Science, Irving K. Barber Faculty of (Okanagan)
Earth, Environmental and Geographic Sciences, Department of (Okanagan)
DSpace
UBCO
Arnold, Lauren
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
The impacts of individual resource development projects are cumulative and combine and interact with other stressors in complex environmental and social systems. Cumulative effects assessment is an established process that is intended to evaluate environmental impacts in combination with other past, present, and foreseeable activities, but it has been difficult to implement as part of the environmental assessment processes used to evaluate and approve prospective resource development activities. In addition, the focus of research and practice has been on biophysical effects. Cumulative effects assessments are increasingly expected to account for cumulative social effects to people, their communities, and livelihoods caused by resource development projects and land use activities, but there has been limited attention devoted to how to complete such an assessment. This research responds to this deficit and uses case study analysis and semi-structured interviews to explore practitioner experience in environmental assessments for hydroelectric developments in British Columbia and Manitoba, Canada. The objectives were to explore what is known about accounting for cumulative social effects, how such impacts are defined, framed, and evaluated in practice during project assessments, and the regulatory and professional capacity needed to support an assessment of cumulative social effects. The results present a conceptual framework for the cumulative social effects of projects, and outline how identified challenges for cumulative effects assessment are exacerbated by social impacts that introduce additional complexities in impact identification, assessment, and decision-making. Addressing these challenges requires substantial changes to CEA frameworks that are applied during project assessments including attention to impact legacies, responsibility, and a focus on the extent to which a project contributes to healthy human systems. Key capacity deficits and needs are iii identified in terms of the availability regulation and guidance, the professional expertise needed to evaluate information about social impacts, and understanding responsibility and management for cumulative social effects. The results of this research provide insight into how to improve the assessment of cumulative social effects, address key challenges for Canadian hydroelectric project assessments, and present recommendations and knowledge that are applicable in other settings.
ASSESSING AND MANAGING THE CUMULATIVE SOCIAL EFFECTS OF RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS by Lauren Arnold B.A. & Sc., University of Saskatchewan, 2015 M.A., University of British Columbia, 2018 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FUFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Interdisciplinary Studies) The University of British Columbia (Okanagan) June 2022 © Lauren Arnold, 2022 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the College of Graduate Studies for acceptance, a thesis/dissertation entitled: Assessing and Managing the Cumulative Social Effects of Resource Development Projects submitted by Lauren Arnold in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy . Dr. Kevin Hanna, University of British Columbia Okanagan Supervisor Dr. Bram Noble, University of Saskatchewan Supervisory Committee Member Dr. William Nikolakis, University of British Columbia Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Sarah Gergel, University of British Columbia Supervisory Committee Member Dr. John Wagner, University of British Columbia Okanagan University Examiner Dr. Murray Rutherford, Simon Fraser University External Examiner iii Abstract The impacts of individual resource development projects are cumulative and combine and interact with other stressors in complex environmental and social systems. Cumulative effects assessment is an established process that is intended to evaluate environmental impacts in combination with other past, present, and foreseeable activities, but it has been difficult to implement as part of the environmental assessment processes used to evaluate and approve prospective resource development activities. In addition, the focus of research and practice has been on biophysical effects. Cumulative effects assessments are increasingly expected to account for cumulative social effects to people, their communities, and livelihoods caused by resource development projects and land use activities, but there has been limited attention devoted to how to complete such an assessment. This research responds to this deficit and uses case study analysis and semi-structured interviews to explore practitioner experience in environmental assessments for hydroelectric developments in British Columbia and Manitoba, Canada. The objectives were to explore what is known about accounting for cumulative social effects, how such impacts are defined, framed, and evaluated in practice during project assessments, and the regulatory and professional capacity needed to support an assessment of cumulative social effects. The results present a conceptual framework for the cumulative social effects of projects, and outline how identified challenges for cumulative effects assessment are exacerbated by social impacts that introduce additional complexities in impact identification, assessment, and decision-making. Addressing these challenges requires substantial changes to CEA frameworks that are applied during project assessments including attention to impact legacies, responsibility, and a focus on the extent to which a project contributes to healthy human systems. Key capacity deficits and needs are iv identified in terms of the availability regulation and guidance, the professional expertise needed to evaluate information about social impacts, and understanding responsibility and management for cumulative social effects. The results of this research provide insight into how to improve the assessment of cumulative social effects, address key challenges for Canadian hydroelectric project assessments, and present recommendations and knowledge that are applicable in other settings. v Lay Summary This research explores how to assess and manage the cumulative social effects of resource development projects. Environmental assessment is a process used to evaluate and make decisions about proposed development projects. When making these decisions it is important to consider cumulative effects that might result from the project in combination with other projects and impacts over time and across geographic regions. In addition, it is important to specifically consider the potential social impacts of development projects that affect people, their wellbeing, and their livelihoods. One of the weaknesses of environmental assessments has been accounting for these cumulative social effects. By analyzing practical experience in assessments for hydroelectric development in Manitoba and British Columbia, Canada this research focused on how cumulative social effects can be accounted for during environmental assessments and the regulatory support and professional capacity that is needed to implement such an assessment. vi Preface The development of the research and the analysis was completed independently, with guidance from my supervisor Dr. Kevin Hanna and committee members Dr. Bram Noble, Dr. Sarah Gergel, and Dr. William Nikolakis. Two manuscripts have been submitted for publication in peer reviewed academic journals and are included as chapters in this thesis with the abstracts removed. Chapter 5 was submitted to Environmental Management in December 2021 titled “Assessing the Cumulative Social Effects of Projects: Lessons From Canadian Hydroelectric Development”. This manuscript was returned with minor revisions and re-submitted February 2022. Chapter 6 was submitted to Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal in December 2021 titled “Capacity Needs for Assessing the Cumulative Social Effects of Projects”. This manuscript remains under review. Manuscript drafts were prepared independently and revised with feedback from committee members who are co-authors on the submissions. This research project design including the list of interview questions were shared with the University of British Columbia Ethics Board prior to beginning interviews (June 2020). This project was exempt from behavioural ethics review due to the scope of the interview questions and focus of the research which was on the environmental assessment process itself, not the individuals participating in the interviews. vii Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................ iii Lay Summary ........................................................................................................................ v Preface ................................................................................................................................. vi List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... x List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... xi List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ xii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. xiii Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Research Questions and Study design ...............................................................................4 1.2 Conceptual Definitions of Key Terms ......................................................................................6 1.3 Theoretical Approach..............................................................................................................8 1.4 Thesis structure ..................................................................................................................... 11 1.5 References ............................................................................................................................. 12 Chapter 2: What are Cumulative Social Effects? .................................................................. 19 2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 19 2.2 Literature Review Method .................................................................................................... 19 2.3. Results .................................................................................................................................. 22 2.3.1 Defining Cumulative Social Effects ....................................................................................................... 22 2.3.2 CEA Frameworks .................................................................................................................................... 25 2.3.3 Cumulative Effects Assessment Theory ................................................................................................ 27 2.3.4 Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 33 2.4 Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 40 2.5. References ............................................................................................................................ 40 Chapter 3: Cumulative Social Effects and Indigenous Peoples and Rights ............................ 53 3.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 53 3.2. Background: Indigenous Rights in Canada, Resource Development, and Cumulative Social Effects ......................................................................................................................................... 53 3.3 Literature Review Method .................................................................................................... 58 3.4. Results .................................................................................................................................. 60 3.4.1 Indigenous Ecology and Knowledge ...................................................................................................... 61 3.4.2 Social Impacts and Legacy ..................................................................................................................... 63 3.4.3 Cumulative Impacts and Indigenous Rights ......................................................................................... 67 3.5 Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 70 3.6 References ............................................................................................................................. 71 viii Chapter 4: Study Regions Background and Case Study Analysis .......................................... 85 4.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 85 4.2 Study Regions........................................................................................................................ 86 4.2.1 Northern Manitoba ................................................................................................................................. 86 4.2.2 British Columbia: The Peace River and Columbia River Systems..................................................... 90 4.3 Case Study Analysis .............................................................................................................. 93 4.4 Results ................................................................................................................................... 95 4.4.1 Keeyask Generating Station ................................................................................................................... 95 4.4.2 Regional CEA Nelson, Burntwood and Churchill River Systems ...................................................... 99 4.4.3 Site C Project ......................................................................................................................................... 102 4.4.4 Revelstoke Unit 6 Expansion ................................................................................................................ 105 4.5 Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 106 4.6 References ........................................................................................................................... 108 Chapter 5: Assessing Cumulative Social Effects: Lessons from Canadian Hydroelectric Development ..................................................................................................................... 113 5.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 113 5.2 Study Areas and Data Collection ......................................................................................... 116 5.3. Results ................................................................................................................................ 124 5.3.1 Scoping: Identifying Social Cumulative Effects ................................................................................. 125 5.3.2 Spatial Scale ........................................................................................................................................... 128 5.3.3 Temporal scale ....................................................................................................................................... 130 5.3.4 Assessing Social Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................... 133 5.3.5 CEA Outcomes....................................................................................................................................... 135 5.4 Discussion............................................................................................................................ 137 5.5. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 144 5.6. References .......................................................................................................................... 144 Chapter 6: Capacity Needs for Assessing the Cumulative Social Effects of Projects ............ 154 6.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 154 6. 2. Methods and study regions ................................................................................................ 157 6.2.1 Data Collection....................................................................................................................................... 161 6.3. Results ................................................................................................................................ 163 6.3.1 Regulatory support for human cumulative impacts .......................................................................... 163 6.3.2 Expertise and capacity .......................................................................................................................... 165 6.3.3 Uncomfortable conversations ............................................................................................................... 168 6.3.4 Learning ................................................................................................................................................. 169 6.3.5 Responsibility and leadership ............................................................................................................... 170 6.4 Discussion............................................................................................................................ 173 6.5 Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 179 6.6 References ........................................................................................................................... 180 Chapter 7: Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 189 ix 7.1 Objective 1: What is known About Cumulative Social Effects? ........................................... 189 7.2 Objective 2: Processes and Challenges for Assessing Cumulative Social Effects .................. 191 7.3 Objective 3: Identifying Capacity Needs.............................................................................. 193 Appendix 1: Literature review annotation template ............................................................ 195 Appendix 2: Interview questions ........................................................................................ 196 x List of Tables Chapter 1 Table 1: Research Objectives and Questions...................................................................................6 Chapter 2 Table 1: Sources Included in Review............................................................................................21 Chapter 4 Table 1: Case Studies and Documents Reviewed..........................................................................95 Chapter 5 Table 1: Interviewees by province and occupation/role..............................................................123 Table 2: Challenges Identified for Cumulative Social Effects....................................................125 Chapter 6 Table 1: Interviewees by province and occupation/role..............................................................162 Table 2: Capacity Needs for Assessing Cumulative Social Effects of Projects..........................174 xi List of Figures Chapter 4 Figure 1: Significant Hydroelectric Facilities in Northern Manitoba............................................87 Figure 2: Significant Hydroelectric Facilities in the Peace and Columbia Regions of BC...........91 Chapter 5 Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for Cumulative Social Effects of Projects.............................127 xii List of Abbreviations BC British Columbia CEA Cumulative Effects Assessment CEC Clean Environment Commission EA Environmental Assessment GBA Gender Based Assessment HIA Health Impact Assessment IA Impact Assessment SIA Social Impact Assessment VC Valued Component xiii Acknowledgements I was fortunate to have an excellent support network throughout my PhD, including the guidance of my supervisory committee and the encouragement of my family and friends. My supervisor, Dr. Kevin Hanna, provided much appreciated advice and support throughout my entire PhD program. I owe specific thanks for the many professional opportunities provided to me by working in the Centre for Environmental Assessment Research. My committee members Dr. Bram Noble, Dr. William Nikolakis, and Dr. Sarah Gergel were valuable sources of knowledge and encouragement, and I was lucky to be able to draw on their experience and expertise. I am grateful to the contacts in Manitoba and British Columbia who supported this project and helped connect me to interviewees and resources. I am also thankful for the financial supported I received from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. I would like to thank and acknowledge my inspiring and wonderful family, Dr. Cathy Arnold, Dr. Jim Arnold, Zoe Arnold, and Justin Fisher, and my family of friends in Kelowna and in Saskatoon. Finally, thank you to my husband Lucas Colleaux, my partner in all things, who keeps me focused on what matters. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Decisions about land-use and natural resource development activities must be strategic in the context of environmental sustainability and the threat of climate change, and also equitable and protective of the social wellbeing of people. A weakness of Environmental Assessment (EA) processes that have been designed to evaluate and approve prospective resource development activities is accounting for cumulative social effects to people and communities that result from multiple projects and stressors over time and across geographic regions (Atlin & Gibson, 2017; Halseth, 2016). Addressing this weakness is vital to support better informed decisions and to improve the social outcomes of resource development. The impacts of individual resource development projects do not occur in isolation, but instead combine and interact within complex environmental and social systems. Accounting for these cumulative effects that result from multiple projects and stressors over time and across geographic regions has been one of the most persistent challenges for EAs. Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) is an established and often legislated process that is intended to support project-based EA decision-making and broader strategic planning by evaluating environmental impacts in combination with other past, present, and foreseeable activities or stressors (Foley et al., 2017; Jones, 2016). The implementation of CEA has been critiqued from many fronts including defining and generating the information needed to understand cumulative effects (Cronmiller & Noble, 2018; Foley et al., 2017), ensuring the organizational capacity and institutional support for doing CEA (Chilima, Blakely, Noble, & Patrick, 2017; Sheelanere, Noble, & Patrick, 2013), and establishing meaningful connections to decision-making and planning at project-based EA and regional and strategic assessments levels (Arnold, Hanna, & Noble, 2019; Noble, Liu, & Hackett, 2017) 2 In addition to these challenges, there is a deficit in practical and applied knowledge for how to account for cumulative social effects. CEAs are increasingly expected to account for the social impacts of resource development and land use actions on people, their wellbeing, and their livelihoods. But, cumulative social effects are often not addressed clearly in EA guidance documents and have received limited research attention when compared to the efforts devoted to advancing the science and technical capacities needed to assess biophysical environmental impacts at regional scales (Atlin & Gibson, 2017; Halseth, 2016; Loxton, Schirmer, & Kanowski, 2013; Mitchell & Parkins, 2011). Despite the importance of making management and mitigation decisions informed by the social impacts and benefits of proposed projects across local, regional populations, there has been little exploration into how cumulative social effects can be meaningfully assessed at the project EA level. Cumulative social effects have become a pressing issue in many EA jurisdictions, including Canada, and have been a focus for public stakeholders and for Indigenous peoples who have been confronted with a legacy of disproportionate social impacts as a result of development and exclusion from planning and decision-making (Bakker & Hendriks, 2019; Booth & Skelton, 2011; Bradley & McClurg, 2012; Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017). CEA is a required part of a EA at the national level, and to varying degrees within Canada’s provincial and territorial jurisdictions. An expectation for a CEA that is inclusive of social impacts is developing at the project level supported by expanded legislation and legal recognition of Indigenous rights (Bakker & Hendriks, 2019; Bradley & McClurg, 2012; Sandlos & Keeling, 2016). But, specific guidance for cumulative social effects is limited and it is unclear how this expectation should be met. Cumulative effects, and cumulative social effects specifically, have remained a controversial issue during EAs and post approval, drawing attention to the need for assessment 3 and planning processes that take into account the complexity of environmental and social systems. This has been the case for the hydroelectric industry. Over two thirds of the world’s freshwater rivers are dammed and not considered free flowing (Thieme et al., 2021). The hydroelectric industry has a long history in Canada and has become a central pillar of power generation in many provinces as they seek to transition to renewable energy (Cohn, Evenden & Landry, 2020). EAs and decisions about hydroelectric development projects have become increasingly complex and understanding the long-term environmental and social impacts associated with the development and continued operation of hydroelectric facilities is fundamental for informed decision-making. In Manitoba and British Columbia (BC) hydroelectric development has occurred for over 50 years. In both provinces there are regional concentrations of facilities, projects constructed decades ago that remain in operation, additional large scale developments under construction, and new proposals forthcoming (Clean Environment Commission, 2018; Peyton, 2017). Each province has different regulatory structures for EA and CEA, but both have been confronted with questions about cumulative social effects during EAs for hydroelectric developments and challenges to approved projects related to these concerns. In this context, understanding and managing cumulative social effects has become critical. This research explores the issue of cumulative social effects by focusing on evaluating hydroelectric development EAs and approaches to CEA in BC and Manitoba. The objectives were to explore the process for assessing cumulative social effects, including how these impacts are defined, framed, and evaluated, and the regulatory and professional capacity needed to support such an assessment. This research synthesizes literature drawn from a range of impact 4 assessment fields to build a definition of cumulative social effects, identify research priorities, and critically analyze the relationship between CEA and Indigenous rights and interests. Using case study analysis and semi-structured interviews I explored practitioner experience in EAs for hydroelectric developments and I present a conceptual framework for cumulative social effects and illustrate how identified challenges for cumulative effects assessment are exacerbated by social impacts that introduce additional complexities in impact identification, assessment, and decision-making. I also identify capacity needs for assessing cumulative social effects related to the availability regulation and guidance, professional expertise, and in understanding responsibilities and management. The results of this research provide insight into how to improve the assessment of cumulative social effects, address key challenges for hydroelectric EAs in Manitoba and BC, and present recommendations and knowledge that are applicable in other settings. 1.1 Research Questions and Study design This research project was designed to meet three broad objectives: 1) synthesize available knowledge about cumulative social effects relevant to the Canadian context including research literature, guidance materials, and EA reports, 2) explore the process and the challenges for assessing cumulative social effects during hydroelectric EAs in the study regions, and 3) to identify the regulatory and professional capacity needs for carrying out such an assessment. The research objectives and specific research questions are summarized in Table 1. A qualitative approach to data collection and analysis was considered appropriate given that this research sought to understand processes and capacity for assessing cumulative social effects within EA processes, which is dependent on organizational structures and the actions of EA practitioners and participants. This project involved three key stages: 1) targeted literature 5 reviews 2) document reviews of EA reports, and 3) semi-structured interviews with professionals involved in the respective EAs. Two targeted literature reviews were completed to explore the methodological and theoretical problems presented by cumulative social effects, the importance of this issue as it has emerged in resource management practice, and the relevance of cumulative social effects for Indigenous rights and interests in Canada. Document reviews of EA reports were completed to explore specific hydroelectric assessment case studies in Manitoba and BC where cumulative social impacts emerged as a key issue and area of concern. The third stage was semi-structured interviews to understand practitioner experience with assessing cumulative social impacts during EAs. Interview questions were designed to follow-up on findings from stage one and two and to explore the process for assessing cumulative social effects and the capacity needs in order to carry out a social CEA. Preliminary development of the research objectives and questions was completed July-September 2019. In addition to background research in each province, a number of phone calls and informal meetings were completed with regulators, consultants, and Indigenous governments in the study regions to seek input on the project focus and gain background information. These meetings and background research directly informed the focus of the project and research questions. Stage one and two of this project, literature reviews and case study analysis, were completed between January-May 2020. The semi-structured interviews were completed June-October 2020. Initially, I had planned to travel to the study regions in person to complete some of the interviews. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and health guidelines travel was not possible and all interviews were completed over the phone or by videoconference. 6 Table 1: Research Objectives and Questions Objective Research Questions Synthesize available knowledge about cumulative social effects relevant to the Canadian context What is known about cumulative social effects, including how they are defined and existing frameworks and methods? What are the implications of cumulative social effects for Indigenous peoples and their rights in respect to EA processes? Explore the process and the challenges for assessing cumulative social effects How is CEA carried out during EAs for hydroelectric development in the study regions, and how is this process applied to social impacts? What key challenges exist for assessing cumulative social effects during EA, and what opportunities exist for improvement? Identify regulatory and professional capacity needs To what extent is there existing capacity (including regulatory support, expertise and knowledge) for assessing cumulative social effects in the study regions? What are the capacity needs for carrying out an assessment of cumulative social effects for hydroelectric development in the study regions? 1.2 Conceptual Definitions of Key Terms This thesis uses a number of key terms which I will define here. There are many definitions of cumulative effects, and social cumulative impacts/effects, which are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2. For the purpose of this thesis, cumulative effects are understood to refer to environmental and social changes resulting from human decisions and activities and other stressors as they combine and accumulate over time and across geographic regions. The terms effect and impact are often used interchangeably in research and regulation. However, some differentiate between the two, for instance, Halseth et al. (2016) and Johnson (2016) define cumulative effects as observable changes and actions, and cumulative impacts as the complex and widespread consequences that flow from those changes. However, in an EA context, the 7 term cumulative effects is often used to describe residual impacts resulting from the project in combination with other projects and activities. As stated by Blakely (2021), an effect is not necessarily regarded as an impact if it does not affect a component of the environment in any significant or substantial way, as deemed by society. In a project-based [EA] context, determining the significance of residual cumulative effects (having taken into account proposed mitigation measures) gives an estimation of the nature and severity of anticipated impacts of predicted changes to the environment (p.5). This thesis does not specifically differentiate between impacts/effects and both terms are used to describe cumulative change, however cumulative social effects is primarily used to maintain alignment with terms used in regulatory EA processes in Canada. Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) is used to describe the formal assessment of these changes since it is the accepted term in most jurisdictions Social impacts have also been defined in varying ways, but are consistently viewed as both measurable changes to social structures and communities and also the experiences of individuals and their perceptions of these changes. This research will adopt the well accepted definition offered by Burdge and Vanclay (1996): “Social impacts include all social and cultural consequences to human populations of any public or private actions that alter the ways in which people live, work, play, relate to one another, organize to meet their needs, and generally cope as members of society” (p.59). This definition is inclusive of economic, cultural, and health impacts. Cumulative social effects then, are social changes that accumulate and combine across time and space. Within research, the terms Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Environmental Assessment (EA), and Impact Assessment (IA), are often used interchangeably. IA has become increasingly popular as a term that is thought to more broadly encompasses the social, cultural, and economic, dimensions of the environment. IA also represents a family of interrelated sub- 8 disciplines, such as Health Impact Assessment and Social Impact Assessment. Federal legislation in Canada has recently adopted IA as the preferred term (Impact Assessment Act, 2019), however in most provincial and territorial jurisdictions the term EA or EIA is used. In this paper, the term EA is used to refer to the legislated process for assessing prospective development and land-use actions, and the term IA is used only when specifically referring to the current Canadian federal legislation. For the purpose of this research, development projects are defined as resource use activities that require the completion of an EA process under Canadian and/or provincial law in the study regions of BC and Manitoba. This research also refers to a number of participants in the EA process including decision-makers/regulators, proponents, consultants, and interveners. Regulators or decision-makers refer to people/organizations responsible for coordinating and carrying out the EA process or associated public hearings and producing EA reports and recommendations. Proponents refer to the company or individual submitting the application for the development project. Consultants refer to individuals and companies employed by proponents, Indigenous governments, or other organizations to complete the EA or to provide expertise in analyzing the assessment. Interveners is a regulatory term that refers to government, research, non-governmental organizations, Indigenous governments, or organizations directly affected by the project that are formally involved in the EA process to provide input, information, and recommendations for regulators and decision-makers. 1.3 Theoretical Approach This research employs theoretical approaches drawn from the EA and CEA research fields as well as Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and Indigenous ecology. The EA and CEA 9 research fields are heavily informed by theories of policy analysis and evaluation (Vedung, 2017), and are driven by the goal of producing knowledge that is applicable to practice. This project uses a pragmatic paradigm where the focus is not only on exploring theory and existing processes, but also on producing knowledge about assessing cumulative social effects that is relevant to EA practice (Maxcy, 2003). A pragmatic paradigm is focused on constructive knowledge, and defines and understands truth as knowledge that effectively addresses a problem or question (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Maxcy, 2003). This is an important lens for this research. The focus of this research is not on describing or representing cumulative social effects or the personal or lived experiences of individuals impacted by development; the focus is on the processes and structures of assessment and decision-making themselves, the way that such social impacts are accounted for, and opportunities for change. This positioning is reflective of the policy analysis and pragmatic underpinnings of the EA and CEA research fields, and was also directly informed by discussions with practitioners and provincial and Indigenous governments in the case study regions. I also draw on SIA research and Indigenous ecology to define and understand the concept of social cumulative effects. As a research field, CEA has been driven by a positivist paradigm whereby impacts exist to the extent that they are measurable using western scientific methods. However, many have critiqued the application of this lens to social impacts since it has meant that there is a tendency to defer to prescriptive indicators and checklists and to focus on the “things that can be counted” (Vanclay, 2002) with the available data rather than those components and issues which are most important for the people affected by developments or land use changes (Halseth et al., 2016). Social impacts as it is defined in SIA research includes measurable social changes, but also the ways in which those changes are experienced and 10 perceived at individual and community scales (Slootweg et al., 2001). This research does not reject positivist impact assessment approaches, but draws from SIA research and Indigenous ecology where environmental indicators and their assessment are considered inextricably linked with social and cultural values, and social impacts are understood and perceived and experienced within social contexts (Burdge & Vanclay, 1996; Gunderson & Holling, 2001; Slootweg et al., 2001; Sterling et al., 2017). This lens introduces a more constructivist approach to impact identification and assessment than is offered by traditional CEA framings during project EAs, but it does align with challenges observed in practice. Cumulative effects are often raised by communities and Indigenous groups expressing concerns about multiple developments and impacts on their local scale and has become clear that the concerns of individuals and communities include tangible biophysical and social changes and their perception of what these changes mean in terms of personal values, culture, land use, local economies, and social well-being (Atlin & Gibson, 2017; Franks et al., 2013; Gillingham & Johnson, 2016; Halseth, 2016). In addition, the temporal context and legacy of development is vitally important for understanding social cumulative impacts (Booth & Skelton, 2011; Christensen & Krogman, 2012; Hanna et al., 2016). Past injustices, negative relationships with industry, and the legacy of colonization and Indigenous rights contribute to the way that impacts are psychologically experienced by people (Mantyka- Pringle et al., 2017; Sandlos & Keeling, 2016). The extent to which social impacts are measurable and scientifically verifiable becomes in some ways secondary to the extent to which people feel that they exist and bring these concerns forward during EA and throughout the life of the project. This research adopts this lens and understanding of social impacts with the aim of providing insight that reflects this reality and supports improvements in CEA practice. 11 Finally, colonization and its role in resource management is fundamental to understanding cumulative effects and CEA policy within Canada. Cumulative effects have become a particularly important issue for Indigenous peoples within Canada, and internationally, due to Indigenous perspectives on ecology, the long legacy and disproportionate impacts of resource development on Indigenous peoples and communities, and the implications for rights and governance (Horowitz et al., 2018; Le Meur, Horowitz, & Mennesson, 2013; Sandlos & Keeling, 2016). Unrestricted, and largely unregulated, resource development in Canadian history has led to devasting ecological changes which significantly impacted Indigenous communities dependent on the environment for their livelihoods and social systems. Cumulative effects also fundamentally challenge the government’s project-based approach to consultation and engagement with Indigenous peoples (Booth & Skelton, 2011;Bradley & McClurg, 2012; Moore et al., 2017; Tollefson & Wipond, 1998). For this research, this legacy and this context is important, and CEA is viewed as both a tool to better understand and assess the impacts of development activities and as interconnected with Indigenous rights and governance. 1.4 Thesis structure This thesis is written as a series of distinct papers each with introductions, methods, results, and conclusion sections. Due to this format, discussions of methods and limitations are present within each chapter rather than in a distinct standalone chapter. Chapter 2 and 3 provide the scholarly foundation for the research and address research objective 1 (Table 1). Chapter 2 reports on the results of a literature review focused on what is known about cumulative social effects including how they are defined, theoretical challenges, and innovations in methods and data collection. Chapter 3 is focused on a targeted literature review on the relevance of 12 cumulative social effects to Indigenous rights and interests with a concentration on the Canadian context. In chapter 4, the two study regions, their regulatory contexts, and history of hydroelectric development, are described and the results of the EA document review and case study analysis are discussed. Chapter 5 and 6 build on this work and focus on the results of semi-structured interviews with professionals directly involved in hydroelectric EAs in each study region and provide a critical discussion of the findings and recommendations for improving EA practice. Chapter 5 presents the results related to the process and challenges assessing cumulative social effects addressing research objective 2 (Table 1), and chapter 6 focuses on the capacity and expertise required to carry out such an assessment addressing research objective 3 (Table 1). Chapter 7 provides the conclusion for this thesis and briefly summarizes key findings reflecting on the research objectives and priorities for improving CEA. 1.5 References Atlin, C., & Gibson, R. (2017). Lasting regional gains from non-renewable resource extraction: The role of sustainability-based cumulative effects assessment and regional planning for mining development in Canada. Extractive Industries and Society, 4(1), 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2017.01.005 Bakker, K., & Hendriks, R. (2019). Contested knowledges in hydroelectric project assessment: The case of Canada’s Site C Project. Water, 11(3), 406. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030406 Ball, M., Somers, G., Wilson, J. E., Tanna, R., Chung, C., Duro, D. C., & Seitz, N. (2013). Scale, assessment components, and reference conditions: Issues for cumulative effects assessment in Canadian watersheds. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 9(3), 370–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1332 13 BC Environmental Assessment Office. (2016). Cumulative effects and BC environmental assessment. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/environmental-assessments/guidance-documents/eao-cumulative-effects-and-bc-environmental-assessments.pdf Blakley, J. A. E. (2021). Introduction: Foundations, issues and contemporary challenges in cumulative impact assessment. In J. A. E. Blakely & D. M. Franks (Eds.), Handbook of Cumulative Impact Assessment (pp. 2–20). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783474028.00011 Booth, A., & Skelton, N. W. (2011). “We Are Fighting for Ourselves” — First Nations’ Evaluation of British Columbia and Canadian Environmental Assessment Processes. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 13(03), 367–404. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333211003936 Bradley, A., & McClurg, M. (2012). Consultation and Cumulative Effects: Is there a role for the duty to consult in addressing concerns about over-development? . Aboriginal Law Section, 15(3), 1–6. Burdge, R. J., & Vanclay, F. (1996). Social Impact Assessment: a Contribution To the State of the Art Series. Impact Assessment, 14(1), 59–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/07349165.1996.9725886 Chilima, J. S., Gunn, J. A. E., Noble, B. F., & Patrick, R. J. (2013). Institutional considerations in watershed cumulative effects assessment and management. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 31(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.760227 Christensen, L., & Krogman, N. (2012). Social Thresholds and their Translation into Social- ecological Management Practices. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 5. 14 Clean Environment Commission. (2018). A Review of the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment for Hydroelectric Development on the Nelson, Burntwood, and Churchill River Systems. Winnipeg, Manitoba. http://www.cecmanitoba.ca/cecm/archive/ Cohn, J., Evenden, M., & Landry, M. (2020). Water powers: The Second World War and the mobilization of hydroelectricity in Canada, the United States, and Germany. Journal of Global History, 15(1), 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1740022819000366 Cronmiller, J. G., & Noble, B. F. (2018). The discontinuity of environmental effects monitoring in the Lower Athabasca region of Alberta, Canada: institutional challenges to long-term monitoring and cumulative effects management. Environmental Reviews, 180(November 2017), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2017-0083 Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Part III strategies of inquiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research. (pp. 243-251). Sage Publications. Duinker, P. N., & Greig, L. A. (2006). The Impotence of Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada: Ailments and Ideas for Redeployment. Environmental Management, 37(2), 153– 161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0240-5 Franks, D. M., Brereton, D., & Moran, C. J. (2013). The cumulative dimensions of impact in resource regions. Resources Policy, 38(4), 640–647. Gunderson, L., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2001). Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington (DC): Island Press. Gunn, J., & Noble, B. F. (2011). Conceptual and methodological challenges to integrating SEA and cumulative effects assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(2), 154– 160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009.12.003 15 Halseth, G. R. (2016). Cumulative Effects and Impacts: Introducing a Community Perspective. In M. P. Gillingham, G. R. Halseth, C. J. Johnson, & M. W. Parkes (Eds.), Integration Imperative: Cumulative Environmental, Community and Health Effects of Multiple Natural Resource Developments (pp. 83–117). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Hanna, P., Vanclay, F., Langdon, E. J., & Arts, J. (2016). The importance of cultural aspects in impact assessment and project development: reflections from a case study of a hydroelectric dam in Brazil. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 34(4), 306–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2016.1184501 Harriman, J. a. E., & Noble, B. F. (2008). Characterizing project and strategic approaches to regional cumulative effects assessment in canada. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 10(01), 25–50. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333208002944 Horowitz, L. S., Keeling, A., Lévesque, F., Rodon, T., Schott, S., & Thériault, S. (2018). Indigenous peoples’ relationships to large-scale mining in post/colonial contexts: Toward multidisciplinary comparative perspectives. Extractive Industries and Society, 5(3), 404– 414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2018.05.004 Johnson, C. J. (2016). Defining and Identifying Cumulative Environmental, Health, and Community Impacts. In M. P. Gillingham, G. R. Halseth, C. J. Johnson, & M. W. Parkes (Eds.), Integration Imperative: Cumulative Environmental, Community and Health Effects of Multiple Natural Resource Developments (pp. 21–49). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Le Meur, P. Y., Horowitz, L. S., & Mennesson, T. (2013). “Horizontal” and “vertical” diffusion: The cumulative influence of Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) on mining policy- 16 production in New Caledonia. Resources Policy, 38(4), 648–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.02.004 Loxton, E. A., Schirmer, J., & Kanowski, P. (2013). Exploring the social dimensions and complexity of cumulative impacts: A case study of forest policy changes in Western Australia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 31(1), 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.755353 Mantyka-Pringle, C. S., Jardine, T. D., Bradford, L., Bharadwaj, L., Kythreotis, A. P., Fresque- Baxter, J., ... the Slave River and Delta Partnership. (2017). Bridging science and traditional knowledge to assess cumulative impacts of stressors on ecosystem health. Environment International, 102, 125–137. Maxcy, S. J. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Part III strategies of inquiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research. (pp. 243-251). Sage Publications. Mitchell, R. E., & Parkins, J. R. (2011). The challenge of developing social indicators for cumulative effects assessment and land use planning. Ecology and Society, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04148-160229 Moore, M.-L., von der Porten, S., & Castleden, H. (2017). Consultation is not consent: hydraulic fracturing and water governance on Indigenous lands in Canada. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 4(1), e1180. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1180 Noble, B., Liu, J., & Hackett, P. (2017). The Contribution of Project Environmental Assessment to Assessing and Managing Cumulative Effects: Individually and Collectively 17 Insignificant? Environmental Management, 59(4), 531–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267- 016-0799-7 Peyton, J. (2017). Unbuilt Environments: Tracing Postwar Development in Northwest British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Sandlos, J., & Keeling, A. (2016). Toxic Legacies, Slow Violence, and Environmental Injustice at Giant Mine, Northwest Territories. The Northern Review, 42(42), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.22584/nr42.2016.002 Sheelanere, P., Noble, B. F., & Patrick, R. J. (2013). Institutional requirements for watershed cumulative effects assessment and management: Lessons from a Canadian trans-boundary watershed. Land Use Policy, 30(1), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.03.001 Slootweg, R., Vanclay, F., & van Schooten, M. (2001). Function evaluation as a framework for the integration of social and environmental impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154601781767186 Sterling, E. J., Ticktin, T., Kipa, T., Morgan, K., Cullman, G., Alvira, D., ... Wali, A. (2017). Culturally Grounded Indicators of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Environment and Society: Advances in Research, 8(2017), 63–95. Thieme, M., Tickner, D., Grill, G., Carvallo, J., Goichot, M., Hartmann, J., . . . Opperman, J. (2021). Navigating trade-offs between dams and river conservation. Global Sustainability, 4, E17. Tollefson, C., & Wipond, K. (1998). Cumulative environmental impacts and aboriginal rights. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18(4), 371–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195- 9255(98)00011-0 18 Vanclay, F. (2002). Conceptualising social impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(3), 183–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(01)00105-6 Vedung, E. (2017). Public policy and program evaluation. New York: Routledge 19 Chapter 2: What are Cumulative Social Effects? 2.1 Introduction This chapter describes the results of a review of scholarly literature focused on assessing and evaluating cumulative social effects. Impact assessment encompasses several subdisciplines focused on accounting for the full range of impacts that might result from resource development and land use including environmental, social, health, economic, and cultural impacts. Cumulative effects, that occur due to the interaction of multiple activities and impacts over time and space, have been a persistent issue across these disciplines. In addition, the application of CEA has been primarily focused on biophysical impact assessment, and the accumulation of impacts to human social systems is often not well accounted for. The objective of this review was to identify what is known about cumulative social effects including how they are defined, and existing frameworks and methods for assessment. Key word searches and reflective reviews of reference lists were conducted to capture research within the CEA field and within other disciplines and impacts assessment iterations. The results provide insight into what is known about accounting for cumulative social effects and highlights key challenges and areas for future research. 2.2 Literature Review Method The review began with keyword searches in two databases: Web of Science and Scopus. In Web of Science, I searched within topic (paper title, keywords, abstract) using the following terms: “cumulative effects assessment” or “cumulative impact(s)” or “cumulative effect(s) and “social impact(s)” or “social impact assessment” or “health impact(s)” or “health impact assessment” or “economic impact(s)” or “economic impact assessment” or “cultural impact(s)” 20 or “gender based assessment” or “gender impact assessment” or “gender”. The same search terms were used in Scopus to search article topic, abstracts, and keywords. I restricted the results to sources in English and to peer reviewed articles and books or book chapters, which were readily accessible online. I did not exclude references by year; all sources published between 1900 and 2020 were considered. The results of all searches were reviewed manually for relevancy, and a relatively small list of sources was identified (n=40). This approach does have limitations in that it restricts results to those where the search terms were explicitly used. Cumulative effects is a concept that may be addressed in a number of different ways across several research fields, for example “legacy effects”, “regional effects” without explicitly using the terms “cumulative impact/effect”. Cumulative social effects are also often explored tangentially in research or case studies which did not at the outset intend to address these issues, but were confronted with them nonetheless. Therefore, I took additional steps to capture a wider range of literature. First, I also used the search terms in Google Scholar to identify a broader scope of peer reviewed sources and books and book chapters, sorting results by relevancy (to the search terms). Second, I reviewed the reference lists of highly relevant articles. This “snowballing” allowed me to capture key articles and important foundational or seminal works that are relevant to the issue of cumulative social effects, but that were not returned through the use of search terms. Finally, I utilized reference lists that have been compiled by the International Association for Impact Assessment for Social Impact Assessment, Health Impact Assessment, and Cumulative Effects Assessment. This combination of approaches returned a substantial list of relevant resources. I recognize that the process described above is responsive and adaptive rather than a purely systematic article selection strategy (Grant & Booth, 2009). This review was confronted with the 21 challenge of a relatively small number of explicitly relevant literature results, but a staggeringly large selection of potentially relevant literature. I believe that this approach was appropriate given the exploratory state of research in respect to cumulative social effects, and my goal to incorporate knowledge across interrelated impact assessment disciplines. I do not claim to have captured the full spectrum of relevant literature, but the results include a representative selection. The refined list of relevant resources included in this review consisted of 128 peer reviewed journal articles and 11 books/book chapters (Table 2). Of the journal articles, 45 are review or conceptual papers, and 83 are empirical or case study research. The full text of each of these sources was reviewed and annotations were completed using a consistent template to record the context, methodology, key findings, and the significance of the paper (Appendix 1). These annotations were imported into NVivo Qualitative Analysis Software and thematically coded based on the categories defined in the annotation template. Table 1: Sources included in review Search Strategy Keyword search of Web of Science and Scopus:“cumulative effects assessment” OR “cumulative impact(s)” OR “cumulative effect(s) AND “social impact(s)” OR “social impact assessment” OR “health impact(s)” OR “health impact assessment” OR “economic impact(s)” OR “economic impact assessment” OR “cultural impact(s)” OR “gender based assessment” OR “gender impact assessment” OR “gender”. 40 Google scholar search, review of reference lists of relevant articles, and review of best practice reference lists 99 Included Articles Journal articles Review 45 Empirical/case study research 83 Books/book chapters 11 139 22 2.3. Results A key observation is that the review uncovered little research specifically and explicitly exploring cumulative social effects and how to assess them. It is clear that cumulative social effects has a long history as a theoretical part of many impact assessment disciplines including CEA, Social Impact Assessment, and Health Impact Assessment. There is no shortage of research supporting the importance of understanding linkages between social and biophysical systems for planning and resource management decision-making, or in understanding impacts to these systems as cumulative across space and over time. However, I found little direct insight in terms of how an assessment of cumulative social effects should, or could, be carried out and few examples evaluating the efficacy of CEA frameworks or those drawn from other impact assessment fields for an assessment of cumulative social effects. Case study research has identified cumulative social effects as a challenge and demonstrated that applications of EA are being confronted with these impacts, but there is limited specific guidance and practical support for how to address them. In the following sections, I define the concept of cumulative social effects by exploring definitions of cumulative effects and social impacts that have emerged through scholarly research. I then outline the CEA process and discuss theoretical challenges for cumulative social effects and highlight emerging methods. 2.3.1 Defining Cumulative Social Effects There is no single accepted definition of cumulative effects, and how to understand and frame this concept has been discussed at length in research. It is broadly supported that cumulative effects result from the combination of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 23 activities (Blakely, 2021). The term cumulative suggests a need to account for impacts from multiple sources as they accumulate and influence each other across geographic regions and over time (Blakely, 2021). Some define cumulative effects to capture not only human land-use or resource development activities, but also natural phenomena and large scale issues such as climate change which may influence and combine with those activities (Johnson, 2016). Numerous types of cumulative effects have also been discussed including additive, synergistic, incremental, and exponential effects (Blakely, 2021; Johnson, 2016). A challenge arises in that cumulative effects may occur in a gradual or piecemeal fashion and be difficult to detect until a tipping point or unacceptable condition is reached. This cumulative nature of change has been described as “death by a thousand cuts” or the “tyranny of small decisions” whereby the individual impacts from different sources may not appear significant, but when considered together may be devastating (Johnson, 2016; Noble, Liu, & Hackett, 2017). The issue of cumulative effects demands large spatial, temporal, and also large conceptual scales. It has been consistently argued that the definition of cumulative effects must be inclusive of impacts to social and economic systems in addition to the biophysical environment (Halseth, 2016; Mitchell & Parkins, 2011). Social impacts have been defined in many different ways across impact assessment disciplines. Burdge and Vanclay (1996) provide an often-cited definition which defines social impacts to include all social and cultural changes that alter the way that people “live, work, play, relate to one another, organize to meet their needs, and generally cope as members of society” (p. 59). This includes changes to peoples culture, community services and infrastructure, governance and political systems, environment, health and wellbeing, and economy (Burdge & Vanclay, 1996). An essential distinction is that social impacts are not just measurable social or demographic changes, but must be felt and 24 experienced physically and/or perceptually at the level of individual, household, and/or community (Serje, 2017; Slootweg, Vanclay, & van Schooten, 2001; Vanclay, 2002). In some research fields and applications of impact assessment, social, economic, health, and/or cultural impacts are distinguished and defined separately and addressed through different processes. For the purpose of this review I use this broad definition of social impacts, which is inclusive of all social, economic, health, and cultural impacts affecting people and their lives. Cumulative social effects then could be thought of as social impacts which are incremental, combined, and successive across space and time (Franks, Brereton, & Moran, 2011). The importance of understanding social impacts as cumulative has been recognized in impact assessment disciplines fields such as Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and Health Impact Assessment (HIA), and has been emphasized in research on environmental justice and Indigenous rights and ecology (Davies et al., 2018; Franks et al., 2011; Huang & London, 2016; Krieg & Faber, 2004; Loxton, Schirmer, & Kanowski, 2013; Willsteed, Birchenough, Gill, & Jude, 2018). Similarly, the importance of understanding cumulative effects as social, economic, and cultural has been recognized in CEA research and applications (Halseth, 2016; Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017; Mitchell & Parkins, 2011). As noted above, definitions and understandings of social cumulative effects are readily available by drawing on these research fields. But, these definitions of cumulative social effects are not often formalized in regulation and guidance, and translating theory into practice has been a challenge. In one sense, cumulative social effects are an intuitive and an easily understood concept, particularly from the perspective of individuals observing and experiencing the impacts of multiple activities over time; human and environmental systems are interconnected, and impacts from an action do not occur in isolation from the existing context. However, from a regulatory perspective, and the perspective of 25 industry and governments, cumulative social effects represent a complex challenge. Many have observed that regulators and practitioners have weak understandings of cumulative effects, and definitions offered in legislation or guidance are narrow compared to those offered through research (Duinker, Burbidge, Boardley, & Greig, 2013; Foley et al., 2017; Gunn & Noble, 2011). Identifying, assessing, and managing cumulative social effects adds considerable complexity to EA and broader environmental management and planning processes. Cumulative social effects are dispersed over time and space, may be difficult to detect or to quantify and tie to specific actions or projects, and are manifested within complex social and ecological systems. Developing processes to define, assess, and make decisions about cumulative social effects in a consistent and practical way is a fundamental regulatory challenge. 2.3.2 CEA Frameworks CEA refers to a systematic approach for assessing the magnitude and significance of cumulative environmental change. Approaches to CEA have evolved over four decades of research. There have been a myriad of CEA processes and frameworks proposed which have helped to evolve how practitioners approach and think about cumulative effects, but have also added complexity. For instance Duinker et al (2013) identifies a selection of 17 distinct CEA frameworks drawn from the literature along with a diverse range of definitions and conceptualizations of CEA. Such an assortment of approaches may “serve more to confuse than to clarify” when in essence, most frameworks mirror the essential elements of EA adding a set of considerations to account for cumulative change; CEA is in short EA “done right” (Duinker et al., 2013, p.45). The basic steps for CEA then align with those of an EA: a scoping phase to identify Valued Components (VCs) on which to base the analysis and to define the physical and 26 temporal boundaries of the assessment; an analysis phase to identify the past, present, and future stresses that may impact VCs, characterize the baseline condition, predict cumulative impacts; a significance determination; and a management and implementation phase where additional data and monitoring gaps are identified (Duinker et al., 2013; Jones, 2016; MacDonald, 2000). This EA inspired approach to CEA has been well supported by literature, but has also received critiques in its practical implementation (Johnson, Gillingham, Halseth, & Parkes, 2016). In reality, CEA has often become a simplified checklist or an ‘add on’ to EA, rather than a proactive part of planning (Sinclair, Doelle, & Duinker, 2017). The focus on large scale projects, biophysical impacts, and positivist science has also limited the extent to which social considerations and community input is included. As CEA seeks to become regional and planning focused, and include a holistic range of social and biophysical impacts, the traditional EA methods and tools are not necessarily fit to purpose. Some have advocated for re-framing cumulative impacts as a mindset or a lens by which to assess all impacts (Johnson et al., 2016; Sinclair et al., 2017). Since all impacts are in a sense cumulative, greater clarity may be achieved by focusing on the “cumulative dimension of impacts” or applying “cumulative thinking” rather than devoting effort to define what is and is not a cumulative impact (Sinclair et al., 2017). Johnson et al. (2016) argue this cumulative thinking is about a revolution, rather than evolution, of practice and theory, where CEA is about framing planning and decision-making, rather than just informing it. Under this perspective, the concept of cumulative effects becomes a lens to apply to every aspect of an assessment or decision-making process, rather than purely a methodology or discrete list of impacts to consider. However, challenges may exist in practically applying this “cumulative thinking”, to project evaluations and regulatory decision-making and advancements are needed to integrate biophysical and social components of the environment. 27 2.3.3 Cumulative Effects Assessment Theory In this section, the theoretical foundation of CEA is discussed and two broad challenges for cumulative social effects are highlighted. First, a fundamental issue for CEA and management is the lack of theoretical and methodological basis for addressing these social impacts and their relationship to biophysical changes. Second, the complexity of decision-making is not well reflected in the theoretical foundation of CEA research and practice and its assumptions about the direct utility of scientific information for management. 2.3.3.1 CEA Theory and Social Impacts CEA, like EA, evolved out of an ecological and technical scientific perspective. This has meant that it is often designed to focus on, and to seek to quantify, observable biophysical phenomenon and impacts (Cashmore, 2004; Bond, Morrison-Saunders, Gunn, Pope, & Retief, 2015). But this theoretical basis does not necessarily support the social impacts that a CEA is also intended to assess. It has been noted that the application of a positivist and western scientific lens to social impacts has meant that there is a tendency to defer to prescriptive indicators and checklists and to focus on the “things that can be counted” (Vanclay, 2002) with the available data and to take a reductionist approach to a concept that is by nature integrative and holistic (Gunn & Noble, 2011; MacDonald, 2000; Willsteed et al., 2018). In addition, the notion that cumulative effects are identifiable and knowable with a degree of objective certainty has been challenged since such impacts are part of complex social and ecological systems and subject to individual interpretation and experience (Gillingham & Johnson, 2016; Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017). Within the EA and CEA fields much of the progress made has been in terms 28 of improving monitoring information and advancing scientific methodology for impact prediction and modelling of specific VCs (Cashmore, 2004; Duinker et al., 2013; Sutherland et al., 2016). While such advances are important, less attention has been devoted to advancing qualitative methodology or developing alternative theoretical approaches to account for social impacts and the relationships between ecological and social impacts and values (Moran, Franks, & Sonter, 2013; Parkes, 2016; Parkins, 2011; Willsteed et al., 2018). A limited selection of theoretical frameworks have been developed and applied specifically to the issue of cumulative social effects, many drawn from SIA research. For instance, Ross and McGee (2006) evaluated three early conceptual frameworks for SIA and applied them to a case study of the cumulative impacts of lead contamination in a rural community: the community response model, the social organization model, and the community organization model. Loxton et al (2013) applied a CEA and management framework drawn from Franks et al (2010) to social impacts in a case study of forest management in Western Australia. Halseth (2016) proposes two frameworks to examine cumulative social effects at the community level: the four infrastructures model (physical, human, community, and economic) and a social cohesion/social capital model. There has been an evolution in recent SIA conceptual frameworks to become focused on broad concepts like quality of life or well-being, which is based on the premise that people and their capabilities and prosperity should be the central criteria for assessing development. The Sustainable Livelihood Approach is an example of such thinking and was influential in the development of the United Nations Human Development Index (Coakes & Sadler, 2011). Smyth and Vanclay (2017) expanded on this and recently proposed a social framework for evaluating development projects, centred on human rights and well-being and allowing integration of biophysical, social, economic, and health values. 29 These frameworks offer a social science and constructivist lens that understands impacts as both observable and experienced by people and communities. Culturally informed methodologies that have been applied under theoretical frameworks within the SIA and HIA field (Hanna, Vanclay, Langdon, & Arts, 2016; Lockie, 2007; O’Faircheallaigh, 2009; Tyson, Lantz, & Ban, 2018), could provide useful insight and diversify the practice of CEA. Gender Based Assessment + (GBA+) is also an important emerging field of research and practice that could provide theoretical support for a social CEA. I found no peer reviewed literature explicitly addressing cumulative effects and GBA+, but reports and case studies illustrate that it is clear that gender and identity is an important dimension of social impacts and the field may offer important insight into framing impacts in respect to the specific context of the individuals and communities experiencing them (Koutouki, Lofts, & Davidian, 2018; Sharma, 2010) Theoretical frameworks drawn from social-ecological systems research may also be useful in supporting an assessment of cumulative social effects (Christensen & Krogman, 2012; Willsteed et al., 2018). A social- ecological system refers to a coupled system of people and nature, where humans and social systems are inextricably linked to biophysical components (Mauerhofer et al., 2018; McGinnis & Ostrom, 2014). Theory and concepts drawn from social-ecological systems research may offer a helpful lens to apply to the concept of cumulative impacts. For instance, Willsteed et al (2018) applied a framework developed by Ostrom (Ostrom, 2009) to orient strategic CEA for marine renewable energy. They apply changes in social and ecological resilience, which refers to the persistence of relationships in a system and its capacity to absorb change, as a measure for CEA. Other researchers have also utilized socio-ecological thinking to inform the development of indicators and ecological thresholds (Ho, Eger, & Courtenay, 2018; Olander et al., 2018; Sterling et al., 2017). For instance, Sterling et al. (2017) 30 adapt and expand on social-ecological systems theory to develop indicators for social-ecological resilience. They describe these “biocultural indicators” as not only reflective of interactions between social and ecological systems, but as culturally grounded and determined by local understandings of the factors which drive a system (Sterling et al., 2017; Sterling, Ticktin, et al., 2017). While this framework has not yet been applied explicitly to a CEA case study, it parallels research that has explored socio-ecological thresholds for cumulative effects (Christensen & Krogman, 2012; Mitchell & Parkins, 2011) and could represent a future area of research. 2.3.3.2 Connection to Decision-making One key goal of CEA is to contribute to decision-making. Ideally, CEA facilitates sustainable environmental management decisions that are better informed about the full range of impacts occurring in an environment and the consequences that may result from development activities (Foley et al., 2017). According to Bardecki (1990) “assessing and managing cumulative impacts is planning” (p. 322). However, one of the most common critiques of CEA is its isolation from meaningful decision-making at both the project and regional level (Hegmann & Yarranton, 2011; Jones, 2016). Despite the goals of CEA as a planning and management tool, there has been a lack of attention to its implementation and theoretical connection to decision making. EA is rooted in a rationalist or technocratic view of the role of scientific information in policy, and the assumption that better information will lead to better decisions (Bond et al., 2015; Cashmore, 2004). This assumption also underpins the origins and evolution of CEA (Parkins, 2011) where efforts have often focused on improvements in monitoring, modelling, and prediction to improve the information available for decision-making. However, the utility of 31 monitoring and data advances for improving decision-making has been repeatedly questioned since organizational capacity and political factors influence how, and whether, the information generated is effectively used (Chilima, Blakely, Noble, & Patrick, 2017; Parkins, 2011; Sheelanere, Noble, & Patrick, 2013). As Hegmann and Yarranton (2011) note, CEA cannot be useful for decision-making without determining societal values and goals and the way that biophysical change is related to human systems. Many have argued that the rationalist framework is poorly suited to the reality of EA and CEA decision-making (Bond et al., 2015; Cashmore, 2004; Noble & Nwanekezie, 2017). The idea that better information will lead to better decisions is not reflective of the organizational and management context in which CEA and monitoring initiatives are implemented. Any EA or CEA process is confronted not only with questions about what types of impacts will result from an action, but also whether or not those impacts are acceptable, and what kinds of activities should or should not take place (Arnold, Hanna, & Noble, 2019; Hegmann & Yarranton, 2011). Such decisions are embedded in societal values, political systems, and subjective interpretations about significance and what actions and consequences are acceptable. Parkins (2011) for instance argues that CEA and the resulting decisions are more concerned with economics and the maintenance of political power than with scientific information about impact prediction. Duinker et al (2013) similarly observes that the scientific aspects of CEA must be embedded in socio-political processes in order to have an influence on decisions. Rationalist decision-making also assumes that generating objective rational information about cumulative effects is an achievable goal and ignores the inherent uncertainty of impact prediction. According to Bond et al (2015), the assumption that decision-makers behave 32 rationally and that science in EA can function to understand cause and effect and limit uncertainty does not align with the reality of EA decision making: ...there is cause for concern on both assumptions, with little evidence that the results of [impact assessments] are either rational, or used rationally in decision-making, and only limited evidence that science is certain. This means that the positivist theory of [impact assessment] is not fit-for- purpose, meaning that it does not explain how [impact assessment] works or influences decision makers, and it certainly does not facilitate the consideration of uncertainty, ambiguity or ignorance (p. 98). In addition, the information included in EA and CEA is not merely scientific knowledge, but also qualitative descriptions of change, public testimony, and local and Indigenous knowledge. The inclusion of such qualitative information into decision-making has been a persistent challenge, and does not align with a rationalist perspective. EA and CEA has been critiqued for narrowly framing assessment and decision-making as “scientific” matters and considering other forms knowledge and information as merely anecdotal (Booth & Skelton, 2011; Sandlos & Keeling, 2016a). Many have argued that Indigenous knowledge in particular is considered only when in alignment with science and is often restricted to subjects which are considered “traditional” or “cultural” (Houde, 2007; Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017). The need to more meaningfully incorporate a wider range of knowledge and qualitative information has been argued on principles of social justice, equality, and democracy, but is also practically necessary; information about historical, social, and cumulative impacts is often raised by community members, Indigenous groups, and the public during assessment processes regardless of whether the process has been scoped to solicit them (Sandlos & Keeling, 2016b, 2016a). A broad range of information, beyond quantitative science, is presented to decision-makers during EA and CEA processes, and there are several political, social, economic, and organizational factors that may play a part in weighing and evaluating that information. Insight may be gained by turning to SIA and HIA knowledge and frameworks where participation, 33 deliberation, collaboration, and political values take a central role and which may help to advance a better understanding of the complex reality of management decision-making (Hanna, Vanclay, Langdon, & Arts, 2016; Lockie, 2007; O’Faircheallaigh, 2009; Tyson, Lantz, & Ban, 2018). Establishing a link between decision-making and good practice for CEA is an emerging area of research, and more attention is needed to explore how information about ecological and social impacts drawn from a variety of sources could be effectively used in decision-making. 2.3.4 Methods Methodological tools employed during CEA are diverse and range across many disciplines. Smit and Spaling (1995) describe two broad categories of CEA methods: analytical and planning. Analytical methods refer to those that are focused on prediction, and where the normative questions about the acceptability and management of the impacts are external to the method. This may include ecological modelling, spatial analysis, and monitoring. Planning methods refer to those where the normative questions are internal, and the focus is on assessment and weighing impacts, rather than solely on prediction. Common examples of planning approaches include scenario planning, matrices, and indices (Francis & Hamm, 2011; Spyce, Weber, & Adamowicz, 2012). An ideal CEA incorporates a combination of analytical and planning methods. In respect to cumulative social effects, there is a unique set of methodological challenges for indicator selection, impact prediction, and decision-making. While data availability and consistency remain a challenge, indicators of ecological change have been well studied, and are supported by a wide range of guidance materials and research. Establishing indicators for cumulative social effects has been more elusive. Research on social indicators for cumulative 34 effects modelling has been critiqued as predominantly descriptive with few linkages, or causal relationships, to land use change (Mitchell & Parkins, 2011). Narrative descriptions of lived experiences, social issues, and economic change dispersed over long time periods can be difficult to associate with distinct development activities or landscape changes and incorporate into environmental management processes (Christensen, Krogman, & Parlee, 2010; Gillingham & Johnson, 2016). Where quantitative approaches for social change are applied, such as using statistical data to indicate changes over time, they are often critiqued as limited by data availability and a narrow selection of easily measurable attributes, for instance job creation (Davies et al., 2018). A key challenge is that while biophysical thresholds can, to an extent, be set and consistently applied, social thresholds vary across time and space (Christensen & Krogman, 2012; Uhlmann, Rifkin, Everingham, Head, & May, 2014). There are also challenges in how to integrate information about social change into decision-making and planning. Assessing social impacts and establishing significance thresholds for environmental changes requires collaboration and participation (Joseph, Zeeg, Angus, Usborne, & Mutrie, 2017), though participatory and community based approaches are applied inconsistently and are often not included in a meaningful way or only as a supplement to science based approaches (Gillingham et al., 2016). The fundamental tension is in the need to consistently integrate indicators for social cumulative change into management processes, and the reality that such indicators are embedded in individual experiences, local nuance, and cultural context and therefore are not transferable as a ready-made model or framework to be applied in different settings. Research and case studies exploring methodology for understanding cumulative social effects is an 35 emerging area of work. More attention is required to establish assessment and decision-making tools in this area, but a few trends have emerged which are described in the following sections. 2.3.4.1 Qualitative and Participatory Modelling One emerging methodology is qualitative modeling, which allows a structured approach for community level information and combining insight from multiple stakeholders (Hodgson & Halpern, 2019). These models include matrices and network diagrams, but recently there has been exploration into more complex and systematic approaches including Bayesian Belief Networks and Fuzzy Cognitive Maps. Bayesian Belief Networks are probability based models that provide a representation of key factors and interactions (Larsen, Raitio, Stinnerbom, & Wik-Karlsson, 2017; Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017). Key factors, or VCs, are represented by nodes in a diagram and their interactions with other nodes are represented as directed links. A conditional probability table is then constructed to calculate the probability of the values of a node based on every possible combination of values of the nodes impacting it. The information used to construct the Bayesian Belief Networks may be drawn from a wide range of sources such as empirical data, model simulation, expert opinions, and traditional or local knowledge, which makes it a useful tool to integrate qualitative and quantitative data and address complex social ecological systems (Larsen et al., 2017; Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017). For instance Mantyka-Pringle et al (2017), utilized Bayesian Belief Networks to operationalize a ‘two-eyed seeing approach’ for cumulative impacts that considered scientific knowledge and Indigenous knowledge simultaneously in the Slave River Delta, Northwest Territories. A closely related method is Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping. Fuzzy Cognitive Maps were originally developed by Kosko (1986) as a semi quantitative tool to structure expert knowledge. 36 In a FCM a number of ‘concepts’, such as VCs, are connected by linkages and ‘weights’ (valued at either greater than 0, 0, or less than zero) which represent the strength of relationships between each ‘concept’, however unlike BBNs the relationships are not necessarily unidirectional. Fuzzy Cognitive Maps are useful for understanding complex system dynamics among different variables, and allow the aggregation of knowledge and mental maps from a variety of individual knowledge holders. There are limited case studies utilizing Fuzzy Cognitive Maps for formal EA and CEA, however there are examples of their use in respect to modelling impacts across social and ecological systems (Gray et al., 2015; Hodgson & Halpern, 2019). 2.3.4.2 Spatial Analysis Spatial analysis has been used extensively within CEA to model and visualize biophysical change, however increasingly mapping is being leveraged by researchers focusing on social and health impact assessment and environmental justice (Huang & London, 2016; Sadd, Pastor, Morello-Frosch, Scoggins, & Jesdale, 2011; Tyson et al., 2018). Mapping and aggregating socio-economic information with environmental change and impacts has proved useful for identifying spatial inequalities and correlations between environmental stress and socio-economic vulnerability (Gillingham & Johnson, 2016; Huang & London, 2012, 2016; Pavlickova & Vyskupova, 2015; Sadd et al., 2011). For instance, Cumulative Environmental Vulnerability Assessment and mapping tools have been developed for California to identify communities that are vulnerable to pollution impacts. Huang and London (2016) combined an environmental hazard index, a social vulnerability index, and a health index, which were informed by participatory research and consultation, to visualize community vulnerability to cumulative effects in the San Joaquin Valley and the Coachella Valley, United States. They 37 found that areas with high levels of environmental hazards and were also higher in social vulnerability, which illustrated the social justice and equality dimension of cumulative effects and demonstrated the utility of the maps as screening tools for further study. Such mapping approaches are useful and powerful tools for understanding cumulative effects, but, researchers have also noted that mapping social information requires assumptions and the simplification of complex information and issues (Gillingham & Johnson, 2016; Halpern & Fujita, 2013; Tyson et al., 2018). In addition, the process is often limited, and driven, by data availability rather than the questions or issues that are important to communities (Halpern & Fujita, 2013). However, as part of a broader analysis these methods hold promise for integrating qualitative and quantitative information while providing visualization tools to facilitate analysis and decision-making (Parkes, 2016; Pradhan et al., 2015). 2.3.4.3 Qualitative and Narrative Methods Qualitative methodology is a weak spot in the CEA field (Hodgson & Halpern, 2019; Smit & Spaling, 1995). Purely quantitative methods have been characterized as problematic for understanding social impacts, though case studies utilizing and advancing qualitative methodology are comparably rare (Hodgson & Halpern, 2019). In a review of literature on the impacts of the Alberta Oil Sands on Indigenous communities, Westman and Joly (2019) observed that social science research, community based and ethnographic studies, have not kept pace with the rapid expansion of the industry and the growing body of scientific work on the impacts: “Overall, there is a gulf between increasingly authoritative findings in scientific literature and monitoring efforts and the slow pace and inconclusive nature of research (and inadequate or non-existent monitoring) around human health, cultural thresholds and indicators, 38 and socioeconomic impacts” (p. 239). Increasingly researchers are highlighting the limitations of methods commonly used in EA and the importance of community level realities and local values (Davies et al., 2018; Gillingham et al., 2016; Hanna et al., 2016). There have been some efforts to explore narrative and participatory based approaches, Indigenous place-based understandings, and ethnographic research. For example, Parlee et al (2012) drew on narrative based data and Traditional/Indigenous Ecological Knowledge of the Lesser Slave Lake Cree in Alberta. Narratives were used to provide descriptions and observations of change, and also to identify social-ecological thresholds in the relationship between traditional land users and resources, which allowed insight into the cumulative effects of over 100 years of resource development in this region (Parlee, Geertsema, & Willier, 2012). Qualitative and narrative based approaches have also been supported for facilitating better attention to cultural nuance and local level impacts. For instance, using a case study of hydroelectric development in Brazil, Hanna et al (2016) illustrate the tendency of IA to include excessive consideration of the environment at the detriment of social considerations, and highlight inadequate cultural understandings. They argue for increased attention to social science methodology and incorporating participatory, and ethnographic informed approaches into research on cumulative effects (Hanna et al., 2016). Such qualitative methodological approaches allow for additional insight that is not captured through traditional quantitative assessment approaches. Drawing on local experience allows for the large temporal scale required for understanding cumulative effects and the legacy impacts of development on social systems (Christensen & Krogman, 2012; Gillingham & Johnson, 2016). In addition, the integration of social values, land use, and community well-being may be better captured by methods which incorporate participation and collaboration (Eberhard, 39 Johnston, & Everingham, 2013; Hanna et al., 2016). However, qualitative approaches, such as narratives and ethnography, are demanding in terms of time and capacity, and may be difficult to translate into decision- making and management outcomes, or to associate with particular actions and developments (Hanna et al., 2016; Mitchell & Parkins, 2011). Assessing and managing cumulative effects requires an interdisciplinary perspective and a combination of methods drawn from both quantitative and qualitative disciplines (Halseth et al., 2016). Additional research is needed on how methods from social science research fields might be drawn into an integrated CEA processes and used to inform management and decision-making. 2.3.4.4 Methods that are “Fit to Purpose” Methods employed during CEA are diverse and span many disciplines. There is a clear need for the advancement of framework and methods that can consider multiple types of information and maintain a connection to decision-making and management (Hodgson & Halpern, 2019). Tools and processes for an integrative CEA, that includes social impacts are emerging within impact assessment research fields, and there are opportunities to draw on established knowledge from other social science research fields. There is perhaps not a shortage of available methods or tools, but rather a need to explore how a wider range of methods might be effectively applied to the issue of cumulative effects. An important note is that cumulative social effects are context specific and nuanced according to regional circumstances. Therefore, as stated by Halseth et al (2016), there is no “one size fits all” approach for managing cumulative effects. As methodological advancements are made they must be implemented in an adaptable and flexible way and respond to regional context in terms of the key impacts, and social and political factors (Halseth et al., 2016). 40 2.4 Conclusion Cumulative social effects are an intuitive and fairly simple concept. Understanding the consequences of activities and land use for environmental systems requires attention to context and the full spectrum of stressors that contribute to its state. However, in a practical sense assessing and managing cumulative social effects is a conceptual, technical, and political challenge that has persisted over nearly 40 years of IA practice across its many iterations. Social impacts have become a pressing challenge for CEA, and require renewed attention to its theoretical underpinnings and methodological approaches. Social issues have been consistently recognized as important, but specific attention to how to assess and make decisions about these impacts has been limited in CEA research and practice. The issue of cumulative social effects is ultimately about how best to frame EA and CEA to facilitate the sustainable management of social systems and the environmental systems on which they depend. An integrated CEA requires the evolution of approaches to incorporate social science perspectives and a more holistic conceptualization of impacts and environment. There are existing fields and tools for understanding social impacts that could be drawn upon, but the imperative to make use of them and the means to effectively incorporate these considerations into assessment and management must also be developed. 2.5. References Arnold, L. M., Hanna, K., & Noble, B. (2019). Freshwater cumulative effects and environmental assessment in the Mackenzie Valley, Northwest Territories: challenges and decision-maker needs. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 37(6), 516–525. 41 https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019.1596596 Bardecki, M. J. (1990). Coping with cumulative impacts: An assessment of legislative and administrative mechanisms. Impact Assessment, 8(1–2), 319–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/07349165.1990.9726046 Blakley, J. A. E. (2021). Introduction: Foundations, issues and contemporary challenges in cumulative impact assessment. In J. A. E. Blakely & D. M. Franks (Eds.), Handbook of Cumulative Impact Assessment (pp. 2–20). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783474028.00011 Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., Gunn, J. A. E., Pope, J., & Retief, F. (2015). Managing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment by embedding evolutionary resilience, participatory modelling and adaptive management. Journal of Environmental Management, 151, 97–104. Retrieved from 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.12.030%5Cnhttps://login.ezproxy.net.ucf.edu/login?auth=shibb&url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bai&AN=100873987&site=eds-live&scope=site Booth, A., & Skelton, N. W. (2011). “We Are Fighting for Ourselves” — First Nations’ Evaluation of British Columbia and Canadian Environmental Assessment Processes. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 13(03), 367–404. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333211003936 Burdge, R. J., & Vanclay, F. (1996). Social Impact Assessment: a Contribution To the State of the Art Series. Impact Assessment, 14(1), 59–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/07349165.1996.9725886 Cashmore, M. (2004). The role of science in environmental impact assessment: Process and 42 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 Chilima, J. S., Blakely, J. A. E., Noble, B. F., & Patrick, R. J. (2017). Institutional arrangements for assessing and managing cumulative effects on watersheds: Lessons from the Grand River watershed, Ontario, Canada. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 42(3), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2017.1292151 Christensen, L., & Krogman, N. (2012). Social Thresholds and their Translation into Social-ecological Management Practices. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 5. Coakes, S., & Sadler, A. (2011). Utilising a sustainable livelihoods approach to inform social impact assessment practice. In F. Vanclay & A. M. Esteves (Eds.), New directions in social impact assessment: Conceptual and methodological advances. (pp. 323–340). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Cheltenham. Davies, K., Fisher, K., Foley, M., Greenaway, A., Hewitt, J., Le Heron, R., … Lundquist, C. (2018). Navigating collaborative networks and cumulative effects for Sustainable Seas. Environmental Science and Policy, 83(August 2017), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.013 Duinker, P. N., Burbidge, E. L., Boardley, S. R., & Greig, L. A. (2013). Scientific dimensions of cumulative effects assessment: toward improvements in guidance for practice. Environmental Reviews, 21(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2012-0035 Eberhard, R., Johnston, N., & Everingham, J. A. (2013). A collaborative approach to address the cumulative impacts of mine-water discharge: Negotiating a cross-sectoral waterway partnership in the Bowen Basin, Australia. Resources Policy, 38(4), 678–687. 43 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.02.002 Foley, M. M., Mease, L. A., Martone, R. G., Prahler, E. E., Morrison, T. H., Murray, C. C., & Wojcik, D. (2017). The challenges and opportunities in cumulative effects assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.06.008 Francis, S. R., & Hamm, J. (2011). Looking forward: Using scenario modeling to support regional land use planning in northern Yukon, Canada. Ecology and Society, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04532-160418 Franks, D. M., Brereton, D., & Moran, C. J. (2010). Managing the cumulative impacts of coal mining on regional communities and environments in Australia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28(4), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.3152/146155110X12838715793129 Franks, D. M., Brereton, D., & Moran, C. J. (2011). Cumulative social impacts. In New directions in social impact assessment: Conceptual and methodological advances. (pp. 202–220). England: Edward Elgar Cheltenham. Franks, D. M., Brereton, D., & Moran, C. J. (2013). The cumulative dimensions of impact in resource regions. Resources Policy, 38(4), 640–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.07.002 Gillingham, M. P., & Johnson, C. J. (2016). Cumulative Impacts and Environmental Values. In M. P. Gillingham, G. R. Halseth, C. J. Johnson, & M. W. Parkes (Eds.), Integration Imperative: Cumulative Environmental, Community and Health Effects of Multiple Natural Resource Developments (pp. 49–83). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information & libraries journal, 26(2), 91-108. Gray, S., Gray, S., Luc De Kok, J., E. R. Helfgott, A., O’Dwyer, B., Jordan, R., & Nyaki, R. 44 (2015). Using fuzzy cognitive mapping as a participatory approach to analyze change, preferred states, and perceived resilience of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07396-200211 Gunn, J., & Noble, B. F. (2011). Conceptual and methodological challenges to integrating SEA and cumulative effects assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(2), 154–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009.12.003 Halpern, B. S., & Fujita, R. (2013). Assumptions, challenges, and future directions in cumulative impact analysis. Ecosphere, 4(10), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00181.1 Halseth, G. R. (2016). Cumulative Effects and Impacts: Introducing a Community Perspective. In M. P. Gillingham, G. R. Halseth, C. J. Johnson, & M. W. Parkes (Eds.), Integration Imperative: Cumulative Environmental, Community and Health Effects of Multiple Natural Resource Developments (pp. 83–117). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Hanna, P., Vanclay, F., Langdon, E. J., & Arts, J. (2016). The importance of cultural aspects in impact assessment and project development: reflections from a case study of a hydroelectric dam in Brazil. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 34(4), 306–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2016.1184501 Hegmann, G., & Yarranton, G. A. (Tony). (2011). Alchemy to reason: Effective use of Cumulative Effects Assessment in resource management. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(5), 484–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2011.01.011 Ho, E., Eger, S., & Courtenay, S. C. (2018). Assessing current monitoring indicators and reporting for cumulative effects integration: A case study in Muskoka, Ontario, Canada. Ecological Indicators, 95(November 2017), 862–876. 45 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.08.017 Hodgson, E. E., & Halpern, B. S. (2019). Investigating cumulative effects across ecological scales. Conservation Biology, 33(1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13125 Houde, N. (2007). The Six Faces of Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Ecology and Society, 12(2), 34. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02270-120234 Huang, G., & London, J. K. (2016). Mapping in and out of “messes”: An adaptive, participatory, and transdisciplinary approach to assessing cumulative environmental justice impacts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 154, 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.02.014 Johnson, C. J. (2016). Defining and Identifying Cumulative Environmental, Health, and Community Impacts. In M. P. Gillingham, G. R. Halseth, C. J. Johnson, & M. W. Parkes (Eds.), Integration Imperative: Cumulative Environmental, Community and Health Effects of Multiple Natural Resource Developments (pp. 21–49). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Johnson, C. J., Gillingham, M. P., Halseth, G. R., & Parkes, M. W. (2016). A Revolution in Strategy, Not Evolution of Practice: Towards an Integrative Regional Cumulative Impacts Framework. In M. P. Gillingham, G. R. Halseth, C. J. Johnson, & M. W. Parkes (Eds.), Integration Imperative: Cumulative Environmental, Community and Health Effects of Multiple Natural Resource Developments (pp. 217–243). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Jones, F. C. (2016). Cumulative effects assessment: theoretical underpinnings and big problems. Environmental Reviews, 24(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2015-0073 46 Joseph, C., Zeeg, T., Angus, D., Usborne, A., & Mutrie, E. (2017). Use of significance thresholds to integrate cumulative effects into project-level socio-economic impact assessment in Canada. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 67, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.07.003 Kosko, B. (1986). Fuzzy cognitive maps. International journal of man-machine studies, 24(1), 65-75. Koutouki, K., Lofts, K., & Davidian, G. (2018). A rights-based approach to indigenous women and gender inequities in resource development in northern Canada. Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, 27(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12240 Krieg, E. J., & Faber, D. R. (2004). Not so Black and White: Environmental justice and cumulative impact assessments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(7–8), 667–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2004.06.008 Larsen, R. K., Raitio, K., Stinnerbom, M., & Wik-Karlsson, J. (2017). Sami-state collaboration in the governance of cumulative effects assessment: A critical action research approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 64, 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.03.003 Lockie, S. (2007). Deliberation and actor-networks: The “practical” implications of social theory for the assessment of large dams and other interventions. Society and Natural Resources, 20(9), 785–799. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920701460317 Loxton, E. A., Schirmer, J., & Kanowski, P. (2013). Exploring the social dimensions and complexity of cumulative impacts: A case study of forest policy changes in Western Australia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 31(1), 52–63. 47 https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.755353 MacDonald, L. H. (2000). Evaluating and managing cumulative effects: Process and constraints. Environmental Management, 26(3), 299–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010088 Mantyka-Pringle, C. S., Jardine, T. D., Bradford, L., Bharadwaj, L., Kythreotis, A. ., Fresque-Baxter, J., … Jones, P. D. (2017). Bridging science and traditional knowledge to assess cumulative impacts of stressors on ecosystem health. Environment International, 102, 125–137. Mauerhofer, V., Ichinose, T., Blackwell, B. D., Willig, M. R., Flint, C. G., Krause, M. S., & Penker, M. (2018). Underuse of social-ecological systems : A research agenda for addressing challenges to biocultural diversity. Land Use Policy, 72(December 2017), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.003 McGinnis, M. D., & Ostrom, E. (2014). A Framework for Analyzing, Comparing, and Diagnosing Social-Ecological Systems Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society, 19(2), 30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230 Mitchell, R. E., & Parkins, J. R. (2011). The challenge of developing social indicators for cumulative effects assessment and land use planning. Ecology and Society, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04148-160229 Moran, C. J., Franks, D. M., & Sonter, L. J. (2013). Using the multiple capitals framework to connect indicators of regional cumulative impacts of mining and pastoralism in the Murray Darling Basin, Australia. Resources Policy, 38(4), 733–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.01.002 48 Noble, B., Liu, J., & Hackett, P. (2017). The Contribution of Project Environmental Assessment to Assessing and Managing Cumulative Effects: Individually and Collectively Insignificant? Environmental Management, 59(4), 531–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0799-7 Noble, B., & Nwanekezie, K. (2017). Conceptualizing strategic environmental assessment: Principles, approaches and research directions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.03.005 O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2009). Effectiveness in social impact assessment: Aboriginal peoples and resource development in Australia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(2), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.3152/146155109X438715 Olander, L. P., Johnston, R. J., Tallis, H., Kagan, J., Maguire, L. A., Polasky, S., … Palmer, M. (2018). Benefit relevant indicators : Ecosystem services measures that link ecological and social outcomes. Ecological Indicators, 85, 1262–1272. Ostrom, E. (2009). A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science, 325(5939), 419–422. Parkes, M. W. (2016). Cumulative Determinants of Health Impacts in Rural, Remote, and Resource-Dependent Communities. In M. P. Gillingham, G. R. Halseth, C. J. Johnson, & M. W. Parkes (Eds.), Integration Imperative: Cumulative Environmental, Community and Health Effects of Multiple Natural Resource Developments (pp. 117–153). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Parkins, J. R. (2011). Deliberative democracy, institution building and the pragmatics of cumulative effects assessment. Ecology and Society, 16(3), 20. 49 Parlee, B. L., Geertsema, K., & Willier, A. (2012). Social-Ecological Thresholds in a Changing Boreal Landscape : Insights from Cree Knowledge of the Lesser Slave Lake Region of Alberta , Canada. Ecology and Society, 17(2), 20. Pavlickova, K., & Vyskupova, M. (2015). A method proposal for cumulative environmental impact assessment based on the landscape vulnerability evaluation. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.08.011 Pradhan, N., Habib, H., Venkatappa, M., Ebbers, T., Duboz, R., & Shipin, O. (2015). Framework tool for a rapid cumulative effects assessment: case of a prominent wetland in Myanmar. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 187(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4508-4 Ross, H., & McGee, T. K. (2006). Conceptual frameworks for SIA revisited: A cumulative effects study on lead contamination and economic change. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 24(2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154606781765273 Sadd, J. L., Pastor, M., Morello-Frosch, R., Scoggins, J., & Jesdale, B. (2011). Playing it safe: Assessing cumulative impact and social vulnerability through an environmental justice screening method in the South Coast Air Basin, California. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8(5), 1441–1459. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8051441 Sandlos, J., & Keeling, A. (2016a). Aboriginal communities, traditional knowledge, and the environmental legacies of extractive development in Canada. Extractive Industries and Society, 3(2), 278–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2015.06.005 Sandlos, J., & Keeling, A. (2016b). Toxic Legacies, Slow Violence, and Environmental Injustice 50 at Giant Mine, Northwest Territories. The Northern Review, 42(42), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.22584/nr42.2016.002 Serje, M. (2017). Social relations: A critical reflection on the notion of social impacts as change. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 65(April), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.04.006 Sharma, S. (2010). The impact of mining on women: Lessons from the coal mining Bowen Basin of Queensland, Australia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28(3), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.3152/146155110X12772982841041 Sheelanere, P., Noble, B. F., & Patrick, R. J. (2013). Institutional requirements for watershed cumulative effects assessment and management: Lessons from a Canadian trans-boundary watershed. Land Use Policy, 30(1), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.03.001 Sinclair, A. J., Doelle, M., & Duinker, P. N. (2017). Looking up, down, and sideways: Reconceiving cumulative effects assessment as a mindset. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.04.007 Slootweg, R., Vanclay, F., & van Schooten, M. (2001). Function evaluation as a framework for the integration of social and environmental impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154601781767186 Smit, B., & Spaling, H. (1995). Managing the EIA Process Methods for Cumulative Effects Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15(1), 81–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/0195-9255(94)00027-X Smyth, E., & Vanclay, F. (2017). The Social Framework for Projects: a conceptual but practical model to assist in assessing, planning and managing the social impacts of projects. Impact 51 Assessment and Project Appraisal, 35(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2016.1271539 Spyce, A., Weber, M., & Adamowicz, W. (2012). Cumulative effects planning: Finding the balance using choice experiments. Ecology and Society, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04491-170122 Sterling, E. J., Filardi, C., Toomey, A., Sigouin, A., Betley, E., Gazit, N., … Jupiter, S. (2017). Biocultural approaches to well-being and sustainability indicators across scales. Nature: Ecology & Evolution, 1(December), 1798–1806. Sutherland, G. D., Waterhouse, F. L., Smith, J., Saunders, S. C., Paige, K., & Malt, J. (2016). Developing a systematic simulation-based approach for selecting indicators in strategic cumulative effects assessments with multiple environmental valued components. Ecological Indicators, 61, 512–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.004 Tyson, W., Lantz, T. C., & Ban, N. C. (2018). Cumulative Effects of Environmental Change on Culturally Significant Ecosystems in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. Arctic, 69(4), 391–405. Uhlmann, V., Rifkin, W., Everingham, J. A., Head, B., & May, K. (2014). Prioritising indicators of cumulative socio-economic impacts to characterise rapid development of onshore gas resources. Extractive Industries and Society, 1(2), 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2014.06.001 Vanclay, F. (2002). Conceptualising social impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(3), 183–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(01)00105-6 Westman, C. N., & Joly, T. L. (2019). Oil Sands Extraction in Alberta, Canada: a Review of 52 Impacts and Processes Concerning Indigenous Peoples. Human Ecology, 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-019-0059-6 Willsteed, E. A., Birchenough, S. N. R., Gill, A. B., & Jude, S. (2018). Structuring cumulative effects assessments to support regional and local marine management and planning obligations. Marine Policy, 98(September), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.09.006 53 Chapter 3: Cumulative Social Effects and Indigenous Peoples and Rights 3.1. Introduction This chapter provides a background on Indigenous rights and resource development in Canada and explores the state of scholarly literature in respect to cumulative social effects and the implications for Indigenous peoples and rights. The objective of this review is to explore why cumulative social effects is an important issue for Indigenous peoples in Canada, identify areas where research attention is needed, and discuss the implications of CEA in Indigenous contexts. Key word searches and reflective reviews of reference lists were used to capture a broad range of research on CEA and Indigenous ecology perspectives, knowledge, and rights. The focus is on research conducted in, or that is relevant to the Canadian regulatory context. 3.2. Background: Indigenous Rights in Canada, Resource Development, and Cumulative Social Effects Extensive natural resource development in Canada has resulted in significant environmental and social changes, and has occurred in the context of evolving political relationships with Indigenous peoples. About 90% of the land within Canada has been asserted as crown land and is owned and managed by federal, provincial, and territorial governments (Government of BC, 2010). However, Indigenous peoples, including First Nations, Inuit, and Metis peoples, have lived in the area now recognized as Canada for more than 10,000 years. European settler colonialism manifested through force and polices designed to assimilate Indigenous peoples into Canadian society has resulted in the dismantling of social, cultural, and political systems and the loss of control over land and resources for Indigenous peoples (Walters, 2016). Across Canada, land was taken by the crown through a series of post confederation 54 treaties that granted Indigenous peoples specific sets of rights in exchange for large tracts of land, and through the assumption of “terra nullius”, which asserts that land was empty and ownerless prior to declaration of European sovereignty (Harris, 2011; Mills, 2017). Indigenous peoples re-claiming their rights to land, self- governance, as well as their cultural practices is an important movement, and the process of reconciliation and Indigenous involvement in resource management is increasingly part of political discourse. The extent and nature of Aboriginal1 rights to land and the management of resources within Canada has been the subject of legal actions, protests, and negotiations which have challenged the concept of terra nullius and the conditions and implementation of treaties. Aboriginal rights were first formally recognized within s. 35 (1) of the 1982 Canadian Constitution Act establishing the basis of Aboriginal title and the duty to consult, which has defined the relationship of the crown and Indigenous peoples in respect to resource development; provincial and federal governments are legally obligated to consult, and possibly accommodate, Indigenous peoples on decisions that could impact their rights, title, and interests. A number of precedent setting legal decisions have identified and clarified Aboriginal rights and caused a shift in the government’s approach to resource development towards consultation and negotiation (R v. Sparrow 1990; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997; Haida Nation v. British Columbia, 2004; Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia, 2004; Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014). Through such court decisions, traditional land use 1 In the Canadian context, the term Aboriginal refers to First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples in Canada and is used within Canadian law and the constitution s.35 (2). In this chapter, this term is used where relevant to specifically refer to the Aboriginal rights that are legally recognized within Canada. The term Indigenous encompasses international Indigenous populations as well as these groups. Indigenous has recently emerged as a common term within resource management policy and guidance to be inclusive of recognized Aboriginal rights within Canada and also internationally recognized Indigenous rights, such as those within the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The term Indigenous is used within this paper where relevant to refer to Canadian (First Nations, Inuit, and Métis) peoples and international Indigenous peoples. 55 rights have been established and upheld, the conditions under which Aboriginal title exists have been defined, and guidelines for consultation have been outlined including the obligation of the crown to, under some circumstances, take actions to accommodate Aboriginal interests. These legal changes aligned with a period of growing awareness about the environmental consequences of development and protests by Indigenous and environmental groups in response to resource development and government actions. Indigenous participation and engagement has become a central tenant of the process for resource development in Canada, and recognition of Aboriginal rights and title continues to expand. At the international level, Indigenous rights have been the subject of numerous declarations and agreements, notably the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (2008), which Canada endorsed in 2016. UNDRIP declares the existence of a wide range of Indigenous rights from the right to establish political, educational, and social institutions to the right to practice spiritual and cultural traditions. Through such initiatives and decisions, the duty to consult has evolved toward an aspiration of government-to-government relationships and obtaining Indigenous Free, Prior, and Informed Consent prior to development activities; however the specific implementation of these principles remains unclear in most EA jurisdictions (Hanna & Vanclay, 2013; Papillon & Rodon, 2017). There is a large body of research focused on the effectiveness of Indigenous engagement and the legitimacy of consultation processes for contributing to management and decision- making, and a series of significant political, cultural, and procedural challenges have been identified. The role of governments and industry proponents in respect to consultation is inconsistent, and terms like “meaningful consultation” have not been legally defined (Booth & Skelton, 2011a; Papillon & Rodon, 2017). As observed by Papillion and Rodon: “The duty to consult is an evolving target in Canada, with many grey areas left to the discretion of the parties 56 involved” (Papillon & Rodon, 2017, 217), a challenge which has also been observed in international settings (Horowitz et al., 2018; O’Faircheallaigh, 2009). In addition, Indigenous scholars, and critics within the resource management field and beyond, have noted that legal cases which have established Aboriginal rights in Canada, have also defined the limitations of these rights in favour of the national interest (R v. Sparrow, 1990; Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 p. 77), placing Indigenous jurisdiction within the overarching jurisdiction of the crown (Blackburn, 2005; Hanna & Vanclay, 2013; Walters, 2016). The positioning of the duty to consult as made necessary by potential impacts to Aboriginal rights and title have meant that this obligation is often carried out as part of processes for assessing and approving development projects, such as EA. Within Canada there has been a slow progression of Indigenous rights from a long period of suppression and denial, to gradually expanding legal recognition, to promises of reconciliation and self-governance. A pressing question is how to reimagine EA and environmental planning processes to reflect these rights. Indigenous participation and the consideration of Indigenous knowledge is mandated within provincial and federal EA legislation, and is considered part of EA best practices within the broader international literature field (Croal et al., 2015; IAIA, 2012), however the nature of participation and the extent to which Indigenous knowledge and worldviews are effectively used to inform decision- making has been an area of debate. Considering Indigenous knowledge is often a legal necessity in EA processes, but the “scientization” of this knowledge and the political power imbalances that have defined its use in EA have been widely critiqued (Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017; Moore, von der Porten, & Castleden, 2017). Indigenous led assessments are emerging and co-management regimes for resource development that establish partnerships between Indigenous nations and governments have gained popularity since the 1980s. However, 57 reviews are mixed. Such processes may hold promise for providing a level of Indigenous jurisdiction and control over management, and many successful case studies have been identified where results have been productive and Indigenous peoples were able to gain a degree of management control (Ehrlich, 2010; Hibbard, Lane, & Rasmussen, 2008; Hill et al., 2012; Wanvik & Caine, 2017). However, there have also been many critiques of co-management and community based processes as further entrenching existing power dynamics between Indigenous peoples and governments, and not allowing for Indigenous control in a meaningful way (Hibbard et al., 2008; Hill et al., 2012; Houde, 2007; Moore et al., 2017). Among the often highlighted areas of failure for the inclusion of Indigenous peoples and knowledge in EA processes is inadequate attention to cumulative effects and the legacy of impacts on Indigenous peoples, their land rights, lives, and ability to practice culture. Social cumulative effects have become particularly important for Indigenous communities in Canada who have been confronted with disproportionate environmental and social impacts as a result of development, inequitable shares in the benefits, and a legacy of exclusion from planning and decision-making (Bakker & Hendriks, 2019; Bradley & McClurg, 2012; Le Meur, Horowitz, & Mennesson, 2013; Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017). Cumulative effects represent a complex regulatory challenge, but for people and communities who have been affected by multiple development activities over time, a cumulative view is often intuitive and inherent, and concern is not restricted to the project-based impacts under review in any one process (Booth & Skelton, 2011b; Halseth, 2016; Sandlos & Keeling, 2016a). Cumulative social effects resulting from changes such as boom/bust cycles of development, multiple industries and projects operating in a region, and the alteration of socially or cultural important landscapes can be significant, and are often an important part of the public discussion and evaluation of potential development actions, 58 despite the reality that assessment processes are often not well equipped to consider them (Horowitz et al., 2018; Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017). The legacy of significant social issues have been the subject of several legal challenges related to Indigenous rights and land, and have become a contentious issue for approved and proposed projects and industries. CEA has a long research tradition within EA research fields, but there has been limited attention devoted to understanding CEA in Indigenous contexts and the theoretical, methodological, and management implications for cumulative social impacts. 3.3 Literature Review Method The focus of this literature review was on exploring CEA and its importance and implications for Indigenous peoples and their rights. I identified relevant literature using a combination of strategies. First, I conducted database searches in Web of Science and Scopus. I searched for sources that included key terms “cumulative effects assessment” or “cumulative impact(s)” and “Indigenous” or “Aboriginal” or “First Nations” or “Inuit” or “Métis”. Results were restricted to peer reviewed articles or book chapters. Sources not in English or not readily available online were excluded. I considered all sources published up to 2020. While my focus was on the Canadian context, I considered highly relevant sources from any location. When reviewing the results from each database I found that there were a limited number of relevant sources (n=43). Upon full text review, even fewer of these articles specifically examined the issue of cumulative effects or cumulative social effects in depth, but rather touched on these concepts only tangentially. The limited results from the database searches, prompted me to take a broader and more reflexive approach to the review. Cumulative social effects have become a topical issue 59 confronting project approvals, impact assessment processes, and broader planning in Canada which intimately intersects with the evolving nature of Indigenous rights and governance in respect to land and resources; however, the database search suggests this connection has not been extensively explored within scholarly research. Nonetheless, there is a wide range of potentially relevant literature and case studies that may lack an explicit connection to cumulative social effects, but that explores related issues such as Indigenous involvement in impact assessment processes, social impacts, and Indigenous ecology and governance. Understanding why social cumulative impacts have become an important issue in Indigenous contexts, and identifying what is known and what needs to be further explored therefore required a less systematic approach of pulling together literature across a range of broader fields and critically reflecting on how this body of knowledge relates to this issue. I took a number of additional steps to capture a wider selection of literature. First, I reviewed the reference lists of highly relevant articles to identify additional sources that may have addressed these topics but did not appear in the database searches. Second, I expanded my search to Google Scholar and also conducted more general database searches for the key terms “Indigenous”, “Aboriginal”, “First Nation”, “Métis”, and “social impact(s)”, “economic impact(s)”, “cultural impact(s)”, “health impact(s)”, and “gender”. This broader search returned a large number of results which I sorted based on citation, relevancy, and publish dates in order to identify key foundational works. Finally, while the issue of cumulative social effects and Indigenous peoples/rights has not been extensively explored in the research field, it has emerged as an issue in impact assessment practice in Canada and in international settings. Therefore I also relied on current events, news stories, emerging regulations/policies, and conversations with practitioners to point me towards cases studies and additional resources. 60 This combination of strategies allowed me to identify 134 relevant articles, book chapters, and case study literature. Each of the sources was reviewed and notes were taken using a template (Appendix 1) to identify the article context and scope, methodology, key findings, and significance. These notes were imported into NVivo Qualitative Analysis Software and thematically coded. For readability, not all of the sources identified and considered are cited within the text of this paper, and I also cite additional selected key works in the CEA field and important court and legal decisions in Canada to provide necessary background and context to the results. While not systematic, this article selection strategy is appropriate given the state of the research field and my goal to explore these emerging issues. The article selection and evaluation strategy is subjective and cumulative effects is a broad concept that potentially intersects with a wide range of diverse research disciplines. I do not claim to have captured all relevant literature, but the results compile critical insights for understanding the issue of cumulative social effects and its relationship to Indigenous peoples in the Canadian context based on available scholarly research. 3.4. Results I identified three key themes that illustrate why cumulative social effects are important in Indigenous contexts and highlight key deficits in the CEA research and knowledge base. First, the concept of cumulative effects has an independent history within Indigenous perspectives on ecology, and the integration between human and biophysical systems is a inherent component of Indigenous knowledge systems, which is often not well accounted for during assessment processes. Second, the accumulation of social impacts on Indigenous communities and the 61 legacy of historical development actions have meant that cumulative effects, and the need to ensure social benefits and sustainability, are increasingly a focus of individuals and communities. Third, cumulative social effects represent an important issue for Indigenous rights and governance, and challenge conventional assessment, consultation, and planning processes. In the following sections I discuss these three themes and the implications for resource management and impact assessment in Canada. 3.4.1 Indigenous Ecology and Knowledge Cumulative effects are an important issue for Indigenous governments and communities in part due to the cumulative, holistic, and relational nature of Indigenous perspectives on ecology. While cumulative effects have a long research tradition within the fields of impact assessment and environmental monitoring, the cumulative nature of the environment is an inherent part of most Indigenous cultural systems. As Booth and Skelton (2011b) observed in their study of the perceptions of the EA process by First Nations in BC, “For First Nations, everything is connected. The culture essentially thinks cumulatively. Not to do so makes no sense to them and irredeemably limits the validity of any assessment exercise” (p. 391). Indigenous cultures within Canada, and internationally, are diverse and cannot be simplified or generalized, but a cumulative perspective of ecological and social systems has been commonly reported across cultures in Canada, Australia, European countries, and the United States (Berkes, 2008; Franks et al., 2010; Larsen, Raitio, Stinnerbom, & Wik-Karlsson, 2017; Le Meur et al., 2013; Ross, 1990). CEA is therefore a potentially important point of intersection between Indigenous ecological worldviews and the positivist scientific ideology and western cultural understandings 62 of impact assessment, but it also illustrates fundamental points of contrast. In practice EA processes include an implicit assumption that the environment can be broken down into VCs that can be studied and assessed accurately in isolation from each other. Widely accepted CEA methodology also relies on the use of VCs though at a larger spatial, temporal, and conceptual scale (Sinclair, Doelle & Duinker 2017). Many have supported and many have critiqued this approach, and there have been calls on both sides for improved integration of environmental and social components and impacts (Aledo-Tur & Domínguez-Gómez, 2017; Bond et al., 2015). There has also been extensive research about the importance of including Indigenous knowledge and participation in EA and CEA (Croal et al., 2015; O’Faircheallaigh, 2009), and critical reflection on methods to achieve this (McKay & Johnson, 2017a; Sandlos & Keeling, 2016b; Udofia, Noble, & Poelzer, 2017). But there remains a tendency to explore opportunities to incorporate Indigenous peoples and knowledge into existing processes, rather than to explore other approaches and methodologies, or to confront the political and cultural underpinnings of the processes themselves (Behn & Bakker, 2019; Bond, Morrison-Saunders, Gunn, Pope, & Retief, 2015; Gondor, 2016; Houde, 2007; Moore, von der Porten, & Castleden, 2017). A diverse range of theoretical approaches are available in Indigenous ecology and management which are focused on integration and interaction between human and environmental systems rather than categorization or cause and effect (Behn & Bakker, 2019; Berkes, 2008). Indigenous cultures are often based on principles of holism, or systems thinking, where components of the environment can only be understood in terms of their interrelationships with the broader ecosystem and human beings, which challenges the concepts of impact categorization and quantification. Further, the information and the scope of considerations that are important from the perspective of Indigenous peoples, may be beyond the set of ecological 63 components deemed important from a management or assessment perspective, or, importantly, beyond the set of components for which robust scientific and technical data is available. The idea that knowledge systems are inseparable from their social contexts is well recognized by social scientists, however in resource management practices, which is often viewed as a technical endeavour, the focus is empirical information and many social issues, and spiritual, or ethical information are dismissed as anecdotal (Booth & Skelton, 2011a; Gilbert & Lennox, 2019; Sandlos & Keeling, 2016a; Poe, Norman, & Levin, 2014). The concept of cumulative effects has evolved into the field of CEA and as an aspect of EA and management processes, but it is also a concept which has a long and independent history in Indigenous ecology and knowledge systems. Cumulative impacts have represented an important research field and technical and regulatory challenge for governments and industry, but western scientific culture cannot claim to have exclusive authority over CEA or the understanding of the concept cumulative impacts; Indigenous communities have been utilizing these principles for thousands of years. There is a need for exploration of a wider range of approaches and methodology for CEA and research advancing Indigenous understandings and approaches to CEA. 3.4.2 Social Impacts and Legacy Researchers have been documenting the significant social impacts of resource development on Indigenous communities since the emergence of EA. Attention was initially focused on reporting impacts on Indigenous communities and why such impacts were important considerations for resource development (Parkes, Johnson, Halseth, & Gillingham, 2016). The focus then shifted to examining the broader concepts of social justice, equity, and the 64 disproportionate ways in which Indigenous populations are impacted by development and land use (Fedorova & Pongrácz, 2019). A consequence of the long history of colonialism is that Indigenous peoples are over represented in metrics of poor socio-economic status, health, and well-being (Hibbard, Lane, & Rasmussen, 2008; Morrison-Saunders & Early, 2008; Sandlos & Keeling, 2016b). Historically unrestrained resource development, and the expansion of multiple developments within resource regions has created drastic social changes including forced relocation, or restricted access to land and water, the transformation of local economies, demographic change, health impacts, increased crime, substance abuse, and mental illness, among many others (Angell & Parkins, 2011; Christensen & Krogman, 2012; Huang & London, 2012). A particularly contentious area is socio-economic impacts and benefits. Economic benefits are often projected to result from resource development and are often used to justify projects, but Indigenous communities do not always significantly share in these benefits. As observed by O’Faircheallaigh (2017), “The dominant narratives around large-scale industrial development emphasise its importance as a source of employment and economic growth, devalue nature and equate development with the ‘general interest’, making it difficult to oppose project approval and resulting in negative impacts being ignored”(p.1184). In addition, economic benefits are often unequally distributed. Loayza & Rigolini (2016) studied economic impact of mining development in Peru on local communities and found that while development had a positive average effect, it had a negative distributional effect; increased inequality accompanied increased economic growth. Others have observed that short term economies, boom/bust cycles, temporary job growth, and fly in fly out industries are associated with significant social impacts related to income, housing, crime, psychological and social well-being, and have called for 65 balanced assessments of positive and negative economic impacts and attention to natural justice (Christensen & Krogman, 2012; Howitt, 2001; Morrison-Saunders & Early, 2008; Westman & Joly, 2019). There are a myriad of social impacts experienced disproportionally by Indigenous peoples in response to resource development tied to a long history of colonial policies, unrestricted development, and inequality. This legacy and, particularly, the accumulation of social change has become a pressing issue in practice. While regional approaches are being explored in Canada, CEA is most consistently applied as part of an EA. Case studies of EA processes and challenges to approved projects based on cumulative impacts have made it clear that people and Indigenous communities are often concerned with the cumulative impact over time and not just the impacts or benefits of one project (Booth & Skelton, 2011a; Gillingham, Halseth, Johnson, & Parkes, 2016; Kunkel, 2017; Ross, 1990). A challenge however, is that consultation processes are often reactionary; significant discussion is often restricted to the impacts that can be directly tied to the proposed actions under review and the response of Indigenous groups to the proposed activity. Such processes do not provide a forum for communicating broader environmental and social values and influencing decision-making at a larger scale (Bradley & McClurg, 2012; Moore et al., 2017; Tollefson & Wipond, 1998). Despite this, Indigenous groups and communities often raise these concerns during assessment processes regardless of whether they are solicited. For instance, Sandlos and Keeling (2016b) evaluated the EA process for the remediation of Giant Mine in the Northwest Territories. The review board determined that historical impacts were beyond the scope of this assessment, but emotional testimony from the Yellowknives Dene First Nation about the social 66 impacts and the legacy of development in the area dominated the process: “Indeed, for an environmental assessment that had scoped the issue of historical impacts out of the assessment, this issue nevertheless remained a consistent and at times dominant theme throughout the hearings” (Sandlos & Keeling, 2016b, p.283). The resistance from First Nations to “scoping out” (Sanlos & Keeling, 2016b, p.283) collective history and social experiences of impact was an contentious issue in this process, and has also been observed in other Canadian EA case studies (Bakker & Hendriks, 2019; Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017). It is clear that project focused processes are not often conducive to rich discussions about social cumulative impacts, however regional CEA initiated outside of EA processes are comparatively rare, tend to remain biophysically focused (Clean Environment Commission, 2018; Halseth, 2016) and the connection to future decision-making about development is often unclear. Regardless of the circumstances of planning for an industry or a project, legacy is vitally important for social impacts; the issues and impacts of past also exist in the present and the future. As noted by Howitt (2001), “One of the most difficult and demanding issues facing decision makers involved in resource development on indigenous lands, in North America and elsewhere, is the contemporary impact of historic (both long past and recent) injustices” (p. 274). Colonization, racist policies, and a long history of disproportionate environmental and social impacts resulting from development, are part of the cumulative impacts experienced by Indigenous peoples in Canada. This reality has been evident in case studies, but how to think about CEA, impact significance, decision-making, and management in this context are questions that have received little direct engagement from within the CEA field. 67 3.4.3 Cumulative Impacts and Indigenous Rights Cumulative impacts have also represented an important issue for Indigenous rights and governance. Conceptually, cumulative effects challenges the practice of restricting impact analysis and consultation to a project focused lens, and suggests that a much broader set of impacts on Indigenous peoples and their lands across space and time must be considered (Audino, Axmann, Gray, Howard, & Stanic, 2019; Bradley & McClurg, 2012). As described by Booth and Skelton (2011a), “As First Nations argue, without cumulative effects assessment a proponent and a government cannot logically or scientifically make the argument that a project will have no or limited environmental impact or impact on their Aboriginal and Treaty rights” (p.394). Much has been written about the fundamental goal of settler colonialism: ownership of land, and ensuring the means to control and to develop it (Harris, 2011; Wolfe, 2006). The continually evolving nature of the extent of Aboriginal rights in Canada and the often broad interpretations offered by the courts and have challenged the absolute authority of provincial and federal governments to manage land (Papillon & Rodon, 2017) and create a situation of “uncertainty” for resource development (Howitt, 2001). Consultation and assessment processes in theory are aimed at providing a level of certainty for a project and its implementation; during an assessment processes, the impacts of a proposed development project are identified, the concerns of Indigenous groups and the impacts on their rights and interests are identified, and a decision is made about the future of the project, effectively resolving the issue of its impacts from the perspective of government and industry. However, in reality this is often not the case, and persistent opposition and concerns about impacts have challenged the viability of many approved projects (Bakker & Hendriks, 2019; Garvie & Shaw, 2016). 68 Cumulative effects are often among the contentious issues, and introduce additional uncertainty by suggesting that the impacts on Indigenous rights and lands is not resolved through project-focused assessment processes and that there are broader regional and strategic questions at issue. Such challenges led Tollefson and Wipond (1998) to observe over 20 years ago, “These very concepts—cumulative impacts and Aboriginal rights— call for a fundamental shift in the way we plan for, and manage, the use of environmental resources” (p. 373). Few in the research field have since responded to this call; the connection between Indigenous rights and cumulative impacts has received minimal attention and is often not explicitly addressed, though this connection has become important in the legal reality of CEA and EA (Yahey v. British Columbia, 2017; West Moberly First Nation v. British Columbia, 2018a; Clean Environment Commission, 2018). The use of the issue of cumulative effects by Indigenous peoples who are expressing opposition to development both within Canada and internationally is part of an effort to claim a broader set of powers within resource development decisions. Shapcott (1989) recognized nearly 30 years ago that EA was of less importance to Indigenous peoples in Canada than establishing rights and title, however these broader governance questions have often remained confined within the process of resource development. Cumulative effects have become a particularly contentious area where these issues are brought to the forefront. This has been well articulated by Larsen et al (2017) who completed a study piloting an approach to collaborative management between Sami peoples and civil servants in Sweden: “...on Indigenous territory, addressing Indigenous peoples’ rights to land is an inevitable part of CEA governance, and vice versa: questions of CEA governance will bring into play – or serve as proxy for – larger and often 69 unsettled questions linked to Indigenous relations with the state, notably demands for self- determination” (p. 67). The issue of cumulative effects fundamentally challenges and complicates the project- based approach to impact assessment and consultation, and raises questions about the extent of Indigenous rights within resource management. EA may not be an effective process for accommodating concerns about cumulative impacts and the sustainability of the land as a whole, but there is often no other opportunity for Indigenous peoples to meaningfully articulate these concerns. There is recognition within CEA research that the concept of cumulative impacts requires the development of alternative broader, scientific regional assessment processes completed independent from project-based assessment and tied to strategic planning. However, there has not been parallel attention devoted to the governance issues that are linked to cumulative impacts and the implications for consultation and planning. The emergence of Indigenous led EA and CEA processes may have considerable implications for assessment and decision-making. Along with the expansion of Indigenous rights, EA and planning processes have evolved away from “top down” approaches where specific processes or experts are imposed on communities, to better processes for engagement/participation, co-management regimes, and finally to Indigenous led and controlled processes (Hill et al., 2012; McKay & Johnson, 2017b; O’Faircheallaigh, 2017). EA and planning processes have been, and may be further reformed as Indigenous rights expand, but there remains an inherent western ideological bias (Lane & Hibbard, 2005; Paci, Tobin, & Robb, 2002). Some argue that what is needed is not the improvement of consultation and involvement of Indigenous peoples, but alternative processes for strategic planning and decision-making 70 developed and implemented by Indigenous peoples and supported by government to government relationships (Johnson, Gillingham, Halseth, & Parkes, 2016; Porter, Jackson, & Johnson, 2017). Indigenous led management and planning is not a new idea. However, the political and legal environment in respect to resource management has been slow to provide an opportunity for the development of such processes. An important issue is also the resources and capacity constraints felt by many Indigenous peoples in respect to partaking in consultation processes, let alone for the development their own policies and programs (Garvie & Shaw, 2016). Despite these challenges, Indigenous led processes are emerging in Canada and this is particularly important for CEA as an issue which requires attention to broad scales of assessment and strategic planning. As stated by Lindsay (In Gillingham et al, 2016), “... First Nations peoples are not passive recipients of the cumulative impacts of industrial development” (p. 173). There has been a shift in research attention from characterizing the cumulative effects of development on Indigenous peoples to Indigenous management, planning, and decision-making, but additional work is needed explicitly engaging with social issues and rights and governance questions, and, ideally led by Indigenous governments, communities, and scholars, to envision new management processes. 3.5 Conclusion This review described three broad themes that are important for advancing CEA in the context of cumulative social impacts and Indigenous rights in Canada. First, there is a need to explore CEA from the perspective of Indigenous ecology and management and expand on the theoretical underpinnings of assessment process. Cumulative social impacts have become an important issue for Indigenous peoples due to the long term and disproportional impacts felt by 71 Indigenous peoples, the philosophical basis of Indigenous knowledge and ecology, and in direct response to development and land use changes and the implications of cumulative impacts for rights and governance. CEA, which evolved out of technical and scientific disciplines has not been well equipped to accommodate consideration of social impacts and the multiple types of information that are confronting it in reality. Second, there are a wide range of social impacts, including impacts to demographics, safety, mental and physical health, economics, and social structures that result from development activities, but which are not effectively or consistently incorporated into assessment procedures. The legacy of development and environmental and social changes remain vitally important in contemporary assessment processes and developing clear, robust, and culturally specific processes to include these considerations is important if CEA is to achieve its goals of integration across environmental and social impacts. Third, impacts on Indigenous peoples and communities are closely related to questions about rights, Indigenous jurisdiction, culture, and knowledge. The social and political reality of resource management is rapidly changing; CEA must engage with contentious issues related to inequality, social impacts, and Indigenous rights questions that are often viewed as outside the realm of a technical scientific process if it is to contribute to sustainable management of resources and the environment. 3.6 References Aledo-Tur, A., & Domínguez-Gómez, J. A. (2017). Social Impact Assessment (SIA) from a multidimensional paradigmatic perspective: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of 72 Environmental Management, 195, 56–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.060 Angell, A. C., & Parkins, J. R. (2011). Resource development and aboriginal culture in the Canadian north. Polar Record, 47(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247410000124 Arnold, L. M., Hanna, K., & Noble, B. (2019). Freshwater cumulative effects and environmental assessment in the Mackenzie Valley, Northwest Territories: challenges and decision-maker needs. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 37(6), 516–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019.1596596 Audino, D., Axmann, S., Gray, B., Howard, K., & Stanic, L. (2019). Forging a Clearer Path Forward for Assessing Cumulative Impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights. Alberta Law Review, 297. https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2577 Bakker, K., & Hendriks, R. (2019). Contested knowledges in hydroelectric project assessment: The case of Canada’s Site C Project. Water, 11(3), 406. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030406 Ball, M., Somers, G., Wilson, J. E., Tanna, R., Chung, C., Duro, D. C., & Seitz, N. (2013). Scale, assessment components, and reference conditions: Issues for cumulative effects assessment in Canadian watersheds. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 9(3), 370–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1332 Behn, C., & Bakker, K. (2019). Rendering technical, rendering sacred: The politics of hydroelectric development on british columbia’s saaghii naachii/peace river. Global Environmental Politics, 19(3), 98–119. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00518 Berkes, F. (2008). Sacred Ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and resource management (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis. Blakely, J. A. E., Duinker, P., Grieg, L., Hegmann, G., & Noble, B. (2017). Cumulative Effects Assessment: FASTIPS No. 16. 73 Blangy, S., Bernier, M., Bhiry, N., Jean-Pierre, D., Aenishaenslin, C., Bastian, S., … Rousse, D. (2018). OHMi-Nunavik: A Multi-Thematic and Cross-Cultural Research Program Studying the Cumulative Effects of Climate and Socio-Economic Changes on Inuit Communities. Ecoscience, 25(4), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/11956860.2018.1542783 Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., Gunn, J. A. E., Pope, J., & Retief, F. (2015). Managing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment by embedding evolutionary resilience, participatory modelling and adaptive management. Journal of Environmental Management, 151, 97–104. Retrieved from 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.12.030%5Cnhttps://login.ezproxy.net.ucf.edu/login?auth=shibb&url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bai&AN=100873987&site=eds-live&scope=site Booth, A., & Skelton, N. W. (2011a). “We Are Fighting for Ourselves” — First Nations’ Evaluation of British Columbia and Canadian Environmental Assessment Processes. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 13(03), 367–404. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333211003936 Booth, A., & Skelton, N. W. (2011b). “You spoil everything!” Indigenous peoples and the consequences of industrial development in British Columbia. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 13(4), 685–702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-011-9284-x Bradley, A., & McClurg, M. (2012). Consultation and Cumulative Effects: Is there a role for the duty to consult in addressing concerns about over-development? . Aboriginal Law Section, 15(3), 1–6. Retrieved from http://www.oktlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/abConsultation.pdf%5Cnpapers2://publication/uuid/E6415D96-0637-4A30-86D6-FBCC3590792D 74 Burdge, R. J. (1991). A brief history and major trends in the field of impact assessment. Impact Assessment, 9(4), 93–104. Burdge, R. J., & Vanclay, F. (1996). Social Impact Assessment: a Contribution To the State of the Art Series. Impact Assessment, 14(1), 59–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/07349165.1996.9725886 Chilima, J. S., Blakely, J. A. E., Noble, B. F., & Patrick, R. J. (2017). Institutional arrangements for assessing and managing cumulative effects on watersheds: Lessons from the Grand River watershed, Ontario, Canada. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 42(3), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2017.1292151 Christensen, L., & Krogman, N. (2012). Social Thresholds and their Translation into Social-ecological Management Practices. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 5. Clean Environment Commission. (2018). A Review of the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment for Hydroelectric Development on the Nelson, Burntwood, and Churchill River Systems. Winnipeg, Manitoba. Croal, P., Partidario, M. R., Bingham, C., Fuggle, R., Sammet, A. M., Morgan, K., & Nowacki, J. (2015). Indigenous and Local Peoples and Traditional Knowledge. IAIA FasTips, 12, 2. Retrieved from http://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/Fastips_12_TraditionalKnowledge.pdf Cronmiller, J. G., & Noble, B. F. (2018). The discontinuity of environmental effects monitoring in the Lower Athabasca region of Alberta, Canada: institutional challenges to long-term monitoring and cumulative effects management. Environmental Reviews, 180(November 2017), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2017-0083 Delgamuukw v. Britsh Columbia, SCC 23799. (1997). Retrieved from https://scc- csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1569/index.do 75 Duinker, P. N., & Greig, L. A. (2006). The Impotence of Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada: Ailments and Ideas for Redeployment. Environmental Management, 37(2), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0240-5 Ehrlich, A. (2010). Cumulative cultural effects and reasonably foreseeable future developments in the upper Thelon Basin, Canada. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28(4), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.3152/146155110X12838715793084 Environmental Assessment Act, c.51, s.81 (2018). Supreme Court of British Columbia. 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 Fedorova, E., & Pongrácz, E. (2019). Cumulative social effect assessment framework to evaluate the accumulation of social sustainability benefits of regional bioenergy value chains. Renewable Energy, 131, 1073–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.07.070 Foley, M. M., Mease, L. A., Martone, R. G., Prahler, E. E., Morrison, T. H., Murray, C. C., & Wojcik, D. (2017). The challenges and opportunities in cumulative effects assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.06.008 Franks, D. M., Brereton, D., & Moran, C. J. (2010). Managing the cumulative impacts of coal mining on regional communities and environments in Australia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28(4), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.3152/146155110X12838715793129 Franks, D. M., Brereton, D., & Moran, C. J. (2013). The cumulative dimensions of impact in resource regions. Resources Policy, 38(4), 640–647. 76 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.07.002 Garvie, K. H., & Shaw, K. (2016). Shale gas development and community response: perspectives from Treaty 8 territory, British Columbia. Local Environment, 21(8), 1009–1028. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2015.1063043 Gilbert, J., & Lennox, C. (2019). Towards new development paradigms: the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a tool to support self-determined development. International Journal of Human Rights, 23(1–2), 104–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2018.1562921 Gillingham, M. P., Halseth, G. R., Johnson, C. J., & Parkes, M. W. (2016). Exploring Cumulative Effects and Impacts Through Examples. In M. P. Gillingham, G. R. Halseth, C. J. Johnson, & M. W. Parkes (Eds.), Integration Imperative: Cumulative Environmental, Community and Health Effects of Multiple Natural Resource Developments (pp. 153–193). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Gondor, D. (2016). Inuit knowledge and environmental assessment in Nunavut, Canada. Sustainability Science, 11(1), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0310-z Government of BC (2010). Crown Land: Indicators and Statistics Report. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/natural- resource-use/land-water-use/crown-land/crown_land_indicators__statistics_report.pdf Haida Nation v. British Columbia, SCR 511-73. (2004). Retrieved from https://scc- csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2189/index.docanadian Halseth, G. R. (2016). Cumulative Effects and Impacts: Introducing a Community Perspective. In M. P. Gillingham, G. R. Halseth, C. J. Johnson, & M. W. Parkes (Eds.), Integration Imperative: Cumulative Environmental, Community and Health Effects of Multiple Natural 77 Resource Developments (pp. 83–117). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Halseth, G. R., Gillingham, M. P., Johnson, C. J., & Parkes, M. W. (2016). Cumulative effects and impacts: the need for a more inclusive, integrative, regional approach. In M. P. Gillingham, G. R. Halseth, C. J. Johnson, & M. W. Parkes (Eds.), Integration Imperative: Cumulative Environmental, Community and Health Effects of Multiple Natural Resource Developments (pp. 3–21). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Hanna, P., & Vanclay, F. (2013). Human rights, Indigenous peoples and the concept of Free, Prior and Informed Consent. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 31(2), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2013.780373 Harriman Gunn, J., & Noble, B. F. (2009). Integrating Cumulative Effects in Regional Strategic Environmental Assessment Frameworks: Lessons From Practice. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 11(03), 267–290. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333209003361 Harris, C. R. (2011). Making Native Space: Colonialism, resistance, and reserves in British Columbia. UBC Press. Hegmann, G., Cocklin, C., Creasey, R., Dupuis, S., Kennedy, A., Kingsley, L., … Stalker, D. (1999). Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide. Report. https://doi.org/http://www.kpesic.com/sites/default/files/Cumulative_Effects_Assessment_Practitioners_Guide_0.pdf Hibbard, M., Lane, M. B., & Rasmussen, K. (2008). The split personality of planning: Indigenous peoples and planning for land and resource management. Journal of Planning Literature, 23(2), 136–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412208322922 Hill, R., Grant, C., George, M., Robinson, C. J., Jackson, S., & Abel, N. (2012). A Typology of 78 Indigenous Engagement in Australian Environmental Management. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 23. Horowitz, L. S., Keeling, A., Lévesque, F., Rodon, T., Schott, S., & Thériault, S. (2018). Indigenous peoples’ relationships to large-scale mining in post/colonial contexts: Toward multidisciplinary comparative perspectives. Extractive Industries and Society, 5(3), 404–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2018.05.004 Houde, N. (2007). The Six Faces of Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Ecology and Society, 12(2), 34. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02270-120234 Howitt, R. (2001). Dependent nations or sovereign governments? Treaties, governance and resources in the USA. In Rethinking Resource Management: Justice, Sustainability, and Indigenous Peoples (1st ed.). London: Routledge. Huang, G., & London, J. K. (2012). Cumulative environmental vulnerability and environmental justice in California’s San Joaquin Valley. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9(5), 1593–1608. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9051593 Huang, G., & London, J. K. (2016). Mapping in and out of “messes”: An adaptive, participatory, and transdisciplinary approach to assessing cumulative environmental justice impacts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 154, 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.02.014 Impact Assessment Act, Pub. L. No. Bill C-69 (2019). Statutes of Canada. IAIA. (2012). Respecting Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Knowledge: International Best Practices. Special Publication Series (Vol. 9). Johnson, C. J. (2016). Defining and Identifying Cumulative Environmental, Health, and Community Impacts. In M. P. Gillingham, G. R. Halseth, C. J. Johnson, & M. W. Parkes 79 (Eds.), Integration Imperative: Cumulative Environmental, Community and Health Effects of Multiple Natural Resource Developments (pp. 21–49). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Johnson, C. J., Gillingham, M. P., Halseth, G. R., & Parkes, M. W. (2016). A Revolution in Strategy, Not Evolution of Practice: Towards an Integrative Regional Cumulative Impacts Framework. In M. P. Gillingham, G. R. Halseth, C. J. Johnson, & M. W. Parkes (Eds.), Integration Imperative: Cumulative Environmental, Community and Health Effects of Multiple Natural Resource Developments (pp. 217–243). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Kunkel, T. (2017). Aboriginal values and resource development in Native Space: Lessons from British Columbia. Extractive Industries and Society, 4(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2017.01.001 Lane, M. B., & Hibbard, M. (2005). Doing it for themselves: Transformative planning by indigenous peoples. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(2), 172–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X05278983 Larsen, R. K., Raitio, K., Stinnerbom, M., & Wik-Karlsson, J. (2017). Sami-state collaboration in the governance of cumulative effects assessment: A critical action research approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 64, 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.03.003 Le Meur, P. Y., Horowitz, L. S., & Mennesson, T. (2013). “Horizontal” and “vertical” diffusion: The cumulative influence of Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) on mining policy-production in New Caledonia. Resources Policy, 38(4), 648–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.02.004 80 Loayza, N., & Rigolini, J. (2016). The Local Impact of Mining on Poverty and Inequality: Evidence from the Commodity Boom in Peru. World Development, 84, 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.03.005 Mantyka-Pringle, C. S., Jardine, T. D., Bradford, L., Bharadwaj, L., Kythreotis, A. P., Fresque-Baxter, J., … the Slave River and Delta Partnership. (2017). Bridging science and traditional knowledge to assess cumulative impacts of stressors on ecosystem health. Environment International, 102, 125–137. McKay, A. J., & Johnson, C. J. (2017a). Confronting barriers and recognizing opportunities: Developing effective community-based environmental monitoring programs to meet the needs of Aboriginal communities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 64, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.01.002 McKay, A. J., & Johnson, C. J. (2017b). Identifying Effective and Sustainable Measures for Community-Based Environmental Monitoring. Environmental Management, 60(3), 484–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0887-3 Mills, A. (2017). What is a treaty? on contract and mutual aid. In J. Burrows & M. Coyle (Eds.), The Right Relationship: Reimagining the Implementation of Historical Treaties (pp. 208– 248). Toronto: U of T Press. Moore, M.-L., von der Porten, S., & Castleden, H. (2017). Consultation is not consent: hydraulic fracturing and water governance on Indigenous lands in Canada. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 4(1), e1180. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1180 Morrison-Saunders, A., & Early, G. (2008). What is necessary to ensure natural justice in environmental impact assessment decision-making? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 26(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.3152/146155108X303210 Noble, B. (2015). Cumualtive effects research: achievements, status, directions and challenges in the Canadian context. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 81 17(01), 1550001. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333215500015 Noble, B., Liu, J., & Hackett, P. (2017). The Contribution of Project Environmental Assessment to Assessing and Managing Cumulative Effects: Individually and Collectively Insignificant? Environmental Management, 59(4), 531–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0799-7 O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2009). Effectiveness in social impact assessment: Aboriginal peoples and resource development in Australia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(2), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.3152/146155109X438715 O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2017). Shaping projects, shaping impacts : community- controlled impact assessments and negotiated agreements. Third World Quarterly, 38(5), 1181–1197. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1279539 Paci, C., Tobin, A., & Robb, P. (2002). Reconsidering the Canadian Environmental Impact Assessment Act. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0195-9255(01)00095-6 Papillon, M., & Rodon, T. (2017). Proponent-Indigenous agreements and the implementation of the right to free, prior, and informed consent in Canada. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.06.009 Parkes, M. W. (2016). Cumulative Determinants of Health Impacts in Rural, Remote, and Resource-Dependent Communities. In M. P. Gillingham, G. R. Halseth, C. J. Johnson, & M. W. Parkes (Eds.), Integration Imperative: Cumulative Environmental, Community and Health Effects of Multiple Natural Resource Developments (pp. 117–153). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Parkes, M. W., Johnson, C. J., Halseth, G. R., & Gillingham, M. P. (2016). An Imperative for 82 Change: Towards an Integrative Understanding. In M. P. Gillingham, G. R. Halseth, C. J. Johnson, & M. W. Parkes (Eds.), Integration Imperative: Cumulative Environmental, Community and Health Effects of Multiple Natural Resource Developments (pp. 193–217). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Poe, M. R., Norman, K. C., & Levin, P. S. (2014). Cultural dimensions of socioecological systems: Key connections and guiding principles for conservation in coastal environments. Conservation Letters, 7(3), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12068 Porter, L., Jackson, S., & Johnson, L. C. (2017). Indigenous planning: Emerging possibilities. In S. Jackson, L. Porter, & L. C. Johnson (Eds.), Planning in Indigenous Australia: From Imperial Foundations to Postcolonial Futures (1st ed., pp. 214–235). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315693668 Ross, H. (1990). Community social impact assessment: A framework for indigenous peoples. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 10(1–2), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/0195-9255(90)90018-U R. v. Sparrow, 1SCR1075. (1990). Retrieved from https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc- csc/en/item/609/index.do Sandlos, J., & Keeling, A. (2016a). Aboriginal communities, traditional knowledge, and the environmental legacies of extractive development in Canada. Extractive Industries and Society, 3(2), 278–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2015.06.005 Sandlos, J., & Keeling, A. (2016b). Toxic Legacies, Slow Violence, and Environmental Injustice at Giant Mine, Northwest Territories. The Northern Review, 42(42), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.22584/nr42.2016.002 Serje, M. (2017). Social relations: A critical reflection on the notion of social impacts as change. 83 Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 65(April), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.04.006 Shapcott, C. (1989). Environmental impact assessment and resource management, a Haida case study: Implications for native people of the North. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 9(1), 55–83. Sheelanere, P., Noble, B. F., & Patrick, R. J. (2013). Institutional requirements for watershed cumulative effects assessment and management: Lessons from a Canadian trans-boundary watershed. Land Use Policy, 30(1), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.03.001 Slootweg, R., Vanclay, F., & van Schooten, M. (2001). Function evaluation as a framework for the integration of social and environmental impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154601781767186 Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia, SCC-74. (2004). Retrieved from https://scc- csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2190/index.do Tollefson, C., & Wipond, K. (1998). Cumulative environmental impacts and aboriginal rights. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18(4), 371–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(98)00011-0 Tsilqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, SCC-44. (2014). Retrieved from https://scc- csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14246/index.do Udofia, A., Noble, B., & Poelzer, G. (2017). 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 United Nations. (2008). The United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Vanclay, F. (2002). Conceptualising social impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(3), 183–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(01)00105-6 84 Walters, M. D. (2016). “Looking for a knot in the bulrush”: Reflections on Law, Sovereignty, and Aboriginal Rights. In From Recognition to Reconciliation: Essays on the Constitutional Entrenchment of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights (pp. 35–63). Toronto: U of T Press. Wanvik, T. I., & Caine, K. (2017). Understanding indigenous strategic pragmatism: Métis engagement with extractive industry developments in the Canadian North. Extractive Industries and Society, 4(3), 595–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2017.04.002 Westman, C. N., & Joly, T. L. (2019). Oil Sands Extraction in Alberta, Canada: a Review of Impacts and Processes Concerning Indigenous Peoples. Human Ecology, 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-019-0059-6 Wolfe, P. (2006). Settler Colonialism and the elimination of the native. Journal of Genocide Research, 8(4), 387–409. 85 Chapter 4: Study Regions Background and Case Study Analysis 4.1. Introduction This chapter describes the results of a case study analysis of hydroelectric development assessments in Manitoba and British Columbia (BC) and how cumulative social effects are evaluated during EAs. Hydroelectric power has a long history in Canada and is an important part of future economic and renewable energy planning. However, the development and operation of hydroelectric facilities and associated infrastructure can result in significant widely dispersed and long-term environmental and social impacts including community relocation, disruption of food sources, local economic and employment changes, mental and physical health impacts, changes in cultural practices, social cohesion, and land use changes (Behn & Bakker, 2019; Gardner, 2016; Hoffman, 2008; Noble, Liu, & Hackett, 2017). The cumulative nature of these impacts and their implications for project decision-making have been a contentious and challenging part of EA processes. This chapter explores case studies drawn from two provinces with similarities in terms their hydroelectric development histories, but different assessment processes, outcomes, and social contexts. In the following sections, a brief history of hydroelectric development in each region is provided and the regulatory context for cumulative social effects is outlined. The case studies are described and the key themes and lessons emerging from each case are discussed. This analysis was completed Dec. 2019-Feb 2020 and the results were used to inform and guide semi-structured interviews with practitioners in both provinces which are described in the following two chapters. 86 4.2 Study Regions 4.2.1 Northern Manitoba About 97% of the electricity produced in Manitoba is drawn from 15 hydroelectric generating stations run by the crown corporation Manitoba Hydro (Manitoba Hydro, 2018). The generating capacity in the northern Nelson, Burntwood and Churchill River system accounts for over 70% of the total hydroelectric capacity in the province (Manitoba Hydro, 2018). This river system is home to a network of developments and a water regime which regulates flow out of Lake Winnipeg (Figure 1). Hydroelectric development in northern Manitoba began with construction of Kelsey generating station in the Nelson river, which was brought into service in 1961 (Clean Environment Commission, 2018). Development on the Nelson watershed expanded rapidly throughout the next four decades including the construction of Kettle (1974), Jenpeg (1977), Long Spruce (1979), and Limestone (1992) generating stations, the Bipole I (1961) and Bipole II (1985) transmission lines, and supported by the substantial diversion of the Churchill River into the Nelson River (1973) to augment flow for future development (Clean Environment Commission (CEC), 2018). EAs in Manitoba are conducted under the province’s Environment Act, which came into effect in 1987. The Environment Act established the Clean Environment Commission (CEC) which is an arms-length government appointed commission that reviews project assessments, investigates specific environmental concerns and impacts, conducts public hearings, and provides recommendations to the provincial minister. EAs in the province follow a series of overlapping steps: EA referral, screening to determine the level of review, scoping, impact assessment, review, decision-making, and post licensing follow-up. Under the Act projects are classified under the Classes of Development Regulation (1988) as Class 1, 2, or 3 depending on 87 the size and complexity of the development. Hydroelectric developments may also be subject to a federal EA under the Impact Assessment Act 2019 or the previous Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 depending on the scale and the location of the proposed development. The Government of Manitoba and the Canadian federal government signed a cooperation agreement to complete a coordinated EA for projects which require federal assessment (2007). Figure 1:Major Hydroelectric Facilities in Northern Manitoba. (Google Maps, 2022) The Wuskwatim generating station and transmission line, brought into operation in 2012, was the first major development since the 1990s and the first project to be subject to a review 88 and public hearing under The Environment Act (1987). The project represented a new approach for Manitoba Hydro in the development of the Wuskwatim Power Limited Partnership involving Manitoba Hydro and Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation. This marked the first instance where Manitoba Hydro entered into a formal partnership with a First Nation to develop and operate a project, a model which has been repeated for subsequent developments. Following this, the Bipole III transmission line and the Keeyask generating station began construction in 2013 and 2014 respectively (Manitoba Hydro, 2018). A hearing report for the Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission aimed at delivering hydroelectric power to and from the United States, was recently completed in 2017. Well over 30 Manitoba Hydro projects have been constructed in the north and future expansions and additional generating stations and transmission lines are likely in this region. Under the Environment Act (1987) there is no formal legislative requirement to conduct a CEA during an EA. Further, assessments of social, economic, and cultural effects are required only so far as they are directly caused by an environmental effect. Despite no formal requirement or guidance at the provincial level, hydroelectric environmental impact statements and EA reviews in the province typically do include assessments of cumulative effects and discussions about cumulative impacts have been extensive in public hearings. This attention to cumulative impacts has been fueled by the expectations and the information brought forward by interveners, Indigenous governments, and other public stakeholders, and also the efforts of the CEC to respond to these concerns and to draw on existing research and national CEA best practices (CEC, 2018). The requirement to assess cumulative effects and the guidance developed under the Impact Assessment Act 2019, and under the previous Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012, has also been instrumental in setting an expectation for 89 CEA and supporting the application of CEA within provincial and territorial processes regardless of the specific requirements in those jurisdictions. The impacts of early hydro development and the Churchill River Diversion in northern Manitoba were extensive and the social impacts have been continuous (Gunn & Noble, 2012). The expansion of hydro development fundamentally altered the environment, local economies, and social and community structures, resulted in forced relocation and disproportionally affected Indigenous communities who were not consulted or involved in development evaluations or decision-making (Kulchyski, 2008). In 1977, the Northern Flood Agreement was negotiated between five affected Indigenous nations, provincial and federal governments, and Manitoba Hydro in an attempt to define compensation for the impacts and damage caused by hydroelectric development and flooding. Individual implementation agreements specifying compensation and expectations for future development were signed with four out of the five nations throughout the 1990s. Cumulative effects to human social, economic, health, and cultural systems have become a particularly central and contentious issue for hydroelectric EAs. Given the long history and dominance of the hydroelectric industry in the north, its exclusive management by the crown corporation Manitoba Hydro, and the large collection of EAs, evaluations, and hearings that have been completed, the effectiveness of project based impact assessments has been repeatedly questioned. As part of the Bipole III transmission line EA review (2013), the Clean Environment Commission, recommended that Manitoba Hydro and the Government of Manitoba complete a regional CEA for hydroelectric development in northern Manitoba in the Nelson, Burntwood and Churchill River systems. In 2015, Manitoba Hydro published the second phase of a regional cumulative effects study completed in partnership with the provincial government. 90 The regional assessment has been a contentious process critiqued by the CEC, researchers, Indigenous communities and public stakeholders and in 2018 the CEC published their report and the results of their own public hearing. 4.2.2 British Columbia: The Peace River and Columbia River Systems Significant hydroelectric development in BC began in the 1960s driven by the Two Rivers Policy was aimed at capitalizing on the potential of the Peace River and the Columbia river and strengthening the economic independence of the province (Figure 2). Over 90% of provincial electricity is now drawn from 31 stations operated by the crown corporation BC Hydro. The Peace River originates in northeastern BC and flows east across Northern Alberta to Lake Athabasca. The Columbia River is the fourth largest watershed in North America and flows through the Rocky Mountain Trench before crossing into the United States. EAs in BC are governed by the Environmental Assessment Act which was recently updated in 2018. Under the current (2018), and previous version of the Act (2002) the BC Environmental Assessment Office carries out assessments, facilitates participation and collaboration with Indigenous governments, and produces assessment reports. Among the changes introduced by the 2018 Act were early and enhanced engagement opportunities, mechanisms to pursue Indigenous consent for development, a sustainability orientation, and renewed attention to cumulative effects. CEA is a required part of the EA process in BC. The definition of cumulative effects offered in guidance is inclusive of social impacts and there have been specific efforts provincially to support regional assessments, and to include impacts to Indigenous interests and rights. These goals are also supported by the federal Impact Assessment 91 Act 2019 and cooperation agreements have been established between Canada and BC for EAs which require federal review (2004; 2020). Figure 2:Major Hydroelectric Facilities in the Peace Region and Columbia Region of BC. (Google Maps, 2022) While there is regulatory support for assessing cumulative social effects, guidance explicitly focused on how to carry out such an assessment is relatively thin. Under the BC Environmental Assessment Act 2018, guidance has been established for CEA but it remains centered on biophysical impacts. Guidance has also been established for social and health impact assessment, and Indigenous participation and consent, but aside from mentioning the importance of including cumulative effects these materials include little instruction for how such an assessment should be carried out (BC Environmental Assessment Office, 2016). BC has also developed a Cumulative Effects Framework initiative independent of EA processes to provide Peace Region Columbia Region 92 regional information on VCs although so far no explicitly human/social centered VCs have been defined. The Peace Region in northeastern BC accounts for 38% of BC Hydro’s total capacity (BC Hydro, 2019). The W.A.C. Bennet dam was completed in 1968 along with the GM Shrum Generating Station and it remains the largest dam on the Peace River (BC Hydro, 2019). The construction of the Peace Canyon Dam and Generating Station followed in 1980 (BC Hydro, 2019). Soon after, BC Hydro began exploring plans for a third facility on the Peace River, the Site C project, however the proposal was shelved and revived a few decades later and it has been the topic of a contentious review process (Bakker & Hendriks, 2019; Joint Review Panel, 2014). Site C was required to undergo a joint federal and provincial EA by an independent review panel. The panel’s report was issued in 2014 along with conditions for approval. Site C is among the most expensive infrastructure projects ever undertaken by the province of BC and although construction has begun, it has been the focus of ongoing debate and legal challenges related to social and economic impacts, potential benefits, and cumulative impacts resulting from multiple resource development industries in the Peace Region. In the Columbia River region, early hydroelectric development was supported by the Columbia River Treaty, a transboundary water management agreement between Canada and the United States. There are 4 major hydroelectric dams operating in the region which were built before 1985, including the Mica Generating Station (1973), the Kootenay Canal Generating Station (1976), Seven Mile Generating Station (1979), and the Revelstoke Generating Station (1984) (Hydro, 2019). There are also two water storage dams constructed as part of the Columbia River Treaty, and 7 smaller hydroelectric dams within the region. Indigenous Nation’s use of the Columbia River region dates back thousands of years, and the region has 93 been recognized internationally for its ecological significance. Recent provincial hydroelectric EAs have concerned small-scale capacity expansions to the Revelstoke Generating Station and the Mica Generating Stations. Cumulative effects have been a focal point in these reviews due to the concerns of Indigenous governments and public stakeholders about the legacy of the hydroelectric industry along the Columbia River and existing social and environmental impacts resulting from historical developments that remain in operation (BC Environmental Assessment Office, 2018). 4.3 Case Study Analysis I used a case study approach to understand what can be learned about assessing cumulative social effects. Case study research is a common method in social science research, and is a primary method in resource management research (Howitt, 2001). Resource management is a pragmatic field with an ethic that research should not only advance theory, but also contribute to practical applications and outcomes (Howitt, 2001). Exploring assessment case studies can facilitate such linkages between thinking and practice. Specific case studies in each region were selected based on a review of recent hydroelectric developments and associated documents, and through conversations with regulators and EA practitioners in each province. The goal was to select assessments that illustrate EA processes and where cumulative effects emerged as a central concern. In Northern Manitoba, the assessments reviewed were the Keeyask Generating Station and the regional cumulative effects study completed by Manitoba Hydro and the Government of Manitoba. In BC, the Site C development in the Peace River region, and the Revelstoke Unit 6 expansion in the Columbia River region were reviewed. 94 An important note is that given the differences in terms of regulatory, social, and environmental contexts between the study regions, and in terms of the specifics of the cases themselves, this is not intended to be a comparative case study analysis. Rather, the goal is to explore the specific context of each assessment and what can be learned in terms of assessing cumulative social effects. I employed an instrumental case study lens in that the focus is exploring specific cases to highlight what can be learned and understand how cumulative social effects have been assessed in practice (Mills, Durepos, & Wiebe, 2010). Descriptive information and the documents reviewed for each case study are provided in Table 3. Additional detail and context for each case is provided in the results. The primary method was a document review (Yin, 2011) of completed EA reports, past regional cumulative effects studies and reports, and public hearing reports. Reviewing past EA decision reports is an established strategy in EA case study research. For instance, reviews of past EA decision documents have been used to evaluate the use of VCs within EA (Ball, Noble, & Dubé, 2013), to identify how human health has been considered in project level EAs (Hackett, Liu, & Noble, 2018), and evaluate the contribution of individual project EAs to CEA and management (Noble et al., 2017). By analyzing completed decisions, assessments can be made about the effectiveness and efficiency of policy or regulatory processes and in this case, how cumulative social effects have been considered during hydroelectric EAs. Given that these reports are written accounts of the assessment, the analysis is limited to the written text and focused on those social impacts and components which were explicitly identified as cumulative within the documents reviewed. For each case study, I completed a thematic analysis of cumulative effects discussions within the documents to identify what can be learned from each 95 case in respect to cumulative social effects and the key challenges and questions that have emerged. Table 1: Case Studies and Documents Reviewed Assessment Description Year complete Documents reviewed Manitoba Keeyask Generating Station EA for 695 megawatt generating facility and associated infrastructure 2014 • Environmental Impact Statement and socioeconomic technical volume • Response to guideline documents: scope and approach, cumulative effects assessment • CEC report of public hearing Regional CEA Regional study of existing cumulative effects in Nelson, Burntwood, Churchill River system 2015 CEC report 2018 • RCEA report phase 1 • RCEA report phase 2 • CEC report of public hearing British Columbia Site C EA for up to 1100 megawatt generating station and associated infrastructure 2014 • Environmental Impact Statement • Report of Joint Panel Review Rev 6 EA for addition of 500 megawatt turbine to Revelstoke Dam 2018 • Environmental Impact Statement • Environmental Assessment Office Assessment Report 4.4 Results 4.4.1 Keeyask Generating Station The Keeyask Generating Station is the 4th largest generating station in Manitoba with a 695 megawatt capacity (CEC, 2014). It is located at Gull Rapids on the Lower Nelson River, about 60km northwest of Split Lake and about 30km west of Gillam. The project consists of the construction of the generation facility, a system of dams and dykes, and spillway. An accompanying 138 kV transmission line 22km in length was evaluated in a separate EA process. The Keeyask generating station project was assessed under the Environment Act of Manitoba and 96 the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012. The proponent is the Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership, which consists of Manitoba Hydro and investment entities representing 4 Cree First Nations: Tataskweyak Cree Nation, War Lake First Nation, and York Factory First Nation, and Fox Lake Cree Nation. Public hearings were completed by the CEC 2013-14 and a final report was published in 2014. The CEC recommended that the project be approved for a licence under the Environment Act with a number of conditions and non-licencing recommendations directed at Manitoba Hydro and the Government of Manitoba to improve the EA process and reconciliation in Manitoba. A key theme that emerged in the Keeyask EA process is the diversity of approaches and understandings of CEA, how it should be framed, and what it should include. The Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership resulted in a two-track approach to the Environmental Impact Statement where the Cree Nation partners produced their own evaluation of the project and its impacts alongside a regulatory Environmental Impact Statement produced by Manitoba Hydro (CEC, 2014). Manitoba Hydro’s CEA process relied on the identification of VCs, the evaluation of project effects on identified VCs, the determination if effects will be adverse and residual, and finally a CEA on those VCs where negative and residual project effects are expected in combination with other projects and impacts in the study area. In the Environmental Impact Statement produced by Manitoba Hydro (2012), socioeconomic effects were grouped into 5 categories: economy; population; infrastructure and services; personal, family, and community life; resource use; and heritage resources. Of the 19 VCs identified within these categories, 9 were projected to have adverse residual effects and were included in the CEA (Manitoba Hydro, 2012). Manitoba Hydro projected that none would have significant cumulative effects following mitigation (2012). 97 The approach to CEA by the Cree Nation partners differed substantially from the Manitoba Hydro process. For example, in the Fox Lake Cree Nation Environment Evaluation Report (2012), the Nation notes that they participated in the VC approach, but found it difficult to accept: “By its very nature, the VEC approach tends to ignore the interrelatedness of people, animals, water, landscapes, and plants...” (iv). Throughout the report the interdependent relationship between the environment and people and their communities is emphasized. Science and Indigenous knowledge are used together, but the limitations of a solely technical approach to impact prediction is also highlighted, specifically in terms of understanding social impacts. Some of the cumulative effects of hydroelectric development cannot be quantified and are personal and subjective, but no less important than those environmental effects which can be quantified: “While environmental transformations can be quantified in essays, surveys, and censuses, our people experienced the human cost of these changes at a deeply personal level.” (Fox Lake Cree Nation, 2012, 63). An contrast of worldviews in terms of CEA is also evident in the report produced by York Factory First Nation entitled Kipekiskwaywinan/Our Voices (2012). The report does not define any VCs, and uses a narrative format relying on stories, and testimony. A number of cumulative effects are identified, but are woven throughout the report rather than presented in a distinct section. The report as a whole also challenges the theoretical underpinnings of EA which is often framed as an objective, scientific process and questions the focus on project attribution, and the assumption of certainty: “Our voices do not make for a tidy, coordinated written account, that tries to make everything sound objective, balanced, certain, predictable and manageable. Rather, they are full of many contradictions, uneven treatment, bias, fear, anger, wariness, resignation, yet hope.” (2012, II, 13). 98 In their analysis the CEC noted that CEA has been a highly contested part of the EA process across many hydroelectric developments (CEC, 2014). Part of the challenge is related to the lack of guidance and process for CEA at the provincial level. The only recommendation the CEC made in the CEA portion of their report was a non-licencing recommendation aimed at addressing this deficit: “The Manitoba Government establish provincial guidelines for cumulative effects assessment best practices and include specific direction for proponents in project guidelines.” (2014, 12.1). During the public hearings, a number of experts provided evaluations and critiques of the CEA process used by Manitoba Hydro and the CEC highlighted specific concerns related to scoping, retrospective and prospective assessment, the delineation of the study area, and assumptions about the success of proposed mitigation measures, particularly for socioeconomic effects (CEC, 2014). The value of the partnership and “two track” approach to the Environmental Impact Statement was recognized, but the extent to which Indigenous worldviews and the perspectives of other affected nations were meaningfully included was an area of debate: “While many Participants and Presenters saw the two-track approach and the involvement of the Keeyask Cree Nations in carrying out their own evaluations as a positive step, concerns were expressed that the technical science track ultimately dominated the decision making.” (CEC 2014, 42). A specific area of tension was the geographic and temporal boundaries used for the assessment. The Cree Nation reports used broader spatial scales and a longer time period considering the state of the environment and communities in a pre-hydro era. The Keeyask project is viewed not as a distinct undertaking, but as a part of a broader project: the entire integrated hydroelectric system in the north. In their report the CEC notes, “One of the significant questions, raised by the witnesses for the CEC, was whether, in assessing cumulative effects, we should consider that new impacts are minor in 99 comparison to past impacts, or consider that, since past impacts were significant, any new impact will add to that significant disruption.” (2014, 138). The CEC ultimately made no recommendations specifically in reference to cumulative social effects, but attached 5 licensing recommendations for socioeconomic impacts and VCs related to working training, human health and mercury, and worker interaction (2014, 165-166). The Cree Nation partners, affected Nations, experts, and public stakeholders called for a regional integrated assessment of the network of hydroelectric development in the north. The CEC also reiterated their call for a regional CEA in northern Manitoba. 4.4.2 Regional CEA Nelson, Burntwood and Churchill River Systems The CEC has repetitively raised concerns about the need for an RCEA in northern Manitoba and improvements in the standards and guidance for EA (Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission report (2004), the Red River Floodway expansion report (2005), the Bipole III transmission project report (2013), the Keeyask Generating Station report (2014), and the Lake Winnipeg Regulation report (2015)). In their recommendation in the Bipole III EA, the CEC cited their long history of concerns with Manitoba Hydro’s CEA approach and stated that: “...the Commission finds it simply inconceivable – given the 50-plus-year history of Manitoba Hydro development in northern Manitoba and given that at least 35 Manitoba Hydro projects have been constructed in the north in that time – that there are few, if any, cumulative effects identified in this Environmental Impact Statement” (CEC, 2013, 112). This recommendation was also strongly supported by the testimony of Tataskweyak Cree Nation and Fox Lake Cree Nation about the interrelated biophysical and social cumulative impacts (CEC, 2013). In 2014, Manitoba Hydro and the Government of Manitoba established the terms of reference for an RCEA to meet this recommendation. The RCEA was expected to identify and acknowledge the cumulative effects of past developments, describe the current state of the 100 region, and describe a process for continued monitoring and reporting. In 2015, Manitoba Hydro and the government of Manitoba published the second phase of a regional CEA and the CEC initiated a review of reports, a participant program and process to invite input from affected First Nations identified in the assessment. The CEC’s report was published in 2018. In their report, the CEC noted that the RCEA diverted from best practice in a number of ways: it did not carry out engagement at the outset, it was limited to a retrospective analysis of past developments, and spatial scoping minimized impacts in some cases (2018). The analysis was a desktop study in that it relied on existing information about past projects and impacts and included no data gathering, no prospective analysis, and no determination of impact significance or analysis of the effectiveness of mitigation. The RCEA has been contentious and critiqued by many Indigenous nations, researchers, and stakeholders as a limited and descriptive exercise rather than an analysis of how hydroelectric development has contributed to, created, or exacerbated impacts. This is an important limitation of the CEA study, given that many communities have repetitively participated in EA processes and emphasized that hydroelectric development in northern Manitoba has had, and continues to have, significant negative impacts on the lives and well-being of residents (CEC, 2018). In addition, there were critiques of the CEC panel and review process itself for its limited Indigenous representation and meaningful involvement in the review (CEC, 2018). A key area of debate and discussion around cumulative social effects was in the availability of data and how such impacts can be meaningfully understood over time. The RCEA did not use VCs, but instead defined a number of themes that have emerged through past settlement processes and community engagement meetings. For social impacts there were 10 themes identified: culture, way of life, heritage resources; home relocation; worker interaction; 101 resource use; land use; aesthetics; navigation, transportation, safety; health concerns; personal property loss or damage; infrastructure and services (Manitoba Hydro & Government of Manitoba 2015). In their analysis of the socioeconomic evaluations completed by the RCEA the CEC notes it fell short of a true “assessment” which would require analysis beyond a description of impacts and the state of the region and include some discussion of impact drivers and pathways that have shaped the baseline (2018). For example the RCEA identified a number of historical factors that affected Indigenous communities in the north including the fur trade, commercial fishing, government policies associated with the Indian Act and treaties, and residential schools. These impacts would have been present even in the absence of hydroelectric development, but the RCEA did not attempt to evaluate how hydroelectric development may have contributed to these effects, “While it is true that hydroelectric development is only one of a number of drivers of socio-economic change, and its contribution to overall impacts may be difficult to identify, it is a driver and its impact has been significant, if incremental and therefore cumulative.” (2018, 63). The CEC further observed a lack of attention to impact pathways and an analysis of significance or the effectiveness of mitigation for socioeconomic effects, “The discussion of effects is to a large measure a description of mitigation and compensation measures that have been put in place in response to the impacts of development. A more complete analysis of the effects could have addressed such issues as the impact and longevity of the effects and the effectiveness and appropriateness of mitigation.” (2018, 63) The RCEA emphasized a lack of data as an important limiting factor to the assessment and for socioeconomic effects specifically for northern areas (Manitoba Hydro & Government of Manitoba, 2015). The CEC noted this reality, but the CEC and hearing participants questioned whether the willingness to seek out additional data sources and engage with Indigenous and local 102 knowledge was a more significant limiting factor: “There is no denying that determining pre-development conditions is challenging in this context. However, the commission was of the opinion that in some cases the descriptions of the pre-development condition could have been enhanced. It is likely that historical data exist with entities outside of Manitoba Hydro and the Manitoba government that could have been sought out.” (2018, 59). Despite a relatively limited consideration of socioeconomic impacts on communities in the RCEA, blunt and emotional testimony about increased crime, sexual assault, and the social consequences of a transient workforce dominated the CEC hearing and was picked up by media outlets further drawing attention to the failure of assessment process to account for these impacts and to meaningfully engage with the legacy of hydroelectric development and cumulative effects in the north.2 4.4.3 Site C Project The Site C Clean Energy Project is a dam and hydroelectric generating station with up to 1100 megawatt capacity. It is located on the Peace River in northeastern BC near the city of Fort St. John (Joint Panel Review (JPR), 2014). This would be the third facility on the Peace River. The W.A.C. Bennet dam and Williston Reservoir and the Peace Canyon dam and Dinosaur Reservoir have been in operation since 1968 and 1980 respectively. Plans for Site C were first explored in the 1950s and potential sites evaluated throughout the 1970s and 1980s. In 1982 the BC Utilities Commission was tasked with reviewing the project and its justification, but the project was ultimately shelved for over twenty years. When it was revived, it was exempt from review by the BC Utilities Commission under the 2010 Clean Energy Act. An EA was 2 CBC News, Aug. 25, 2018 “Hydro projects left environmental, social scars on Manitoba's north, report reveals” https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-hydro-clean-environment-commission-report-1.4798560 103 completed by a joint panel review under the BC Environmental Assessment Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012. Approval was granted in 2014 and construction began in 2015. Site C has been contentious and many Indigenous nations, researchers, non-governmental organizations, and public stakeholders have challenged its approval and questioned its justification and projected benefits. In 2017 a new BC provincial government was elected and instructed the BC Utilities Commission to review the project. Despite concerns about the construction costs and projected benefits, the provincial government elected to continue with the project. During the EA review, 22 VCs were identified, 14 of which were related to the socioeconomic environment (JPR, 2014). The Panel determined that Site C had 20 significant environmental effects, including cumulative effects on current use of land and resources for traditional purposes (2014). Cumulative effects were a primary area of debate and disagreement during the EA review. The project and its physical disturbance is substantial, and cumulative effects were a focal point due to the development that has already occurred in the Peace River region and the existence of two historical hydroelectric facilities which remain in operation and were constructed historically without an EA. The Environmental Impact Statement produced by BC Hydro (2013) sought to use a temporal baseline of the existing condition for its CEA. This was challenged by participating Indigenous Nations and other organizations who argued that this approach would not consider the full impacts of BC Hydro’s facilities and operations on the Peace River, let alone the other industries affecting the region (JPR, 2014). BC Hydro responded that a lack of data was a limiting factor in establishing such a baseline and the reliability of the assessment would be compromised. In finalizing the guidelines, the joint panel accepted the 104 concerns of BC Hydro, but proposed a compromise and instructed BC Hydro to include a narrative discussion of existing hydroelectric projects and their impacts (JPR, 2014). Numerous testimonies about the cumulative effects of these projects were provided to the panel throughout the review. In their report the Panel again acknowledged concerns about the temporal scale: “The Panel agrees that if each successive project used a new baseline, assuming that prior impacts were reflected in that baseline, then entire Aboriginal cultures and practices of Aboriginal and treaty rights could become effectively extinct before there is adequate appreciation for what has been lost.” (JPR, 2014, 119). Further, the panel stated that regardless of whether the project proceeds there is a need for a regional assessment, baseline study, and establishment of thresholds in this region. After the project approval in 2014, there were a number of legal challenges initiated by affected Treaty 8 First Nations. Notably in March 2015, Blueberry River First Nation sued the province of BC in the Supreme Court for not adequately protecting their treaty rights and lands from the cumulative impacts of industrial development (Yahey v. British Columbia, 2017). Nearly 70% of the Blueberry River traditional territory is covered by active petroleum and oil and gas tenures. Forestry activities, seismic lines, agricultural lands, and extensive infrastructure, such as access roads, also populate the territory (Ecotrust, 2016). In addition, the territory is affected by the construction of the Site C project and the existing W.A.C Bennet and Peace Canyon Dams. In 2021, the Supreme Court of BC agreed with Blueberry River First Nation and ruled that their protected treaty rights had been breached by development authorized by the province and the cumulative effects that had resulted over many years. This example is among the first instances in Canada where the court has been called upon to analyze and evaluate the cumulative effects of development from different 105 sources. The decision may provide a foundation for other Nations in BC to make their own claims in respect to cumulative effects and to exercise their rights. 4.4.4 Revelstoke Unit 6 Expansion The Revelstoke Dam is located on the Columbia River about 5 kilometers upstream from the City of Revelstoke, BC (BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO), 2018). The Revelstoke 6 project involves installing a 6th generating unit into an existing turbine bay at the Revelstoke Dam and generating station. BC Hydro also proposed to build a new capacitor station on a BC Hydro owned property near Summerland, BC. The capacity of the 6th turbine would be up to 500 megawatts, and the project was referred for a provincial EA under the BC Environmental Assessment Act. The Revelstoke dam became operational in 1984 and was not subject to an EA at that time (BC Hydro, 2019). The Revelstoke Dam is part of BC Hydro’s Columbia River system which includes the Mica Dam, Kinbasket Reservoir, Hugh Keenleyside Dam and Arrow Lakes Reservoir (BC Hydro, 2019). BC Hydro submitted their application for the Revelstoke 6 project in 2017 and the Environmental Assessment Office report was published in 2018 recommending approval. There were 5 VCs defined for the social environment and also a specific section to consider Indigenous rights and interests (BC EAO, 2018). The Environmental Assessment Office concluded that the project would result in some social residual adverse effects including rental housing and temporary accommodation, access to hunting, and trapping, and guide outfitting, recreation and tourism, and sensory disturbance, though none were determined to be significant (2018). An important note for the CEA discussions during the EA was that the physical effects and disturbance of the project were anticipated to be minimal. The 6th unit 106 increases the capacity of the existing dam, but results in minor operational changes (BC EAO, 2018). The primary concerns of affected Indigenous nations and public stakeholders were related to the Revelstoke Dam itself, the existing reservoirs, and already impacted baseline condition: “Indigenous Groups also expressed a concern that impacts for the original dam were never adequately assessed and that a comprehensive cumulative effects assessment that considered past development be completed.” (BC EAO, 2018, 156). Many participating Indigenous Nations critiqued BC Hydro’s decision to use the current condition as the temporal baseline and suggested that this did not adequately consider a pre-hydro condition and impacts since the original dam became operational. The Sylix Okanagan Nation noted that this limited the information available during the EA and suggested that, while this project might be a small expansion to an existing facility, there is a need for a regional CEA to account for the incremental effects of past, present, and future development: “Syilx Okanagan Nation noted that they were not provided with adequate information to conduct a full characterization of change over time from pre-dam conditions in making these characterizations. This is one of the reasons Syilx Okanagan Nation is calling for a full cumulative effects assessment for the Columbia River Basin” (BC EAO, 2018, 180). The challenge for the CEA discussions were focused on whether despite limited physical environmental effects, there might be existing socioeconomic effects related to past and present operations that should be relevant to a discussion about cumulative effects. 4.5 Conclusion The case studies reveal a number of key challenges for cumulative social effects and provide and pose a number of questions for further exploration. CEA is highly relevant to 107 communities affected by hydroelectric development, who are confronted with the cumulative effects of all industries and projects in addition to the project under review. It is also an aspect of EA which has become increasingly important for Indigenous nations in understanding impacts to their rights, territories, and ability to sustain land use activities (Bakker & Hendriks, 2019; Booth & Skelton, 2011; Christensen & Krogman, 2012; Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017). CEA may be a potential point of intersection between western scientific perspective and Indigenous ecology (Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017). However, as illustrated by the Keeyask Generating Station EA it is also often an area where the differences between these perspectives and the contrasting approaches and understandings of impact have become most evident. Ensuring that Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous led CEA processes are supported during EA is important, as is ensuring the results are meaningfully used as a foundation for decision-making. A related challenge exists in that cumulative social effects are difficult to define, understand, and often to measure and attribute to specific projects. The Manitoba Hydro/Government RCEA demonstrated both an uncertainty about how to assess cumulative social effects and potential impact pathways, and also a hesitancy to do so. In areas where there is significant historical development, other industries, and a range of political factors that have influenced the social environment, an assessment about cumulative effects inevitably becomes a much broader conversations about social conditions, reconciliation, and inequities. A CEA must not be strictly a description of social cumulative effects, but an assessment and discussion of the factors that have contributed to these effects. This is also complicated in a project EA setting as was evident in the Site C review in BC. A key question that emerged during the assessment was how existing large scale hydroelectric facilities constructed prior to EA legislation in the province should be considered in contemporary EA and CEA process. The Revelstoke Unit 6 EA 108 also demonstrated that the physical disturbance of a project and projected changes in environment effects may be minor, but the social implications and cumulative effects, taking into account past impacts on social systems, may be much greater. Concerns during the EA were more closely related to the present impacts of past developments than they were to the project under review and this creates a question and a challenge for CEA and its role in accounting for these impacts. These findings and themes that emerged from these case studies, were used to design the questions for the semi-structured interviews and are further explored in the following two chapters. 4.6 References Bakker, K., & Hendriks, R. (2019). Contested knowledges in hydroelectric project assessment: The case of Canada’s Site C Project. Water, 11(3), 406. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030406 Ball, M., Noble, B. F., & Dubé, M. G. (2013). Valued ecosystem components for watershed cumulative effects: An analysis of environmental impact assessments in the South Saskatchewan River watershed, Canada. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 9(3), 469–479. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1333 British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act, 2018 (SBC c. 51) BC Environmental Assessment Office. (2016). Cumulative effects and BC environmental assessment. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/environmental-assessments/guidance-documents/eao-cumulative-effects-and-bc-environmental-assessments.pdf BC Environmental Assessment Office. (2018). Assessment Report for Revelstoke Generating Station Unit 6 Project. 109 BC Environmental Assessment Office. (2020). Guide to Consensus-Seeking under the Environmental Assessment Act , 2018. BC Hydro. (2019a). Our facilties: Peace Region. Retrieved from https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/operations/our-facilities/peace.html BC Hydro. (2019b). Our facilities: Columbia Region. Retrieved from https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/operations/our-facilities/columbia.html Behn, C., & Bakker, K. (2019). Rendering technical, rendering sacred: The politics of hydroelectric development on british columbia’s saaghii naachii/peace river. Global Environmental Politics, 19(3), 98–119. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00518 Booth, A., & Skelton, N. W. (2011). “We Are Fighting for Ourselves” — First Nations’ Evaluation of British Columbia and Canadian Environmental Assessment Processes. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 13(03), 367–404. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333211003936 Canada-Manitoba Agreement on Environmental Assessment Coopration. (2007). Retreieved from https://www.gov.mb.ca/sd/eal/publs/cdamb_coop.pdf Christensen, L., & Krogman, N. (2012). Social Thresholds and their Translation into Social-ecological Management Practices. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 5. Clean Environment Commission. (2004). Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Projects – Full Report. Winnipeg, Manitoba. http://www.cecmanitoba.ca/cecm/archive/ Clean Environment Commission (2005). Red River Floodway Expansion Report. Winnipeg, Manitoba. http://www.cecmanitoba.ca/cecm/archive/ Clean Environment Commission. (2013). Report on Public Hearing: Bipole III Transmission Project. Winnipeg, Manitoba. http://www.cecmanitoba.ca/cecm/archive/ 110 Clean Environment Commission. (2014). Keeyask Generating Project Report. Winnipeg, Manitoba. http://www.cecmanitoba.ca/cecm/archive/ Clean Environment Commission. (2015). Lake Winnipeg Regulation Report. Winnipeg, Manitoba. http://www.cecmanitoba.ca/cecm/archive/ Clean Environment Commission. (2018). A Review of the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment for Hydroelectric Development on the Nelson, Burntwood, and Churchill River Systems. Winnipeg, Manitoba. http://www.cecmanitoba.ca/cecm/archive/ Cree Nation Partners. (2012). Keeyask Environmental Evaluation Report: A Report on the Environmental Effects of the Proposed Keeyask Project on Tataskweyak Cree Nation and War Lake Cree Nation. Gunn, J., & Noble, B. (2012). Critical Review of the Cumulative Effects Assessment Undertaken by Manitoba Hydro for the Bipole III Project. Winnipeg, Manitoba. Fox Lake Cree Nation. (2012). Environment Evaluation Report. Winnipeg, Manitoba. Hackett, P., Liu, J., & Noble, B. (2018). Human health, development legacies, and cumulative effects: environmental assessments of hydroelectric projects in the Nelson River watershed, Canada. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 36(5), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2018.1487504 Hoffman, S. M. (2008). Engineering Poverty: Colonialism and Hydroelectric Development. In T. Martin & S. Hoffman (Eds.), Power Struggles: Hydro Development and First Nations in Manitoba and Quebec (pp. 103–128). Winnipeg, Manitoba: University of Manitoba Press. Howitt, R. (2001). Case studies: A research tool for resource management. In Rethinking Resource Management: Justice, Sustainability, and Indigenous Peoples (1st ed.). London: Routledge. 111 Impact Assessment Act (2019) Bill C-69, Statutes of Canada. Joint Review Panel (established by the federal minister of the environment and the British Columbia minister of environment). (2014). Report of the Joint Review Panel: Site C Clean Energy Project. Kulchyski, P. (2008). A step back: the nischwayasihk cree nation and the wuskwatim project. In T. Martin & S. Hoffman (Eds.), Power Struggles: Hydro Development and First Nations in Manitoba and Quebec (pp. 129–144). Winnipeg, Manitoba: University of Manitoba Press. Manitoba Hydro & Manitoba Government. (2015) Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment for Hydroelectric Developments on the Churchill, Burntwood, and Nelson River Systems: Phase II Report. Manitoba Hydro. (2012). Keeyask Generating Project Environmental Impact Statement. Manitoba Hydro. (2018). Generating Stations. Retrieved October 10, 2019, from https://www.hydro.mb.ca/corporate/facilities/generating_stations/ Mantyka-Pringle, C. S., Jardine, T. D., Bradford, L., Bharadwaj, L., Kythreotis, A. P., Fresque-Baxter, J., … the Slave River and Delta Partnership. (2017). Bridging science and traditional knowledge to assess cumulative impacts of stressors on ecosystem health. Environment International, 102, 125–137. Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (2010). Instrumental Case Study. In Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. Sage Research Methods. Noble, B., Liu, J., & Hackett, P. (2017). The Contribution of Project Environmental Assessment to Assessing and Managing Cumulative Effects: Individually and Collectively Insignificant? Environmental Management, 59(4), 531–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0799-7 112 Yahey v. British Columbia (2021). BCSC 1287 Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of case study research. Sage. York Factory First Nation. (2012). Kipekiskwaywinwan/Our Voices: York Factory First Nation Speaks about the Keeyask Generation Project. 113 Chapter 5: Assessing Cumulative Social Effects: Lessons from Canadian Hydroelectric Development 5.1. Introduction A pressing question for resource management is the relationship between project level Environmental Assessments (EA) and the need to account for and manage cumulative effects resulting from multiple projects and human activities, including social effects to people, their well-being, and livelihoods. Research and policy development for Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) has primarily focused on advancing the scientific and technical capacities required to predict and monitor cumulative effects to biophysical components (Halseth, 2016; Mitchell & Parkins, 2011). CEA is intended to support project-based decision-making and broader strategic planning by evaluating environmental impacts in combination with other past, present, and foreseeable activities or stressors (Foley et al., 2017; Jones, 2016). The implementation of CEA has been critiqued on many fronts including defining and generating the information needed to understand cumulative effects (Cronmiller & Noble, 2018; Foley et al., 2017), ensuring the organizational capacity and institutional support for doing CEA (Chilima, Blakely, Noble, & Patrick, 2017; Sheelanere, Noble, & Patrick, 2013), and for establishing meaningful connections to decision-making and planning at project-based EA and regional and strategic assessments levels (Arnold, Hanna, & Noble, 2019; Noble, Liu, & Hackett, 2017) In addition to these challenges, there is a deficit in practical and applied knowledge for how to account for cumulative effects to people’s livelihoods and wellbeing. We use the term cumulative social effects to collectively refer to these social, cultural, economic, and health impacts which are incremental, combined, and successive across space and time (Franks, 114 Brereton, & Moran, 2011). There is general consensus that CEA should be inclusive of social impacts (Blakely, 2021; Franks, Bereton & Moran, 2013), but there has been limited research explicitly exploring how to do so, particularly when compared to the efforts devoted to developing processes to assess biophysical impacts (Halseth, 2016; Mitchell & Parkins, 2011). Considering cumulative effects was first formalized in Canada through the Canadian Environment Assessment Act (1992). EA regimes at the federal level have sought to strengthen CEA and social impact assessments, and to implement regional assessment frameworks (see Impact Assessment Act 2019), though specific guidance is limited, and attention to cumulative effects is inconsistent across provincial and territorial regulations. However, an imperative to consider cumulative social effects has developed in response to the reality that they have become an issue confronting EA processes in practice, and a persistent concern for stakeholders and Indigenous communities. (Bakker & Hendriks, 2019; Booth & Skelton, 2011; Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017; Sandlos & Keeling, 2016). Cumulative social effects resulting from boom/bust cycles of development, multiple industries and projects operating in a region, and the alteration of socially or cultural important landscapes can be significant, and are often an important part of the public debate and evaluation of potential development actions, despite that assessment processes are often not well equipped to consider them (Atlin & Gibson, 2017; Horowitz et al., 2018; Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017). Cumulative effects have become particularly important for Indigenous communities in Canada who have been confronted with disproportionate environmental and social impacts as a result of development, inequitable shares in the benefits, and a legacy of exclusion from planning and decision-making (Bakker & Hendriks, 2019; Bradley & McClurg, 2012; Sandlos & Keeling, 2016) 115 The focus of advances in data collection and analysis for CEA has largely remained biophysical, but the importance of cumulative social effects has been well documented (Franks et al., 2011; Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017; Mitchell & Parkins, 2011). The cumulative nature of social change has also been a persistent challenge for iterations of impact assessment that evolved to account for social impacts, such as Social Impact Assessment (SIA), Health Impact Assessment and Gender or Equity Based Assessment, and linkages between these fields are emerging. Numerous frameworks have been developed for SIA specifically (Koutouki, Lofts, & Davidian, 2018; Lockie et al., 2009; Ross, 1990), and methods for cumulative social effects have been explored such as narrative and social science based approaches (Hanna et al., 2016; Parlee, Geertsema, & Willier, 2012; Westman & Joly, 2019), participatory modelling (Hodgson & Halpern, 2019; Larsen et al., 2017; Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017), and spatial analysis (Huang & London, 2016; Sadd, et al., 2011; Tyson, Lantz, & Ban, 2018), There have been calls to further develop qualitative and interdisciplinary methods to better understand these impacts and the implications for Indigenous rights and environmental social justice (da Silva, Parkins, & Nadeau, 2020; Davies et al., 2018). As methods for assessing cumulative social effects continue to be explored and regulatory processes evolve, there is a need to examine the process and framing of CEA within EA. CEA is important at a number of decision-making levels and assessment and planning scales. There is strong support for regional/strategic level CEA, but information about potential cumulative effects is also vital for making decisions at the project EA level (Arnold et al., 2019; Noble et al., 2017). Establishing relationships between different assessment levels, and developing effective processes for CEA that can be applied in EA is an ongoing area of work. But, there has been little exploration into how cumulative social effects can be meaningfully 116 assessed at the project EA level. This is despite the importance of making management and mitigation decisions informed by the socioeconomic impacts and benefits of proposed projects across local and regional populations and within different demographics. This paper examines how cumulative social effects are addressed in practice during EAs. By concentrating on practitioner experience in project-level EA for hydroelectric developments, we explore how an expectation to assess social cumulative effects has been translated into practice by those participating in EA, and identify challenges confronting CEA processes. We focus on two Canadian provinces with different EA regimes and regulatory contexts for CEA: British Columbia (BC) and Manitoba. In BC our analysis is focused on the Peace and Columbia River systems, and in Manitoba on the northern Nelson, Burntwood, and Churchill River System. While our analysis is situated in these provinces, we identify a number of ways in which cumulative social effects are presenting challenges for current CEA processes and we highlight key priorities for improvement that are applicable across other jurisdictions. The paper begins with a background and an overview of hydroelectric development and the regulatory context for EA in each study region. The study methods and results are presented, and are followed by a discussion of recommendations for supporting an analysis of cumulative social effects in EA. 5.2 Study Areas and Data Collection Hydroelectric development has a long legacy in Canada and internationally. Hydroelectric developments are often framed as clean energy projects with substantial societal benefits, though the development and operation of hydroelectric facilities, including reservoirs, 117 transmission lines, stations, and spillways, result in widely dispersed and long term environmental and social impacts. The social impacts of hydroelectric development have been well documented worldwide, including landscape flooding, habitat destruction, community relocation, disruption of food sources, local economic and employment changes, social cohesion, and land use changes (Bakker & Hendriks, 2019; da Silva, Parkins & Sherren, 2021; Hoffman, 2008; Rosenberg, Bodlay & Usher, 1995). For Indigenous peoples, impacts can also include disruptions to their lands, rights, cultural and spiritual practices, and livelihoods (Baird et al., 2021; Bakker & Hendriks, 2019; Hanna et al., 2016; Hoffman, 2008). Canada is highly dependent on hydroelectricity with substantial expansion following the Second World War (Cohn, Evenden & Landry, 2020). Development is geographically concentrated along the St Lawrence valley of Ontario and Quebec, and in clusters within western provinces such as Manitoba and BC. In Manitoba and BC, where this study is focused, hydroelectric facilities have been in operation for well over 50 years and in close proximity to urban and rural communities and Indigenous territories. This long development history, continued operation of historical facilities, and continuing expansion in both of these provinces provides an ideal context for examining cumulative social effects. Manitoba and BC have different EA regimes and approaches to CEA and social impacts. We focus on specific regions in each province where cumulative effects have emerged as a key issue across recent EAs. These regions are described below. 5.2.1 Northern Manitoba About 97% of the electricity produced in Manitoba is drawn from 15 hydroelectric generating stations run by the crown (government owned) corporation Manitoba Hydro 118 (Manitoba Hydro, 2018). The generating capacity in the northern Nelson, Burntwood and Churchill River system accounts for over 70% of the province’s total hydroelectric capacity (Manitoba Hydro, 2018). Hydroelectric development in northern Manitoba began in the early 1960s with construction of the Kelsey generating station in the Nelson river (Clean Environment Commission, 2018). Development expanded rapidly for the next four decades including the construction of Kettle, Jenpeg, Long Spruce, and Limestone generating stations, the Radisson and Henday converter stations, the construction of Bipole I and Bipole II transmission lines, and the diversion of the Churchill River into the Nelson River to augment flow for future development (CEC, 2018). In 1988 the Environment Act of Manitoba was passed which mandates the current EA process. Under this Act EAs are facilitated by the provincial Department of Conservation, and an arms-reach provincial government agency, the Clean Environment Commission (CEC), conducts public hearings and generates EA reports. Hydroelectric projects may also trigger a review by the Manitoba Public Utilities Board, and Canadian government bodies under federal EA legislation. The first project to be subject to EA review under the Environment Act was the Wuskwatim generating station and transmission line (2004). Cumulative social effects have become one of the most pressing and contentious issues for hydroelectric EAs in northern Manitoba, owing in part to substantial flooding and changes to flow regimes, community relocation and displacement, loss of traditional lands and resources, and further entrenchment of health and socioeconomic inequities (CEC, 2018). Under Manitoba’s Environment Act there is no formal legislative requirement to undertake CEA during an EA. Further, assessments of social, economic, and cultural effects are required only so far as they are directly caused by an environmental effect. Despite no formal requirement or guidance 119 at the provincial level, discussions about cumulative impacts have been extensive in hearings for project reviews, and have been the subject of a Government of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro regional cumulative effects study for northern Manitoba (2015) and a subsequent CEC public hearing (2018). This attention to cumulative impacts has been fueled by the expectations and the information brought forward by interveners, Indigenous governments, and other public stakeholders, requirements at the federal level, and also the efforts of the CEC to respond to these concerns and to draw on existing research and national CEA best practices. The CEC has repetitively called for regulation, regional assessments, and critiqued Manitoba Hydro’s approach to cumulative effects, and cumulative social effects specifically. In their review of the Bipole III Transmission Line the CEC (2013) expressed disappointment with the quality of the CEA and stated: “...the Commission finds it simply inconceivable – given the 50-plus-year history of Manitoba Hydro development in northern Manitoba and given that at least 35 Manitoba Hydro projects have been constructed in the north in that time – that there are few, if any, cumulative effects identified in this [Environmental Impact Statement] (p. 112). In response to the cumulative effects study completed by Manitoba Hydro and the Government of Manitoba (2015), the CEC critiqued the lack of engagement and the reliance on existing data and a retrospective analysis, and questioned its effectiveness as an assessment since it did not include an evaluation of how hydroelectric development has contributed to, created, or exacerbated cumulative social effects (CEC 2018, p.70). 5.2.2 British Columbia’s Peace River and Columbia River Hydroelectric development has occurred throughout BC since the end of the Second World War (Peyton, 2017). Over 90% of the province’s electricity is derived from the 31 120 generating stations operated by the crown corporation BC Hydro (BC Hydro, 2019a). BC Hydro was created in the 1960s to implement the provincial Two Rivers Policy aimed at capitalizing on the potential of the Peace River and Columbia River and increasing industrial growth and provincial energy autonomy (Peyton, 2017). The Peace Region and the Columbia River Region provide about 30% and about 50% of BC Hydro’s total capacity respectively (BC Hydro, 2019a). The Peace Region has two major hydroelectric facilities. The W.A.C. Bennet dam was completed in 1968 along with the GM Shrum Generating Station and it remains the largest dam on the Peace River (BC Hydro, 2019a). The construction of the Peace Canyon Dam and Generating Station followed in 1980 (BC Hydro, 2019a). A third facility on the Peace River, the Site C project, will be the first large scale hydroelectric project in the region since the 1980s. Site C was required to undergo a joint federal and provincial EA by an independent review panel and the report was issued in 2014 along with conditions for approval. Site C is among the most expensive infrastructure projects undertaken in the province of BC and though construction has begun, there has been ongoing debate about social and economic impacts and benefits (Bakker & Hendriks, 2019), and a number of legal challenges including the precedent setting Yahey v. British Columbia 2021 which affirms that Treaty 8 rights of the Blueberry River First Nation have been infringed on by the cumulative effects of industrial development. In the Columbia River region early development was supported by the Columbia River Treaty, a transboundary water management agreement between Canada and the United States. There are 4 major hydroelectric dams which were built before 1985: the Mica Generating Station (1973); the Kootenay Canal Generating Station (1976); Seven Mile Generating Station (1979); and the Revelstoke Generating Station (1984) (BC Hydro, 2019b). There are also two water storage dams which do not generate power but were constructed as part of the Columbia River 121 Treaty, and 7 smaller hydroelectric dams within the region. Recent provincial EA reviews have concerned capacity expansions to the Revelstoke Generating Station and the Mica Generating Stations. These expansions do not alter the operating regime, or relative footprint of the facility, but within the EA cumulative effects were a focal point due to the concerns of Indigenous governments and public stakeholders about the social and environmental implications of development and the legacy of hydroelectric industry along the Columbia River. Under BC’s Environmental Assessment Act (2002; 2018), EAs are coordinated by the provincial Environmental Assessment Office. There are explicit requirements to include CEA and guidance is available specifically outlining the approach to CEA for BC led EAs (BC Environmental Assessment Office, 2016). The development of the updated 2018 Act and guidance was shaped in part by the federal Impact Assessment Act 2019 which expanded the expectations to include human impacts such as social, economic, cultural, gendered impacts and Indigenous rights (BC Environmental Assessment Office, 2016). Hydroelectric projects may also trigger reviews by the BC Utilities Commission and the Canadian government under federal EA legislation. Cumulative social effects have become an important focal point of EAs for hydroelectric developments in the Peace and Columbia regions due in part to the legacy of large scale facilities that were brought into operation prior to the implementation of modern EAs. 5.2.3 Data Collection Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted with people who are directly involved in EA processes. Interview questions were designed to investigate: 1) the process for assessing cumulative social effects, including how impacts are identified, the scope of the assessment, impact evaluation, decision-making, and follow up and 2) the regulatory and professional capacity required to complete such an assessment. This paper is focused on an 122 analysis of the questions and responses related to the process for assessing cumulative social effects and identifies where such impacts are presenting challenges for current practice. The goal of the interviews was not to explore what social impacts exist or people’s experiences with them, but rather the process and how these impacts are assessed during EA. Therefore, it was important to examine practitioner experience and to target interviewees who have been involved in recent EAs for hydroelectric facilities in a professional capacity. Potential interviewees were identified through public websites, by reviewing contributions to EA reports, and with the help of key informants in each province. Preliminary meetings were completed with key informants to discuss the scope of the interviews and identify potential interviewees. Interviewees included people serving on regulatory review boards and government offices, employees of proponents (Manitoba Hydro and BC Hydro), Indigenous government employees and their consultants, independent consultants, and academic researchers who have served as experts and interveners during EAs (Table 1). Some interviewees had worked in both provinces, and provided responses for both study regions. As noted above, the focus of the interview questions was obtaining a professional and organizational level perspective on the process for assessing cumulative social effects, rather than an exploration of individual experiences or perspectives. Therefore the goal in selecting interviewees was not to achieve saturation within proponent, government, or other organizations, but rather to select individuals who could act as representatives and provide insight into EA practices. In some cases, the interviewee was not a single individual, but a team or group of people working within an organization or government body who reviewed the questions together and provided responses. 123 Table 1: Interviews by province and occupation/role.* British Columbia Manitoba Canada Regulators and government offices 2 3 1 Proponents 1 2 Indigenous governments and consultants working on their behalf 3 6 Interveners 1 4 Consultants 4 1 *Total number of interviews was 25 but some interviewees provided responses for both provinces The semi-structured approach allows examination of specific challenges and practices for cumulative social effects and the process during EA, while also providing interviewees the opportunity to raise additional information and contribute their professional insight and experiences. Interviewees were provided project information and the interview questions in advance, and were given the option to submit additional written feedback and documents. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic all interviews were completed via video conference or phone, and ranged from one to two hours in length. Interviews were audio recorded (with permission), and transcribed with identifying information removed. Qualitative coding was completed by the lead author to identify key emergent themes using NVivo Qualitative Analysis Software. Descriptive codes included interviewee occupation and role in EA. Analytic coding was used to refine information into categories and develop themes. Given the range of interviewees across proponent, governments, regulatory bodies, consulting organizations, and Indigenous governments, their professional perspectives and 124 experience with cumulative social effects varied. The coding process focused on identifying key patterns, differences, and challenges in terms of the way each approaches the CEA process. A number of key analytic themes/categories guided the initial coding that align with the basic steps of the CEA process. These included the way that cumulative effects and cumulative social effects are defined and identified, spatial and temporal scoping decisions, impact analysis including the information and methods relied on, and key challenges for decision-making, EA outcomes, and follow-up. 5.3. Results As previously noted, the regulatory and political context for EA and CEA in BC and Manitoba differ, yet interviewees in both settings agreed that CEA is a challenging and inconsistent piece of EA, and that there are many different understandings of the concept of cumulative impacts amongst the parties involved in EA processes such as proponents, regulators, interveners, and Indigenous governments. Interviewees also consistently identified that cumulative social effects are even more challenging, and even less understood, less supported by guidance, and less consistently attended to during EA than environmental cumulative effects. Additional complicating factors exist in respect to applying the typical CEA process to social impacts. Table 1 displays key CEA steps and associated challenges for cumulative social effects that were identified in the interviews. These challenges and how they have manifested in practice are discussed in the following sections. 125 Table 2: Challenges Identified for Social Cumulative Effects for Key CEA Actions Key CEA Action Challenges and Complicating Factors for Social Cumulative Effects Scoping: identifying Valued Components (VCs) with potential cumulative effects • Uncertainty in how to define cumulative social effects • VC approach may result in a siloed assessment • VC approach may present barriers to consultation and engagement • Human experience dimensions of cumulative social effects are ignored Identifying spatial scales • Establishing socially significant spatial scales • Understanding the local and the regional lens Identifying temporal scales and retrospective analysis • Establishing social thresholds or benchmarks • Understanding historical impacts and conditions contributing to baseline • Determining a project’s relationship to impact legacy and existing social conditions Impact prediction and evaluation • Interpreting available information about social systems • Assigning project attribution for cumulative social effects Follow-up • Identifying meaningful and culturally specific mitigation • Ongoing follow-up for social impacts • Establishing compliance targets for social components • Ensuring projects meet their social objectives 5.3.1 Scoping: Identifying Social Cumulative Effects A key challenge for cumulative effects is defining them and identifying the issues that should be included within the scope of an assessment. Foundational to CEA in both regions is the identification of Valued Components (VCs) of the environment which are ecologically, socially, and/or culturally important and might be impacted by the proposed project. Interviewees were divided in their support for the VC concept and its effective application for CEA. Some described VCs as vital for providing focus and prompting detailed assessment on the components of the environment which are ecologically and socially important. Others noted that the VC approach results in a siloed assessment and presents a fundamental barrier to an assessment that is integrated or inclusive of the human and biophysical environments and the 126 relationships between them. Indigenous interviewees and consultants to Indigenous nations also noted that the VC concept sometimes does not resonate with Indigenous perspectives. As described by one consultant: “Whenever you talk about [VCs] to most people in communities they are like what are you crazy, everything is interconnected...so it is a struggle.” Many interviewees described difficulty in achieving meaningful consultation around VC identification for CEA since it requires Indigenous peoples to translate and integrate their perspectives into a western scientific ideology. As noted by a consultant reflecting on work in northern Manitoba: [for cumulative effects] when it came to try to create a list or to try to decide what is most important, the community had nothing to say, it didn’t resonate and we couldn’t generate a dialogue. Then when we got to the workshops where these big consulting teams were coming together and trying to make the VCs list, the communities didn’t have much to say. So the list ended up being kind of broad, and in the consulting teams perspective, a western perspective, and those were the ones that went ahead Regardless of their support or opposition for a VC based CEA, interviewees consistently noted significant additional challenges with identifying VCs on which to base the assessment of the social environment, and that in practice there has been an oversimplification of social impacts and misalignment between the formal scope of the CEA process, and the range of social impacts which are most important to people affected by hydroelectric development. The analysis of interviews revealed three interrelated dimensions of cumulative social effects. First, are those changes to social systems and community infrastructure which are directly caused by project activities. This might include temporary or permanent population increases, or strain on community facilities. Second are social impacts directly linked to biophysical changes, such as impacts to hunting or harvesting as a result of flooding or changes to key species habitat. Interviewees identified that EA processes tend to focus on these social impacts which are directly caused or exacerbated by a biophysical change or by project activities, but interviewees also described the importance of understanding a third dimension of social change, one that is 127 embedded in human experience. In order to understand social impacts, it is essential to understand how people experience those impacts. This conceptual framework for understanding cumulative social effects is presented in Figure 1. Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for Cumulative Social Effects of Projects One example illustrating this framework provided by a BC consultant is traditional resource use such as hunting and harvest activities. This is a VC with a clear biophysical pathway; if the project impacts key habitat and the availability of key species, the ability to engage in hunting and harvesting activities is impacted. The assessment of traditional resource use is often based on whether key species are available and whether hunting and harvest Project ActivitiesBiophysical changesChanges to social systemsChanges to human experiencecumulative effectscumulative effectscumulative effects 128 locations are accessible, but this reliance on the availability of ecological resources does not capture the reality of the impact or the nature of the VC: Traditional resource use. It is a human activity, the choice of whether to go out and harvest...It relies on biophysical resources to be there, but it relies on so many other things. It relies on having a quiet place to do this, having a well-known location that isn’t flooded, having a perception of risk that doesn’t suggest that your boat might be lost because the level of water has reduced by two feet over several hours and you don’t know where the rocks are, it relies on a sense that the country food that you are going to get is not contaminated by mercury...So getting past the biophysical proxy for what is very much a human choice and a human decision within perceived and real constraints, is a real problem with human CEA. Interviewees described a reluctance to allow for the possibility of complex pathways between biophysical impacts and social systems, or to recognize that impacts are perceived and experienced and occur within a social context. These “intangible” experience-based dimensions are difficult to categorize, measure, or quantify, but were repetitively emphasized as among the most important issues confronting CEA and project reviews. EAs focus on the physical changes which may be caused by the project, but do not necessarily capture the way that those changes manifest within human systems and create or exacerbate social and cultural changes. 5.3.2 Spatial Scale Interview data suggests that the implications of spatial extent for cumulative social effects present a similar set of considerations as those for cumulative biophysical effects. Interviewees in both provinces highlighted the need for regional level assessment for cumulative social effects noting that the piecemeal approach of identifying, evaluating, and mitigating social impacts and issues within the confines of each individual project obscures the cumulative effect. For example, interviewees from Manitoba highlighted a key disconnect between the reality that the network of hydroelectric developments in the north is often referred to as an “integrated 129 system”, and is intended to function as such, but that each EA is an independent and project-focused assessment. In addition, interviewees noted the practice of splitting large undertakings into multiple EAs. An intervener stated: “...they brag about how it is this integrated system, but when they want to do an assessment they very narrowly look at what areas are being flooded.” Another similarly noted, “...they talk about it as an integrated system, but they never want to see a EA of the integrated system.” A regional cumulative effects assessment study completed by Manitoba Hydro and the Government of Manitoba (2015) was intended to fill this need, though most interviewees were critical about its effectiveness as an assessment since no new data was gathered, no additional community or Indigenous engagement was completed, and no specific analysis was made on how hydroelectric development contributed to, created, or exacerbated cumulative social effects (see also CEC, 2018, 70). Similar challenges were noted in BC where hydroelectric facilities are operating alongside other industries and impacts. In the Peace and Columbia River regions, there are multiple development pressures from hydroelectric facilities, extensive oil and gas development, forestry, agriculture and land use change. A regional perspective is in many ways necessary in order to understand the environmental and social pressures. A consultant reflected: “what we should be doing from a policy perspective is looking at a whole range of things that we are doing on the landscape. If we keep hanging this onto projects we will continue to fail.” At the same time, interviewees in both provinces emphasized the importance of examining social change at a local scale, and understanding human impacts within a local community and cultural context. Cumulative social effects may manifest differently at local and regional scales, and impacts and benefits may be distributed differently across and within local and regional populations. For both provinces, the hydroelectric industry is an important 130 economic driver, but the social and economic benefits might primarily occur on the provincial scale, and the most significant social and economic impacts might be felt at a local level. There may be multiple appropriate spatial scales for any one social component or indicator that influence impact direction and significance, and the methods for identifying these scales and evaluating impacts are less developed for cumulative social effects. 5.3.3 Temporal scale A fundamental question that emerged in all interviews is: how far back in time should we examine social change? As stated by a proponent interviewee: “the challenge with CEA is where do you start measuring the cumulative effects from? What do you pick as your starting point?” A CEA relies on establishing the current condition of VCs, including an understanding of historical changes in conditions over time. Interviewees were divided on how CEA should define its temporal scale and how an analysis of historical change should be approached. The points of tension between the different parties involved in EA appears to be related to: a) what impacts and issues should be integrated within an understanding of the current condition: b) the extent to which the impacts related to past projects/actions are considered to be “in the past”; and c) how a current project should be expected to engage with the legacy of the industry or the region in which it is proposed. Some interviewees described that it is essentially impossible to establish an ideal baseline condition for some social components, and that comparison to pre-hydro conditions is not useful due to the myriad of factors influencing societies and communities over time. Early hydroelectric development was accompanied by many other political, economic, and social changes, extensive urban development, increasing populations, and the expansion of other 131 industries. But, others highlighted that for most Indigenous communities and governments, any conversation about cumulative effects requires an understanding of conditions pre-development, or at the least a pre-hydroelectric development era. Interviewees from Indigenous governments and consultants were clear that even where there have been mitigation and compensation agreements, the impacts related to past actions continue to exist in the present, and must be part of the story of the current condition and any assessment of cumulative effects. The importance of this temporal perspective was similarly described by interveners and consultants across both provinces with one explaining, looking at things historically is really important. Recognizing this whole idea of historical trauma for example and we can’t separate things that occurred 50 years ago or 100 years ago...In terms of cumulative impacts, the combined impacts of residential schools of gendered violence and of hydro, it is like the rivers I was talking about, they all meet and they all work together and put people at risk. But, ensuring this context and that the contemporary impact of past actions is recognized during EA has been a challenge. As described by an interviewee from an Indigenous government in BC, “You have these big projects, typically they want to say the past is the past and we are moving forward. It is a new day.” In both provinces, there are significant facilities built during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s which did not undergo an EA or that were approved under a different EA regime and political and social context, but which remain in operation. There is a legacy of impacts of early hydroelectric projects and other developments, and also a legacy of a lack of consultation, little recognition of Indigenous rights and culture, and an exclusion of Indigenous governments and communities from decision-making. A proponent interviewee explained that it is unclear the extent to which an individual project should be expected to engage with development legacy“...how much does a single project inherit the history of everything that has come before it, and how much is it responsible for that?” 132 Some interviewees also questioned the logic and the feasibility of responding to such legacy impacts within a project focused assessment and noted a need for other forums to assess these impacts. For instance, a BC consultant spoke about an EA which was focused on the addition of a turbine to the already operational Revelstoke Dam located on the Columbia River in BC. The cumulative effects issues that dominated the EA, were tied to the Revelstoke Dam itself rather than the turbine which was the focus of the EA process: some of the things that were driven by public concern and cumulative effects, they were not added to cumulatively by the project itself...It would be difficult to find a project in the BC EA process that had smaller effects, but there were a lot of people who were concerned that the dam was there at all and they were manifesting that concern into a project process. However, many interviewees also challenged the notion that legacy issues do not fit within the scope of an EA and instead emphasized that a meaningful CEA cannot be completed without this lens. As stated by a BC consultant: You can’t do a CEA without confronting legacy issues. If there are legacy issues, if there are cumulative effects from hydro damming, to ask people that they be considered in an assessment but not subject to any sort of compensatory measures, because that is done at another table...that is completely unacceptable. Further, interviewees from both provinces emphasized that for any hydroelectric project the responsibility for legacy impacts cannot be questioned since it is always the same proponent, a crown corporation, in both provinces. These legacy impacts are often raised during EA regardless of whether a process has been scoped to include them. For example, interviewees from Manitoba all noted the challenging relationship between Manitoba Hydro and northern communities spanning over five decades. In practice, any conversation about social impacts inevitably become conversations about cumulative social effects. Discussions during EA are often focused on past projects as much as the current project: “...we wind up in hearing processes where that legacy really does come to the 133 forefront to debate and discussion. I would say that some of those hearings were as much about legacy in their process as it was about the current environmental assessment.” 5.3.4 Assessing Social Cumulative Effects Interviewees agreed that assessing cumulative social effects requires a suite of quantitative and qualitative information and engagement with Indigenous communities and the public. Some interviewees identified data deficits for social impacts, particularly a lack of historical data, and noted that even census data is sparse for some key communities in both provinces. Interviewees also highlighted that there is a challenge in terms of inconsistency in data availability and monitoring for social components. However, as a whole the interviews suggest that while a lack of data is an important consideration, it is not the root of the challenge for assessing cumulative social effects. Two interrelated issues are of greater concern: 1) interpreting available data about social impacts, and 2) the current practice of framing of CEA around attribution and causality. 5.3.4.1 Interpretation Interviewees from both provinces challenged the notion that a lack of data is a significant barrier to assessing cumulative social effects and emphasized that there is an extensive record and knowledge available for understanding social change. The challenge is that a technical and quantitative bias exists in EA, and there is an unwillingness or lack of understanding amongst those involved to effectively engage with the available information. A consultant from BC explained, “So if you are talking about challenges for gathering that social baseline they are actually more about will of government, industry, and consultants to do the work than about real 134 challenges. An historian does not have a lot of challenges characterizing cumulative effects, why should an EA?” However, the nature of social impacts does present a challenge for interpreting and making meaning of the available information. Two regulator interviewees noted, “it is a much harder process than dealing with biophysical data which is not totally mechanical, but it is a lot easier to manipulate and draw conclusions from; much of the social impact assessment is not amenable to quantitative analysis... so you rely on what the community says and how you weigh that is a real challenge.” There is a need to consistently integrate cumulative social effects into EA processes in reputable ways and where the compliance and mitigation measures are verifiable, but also to recognize that indicators and thresholds for social change must be informed and justified by the social context. 5.3.4.2 Impact Attribution CEA as it is applied within an EA requires the identification of the relative contribution of the project to cumulative impacts for each VC. In both provinces interviewees noted that social conditions have changed over time due to a number of factors such as municipal development, government policies, and other industries. Parsing out the relative contribution of the hydroelectric development under review is challenging, if not impossible. As explained by a proponent interviewee “looking at the province as a whole and trying to tease out what was hydro, versus, mining, forestry, road development, shifting economies...there was so much going on in the province, prior to, during, and after hydro development...assigning attribution can be incredibly difficult.” A consultant used the example of health impacts and outcomes: “Health and health outcomes. I think there is an attempt to use whatever measurable social indicators you 135 can. Numbers of people that are suffering from addictions, you could look at that but it is hard to connect that to a particular project or a suite of projects.” Further, for many social impacts attributing a specific portion of cumulative effects to the project is essentially impossible. An illustrative example is gendered impacts. A key cumulative social impact that has arisen in EA reviews and cumulative effects studies in northern Manitoba has been sexual assault and violence towards women as a result of the establishment of construction camps for hydroelectric facilities and the influx of temporary workers. To think about establishing a current or a historical baseline for sexual assault and gendered violence, defining a base case and projecting future scenarios of risk with and without a project, defining a threshold, parsing out other activities or conditions that might influence risk, and finally tying the project under review in a robust way to a specific portion of the cumulative impact is perplexing. Even for those social changes where quantitative technical information might be more readily available, it is challenging to connect those changes to a particular project or industry. The challenge is that arguably there is no amount of data that could answer the questions that EA processes are asking about cumulative social effects. 5.3.5 CEA Outcomes Key gaps exist in the attention paid to CEA outcomes including meaningful culturally specific mitigation, accommodation, and monitoring social impacts. Interviewees noted that attention to ongoing management is often lacking for social impacts to determine the effectiveness of mitigation and whether projects are delivering on their commitments and socioeconomic projections. As stated by an intervener from Manitoba: “I am so tired of us investing all of this energy and money into the EA and not paying attention to the follow up and monitoring” This was similarly noted by interviewees in BC with one consultant stating: “why 136 we don’t require retrospective assessments for projects and the cumulative effects around them on a continual basis? If you have a 30, 50, 100 year project this just seems like the logical course of action.” In addition, follow-up and monitoring including compliance targets are skewed towards biophysical impacts, with little long-term attention paid to project social impacts and performance. A further issue many interviewees raised is the practice of omitting positive social impacts from the CEA, which often includes employment and economic benefits. There is typically no mechanism to identify or to apply consequences if a proponent fails to deliver predicted project benefits. Attention to follow-up is particularly important to understand the effectiveness of mitigation measures and whether the predictions made during the assessment were realized. Interviewees identified a tension related to the need to consistently integrate cumulative social effects into EA processes in a way that is reputable and where the compliance and mitigation measures are verifiable, and the reality that the information about these impacts are often embedded in individual experiences, local nuance, and cultural context. As discussed by a proponent interviewee: “this is my headache is where the rubber hits the road is how to you define the conditions that addresses the impact that you are trying to mitigate and how do you define specifically and measurably the compliance points that you have to meet?” Another proponent interviewee noted similar concerns and emphasized the importance of adaptive management for social impacts and behaviour: “With EA as well, it is a prediction right? Human behaviour is in many ways unpredictable...you have to be prepared as a project is unfolding to respond to what is actually being experienced.” A consultant similarly stated: “...social and economic conditions change so readily into the future, nothing is static...so socioeconomic 137 management and monitoring programs for any residual impact has to be put into place, and that is I think where we have had a real shortcoming.” 5.4 Discussion The results from our analysis of EA experience in BC and Manitoba illustrate that cumulative social effects are presenting a number of challenges to EA processes. Understanding cumulative effects is important at multiple assessment and decision-making levels, including during project EAs to ensure project decisions are reflective of broader impact contexts and management goals. Our results echo observations that social impacts have been a weak aspect of CEA and that there is little practical knowledge available (Johnson, 2016; Loxton, Schirmer, & Kanowski, 2013; Mitchell & Parkins, 2011). This is despite the emergence of EA systems which specifically require attention to these impacts, such as in BC, and/or the evolution of the expectation to include these impacts due to their importance to those impacted by development, as is the case in Manitoba. An important note is that many of the challenges identified here are not unique to cumulative social effects. Challenges in applying CEA during EA including identifying cumulative effects, establishing spatial and temporal scales (Foley et al., 2017), ensuring consistency and availability of information (Cronmiller & Noble, 2018; Noble et al, 2017), interpretation and significance determination (Arnold et al, 2019), and meaningful follow-up have also been identified for biophysical impacts and VCs. However, we find that these challenges are exacerbated and further complicated for cumulative social effects due to the complexity of human social systems, and the limited attention these impacts have received in research and during CEA processes. Despite over four decades of focused research, CEA remains plagued by inconsistent applications, challenges in converting ambitions to practice, and even uncertainty in defining 138 cumulative effects (Duinker, Burbidge, Boardley, & Greig, 2013; Johnson, 2016). We observed that there are specific challenges around how the concept of cumulative social effects is defined and translated within CEA processes. Social impacts are often understood and assessed as physical shocks to biophysical or socioeconomic systems (Booth & Skelton, 2011; da Silva et al., 2021; Noble et al., 2017), but interviewees showed that in practice there are multiple dimensions of social impacts at play related to physical and environmental changes associated with hydroelectric development, but also to human experience and perception. Human experience is often invisible to CEA processes that have been focused on environmental components that can be measured and quantified with available data. There has been recognition within the CEA field that impacts on individuals and communities include tangible biophysical and social changes and their perception of what these changes mean in terms of personal values, culture, land use, local economies, and social well-being (Atlin & Gibson, 2017; Franks, Brereton, & Moran, 2013; Halseth, 2016). This understanding of social impacts has also long been recognized within SIA research where social impacts are defined not just as measurable social or demographic changes, but must be felt and experienced physically and/or perceptually at the level of individual, household, and/or community (Serje, 2017; Slootweg, Vanclay, & van Schooten, 2001; Vanclay, 2002). Many have identified important cumulative social effects, argued for their inclusion in assessment, and advocated for a definition inclusive of human experience and which is culturally grounded, but few have contended with what this means for the framing and application of CEA processes, including the information and evaluation criteria needed. A practical challenge exists in that if cumulative effects are to be defined as having important dimensions beyond strictly measurable phenomenon and that are tied to human 139 experience, how can such impacts be accounted for in a meaningful, fair, and accurate way during an EA? Our analysis emphasized that these issues and impacts are inevitably raised as part of an EA and CEA regardless of whether they fit within the formal scope. The important question is perhaps not whether human experience should be scoped out of CEA since this has often been unsuccessful, but instead how assessment processes can engage with these dimensions of impact. We do not advocate for an abandonment of established CEA processes or of a VC based assessment. Nor do we argue for a siloed assessment where ecological and social impacts and components are assessed completely independently. Rather, we note that established CEA processes are not be well suited to answering all questions about cumulative change. Social impacts present unique challenges, require specific methods and approaches, and cannot be fully captured using the same frameworks as cumulative environmental effects. We provide a conceptual framework for the cumulative social effects of projects that accounts for human experience dimensions. Importantly, there is knowledge and methods that could be drawn upon from other research fields to support further innovation such as social ecological systems, Indigenous ecology, social and health impact assessment, and gender-based analysis (Davies et al., 2018; Halseth, 2016; Huang & London, 2016; Krieg & Faber, 2004; Loxton et al., 2013; Willsteed, Birchenough, Gill, & Jude, 2018). A further challenge is the need to understand such social impacts as cumulative over space and time. One of the primary tensions in CEA practice has been the scale(s) at which CEA should be carried out and how it can fulfill its goal of contributing to management decisions. Recognition that CEA should extend beyond the limits of any single project has shifted philosophy and methodology towards regional and strategic level assessments. A focused effort on scaling up monitoring and analysis to ecologically significant boundaries, for instance the 140 watershed scale, has helped to advance the technical and scientific capacities required to understand impacts over broad spatial and temporal scales (Ball et al., 2013; Dubé, Wilson, & Waterhouse, 2013; Harker et al., 2021). While the consistent application of such regional and strategic approaches and effective “tiering” between levels of assessment remain a challenge (Chilima et al., 2017; White & Noble, 2013), there is broad acceptance that for biophysical impacts and environmental components ecologically driven, and often regional, spatial scales are necessary for CEA. The ideal scale of analysis for cumulative social effects has not been subject to the same degree of attention or consensus. While there is a body of research focused on strategies and methods to define ecological scales for CEA, there is much less on defining appropriate social scales for CEA and how to apply these scales during project assessments. The local lens is clearly important for understanding social impacts and for developing specific and meaningful mitigation for project impacts (Christensen & Krogman, 2012). But, a regional perspective and strategic planning and investment in social benefits is also important (Atlin & Gibson, 2017), and EA has often overlooked spatial impacts which cumulatively might impact human systems and Indigenous rights and title (Audino et al., 2019; Booth & Skelton, 2011; Garvie & Shaw, 2016). Our results suggest a need to further explore the implications of spatial scale for cumulative social effects, and to focus assessment approaches within local and regional contexts. Our results also show that decisions about the temporal scale of assessments are critical for understanding cumulative social effects. A key question is the extent to which applications of CEA at the project level can, or should, engage with the legacy of an industry or development in a region. EA is a project-based process occupied with the implications of a particular plan, but in the context of BC and Manitoba it is also inevitably managing a past and an impact legacy. 141 It is clear that in both jurisdictions, and likely also in the broader Canadian context, this legacy of environmental and social impacts demands meaningful assessment processes, mitigation, planning forums, and reconciliation beyond the scope of any individual EA. In BC this need has been increasingly recognized and has resulted in regulatory changes to expand consideration of impacts on Indigenous peoples and their rights and to establish the basis for Indigenous led assessments (BC Environmental Assessment Office, 2020). Assessments of cumulative social effects during EA will require having conversations outside of EA about social systems, socioeconomic conditions, and inequities and their relationship to development activities. Until these needs are filled, EA will continue to serve as a proxy for these broad and complex issues which are beyond its scope and power to address, as has been observed in other international settings (Larsen et al., 2017). However, it is also important that EA is not divorced from these broader conversations or the social, political, and environmental context in which the project is proposed. An individual project’s relationship to the legacy of development in the region, and to what extent it is, or can be, equipped to engage with that legacy and the existing cumulative effects is a key question that demands further guidance for proponents and decision-makers. For the hydroelectric industry, which in BC and Manitoba is controlled by provincial crown corporations, the role of government in engaging with this legacy and facilitating these broader conversations is even more clear. Another set of challenges is associated with impact measurement. There is an often critiqued assumption underpinning CEA that a lack of data is a key limiting factor in the ability to assess and make decisions about cumulative effects (Arnold et al., 2019; Bond et al., 2015; Hegmann & Yarranton, 2011). We support calls for improvements in the consistency and availability of data for cumulative effects and social impacts specifically, particularly as 142 jurisdictions such as BC expand their requirements. But, our results suggest that the core challenges for social impacts at the project level will not be addressed by improving the available data, and are instead related to the framing of the process itself. In both BC and Manitoba interviewees emphasized that there is diverse and extensive information available for understanding social change from a variety of sources, including numerous past EAs. The key social impacts are not unknown, but challenges exist in terms of developing the will and the capacity to interpret the available information and apply it across individual EAs. Interviewees noted fundamental challenges with framing the assessment process around impact attribution. Impact attribution has proven difficult for environmental cumulative effects, such as those to aquatic systems (Cronmiller & Noble 2018) and our results suggest this may be even more challenging for impacts to social systems. The establishment of impact pathways, and evaluating project impacts on identified components is an important part of an EA. However, the expectations of CEA require understanding the relative contribution of the project impacts to adverse cumulative effects, and the extent to which that contribution is significant. For many social impacts that have been included in project EAs for hydroelectric developments and where a potential pathway has been acknowledged, such as gendered impacts and increased sexual violence, substance abuse, and mental health, this expectation is not productive. These are important impacts for EA and CEA decision-making (Koutouki et al., 2018), but are difficult to meaningfully include within the current framing of the assessment process. We do not believe this indicates that we should stop asking questions about an individual project’s social impacts and utilizing a range of available methods to examine them, or that a proponent should take on exclusive responsibility for existing social issues. But, we do propose that clarity is needed around the data and information expectations for assessing impacts to social 143 components, and that there are additional questions about cumulative social effects that should be asked at the project level. Insight may be borrowed from those who have advocated for sustainability and goal-oriented assessment framings (Atlin & Gibson, 2017; Bond, Morrison-Saunders, & Pope, 2012). Establishing a clearer understanding of the condition of important social components and identifying strategic objectives could facilitate conversations about the extent to which a project contributes towards more healthy human systems, in addition to the focus on determining the extent and significance of its impact. Cumulative effects management requires planning beyond any one EA process. EA should not be expected to establish strategic social objectives, but it should be expected to be informed by and align with them once they are identified, and the framing of CEA at the project level should be supportive of this. There is an important related need to bolster follow up and management for social impacts. Follow-up and monitoring for cumulative effects have been characterized as limited, and is often focused on biophysical impacts and components (Cronmiller & Noble, 2018; Lawe, Wells, & Cree, 2005). The complex nature of social change and the uncertainty associated with prediction demands pointed attention to meaningful EA outcomes including context specific mitigation, monitoring, and adaptative management (Canter & Atkinson, 2010; Lawe et al., 2005). Further, the relative importance often given to projected social benefits in weighing development decisions suggests a need for targeted follow-up and reflection on the extent to which these benefits are being achieved. Social cumulative effects follow-up is particularly relevant in settings like BC and Manitoba where there has been extensive hydroelectric development, the expansion of other industries, and where ongoing hydroelectric operation and future development is likely. 144 5.5. Conclusion CEA remains inundated with challenges at the project EA level, and these issues are further complicated for cumulative social effects. Improving the process for identifying and assessing cumulative social effects requires substantial innovation in how CEA is approached at the project-level. Our recommendations include adopting a conceptual definition and framework for cumulative social effects that includes human experience dimensions and developing specific guidance for cumulative social effects to apply during EAs. We also propose that improving understanding of local and regional social contexts, contending with how legacy impacts can be meaningfully included, and clarity around CEA outcomes and expectations must be priorities for developing this guidance and approaches for social CEA. Finally, the practice of framing CEA around project attribution has been ineffective and creates an impossible expectation for important social impacts that has limited meaningful evaluation and discussion during EA. Attention must shift to improving understandings of social baselines, and identifying social objectives and goals in addition to potential impacts, to support proactive discussions about cumulative social effects and their management. 5.6. References Arnold, L.M., Hanna, K., & Noble, B. (2019). Freshwater cumulative effects and environmental assessment in the Mackenzie Valley, Northwest Territories: challenges and decision-maker needs. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 37(6), 516–525. Atlin, C., & Gibson, R. (2017). Lasting regional gains from non-renewable resource extraction: The role of sustainability-based cumulative effects assessment and regional planning for mining development in Canada. Extractive Industries and Society, 4(1), 36–52. 145 Audino, D., Axmann, S., Gray, B., Howard, K., & Stanic, L. (2019). Forging a clearer path forward for assessing cumulative impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights. Alberta Law Review, 297. Baid, I.G., Silvano, R.A.M., Parlee, B., Poesch, M., Maclean, B., Napoleon, A., Lepine, M., Hallwass, G. (2021). The downstream impact of hydropower dams and Indigenous and local knowledge: examples from the peace-Athabasca, Mekong, and Amazon. Environmental Management, 67(4): 682-6967. Bakker, K., & Hendriks, R. (2019). Contested knowledges in hydroelectric project assessment: The case of Canada’s Site C Project. Water, 11(3), 406. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030406 Ball, M., Somers, G., Wilson, J.E., Tanna, R., Chung, C., Duro, D.C., & Seitz, N. (2013). Scale, assessment components, and reference conditions: Issues for cumulative effects assessment in Canadian watersheds. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 9(3), 370–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1332 BC Environmental Assessment Office. (2016). Cumulative effects and BC environmental assessment. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/environmental-assessments/guidance-documents/eao-cumulative-effects-and-bc-environmental-assessments.pdf BC Environmental Assessment Office. (2020). Guide to Consensus-Seeking under the Environmental Assessment Act , 2018. BC Hydro. (2019a). Our facilties: Peace Region. Retrieved from https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/operations/our-facilities/peace.html BC Hydro. (2019b). Our facilities: Columbia Region. Retrieved from https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/operations/our-facilities/columbia.html 146 Blakley, J.A.E. (2021). Introduction: Foundations, issues and contemporary challenges in cumulative impact assessment. In J. A. E. Blakely & D. M. Franks (Eds.), Handbook of Cumulative Impact Assessment (pp. 2–20). Edward Elgar Publishing. Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., Gunn, J.A.E., Pope, J., & Retief, F. (2015). Managing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment by embedding evolutionary resilience, participatory modelling and adaptive management. Journal of Environmental Management, 151, 97–104. Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., & Pope, J. (2012). Sustainability assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 53–62. Booth, A., & Skelton, N.W. 2011. “We Are Fighting for Ourselves” — First Nations’ Evaluation of British Columbia and Canadian Environmental Assessment Processes. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 13(03), 367–404. Bradley, A., & McClurg, M. (2012). Consultation and Cumulative Effects: Is there a role for the duty to consult in addressing concerns about over-development? Aboriginal Law Section, 15(3), 1–6. Canter, L., & Atkinson, S.F. (2010). Adaptive management with integrated decision making: An emerging tool for cumulative effects management. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28(4), 287–297. Chilima, J. S., Blakely, J.A.E., Noble, B. F., & Patrick, R.J. (2017). Institutional arrangements for assessing and managing cumulative effects on watersheds: Lessons from the Grand River watershed, Ontario, Canada. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 42(3), 223–236. Christensen, L., & Krogman, N. (2012). Social Thresholds and their Translation into Social-ecological Management Practices. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 5. 147 Clean Environment Commission. (2013). Report on Public Hearing: Bipole III Transmission Project. Winnipeg, Manitoba. http://www.cecmanitoba.ca/cecm/archive/ Clean Environment Commission. (2018). A Review of the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment for Hydroelectric Development on the Nelson, Burntwood, and Churchill River Systems. Winnipeg, Manitoba. http://www.cecmanitoba.ca/cecm/archive/ Cohn, J., Evenden, M., & Landry, M. (2020). Water powers: The Second World War and the mobilization of hydroelectricity in Canada, the United States, and Germany. Journal of Global History, 15(1), 123–147. Cronmiller, J.G., & Noble, B.F. (2018). The discontinuity of environmental effects monitoring in the Lower Athabasca region of Alberta, Canada: institutional challenges to long-term monitoring and cumulative effects management. Environmental Reviews, 180(November 2017), 1–12. da Silva, G. P., Parkins, J.R., & Nadeau, S. (2020). Social Impact Assessment Methods for Predicting Cumulative Effects involving Extractive Industries and Indigenous People. Project Report #20- 02, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology, University of Alberta. https://www.ualberta.ca/resource-economics-environmental- sociology/research/project-reports da Silva, G.D.P., Parkins, J.R., & Sherren, K. (2021). Do methods used in social impact assessment adequately capture impacts? An exploration of the research-practice gap using hydroelectricity in Canada. Energy Research and Social Science, 79 (September 2020), 102188. 148 Davies, K., Fisher, K., Foley, M., Greenaway, A., Hewitt, J., Le Heron, R., … Lundquist, C. (2018). Navigating collaborative networks and cumulative effects for Sustainable Seas. Environmental Science and Policy, 83, 22–32. Dubé, M. G., Wilson, J.E., & Waterhouse, J. (2013). Accumulated state assessment of the Yukon River watershed: Part II quantitative effects-based analysis integrating western science and traditional ecological knowledge. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 9(3), 439–455. Duinker, P. N., Burbidge, E.L., Boardley, S.R., & Greig, L.A. (2013). Scientific dimensions of cumulative effects assessment: toward improvements in guidance for practice. Environmental Reviews, 21(1), 40–52. Foley, M.M., Mease, L.A., Martone, R.G., Prahler, E.E., Morrison, T.H., Murray, C.C., & Wojcik, D. (2017). The challenges and opportunities in cumulative effects assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 122–134. Franks, D.M., Brereton, D., & Moran, C.J. (2011). Cumulative social impacts. In New directions in social impact assessment: Conceptual and methodological advances. (pp. 202–220). England: Edward Elgar Cheltenham. Franks, D.M., Brereton, D., & Moran, C.J. (2013). The cumulative dimensions of impact in resource regions. Resources Policy, 38(4), 640–647. Garvie, K.H., & Shaw, K. (2016). Shale gas development and community response: perspectives from Treaty 8 territory, British Columbia. Local Environment, 21(8), 1009–1028. Halseth, G.R. (2016). Cumulative Effects and Impacts: Introducing a Community Perspective. In M.P. Gillingham, G.R. Halseth, C.J. Johnson, & M.W. Parkes (Eds.), Integration Imperative: Cumulative Environmental, Community and Health Effects of Multiple Natural 149 Resource Developments (pp. 83–117). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Hanna, P., Vanclay, F., Langdon, E.J., & Arts, J. (2016). The importance of cultural aspects in impact assessment and project development: reflections from a case study of a hydroelectric dam in Brazil. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 34(4), 306–318. Harker, K.J., Arnold, L., Sutherland, I.J., & Gergel, S.E. (2021). Perspectives from landscape ecology can improve environmental impact assessment. Facets, 6(1), 358–378. Hegmann, G., & Yarranton, G.A. (2011). Alchemy to reason: Effective use of Cumulative Effects Assessment in resource management. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(5), 484–490. Hodgson, E.E., & Halpern, B.S. (2019). Investigating cumulative effects across ecological scales. Conservation Biology, 33(1), 22–32. Hoffman, S.M. (2008). Engineering Poverty: Colonialism and Hydroelectric Development. In T. Martin & S. Hoffman (Eds.), Power Struggles: Hydro Development and First Nations in Manitoba and Quebec, 103–128. Winnipeg, Manitoba: University of Manitoba Press. Horowitz, L.S., Keeling, A., Lévesque, F., Rodon, T., Schott, S., & Thériault, S. (2018). Indigenous peoples’ relationships to large-scale mining in post/colonial contexts: Toward multidisciplinary comparative perspectives. Extractive Industries and Society, 5(3), 404–414. Huang, G., & London, J.K. (2016). Mapping in and out of “messes”: An adaptive, participatory, and transdisciplinary approach to assessing cumulative environmental justice impacts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 154, 57–67. Johnson, C.J. (2016). Defining and Identifying Cumulative Environmental, Health, and 150 Community Impacts. In M.P. Gillingham, G.R. Halseth, C.J. Johnson, & M.W. Parkes (Eds.), Integration Imperative: Cumulative Environmental, Community and Health Effects of Multiple Natural Resource Developments (pp. 21–49). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Jones, F.C. (2016). Cumulative effects assessment: theoretical underpinnings and big problems. Environmental Reviews, 24(2), 187–204. Koutouki, K., Lofts, K., & Davidian, G. (2018). A rights-based approach to indigenous women and gender inequities in resource development in northern Canada. Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, 27(1), 63–74. Krieg, E. J., & Faber, D. R. (2004). Not so Black and White: Environmental justice and cumulative impact assessments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(7–8), 667–694. Larsen, R.K., Raitio, K., Stinnerbom, M., & Wik-Karlsson, J. (2017). Sami-state collaboration in the governance of cumulative effects assessment: A critical action research approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 64, 67–76. Lawe, L.B., Wells, J., & Cree, M. (2005). Cumulative effects assessment and EIA follow-up: A proposed community-based monitoring program in the Oil Sands Region, northeastern Alberta. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 23(3), 205–209. Lockie, S., Franettovich, M., Petkova-Timmer, V., Rolfe, J., & Ivanova, G. (2009). Coal mining and the resource community cycle: A longitudinal assessment of the social impacts of the Coppabella coal mine. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(5), 330–339. Loxton, E.A., Schirmer, J., & Kanowski, P. (2013). Exploring the social dimensions and complexity of cumulative impacts: A case study of forest policy changes in Western 151 Australia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 31(1), 52–63. Manitoba Hydro. (2018). Generating Stations. Retrieved October 10, 2019, from https://www.hydro.mb.ca/corporate/facilities/generating_stations/ Manitoba Hydro & Manitoba Government. (2015) Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment for Hydroelectric Developments on the Churchill, Burntwood, and Nelson River Systems: Phase II Report. Mantyka-Pringle, C.S., Jardine, T. D., Bradford, L., Bharadwaj, L., Kythreotis, A. ., Fresque-Baxter, J., … Jones, P. D. (2017). Bridging science and traditional knowledge to assess cumulative impacts of stressors on ecosystem health. Environment International, 102, 125–137. Mitchell, R.E., & Parkins, J.R. (2011). The challenge of developing social indicators for cumulative effects assessment and land use planning. Ecology and Society, 16(2). Noble, B., Liu, J., & Hackett, P. 2017. The Contribution of Project Environmental Assessment to Assessing and Managing Cumulative Effects: Individually and Collectively Insignificant? Environmental Management, 59(4), 531–545. Parlee, B.L., Geertsema, K., & Willier, A. (2012). Social-Ecological Thresholds in a Changing Boreal Landscape : Insights from Cree Knowledge of the Lesser Slave Lake Region of Alberta , Canada. Ecology and Society, 17(2), 20. Peyton, J. (2017). Unbuilt Environments: Tracing Postwar Development in Northwest British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Rosenberg, D.M., Bodaly, R.A., & Usher, P. (1995). Environmental and social impacts of large scale hydro-electric development: who is listening? Global Environmental Change, 5(2), 127–148. 152 Ross, H. (1990). Community social impact assessment: A framework for indigenous peoples. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 10(1–2), 185–193. Sadd, J.L., Pastor, M., Morello-Frosch, R., Scoggins, J., & Jesdale, B. (2011). Playing it safe: Assessing cumulative impact and social vulnerability through an environmental justice screening method in the South Coast Air Basin, California. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8(5), 1441–1459. Sandlos, J., & Keeling, A. (2016). Aboriginal communities, traditional knowledge, and the environmental legacies of extractive development in Canada. Extractive Industries and Society, 3(2), 278–287. Serje, M. (2017). Social relations: A critical reflection on the notion of social impacts as change. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 65(April), 139–146. Sheelanere, P., Noble, B.F., & Patrick, R.J. (2013). Institutional requirements for watershed cumulative effects assessment and management: Lessons from a Canadian trans-boundary watershed. Land Use Policy, 30(1), 67–75. Slootweg, R., Vanclay, F., & van Schooten, M. (2001). Function evaluation as a framework for the integration of social and environmental impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19(1), 19–28. Tyson, W., Lantz, T.C., & Ban, N.C. (2018). Cumulative Effects of Environmental Change on Culturally Significant Ecosystems in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. Arctic, 69(4), 391–405. Vanclay, F. (2002). Conceptualising social impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(3), 183–211. Westman, C.N., & Joly, T.L. (2019). Oil Sands Extraction in Alberta, Canada: a Review of 153 Impacts and Processes Concerning Indigenous Peoples. Human Ecology, 233–243. White, L., & Noble, B.F. (2013). Strategic environmental assessment for sustainability: A review of a decade of academic research. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 42, 60–66. Willsteed, E.A., Birchenough, S.N.R., Gill, A.B., & Jude, S. (2018). Structuring cumulative effects assessments to support regional and local marine management and planning obligations. Marine Policy, 98(September), 23–32. Yahey v. British Columbia (2021). BCSC 1287 154 Chapter 6: Capacity Needs for Assessing the Cumulative Social Effects of Projects 6.1. Introduction Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) generates information about the temporal and spatial accumulation of impacts from development to support well-informed environmental management decisions (Foley et al., 2017). Cumulative effects have presented several challenges for impact assessment processes, including the scale of data and information required to understand cumulative effects, and the need to effectively apply CEA in a number of assessment forums from project-based Environmental Assessment (EA) to regional planning and strategic assessments (Foley et al., 2017; Noble, 2015). While CEA is intended to be inclusive of a broad spectrum of environmental and socio-economic impacts, in practice the application of CEA has been predominantly focused on biophysical values (Atlin & Gibson, 2017; Davies et al., 2018; Loxton, Schirmer, & Kanowski, 2013; Parkes et al., 2016). Despite a long history of conceptual development, there remains little practical support and guidance for the assessment and management of cumulative social effects. Attention to social, economic, health, and cultural impacts is considered part of EA best practices, and many iterations of impact assessment have evolved specifically to understand these impacts such as Social Impact Assessment, Health Impact Assessment, and Gender Based Assessment +. However, social impacts are often treated as secondary to environmental concerns, the complexity of social systems is not well accounted for in EA practice, and the narrow spatial and temporal boundaries typically associated with project assessments remain a fundamental limitation (Esteves, Franks, & Vanclay, 2012; Franks, Brereton, & Moran, 2011; Hackett, Liu, & 155 Noble, 2018; Huang & London, 2016). There has been limited targeted research exploring how to account for and make decisions about cumulative social effects in CEA, especially when compared to the body of work focused on the development of assessment approaches for biophysical effects. In this paper, the term cumulative social effects refers to incremental, additive, and successive changes to people’s livelihoods and wellbeing, which includes impacts to social, economic, health, and cultural systems caused by development actions, disturbances, or disruptions to social systems over time or across space (Franks et al., 2011) In Canada, expectations around CEA have been evolving since the foundational principles and concepts of cumulative effects were first introduced to federal EA in the early 1980s. CEA is a required part of a project based EA at the national level, and to varying degrees within Canada’s provincial and territorial jurisdictions. Initiatives for regional approaches to the assessment of cumulative effects are also emerging in some settings, supported by both legislation and guidance (BC Environmental Assessment Office, 2016; Impact Assessment Act, 2019). Requirements for assessing social impacts have also been bolstered by expanded guidance and legislation, recognition of Indigenous rights, and the reality that cumulative effects have become a key part of the public conversation about resource development (Bakker & Hendriks, 2019; Bradley & McClurg, 2012; Sandlos & Keeling, 2016). An expectation for a CEA that is inclusive of social impacts is developing at the project EA level and in broader planning contexts, but it is unclear how this expectation is translated into practice and how such an assessment should be carried out. A key focus of CEA research and policy development has been improving the information, technical capacity, and frameworks to assess cumulative biophysical effects, at 156 regional and ecologically meaningful scales (Foley et al., 2017; Parkes et al., 2016). These advances are important, but there are increasing calls to strengthen practical support to account for cumulative social effects (Atlin & Gibson, 2017; Halseth, 2016). Research and case studies exploring theory, methodology, and the unique challenges and information needs for cumulative social effects are emerging, and the continued development of assessment tools and guidance is an important area of work (Hanna et al., 2016; Huang & London, 2016; Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017; Parlee, Geertsema, & Willier, 2012; Tyson, Lantz, & Ban, 2018). At the same time, an important question is the extent to which capacity exists, and can be further developed, for implementing a CEA process that is inclusive of social impacts. An effective CEA requires not only a foundation of robust information and understanding of cumulative impact pathways and relationships, but also the capacity to make use of that information to assess, evaluate, and make decisions (Hegmann & Yarranton, 2011; Parkins, 2011). For instance, Sheelanere, Noble, and Patrick (2013) identified several institutional requisites to implement and sustain watershed CEA frameworks and effectively link information to decision-making in watersheds including establishing leadership and well defined responsibilities for CEA management, enabling legislation, and financial and human resources. These requisites and the need for improvements in leadership and capacity for implementing CEA frameworks have been supported in other settings (Arnold, Hanna, & Noble, 2019; Chilima, et al., 2017; Chilima, Gunn, Noble, & Patrick, 2013; Kristensen, Noble, & Patrick, 2013). Others have also illustrated capacity challenges associated with assessments of social and health impacts, and in implementing meaningful engagement processes with Indigenous communities and governments (Eckert et al., 2020; Hackett et al., 2018; Udofia, Noble, & Poelzer, 2017). As processes and methods are developed for assessing cumulative social effects, 157 there is a need to understand what is required to support their implementation. At the project level, it is important to identify and evaluate social impacts and benefits to make informed decisions reflective of the cumulative context (Atlin & Gibson, 2017; Booth & Skelton, 2011). A critical question for the success of a CEA that is inclusive of social impacts is whether practical support and capacity exists for conducting such an assessment. The focus of this paper is on understanding the capacity needed to assess cumulative social effects. Capacity is defined broadly to include the level of regulatory support and guidance, and the information, resources, individual skill-sets, and expertise available during EA. We do this by exploring practitioner experience with project EAs for hydroelectric development in two Canadian provinces: British Columbia (BC) and Manitoba. These two jurisdictions offer contrasting regulatory environments and levels of political support for CEA, but each have been confronted with significant and contentious cumulative social effects associated with over 50 years of hydroelectric development. In both provinces, a provincial crown corporation is responsible for the development and operation of the hydroelectric industry, and project EAs for hydroelectric developments have become a forum where cumulative social effects have come to the forefront. In the following sections a brief background of the study regions is provided, and the interview process is described. Results are then presented followed by a discussion of the broader lessons for advancing CEA for social effects. 6. 2. Methods and study regions Hydroelectric power is the leading source of renewable energy in Canada. The impacts of hydroelectric development and associated reservoirs, spillways, transmission lines, and infrastructure are often extensive, and continuous, given the long-term operation of hydroelectric 158 facilities (Baird et al., 2021; Bakker & Hendriks, 2019). The long history in Canada and continuing expansion of hydroelectric development has meant that the implications of cumulative effects for EAs and decision-making in this sector have become increasingly contentious. Cumulative effects are also an important issue for Indigenous peoples in Canada, who have been confronted with disproportionate impacts from resource development, due to the consequences of cumulative effects for social systems, cultural practices, and for protected Indigenous rights (Bakker & Hendriks, 2019; Booth & Skelton, 2011). Hydroelectric power is a major industry in both BC and Manitoba, representing about 90% and 97% of provincial electricity generation respectively (BC Hydro, 2019; Manitoba Hydro, 2018). BC and Manitoba have different provincial EA regimes, and different political and regulatory environments and levels of support for CEA, but each has struggled to address their legacy of hydroelectric development, and cumulative social effects have become one of the most pressing issues confronting project EAs. Manitoba Hydro is the crown corporation responsible for hydroelectric development in Manitoba. The majority of the hydroelectric capacity in the province is concentrated in the northern Nelson, Burntwood, and Churchill River System. Hydroelectric development in northern Manitoba began in 1961 with the Kelsey generating station (Clean Environment Commission, 2018). Over the next four decades hydroelectric development expanded rapidly with several additional generating stations and transmission lines, and the diversion of the Churchill River to support future development (Clean Environment Commission, 2018). Contemporary provincial EAs are completed under The Environment Act of Manitoba (1988). Recent major hydroelectric projects reviewed under the Act include the Wuskwatim generating station and transmission line (2004), Bipole III transmission line (2013), the Keeyask generating 159 station (2014), and a hearing report for the Manitoba-Minnesota (USA) Transmission line (Clean Environment Commission, 2018). CEA is not required under the Manitoba Act, and assessments of social impacts are required so far as they are directly caused by a biophysical change. No formal guidance for CEA exists at the provincial level, but the Clean Environment Commission (CEC), an arms-length provincial government agency that holds public hearings and project reviews, has established expectations for CEA through project-specific EA guidelines, and encourages the adoption of best practices from available federal guidance (CEC, 2013; 2018). However, the CEC has also repeatedly raised concerns about the cumulative effects of hydroelectric projects in northern Manitoba in several EA reports (2004; 2005; 2013; 2014; 2015). Challenges presented by the lack of formal CEA requirements is well articulated in the CEC’s review of the Bipole III project in that ‘while the Commission was less than happy with the nature and quality of the cumulative effects assessment, it is prepared to concede that the Proponent has met the minimum standards necessary’ but going on to note ‘a provincial Crown Corporation of the stature of Manitoba Hydro should strive to meet a higher standard’ (2013, p.112). A regional cumulative effects study was completed by Manitoba Hydro and the Government of Manitoba in 2015 to address enduring cumulative effects concerns, though many interveners, Indigenous governments, and researchers have questioned its effectiveness as an assessment of social impacts and how hydroelectric development has contributed to those impacts over time (Gunn & Noble, 2012; CEC, 2018). The Peace River and Columbia River have been a focus of hydroelectric development in BC since the 1960s. BC’s Two Rivers Policy was aimed at realizing the energy potential of the Peace and Columbia and created the crown corporation BC Hydro (Peyton, 2017). In the Peace 160 Region there are two major hydroelectric facilities in operation: The W.A.C. Bennet dam and GM Shrum Generating Station (1968), and the Peace Canyon Dam and Generating Station (1980) (BC Hydro, 2019). The controversial Site C project, an approved dam and generating station currently under construction, will be the first large-scale development in the Peace Region since the 1980s. In the Columbia River region, development has been supported by the Columbia River Treaty between Canada and the United States. There are four major hydroelectric dams in operation, all constructed before 1985: the Mica Generating Station (1973), the Kootenay Canal Generating Station (1976), Seven Mile Generating Station (1979), and the Revelstoke Generating Station (1984) (BC Hydro, 2019). The Revelstoke and Mica Generating Stations have each undergone expansions to increase capacity. In BC, CEA is a required part of EA and recent regulation has expanded expectations to consider cumulative effects and made explicit the inclusion of social impacts and impacts on Indigenous peoples and their rights (BC Environmental Assessment Office, 2016, 2020). There have also been efforts to initiate regional scale monitoring and emerging provisions to support regional assessments (Government of British Columbia, 2016). These efforts have been in part fueled by growing concerns about the cumulative effects of both potential and approved projects in the province. In the Peace Region, cumulative effects and social impacts have been the subject of lawsuits and injunctions against the Site C hydroelectric facility, which have raised important questions about government’s responsibility for cumulative effects and the implications for Indigenous rights (Bakker & Hendriks, 2019; Behn & Bakker, 2019; Yahey v. British Columbia 2021;) . 161 6.2.1 Data Collection Semi-structured interviews (n=25) were completed to explore practitioner experiences regarding: 1) the process for assessing cumulative social effects, and 2) the regulatory and professional capacity required to complete such an assessment. In this paper the focus is on responses related to the capacity for assessing cumulative social effects, which included exploring the regulatory support and guidance available, and the information, resources, and expertise available during EA to conduct a CEA inclusive of social impacts. The focus of the interviews was not assessing what cumulative social impacts exist in each region, or to understand how people have experienced those impacts, but rather to examine how these impacts are evaluated during EA and the challenges faced by practitioners and participants in the process. Therefore, targeting interviewees who have been professionally involved in EA processes in each regions was important. Interviewees were identified through public websites, by reviewing EA reports, and through referrals by key informants. Interviewees included people working in regulatory bodies and government offices, proponents, Indigenous government employees and their consultants, independent consultants, and people who have served as experts and interveners during EA (Table 1). Some consultant and intervener interviewees had worked across both provinces and provided insight on both study regions. The goal in selecting interviewees was to include individuals who could act as representatives and windows into their organizations and the EA process. In some cases, the interviewee was a team or group of people working within an organization or government body who reviewed the questions together and provided a collective response. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and health guidelines, interviews were completed via videoconference or phone. Interviewees were provided the interview questions in advance and 162 given the option to submit written feedback and additional documents. Interviews ranged from 45 minutes to two hours in length, were audio recorded, transcribed removing identifying information, and thematically coded using NVivo Qualitative Analysis Software. Several descriptive codes, such as the occupation, role, and experience of the interviewee during EA were also recorded. Analytic coding was conducted to develop themes. Broad initial themes were defined to guide the review of transcripts, including the availability of regulations and guidance, the availability of expertise within and outside of the interviewee’s organization to assess cumulative social effects, and the challenges identified by interviewees. Additional themes and subthemes emerged throughout the analysis and were built into code categories. Table 1: Interviews by province and occupation/role1 British Columbia Manitoba Canada Regulators and government offices 2 3 1 Proponents 1 2 Indigenous governments and consultants working on their behalf 3 6 Interveners 1 4 Consultants 4 1 1 Total number of interviews was 25, but some interviewees provided responses for both provinces 163 6.3. Results 6.3.1 Regulatory support for human cumulative impacts Interviewees across both provinces were unanimous in reporting a deficit in guidance for cumulative social effects. CEA was described as a challenging and inconsistent aspect of EA and social impacts were identified as particularly difficult to address or even to define. Two interviewees stated: ‘I don’t think that any of us have a true understanding of what cumulative effects are’ and ‘I would say that there is dramatic difference between how [the proponent] wants to look at cumulative impacts, how the [regulator] looks at cumulative impacts, and how the Indigenous communities look at cumulative impacts.’ In Manitoba, this inconsistency and ambiguity is fueled in part by the lack of regulatory support and guidance for CEA at the provincial level. Under the Environment Act 1988, there is no explicit requirement to assess cumulative effects in EA, and assessments of social impacts including those to health and economic systems, are required only so far as those impacts are directly caused by a change in the biophysical environment. But, despite no formal requirement or guidance at the provincial level, discussions about cumulative social effects have been extensive in public hearings for recent project reviews. The persistent attention to cumulative effects has been fueled by concerns and information brought forward by interveners, Indigenous governments, and other public stakeholders, coupled with evolving requirements and guidance for CEA at the federal level, and also the efforts of the CEC to respond to concerns raised during EA. Interviewees across regulators, consultants, Indigenous nations, and proponents noted that there has been an evolution in EA in Manitoba to bolster CEA, as stated by one intervener: ‘there has been a concerted effort to learn over time within institutions despite barriers in legislation.’ However interviewees consistently described the practical challenge of assessing and responding 164 to cumulative effects during an EA in the absence of provincial requirements. The CEC has recommended the establishment of provincial requirements and has discussed best practices for CEA in past EA reviews. Yet, interviewees described CEA as inconsistent referencing a lack of evaluative frameworks and guidance for cumulative social effects in particular, it is not like we have in front of us a blueprint for what CEA should be. Nor does the [government]. When the [government] issues a Terms of Reference they will ask them to do a CEA, but they won’t give them much guidance. They wouldn’t have an agreed upon approach to doing these assessments. It is very much piece-meal and not cohesive at all. In the Manitoba context, there is an expectation, rather than a requirement that CEA be included in EAs. Interviewees frequently noted that cumulative social effects are often ‘sidelined’ or rendered ‘invisible’ in an EA process, which has remained focused on projects and biophysical impacts. In contrast, BC has among the most supportive regulatory environments for CEA in Canada (BC Environmental Assessment Office, 2016; 2020). There are explicit requirements under provincial EA law to include CEA and guidance exists at the provincial level. The recently passed Environmental Assessment Act (2018) has considerably expanded the expectations for attention to social impacts, and Indigenous rights and cultural impacts, and gendered impacts. Interviewees noted these efforts, and emphasized the importance of political will at the provincial level to address and prioritize cumulative effects in EAs. However, interviewees still consistently identified a gap in understanding how these requirements should be implemented in practice, and a lack of operational guidance for cumulative social effects specifically. Notwithstanding legislation, CEA frameworks, guidance, and methodology remain focused on biophysical components, and interviewees identified that assessing cumulative social 165 effects requires different processes, tools, skills and information. As described by two EA consultants for example: there are high level federal guidance from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada/Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and those are fairly generic...I would say some of them are helpful but there is still a lot of work to do on cumulative effects guidelines that are specifically targeted to the human environment piece I think regulators and communities and technical specialists and industry don’t always necessarily carry out a CEA and the associated assessments in the same way which creates a whole lot of uncertainty around project development, and there is very little guidance from regulatory agencies on CEA methodology. I think that is a real gap in our regulatory framework both provincially and federally, one that been really challenging for regulators on the human impacts side of things in particular 6.3.2 Expertise and capacity 6.3.2.1 Technical and scientific biases A fundamental challenge that emerged from the interviews is the shortage of expertise available during EA processes in order to analyze and make decisions about cumulative social effects. EAs require considerable technical effort, data, and analytical capacity. Interviewees from both provinces emphasized that while the information itself, including its quality, availability, and relevance is vitally important, equally critical is the presence and the ability of the people involved to speak for the information, interpret it, and to make meaning out of it. The background, professional qualities, and skillsets of the people involved in EA are important factors in how an assessment is carried out and how impacts are identified and evaluated. A regulator, for example, spoke about the importance of the individuals involved in EA, their experience, and biases noting: you may very well come to this decision-making table with a bias for science and data and yet you are not getting that, and you are suddenly tossed off the deep end when you are talking about social impacts... I think as a decision-maker you have to be able to confront your own biases 166 Interviewees emphasized a deficit in the expertise and capacity available during EA to interpret, understand, and evaluate cumulative social effects. Part of this deficit is related to the technical and western scientific bias that is inherent in EA. CEA, which evolved out of technical and scientific disciplines, has not been well equipped to accommodate consideration of social impacts and the multiple types of information that may be presented to characterize social issues and concerns. As described by two interviewees from Manitoba: We spent a lot of money hiring consultants to advise us on the biophysical side of things, but we were missing that big chunk on social impacts... there was not anyone at that table who I would say is an expert in social impact assessment...without the benefit of that, even with a consultant, how could we be critical of what the consultant was saying? It was I think a weak spot in the make-up of the committee. This challenge was similarly described by interviewees from BC with one participant explaining: ‘EA is a technical field and it has been dominated by ecological and biophysical science as the worldview that is used to conduct it, and that means that in general impact assessors and the people who make decisions based on those assessments have tended to lean heavily in the direction of technical western science.’ Interviewees often cited limited capacity to analyze cumulative social effects and significant power imbalances in the perspectives offered and heard during EA. This deficit in expertise was identified by interviewees but was also observed during the research process in identifying interviewees. Preliminary conversations and scoping for potential interviewees revealed a small pool of people who had been directly involved in hydroelectric EAs and CEAs and who had specific experience and expertise with assessing social impacts. The majority of consultants were technical specialists with primary expertise in fields such as hydrology, engineering, or ecology. While all had been confronted with cumulative social 167 effects issues as they intersect with their fields of work, very few identified social, health, cultural, or economic impact analysis as an area of focus or expertise. 6.3.2.2 Cultural capacity Participation, engagement with Indigenous communities and governments, and local and Indigenous knowledge were consistently identified as central to any EA process, and important to understanding social contexts when assessing cumulative effects. However, interviewees across both provinces specifically highlighted deficits in cultural capacity and Indigenous representation on EA evaluation and decision-making bodies. As said by an intervener reflecting on experiences in Manitoba, ‘they [proponents, decision-makers, governments] have no cultural capacity really to hear what they are being told by communities, so even when they hear or go to hearings in the communities, the process itself by being so legalistic is intimidating for people and I don’t think anyone really feels comfortable.’ The CEC has also recognized cultural barriers such as in the Keeyask Generating Station EA report where the panel noted that understanding the Cree worldview presented by Indigenous project partners was a challenge given that only one panel member was Indigenous (2014, xii-xiii). Interviewees from BC expressed similar capacity challenges and a failure to understand cultural and social impacts. Alongside the technical bias in terms of information and personnel involved in the process, this has meant that even where information about social impacts and people’s experience of social change are brought forward, it is not successfully or meaningfully carried through the assessment and decision-making process. A consultant interviewee from Manitoba shared this story: …there had been a couple presentations and then this fellow stood up and got the mic and started talking about being on this trap line and this moose... he was talking about this strange wildlife behaviour and saying the animals are trying to tell us something, communicating to us, communicating with this behaviour. And I remember he spoke for 168 a while and then he stopped. And then there is this huge silence and everyone kind of looked at him. The people facilitating just had no idea how to tie this to the discussion that was going on about cumulative effects and no idea how to respond, and there was this big pause. And then it was kind of like “well OK, and next on the agenda we have...” You know there was almost no response; it was almost like we don’t know what to do with this, let’s just carry on... Interviewees from both provinces shared similar stories drawn from experiences across multiple EAs. All interviewees recognized that CEA requires a spectrum of qualitative and quantitative information, attention to experience-based knowledge as well as scientific data, and interdisciplinary and culturally informed perspectives, but the majority of interviewees questioned whether the professional qualities and capacity needed are represented in the EA process. 6.3.3 Uncomfortable conversations Interviewees also described a discomfort that exists when engaging with the issues a social CEA brings forward. Evaluating cumulative changes to social systems over time inevitably brings forward conversations about the political and resource development legacy of Canada, Indigenous rights, the impacts of colonization and racism, social and economic inequities, and gendered impacts. Interviewees described that the people involved in EA are often not adequately trained or are unwilling to engage with these issues meaningfully. This theme was particularly prominent in interviews from Manitoba. As noted by two interviewees: I think a lot of it depends on people on the board, what their comfort level is, and social impact assessments will inevitably raise really sensitive issues about racism, inequality, all of this wells up, and I don’t think you can point it aside because it is an uncomfortable discussion It really comes down to the members and it may come down to their expertise and just the level of comfort or discomfort they had with a particular subject and in this case I think some of our members just didn’t want to talk about it...I think there is just a reluctance to enter into areas that are sensitive, controversial... 169 An important realization is that when cumulative social effects are introduced to EA, proponents, practitioners, and decision-makings are being confronted with human trauma. Although framed as primarily technical or scientific endeavors, EA and CEA are also emotional and value-laden processes. In both Manitoba and BC, interviewees noted the devastating impacts of hydroelectric development and other industries, colonial governments policies, and socio-economic changes on communities. An EA is focused on a single project proposal, but it is also reckoning with a legacy of social and cultural disruption The human experience of cumulative effects, and the grief and trauma that affected communities and people have experienced, are routinely brought forward to the EA process, despite that EA does not provide a supportive forum to engage with these types of issues. Interviewees thus described process fatigue for those communities who have continually come back to the EA table to raise these concerns. For social impacts in particular, there are potential psychological effects of repetitive participation in EAs and of reliving trauma, when sharing stories of racism, assault, and gendered violence in a public and often quasi-judicial EA forum. Interviewees noted that the evolution of EA to include a broader suite of social impacts is a positive shift, such as the recent changes in BC’s provincial laws and efforts to include GBA+ and cultural impacts and Indigenous rights. However, results also revealed that it is important to consider how the EA process itself may exacerbate these social impacts, particularly with the absence of people who hold the psychological and cultural expertise needed to support such an assessment. 6.3.4 Learning Interviewees expressed frustration that with each EA the slate is effectively wiped clean and there is little learning from one project assessment to the next. With each process, 170 information must be brought to the table and engagement needs to occur, communities provide testimony, impacts and mitigation measures are evaluated and ‘it feels like we are starting over every time.’ In northern Manitoba, for example, several EAs for hydroelectric development projects have been completed since The Environment Act (1988) came into effect. In the Peace and Columbia regions of BC, there have also been numerous projects and industries and engagement in a variety of forums. There have been efforts by governments, regulators, interveners, and communities to build knowledge of cumulative effects, and there has been an evolution of process to devote more attention to social changes, but interviewees described that each EA begins with an assumption that the baseline and key impacts are unknown. The process of re-explaining and re-assessing impacts that have been present for decades is frustrating for impacted communities and consumes time and resources that could otherwise be devoted to managing those impacts. Interviewees described a need for strategic and regional CEAs to better situate projects in regional contexts, but also outlined the need to improve learning across individual EAs, and to build on existing information and impact management efforts that have proven effective. 6.3.5 Responsibility and leadership A key challenge for cumulative social effects is a general lack of leadership and ambiguity in terms of who is responsible for addressing them. There is an expectation in EA that a proponent is responsible for the impacts that will arise from the proposed project, for mitigating those impacts, and for adhering to the decisions and conditions a regulatory body might impose as the result of an EA. For CEA, a key focus is thus determining the extent to which the proposed project contributes to cumulative impacts and the extent to which those impacts are significant and can be addressed through project-focused mitigation. As articulated 171 by a proponent interviewee the question EA is trying to answer is ‘in terms of cumulative effects how much of this is really attributed to the hydro project and how much is a pre-existing problem or related to other problems?’ That said, interview results suggest that parsing out the relative contribution of an individual project to cumulative effects is difficult if not impossible for many social impacts, such as those to culture, mental health, or gendered or racial violence. A further difficult question that emerged from the results is who is responsible for the remediating or compensating for existing conditions and the ‘pre-existing problems’ or ‘other problems’ that contribute to cumulative effects? The concept of cumulative social effects demands attention to a legacy of development and impacts, the current state of human social, economic, health, and cultural systems, and the possible and desirable future conditions. A consultant from BC for example spoke to the importance of understanding all contributing factors including past government social and economic policies impacting Indigenous peoples when trying to understand cumulative social effects, … the full sum of all contributing causes to adverse effects on people, and that becomes even more essential when it is Indigenous people because if we are talking about physical works and activities that have caused cumulative effects we have to include government policies...these things had huge impacts on people’s ability to use their lands and have a meaningful economic livelihood but they are never considered in CEA in the typical course of an EA. And that means that we receive a picture that is at best skewed and at worse completely unlike the lived reality of Indigenous people. Some interviews noted that it is perhaps not reasonable to place the responsibility for existing cumulative social effects on a proponent, and that is it instead government’s responsibility to address cumulative effects and to make decisions about development in a way that sustainably manages the social and biophysical environment. A proponent interviewee explained: ‘I really struggle with whether it is a proponent’s responsibility or whether it does rest with a regulator or with government...understanding long term regional plans is I think very 172 unfair for an individual proponent to be responsible for that and this is where I think there is a role for government to play in guiding what CEA looks like.’ The interviewee further explained that when dealing with existing social issues and problems it is challenging to determine how responsibility is distributed amongst the proponent, the federal government, and the provincial government in that ‘some of those things you can address as a proponent but many of them are not your reasonability to address...so finding that balance of what is a project impact and what is addressing an existing problem.’ However, other interviewees noted that the hydroelectric industry is in many ways unique, in that in both BC and Manitoba hydroelectric developments are exclusively managed by a provincial crown corporation – in effect, the proponent is government. A consultant noted, ‘in the hydro examples I think it is simpler than it has ever been, and because BC Hydro is responsible for legacies as well as existing and future effects, it is much easier to pool that information together.’ What is clear based on interview responses is the need for other forums beyond EA to evaluate and make decisions about cumulative social effects. EA is limited in its analytical and decision-making scope, and not all activities that contribute to cumulative social effects are subject to EA. An effective CEA requires a more strategic lens than what EA currently offers. Interviewees noted that part of the reason cumulative social effects have become such a contentious and challenging aspect of EA is because there is no other opportunity to have these discussions. This is a particularly important consideration for BC as it seeks to improve regulatory support for CEA. As said by one consultant: it is pretty much the only place where we as citizens get to show up to a meeting and government is there and people are there and they have to take down what you say and report it and write it down and get back to you and tell you how they dealt with your input...You have almost no other opportunity to do that, so people bring everything in to these meetings and it is often not focused on the project, and the proponent is not saying it is not important, but our project does not do anything to affect that... 173 Interviewees described a need to have these broader and more proactive discussions not only about potential social impacts and their significance, but also about objectives, to outline where improvements in existing social conditions are needed, what values are important, and also in terms of meaningfully addressing legacy impacts. In the words of a consultant interviewee: the thing is nobody is happy with CEA because people come to it wanting answers to a question that regulations are not asking....I think this is a place where government can actually step in...to sort of establish what the baseline is for key things that are important, and what the current status and also set objectives so that we can all agree on what change is allowed and what is not, what is too much, what is the threshold, or where are we trying to go. 6.4 Discussion Results identified several capacity challenges and deficits for identifying, assessing, and managing cumulative social effects. Summarized in Table 2 are a set of “capacity needs” for improving cumulative social effects assessment for project developments. Based on dominant themes emerging from interview results, these capacity needs are grouped under three conceptual categories: regulation and guidance, professional expertise, and responsibility and management. Results indicate that while regulatory capacity and support for cumulative social effects differs between the provinces, there is a common gap in practical knowledge and guidance. This gap exists despite the reality that hydroelectric EAs have been repetitively confronted with social impacts for more than 50 years (Bakker & Hendriks, 2019; CEC, 2018). In Manitoba, there is a foundational need to make explicit the requirements and process for CEA at the provincial level, as has been repeatedly recommended by the CEC (2013; 2018). At the federal level in Canada, and in BC, the regulatory and political context is supportive of more inclusive CEA; however, specific guidance is still required for cumulative social effects in order to implement such an 174 Table 2: Capacity Needs for Assessing Social Cumulative Effects of Projects Capacity Need Explanation Regulations and Guidance Enabling legislation for social CEA Clear and explicit requirement for CEA in EA that is inclusive of cumulative social effects, and the establishment of consistent processes and expectations. Guidance for social cumulative effects assessment and management Specific guidance that includes how cumulative social effects are defined, outlines the process for assessment, and provides guidance on the use of social science methods and tools. Professional Expertise Availability of expertise for social impacts Professionals involved in EA who have expertise in social systems and impact assessment. This expertise must be available to regulators and decisions-makers to support the evaluation of information about social impacts and advise on decisions about mitigation and management. Training for regulators/decision-makers Regulators/decision-makers must have the skills required to weigh and evaluate the range of information presented about social impacts during EA. This should also include training to improve cultural capacity and to understand information about cultural impacts and Indigenous interests. Indigenous leadership Indigenous representation during impact evaluation and decision-making is necessarily to meaningfully assess cumulative social effects and development legacies Psychological support Support should be provided for EA participants who provide information about social impacts and past traumas associated with resource development so that the EA process itself does not contribute to additional social impacts. Learning and information transfer An EA should build on knowledge and information about impacts, mitigation, and outcomes gathered during previous EAs and regional studies. Responsibility and Management Roles and responsibilities Roles and responsibilities of various parties in respect to cumulative social effects should be defined, including what is expected of proponents at the project level, and the role of government in cumulative effects management beyond EA. Understanding of existing social conditions Existing social conditions and unacceptable conditions should be identified at local and regional scales, including the historical activities and impacts that contributed to these conditions Understanding of social objectives Social objectives should be established locally and regionally with leadership by government and Indigenous governments. These objectives should be available to decision-makers/regulators during EA assessment. Most of the guidance available to EA professionals is focused on the biophysical environment, and most of the expertise available during the process is concentrated in biophysical and technical science disciplines. Social impacts are interrelated to biophysical 175 impacts, but they are also accompanied by a unique set of challenges and require specific attention in terms of developing methods, analytical tools, and evaluation criteria. Our results also emphasize the importance of ensuring that the CEA process and the expertise engaged in it are equipped to handle the full spectrum of issues the emerge when projects are proposed, including social issues. A CEA, and the information is provides, are only effective if actually used in decision-making (Arnold et al., 2019; Hegmann & Yarranton, 2011). EA and CEA are often framed as scientific and technical processes, and there has been an assumption underpinning CEA that better information will lead to better decisions (Bond et al., 2015; Cashmore, 2004). Many have argued that a rationalist or technocratic view of the role of scientific information in decision-making is poorly suited to reality, and is not reflective of the nature of the decisions that EA and CEA are concerned with or the organizational and political factors that influence how, and whether, the information generated is effectively used (Chilima et al., 2017; Duinker et al., 2013; Parkins, 2011; Sheelanere et al., 2013). A range of information, beyond quantitative science, is presented to decision-makers during CEA processes. There has been considerable work exploring the role of science in EA and CEA (Cashmore, 2004; Duinker et al., 2013; Harker et al., 2021), but far less on the role of social sciences and other knowledge paradigms. Qualitative methodology is seen as a weak area of CEA research and practice (Hodgson, Halpern, & Essington, 2019; Westman & Joly, 2019), despite a relative consensus that qualitative data is vital to understanding and interpreting impacts and is of substantial importance to Indigenous knowledge and participation (Eckert et al., 2020; O’Faircheallaigh, 2010). The development of frameworks, guidance, and interdisciplinary training for decision-makers that are reflective of the reality of assessment processes and decision-making is important to advance the inclusion of cumulative social effects. 176 There is also a need to ensure that professional expertise is available during the assessment process to support social impact evaluation. In addition to generating useful information about cumulative social effects, it is important that the CEA and EA process in general have access to the expertise required to interpret and evaluate information about social impacts and mitigation. This expertise does exist, but such leadership is rarely integrated into CEA and EA processes from the early stages of assessment design through to evaluation and decision-making. Specifically in the Canadian context and our two study areas, there is also a need to for attention to the role of Indigenous governments and communities in EA and to improve the cultural capacity of those involved in the EA process. Cumulative social effects have become an important issue for Indigenous peoples within Canada due to the long legacy and disproportionate impacts of resource development on Indigenous peoples and communities, and the implications for rights and governance (Bakker & Hendriks, 2019; Booth & Skelton, 2011). Cumulative effects is also a concept which has a long and independent history in Indigenous ecology and knowledge systems and many nations in Canada are developing their own processes for impact assessment and CEA (Booth & Skelton, 2011; Gibson et al, 2018; Gillingham et al., 2016). Expertise for CEA exists within Indigenous Nations, but Indigenous knowledge and authority is often not recognized and the resources available during an EA are not adequate to support meaningful involvement or to develop independent processes (Booth & Skelton, 2011). We found that a key barrier to an assessment of cumulative social effects is that there is discomfort in engaging with the sociopolitical issues that such an assessment can inevitably raise. In Canada, CEA has become a particularly contentious part of EA reviews where questions about governance, colonial legacy, and social and environmental sustainability are brought to the forefront. Our results illustrate that in BC and Manitoba hydroelectric EAs are 177 reckoning with a difficult past and a set of existing socioeconomic inequities. There is real trauma associated with hydroelectric development that has been made evident in EA public records, reports and independent assessments, and by interviewees, that CEA has not been well equipped to meaningfully consider. Many have reported mental health impacts related to resource development (Asselin & Parkins, 2009; Gill & Richie, 2020; Salerno et al., 2021; Shando et al., 2017). And, there has been recognition that cumulative effects is a concept that connects to broad social and governance issues, such as Indigenous rights, economic and social inequalities, environmental justice and racism, and gendered impacts, (Native Womens Association of Canada, 2020; Krieg & Faber, 2004; Larsen et al., 2017; Tollefson & Wipond, 1998). Our analysis echoed the importance of these impacts and their limited consideration in EA, and illustrated that these conversations are seen as difficult and often considered as beyond the scope of the assessment. The problem is that there are few other venues to address these types of issues in the context of resource development proposals, such as hydroelectric projects. A focus on the specifics of a project plan and scientific analysis of its components is a vital facet of an EA, but our results suggest that until we articulate and implement better ways to effectively have these uncomfortable conversations about cumulative effects both within and beyond EA, conversations about the technical details of projects will often not be productive. We agree with those who have emphasized that participation, engagement, and the inclusion of a range of information and knowledge types is vital for effective CEA (Christensen & Krogman, 2012; Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017). We also emphasize, as others have, that there is a technical bias within EA and where participatory information contradicts industry assessment it is often dismissed as anecdotal and characterized as lacking validity (da Silva, Parkins, & Nadeau, 2020; Sandlos & Keeling, 2016). In the Canadian context, as processes 178 evolve to include assessments of social impacts and cumulative effects to Indigenous rights and interests, this is an essential challenge to confront. However, we question the ethics of repetitive participation in project EA without adequate support, expertise, or cultural capacity, and without specific attention to EA outcomes for social impacts and demonstrated efforts to learn across individual project assessments. This is a particularly important consideration for cumulative social effects and associated conversations about trauma, gendered impacts, racist impacts, mental health, and governance. As EA adopts a more cumulative focus and becomes more integrative in terms of the impacts it includes, it is important to ensure the process itself does not exacerbate social impacts it intends to mitigate and prevent. Finally, our results raise a key question around responsibility for cumulative social effects. Responsibility has been a complicated question for CEA. In regions where there are multiple industries and projects in operation, what is an individual proponent’s responsibility for cumulative impacts which have occurred prior to a proposed project, or which are associated with existing or future projects or other government actions? (Arnold et al., 2019; Behn & Bakker, 2019; Larsen, Österlin, & Guia, 2018). Challenges in attributing portions of cumulative effects to individual projects has been noted for biophysical environment components, but is arguably even more challenging and complex for social impacts, if not impossible. For cumulative social effects we found that a vital question is: who is responsible for existing social conditions that are undesirable or unacceptable? This is a complicated question in Canada, where there is a mix of federal and provincial responsibilities related to socioeconomic systems and Indigenous rights. In the context of hydroelectric development in BC and Manitoba where provincial crown corporations have been managing the industry throughout its legacy, this question is still complicated, but perhaps less 179 so. In northern Manitoba for instance, there are few other industries operating and certainly none at the scale or with the legacy of impacts of the hydroelectric industry. In our study regions in BC, there are a wider range of industry interests, however recent legal decisions have reinforced government’s responsibility for regional cumulative effects and their mitigation - such as the recent Yahey v. British Columbia 2021 supreme court decision which affirmed government’s responsibility for the cumulative effects resulting from several project approvals that compromised the ability of Blueberry River First Nation to exercise rights protected by Treaty 8. There is a clear need to have proactive discussions about cumulative effects at the project level. EA must be connected to broader governance and planning processes, and must function as a means to implement identified priorities and make decisions that align with these processes. 6.5 Conclusion The struggle to improve CEA for biophysical environments has persisted for decades - even with legislative support and available guidance. The critical issue illustrated by our results is that cumulative social effects are even more challenging, characterized by a difficult legacy in areas where most resource developments occur. Many of the capacity needs noted in this paper (i.e. Table 2) are ambitious - yet this ambition is needed to make genuine progress to address cumulative social effects. Confronting cumulative social effects will require substantial investments in regulatory change, including specific guidance that reflects the nature of social systems and the information needed to evaluate social impacts. There is also a need for the development of new expertise in EA, and a willingness to engage with the range of social issues a cumulative social effects assessment brings forward. Achieving a meaningful and ethical CEA demands learning across individual EAs, and developing processes that do not contribute to 180 additional trauma for EA participants. Finally, an assessment of cumulative social effects requires increased responsibility (i.e. accountability). If EA and CEA seek to include social impacts and aim to contribute to better projects and decisions it is perhaps important not only to ask where responsibility lies for cumulative social effects, but also to question who is/should be responsible for investing in improvements to existing social conditions. Arguably EAs cannot be a productive forum for managing cumulative social effects until a more proactive approach is adopted focusing on understanding current conditions, inequities, and actively improving the health and people and human social systems. 6.6 References Arnold LM, Hanna K, & Noble B. (2019). Freshwater cumulative effects and environmental assessment in the Mackenzie Valley, Northwest Territories: challenges and decision-maker needs. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal, 37(6), 516–525. Asselin J, & Parkins JR. (2009). Comparative Case Study as Social Impact Assessment : Possibilities and Limitations for Anticipating Social Change in the Far North. Soc Indicators Res, 94(3), 483–497. Atlin C, & Gibson R. (2017). Lasting regional gains from non-renewable resource extraction: The role of sustainability-based cumulative effects assessment and regional planning for mining development in Canada. Extractive Industries Soc, 4(1), 36–52. Baid IG, Silvano RAM, Parlee B, Poesch M, Maclean B, Napoleon A, Lepine M, Hallwass G. (2021). The downstream impact of hydropower dams and Indigenous and local knowledge: examples from the peace-Athabasca, Mekong, and Amazon. Environ Manag, 67(4): 682- 181 6967. Bakker K, & Hendriks R. (2019). Contested knowledges in hydroelectric project assessment: The case of Canada’s Site C Project. Water, 11(3), 406. BC Environmental Assessment Office. (2016). Cumulative effects and BC environmental assessment. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/environmental-assessments/guidance-documents/eao-cumulative-effects-and-bc-environmental-assessments.pdf BC Environmental Assessment Office. (2020). Guide to Consensus-Seeking under the Environmental Assessment Act, 2018. BC Hydro. (2019a). Our facilties: Peace Region. Retrieved from https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/operations/our-facilities/peace.html BC Hydro. (2019b). Our facilities: Columbia Region. Retrieved from https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/operations/our-facilities/columbia.html Behn C, & Bakker K. (2019). Rendering technical, rendering sacred: The politics of hydroelectric development on british columbia’s saaghii naachii/peace river. Glob Environ Politics, 19(3), 98–119. Blakley, J. A. E. (2021). Introduction: Foundations, issues and contemporary challenges in cumulative impact assessment. In J. A. E. Blakely & D. M. Franks (Eds.), Handbook of Cumulative Impact Assessment (pp. 2–20). Edward Elgar Publishing. Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Gunn JAE, Pope J, & Retief F. (2015). Managing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment by embedding evolutionary resilience, 182 participatory modelling and adaptive management. J Environ Manag, 151, 97–104. Booth A, & Skelton NW. (2011). “We Are Fighting for Ourselves” — First Nations’ Evaluation of British Columbia and Canadian Environmental Assessment Processes. J Environ Assess Policy Manag, 13(03), 367–404. Bradley A, & McClurg M. (2012). Consultation and Cumulative Effects: Is there a role for the duty to consult in addressing concerns about over-development? Aboriginal Law Sec, 15(3), 1–6. Cashmore M. (2004). The role of science in environmental impact assessment: Process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory. Environ Impact Assess Rev, 24(4), 403–426. Chilima JS, Blakely JAE, Noble BF, & Patrick RJ. (2017). Institutional arrangements for assessing and managing cumulative effects on watersheds: Lessons from the Grand River watershed, Ontario, Canada. Canadian Water Resour J, 42(3), 223–236. Chilima JS, Gunn JAE, Noble BF, & Patrick RJ. (2013). Institutional considerations in watershed cumulative effects assessment and management. Impact Assess Proj Apprais, 31(1), 74–84. Christensen L, & Krogman N. (2012). Social Thresholds and their Translation into Social-ecological Management Practices. Ecol Soc, 17(1), 5. Clean Environment Commission. (2004). Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Projects – Full Report. Winnipeg, Manitoba. http://www.cecmanitoba.ca/cecm/archive/ Clean Environment Commission (2005). Red River Floodway Expansion Report. Winnipeg, Manitoba. http://www.cecmanitoba.ca/cecm/archive/ Clean Environment Commission. (2013). Report on Public Hearing: Bipole III Transmission 183 Project. Winnipeg, Manitoba. http://www.cecmanitoba.ca/cecm/archive/ Clean Environment Commission. (2014). Keeyask Generating Project Report. Winnipeg, Manitoba. http://www.cecmanitoba.ca/cecm/archive/ Clean Environment Commission. (2015). Lake Winnipeg Regulation Report. Winnipeg, Manitoba. http://www.cecmanitoba.ca/cecm/archive/ Clean Environment Commission. (2018). A Review of the Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment for Hydroelectric Development on the Nelson, Burntwood, and Churchill River Systems. Winnipeg, Manitoba. http://www.cecmanitoba.ca/cecm/archive/ da Silva GDP, Parkins JR, & Nadeau S. (2020). Social Impact Assessment Methods for Predicting Cumulative Effects involving Extractive Industries and Indigenous People. Davies K, Fisher K, Foley M, Greenaway A, Hewitt J, Le Heron R, … Lundquist C. (2018). Navigating collaborative networks and cumulative effects for Sustainable Seas. Environ Sci Policy, 83(August 2017), 22–32. Duinker PN, Burbidge EL, Boardley SR, & Greig LA. (2013). Scientific dimensions of cumulative effects assessment: toward improvements in guidance for practice. Environ Rev, 21(1), 40–52. Eckert LE, Claxton NX, Owens C, Johnston A, Ban NC, Moola F, & Darimont CT. (2020). Indigenous knowledge and federal environmental assessments in Canada: Applying past lessons to the 2019 impact assessment act. Facets, 5(1), 67–90. Esteves AM, Franks D, & Vanclay F. (2012). Social impact assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais, 30(1), 34–42. Foley MM, Mease LA, Martone R G, Prahler EE, Morrison TH, Murray CC, & Wojcik D. (2017). The challenges and opportunities in cumulative effects assessment. Environ Impact 184 Assess Rev, 62, 122–134. Franks DM, Brereton D, & Moran CJ. (2011). Cumulative social impacts. In Vanclay F, Esteves AM (eds) New directions in social impact assessment: Conceptual and methodological advances. (pp. 202–220). England: Edward Elgar Cheltenham. Gibson G, Hoogeveen D, MacDonald A, & The Firelight Group. (2018). Impact Assessment in the Arctic: Emerging Practices of Indigenous-led Review. Gill D, & Ritchie L. (2020). Considering cumulative social effects of technological hazards and disasters. Am Behav Sci, 64(8), 1145-1161. Gillingham MP, Halseth GR, Johnson CJ, & Parkes MW. (2016). Exploring Cumulative Effects and Impacts Through Examples. In M. P. Gillingham, G. R. Halseth, C. J. Johnson, & M. W. Parkes (Eds.), Integration Imperative: Cumulative Environmental, Community and Health Effects of Multiple Natural Resource Developments (pp. 153–193). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Government of British Columbia. (2016). Cumulative Effects Framework: Interim Policy. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/cumulative-effects-framework Gunn J, & Noble B. (2012). Critical Review of the Cumulative Effects Assessment Undertaken by Manitoba Hydro for the Bipole III Project. Winnipeg, Manitoba. Hackett P, Liu J, & Noble B. (2018). Human health, development legacies, and cumulative effects: environmental assessments of hydroelectric projects in the Nelson River watershed, Canada. Impact Assess Proj Apprais, 36(5), 413–424. Halseth GR. (2016). Cumulative Effects and Impacts: Introducing a Community Perspective. In M. P. Gillingham, G. R. Halseth, C. J. Johnson, & M. W. Parkes (Eds.), Integration 185 Imperative: Cumulative Environmental, Community and Health Effects of Multiple Natural Resource Developments (pp. 83–117). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Hanna P, Vanclay F, Langdon EJ, & Arts J. (2016). The importance of cultural aspects in impact assessment and project development: reflections from a case study of a hydroelectric dam in Brazil. Impact Assess Proj Apprais, 34(4), 306–318. Harker KJ, Arnold L, Sutherland IJ, & Gergel SE. (2021). Perspectives from landscape ecology can improve environmental impact assessment. Facets, 6(1), 358–378. Hegmann G, & Yarranton GA. (Tony). (2011). Alchemy to reason: Effective use of Cumulative Effects Assessment in resource management. Environ Impact Assess Rev, 31(5), 484–490. Hodgson EE, Halpern BS, & Essington TE. (2019). Moving beyond silos in cumulative effects assessment. Frontiers in Ecol and Evolution, 7(JUN), 1–8. Huang G, & London JK. (2016). Mapping in and out of “messes”: An adaptive, participatory, and transdisciplinary approach to assessing cumulative environmental justice impacts. Landsc Urban Plan, 154, 57–67. Krieg EJ, & Faber DR. (2004). Not so Black and White: Environmental justice and cumulative impact assessments. Environ Impact Assess Rev, 24(7–8), 667–694. Kristensen S, Noble BF, & Patrick RJ. (2013). Capacity for watershed cumulative effects assessment and management: Lessons from the lower fraser river basin, Canada. Environ Manag, 52(2), 360–373. Larsen RK, Raitio K, Stinnerbom M, & Wik-Karlsson J. (2017). Sami-state collaboration in the governance of cumulative effects assessment: A critical action research approach. Environ Impact Assess Rev, 64, 67–76. Larsen RK, Österlin C, & Guia L. (2018). Do voluntary corporate actions improve cumulative 186 effects assessment? Mining companies’ performance on Sami lands. Extractive Industries Soc, 5(3), 375–383. Loxton EA, Schirmer, J., & Kanowski P. (2013). Exploring the social dimensions and complexity of cumulative impacts: A case study of forest policy changes in Western Australia. Impact Assess Proj Apprais, 31(1), 52–63. Manitoba Hydro & Manitoba Government. (2015) Regional Cumulative Effects Assessment for Hydroelectric Developments on the Churchill, Burntwood, and Nelson River Systems: Phase II Report. Manitoba Hydro. (2018). Generating Stations. Retrieved October 10, 2019, from https://www.hydro.mb.ca/corporate/facilities/generating_stations/ Mantyka-Pringle CS, Jardine TD, Bradford L, Bharadwaj L, Kythreotis AP, Fresque-Baxter J, … the Slave River and Delta Partnership. (2017). Bridging science and traditional knowledge to assess cumulative impacts of stressors on ecosystem health. Environ International, 102, 125–137. Native Women’s Association of Canada (2020). Indigenous Women and Impact Assessment Final Report 1-77. Noble B. (2015). Cumualtive effects research: achievements, status, directions and challenges in the Canadian context. J Environ Assess Policy Manag, 17(01), 1550001. O’Faircheallaigh C. (2010). Public participation and environmental impact assessment: Purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environ Impact Assess Rev, 30(1), 19–27. Parkes MW. (2016). Cumulative Determinants of Health Impacts in Rural, Remote, and Resource-Dependent Communities. In M. P. Gillingham, G. R. Halseth, C. J. Johnson, & 187 M. W. Parkes (Eds.), Integration Imperative: Cumulative Environmental, Community and Health Effects of Multiple Natural Resource Developments (pp. 117–153). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Parkes MW, Johnson CJ, Halseth GR, & Gillingham MP. (2016). An Imperative for Change: Towards an Integrative Understanding. In M. P. Gillingham, G. R. Halseth, C. J. Johnson, & M. W. Parkes (Eds.), Integration Imperative: Cumulative Environmental, Community and Health Effects of Multiple Natural Resource Developments (pp. 193–217). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Parkins, J. R. (2011). Deliberative democracy, institution building and the pragmatics of cumulative effects assessment. Ecol Soc, 16(3), 20. Parlee BL, Geertsema K, & Willier A. (2012). Social-Ecological Thresholds in a Changing Boreal Landscape : Insights from Cree Knowledge of the Lesser Slave Lake Region of Alberta , Canada. Ecol Soc, 17(2), 20. Peyton J. (2017). Unbuilt Environments: Tracing Postwar Development in Northwest British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Salerno T, Tam J, Page J, Gosling S, & Firelight Research Inc. (2021). Indigenous mental wellness and major project development: guidance for impact assessment professionals and Indigenous communities. Firelight Research Inc. submitted to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada Sandlos J, & Keeling A. (2016). Aboriginal communities, traditional knowledge, and the environmental legacies of extractive development in Canada. Extractive Industries Soc, 3(2), 278–287. 188 Shandro J, Jokinen L, Stockwell A, Mazzei F, & Winkler MS. (2017). Risks and impacts to First Nation health and the Mount Polley mine tailings dam failure. International J of Indigenous Health, 12(2). Sheelanere P, Noble BF, & Patrick RJ. (2013). Institutional requirements for watershed cumulative effects assessment and management: Lessons from a Canadian trans-boundary watershed. Land Use Pol, 30(1), 67–75. Tollefson C, & Wipond K. (1998). Cumulative environmental impacts and aboriginal rights. Environ Impact Assess Rev, 18(4), 371–390. Tyson W, Lantz TC, & Ban NC. (2018). Cumulative Effects of Environmental Change on Culturally Significant Ecosystems in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. Arctic, 69(4), 391–405. Udofia A, Noble B, & Poelzer G. (2017). Meaningful and efficient? Enduring challenges to Aboriginal participation in environmental assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev, 65, 164–174. Westman CN, & Joly TL. (2019). Oil Sands Extraction in Alberta, Canada: a Review of Impacts and Processes Concerning Indigenous Peoples. Human Ecol, 233–243. Yahey v. British Columbia (2021). BCSC 1287 189 Chapter 7: Conclusion This research project was designed to synthesize available research and practical EA knowledge about cumulative social effects, explore the CEA process and the challenges for assessing cumulative social effects during EAs, and to identify the regulatory and professional capacity needs for a social CEA. Using literature reviews, EA case study analysis, and semi-structured interviews it uncovered several key challenges, and lessons for CEA and cumulative social effects that point to a number of important research priorities and recommendations. The results of this work are directly relevant to hydroelectric EAs and CEA Manitoba and BC, but are also relevant to federal EA processes in Canada and provide insight about cumulative social effects identification, evaluation, and decision-making that is applicable to other industries and international settings. Three core objectives guided this research (chapter 1, table 1, p.5 ). These objectives are discussed in the following sections with a summary of key findings and recommendations. 7.1 Objective 1: What is known About Cumulative Social Effects? The first research objective was to synthesize available knowledge about cumulative social effects relevant to the Canadian context. I completed two targeted literature reviews to explore: 1) the methodological and theoretical problems presented by cumulative social effects, the importance of this issue as it has emerged in resource management practice, and 2) the relevance of cumulative social effects for Indigenous rights and interests in Canada. There is no shortage of research supporting the importance of understanding cumulative social effects and the interrelationships between social and ecological systems. However, I found little research directly and explicitly exploring how an assessment of cumulative social effects should, or could, 190 be carried out and few examples evaluating the efficacy of CEA frameworks for an assessment of social effects. A key future research priority is addressing this deficit. Specifically, the development of theory and methodology to guide the identification and evaluation of these impacts has lagged behind the imperative to include them in assessment applications. In my analysis I also note that CEA is relevant to many interrelated research fields and impact assessment disciplines. There are opportunities for interdisciplinary linkages to support the development of CEA theory and methods for social impacts, drawing on established social science and impact assessment research fields, such as social ecological systems, SIA, HIA, and GBA+. Developing these linkages, and exploring social science and qualitative methodology and its application for CEA are important areas of future work that could support the development of specific knowledge and guidance for assessing cumulative social effects. In addition, I identified a need to further engage with questions about Indigenous rights that are intimately linked to cumulative social effects. Cumulative social effects have become an important issue for Indigenous peoples in Canada, and in other international settings, in direct response to development legacies, an experience of disproportional impacts, and the implications of land use changes for rights and governance. As a research field CEA has been hesitant to engage with issues related to inequality and social impacts that are often viewed as contentious or outside the realm of EA which is often framed as a technical scientific process. My results emphasize a need to confront these questions and for reflection on how EA processes should consider cumulative social effects, legacy, and the implications for Indigenous rights and interests. There is an opportunity in the Canadian context for Indigenous led assessment and CEA approaches, and for research drawn from Indigenous ecology to support innovation in assessing and management social cumulative effects. 191 7.2 Objective 2: Processes and Challenges for Assessing Cumulative Social Effects The second objective of this research was to explore the CEA process and the challenges for assessing cumulative social effects. CEA has been a persistently weak and highly critiqued component of EA, and assessing cumulative social effects will require substantial innovation in EA practice. In my analysis I identified important challenges that cumulative social effects present to conventional CEA frameworks in terms of impact identification and scoping, identifying spatial and temporal scales, assessment, prediction, and impact attribution, and follow-up (Chapter 5, Table 2, p. 123). Many of the challenges I identified are not unique to cumulative social effects, but are exacerbated for these impacts due to the complexity of social systems, and the limited targeted attention these impacts have received in research and guidance. My results point to three broad findings and priorities for improving CEA practice at the project level: • Adopting a conceptual framework for cumulative social effects that includes human experience dimensions of social and environmental change • Guidance for making spatial and temporal scale decisions for cumulative social effects, and specific attention to understanding a project’s relationship to legacy impacts and existing social conditions • Development of specific frameworks for cumulative social effects that do not exclusively rely on project attribution, and that put emphasis on understanding existing social conditions and defining social objectives In project assessments social impacts are often assessed as physical shocks to biophysical or socioeconomic systems, but this research identified that cumulative social effects are also perceived and experienced and occur within a social context. I put forward a conceptual framework for cumulative social effects that includes human experience in addition to direct social and biophysical changes and facilitates an understanding of the relationship between physical project impacts and impacts to social systems (Chapter 5, p.130). This framework is 192 necessary to understand the nature of cumulative social change, and to better reflect the issues and impacts that are raised during EAs in practice. Adopting such a framework and understanding of cumulative effects would prompt additional questions and analysis of project impacts that are currently absent from EA processes, but which are important to those affected by projects and have been contentious in practice. I also identified a challenge in identifying appropriate spatial and temporal scales for cumulative social effects. My results emphasize a need to further explore the implications of spatial scale for cumulative social effects, which has received considerably less attention than scale decisions for biophysical components. In addition, I identified the importance of legacy impacts for hydroelectric developments in the study regions and that temporal scale decisions are particularly critical for cumulative social effects. It is unclear and often contentious what historical developments and social changes should be integrated within an understanding of the current social baseline, and how past developments, policies, and impacts should be considered in a CEA for a new project. The relationship of an individual project to the legacy of development impacts within a region, and how a project assessment should engage with that legacy and existing cumulative social effects is a key question that demands further guidance for proponents and decision-makers. Importantly, the results of this research also challenge the practice of project attribution for cumulative social effects and call for clarity around information expectations, and follow-up needs. For many important social impacts, conventional CEA frameworks are setting an impossible expectation of determining the relative contribution of project impacts to adverse cumulative effects, which no amount of data or information could support. I do not propose that EAs should stop asking question about a project’s social impacts, but I do argue that there is a 193 need for EAs to ask additional questions about existing social conditions, social objectives, and to reflect on the extent to which the project under review contributes toward the achievement of these objectives and healthy human systems. 7.3 Objective 3: Identifying Capacity Needs The third objective of this research was to identify regulatory and professional capacity needs for carrying out a CEA inclusive of social impacts. CEA requires not only a suite of information, but also the ability to make use of that information for decision-making and management. I identified ten key capacity needs related to these three broad categories (Chapter 6. Table 2, p.172): 1. Supportive regulation and specific guidance for cumulative effects 2. The availability of professional expertise and skills for evaluating cumulative social effects 3. Responsibility and management for cumulative social effects and existing social conditions, including social objectives for improvement Assessing cumulative social effects requires regulatory support. While CEA is often expected to include social impacts, there is a need to better articulate how this expectation should be carried out and to develop clear and specific guidance for assessing cumulative social effects that reflects the nature of these impacts and the types of information required to assess them. It is also important that there is expertise available during EA to evaluate information about social impacts and their mitigation. I uncovered deficits in the availability of professional expertise needed to interpret available information about social impacts, including qualitative information or local and Indigenous knowledge. I also identified a pattern of discomfort among EA participants and decision-makers in engaging with questions about social impacts, mental health 194 and gendered impacts, inequities, and the racialized history of resource development in Canada. An assessment of cumulative social effects requires that there are professionals involved in EA who have expertise in social systems and impact assessment. This expertise must be available to regulators and decisions-makers to support the evaluation of information about social impacts and advise on decisions about mitigation and management. Addressing these capacity needs will require attention to training for decision-makers and regulators and the development of guidance for cumulative social effects. I also identified that a meaningful and an ethical CEA demands learning across individual EAs. These is also a need to develop new expertise and processes to limit psychological trauma created by the assessment process itself for EA participants who provide information about legacy impacts and the social consequences of development. In addition, while predicting and managing social cumulative effects is important, so is understanding existing social conditions, and articulating objectives and working towards improving those conditions. If socioeconomic benefits are a primary rationale for pursuing resource development projects, and certainly if projects and their associated impacts are deemed within the public interest due to these benefits, then considerable effort should be devoted to examining them and ensuring they are achieved. My results call for attention to responsibility and accountability for cumulative social effects, and ensuring that project CEA is connected to broader planning and governance processes. This includes attention to project outcomes and the extent to which projects deliver on their projected benefits, and reflection on the part of governments about how the EA process can meaningfully engage with questions about development legacies and future planning. I propose that this points to a need to re-frame assessment to consider strategic social objectives and how project EA can function as a more proactive tool for social impact management. 195 Appendix 1: Literature review annotation template Citation Key words Study area Field/background Methods Key findings Significance 196 Appendix 2: Interview questions Interview Questions and Topics for Discussion Note: Interviews were semi-structured, and therefore not all questions were asked verbatim in each interview and questions were adapted to the experience, professional position, and the responses of the interviewee. 1. How does [government or organization of participant] define cumulative impacts? 2. What social cumulative impact issues are important for [government or organization of participant] when assessing hydroelectric development in [region of participant]? Why? a. Have these impacts been included in CEAs for hydroelectric developments? b. Are there issues or questions about social cumulative impacts that have consistently emerged across projects? c. Are there positive social cumulative impacts (i.e. benefits) that are important from the perspective of [government or organization of participant]? If so, what are these benefits? d. Have cumulative social benefits been included in CEAs for hydroelectric developments? 3. How have CEAs for hydroelectric development approached the assessment of social cumulative impacts? a. How are social cumulative impacts identified for inclusion in assessment processes? b. How are social cumulative impacts predicted? Does this process differ from the process for biophysical impacts? c. What is the timeframe considered for social cumulative impacts? Does this differ for biophysical cumulative impacts? 4. What is the process/approach of [government or organization of participant] for assessing social cumulative impacts for hydroelectric developments? a. Has [government or organization of participant] developed any specific guidance for assessing social cumulative impacts? b. Do processes/approaches for social cumulative impacts differ across other parties involved in these assessments? 5. What connections are made between biophysical and social cumulative impacts during CEA? (i.e. is the assessment of biophysical and social cumulative impacts integrated?) a. Does [government or organization of participant]’s process/approach for biophysical cumulative impacts differ from the process/approach for social cumulative impacts? If so, how? 197 6. What types of information does [government or organization of participant] have access to and/or contribute during assessment processes to understand social cumulative impacts of hydroelectric development? a. What additional information, if any, is needed to understand/assess social cumulative impacts? b. Are there challenges for [government or organization of participant] in obtaining information? If so, what challenges? 7. Are there challenges for [government or organization of participant] in interpreting information about social cumulative impacts? If so, what challenges? a. Are these challenges different from those for biophysical cumulative impacts? If so, how? b. Is there expertise and capacity within [government or organization of participant] for interpreting/evaluating information about social cumulative impacts? c. Is there expertise and capacity available outside of [government or organization of participant] interpreting/evaluating information about social cumulative impacts? 8. Optional question following up on specific case studies or recent EAs in the region of participant: Can you briefly explain how [government or organization of participant] approached the assessment of social cumulative impacts for [relevant EA]? a. Did [government or organization of participant] experience challenges in this part of the assessment? If so, what challenges? b. Has [government or organization of participant] identified any specific examples/assessments where the assessment of social cumulative impacts was particularly successful from the perspective of [government or organization of participant]? 9. What is the process for making decisions about the significance and the management of social cumulative impacts for hydroelectric developments? a. How does [government or organization of participant] make and/or contribute to these decisions? b. Has [government or organization of participant] identified any challenges with this process? If so what challenges? c. Does the process for making these decisions differ from the processes for other biophysical cumulative impacts? 10. What types of mitigation strategies have been applied for social cumulative impacts for hydroelectric development? (if relevant probe for specific examples from recent EAs) a. From the perspective of [government or organization of participant], have these strategies been effective? Which have been effective? Why, or why not? 11. What party/parties are responsible for managing/mitigating social cumulative impacts? a. Is this different from those responsible for managing/mitigating biophysical cumulative impacts?
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Interdisciplinary Studies
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Hanna, Kevin S. (Kevin Stuart), 1961-
Assessing and managing the cumulative social effects of resource development projects
Text