the complementary nature of IQ and western science. In regards to understanding various aspects of environmental change, it has been demonstrated that IQ and western science provide complementary and reinforcing knowledge (Laidler, 2006; Riedlinger & Berkes, 2001). However, it has also been cautioned that complementarities can only truly arise when there is an equal respect and value between different knowledge systems (Rathwell et al., 2015). Concerns were brought up in the focus groups regarding the unequal respect and value of IQ and western science in the IA process. Furthermore, recent literature has argued the need to move beyond comparing and contrasting local knowledge and IQ with western science, and rather work towards embracing the 98 complementary and synergistic uses of the knowledge systems (Tomaselli et al., 2018). The results of this research support that view, and further highlight the need to develop a better understanding among proponents and IA stakeholders of the need to equally respect, value, and consider IQ and western science in the IA process. The focus groups results outline that knowledge-holders are facing consultation fatigue, as well as frustration regarding unequal compensation for the sharing of their knowledge compared to the scientific knowledge shared by consultants. The issue of consultation fatigue has been observed in other Arctic settings, where there has been pressure to differentiate between “increased” engagement and “better” engagement (Noble et al., 2013). The latter may be achieved through earlier consultation, as well as through the availability, accessibility, and communication of broader information, which would reduce the need to repeatedly consult on the same topics. However, as demonstrated in the focus groups, routine consultation on certain issues and conditions, notably when informed by IQ, may be necessary due to highly dynamic and contextual aspects of IQ, as well as due to rapidly changing environmental conditions. Moving forward, it will be essential to develop an understanding of what types of information may be collected and applied broadly to a range of projects, as well as to always approach the application and transfer of knowledge between higher-level and project-based IAs, as well as between projects at the local-level, with caution to ensure that the knowledge is relevant and applicable to the context at hand. Further criticism regarding the integration of TK and IQ in IA is focused on their inherent incompatibilities limiting effective and meaningful incorporation based on the western-based structures of IA processes and regulatory boards (White, 2006). In the NIRB’s 2018-2022 Five-Year Strategic Plan, they acknowledge much of the aforementioned criticism, and plan to better promote the reflection of Inuit values in the IA process, “the NIRB sometimes receives criticism for administering a very formal type process which is based on a southern model and not reflective of Inuit values. The NIRB can take steps to improve how the public views the Board and the overall regulatory system through better communication of our successes, and increased accessibility on all fronts” (NIRB, 2018a, p. 21). 99 Through a better understanding of the unique composition of the NIRB board and staff, as well as of the unique components of the NIRB IA process, such as community roundtables and project monitoring, the results of this research further demonstrate how the role of IQ in IA extends beyond addressing information needs, and how the NIRB’s integration of IQ is unique compared to “western-based” regulatory boards and IA processes commonly criticized. Furthermore, it has been suggested that jurisdictions and nations “that have strong co-management powers may never need to develop an independent [IA] process, because they have developed the background legislation and they have trust in their own government and agents thereof” (G. Gibson et al., 2018, p. 34). That said, I would suggest that the IA process in Nunavut is a model of a co-management partnership in Indigenous-led IA due to the unique composition and structure of the NIRB, the indispensable role of IQ in the process and notably in decision-making, and due to the Nunavut Agreement and corresponding legislation. However, it is also important to note that Nunavut is the only territory that has yet to reach a devolution agreement with the federal government, and as such, the NIRB and other IPGs do not have final decision-making authority regarding land-use and resources (Bone, 2016). Although in all projects reviewed the Minister agreed with the decision recommendations offered by the NIRB, a devolution agreement would provide strong legislative backing to future NIRB decisions, and further move towards a model of Indigenous-led IA. Finally, the results of this research highlight how the role of IQ in addressing information needs, notably in a rapidly changing environment, will be increasingly important moving forward. IA in the Arctic has been described as a valuable tool to address the growing challenges of proposed developments in a rapidly changing environment (Noble & Hanna, 2015). IQ has been identified as a key element of adaptive capacity due do its dynamic nature and its ability to learn, evolve, and adapt to unprecedented and unpredicted change (Ford et al., 2006; Laidler, Ford, Gough, & Ikummaq, 2009; Pearce, Ford, Willox, & Smit, 2015). The focus group results outlined how, although certain specific aspects or instances of IQ may become less dependable due to 100 rapidly changing baselines, such as, for example, knowledge of specific sea-ice conditions at certain times of the year, IQ is constantly evolving and adapting to such changes, and the NIRB IA process is equipped to deal with that. A focus on IQ as a process and a way of knowing rather than as a set of specific facts or beliefs, can help advance adaptation efforts (Ford, Pearce, Duerden, Furgal, & Smit, 2010; Peloquin & Berkes, 2009), as well as support the IA process in light of rapidly changing conditions. 101 Chapter 8: Recommendations and Conclusion This research contributes to the IA process in Nunavut through a better understanding of marine baseline information needs and the role of local and Inuit Knowledge in project review. The results of this research corroborate the state of marine-related knowledge gaps in Nunavut outlined in previous research, as well as support the role of Inuit Knowledge in addressing marine baseline information needs, and outline its invaluable role in the IA process, notably in the face of greater uncertainty and changing conditions. This chapter concludes the thesis by outlining opportunities and recommendations to help broadly address marine-related information needs in Nunavut. Certain recommendations are concrete and may be more readily developed, while others highlight more long-term options and approaches to help address information needs moving forward. 8.1 Opportunities and Recommendations The results of this research outlined primary barriers and enablers to addressing marine-related information needs through the IA process. Challenges were broadly related to roles, responsibilities, and capacity-constraints, while coordination between stakeholders and the meaningful integration of IQ throughout the process were identified as enablers to reducing uncertainty in impact predictions and addressing baseline knowledge gaps. Therefore, the opportunities and recommendations are focused on the promotion of enablers and addressing the identified barriers, with the goal to support the NIRB and IA stakeholders as they seek to address information needs moving forward: 1. Clarify and clearly communicate roles, responsibilities, and expectations, of all stakeholders in the review process 2. Promote research, community, and institutional capacity-building to ensure that all stakeholders are adequately resourced to participate effectively 102 3. Promote the coordination of monitoring priorities and programs between proponents, intervenors, and established monitoring initiatives to address broad and regional baseline gaps 4. Develop a guideline for proponents to effectively and meaningfully integrate local and Inuit Knowledge throughout the assessment process 5. Improve accessibility and usability of available Inuit Knowledge through the development and maintenance of a knowledge repository 8.1.1 Addressing Barriers The primary challenges associated with addressing information needs are related to uncertainty regarding responsibilities, broad capacity constraints, and coordination of monitoring programs. The IA process suffers when all stakeholders are not adequately resourced or do not have the capacity to undertake their full responsibilities. Clarifying the roles, responsibilities, and expectations of all stakeholders, notably proponents, intervenors, and other regulators / co-management boards, will ensure that there is understanding regarding responsibilities and expectations among all stakeholders, as well as offer an opportunity to identify and discuss where different types of capacity are lacking. Increasing and building research and institutional capacities among stakeholders can ensure that knowledge is more effectively synthesized both among individual stakeholders and collaboratively between stakeholders. It is essential that all intervenors have an understanding of their responsibilities as well as a thorough understanding of the project at hand. Promoting means of increasing capacity can ensure that intervenors have the resources, such as funding, time, and people to fulfill their legislated and identified responsibilities without drawing on resources of other stakeholders. This would take some of the growing pressure off of proponents who are currently tasked with further monitoring responsibilities as the intervenors responsible for certain monitoring components do not have the resources to fully participate. Intervening organizations can look into securing long-term funding and developing capacity-building initiatives to ensure that they can effectively participate in the process, and notably in monitoring programs to help address information needs. Similarly, 103 community-capacity can be increased through improved communication of, and access to, information regarding project impacts, notably technical marine-related information. A community toolkit developed as an outcome of the larger project will help increase community-capacity. Finally, increasing the coordination and collaboration with regional and territorial monitoring initiatives, such as the Nunavut General Monitoring Plan can help address broad information needs, while also pooling resources to take the burden off of proponents. Similar to the gap analysis undertaken as a part of the Baffin Bay and Davis Strait SEA, further regional-level gap analyses can be coordinated with project-level assessments to identify information needs and outline information priorities. Furthermore, regional and strategic initiatives could lead to “better” consultation and engagement as broad-level information would be more readily available to proponents and communities, diminishing the need to repeatedly consult on the same baseline conditions and issues (Noble et al., 2013). Promoting the development and use of coordinated working groups within project-level assessments and monitoring programs can further support initiatives to collectively address knowledge gaps relevant to both the project as well as broader research plans. An enduring challenge is the ability to transfer and apply information from regional initiatives to project-based assessments, as well as information from project-level monitoring to future projects and assessments (Fidler & Noble, 2013; NIRB, 2018a). Identifying and developing means of effectively connecting existing sources of information from both regional and project-level initiatives will be integral to addressing information needs moving forward. 8.1.2 Promoting Enablers The role of IQ and local knowledge is invaluable to the NIRB’s IA process. The meaningful integration of IQ and local knowledge can help inform environmental baselines both alongside and in absence of western science. However, the value and necessity of incorporating IQ extends beyond solely addressing information needs; in light of rapid environmental change, the 104 incorporation of IQ can result in greater certainty associated with impact predictions due to the dynamic nature of IQ and its ability to learn, evolve, and adapt to unprecedented and unpredicted change (Barry et al., 2016; Ford et al., 2006). Therefore, to help address information needs moving forward, the continued use of IQ throughout the process needs to be promoted as well as enhanced. The participation of resource-users and knowledge-holders is integral to the incorporation of IQ and local knowledge and, therefore, to addressing information needs. The results of this research highlighted how the participation of knowledge-holders is limited by communication needs, consultation-fatigue, and the unequal respect and value of IQ and western science by certain stakeholders. Improving the communication and accessibility of information available to communities is important to enhance participation in the process. Clearly communicating the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders, including the various co-management boards, Inuit organizations, and other intervenors including government departments and agencies, is important to ensure that communities understand who will address their specific concerns and who they can contact to express such concerns. Consultation-fatigue among knowledge-holders was identified as a barrier to engagement and participation in the process. Developing ways to effectively communicate and demonstrate to community members the importance and influence that their knowledge has throughout the process and on decision-making, may promote the sharing of IQ and local knowledge. Similarly, demonstrating to proponents and intervenors the necessity of meaningfully engaging with community members throughout the process, and respecting and valuing their knowledge and ways of knowing, will be central to enhancing the current integration of IQ in the process. The development of an IQ guide for proponents can be used to promote the equal value and respect of the knowledge systems. The guide can suggest best practices such as compensation offered to knowledge holders, as well as promote the use of community-based Inuit Knowledge working 105 groups for IQ collection and integration, similar to the approach used in the Mary River project. The Mackenzie Valley Environmental Review Board’s Guidelines for Incorporating Traditional Knowledge in Environmental Impact Assessment may be used as a potential model for the NIRB (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Review Board, 2005). Finally, the development and maintenance of an IQ repository based on knowledge collected from previous projects would be beneficial to enhance the use of IQ for future projects as well as to reduce consultation-fatigue. As highlighted in the focus groups, due to the highly contextual and dynamic aspects of IQ, the way that the knowledge is applied may vary between situations. As such, developing means of safeguarding and respecting the proprietary nature of the knowledge stored in the database will be essential, as will including knowledge-holders in the development and maintenance of the repository. Existing IQ databases, such as the Naonaiyaotit Traditional Knowledge Project (NTKP) Atlas (Kitikmeot Inuit Association, n.d.), which has been used by a number of proponents and projects undergoing NIRB reviews, may act as a useful model in the development of a NIRB IQ database. In the NIRB’s 2018-2022 Strategic Plan, the identification of relevant IQ from past projects for storage and use, is recognized as an action point to achieve the goal of reflecting the principles and values of IQ through their work, as well as the development of a Memorandum of Understanding to better access and share IQ stored with other organizations. 8.2 Summary Through a document analysis of completed NIRB IA reviews, and focus groups with NIRB staff and board members, this research sought to support the IA process in Nunavut through a better understanding of marine baseline information needs and the role of local and Inuit Knowledge in project review. The results highlight that marine information needs in Nunavut are widespread, and associated challenges are complex and interconnected. However, through the unique composition and functions of the NIRB, and the integration of IQ and local Knowledge, IA 106 in Nunavut is in a valuable position to address baseline information needs and further challenges of proposed developments in a rapidly changing environment. Due to the unique structure of the NIRB, the indispensable role of IQ in the process and notably in decision-making, and the supporting legislative background, the IA process in Nunavut can act as a model of Indigenous-led IA for other jurisdictions. 8.2.1 Original Contributions of the Research The results of this research hold academic as well as practical value. The results contribute to the scholarly field of Arctic IA through supporting identified priority research themes regarding community and stakeholder expectations, and capacity for meaningful engagement (Noble & Hanna, 2015). The results of this research corroborates the state of marine-related knowledge gaps in Nunavut (Nunami Stantec Limited, 2018), and provides insight into information and data challenges which can help the NIRB and stakeholders work towards addressing information needs. The research responds to calls throughout the Arctic for more meaningful integration of TK and/or IQ in IA (Onfoot Consulting, 2018; Stratos, 2017), as well as outlines the unique IA structure and process in Nunavut, which can act as a model for other jurisdictions. This research was undertaken as part of a larger project in collaboration with the NIRB. This research addresses needs outlined by the NIRB regarding information and communication gaps, as well as aligns with the goals outlined in their latest five-year (2018-2022) strategic plan (NIRB, 2018a). The results of this research will be integrated with results from the larger project to develop a community toolkit. The toolkit will facilitate the communication and enhance the understanding of routine marine-related impacts and information needs, as well as facilitate meaningful community engagement in IA. Individual project summaries and preliminary results have been shared with the NIRB. The toolkit and all other deliverables will be translated into Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtun and will be available and accessible online through the NIRB and the Nunavut Research Institute. 107 References Arctic Council. (2009). Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009 Report. Tromsø, Norway: Arctic Council. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/54 (accessed Nov. 24, 2018). Arctic Council. (2016). Arctic Resilience Report. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute and Stockholm Resilience Centre. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/1838 (accessed Dec. 2, 2018). Arnakak, J. (2002). Incorporation of Inuit Qaujimanituqangit, or Inuit traditional knowledge into the Government of Nunavut. The Journal of Aboriginal Economic Development, 3, 33–39. Arnakak, J. (2003). Inuit Qaujimaningit and Policy Development. Iqaluit, Nunavut: Proceedings of the Second IPSSAS Seminar. Barry, R. W., Granchinho, S. C. R., & Rusk, J. J. (2016). Impact Assessment in Nunavut. In K. S. Hanna (Ed.), Environmental Impact Assessment: Practice and Participation (3rd ed., pp. 267–298). Don Mills, Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press. Battiste, M. (2005). Indigenous knowledge: Foundations for first nations. World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium-WINHEC Journal, 1–12. Battiste, M., & Henderson, J. Y. (2000). Protecting indigenous knowledge and heritage: a global challenge. Saskatoon: Purich Pub. Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. Berger, T. R. (Ed.). (1977). Northern frontier, northern homeland: the report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. Berkes, F. (2008). Sacred Ecology (2nd ed.). Taylor and Francis. Bolton, K. C., & Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (Eds.). (2011). What we know, don’t know, and need to know about climate change in Inuit Nunangat: a systematic literatue review and gap analysis of the Canadian Arctic: final report. Ottawa: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. Bone, R. M. (2016). The Canadian north. Oxford University Press. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 Cashmore, M. (2004). The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(4), 403–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2003.12.002 Comiso, J. C., & Hall, D. K. (2014). Climate trends in the Arctic as observed from space. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Climate Change, 5(3), 389–409. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.277 108 Conference Board of Canada. (2018). Territorial Outlook Economic Forecast: Autumn 2018. Ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada. Curry, L. A., Nembhard, I. M., & Bradley, E. H. (2009). Qualitative and Mixed Methods Provide Unique Contributions to Outcomes Research. Circulation, 119(10), 1442–1452. Cypress, B. S. (2017). Rigor or reliability and validity in qualitative research: Perspectives, strategies, reconceptualization, and recommendations. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing : DCCN, 36(4), 253-263. Darling, S., Ogden, A., & Hickey, G. (2018). Reviewing Northern Capacity for Impact Assessment in Yukon Territory, Canada. Arctic Yearbook 2018, 162–179. Dawson, J., Mussells, O., Copland, L., & Carter, N. (2017). Shipping Trends in Nunavut 1990-2015: A report prepared for the Nunavut General Monitoring Program. Ottawa, Canada and Iqaluit, Nunavut. Dowsley, M. (2009). Community clusters in wildlife and environmental management: using TEK and community involvement to improve co-management in an era of rapid environmental change. Polar Research, 28(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-8369.2008.00093.x Dubé, M. G. (2003). Cumulative effect assessment in Canada: a regional framework for aquatic ecosystems. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23(6), 723–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00113-6 Duncan, R. (2008). Problematic practice in integrated impact assessment: the role of consultants and predictive computer models in burying uncertainty. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 26(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.3152/146155108X303931 Ellis, S. C. (2005). Meaningful Consideration? A Review of Traditional Knowledge in Environmental Decision Making. Arctic, 58(1), 66–77. Esteves, A. M., Franks, D., & Vanclay, F. (2012). Social impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.660356 Fidler, C., & Noble, B. F. (2013). Stakeholder Perceptions of Current Planning, Assessment and Science Initiatives in Canada’s Beaufort Sea. Arctic, 66(2), 179–190. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2018). Marine mammals and sea turtles. Retrieved from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/mammals-mammiferes/index-eng.html (accessed Dec. 13, 2018). Ford, J. D., Pearce, T., Duerden, F., Furgal, C., & Smit, B. (2010). Climate change policy responses for Canada’s Inuit population: The importance of and opportunities for adaptation. Global Environmental Change, 20(1), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.008 109 Ford, J. D., Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Vulnerability to climate change in the Arctic: A case study from Arctic Bay, Canada. Global Environmental Change, 16(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.11.007 Gibson, G., Galbraith, L., & MacDonald, A. (2016). Towards Meaningful Aboriginal Engagement and Co-Management: The Evolution of Environmental Assessment in Canada. In K. S. Hanna (Ed.), Environmental impact assessment: practice and participation (3rd ed., pp. 159–180). Don Mills, Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press. Gibson, G., Hoogeveen, D., & MacDonald, A. (2018). Impact Assessment in the Arctic: Emerging Practices of Indigenous-led Review. The Firelight Group: Submitted to Gwinch’in Council International (GCI). Gibson, R. B., & Hanna, K. S. (2016). Progress and Uncertainty: The Evolution of Federal Environmental Assessment in Canada. In K. S. Hanna (Ed.), Environmental impact assessment: practice and participation (3rd ed., pp. 15–34). Don Mills, Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press. Given, L. (2008). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909 Gondor, D. (2016). Inuit knowledge and environmental assessment in Nunavut, Canada. Sustainability Science; Dordrecht, 11(1), 153–162. Government of Canada. (2013). Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, S.C. 2013, c. 14, s. 2. Ottawa: Minister of Justice. Retrieved from https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-28.75/ (accessed Nov. 2, 2018) Government of Canada. (2014). Tri-council policy statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans 2014. Ottawa: Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research. Retrieved from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2-2014/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf (accessed Dec. 12, 2018). Government of Canada. (2016). United States-Canada Joint Arctic Leaders’ Statement. Retrieved from https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/12/20/united-states-canada-joint-arctic-leaders-statement (accessed Dec. 4, 2018). Government of Canada and Tungavik Federation of Nunavut. (1993). Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, S.C. 1993, c. 29. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs. Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/N-28.7.pdf (accessed Nov. 2, 2018). Government of Canada, & Indigenous and Northern Affairs. (2012). 2008-2010 Nunavut Implementation Panel: Annual Report. Retrieved from https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1351178274391/1542913927498 (accessed Dec. 2, 2018). Government of Canada, & Indigenous and Northern Affairs. (2015). Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act (NuPPAA)- Before and After Coming Into Force: July 9, 2015. Retrieved from https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1436448330286/1436448390699 (accessed Nov. 3, 2018). 110 Government of Nunavut. (2007). Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit: Education framework for Nunavut curriculum. Iqaluit, Nunavut: Nunavut Department of Education, Curriculum and School Services Division. Retrieved from https://www.gov.nu.ca/sites/default/files/files/Inuit%20Qaujimajatuqangit%20ENG.pdf (accessed Dec. 10, 2018). Government of Nunavut. (2008). Ingirrasiliqta, Let’s Get Moving: Nunavut Transportation Strategy. Iqaluit: Department of Economic Development & Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.gov.nu.ca/edt/documents/ingirrasiliqta-lets-get-moving-nunavut-transportation-strategy (accessed Dec. 15, 2018). Government of Nunavut. (2017). Petroleum Resources in Nunavut. Iqaluit: Department of Economic Development & Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.gov.nu.ca/sites/default/files/2017_petroleum_brochure_eng_0.pdf (accessed Dec. 20, 2018). Greig, L. A., & Duinker, P. N. (2011). A proposal for further strengthening science in environmental impact assessment in Canada. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 29(2), 159. https://doi.org/10.3152/146155111X12913679730557 Guy, E., & Lasserre, F. (2016). Commercial shipping in the Arctic: new perspectives, challenges and regulations. Polar Record, 52(03), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247415001011 Hanna, K. S. (2016). Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Practice, and Critique. In K. S. Hanna (Ed.), Environmental impact assessment: practice and participation (3rd ed., pp. 2–14). Don Mills, Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press. Harris-Roxas, B., Viliani, F., Bond, A., Cave, B., Divall, M., Furu, P., … Winkler, M. (2012). Health impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.666035 Hicks, J., & White, G. (2000). Nunavut: Inuit Self-Determination through a Land Claim and Public Government? In D. Jens, J. Hicks, & P. Jull (Eds.), Nunavut: Inuit Regain Control of Their Lands and Their Lives (pp. 30–115). Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affair. Houde, N. (2007). The Six Faces of Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Challenges and Opportunities for Canadian Co-Management Arrangements. Ecology and Society, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02270-120234 Huntington, H. P. (2000). Using Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Science: Methods and Applications. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1270–1274. https://doi.org/10.2307/2641282 Huntington, H. P. (2009). A preliminary assessment of threats to arctic marine mammals and their conservation in the coming decades. Marine Policy, 33(1), 77–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.04.003 111 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. (2018). National Inuit Strategy on Research. Ottawa: ITK. Retrieved from https://www.itk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ITK_NISR-Report_English_low_res.pdf (accessed Dec. 2, 2018). Inuit Tapirisat of Canada. (1976). Nunavut. A Proposal for the Settlement of Inuit Lands in the Northwest Territories. Ottawa: ITC. Retrieved from https://www.tunngavik.com/files/2012/11/Nunavut-ProposalforhtesettlementInuitLandinNWT-eng.pdf (accessed Nov. 18, 2018). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Polar Regions. In Climate Change 2014 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Part B: Regional Aspects: Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (pp. 1567–1612). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jamasmie, C. (2018). Gold mines to inject new life into Canada’s far north. Retrieved from http://www.mining.com/gold-mines-inject-new-life-canadas-far-north/ (accessed Dec. 4, 2018). Kitikmeot Inuit Association. (n.d.). Naonaiyaotit Traditional Knowledge Project Atlas. Retrieved from https://www.ntkp.ca/ (accessed Dec. 21, 2018). Laidler, G. J. (2006). Inuit and Scientific Perspectives on the Relationship Between Sea Ice and Climate Change: The Ideal Complement? Climatic Change, 78(2–4), 407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9064-z Laidler, G. J., Ford, J. D., Gough, W. A., & Ikummaq, T. (2009). Travelling and hunting in a changing Arctic: assessing Inuit vulnerability to sea ice change in Igloolik, Nunavut. Climatic Change, 94(3–4), 363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9512-z Lees, J., Jaeger, J. A. G., Gunn, J. A. E., & Noble, B. F. (2016). Analysis of uncertainty consideration in environmental assessment: an empirical study of Canadian EA practice. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 59(11), 2024–2044. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2015.1116980 Leung, W., Noble, B., Gunn, J., & Jaeger, J. A. G. (2015). A review of uncertainty research in impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, 116–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.09.005 Lévesque, F. (2014). Revisiting Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit: Inuit knowledge, culture, language, and values in Nunavut institutions since 1999. Études/Inuit/Studies, 38(1–2), 115–136. https://doi.org/10.7202/1028856ar Mazzocchi, F. (2006). Western science and traditional knowledge: Despite their variations, different forms of knowledge can learn from each other. EMBO Reports, 7(5), 463–466. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400693 McCrank, N. (2008). Road to improvement: report to the Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: the review of the regulatory systems across the North. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 112 Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462 Morgan, D. L. (2014). Pragmatism as a Paradigm for Social Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(8), 1045–1053. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413513733 Morgan, R. K. (2012). Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.661557 Mussells, O., Dawson, J., & Howell, S. (2017). Navigating pressured ice: Risks and hazards for winter resource-based shipping in the Canadian Arctic. Ocean & Coastal Management, 137, 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.12.010 Mackenzie Valley Environmental Review Board. (2005). Guidelines for Incorporating Traditional Knowledge in Environmental Impact Assessment. Yellowknife, NWT: MVERB. Retrieved from http://reviewboard.ca/upload/ref_library/1247177561_MVReviewBoard_Traditional_Knowledge_Guidelines.pdf (accessed Dec. 18, 2018). Nadasdy, P. (2003). Hunters and Bureaucrats: Power, Knowledge, and Aboriginal-State Relations in the Southwest Yukon. UBC Press. Nakashima, D. J. (1990). Application of native knowledge in EIA : Inuit, eiders and Hudson Bay oil. Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council. Retrieved from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/acee-ceaa/En107-3-20-1990-eng.pdf (accessed Dec. 14, 2018). Ng, A. K. Y., Andrews, J., Babb, D., Lin, Y., & Becker, A. (2018). Implications of climate change for shipping: Opening the Arctic seas. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9(2), e507. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.507 Noble, B., & Gunn, J. (2016). Strategic Environmental Assessment. In K. S. Hanna (Ed.), Environmental impact assessment: practice and participation (3rd ed., pp. 96–121). Don Mills, Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press. Noble, B., & Hanna, K. (2015). Environmental Assessment in the Arctic: A Gap Analysis and Research Agenda. Arctic, 68(3), 341–355. Noble, B., Ketilson, S., Aitken, A., & Poelzer, G. (2013). Strategic environmental assessment opportunities and risks for Arctic offshore energy planning and development. Marine Policy, 39, 296–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.011 Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2015). Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evidence Based Nursing, 18(2), 34-35. doi:10.1136/eb-2015-102054 Nunami Stantec Limited. (2018). Strategic Environmental Assessment for Baffin Bay and Davis Strait: Environmental Setting and Review of Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Activities. Cambridge Bay, Nunavut: Nunavut Impact Review Board. 113 Nunavut General Monitoring Plan. (2010). Weaving our Tapestry - Nunavut General Monitoring Plan (NGMP) Strategic Plan: 2010-2015. Retrieved from http://www.ngmp.ca/eng/1424180566400/1424180588026 (accessed Dec. 4, 2018). Nunavut General Monitoring Plan. (2013). About the Nunavut General Monitoring Plan. Retrieved from http://www.ngmp.ca/eng/1363806884706/1363806909160 (accessed Dec. 4, 2018). Nunavut Impact Review Board. (2007). Guide 2: Guide to Terminology and Definitions. Cambridge Bay, Nunavut: Nunavut Impact Review Board. Retrieved from http://www.nirb.ca/sites/default/files/_documents/guides/NIRB-F-Guide%202-Terminology%20and%20Definitions-OH2E.pdf (accessed Dec. 10, 2018). Nunavut Impact Review Board. (2018a). NIRB Five Year Strategic Plan 2018-2020. Cambridge Bay, Nunavut: Nunavut Impact Review Board. Retrieved from http://nirb.ca/publications/Strategic%20Plan/180401-NIRB%202018-22%20Strategic%20Plan_English-OEDE.pdf (accessed Dec. 10, 2018). Nunavut Impact Review Board. (2018b). Proponent’s Guide: NIRB Technical Guide Series (Technical Guide Series). Cambridge Bay, Nunavut: Nunavut Impact Review Board. Retrieved from http://www.nirb.ca/publications/guides2/181127-NIRB%20Proponents'%20Guide-FINAL.pdf (accessed Dec. 22, 2018). Nunavut Impact Review Board. (2018c). Standard Guidelines for the Preparation of an Impact Statement. Cambridge Bay, Nunavut: Nunavut Impact Review Board. Retrieved from http://www.nirb.ca/publications/Rules%20of%20Procedure/181206-DRAFT%20NIRB%20Standard%20IS%20Guidelines_English-OEDE.pdf (accessed Dec. 22, 2018). Nunavut Impact Review Board. (n.d.-a). Board Members | Nunavut Impact Review Board. Retrieved from http://www.nirb.ca/board-of-directors (accessed Nov. 30, 2018). Nunavut Impact Review Board. (n.d.-b). Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit | Nunavut Impact Review Board. Retrieved from http://www.nirb.ca/inuit-qaujimajatuqangit (accessed Dec. 4, 2018). Nunavut Impact Review Board. (n.d.-c). Staff | Nunavut Impact Review Board. Retrieved from http://www.nirb.ca/staff-intro (accessed Nov. 30, 2018). Nunavut Marine Council. (2016). The Nunavut Marine Council: An Important Voice for Nunavut’s Marine Areas. In Adapting to a Changing Circumpolar North. Iqaluit, Nunavut. Retrieved from http://www.strata360.com/dev/nmc/160919-NMC%20Presentation%20Re%20Ocean%20Innovation%20Conference-OEDE.pdf (accessed Dec. 15, 2018). Nunavut Marine Council. (2018). NMC Strategic Plan 2018-2023. Nunavut: Nunavut Marine Council. Retrieved from http://www.strata360.com/dev/nmc/180703-NMC_2018-2023_Strategic_Plan-OPAE.pdf (accessed Dec. 15, 2018). Nunavut Marine Council. (n.d.). Issues of Importance | Nunavut Marine Council. Retrieved from http://www.nunavutmarinecouncil.com/node/33 (accessed Dec. 15, 2018). 114 Nunavut Planning Commission. (2016). Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan. Iqaluit, Nunavut: Nunavut Planning Commission. Retrieved from http://www.nunavut.ca/files/2016DNLUP/2016_Draft_Nunavut_Land_Use_Plan.pdf (accessed Dec. 16, 2018). Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. (2004). A Plain Language Guide to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Ottawa: NTI. Retrieved from https://www.tunngavik.com/documents/publications/2004-00-00-A-Plain-Language-Guide-to-the-Nunavut-Land-Claims-Agreement-English.pdf (accessed Nov. 16, 2018). Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. (2014). Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Workshop Report. Iqaluit, Nunavut: Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. Nuttall, M., Fikret Berkes, Bruce Forbes, Gary Kofinas, Tatiana Vlassova, & George Wenzel. (2005). Hunting, Herding, Fishing, and Gathering: Indigenous Peoples and Renewable Resource Use in the Arctic. In Arctic Climate Impacts Assessment (pp. 649–690). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Office of the Auditor General of Canada. (2014). Chapter 3—Marine Navigation in the Canadian Arctic: 2014 Fall Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Ottawa. Retrieved from http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_cesd_201410_03_e_39850.html (accessed Dec. 2, 2018). Onfoot Consulting. (2018). Arctic Environmental Impact Assessment Workshop Report. Yellowknife, NWT: Sustainable Development Working Group: Arctic Council. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher: The Importance of Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570500402447 Pamel, P. G., & Wilkins, R. C. (2011). Challenges of Northern Resource Development and Arctic Shipping. Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 29(3), 333–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646811.2011.11435269 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3 ed). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Pavlyuk, O., Noble, B. F., Blakley, J. A. E., & Jaeger, J. A. G. (2017). Fragmentary provisions for uncertainty disclosure and consideration in EA legislation, regulations and guidelines and the need for improvement. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 66, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.06.001 Pearce, T., Ford, J., Willox, A. C., & Smit, B. (2015). Inuit Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), Subsistence Hunting and Adaptation to Climate Change in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic, 68(2), 233–245. Peloquin, C., & Berkes, F. (2009). Local Knowledge, Subsistence Harvests, and Social–Ecological Complexity in James Bay. Human Ecology, 37(5), 533–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9255-0 115 Peters, E. J. (2003). Views of traditional ecological knowledge in co-management bodies in Nunavik, Quebec. Polar Record, 39(1), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247402002759 Pizzolato, L., Howell, S. E. L., Dawson, J., Laliberté, F., & Copland, L. (2016). The influence of declining sea ice on shipping activity in the Canadian Arctic. Geophysical Research Letters, 43(23), 12,146-12,154. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071489 Pizzolato, L., Howell, S. E. L., Derksen, C., Dawson, J., & Copland, L. (2014). Changing sea ice conditions and marine transportation activity in Canadian Arctic waters between 1990 and 2012. Climatic Change; Dordrecht, 123(2), 161–173. Pope, J., Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., & Retief, F. (2013). Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: Setting the research agenda. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 41, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.01.008 Prowse, T. D., Furgal, C., Wrona, F. J., & Reist, J. D. (2009). Implications of Climate Change for Northern Canada: Freshwater, Marine, and Terrestrial Ecosystems. AMBIO, 38(5), 282–289. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-38.5.282 Qikiqtani Inuit Association. (2009). RE: Draft Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement - Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation, Mary River Project. Retrieved from http://www.nirb.ca/portal/dms/script/dms_download.php?fileid=283123 (accessed Dec. 5, 2018). QSR International Pty Ltd. (2018). NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software (Version 12). Rathwell, K., Armitage, D., & Berkes, F. (2015). Bridging knowledge systems to enhance governance of environmental commons: A typology of settings. International Journal of the Commons, 9(2), 851–880. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.584 Richards, L. (2009). Handling qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Richards, L., & Morse, J. M. (2013). Readme first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks. California: Sage. Riedlinger, D., & Berkes, F. (2001). Contributions of traditional knowledge to understanding climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Polar Record, 37(203), 315–328. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247400017058 Sallenave, J. (1994). Giving Traditional Ecological Knowledge Its Rightful Place in Environmental Impact Assessment. Northern Perspectives, 22(1), 1–7. Senkow, M., Russer, M., Bigio, A., Scott, J., & Sharpe, S. (2017). Nunavut: Mining, Mineral Exploration and Geoscience Overview 2017. Iqaluit: INAC Mineral Resources Division (Regional Office). Retrieved from https://www.gov.nu.ca/sites/default/files/nunavut_overview_2017.pdf (accessed Dec. 7, 2018). 116 Simpson, L. (2004). Anticolonial Strategies for the Recovery and Maintenance of Indigenous Knowledge. The American Indian Quarterly, 28(3), 373–384. https://doi.org/10.1353/aiq.2004.0107 Statistics Canada. (2017). Census Profile, 2016 Census - Nunavut [Territory] and Canada [Country]. Retrieved from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=PR&Code1=62&Geo2=&Code2=&Data=Count&SearchText=Nunavut&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&GeoLevel=PR&GeoCode=62 (accessed Dec. 15, 2018). Stevenson, M. G. (1996). Indigenous Knowledge in Environmental Assessment. Arctic, 49(3), 278–291. Stratos. (2017). Pan-Territorial Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Board Forum Final Report. Cambridge Bay, Nunavut: third annual Pan-Territorial Board Forum. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. Tedsen, E., Riedel, A., Weingartner, K., Azzolini, R., Guillon, F., Longo, S., … Leonenko, A. (2014). Gap Analysis Report: Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment of development of the Arctic. Arctic Centre, University of Lapland. Tennøy, A., Kværner, J., & Gjerstad, K. I. (2006). Uncertainty in environmental impact assessment predictions: the need for better communication and more transparency. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 24(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154606781765345 Tester, F. J., & Irniq, P. (2009). Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit: Social History, Politics and the Practice of Resistance. Arctic, 61(5). https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic101 Tomaselli, M., Kutz, S., Gerlach, C., & Checkley, S. (2018). Local knowledge to enhance wildlife population health surveillance: Conserving muskoxen and caribou in the Canadian Arctic. Biological Conservation, 217, 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.11.010 Udofia, A., Noble, B., & Poelzer, G. (2016). Meaningful and efficient? Enduring challenges to Aboriginal participation in environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 65, 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.04.008 Usher, P. J. (2000). Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Environmental Assessment and Management. Arctic, 53(2), 183–193. Warren, D. M., Slikkerveer, L. J., Brokensha, D., & Dechering, W. H. J. C. (Eds.). (1995). The cultural dimension of development: indigenous knowledge systems. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Wassmann, P., Duarte, C. M., Agustí, S., & Sejr, M. K. (2011). Footprints of climate change in the Arctic marine ecosystem. Global Change Biology, 17(2), 1235–1249. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02311.x 117 Wenzel, G. W. (2004). From TEK to IQ: Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and Inuit Cultural Ecology. Arctic Anthropology, 41(2), 238–250. White, G. (2006). Cultures in Collision: Traditional Knowledge and Euro-Canadian Governance Processes in Northern Land-Claim Boards. Arctic, 59(4), 401–414. Whitelaw, G., & McCarthy, D. (2016). Cumulative Effects Assessment in the Context of Canadian Environmental Governance. In K. S. Hanna (Ed.), Environmental impact assessment: practice and participation (3rd ed., pp. 141–158). Don Mills, Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press. Wood, G. (2008). Thresholds and criteria for evaluating and communicating impact significance in environmental statements: ‘See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.03.003 Wright, G. (2014). Strengthening the role of science in marine governance through environmental impact assessment: a case study of the marine renewable energy industry. Ocean & Coastal Management, 99, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.07.004 Zwart, M. C., Robson, P., Rankin, S., Whittingham, M. J., & McGowan, P. J. K. (2015). Using environmental impact assessment and post-construction monitoring data to inform wind energy developments. Ecosphere, 6(2), art26. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00331.1 118 Appendices Appendix A: List of Project Documents used in the Review If links do not work documents can be accessed by entering the public registry ID at http://www.nirb.ca/application?strP=r Project (NIRB File No.) Proponent Project Type Region Status Documents Reviewed Public Registry ID Date Received by NIRB Back River (12MN036) Sabina Gold and Silver Corp Gold Mine Kitikmeot Active Monitoring Final Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines 130430-12MN036-EIS Guidelines-OT6E.pdf 279549 Apr-13 Final Environmental Impact Statement 151123-12MN036-Vol 1-Main Volume-IA2M.pdf 300845 Feb-16 151123-12MN036-Vol 3-Public Consultation Govt Engagement TK-IA2M.pdf 300890 Feb-16 151123-12MN036-Vol 3-App V3-3A-Inuit TK-App 1-IA2E.pdf 300909 Feb-16 151123-12MN036-Vol 3-App V3-3A-Inuit TK-App 2-IA2E.pdf 300910 Feb-16 151123-12MN036-Vol 3-App V3-3B-Naonaiyaotit TK-IA2E.pdf 300911 Feb-16 151123-12MN036-Vol 7-Pt 1-Marine Environment-IA2M.pdf 301373 Mar-16 151123-12MN036-Vol 7-Pt 2-Physical Processes-IA2E.pdf 301374 Mar-16 151123-12MN036-Vol 7-Pt 3-Marine Water Quality-IA2E.pdf 301375 Mar-16 151123-12MN036-Vol 7-Pt 4-Marine Sediment Quality-IA2E.pdf 301376 Mar-16 151123-12MN036-Vol 7-Pt 5-Marine Fish Aquatic Habitat-IA2E.pdf 301377 Mar-16 151123-12MN036-Vol 7-Pt 6-Marine Fish Community-IA2E.pdf 301378 Mar-16 151123-12MN036-Vol 7-Pt 7-Seabirds Seaducks-IA2E.pdf 301379 Mar-16 151123-12MN036-Vol 7-Pt 8-Ringed Seals-IA2E.pdf 301380 Mar-16 151123-12MN036-Vol 7-App V7-6A-Shipping Sensitivity Report-IA2E.pdf 301388 Mar-16 151123-12MN036-Vol 7-App V7-4B-2013 Marine Fish & Habitat Baseline-IA2E.pdf 301387 Mar-16 151123-12MN036-Vol 7-App V7-4A-2012 Marine Fish & Habitat Baseline-IA2E.pdf 301386 Mar-16 151123-12MN036-Vol 7-App V7-2A-2013 Marine Baseline Report-App 1-IA2E.pdf 301384 Mar-16 151123-12MN036-Vol 7-App V7-1A-2012 Marine Baseline Report-App 1-IA2E.pdf 301382 Mar-16 Final Environmental Impact Statement Addendum 170216-12MN036-FEIS Addendum-Vol 1-IA2E.pdf 307831 Feb-17 170216-12MN036-FEIS Addendum-Vol 3-IA2E.pdf 307833 Feb-17 170216-12MN036-FEIS Addendum-Vol 7-IA2E.pdf 307836 Feb-17 Final Hearing Report 170718-12MN036-Revised Final Hearing Report-OT8E.pdf 312668 Jul-17 119 Project (NIRB File No.) Proponent Project Type Region Status Documents Reviewed Public Registry ID Date Received by NIRB Doris North (05MN047) Miramar Hope Bay Limited, TMAC Resource Inc Gold Mine Kitikmeot Active Monitoring Final Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines 27. 050614-05MN047 - DN Final EIS Guidelines-OT2E.pdf 281896 Oct-02 Final Environmental Impact Statement E1 INUIT QAUJIMAJATUQANGIT LITERATURE REVIEW, GAP ANALYSIS .pdf 282184 Nov-03 SECTION 01.pdf 282135 Nov-05 SECTION 02.pdf 282138 Nov-05 SECTION 04.pdf 282142 Nov-05 SECTION 05.pdf 282144 Nov-05 Amendment Application 150722-05MN047-Amendment Project Discription-Pk 2-IA2E.pdf 289845 Jun-15 150722-05MN047-Amendment Enviro Effects-Pk 4-Pt 2-IA2E.pdf 289833 Jun-15 150722-05MN047-Amendment Enviro Effects-Pk 4-Pt 6-IA2E.pdf 289837 Jun-15 150722-05MN047-Amendment Enviro Effects-Pk 4-Pt 7-IA2E.pdf 289838 Jun-15 Final Hearing Report 158.d_060306-NIRB-Decision-MHBL_Doris_North_Final_Main-OT2E.zip 282325 Mar-06 Public Hearing Report 160613-05MN047-12 8 2 Public Hearing Report-OT3E.pdf 303349 Jun-16 Kiggavik (09MN003) AREVA Resources Canada Incorporated Uranium Mine Kivalliq Completed Review Final Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines 110503-09MN003-Final EIS Guidelines-OT2E.pdf 278049 May-11 Final Environmental Impact Statement 141001-09MN003-Vol 1 Main Doc-Pt 1-IA2E.pdf 278658 Sep-14 141001-09MN003-Vol 3-IQ-Pt 1-IA2E.pdf 278683 Sep-14 141001-09MN003-Vol 3-IQ-Pt 2-IA2E.pdf 278684 Sep-14 141001-09MN003-Vol 3-IQ-Pt 3-IA2E.pdf 278685 Sep-14 141001-09MN003-Vol 3-IQ-Pt 4-IA2E.pdf 278686 Sep-14 141001-09MN003-Vol 7-Marine Enviro-IA2E.pdf 278708 Sep-14 141001-09MN003-Vol 7-7A Marine Enviro Bsln-Pt 1-IA2E.pdf 278906 Sep-14 141001-09MN003-Vol 7-7A Marine Enviro Bsln-Pt 3-IA2E.pdf 278908 Sep-14 Final Hearing Report 150508-09MN003-NIRB Final Hearing Report-OT9E.pdf 279296 May-15 Mary River (08MN053) Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation Iron Mine North Baffin Active Monitoring Final Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines 091116-08MN053-Final EIS Guidelines for Mary River Project-OT1E.pdf 283183 Nov-09 Final Environmental Impact Statement 120 Project (NIRB File No.) Proponent Project Type Region Status Documents Reviewed Public Registry ID Date Received by NIRB 120213-08MN053-FEIS part1-IT5E.pdf 285303 Feb-12 120213-08MN053-Vol2 part1-IT5E.pdf 285324 Feb-12 120213-08MN053-FEIS Vol 8 prt 1-IT3E.pdf 286007 Feb-12 120213-08MN053-FEIS App 8A-2-Marine Mam Base prt 1-IT3E.pdf 286021 Feb-12 120213-08MN053-FEIS App 8A-1-Ocean Base prt 1-IT3E.pdf 286018 Feb-12 130620-08MN053-Main Document-IT8E.pdf 290839 Jun-13 130620-08MN053-Vol 8 Marine Environment-IT8E.pdf 290868 Jun-13 Final Hearing Report 120914-08MN053-NIRB Final Hearing Report-OEDE.pdf 286425 Sep-12 Public Hearing Report 140317-08MN053-NIRB 12 8 2 Public Hearing Report-OEDE.pdf 291200 Mar-14 Meadowbank (03MN107) Agnico Eagle Gold Mine Kivalliq Active Monitoring Final Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines Cumberland 040220-03MN107-Final EIS Guidelines-OMAE.pdf 281105 Feb-04 Final Environmental Impact Statement 050209-03MN107-Baseline Traditional Knowledge Report-IMAE.pdf 281173 Jan-05 04TOC_FINAL_Oct2005.pdf 281508 Oct-05 07FEIS REPORT_FINAL_Oct2005.pdf 281512 Oct-05 BAEAR_FINAL_Oct2005.pdf 281573 Oct-05 Final Hearing Report 353._060830_NIRB_MB_MASTER_F_HEARING_RPT_OTAE.pdf 281783 Aug-06 Meliadine Gold (11MN034) Agnico Eagle Gold Mine Kivalliq Active Monitoring Final Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines 120220-11MN034-EIS Guidelines-ODTE.pdf 286775 Feb-12 Final Environmental Impact Statement 140506-11MN034-Vol 1-Pt 1-Executive Summary-IA2M.pdf 287426 Apr-14 140506-11MN034-Vol 1-Pt 2-Executive Summary-IA2M.pdf 287427 Apr-14 140506-11MN034-Vol 3-Data Collection-IA2E.pdf 287484 Apr-14 140506-11MN034-Vol 8-Marine Environment-Pt 1-IA2E.pdf 287598 Apr-14 140506-11MN034-Vol 8-Marine Environment-Pt 2-IA2E.pdf 287599 Apr-14 140506-11MN034-SD 3-1-Public Engagement Baseline-IA2E.pdf 287485 Apr-14 140506-11MN034-SD 8-1-Shipping Mgmt Plan-IA2E.pdf 287600 Apr-14 Final Hearing Report 141010-11MN034-NIRB Final Hearing Report-OEDE.pdf 287854 Oct-14 Phase 2 Hope bay Belt Project TMAC Resources Ltd. Gold Mine Kitikmeot Active Review Final Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines 121214-12MN001-Final EIS Guidelines-OT6E.pdf 279377 Dec-12 Final Environmental Impact Statement 171221-12MN001-Volume 1. Main Volume-IMTE.pdf 314934 Dec-17 121 Project (NIRB File No.) Proponent Project Type Region Status Documents Reviewed Public Registry ID Date Received by NIRB 171221-12MN001-Volume 2 Section 02. Traditional Knowledge-IMTE.pdf 314923 Dec-17 171221-12MN001-Volume 5 Section 07. Marine Physical Processes-IMTE.pdf 314847 Dec-17 171221-12MN001-Volume 5 Section 08. Marine Water Quality-IMTE.pdf 314846 Dec-17 171221-12MN001-Volume 5 Section 09. Marine Sediment Quality-IMTE.pdf 314845 Dec-17 171221-12MN001-Volume 5 Section 10. Marine Fish-IMTE.pdf 314844 Dec-17 171221-12MN001-Volume 5 Section 11. Marine Wildlife-IMTE.pdf 314843 Dec-17 171221-12MN001-V5-11A_Marine Wildlife Baseline-IMTE.pdf 314746 Dec-17 171221-12MN001-V5-10F_2017 Marine Fish and Fish Habitat Baseline Report-IMTE.pdf 347488 Dec-17 Final Hearing Report 180626-12MN001-Final Hearing Report-OT1E.pdf 318393 Jun-18 Whale Tail Pit Project (16MN056) Agnico Eagle Gold Mine Kivalliq Active Monitoring Final Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines n/a - (Proponent submitted project proposal as EIS) Final Environmental Impact Statement 160630 03MN107-V1 Project Description-IA1E.pdf 303688 Jun-16 160630 03MN107-V3 Assessment Methods-IA1E.pdf 303690 Jun-16 160630 03MN107-V6 Freshwater Environment-IA1E_Part1.pdf 303365 Jun-16 160706-16MN056-App 7-A-Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Baseline-IA2E.pdf 306035 Jun-16 160706-16MN056-App 3-A-Marine Enviro Summary-IA2E.pdf 305994 Jun-16 Public Hearing Report 171106-16MN056-NIRB Whale Tail Pit Project Final Hearing Report-OT2E.pdf 314232 Nov-17 122 Appendix B: Focus Group Information Sheet and Question Sets Introduction to the project and overview of the project’s objectives This is a collaborative research project developed with the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB). The work has two parts. The communication part will examine the best ways to communicate marine related impacts to communities and environmental assessment (EA) stakeholders to improve participation, including identifying the information routinely needed. The information part will identify key baseline information needs related to marine activities and assess options for meeting these. The project has two key outcomes of value to Northern communities, agencies and industry. First, the research will work to produce a community tool kit that can help provide information about the routine and expected impacts of marine related operations that can occur from development. This will support better community engagement in EA. Second, it will create an understanding of gaps in baseline information that affects the assessment of marine-related project applications and consider longer-term options and feasibility for addressing them. The role of traditional and local knowledge, and adaptive management approaches in addressing baseline information needs is also reviewed. The approach employs a review of EAs conducted in Nunavut; a review of global EA research to identify options and approaches to communication and information development; and engagement with EA stakeholders, through the NIRB, to identify community, government and industry needs and best approaches to providing information and advancing capacity in EA and other planning processes. Engagement is facilitated through 1) the focus group today, 2) NIRB requests to partner organizations and stakeholders to identify needed information and specific knowledge to be included in communication and information materials, and 3) the eventual sharing of draft materials with stakeholder organizations for comment, review and enhancing. Parts 2 and 3 are done through the NIRB. This provides a research-based approach to addressing needs identified by the NIRB for helping to advance consultation, information communication and information collection to support an enhanced understanding of the marine related impacts considered in Nunavut’s EA process. Introduction and project review The discussions and questions focus on agency perspectives and information that you can provide as an agency representative, either as a Board member or NIRB staff. The questions cover areas of your agency’s practice and can be provided as part of your role with the agency. They do not address areas of confidential deliberation or decision-making. What we seek is information from the focus group as expert and authorized personnel (to release information or data in the ordinary course of your employment about the organization, and its policies, procedures, professional practices and statistical notes on information needs). 123 We have reviewed a selection of environmental assessments to see what information about marine related activities seem to be most often requested through consultation, or provided by the agency, or included by proponents in the project application. The focus group today allows use to elaborate on the document review and learn about the agency experience in managing information provision and requests and help guide the development of standard information products for communicating the impacts of marine activities. *Introduction of focus group facilitators (a faculty member and two graduate students will ask the questions). *Please note that, notes are taken by laptop. *The resulting information will be used to help develop eventual communication products and to understand EA information needs. All questions relate specifically to marine related activities. This includes shipping, shoreline modification and use, onshore activities to support marine (shipping) activities. The terms and phrases are standard to the field of environmental assessment. The questions are about information needs emerging during public meetings and hearings, or by registry or written requests that become part of the public record or would be otherwise publicly accessible. Note: focus groups are conducted in English. The NIRB may choose to provide a translation of the questions into the appropriate dialect of Inuktut. Board Focus Group Questions 1. Has the Board noticed any regional differences in the types of concerns or questions communities ask during public meetings or hearings held in the Kitikmeot Region or the Kivalliq Region or the Qikiqtani Region? 2. How do gaps or uncertainty surrounding marine baseline data and marine impacts affect decision-making? Follow up: How are marine information gaps addressed by the Board? 3. How does the Board determine if Inuit Qaujimaningit values have been well incorporated into the proposed project? 4. Are there challenges with the incorporation and compatibility of Inuit Qaujimaningit in the EA process, and are there examples from specific EA reviews that help illustrate this? Follow up: How does the board overcome identified challenges? 5. How has Inuit Qaujimaningit, and its application to the EA review, changed over time? 6. In the Whale Tail Pit Expansion Final Hearing Report, the Board noted that communities expressed concern that they are not informed how the Meadowbank project has been regulated and compliance monitored over the past 10 years. What can be done to make communication between regulators, proponents and communities better? 7. With the Mary River project there was the Marine Environment Working Group, and in the Kiggavik project assessment it was suggested that Areva could work with that MEWG, with all these working groups, are there any examples of multiple mines working 124 together on those or are they more so project-specific? Follow up: where do they need more support for their participation in the process? 8. Where does the board need more support in decision making regarding the marine environment? NIRB Staff Focus Group Questions 1. In the review process, are there concerns about shipping and related onshore activities that are frequently presented by regulators (like DFO or Transport Canada)? Are there specific marine activities and impacts that are routine regardless of the project or location? (ex. refuelling operations, icebreaking, search and rescue or ballast management). Follow up: what changes have been made by NIRB to anticipate marine related information requests? 2. Are there marine activities that communities routinely raise in public meetings and hearings? Which concerns are of most interest to communities? (e.g. refuelling, fuel storage, ice breaking, equipment location, response times, navigational equipment placement, others). Follow-up: have these changed over the last 5 years? 3. Building on the previous question, over the last 5 years how has the way marine related information is communicated by NIRB in meetings or hearings changed? (Here we are interested in modifications to the formats rather than content; e.g. text, graphics, other media arrangements). Follow-up: Have the changes been effective? Are there clear opportunities for improvement? 4. Do some project stages result in more public information needs than others? For example, more information is sought from the agency about the construction period than for operation, maintenance, or closure/decommission? 5. What areas of marine related baseline conditions has the agency identified as needing further research or development? Follow-up: Have any of these been identified as priority areas? How are these being addressed? 6. What challenges has NIRB faced with the incorporation and compatibility of Inuit Qaujimaningit in the EA process? Follow-up: Are there examples from specific EA reviews that help illustrate this? How does the agency overcome identified challenges? 7. In NWT, the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board identifies three components of traditional knowledge for use in their process; 1) knowledge from direct observations, 2) experiences/practices, and 3) TK values. Is there a similar approach used here? Follow up: In EIS guidelines, proponents are asked to include "Types of TK collected", how is this often presented in the review and what does the agency look for regarding types of TK? 8. The Board relies on the contributions of regulatory stakeholders to provide expertise and an understanding of their jurisdictional basis. In the Final Hearing Report of the Meliadine project, it was noted that limits on the full participation of any regulatory stakeholders can jeopardize the Board’s ability to provide a thorough, credible and timely assessments. The Report gives an example of changes to the Federal Fisheries Act. What are some ways regulators can better support the Board’s decision-making?
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Interdisciplinary Studies
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Gaps in marine baseline data and the role of Inuit knowledge in the Nunavut impact assessment process
Text