Science, Irving K. Barber Faculty of (Okanagan)
Earth, Environmental and Geographic Sciences, Department of (Okanagan)
DSpace
UBCO
Mulders, Tamika
Master of Science - MSc
University of British Columbia
Environmental assessment (EA) is an approvals process to determine whether large-scale resource development projects will have significant adverse impacts, and to mitigate these. Many Northwest Territories (NWT) communities and Dene and Métis Indigenous groups rely on traditional subsistence harvesting to offset high costs of store-bought foods in the north. Food security can be affected through direct environmental impacts such as contaminants, impacts to wildlife and fish habitat, and climate change. While resource development projects can have economic benefits, they can affect access to these land-based foods, and can also have cultural, social, economic and health effects, such as changed perception of the land, reduced traditional knowledge and language transmission, and a shift from traditional economy towards a wage-based economy. The research questions are: 1) how is food security currently addressed in EA processes in the NWT’s Mackenzie Valley, and 2) should food security be more explicitly addressed, and if so, how? These questions are explored using a three-step approach. A literature review describes the background and issues of food security and food sovereignty in general, and specific to the north. Through a qualitative document analysis of three Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB) EA processes, I wrote three case studies and developed key themes relating to food security and common topics. Interviews with northern EA practitioners explored their experiences with food security and EA, and recommendations for improvement. Addressing food security credibly requires a holistic systems approach, evidence-based decision-making using relevant data collection and monitoring, and by listening to community concerns. Key themes included contaminants and perception of the land, food’s importance to cultural continuity, health and well-being, economic factors, environmental and climate factors, access and harvest pressure, and Indigenous sovereignty. The results highlight that while food security itself is not a major issue in EA, impacts to traditionally harvested foods affect culture, well-being and Indigenous sovereignty and autonomy. Food security is often implicit in EA in discussions of harvesting. If issues are not put in the context of food, there is a risk that project mitigations and measures may not appropriately address impacts to people.
Food Security in Environmental Assessment in the Northwest Territories’ Mackenzie Valley by Tamika Mulders B.Sc., Queen’s University, 2014 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE In THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Earth and Environmental Sciences) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Okanagan) December 2023 © Tamika Mulders, 2023 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the College of Graduate Studies for acceptance, a thesis entitled: Food Security in Environmental Assessment in the Northwest Territories’ Mackenzie Valley submitted by Tamika Mulders in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Science Dr. Kevin Hanna, Irving K. Barber Faculty of Science Supervisor Dr. Donna Senese, Irving K. Barber Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Supervisory Committee Member Alan Ehrlich, Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Mary Stockdale, Irving K. Barber Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences University Examiner iii Abstract Environmental assessment (EA) is an approvals process to determine whether large-scale resource development projects will have significant adverse impacts, and to mitigate these. Many Northwest Territories (NWT) communities and Dene and Métis Indigenous groups rely on traditional subsistence harvesting to offset high costs of store-bought foods in the north. Food security can be affected through direct environmental impacts such as contaminants, impacts to wildlife and fish habitat, and climate change. While resource development projects can have economic benefits, they can affect access to these land-based foods, and can also have cultural, social, economic and health effects, such as changed perception of the land, reduced traditional knowledge and language transmission, and a shift from traditional economy towards a wage-based economy. The research questions are: 1) how is food security currently addressed in EA processes in the NWT’s Mackenzie Valley, and 2) should food security be more explicitly addressed, and if so, how? These questions are explored using a three-step approach. A literature review describes the background and issues of food security and food sovereignty in general, and specific to the north. Through a qualitative document analysis of three Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB) EA processes, I wrote three case studies and developed key themes relating to food security and common topics. Interviews with northern EA practitioners explored their experiences with food security and EA, and recommendations for improvement. Addressing food security credibly requires a holistic systems approach, evidence-based decision-making using relevant data collection and monitoring, and by listening to community concerns. Key themes included contaminants and perception of the land, food’s importance to cultural continuity, health and well-being, economic factors, environmental and climate factors, access and harvest pressure, and Indigenous sovereignty. The results highlight that while food security itself is not a major issue in EA, impacts to traditionally harvested foods affect culture, well-being and Indigenous sovereignty and autonomy. Food security is often implicit in EA in discussions of harvesting. If issues are not put in the context of food, there is a risk that project mitigations and measures may not appropriately address impacts to people. iv Lay Summary Environmental assessment (EA) helps make decisions about resource development projects. It looks at how projects might affect the environment and people, and how to prevent impacts. In the Northwest Territories, harvesting food is important for culture, health, and well-being. Groceries are also expensive in the north. Resource development can impact these. The research questions were: how is food security considered in EA, and should it be more directly addressed, and how? I used three research methods: a literature review, document analysis, and interviews. I wrote three case studies of northern EA processes and developed key themes. Interviews with northern EA practitioners provided recommendations. Addressing food security needs data, communication between experts, and community input. Food security is an underlying issue in EA affecting culture, health, well-being, and Aboriginal rights. Food security should be included in EA so solutions can be proposed. v Preface This research project was developed in collaboration with the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB) and the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) Department of Lands, which also provided funding and guidance for this project. The research and interview questions were designed by myself, Tamika Mulders, and my supervisor, Dr. Kevin Hanna at the Center for Environmental Assessment Research (CEAR) at the University of British Columbia (UBC) Okanagan. I completed the thesis research and writing independently with guidance and review by Dr. Hanna and my committee members, Alan Ehrlich (MVEIRB) and Dr. Donna Senese (UBC), and collaborators, reviewers and honorary committee members, Dr. Melissa Pink and Lorraine Seale (GNWT). I began my program in September 2020, conducted interviews and data coding in summer 2022, and data analysis and writing was done from fall 2022 to summer 2023. A human ethics review was completed because I was interviewing northern residents. The University of British Columbia Okanagan’s Behavioral Ethics Review Board considered this minimal-risk research and ethics approval (#H21-02228) was received in February 2022. I applied in fall 2021 for a scientific research license through the Northwest Territories’ Aurora Research Institute (ARI), this was issued in February 2022 (Northwest Territories Scientific Research License No. 16980). vi Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... iv Preface ............................................................................................................................................ v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ ix List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ x List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... xi Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... xiii Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Study Design ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Definitions of Key Terms ...................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Thesis Structure ..................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter 2: Food Security, Food Sovereignty, NWT Food Systems, and Resource Development Impacts ................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Sustainability Framework ............................................................................................... 6 2.1.2 Social-Ecological Systems ............................................................................................. 7 2.2 Defining Food Security and Food Sovereignty ..................................................................... 7 2.2.1 Food Security .................................................................................................................. 7 2.2.2 Indigenous Food Insecurity ............................................................................................ 9 2.2.3 Food Sovereignty .......................................................................................................... 10 2.3 NWT Socio-Economic Context and Food Systems ............................................................ 12 2.3.1 Traditional Country Foods............................................................................................ 14 2.3.2 Factors Affecting Northern Food Security ................................................................... 15 2.4 Resource Development Links to Food Security and Well-being ........................................ 20 2.4.1 Impacts to Land, Water and Wildlife ........................................................................... 20 2.4.2. Social and Economic Shifts ......................................................................................... 22 2.4.3 Culture .......................................................................................................................... 24 2.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 24 Chapter 3: Regulatory Context and Resource Development in the Northwest Territories’ Mackenzie Valley ........................................................................................................................ 26 3.1 The Resource Management Landscape in the Northwest Territories ................................. 26 vii 3.1.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 26 3.1.2 The Environmental Impact Assessment Process .......................................................... 29 3.1.3 Food, Harvesting, and Well-being under the MVRMA ............................................... 32 3.1.4 Aboriginal and Indigenous Rights ................................................................................ 35 3.2 Resource Development History in the Northwest Territories. ............................................ 37 3.2.1 Current NWT Resource Development Landscape ....................................................... 37 3.2.2 The Berger Inquiry ....................................................................................................... 39 3.3 Socio-Economic Considerations in NWT Resource Development..................................... 40 3.4 Current Northern Food Security Mandates, Programs, and Initiatives ............................... 42 Chapter 4: Methodology............................................................................................................. 44 4.1 Research Questions and Study Design ................................................................................ 44 4.1.1 Research Approach ....................................................................................................... 44 4.2 Document Analysis of Three EA Processes ........................................................................ 47 4.2.1 EA Project Sampling Design ........................................................................................ 47 4.2.2 Document Sampling Design ......................................................................................... 50 4.2.3 Keyword Selection ....................................................................................................... 50 4.2.4 Qualitative Coding in NVivo ........................................................................................ 51 4.2.5 Analysis of Qualitative Coding .................................................................................... 52 4.2.6 Document Analysis Limitations ................................................................................... 53 4.3 Semi-Structured Interviews with EA Practitioners ............................................................. 54 4.3.1 Interview Design: Development of Interview Questions ............................................. 54 4.3.2 Sampling Design: Participant Selection, Recruitment, and Interview Process ............ 54 4.3.3 Interview Transcription, Qualitative Coding, and Analysis ......................................... 56 4.3.4 Interview Limitations ................................................................................................... 56 4.4 Ethical Considerations......................................................................................................... 57 4.4.1 Ethics Approvals........................................................................................................... 57 4.4.2 Reflexivity and Positionality ........................................................................................ 57 4.4.3 Indigenous Research Considerations ............................................................................ 58 Chapter 5: Document Analysis of Three MVEIRB Environmental Assessment Processes 60 5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 60 5.1.1 Description of Key Themes .......................................................................................... 61 5.2 Document Analysis Case Studies ........................................................................................ 63 5.2.1 The Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road ........................................................................................ 63 5.2.2 The Ekati Diamond Mine Jay Project........................................................................... 70 viii 5.2.3 The Giant Mine Remediation Project ........................................................................... 77 5.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 85 Chapter 6: Analysis and Results of Interviews ........................................................................ 87 6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 87 6.2 Defining Food Security in an EA Context .......................................................................... 87 6.2.1 How Does your Organization Define Food Security? .................................................. 87 6.3 Food Security-related Issues and Topics in EA .................................................................. 92 6.3.1 Based on Your Experience and Work in EA, What Have Been the Main Issues and Topics Raised Regarding Food Security, or Other Food-related Concerns? ........................ 92 6.4 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 99 6.4.1 Reflecting on Previous EAs in the Territory, Have You Identified any Food Security Issues to be Considered More Thoroughly in Future Work or EAs? .................................... 99 6.4.2 Has Your Organization Made any Recommendations about How Food Security Impacts or Effects Could be Assessed Better in the Future, in EA or Elsewhere? ............. 102 6.5 Where Else is Food Security Considered? ........................................................................ 105 6.5.1 Are There any Regulatory, Administrative, or Permitting Settings where Food Security is Addressed, More so than EA? ......................................................................................... 105 6.6 Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 109 Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusion ................................................................................... 111 7.1 Discussion of Research Questions .................................................................................... 111 7.1.1 How is Food Security Currently Addressed in Northern EA? ................................... 111 7.1.2 Is There a Need for Food Security to be Considered More Explicitly in EA and if so, How Should this Occur? ...................................................................................................... 112 7.2 Food Security Impacts Should be Considered Explicitly in EA and Other Levels of Resource Management Decision-making................................................................................ 113 7.3 Recommendations and Conclusions ................................................................................. 114 7.3.1 Strengths, Limitations and Applications of Thesis ..................................................... 114 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 116 Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 131 Appendix A: List of MVEIRB Environmental Assessment Documents Analyzed in NVivo Document Analysis ................................................................................................................. 131 Appendix B: Codebook from NVivo Coding ......................................................................... 134 Appendix C: Counts of NVivo Coding by Project .................................................................. 135 Appendix D: Interview Forms: Recruitment Letter, Questionnaire, Consent Forms ............. 136 ix List of Tables Table 1: Comparison of food insecurity in territories compared to Canadian average.. .............. 13 Table 2: Selected MVEIRB Environmental Assessment projects used for document analysis ... 48 Table 3: Categories of interviewee organizations. ........................................................................ 55 Table 4: Themes from thematic analysis. ..................................................................................... 61 x List of Figures Figure 1: Nested hierarchy model of sustainability ........................................................................ 7 Figure 2: Map of the Northwest Territories with Mackenzie Valley, land claim agreement and self-government areas. .................................................................................................................. 26 Figure 3: The Resource Management Process in the Mackenzie Valley ...................................... 30 Figure 4: Map of case study project locations in the Northwest Territories.. ............................... 49 xi List of Abbreviations AANDC – Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada BC – British Columbia CCA – Council of Canadian Academies CER – Canada Energy Regulator CIRNAC - Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada COGOA - Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act EA – Environmental Assessment EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment EIR - Environmental Impact Review DDEC – Dominion Diamond Ekati Corporation DFO – Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans GDP – Gross Domestic Product GMOB – Giant Mine Oversight Board GNWT – Government of the Northwest Territories IA – Impact Assessment IBA – Impact Benefit Agreements INAC – Indian and Northern Affairs Canada ISR – Inuvialuit Settlement Region LKDFN – Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation MVEIRB or Review Board – Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board MVLWB – Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board MVRMA - Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act NSMA – North Slave Métis Alliance NWT or NT – Northwest Territories OROGO – Office of the Regulator of Oil and Gas Operations REA – Report of Environmental Assessment xii RSEA – Regional and Strategic Environmental Assessment SEA – Socio-economic Agreement SES – Social-Ecological Systems TASR – Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road TG – Tłı̨chǫ Government UN Declaration or UNDRIP - United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples WLWB – Wek’èezhı̀ı Land and Water Board WRRB – Wek’èezhı̀ı Renewable Resource Board YKDFN – Yellowknives Dene First Nation xiii Acknowledgements Thank you to my supervisor, Dr. Kevin Hanna, for the support, advice, and encouragement. Thanks to my excellent committee members Alan Ehrlich and Donna Senese, for their support, helpful guidance, and feedback. Thank you to Lorraine Seale and Melissa Pink from the GNWT who have always helped me from the very beginning, and for their support of me in this research process. Also, to everyone who gave their time to take part and share their knowledge in interviews. While I was not there, I spent a lot of time reading EA documents and hearing transcripts and would like to thank those who spoke at the EA process hearings, who inspired and motivated me, and whose voices you will hear in my case study chapter. A special thank you to my mom Donna Bigelow who read and reviewed many versions of my thesis. And to my family, friends and classmates who supported me through “these unprecedented times”. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Food security is a constant concern in northern Canada (Loring & Gerlach, 2015). Store-bought food is often prohibitively expensive, requires long and sometimes unstable supply chains, and can have negative health impacts (Wesche et al., 2016; Council of Canadian Academies (CCA), 2014). Foods traditionally eaten by northern Dene and Métis groups such as caribou, moose, and fish provide health, socio-cultural, and economic benefits (GNWT, 2019). Northern food security is attained by protecting habitat and environmental quality; ensuring development decisions respect the traditional economy; using Indigenous knowledge and values in planning and decision-making; and addressing impacts of environmental change (Lambden et al., 2007; Southcott et al., 2018; Wesche & Chan, 2010). Decisions about large-scale resource development activities are made largely through environmental assessment (EA) – the process used to evaluate proposals, define conditions of approval, and determine mitigation of impacts (Noble & Hanna, 2015; Noble & Bronson, 2006). While EA best practice examines environmental, social and health impacts, there can be a gap in knowledge about how EA processes account for food security. This knowledge gap is arguably more important in Canada’s north than in other jurisdictions in Canada. Northern EAs sometimes address food security in terms of impacts on harvesting, water quality affecting fish, and as a socio-economic concern, but these considerations are usually indirect. Impacts on wildlife such as caribou are important in EA mainly because of their cultural and food value. Harvesting is embedded in cultural practices, Indigenous knowledge, and language transmission (e.g., elders teaching youth how to dry fish, hunt, or process caribou) (Power, 2008; Parlee, 2012; CCA, 2014). Barren-ground caribou, an essential food source for many communities, has declined by over 70% in the past two decades (GNWT ECC; Parlee, Sandlos & Natcher, 2018). Rapid climate and environmental change will exacerbate impacts (Parlee & Furgal, 2012). Regulators often approve projects with impacts on wildlife and habitat based on positive economic benefits. But if food security is considered a component of culture and well-being, these impacts to land-based foods may become more difficult to justify, and indeed pose difficult questions about the tradeoffs that are made in reviewing and approving projects. This work is focused geographically on the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB or Review Board) EA process in Canada’s Northwest Territories. The 2 Review Board was established under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA), which governs most of the territory except the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) and Wood Buffalo National Park. The MVRMA establishes resource co-management boards for land use planning, land and water and environmental assessment, and was established out of land claim agreements in the territory (further discussed in chapter three). The research was done in collaboration with the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) Department of Lands (Now the Department of Environment and Climate Change) and the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB), which is partly why the research area is focused on the Mackenzie Valley. The research topic, case study projects, and keywords were selected in consultation with GNWT and MVEIRB, who also provided feedback and review. The topic of food security concerns combined MVEIRB’s priorities of health and well-being, culture, and climate change in their 2020 Perspectives Paper (MVEIRB, 2020) as well as being a GNWT priority (GNWT, 2019; GNWT ENR, 2016). 1.1 Research Questions The aim of this research is to provide practical recommendations and guidance for the better consideration of food security and health, social and cultural well-being in environmental assessment. Food security is a specific topic but has direct links to health, socioeconomic, environmental, and cultural concerns, and cannot be discussed in isolation without the consideration of these other factors. My work supports reconciliation by providing a clear illustration of how Indigenous resources can be respected and protected in resource planning and decision-making. My project was guided by two main research questions: 1. How is food security currently addressed in EA processes in the Northwest Territories? 2. Is there a need for food security to be considered more explicitly in EA, and if so, how should this occur? 1.2 Study Design To answer the questions, I used a three-part sequential approach to this research, relying mainly on qualitative methods. A pragmatic approach was used, as the research was aimed at answering questions, but also to influence action and change, by developing concrete recommendations for practitioners working in EA. My research approach and methodology are further discussed in chapter four. The project was primarily designed as a desktop and remote 3 study approach due to COVID-19 considerations and travel restrictions in the NWT at the time of my research. The first step was a literature review, which has been divided into two chapters in this thesis. Chapter two describes definitions and concepts of food security in general, as well as food sovereignty, food systems specific to the NWT, and resource development. Chapter three examines resource management in the NWT, including environmental assessment and the regulatory system, and other legislative mechanisms. The second step was a qualitative document analysis of three completed EA processes within the Mackenzie Valley project review process. Using NVivo qualitative analysis software and keywords relating to food security and traditional harvesting, I searched for relevant document passages and coded these to specific topics. Once coding was complete, I developed key themes based on a qualitative thematic analysis of the data. The three EA case studies include Dominion Diamond’s Ekati Diamond Mine Jay Project, the Government of the Northwest Territories’ (GNWT) Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road, and the Giant Mine Remediation Project. The keyword search terms, case studies, and specific EA documents used in my document analysis were selected in consultation with my northern research partners, the GNWT and the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB). Third, semi-structured interviews with northern EA practitioners were done to gain a broader understanding of food considerations in EA and resource development in the north, how these are considered by different governments and organizations, and recommendations related to food security. In addition to my master’s thesis, outcomes will include academic journal articles, a plain language summary, and a guidance and recommendation document for EA practitioners based on research outcomes. My research examines the important role of traditional harvesting for food and culture to northern communities, and how this is recognized and addressed in proposed resource development projects. These projects may directly impact habitats and wildlife and may indirectly impact the well-being of communities that rely on these species and environments. 4 1.3 Definitions of Key Terms Environmental assessment (EA), used interchangeably with impact assessment (IA) and environmental impact assessment (EIA) or EA processes, refers to public review processes that evaluate and make recommendations for decisions on resource development or infrastructure projects. I refer to these projects that undergo EA processes as projects, or resource development. In the NWT, EA processes are conducted by the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB or the Review Board), a public co-management board established under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA). The NWT regulatory system is described in more detail in the following literature review chapter. Food security and food sovereignty are defined and discussed further in the following literature review chapter (chapter two). As my research went on, it became clear that food security was too narrow of a term solely in terms of adequate food. While food security can have specific definitions around access, availability, adequacy, acceptability of food, my research looks at many broader factors related to food, including but not limited to food security, for example, the cultural importance of traditional food, and food’s contribution to overall well-being including physical, social, mental, and emotional health, as well as Indigenous sovereignty. Well-being is a broad term encompassing a holistic view of health. It incorporates both physical and mental health, as well as various aspects of life including economic, social, and emotional factors, such as happiness, a sense of autonomy, a positive overall sense of self and life satisfaction, or the “social, economic, environmental, cultural, and political conditions identified by individuals and their communities as essential for them to flourish and fulfil their potential.” (Newell et al., 2020; Parlee, 2012; Parlee & Furgal, 2012; Southcott et al., 2018). While there is no consensus on a definition of well-being, it is acknowledged that health is not only physical, and social and environmental determinants can affect overall well-being. Well-being is a term used by healthcare professionals and can be measured on an individual or a community scale. MVEIRB takes a holistic approach to health and well-being. 5 1.4 Thesis Structure This thesis is divided into seven chapters. Chapter two provides the literature review and context for this research project. I examined the food security context, past and present in Canada and more specifically Canada’s north, as well as the Northern Indigenous context and impacts of resource development projects. I explored more general definitions and ideas in food systems (drawing from development, public health, and nutrition), how food concerns have been addressed in EA literature, and related considerations such as climate change, cultural importance, gender, and colonialism. Chapter three outlines the EA and regulatory landscape in the NWT, under the MVRMA. I include a brief context of past and current resource development in the north, including a discussion of the Berger Inquiry, and health and food issues in EA. Chapter four describes my research methodology, including my qualitative document analysis using NVivo software, case study and document sampling design and thematic analysis process. It also discusses interview planning, recruitment, and procedural methods, as well as ethical and permitting considerations. Chapter five discusses the results of the document analysis, including key themes and trends that were observed. These are organized into three case studies and highlight key topics and themes in each case, including notable quotes from the documents. Chapter six describes the results of the practitioner interviews. The themes and outcomes from these discussions build on and reinforce the document analysis results. Finally, chapter seven is the conclusion, which ties together the thesis results and insights. Here, I revisit my research questions and summarize my analysis and results in the context of the current research. I also discuss strengths, limitations, potential applications, and future research directions, as well as findings and recommendations, and opportunities for improvement. 6 Chapter 2: Food Security, Food Sovereignty, NWT Food Systems, and Resource Development Impacts 2.1 Introduction Food security is a multi-faceted issue requiring consideration of environmental, social, economic, cultural and health aspects (Erickson, 2008). This literature review examines 1) definitions of food security, food sovereignty, well-being, and traditional or country foods, and factors to consider alongside these, 2) the NWT socioeconomic and food system context and 3) the impacts of resource development on food. Two frameworks, sustainability and socio-ecological systems, help to frame our thinking about these complex issues. They also provide a context for linking the applied questions or issues addressed in the research to theory and interconnected concepts. These are outlined below. 2.1.1 Sustainability Framework Daly’s (1992) three-point sustainability approach includes the nested hierarchy of environmental (sustainable scale), social (distributive justice) and economic (efficient allocation) considerations (Pelletier et al., 2019). Sustainable scale (environment) refers to ensuring physical production of food and food waste stays within environmental boundaries and ecosystem limits, as well as the capacity for the environment to regenerate and tolerate waste (Foley, 2010). This relates to source and sink dynamics or carrying capacity. Distributive justice (social) is the division or equity among different groups or people, and future generations; efficient allocation (economic) considers how limited resources are used or distributed, which is determined by price, supply, and demand. These three criteria are interconnected when considering food systems, but Daly posits that they are nested, with the environmental sphere encompassing the social, which in turn encompasses the economic (Daly, 1992; Pelletier et al., 2019) (Figure 1). While this nested sustainability framework was originally used to consider sustainability in agriculture and ecological economics, it remains relevant in considering a northern context reliant on harvesting and a traditional economy. The use of this nested sustainability model in the context of northern resource development and food security suggests that the environment encompasses social and economic spheres. Our human social and economic systems exist within the environmental sphere, and thus are limited by ecological and climate thresholds (Johnston et al., 2014; Foley, 2010). Thus, 7 to address food security, one way this could be considered is through decisions about the environment, land use and resource development. Figure 1: Nested hierarchy model of sustainability (Daly, 1992). Created by Tamika Mulders 2.1.2 Social-Ecological Systems Social-ecological systems (SES) thinking is also a valuable tool to examine food security issues (Berkes, 2003). This proposes that humans are part of complex ecosystems, and that social and ecological systems are interconnected. This ties in with Indigenous worldviews that see human and ecosystem health as not only linked but inseparable from one another (Parlee et al., 2015; Ehrlich, 2022). It is a “humans in nature” integrated perspective. While SES can be adaptive and resilient, they are also limited by ecosystem functions and boundaries (Berkes, Colding & Folke, 2002). These “integrated systems of people and the land” require interdisciplinary systems thinking rather than traditional discipline silos (MVEIRB Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road REA, 2018; Ehrlich, 2022). 2.2 Defining Food Security and Food Sovereignty 2.2.1 Food Security The most widely cited definition of food security was developed through the 1996 World Food Summit in Rome, and it states that food security exists when “All people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs Environment Human/Social Economic 8 and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO, 1996; CCA, 2014; Leblanc-Laurendeau, 2019; Noll and Murdock, 2019). An expanded 2012 definition of food and nutrition security from the Committee on World Food Security is “when all people at all times have physical, social and economic access to food, which is safe and consumed in sufficient quantity and quality to meet their dietary needs and food preferences, and is supported by an environment of adequate sanitation, health services and care, allowing for a healthy and active life” (CCA, 2014). Another broader definition suggests defining food security as “a condition where all community residents obtain a safe, culturally acceptable, nutritionally adequate diet through a sustainable food system that maximizes community self-reliance and social justice” (Leblanc-Laurendeau, 2019; Rosol et al., 2011). Four food security “pillars” or considerations all must be met simultaneously to achieve food security. These pillars will vary depending on the source, but the commonly recognized pillars are: • Accessibility – having access and resources to obtain food, such as money to buy or equipment to hunt. • Availability – quantity, presence, supply, enough food. • Utilization or use – whether and how people use food, including acceptability (foods people want or choose to eat and will use, culturally acceptable) and adequacy (quality, safety, nutrition, sustainable). • Stability – continuous and reliable supply of food over time, resilience to disasters or unforeseen circumstances. Based on the emerging recognition of food sovereignty (further discussed below), some have proposed the addition of “agency” to the food security pillars above: • Agency – this relates to food sovereignty, having the control to decide what they eat and where it comes from (Setee & Shukla, 2020; CCA, 2014; Power, 2008). Food insecurity is a public health issue, but also inherently a socioeconomic issue linked to poverty and lack of resources, such as financial insecurity (Leblanc-Laurendeau, 2020; Kenny et al., 2020). Food insecurity can lead to adverse physical health outcomes linked to diets such as malnutrition, diabetes, obesity, stress, and chronic diseases, as well as lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rates (Kenny et al., 2020). Besides physical health, food insecurity impacts overall well-being and mental health (Polsky & Gilmour, 2020). Food insecurity is a 9 stressful experience, and stress and mental health have been shown to have physical health outcomes (Holmes & Rahe, 1967). The Council of Canadian Academies (2014) also notes that food security at its core is about health and well-being. Ultimately, while food security is often interpreted as access or availability of sufficient food, my research will deliberately consider this broader view to food security, seeing food as a key factor to physical, social, and cultural health and well-being. 2.2.2 Indigenous Food Insecurity It is fair to say that Indigenous people are disproportionately affected by food insecurity around the world. In Canada, this is especially acute in the north due to the remote location, lack of road access, inflated cost of living, low wages, low educational attainment, and higher birth rates at younger ages that are socioeconomic contributors to food insecurity (Skinner et al., 2013, CCA, 2014; Power, 2008; Settee & Shukla, 2020). As a considerable proportion (51%) of the NWT population is Indigenous (Inuit, Métis, or First Nation) and many live in remote communities, northern food insecurity is largely an Indigenous issue (CCA, 2014; Settee & Shukla, 2020). Some estimates show that Indigenous households experience over twice the rate of food insecurity than the Canadian average (CCA, 2014; Islam & Berkes 2016; Kenny et al., 2020). Food security research in the NWT has largely been focused on environmental contamination, socioeconomic and cultural impacts, and climate change (Halseth, 2015). Power (2008) suggests that definitions of food security do not fully encompass Indigenous considerations, such as traditional harvesting, and important links between food and culture, language, the land, food sharing, stating that “cultural food security” is another level of food security to be considered in the context of Indigenous food systems. For Indigenous people, the impacts of colonialism, increasing threats of climate change, separation from and loss of cultural practices and language, access and dispossession, cost, and accessibility of store-bought foods, are threats to their way of life and traditional food systems (Kuhnlein, 2015; Kenny et al., 2020). Traditional foods are linked to traditional knowledge, social cohesion, connectedness to the land, and are a key part of cultural identity and way of life (CCA, 2014; Settee & Shukla, 2020), however, this is rapidly changing. The “nutrition transition” refers to a shift away from land-based country food sources towards store-bought foods that began in the 1950s. This shift resulted in food generally lower in nutrients and higher in calories, fat, sugars, and sodium (Dammam, Eide & Kuhnlein, 2008; 10 Kuhnlein & Receveur, 2007; Spring et al, 2018; Kenny et al., 2018; Kenny et al., 2020; CCA, 2014). This coincides with a shift from the traditional economy towards a reliance on the wage economy and purchased market foods produced in the south, or outside Canada (CCA, 2014). These store-bought foods are often expensive due to high transportation and storage costs, can be lower quality and limited or unreliable availability (CCA, 2014). The nutrition transition is also linked to a change from traditional rural ways of life to a “westernization” of lifestyle and diet, industrialization, and globalization, and therefore a decline in traditional food consumption (Islam & Berkes, 2016; Damman, Eide & Kuhnlein, 2008). This trend is also closely linked to poverty and food costs, generational differences and the impacts of colonialism and residential schools (CCA, 2014). Northern Indigenous food insecurity continues to be a concerning issue despite the constitutional and land claim-related protections of Aboriginal rights to subsistence harvesting (further discussed in the next chapter). Also, despite rapid resource development and economic growth, the Indigenous population generally has a lower health status than non-Indigenous northerners (Angell & Parkins, 2011). This raises questions about why food insecurity persists in Indigenous populations (Loring & Gerlach, 2015). This is a multi-faceted question involving socioeconomic factors like cost of living, poverty and employment, environmental factors related to resource development, environmental quality, and wildlife management. It also must consider the complex and cumulative impacts of colonialism and environmental dispossession (CCA, 2014). 2.2.3 Food Sovereignty Food security and food sovereignty are two overlapping concepts but are inherently different issues. Food security is the end goal of simultaneously having access, availability, stability, and utilization of food as discussed above, whereas food sovereignty is a means to get there, considering power dynamics, decision-making, and political and economic structures inherent in where food comes from (CCA, 2014). The idea of food sovereignty originated with small-scale rural and peasant agricultural food systems, particularly La Via Campesina, an international peasants’ organization, as an anti-capitalist critique and reaction to the limited definition of food security (Bernstein, 2014; La Via Campesina, 2018). The 2007 Nyéléni Declaration on Food Sovereignty defines food sovereignty as consisting of six pillars: 1) focusing on food for people; 2) valuing food providers; 3) localising food systems; 4) putting 11 control locally; 5) building knowledge and skills; and 6) working with nature (La Via Campesina 2018; Gordillo & Mendez, 2013; CCA, 2014). Food security is an issue of access to food, whereas food sovereignty is entwined with rights, values, self-sufficiency, and autonomy, allowing communities to define and control their own food systems, and access food that is sustainable, healthy, and culturally appropriate (CCA, 2014; Gordillo & Mendez, 2013; QIA 2018; Noll & Murdock, 2019). The World Forum on Food Sovereignty, 2001, defined food sovereignty as people’s right “to define their own policies and strategies for sustainable production, distribution and consumption of food that guarantee the right to food for the entire population.” (CCA, 2014, Coté, 2016). Food sovereignty is a more holistic approach socially and economically, promoting community self-determination and agency as well as the long-term sustainability of food systems (CCA, 2014; Jonasson et al., 2019; Settee & Shukla, 2020). The 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the right to food as a human right, and that a lack of food can, in turn, affect other human rights, such as “the right to a standard of living adequate for health and wellbeing” (UN, Article 25) and to participate in their culture (CCA, 2014; Damman, Eide & Kuhnlein, 2007). The United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN Declaration) has several articles about Indigenous peoples’ right to food, specifically autonomy to determine their “own means of subsistence and development” (CCA, 2014), this is further discussed in chapter three. "Zero hunger” is also included as one of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN, 2015). Indigenous food security is entwined with the concept of food sovereignty. Indigenous food sovereignty has been deeply impacted by colonialism, related to disconnection with the land, culture, and traditional knowledge and practices (Jonasson et al., 2019; Grey & Patel, 2015; CCA, 2014; Lemke & Delormier, 2017). This is largely because of the lack of access to the land, the trauma of residential schools, forced assimilation and intergenerational trauma (Coté, 2016). The connection with the land is very important in Indigenous food systems and is considered “alive and sacred.” “Indigenous food sovereignty is ultimately achieved by upholding our long-standing sacred responsibilities to nurture healthy, interdependent relationships with the land, plants, and animals that provide us with our food” (Morrison, in Settee & Shukla, 2020). Indigenous people have a reciprocal relationship and cultural responsibility towards the land, 12 rather than it being treated as property that can be bought and sold (Coté, 2016). Considering food sovereignty as a means towards food security can further Indigenous self-determination, support decolonization, and help achieve long-term sustainable food systems (QIA, 2019; Desmarais and Wittman, 2014; Grey & Patel, 2015; Coté, 2016). Identity, spirituality, and psychological significance are also related to traditional food consumption and culture (Coté, 2016). In the context of northern Canada, food sovereignty can be interpreted as control over where and how food is obtained, such as through local country food harvesting practices and financial assistance for local hunters (CCA, 2014). Food sovereignty in the north can include a focus on local and traditional food, local agriculture, gardening, and food production, but must be driven by community values and what works for different people and communities (Wilson et al., 2020; CCA, 2014; Lambden et al., 2007). A food sovereignty approach would aim to maintain autonomy, self-determination, and protect traditional foods, skills and practices and the connection with the land (Desmarais & Wittman, 2014; Settee & Shukla, 2020; Kuhnlein, 2017). It also considers and acknowledges language, cultural continuity and community, and resilience (Parlee, 2018, QIA, 2019). The emphasis on autonomy, local control over lands and decision-making, and concurrent political and economic sovereignty is crucial for food sovereignty (CCA, 2014). Therefore, the NWT’s system of Indigenous land claims, Indigenous self-government, co-management boards and resource-revenue sharing is promising for this. Northern communities must be empowered to control and determine their own food systems, and in the north, this is highly linked to land and resource management and use (Cruickshank et al., 2019). The NWT is well-positioned to achieve this, as I discuss in the next chapter, because land claim agreements have facilitated incorporation of Indigenous traditional knowledge, cultural values, and ways of life directly into resource management legislation. 2.3 NWT Socio-Economic Context and Food Systems Food insecurity has been a perennial concern in northern Canada, likely linked to 1970’s-1990’s acculturation in the north, with the transition from Indigenous traditional economy and culture to beginning to incorporate aspects of European and western culture (Angell & Parkins, 2011; Loring & Gerlach, 2015; Leblanc-Laurendeau, 2019). It is a public health problem especially for Indigenous people (First Nations, Métis, and Inuit) in Canada, within arctic 13 Indigenous communities it can range from 45 to 69% of households, varying by region (Skinner et al., 2013). Food insecurity is much higher in the three Canadian territories – Yukon, the NWT and Nunavut - with rates up to 16.9%, 21.6% and 57% respectively in 2017-2018, compared with the Canadian average of 12.7% (Leblanc-Laurendeau, 2019) (Table 1). Northern communities in Canada are often disproportionately affected by food insecurity, as nutritious food can be very expensive or difficult to access, while the cheapest food is often high in calories and low in nutrients (Kenny et al., 2018). The NWT population is approximately 45,600 people as of December 2022, with over 51% identifying as Indigenous, mainly Dene and Métis (NWT Bureau of Statistics, 2022). The employment rate was 69.8% with 5.9% unemployment, compared with the Canadian rate of 61.5% employment and 4.6% unemployment (as of 2022). A food system encompasses activities including food production or harvesting, transport, processing, distribution, and consumption (Erickson, 2008). The NWT food system is mixed, combining store-bought market foods, harvested country foods, and locally produced food. Thus, there are many different factors affecting access to food, including natural resources, financial resources such as money, time, employment and income, social and cultural resources related to skills and food-sharing (CCA, 2014). Northern food insecurity has roots in both environmental and socio-economic issues, with the potential for cultural impacts. Local food production such as agriculture, gardening and livestock are currently not significant contributors to the overall food system, but this area is up and coming. Community gardening, greenhouses and small-scale agriculture are opportunities to supplement low quality and limited availability of produce to help meet food needs (Lemay et al., 2021; Ross & Mason, 2019; Chen & Natcher, 2019). Table 1: Comparison of food insecurity in territories compared to Canadian average. Data from Canadian Income Survey, Statistics Canada (Caron & Plunkett-Latimer, 2022). **= data unavailable. Marginal food insecurity (%) Food insecurity (moderate or severe) (%) Moderate food insecurity (%) Severe food insecurity (%) Year 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 Canada 5.0 5.0 11.5 10.6 7.9 7.4 3.6 3.2 Yukon 4.0 ** 12.2 15.3 10.0 10.3 ** 5.0 NWT 5.4 6.4 20.2 23.1 9.1 15.4 11.1 7.7 Nunavut ** ** 44.1 46.1 20.1 22.8 24.1 23.3 14 2.3.1 Traditional Country Foods Country foods (the term is used interchangeably with traditional or land-based foods) are foods locally harvested from the land, water, or sky -- such as caribou, moose, fish, birds, plants and berries, seal, or hare (Settee & Shukla, 2020; Ratelle et al., 2020; Loring and Gerlach, 2014; CCA, 2014). Country foods are an important contributor to Indigenous health and nutrition, as well as identity, culture and well-being (CCA, 2014). The GNWT monitors country food consumption and states that in small communities 40-50% of NWT residents rely on country foods for over 75% of meat and fish intake, and in medium and large communities such as Yellowknife, Hay River and Inuvik, only 4% of residents eat mostly country food (GNWT ENR, 2015; Ratelle et al, 2021). Country food consumption across the NWT is high, with 12.6% of households stating that “most or all” meat and fish consumed was obtained by hunting and fishing in 2018. This has declined from 21.5% of households in 1998, however, this remains much higher in regions outside of Yellowknife and the South Slave regions (NWT Bureau of Statistics, 2022). A survey of country food consumption by Dene and Métis people in the NWT, found the most frequently consumed country foods were moose, whitefish, lake trout, followed by Canada goose and rabbit (Ratelle et al., 2020). Game birds such as geese, duck, grouse and ptarmigan are also important (Ratelle et al., 2021). While the percentage of country food consumption is declining (<30%), it still contributes significantly to the overall essential nutrients (Ratelle et al., 2021; Prieto et al., 2022). There is evidence that younger generations are consuming less country food and participating less in traditional activities, but there is still a strong preference and desire for country foods over store-bought foods and remains important culturally and socially significant (Ross & Mason, 2020; Kuhnlein & Receveur, 2007). Country foods are linked to the land, place, and traditions, such as hunting skills, food preparation, knowledge about the land, culture and stories and legends (Lemke & Delormier, 2017; Parlee et al., 2005). Caribou and fish are especially important culturally for many Indigenous groups in the Mackenzie Valley (Islam & Berkes, 2016). Fish are particularly important for Indigenous food security due to their abundance, relative accessibility, and nutritional value (Marushka et al., 2021; Islam & Berkes, 2016). Berry picking is culturally and socially important, particularly for women, and while they may be a smaller portion of the overall diet, berries have nutritional and medicinal benefits (Parlee et al., 2005). 15 2.3.2 Factors Affecting Northern Food Security Food security in Canada’s north is a complex interdisciplinary issue, with various contributing factors. Here, I discuss those issues most cited in the literature: 1) health and well-being; 2) nutrition; 3) cost; 4) sociocultural importance; and 5) environment and climate change. Health and Well-being Health and well-being are linked to food and diet (Kuhnlein, 2015; CCA, 2014). Western views of health generally refer to physical wellness and the absence of disease. “Well-being” and wellness are broader terms encompassing quality of life, including socioeconomic, cultural, mental, spiritual, and emotional aspects (Parlee & Furgal, 2012; Parlee et al., 2005). This broader definition of health is characteristic of many Indigenous cultures and worldviews, and sees the relationship between people and the land, and as part of an interconnected ecosystem, therefore environmental health is inherently connected to human and social-ecological health (Parlee et al., 2005). MVEIRB describes well-being as including health, social, economic, cultural, and biophysical aspects, but stresses the need to focus on the specific context of communities in question and their values and preferred indicators (MVEIRB, 2020). Parlee (2018) describes well-being as relating to quality of life and satisfaction. A meta-synthesis by Auger (2016) found that most literature linked cultural continuity to health and wellness outcomes, as well as things like self-esteem, cultural identity, and pride. The CCA (2014) defines wellness based in Indigenous knowledge: “First Nations, Inuit, and Métis concepts of health incorporate the mental, physical, spiritual, emotional, and social aspects of health. Furthermore, the health and well-being of individuals and communities are interdependent and equally important.” As many Indigenous food systems are tied to the relationship to the land, the land and self-determination are deeply linked to health and well-being, food, and nutrition (Lemke & Delormier, 2017; Kryzanowski & McIntyre, 2011). Nutrition Country foods are generally considered healthier because they tend to be higher in protein and other nutrients that can often be lacking in store-bought food (Ratelle, 2020; Power, 2008; Sheehy et al., 2014). The “nutrition transition” shift towards non-traditional store-bought foods, the cheaper and thus more accessible store-bought foods are generally lower quality, less nutritious and higher in fat, salt, and sugar, can have negative health effects such as diabetes and obesity (Kenny et al., 2018). Healthier groceries such as fruit, vegetables and meats are often too 16 expensive in remote northern communities (GNWT, 2015). Given this, the consumption of traditional foods should be promoted (Sheehy et al., 2014, Erber et al., 2010). While country food such as fish, caribou, moose, game birds, are often shared between family and community members, and occasionally sold, these foods are rarely sold in grocery stores. Cost The cost of store-bought foods in rural and remote northern and Indigenous communities is much higher than elsewhere in Canada (Settee & Shukla, 2020). This is due to high transportation costs, with most being either barged, flown by air, or driven long distances (Sheehy et al., 2014; Lambden et al., 2006). The costs of storage and local infrastructure (e.g., retail buildings) can also contribute to higher costs. In many communities without road access, there is little or no competition between grocery retailers which increases cost and impacts food availability, quality and freshness. Often healthy foods are of poorer quality by the time they arrive, or not available at all for long periods (Kenny et al., 2020). The cost difference between cheaper, nutrient-poor, calorie-dense foods and more expensive nutrient-rich foods can contribute to poor diets (Kenny et al., 2018; Kenny et al., 2020). Socio-economic factors such as poverty, employment status, low income or education levels, and limited economic opportunities also contribute to food insecurity (Leblanc-Laurendeau, 2019). Traditional foods are generally accessed through harvesting or sharing, while there is some informal selling, they are mostly not bought or sold (CCA, 2014). There has been a shift from traditional methods like use of dog teams towards more efficient modern harvesting, for example using vehicles (boats, snowmobiles, trucks), rifles, ammunition, and fishing gear (Southcott & Natcher, 2018), coinciding with the transition towards the wage economy (CCA, 2014). Modern harvesting can be expensive. If meat is harvested, equipment for food preservation is required, such as freezers (Loring & Gerlach, 2009; Lambden et al., 2006), though it can also be dried or frozen using permafrost (CCA, 2014). Communal community freezers were previously a mechanism for both food storage and sharing, although they are becoming less common (CCA, 2014). Hunting also requires spending time on the land, and while full-time employment can reduce time available for this, it can also provide resources to support harvesting on time off, and rotational schedules with longer periods of time off may be beneficial for subsistence activities (Southcott & Natcher, 2018; Angell & Parkins, 2011). 17 The economic value of harvested food, especially caribou, is significant. Wild meat cannot be purchased in a store, so it is difficult to precisely quantify or compare a dollar value: “While the monetary value of caribou consumed for subsistence has not been precisely calculated, it is likely to run into the tens of millions of dollars per year” (Tesar, 2007; Sam-Aggrey, 2020). A cost comparison of similar meat purchased at a store would also fail to account for the cultural value, and that it cannot be directly compared. “Country food not only tastes better, but it is also more satisfying and nutritious. There is no satisfactory substitute for it; hence the acceptance of anything which might be substituted for it entails an absolute loss of welfare of incalculable proportions for native people” (Usher, 1976). Cultural and Social Factors Colonial legacies in Canada such as residential schools, forced relocations and removal from the land, have had significant impacts on Indigenous peoples, including disconnection with traditional culture and food systems (Leblanc-Laurendeau, 2019; Settee & Shukla, 2020; CCA, 2014). These historical traumas and forced assimilation policies instilling European and Christian values have led to the disruption of traditional harvesting practices and knowledge transmission, and loss of land and resources (Matheson et al., 2022). This “systematic disempowerment” has significantly impacted cultural continuity and Indigenous identity, leading to negative health and social impacts, including to mental health and self-esteem (Auger, 2016; Czyzewski, 2011; CCA, 2014). Environmental dispossession and degradation, overexploitation of wildlife, and climate effects have all impacted traditional food systems, and subsequently cultural practices relying on them (Paci, 2004; Kuhnlein & Chotiboriboon, 2022; Czyzewski, 2011). While current governments are committed to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, colonialism and assimilation are an important lens through which to consider these issues of food security, food sovereignty including power, control and decision-making, and traditional food systems. Both store-bought and traditional foods are important, but harvesting is particularly vital to community cohesion, cultural continuity, transmission of languages and traditional skills and knowledge, social, mental, and spiritual health, and well-being (Skinner et al., 2013; Noble & Bronson, 2006; Power, 2008; Snook et al., 2020). Cultural continuity means passing on knowledge, traditions, values, culture, and collective memory across time and to future generations – this is important for shared cultural identity (Auger, 2016). Traditional harvesting 18 aligns with food sovereignty’s focus on culturally relevant foods, as well as control in defining one’s own food system, as this is a community-driven version of distribution. It also relates to Powers (2008) concept of “cultural food security” – another aspect of food security apart from individual, household and community food security, relating to traditional food systems. Indigenous and northern food systems also have essential social, cultural, as well as spiritual and mental health importance, and activities such as hunting, gathering, food preparation, and sharing contribute to the transmission of traditional knowledge, language, skills, and culture (Ross & Mason, 2020; Power, 2008). Therefore, access to culturally relevant food is more than just important for nutritional value, but also for socio-cultural well-being (CCA, 2014). The experience of harvesting itself is important for practicing these food-related activities, teaching important values and skills to youth, being on the land, sharing stories and speaking the language (Parlee et al., 2005). Harvesting can teach values and personality traits such as patience, perseverance, observational skills, as well as building a sense of pride, confidence, and humility (Lambden, Receveur & Kuhnlein, 2007). Employment and changing lifestyles will affect how long and how frequently people are able to go out harvesting. This decline in participation may affect the prevalence of these skills (Ross & Mason, 2020; Andrachuk & Smit, 2012). Sharing harvested foods with those who cannot hunt for themselves can act as a safety net for community food security (Power, 2008; QIA, 2019). Food sharing can also offset low wages, imbalances in income or low-yield harvest years (CCA 2014, Power, 2008; Gilbert et al., 2021). Sharing food contributes to community resilience, as well as a means of distribution of wealth between households and generations. While most people would not give away a percentage of their earned income, giving food is a way of sharing non-wage income, which can promote community cohesion and social bonds (Richmond et al., 2021). Food sharing is an important aspect of Indigenous culture and is more prevalent in harvested country foods than store-bought. For example, a survey by the Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA) in Nunavut found that 60% of Inuit were willing to share food with elders, family, friends, and others in the community who could not hunt or fish (QIA, 2019). This helps both individual households and overall community resilience during periods of low harvest or economic need. Sharing generally supports elders, women, youth, and others without a hunter in their household (CCA, 2014; Power, 2008) A study on low-yield harvest years in Nunavut (Gilbert et al., 2021) showed that 19 sharing food within and between communities, and with vulnerable people was important for resilience to uncertainty or food scarcity. Reasons for lower harvest could be due to environmental factors and weather, wildlife patterns and quality or size, nearby development, equipment issues or less participation in harvesting, or harvest-related restrictions (Gilbert et al., 2021). Women and children are disproportionately affected by food insecurity (CCA, 2014). This can be related to vulnerability, including hazards and disasters, employment status, parenting, and caregiving responsibilities (Lemke & Delormier, 2017; CCA, 2014). Single and widowed women, single mothers, and elders often have less access to traditional foods and financial resources (Loring & Gerlach, 2015; Kuhnlein, 2017). Research has shown that women are often most affected by declines in country food sharing practices and are also more likely to skip meals or eat less to allow other family members (children, men) to eat enough (CCA, 2014; Beaumier & Ford, 2010). Poverty, high costs of hunting, less harvesting activities and lack of a hunter in the household, less food sharing and environmental conditions can all contribute to food insecurity for women (Beaumier & Ford, 2010). Environmental Condition and Climate Change There is a link between those who suffer most from food insecurity and those most impacted by anthropogenic climate change (Loring and Gerlach, 2014; Paci et al., 2004). This is especially pronounced in the north. There are many climate-related impacts to the northern environment, including seasonality and impacts to wildlife such as seasonal ranges, migratory patterns, and population sizes, vegetation growth, weather and hydrology patterns, ice thickness, more extreme weather events, and unseasonable temperatures (Schnitter & Berry, 2019; Parlee & Furgal, 2012; Friendship, 2010; Rosol et al., 2016). Climate change can cause dangerous and unpredictable weather and harvesting conditions and periods of lower yield harvest, meaning people need to travel further distances to hunt (Parlee & Furgal, 2012; Wesche & Chan, 2010). Flooding, erosion and melting or unstable permafrost can impact fish and spawning grounds due to changing water levels, and in turn, unpredictable or reduced access for hunters, as travel often occurs by boat on lakes or rivers, or by truck or snowmobile on frozen lakes in the winter (Friendship, 2010; Spring et al., 2018). Similarly, changes in permafrost, ice, and water levels may affect truck or barge transport of grocery foods to communities, for example, a shorter ice-road season (Prowse et al., 2009). Climate change will have significant effects on food and many 20 aspects of food systems, depending on regional and socioeconomic factors (Schnitter & Berry, 2019). Climate change can also affect social and cultural capital, such as limiting opportunities to go on the land to pass on traditional skills and knowledge, or food sharing (Spring et al., 2018; Panikkar & Lemmond, 2020; Ross & Mason, 2020). 2.4 Resource Development Links to Food Security and Well-being This section examines literature on impacts of resource development on food, food security and well-being. The focus is on literature and impacts specific to the north as much as possible. Although there is inevitably overlap between these topics, it is organized into three broad impact categories: 1) impacts to land, water, and wildlife; 2) socio-economic shifts; and 3) cultural shifts. 2.4.1 Impacts to Land, Water and Wildlife Land Use and Access Resource development can directly impact or remove land and wildlife habitat, affecting land use by traditional users for hunting, fishing, gathering plants or berries. Development can also affect the quality of the environment, and impact resources, for example through road dust covering plants or berries (Rodon & Levesque, 2015). Increased access (new roads, ice roads) can contribute to overharvesting due to ease of access, increased harvesting by “outsiders” or non-traditional land users in areas that were previously too distant or inconvenient to access. The Bathurst barren-ground caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) herd population has declined over 70% in the past two decades, and harvesting restrictions are currently in place to manage this. There is some concern about the impact of further resource development while this herd is already struggling (Parlee, Sandlos & Natcher, 2018). Contaminants Developments such as oil and gas, pipelines, or mining can cause contamination and there are risks of major spills that could have catastrophic effects (Jonasson et al., 2019). Traditional foods can be impacted by contaminants in the soil and water, which can lead to contaminants and bioaccumulation in country foods (Kuhnlein, 2015). While contamination is a threat that has been well-studied, the uncertainty and fear around safety of land-based foods can cause a reduction in harvesting or avoidance of certain areas due to real and perceived contamination or safety of the land (Wesche & Chan, 2010; Rodon & Levesque, 2015). The Review Board considers both real and perceived contamination, as these both affect people’s use 21 or avoidance of an area. Recently, in the 2020 Report of EA for the Diavik Diamond Mines depositing processed kimberlite in pits and underground project (MVEIRB, 2020), many Indigenous groups expressed that perceived effects to water quality would change people’s view of the “safety, quality and health” of an area, effectively alienating them. This would impact cultural and harvesting use of the Lac de Gras area currently and for future generations and exacerbate cumulative cultural impacts (MVEIRB, 2020). Cumulative Effects Project proponents may argue that their project will have no significant adverse impacts, but the combined impacts of multiple projects along with other effects in an area can be cumulative. These compounding impacts can be human-caused or natural, and often include habitat loss, fragmentation, decreased habitat connectivity, contaminants, climate effects, and natural disturbances such as wildfires (Tyson, Lantz & Ban, 2016). These may significantly change ecosystem function and affect the people who rely on the land for subsistence. Mantyka-Pringle et al., (2017) used a “two-eyed seeing” approach, using indicators from both traditional Indigenous and western scientific knowledge perspectives, incorporating the strengths of both worldviews. The research indicates that cumulative impacts were causing declines in socio-ecological system health. A 2021 BC Supreme Court ruling (Yahey v British Columbia) in Treaty 8 territory in the Upper Peace River region found the British Columbia (BC) Government infringed on Blueberry River First Nation members’ Treaty rights to meaningfully practice their way of life due to cumulative impacts from excessive industrial development approvals in the area. This is a pivotal legal decision. BC was ordered to halt authorizations until an agreement was reached with Blueberry River and other Treaty 8 nations. A collaborative agreement was reached in 2023 and included a $200 million land restoration fund, an ecosystem-based land and resource management approach, limits on petroleum and natural gas development in the area, further planning to protect culturally important areas, and co-management of certain wildlife such as moose. This landmark case is a clear message from the courts that there is a limit to cumulative effect impacts from unfettered development on treaty lands, and that Treaty rights to harvesting and practicing culture must be respected (Gunn, 2021). The Yahey ruling has prompted similar court cases from other First Nations. 22 The MVRMA requires consideration of cumulative effects in project-level EA, such as whether there is already significant existing or reasonably foreseeable development in an area or region. Cumulative effects can also be considered in project-level EA by ensuring land-use plans and wildlife range planning are in place regionally. This can support informed decision-making that is in line with regional priorities, protection of critical habitat and culturally important areas, and plan to ensure environmental thresholds are not surpassed. Increasingly, regional or strategic environmental assessments (RSEA) are being used to address cumulative effects in a larger area, independent of a project assessment. For example, the Nunavut Impact Review Board led a strategic environmental assessment for Baffin Bay and Davis Strait on potential impacts of marine shipping and oil and gas development activities, one aspect of which was the potential disruption to marine harvesting and impacts to food security (NIRB, 2019; Noble et al., 2019; QIA, 2018). RSEA can support decisions, establish regional baselines, inform communities, and identify potential issues, concerns and priorities in the absence of a project-level EA (Noble et al., 2019). Rohr et al. (2021) argue that a regional scale is more appropriate to address food security concerns, however RSEA is still emerging and remains less common or frequent as project-level EA. 2.4.2. Social and Economic Shifts Increased industrial development can cause a social and cultural shift towards a wage-based employment economy. Resource development can lead to increased employment, and training, which is often a positive impact. While this provides more income to buy store-bought foods, it is unclear whether increases in income are directly related to increased food security and well-being, as other aspects such as culture and the land can play a role in well-being (Parlee, 2018). Full-time employment can increase dependance on costly store-bought foods, with more income to purchase food, and more time working means less time is spent harvesting. These economic shifts towards remote rotational work with “two weeks on, two weeks off” shifts are not conducive to being on the land continuously (Dalseg et al., 2018). However, workers can still harvest on their time off and may have more income to afford costly harvesting equipment (Klinck & Gibson, 2005; Rodon & Levesque, 2015). While resource royalties, new jobs, and higher incomes can benefit communities, these do not necessarily create sustainable economic development (Rodon & Levesque, 2015). There is also uncertainty related to the “boom-and-bust" nature of extraction industries, as this can rapidly change employment and income status, 23 and is stressful for those employed in these industries (Aalhus, Oke & Fumerton, 2018; Klinck & Gibson, 2005). The impacts of resource and industrial development are gendered. Indigenous women and children are the least likely to benefit from resource development and are most likely to be impacted by social costs - impacts such as increased substance abuse, domestic violence, child neglect and income inequality that can be linked with resource extraction (Dalseg et al., 2018; Klinck & Gibson, 2005). While there is often a push to hire women, resource extraction industries are largely male-dominated, and women can experience discrimination or harassment. Long rotations away from home and lack of childcare can make it difficult or impossible for women to maintain employment (as they are often the primary caregivers), and if one partner is away working, the remaining parent may be left with sole caregiving responsibilities. Women are less likely than men to be employed in high paying resource development jobs, which can lead to gendered income disparity and imbalanced gender roles, and even “secondary poverty” if a partner’s income is not transferred to their household (Aalhus et al., 2018). Dalseg et al., (2018) looked at gendered impacts in environmental assessments and women often raised concerns about development related to socioeconomic issues, loss of culture, traditional economy and way of life and food harvested from the land. Like environmental cumulative effects, social impacts can also be cumulative. These can be compounding social, cultural, economic and health effects (Arnold et al., 2022; Ehrlich 2010). However, it can be challenging to establish a baseline of “before” a project, to attribute social effects to a specific project, and new project EAs can be hesitant to address legacy or existing effects from past projects and disturbances, saying that these impacts are not from their project. These cumulative health and social effects should be monitored, followed-up and adaptively managed as rigorously as environmental ones (Hackett, Liu & Noble, 2018; Bronson & Noble, 2006). The Review Board does recognize the cumulative nature of social and cultural impacts, such as the significant cumulative effects of diamond mining on communities and the difficulty (or impossibility) of attributing effects to any one project, or to mining at all. This was recognized in both the Diavik Report of EA (s.5.1.4) (MVEIRB, 2019) and Jay Project Report of EA (s.8.3) (MVEIRB, 2016). 24 2.4.3 Culture Indigenous culture is intimately tied with land and place, but resource development can remove access or completely change places. The importance of practicing traditional activities and being on the land is not limited to just the food value but also for individual, family and community well-being, cultural continuity, transmission of skills and knowledge, as well as spirituality, identity, and a relationship with the land (Parlee et al., 2005). Protecting the land and wildlife for future generations and passing on knowledge is important for cultural continuity These traditional places have memories, stories and knowledge attached to them, and there is intrinsic and spiritual value in the continued health of the land and animals (Parlee et al., 2005; Ehrlich, 2010). Cultural intangibles or “cultural ecosystem services” are non-material benefits, for example, cultural, spiritual or identity gained from the environment (Gregory et al., 2020; Satterfield et al., 2013; Satz et al., 2013). These are not easily measurable, and often it is impossible to compensate for these losses, as there is no amount of money or replacement that can make up for their loss, or it is difficult to equate these to anything else (Satz et al., 2013), so offsetting or compensation is not necessarily appropriate mitigation. Impacts to culturally important or sacred places can be a profound loss emotionally (Ehrlich, 2010). While specific sites can be important, often it is preservation of the landscape as a whole that is vital to cultural and spiritual values, as Ehrlich (2010) describes about the cultural importance of the Upper Thelon Basin to the Łutsel K’e First Nation. In the MVRMA, “impacts to people” include direct and indirect effects, which includes cultural effects (Ehrlich, 2010). Access, (or lack thereof), to traditional food and harvesting can have impacts on culture and well-being. It is difficult or impossible to disentangle the relationship between food, a healthy environment, being on the land, having animals to harvest, practicing culture and way of life. Impacts to or losses of land and traditional places and practices will inevitably have impacts on Indigenous identity and culture. 2.5 Conclusion Food security and food sovereignty in the north is a complex interdisciplinary topic, with many contributing factors. While food security is broadly about access to sufficient quantity and quality of food, the NWT’s multi-dimensional food system requires a nuanced consideration of the intersection between the environment, culture, socioeconomics and health. Communities in 25 the NWT are resilient and adaptable but require informed resource management and development decisions to be relevant to local contexts, issues, and resource use, as well as supporting adaptive capacity, a food sovereignty-based outlook and a holistic approach to health and well-being. Significant research has been done on northern food insecurity, health and nutrition, country food consumption and contaminants, and related socio-economic issues. However, surprisingly few studies links land-based foods and food security with the resource management and regulatory processes such as EA that make decisions about impacts to land, water, and wildlife. While harvesting and way of life is required to be considered through the MVRMA, NWT Wildlife Act, s.35 constitutional rights, the link that the reason for this is food value security seems implicit. The risk here is that certain aspects of food security (for example, considering all pillars of access, availability, utilization, and stability) may be missed if they are not explicitly considered, and this may exacerbate food insecurity. The following chapter elaborates more on the NWT resource development and regulatory regime, and how Aboriginal rights, food and harvesting fit into legislation. 26 Chapter 3: Regulatory Context and Resource Development in the Northwest Territories’ Mackenzie Valley 3.1 The Resource Management Landscape in the Northwest Territories 3.1.1 Overview Resource management in the three Canadian territories differs from the rest of the country because of the Indigenous land claim agreements and co-management board systems that establish direct Indigenous involvement in decision-making. This chapter outlines resource management and development in the Mackenzie Valley of the NWT. The Mackenzie Valley comprises most of the NWT, excluding Wood Buffalo National Park and the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) (Figure 2) (MVEIRB, 2004). The ISR is governed by the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, a comprehensive land claim agreement, and has its own Environmental Impact Review Board, a co-management tribunal established to conduct reviews of developments (Southcott & Natcher, 2018). Figure 2: Map of the Northwest Territories with Mackenzie Valley (outlined in red), land claim agreement and self-government areas, Inuvialuit Settlement Region and Wood Buffalo National Park. Map created by Michael Scinocca for this thesis, used with permission. 27 The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA) is federal legislation that was implemented in 1998 (MVRMA, 1998) as a result of land claim agreements (Armitage, 2005; Noble & Hanna, 2015). This legislation defines the co-management boards that govern different aspects of resource management in the Mackenzie Valley. Co-management boards function as decision-making bodies comprised of board members of whom half are nominated by Indigenous governments in the specific region, while the other half are nominated by the federal and territorial governments (MVEIRB, 2004; Christensen and Grant, 2007). Board members are then formally appointed by the responsible federal Minister. Co-management boards are quasi-judicial bodies or administrative tribunals that make evidence-based recommendations, achieved by consensus. While the boards do not make the decisions, their recommendations are rarely rejected (Christensen and Grant, 2007). They can be considered a “deliberative democracy,” a forum for discussion, education, and community participation (Fitzpatrick et al., 2008). While it is not perfect, this public co-management board system does help ensure that "decisions about the north are made in the north" rather than by the federal government, and that northerners have a say over decisions impacting the environment, and by extension, traditional foods and food security (Cruickshank et al., 2019). Co-management boards are explicitly required to consider both science and Indigenous knowledge: “In exercising its power, the Review Board shall consider any traditional knowledge and scientific information that is made available to it” (s.115.1) (MVRMA, 1998; Christensen & Grant, 2007). Indigenous knowledge is purposefully incorporated into resource development decisions in the north, partly given the importance of the land to the people who rely on it (Christensen & Grant, 2007). It aims to include the worldviews, knowledge, and perspectives of northern Indigenous people, which have profound understandings of how complex socio-ecological systems interrelate and function, how the land is used and managed, and its importance to social and cultural activities. Indigenous knowledge provides decision-makers with information about values and what impacts should be considered significant (MVEIRB, 2005). Recognizing Indigenous knowledge is political and moves towards changing the power imbalance and past the colonial control of the federal government, and towards having Indigenous participation, power and control and a voice (say) in decision-making about their land, water, and wildlife (Berkes, 1999; Christensen & Grant, 2007). Land is a particularly significant consideration in the context of colonialism, as one of its main goals is acquiring land, 28 and asserting dominance by “imposing its own systems and values upon the lands of others” (Christensen & Grant, 2007). There are currently three comprehensive land claim agreements in the Mackenzie Valley: the Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (1992), Sahtu Dene and Metis Land Claim Agreement (1993) and Tłı̨cho Land Claims and Self-Government Agreement (2003). These comprehensive land claim agreements are known as modern treaties, while Treaty 8 (1899) and Treaty 11 (1921) are known as historic treaties. Though each land claim agreement is different, they establish Aboriginal rights to land and resource use and ownership, the right to hunting, fishing, and trapping, and can include financial compensation and self-government (Sabin, 2017). As of now, the Dehcho, Akaitcho and Métis do not yet have modern land claim agreements. Each region with a land claim agreement (Sahtu, Gwich’in and Tłı̨chǫ) has their own respective regional land use planning, renewable resources, and land and water co-management boards. The Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board (MVLWB) oversees regulatory management in areas without land claim agreements, or in areas that cross regional and territorial boundaries (MVEIRB, 2004). Land use planning boards create land use plans for regions including development, conservation and use of land and water. Renewable resource boards were created under land claim agreements for wildlife and wildlife habitat co-management. MVEIRB conducts EA processes for the whole Mackenzie Valley. Unlike elsewhere in Canada and the ISR, the federal Impact Assessment Act (2019) does not apply in the Mackenzie Valley but applies in the ISR and could have jurisdiction where a project is in a transboundary area, or if it is specifically a project of national interest and a joint review is required (MVEIRB, 2004). Projects related to oil and gas activities are regulated federally by the Canada Energy Regulator (CER, previously called the National Energy Board (NEB)). Oil and gas operations outside federal land and the ISR are regulated by the Office of the Regulator of Oil and Gas Operations (OROGO), an arms-length regulatory body under the GNWT. Transboundary projects can result in a joint review panel, or separate processes. The Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement transferred the administration and control of public lands and rights with respect to waters from Canada to the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories, as of April 1, 2014 (Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement, 2013; Sabin, 2017). This allows the GNWT to govern public 29 lands, and resource development, including minerals, oil and gas, and resource royalties (Sabin, 2017). Previously this was under the federal Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC, formerly Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC)). While the final decision on EA projects is still under the jurisdiction of the federal government, this is now delegated to the relevant responsible territorial minister in most cases. Devolution, along with the settling of land claim agreements and the creation of the co-management board system, brings the NWT closer to having more northern autonomy and control on decisions about their own land and water (Christensen & Grant, 2007). 3.1.2 The Environmental Impact Assessment Process Resource development projects in the Mackenzie Valley may undergo up to three phases of environmental impact assessment (EIA) review: 1) Preliminary Screening, 2) Environmental Assessment (EA), and 3) Environmental Impact Review (EIR) (Figure 3). However, most projects will not go through all three phases. Most projects will go straight from preliminary screening to permitting and will not require an EA (>98% of all projects screened under the MVRMA), and even fewer, (almost none) go on to an EIR (MVEIRB, 2022). Other MVRMA co-management boards deal with land use planning, renewable resource management, and regulatory permitting (water licenses and land use permits). There are five parts to the EIA process: 30 Figure 3: The Resource Management Process in the Mackenzie Valley. Created by Tamika Mulders based on information from MVEIRB, 2004. 1. Preliminary Screening The review process typically starts with a project application for a license or permit submitted to a regulatory agency, such as one of the land and water boards, or the federal or territorial government. The application is first checked for completeness and conformity of the project with the land use plan. If it proceeds past this stage, it is subject to a preliminary screening. This is mainly done by the agency it was submitted to, which is usually the relevant land and water board (MVEIRB, 2004). If the preliminary screening determines that a project might have the potential for significant adverse impacts to the environment, or that it might cause public concern, the project will be referred to MVEIRB for an EA (MVEIRB, 2004). If they anticipate it will trigger an EA, a proponent can also request that a referral body refer the project directly to EA to bypass preliminary screening. Public concern is a broad concept and includes “worry or concern within the relevant public” (MVRMA, 1998). The preliminary screening test provides a low threshold for referral to EA; the only criteria are that the project “might” have these effects. There is no requirement for detailed proof at this stage. If the project is not referred to an EA, then the application will continue through the other regulatory phases, where a permit or license will be issued with any required conditions. 31 2. Environmental Assessment The EA regime is described in Part 5 of the MVRMA, establishing MVEIRB (the Review Board), and its functions, powers, and responsibilities to conduct EA or EIR processes. In the EA process, the Review Board aims to determine if a proposed project is likely to have significant adverse impacts to the environment and on people and propose mitigation measures to reduce potential adverse impacts. Significance generally includes the magnitude, geographic extent, duration, frequency, likelihood, and reversibility; however, this also depends on the societal acceptability of the predicted impact as reflected in the values of those making the decisions (Ehrlich & Ross, 2015). The EA process has several phases including screening, scoping, technical reports, technical sessions, public hearings, and the decision phase. The Review Board follows process timelines laid out in the MVRMA. Parties other than the developer and the Review Board who may take part in the EA include governments, Indigenous governments and Indigenous organizations, non-government organizations, regulatory authorities, members of the public, and other potential parties and stakeholders. Once the EA hearing is complete and the public record is closed, the Review Board analyzes the evidence on the public record and compiles a Report of Environmental Assessment (REA). This document contains the Board’s recommendation for rejection or approval of the project, summarizes the main issues and concerns raised throughout the EA process, the potential for significant impacts or residual effects, and if approved, associated project conditions and mitigation measures. The REA is submitted to the relevant decision-maker, generally one or more responsible federal or territorial ministers, who will be the final decision-making authority. This can also include the Tłı̨chǫ Government for projects partially or wholly on Tłı̨chǫ lands (MVEIRB, 2022). The federal minister of CIRNAC signs the decision letter on behalf of all responsible ministers. This may also be a joint decision between responsible ministers in the case of transboundary projects in other jurisdictions, or joint processes. 3. Participation and Consultation Meaningful Indigenous engagement and Aboriginal rights-based consultation is required for resource management and decision-making in the NWT. Another important and unique part of the MVRMA is the requirement to consider Indigenous and community knowledge in decision-making. Developers are encouraged to conduct early and ongoing engagement with communities and incorporate their concerns and input into initial project planning. Indigenous 32 groups and the public are encouraged to participate throughout the EA process, providing opinions or questions at hearings, or through written letters. MVEIRB maintains an online publicly accessible registry with all project documents and evidence submitted throughout the process that the Review Board will use to make their recommendation. Notices are also published publicly such as in newspapers, online, and on social media for hearings, referrals, and approvals (MVEIRB, 2004). 4. Environmental Impact Review If the EA is deemed to require further information, or a decision cannot be made, the project will be referred to a more in-depth Environmental Impact Review (EIR), which is done by a review panel. Since the inception of the MVRMA, only two projects have been referred to an EIR: the Mackenzie Gas Project in 2004 and Gahcho Kué Mine in 2006 (MVEIRB Registry, 2022). 5. Regulatory Phase Once a project is approved either through a preliminary screening or an approved EA or EIR, it will proceed to the regional land and water board or the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board for a land use permit and water license. This is laid out in the Mackenzie Valley Land Use Regulations (1998). The land and water boards are responsible for determining the terms and conditions, including monitoring, and reporting requirements. A type A water license is generally for larger projects that meet certain criteria and will require ministerial approval and has potential for a public hearing; whereas a type B license is generally for smaller projects and will not require a hearing (MVLWB, 2020). There are specific criteria for each, depending on the type of activity, quantities of water use, equipment use, waste deposits, watercourse crossings, or alterations, diversions of flow, etc. (MVLWB Waters Regulations, 2014). 3.1.3 Food, Harvesting, and Well-being under the MVRMA The MVRMA governs land use and resource development in the Mackenzie Valley. While food security is not explicitly mentioned, there are evident references that are reasonably interpreted to include food considerations. Part 5 of the MVRMA (1998) describes the project assessment process, and s.115 (1) states that MVEIRB must consider: (a) the protection of the environment from the significant adverse impacts of proposed developments; 33 (b) the protection of the social, cultural and economic well-being of residents and communities in the Mackenzie Valley; and (c) the importance of conservation to the well-being and way of life of the aboriginal peoples of Canada to whom section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 applies and who use an area of the Mackenzie Valley. As outlined in the previous chapter, a large component of well-being and way of life for communities in the Mackenzie Valley is a connection with the land, and the skills, knowledge and food obtained from the land that grounds people in their culture. While there is no specifically stated definition of well-being in the MVRMA, “social, cultural, and economic well-being" and “way of life” could reasonably be interpreted to include food harvested from the land, among other things. The MVRMA (1998) definition of harvesting states: harvesting, in relation to wildlife, means hunting, trapping or fishing activities carried on in conformity with a land claim agreement or, in respect of persons and places not subject to a land claim agreement, carried on pursuant to aboriginal or treaty rights. It is also notable that the MVRMA definition (s.111) of impacts to the environment explicitly includes impacts to harvesting as well as social and cultural effects to people: impact on the environment means any effect on land, water, air or any other component of the environment, as well as on wildlife harvesting, and includes any effect on the social and cultural environment or on heritage resources. In the NWT, the Review Board considers a holistic approach to health and well-being (Ehrlich, 2021). Harvesting and access to country foods are recognized as important factors for Indigenous well-being. In their recent perspectives paper, MVEIRB noted well-being, climate change, cumulative effects, collaborative project planning and early engagement as priority themes for emerging EA practice and improvement (MVEIRB, 2020). MVEIRB also has guidelines relating to the inclusion of socioeconomic impacts, cultural impacts, and incorporation of traditional knowledge in EA. This is also reflected in the types of mitigation measures and suggestions that MVEIRB recommends. For example, in the recent Diavik EA process for depositing processed kimberlite into pits and underground, the Review Board’s Measure 6: Adaptive Management of Cultural Impacts requires the GNWT to support Indigenous intervenors in the development of community-specific cultural well-being indicators, to monitor and adaptively manage adverse impacts, and evaluate and improve mitigation programs (MVEIRB Diavik Report of EA and Reasons for Decision, 2020). 34 Food, health and well-being in EA and resource development Health impacts have long been considered in EA, albeit not as strongly as other factors. This has largely been related to physical health relating to environmental change and contaminants (Bronson & Noble, 2005). Health Canada has guidance on human health impacts in EA (2019) and on impacts to country foods in EA (2018); however, these are somewhat limited to physical environmental considerations such as contaminants. Bronson and Noble (2005, 2006a, 2006b) examined human health consideration in northern impact assessment, finding it was often limited to physical health and lacked consideration of social and cultural determinants of health. Also, they found that there was more focus on health baseline and prediction of impacts, but that health-related monitoring and follow-up was not nearly as robust as environmental monitoring (Noble & Bronson, 2005; Kryzanowski & McIntyre, 2011). Southcott and Natcher (2018) examine the complex relationship between resource development and traditional subsistence harvesting, presenting arguments both that it will undermine and decrease traditional activities, but also that wage employment can help support participation in these activities. Similar concerns have been raised in recent EAs by Indigenous governments around harvesting; for example, that increased access to an area through roads can increase harvesting success, but this could eventually decrease the availability of wildlife near roads, decreasing participation in harvesting activities and increase the perception of unhealthy wildlife and disturbed land (MVEIRB, 2016) Rohr et al (2021) examined food security in the context of regional strategic EA that encompasses a broader scale than a single project assessment context, thus requiring the consideration of communities and their food systems. A regional scale may be a more effective scale to examine food-related issues, however this does not mean it should not be considered in project-level assessment. In the north, these are often raised in terms of project impacts to harvesting. In the MVEIRB Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road EA, food security was considered and addressed by the Review Board in Measures 5-1 and 5-2 around monitoring and adaptive management of health and well-being impacts, including changes in harvest success rates and availability of country foods that may be impacted by the project (MVEIRB, 2018). In the Ekati Jay Project EA, the Yellowknives Dene First Nation raised concerns about impacts to harvesting and food, as well as the link between the importance of hunting to the transmission of traditional knowledge (MVEIRB, 2016). 35 Impact assessment best practices are beginning to take a broader, holistic view of health that encompasses physical, social, cultural, and mental well-being, as these are all determinants of overall health (Ehrlich, 2022). Kryzanowski & McIntyre (2011) suggest using holistic and culturally appropriate indicators for addressing Indigenous health impacts through EAs by integrating spiritual, physical, mental, and emotional components, and consider both individual and community health. Important factors relate to the connection between the environment and culture, impacts of colonialism and the importance of self-determination (Czyzewski, 2011). Impacts to mental health is a relatively new consideration in EA, particularly for Indigenous people (Lebel et al., 2022). Mental health and stressful life events and situations can have physical health implications (Holmes & Rahe, 1967; Czyzewski, 2011), but should also be considered impacts to well-being. 3.1.4 Aboriginal and Indigenous Rights Aboriginal1 and Treaty rights include the right to harvest. This is legally ensured by historic Treaties, and modern land claim and self-government agreements. These not only ensure access to lands and the ability to hunt, fish, and trap, but to practice cultural activities. Aboriginal rights are established in section 35(1) of Canada’s Constitution Act (1982), stating that “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.” Aboriginal and Treaty rights are not specifically defined but can refer to modern and historic treaties, including rights to harvesting, land use (Aboriginal title), culture, social and self-government (CIRNAC, 2022). Crown consultation is when the federal and territorial government is required to consult affected Indigenous groups when there is the potential for these s.35 rights to be adversely impacted by a decision made under federal jurisdiction. The Review Board is required under the MVRMA to consult to assess impacts, and if impacts affect Aboriginal or treaty rights, it is more likely to be considered a significant adverse impact requiring mitigation. Crown consultation relies mainly on the Review Board process and engagement to fulfill its duty to consult, however, as the decision-maker, it will need to do additional consultation to see if Indigenous governments have other concerns to raise 1 There has been a shift in terminology from “Aboriginal” to “Indigenous.” Both terms collectively refer to First Nations, Métis, and Inuit in Canada. “Indigenous” is now the preferred term and global standard to refer to Indigenous Peoples. The term “Aboriginal” should be used when referring to asserted or established Aboriginal and/or Treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. However, whenever possible it is best to refer to a specific Indigenous Nation, organization, or people. 36 before issuing its decision and if additional accommodation is needed. The Crown must also consult each time a decision is required, including other authorizations such as a water license or land use permit. Since devolution, decision-making responsibilities can be delegated to the territorial government, including conducting the required Crown consultation. If the project is partially or fully on federal lands, the federal minister of CIRNAC will be the responsible minister. Meaningful Aboriginal consultation with Indigenous people is a critical part of the EA process, as these development or regulatory decisions often have the potential to adversely impact asserted or established Aboriginal and/or Treaty rights. Consultation also provides valuable evidence to inform the EA decision. Canada adopted Bill C-15 in 2022, bringing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN Declaration) Act (2021), or Declaration Act, into force, committing to ensure that federal laws are consistent with this framework. The 46 articles of the UN Declaration are overarching guiding principles affirming Indigenous rights. Enacting the UN Declaration principles are a step towards advancing reconciliation in Canada. These encompass many different points including rights to self-determination and self-government, land use for traditional activities and language, as well as maintaining land and culture for future generations (UN, 2008, CCA 2019). Three articles of the UN Declaration that particularly relate to Indigenous food, harvesting and culture are: Article 3 states that Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Article 20 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities. 2. Indigenous peoples deprived of their means of subsistence and development are entitled to just and fair redress. Article 32 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources. 2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources. 37 3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact. 3.2 Resource Development History in the Northwest Territories. 3.2.1 Current NWT Resource Development Landscape The main industries in the NWT are gold and diamond mining and oil and gas extraction, covering more than a quarter of the territory’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (NWT Bureau of Statistics, 2022). There has also been interest and success in other metals such as nickel, cobalt, bismuth (for example, Fortune Minerals’ approved NICO mine), rare earth metals (Avalon Advanced Materials and Cheetah Resources Nechalacho mine), and lead and zinc at Pine Point, which is now undergoing an EA through MVEIRB. Gold mining Resource development in the NWT began in the 1930s with gold mining occurring mostly around Yellowknife. Early mines include Con Mine, Negus Mine, Giant Mine and Discovery Mine. Giant Mine was the last to close, in 2004 (O’Reilly, 2015). These gold mines began before there was much regulatory oversight of environmental impacts and today there are significant legacy contaminant impacts, for example arsenic contamination from Giant Mine. The ongoing and often unresolved environmental and socio-cultural impacts from these have led to mistrust and apprehension around other resource development, and cumulative effects from multiple developments. As biophysical and socio-cultural impacts must be considered cumulatively with other existing developments and activities, these past legacy impacts will affect current development decisions (MVEIRB Pine Point Terms of Reference, 2021). Oil and Gas There is significant potential for oil and gas development in the NWT, and “vastly underdeveloped” reserves of oil (GNWT ITI, n.d.), mainly light crude, and natural gas. This potential was recognized in the Berger Inquiry in the 1970s. There has long been concern about potential oil spills impacting the water, the fish and wildlife relied on for food, and the culture of Indigenous peoples (Dana et al., 2009). Concerns around impacts from hydraulic fracturing also led to a shutdown of potential exploration in the Sahtu region (DPRA, 2013). Norman Wells, a community in the Sahtu region has long been the center of oil production in the NWT. The Crown’s interest in oil and gas in the region initiated the signing of 38 Treaty 11 in 1921, and oil production by Imperial Oil began around this time (Imperial Oil, 2020). There are currently many oil wells, a refinery, and a pipeline to northern Alberta dating to 1985. There are active oil wells in Inuvik, in the southern NWT near Cameron Hills and Fort Liard. As most of these are ending their production lifespans, they will require decommissioning, cleanup, and remediation, and addressing socio-economic impacts. Since devolution, GNWT oversees administration and ensuring proper remediation of new oil development going forward and holding adequate financial securities to cover cleanup in the case of developer abandonment or non-compliance. The federal government is still responsible for cleanup of some historic waste sites. Permitting is regulated by the GNWT OROGO for onshore and commissioner’s lands where the GNWT has jurisdiction. CIRNAC, the CER and Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act (COGOA) oversee the Norman Wells Proven Area, the ISR, and offshore areas. The CER also regulates pipeline construction, oil and gas transport and ensures compliance. Overall, the existing oil and gas sector is small relative to the potential scale of the reserves. Diamond Mining Ekati diamond mine was the first major northern diamond mine in the NWT and Canada and has been in production since 1998 (GNWT). This project was the first of its kind and paved the way for several more diamond mines in the territory in the next two decades. Diamond mining is considered relatively environmentally clean, as there are minimal toxic contaminants used in extraction; however, they still have enormous impacts in terms of waste rock, impacts to land and water, and carbon footprints. Three diamond mines are currently in operation – Arctic Canadian’s Ekati Mine, Rio Tinto’s Diavik Mine and De Beers’ Gahcho Kué Mine. De Beers’ Snap Lake Mine went into care and maintenance in 2015. However, the future and longevity of these mines are uncertain, and are all likely approaching the end of their production lifespan in the next decade. Ekati’s newest expansion, Point Lake, has just begun production, and there is some indication that underwater remote mining could help owner Arctic Canadian Diamonds extend the mine life past 2028 (Arctic Canadian Diamond Company, 2023). As a large part of the current NWT economy relies on diamond mining, their closure would have significant economic implications for residents, families and communities that rely on high-paying mining jobs, and the secondary industries that support the mining industry. Planning for closure will be important in the coming years in order to anticipate socio-economic 39 changes. The mining-specific training and jobs northerners have received may not be transferable to other jobs in the north. 3.2.2 The Berger Inquiry From 1974 until 1977 Justice Thomas Berger led an inquiry into the construction of a pipeline in the Mackenzie Valley (often referred to as the Berger Inquiry). It was one of the first and most significant public environmental policy processes, and an important turning point for legitimizing northern Indigenous concerns and knowledge (Christensen and Grant, 2007). It is hard to underestimate the pivotal importance of the Berger Inquiry to the history of EA practice in Canada and globally (Abele, 2014; Southcott et al., 2018; Roburn, 2018). The Berger Inquiry also greatly contributed to an understanding of development issues and their impacts on Indigenous peoples in the north. Berger brought the inquiry hearings directly to 35 potentially affected communities along the pipeline route and heard opinions from approximately 1000 people in eight different languages (Angell & Parkins, 2011). Most of these were resoundingly opposed to the development (Gamble, 1978). It was presumed by southern Canada at the time that this pipeline and ensuing development would benefit northerners (Southcott et al., 2018). The Berger Inquiry investigated the social, cultural, and economic impacts of the project (Gamble 1978) and had a strong focus on the importance of the land-based traditional economy of the Indigenous population. Berger argued that while the overall environmental impacts may be negligible, social and cultural impacts would be significant, particularly on traditional harvesting (Southcott & Natcher, 2018). The Inquiry disputed the assumption that all resource development was positive, and that the traditional economy would eventually, and inevitably, be replaced with resource development and a wage-based economy (Abele, 2014; Southcott et al., 2018). It was an important process for considering social impacts in resource management decision-making. The Inquiry refuted the belief that participation in subsistence hunting and land-based activities were dying out or no longer relevant. In fact, Berger heard from communities that these activities were crucial to Indigenous culture and way of life and were a valid reason to reject or postpone a development project (Bronson & Noble, 2005). The Berger Inquiry provided a unique opportunity for anyone to attend and voice their concerns and suggestions and was broadcast publicly on television and radio in English, French and Indigenous languages (Roburn, 2018). Intervener funding was available for participants, and 40 speakers were able to speak in their own languages with simultaneous translation. This heightened interest, participation, and overall engagement in the process (Abele, 2014; Gamble, 1978). It also set a standard for the level of participation, consideration of Indigenous knowledge and local consultation (Christensen & Grant, 2007). It created an understanding that this process was a forum to be heard and could affect decision-making. Many of these positive aspects are reflected in the Mackenzie Valley EA and other northern regulatory processes today. Thomas Berger's report, Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland (Berger, 1977), recommended a 10-year moratorium on the construction of the pipeline to allow for land claims to be settled in the territory (Abele, 2014; Angell & Parkins, 2011). It did not reject development but provided a cautious roadmap for considering the impacts of and best approaches to developing natural gas in the region. The Berger Inquiry outcome demonstrates that the input of residents is crucial to obtaining social license to operate. Today in northern impact assessment, there is a shift towards the consideration of multidisciplinary community well-being, and benefits to communities (Southcott et al., 2018). However, the assessment of social and holistic considerations is still developing and sometimes remains ‘siloed’ rather than being part of a more integrative systems approach (Ehrlich, 2022). 3.3 Socio-Economic Considerations in NWT Resource Development Regulatory mechanisms that address the social, economic, and cultural impacts of resource development are not limited to EA. There are other legal and binding mechanisms that address this outside of or in conjunction with the EA process. Impact Benefit Agreements (IBAs) are legally binding, often confidential, bilateral agreements between the industry proponent and an Indigenous group. An IBA will generally include topics related to employment, financial compensation or revenue sharing, or in-kind or social benefits for communities (Kielland, 2015; Armitage, 2005). The main purposes of IBAs are to ensure benefits, such as revenue sharing, and to reduce social and economic impacts. Some land claim agreements specifically require IBAs to be negotiated, and some proponents use them to leverage project support (Kielland, 2015). Environmental agreements between the industry proponent, federal and territorial governments are used to ensure environmental protections and economic and social benefits for the people of the NWT. For example, the Ekati diamond mine environmental agreement’s purpose is: “to respect and protect land, water and wildlife and the land-based economy, essential 41 to the way of life and well-being of the Aboriginal Peoples” (Consolidated Environmental Agreement for the Ekati Diamond Project, 2019). Environmental agreements may also be used to establish independent environmental monitoring and advisory boards. Since devolution in 2014, the GNWT shares up to 25% of resource revenues with Indigenous governments that signed onto devolution, which includes the Tłı̨chǫ Government, Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Northwest Territory Métis Nation, Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated and the Gwich’in Tribal Council, under the Northwest Territories Intergovernmental Resource Revenue Sharing Agreement (NWT Devolution Agreement, 2013; NWT Intergovernmental Resource Revenue Sharing Agreement, 2014). Some Indigenous governments already receive some resource revenue benefits through land claim agreements, and this is additional on top of these existing amounts. The GNWT has authority over and monitors many health and socioeconomic indicators. Socio-economic agreements (SEA) between the developer and the territorial government are used to help monitor potential social impacts that may come from this increased industrial development; and ensure benefits through employment and procurement. The GNWT produces an annual report called the Communities and Diamonds Socio-Economic Agreements Annual Report, which outlines various economic and social well-being indicators. While there are no monitoring indicators for food, some relate to participation in traditional activities, employment and income assistance, a community well-being index, and Indigenous language use. Though it is useful to collect data on these indicators, it is difficult to attribute any overall changes in indicators directly to project-related effects from diamond mines (Noble & Bronson, 2005; Southcott & Natcher, 2018). Under the MVRMA (Part 6) every five years an independent NWT Environmental Audit examines the effectiveness of the environmental and regulatory regime, identifies gaps, and gives recommendations for areas for improvement. The 2020 NWT Environmental Audit covering 2015-2019 suggested improvements for socio-economic considerations and monitoring. While the GNWT collects data on socio-economic topics, the audit found it was unclear how this data was being used to inform regulatory decision-making. 42 3.4 Current Northern Food Security Mandates, Programs, and Initiatives There are many moving parts related to the complex issue of food security in the NWT. The NWT Legislative Assembly has a mandate item for food security for 2019-2023, to “increase food security through locally produced, harvested, and affordable food,” with specific goals around local food production, harvester support and improvements for the Nutrition North program (GNWT Executive & Indigenous Affairs). A GNWT food security working group includes members from various departments. Industry, Tourism and Investment (ITI) is the lead department for food security, as food issues are often economic, (i.e., supply chains and food production). The Department of Health and Social Services (HSS) deals with overall health, nutrition, and social aspects, and it has developed an ‘anti-poverty initiative’. GNWT HSS supported the completion of community wellness plans, allowing each NWT community to determine their own priority issues, relevant goals and objectives, and guide federal funding decisions to help address these. The GNWT Department of Environment and Natural Resources (ENR, now ECC) has an On-the-Land unit, which developed the Sustainable Livelihoods Action Plan 2019-2023 (GNWT, 2019); this plan supports communities and provides funding for harvesting, equipment and training. Federally, CIRNAC leads Nutrition North, a federal food subsidy program for isolated communities, which includes education and training, and harvester support. Subsidies are only for certain eligible nutritious foods and are calculated based on several factors, including road access and distance (Ford et al., 2016; Government of Canada, 2022). This may help slightly offset high costs, but it is only a small part of the solution, as often the savings are very minimal. CIRNAC also has a Community Well-being Index, which is updated every five years with data on education, labor force, housing and income. First Nations and Inuit communities do consistently worse than non-Indigenous communities (CIRNAC, 2016). Health Canada does not directly have a mandate related to food security but participates in federal EA looking at possible health impacts of projects. Health Canada also has mandates related to contaminants, nutrition of food, and human health risks of contaminated sites (Health Canada, 2022). Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is mostly farming-related but is technically in charge of food security. Canada is in the process of creating the first ever national food policy, chaired by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, which has a short-term objective of supporting food security in northern and Indigenous communities, other relevant priorities include sustainability and strong Indigenous food systems. 43 Other NWT food initiatives include agriculture and greenhouse programs, for example, greenhouses in Gamètı̀ and the Northern Farm Training Institute in Hay River. Other programs involve paying community harvesters and having them distribute harvested food in the community. Previously, community freezers and community hunts were used to store and share food communally, although this is becoming less common. 44 Chapter 4: Methodology 4.1 Research Questions and Study Design This research aims to provide practical recommendations and guidance for the incorporation of food security and health, social and cultural well-being into EA. There are two overarching research questions: 1) How is food security currently addressed in northern EA processes; and 2) Is there a need for food security to be considered more explicitly in EA, and if so, how should this occur? These research questions were developed in the fall of 2020 in collaboration with the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB), and the Government of the Northwest Territories Department of Lands (now called Environment and Climate Change). 4.1.1 Research Approach The main philosophical framework guiding this research is pragmatism, the practical and purposeful application of research outcomes (Morgan, 2014). Pragmatism is problem-centered, and focuses on real-world practice, and is the main philosophical foundation for mixed-methods research, as it uses whichever means necessary (quantitative and qualitative) and combines methods to understand the research problem (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). As EA is a practical and problem-focused regulatory tool and professional discipline, it makes sense to use pragmatism as a guiding principle or worldview (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Pragmatism also acknowledges social, political, and historical contexts. This is particularly important in EA, which takes place within the reality of colonialism, as well as the ongoing process of Indigenous reconciliation. Another value of pragmatism is the goal that outcomes are transferable to other situations. While the research examines food security in EA in a specific northern context, the outcomes should be both useful and applicable, as well as broadly generalizable, to other regions, projects, and context. My project uses qualitative methods - a qualitative inquiry was appropriate as my research questions are complex and not easily answered with numerical data collection and requires more nuance and consideration of the content than word counts or frequency (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). Qualitative research is generally inductive, an approach to analysis that involves looking for patterns and themes that emerge from the data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Bowen, 2009). Rather than starting with a hypothesis to confirm or reject, my qualitative research starts with broad guiding research questions. Due to the inductive nature of the inquiry, the questions 45 and methods may change slightly over the course of the research. This is called emergent design, which allows the researcher to use methods and refine the question to best address the topic (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Therefore, using contextual research (secondary sources, i.e., the literature review) and the theoretical underpinnings of the topic, researchers may develop ideas of what themes may arise; however, inductive qualitative analysis allows interpretation and further development of themes and patterns from the data that is collected. The researcher is an essential part of the qualitative research process and is the instrument interpreting meanings from the participants and the data (Muhammed et al., 2015; Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Creating codes iteratively, going back and forth between the material and emerging ideas, is referred to as analytic induction. This involves the researcher’s own interpretation and creativity to make sense of the data (Flowerdew & Martin, 2004). Therefore, it is important to acknowledge my positionality and reflexivity and how my own internal biases might affect data collection and analysis (see section 4.5 below). Validity is a means to ensure accuracy and consistency of project findings and can be understood as the “trustworthiness” of the data and data collection (Babbie, 2010). Qualitative researchers often use multiple sources of data, or triangulation. Bowen (2009) describes triangulation as the use of multiple research methods or data sources to study the same question with various approaches (Morgan, 2022; Bowen, 2009). This can validate and corroborate the findings of each method or data source as outcomes are compared and general patterns emerge, which make the research more credible (Babbie, 2010; Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Bowen, 2009). Other ways to address validity can be through peer debriefing or an external auditor, sending material for comments and questions to ensure understanding by someone unfamiliar with the work. Another way is through member checking, involving sending major findings, themes, or outcomes back to participants to elicit feedback and validation of results before finalizing or publishing (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I used a three-step approach to the research including: 1) a literature review; 2) a document analysis of past EAs; and 3) interviews with northern EA practitioners. Each step builds on the previous step. I began with a scholarly literature review to familiarize myself and situate the research in past and current thinking on the topics of food security in the north. The literature review conceptualizes current thinking in food security, food sovereignty, Indigenous 46 traditional harvesting and culture and its importance to northern food systems. It also provides an overview of the existing environmental regulatory regime in the NWT, including the co-management board system, the current and historical resource development landscape in the Northwest Territories, and its impact on food systems. Next, I conducted a qualitative document analysis using documentation from three selected completed EA projects in the Mackenzie Valley. I began with a keyword search of the documents to find passages or quotations related to food security derived from the literature, then used thematic coding to organize these into key themes or “codes.” This allowed me to see which issues emerged and how frequently as well as how they were considered in different EA processes. The analysis of existing documents is an unobtrusive research technique – meaning the researcher cannot affect the data itself (Babbie, 2010; Morgan, 2022). While documents can be interpreted differently by different researchers, the documents themselves are pre-existing and do not change (Bowen, 2009). Existing public documents, such as EA transcripts and reports in this case have the benefit of recalling the exact wording or concerns raised at the time. Document analyses are often used in EA research as EA processes generate massive quantities of documentation that can be examined (Peletz, 2020; Thiessen, 2020), and are often used in concert with other methods. Document analysis is an effective and inexpensive research method as it uses previously existing data that is often publicly available online (Bowen, 2009). Some drawbacks of preexisting documentation are outlined in section 4.2.6. Finally, semi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants who are EA practitioners in the north. The interviewees were informants, who had relevant expertise and knowledge about the topic and their organization, rather than respondents, as the focus was not on the individuals themselves (Doringer, 2021; Babbie, 2010). The interviews aimed to determine how organizations define food security, how participants had seen food-related issues discussed in previous EA processes, as well as suggested recommendations. The method of using purposive sampling for interviews has been established in past EA research in the north (Arnold et al., 2019; Peletz, 2020; Noble & Bronson, 2006) to gain insights from people with specific experiences or knowledge (Liamputtong, 2019). The following sections describe the methods used for the document analysis and semi-structured interviews, respectively, and a discussion of ethical considerations. 47 4.2 Document Analysis of Three EA Processes 4.2.1 EA Project Sampling Design The document analysis process began with deciding which MVEIRB EA projects to use for case studies. The three EA projects selected for inclusion in the document analysis were the GNWT Department of Infrastructure’s Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road (TASR), Dominion Diamond’s Ekati Jay Project, and the Federal Government Department of Public Works and Government Services Giant Mine Remediation project (Table 2; Figure 4). The sampling was non-random and purposeful, to maximize variability in content and project type. Projects were selected in consultation with GNWT and MVEIRB, seeking the most relevant EAs to my research topic. Project inclusion was based on several factors determining relevance to the research project - to examine a variety of food-related concerns, representation of different project types to maximize diversity, document access and availability, how recent the projects were assessed (ideally in the past 10 years), and relevance to food-related concerns discussed in the EA processes. I was also limited by how many projects I could reasonably code and analyze within my program time constraint. Cases were selected to highlight the two research questions (noted above) (Yin, 2018). The three EA processes selected (a new public road, a diamond mine expansion, and a contaminated gold mine site remediation) all considered food-related concerns in different ways, within the bounds of the same MVEIRB EA process. While these EAs were all completed and ultimately approved with measures altering the project, the research focus is more on the content, themes, and discussions arising in these processes than the project outcomes. 48 Table 2: Selected MVEIRB Environmental Assessment projects used for document analysis MVEIRB EA Project MVEIRB Project Code Proponent Project Type and activities Year Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road (TASR) EA1617-01 Government of the Northwest Territories - Department of Infrastructure Construction of a new all-season public highway to the community of Whatı̀. 2016 Jay Project EA1314-01 Dominion Diamond Ekati Corporation (DDEC) Expansion of an existing diamond mine. New open pit construction in Lac du Sauvage using a horseshoe dyke and dewatering of lake section. 2013 Giant Mine Remediation Project EA0809-001 Giant Mine Remediation Directorate, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) Reclamation of Giant Mine site, and containment of 237,000 tons of arsenic trioxide dust. 2008 49 Figure 4: Map of case study project locations in the Northwest Territories. Projects are A: Giant Mine Remediation Project; B: Ekati Diamond Mine Jay Project; C: Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road. Map created by Michael Scinocca for this thesis, used with permission. The TASR is a new all-season public highway from Highway 3 to the community of Whatı̀, previously only accessible by seasonal ice road or by air. The EA for the TASR began in 2016 and was completed in 2018, with the road opening in November 2021 (MVEIRB, 2018). The Dominion Diamond Ekati Corporation (DDEC) Jay Project was a major pit expansion of the existing Ekati Diamond Mine, which has been in operation since 1998. The proposed Jay Project was 25km from the existing mine and would entail the construction of a dyke in Lac du Sauvage, draining a section of the lake, construction of a road to the main mine site, a new waste rock pile, an increase in mine activity and haul truck traffic on the existing Misery Road (MVEIRB, 2016). The EA for the Jay Project began in 2013 and was completed 50 and then received regulatory approval in 2016. In 2017 Ekati Mine was purchased from DDEC by the Arctic Canadian Diamond Company Ltd. (as of 2022). The Jay Project is unlikely to go ahead under the new ownership due to technical feasibility and economic viability, as Arctic Canadian stated it would not develop Jay as it is now instead focusing on the Point Lake project (WLWB, 2021; Cabin Radio, 2018). The Giant Mine Remediation Project went through an EA process, with proponent Giant Mine Remediation Directorate, made up of co-proponents Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) and then-federal department Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) (this department is now called Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada or CIRNAC), to assess potential impacts of the remediation. The project was referred to EA in 2008 with the Report of EA (REA) completed in 2013. The remediation project proposed stabilizing 237,000 tons of arsenic trioxide dust with a “frozen block” method and remediating the existing mine site (MVEIRB Registry). It is particularly important due to the legacy arsenic contamination issues, and its proximity to the communities of Yellowknife, Ndılǫ, and Dettah. 4.2.2 Document Sampling Design Environmental assessment processes generate a massive amount of documentation, so documents were selected to represent the key issues, opinions, and concerns raised by different parties in the EA. Many documents are several hundred pages long, and 20-30 documents were used for each project. Project documents selected included scoping documents, terms of reference, technical reports from each party, developer responses to technical reports, technical session and hearing transcripts, and the final REA. Document types were consistent across the three projects, but the exact number of documents varied by project. Decisions about which specific documents to include were determined in consultation with GNWT and MVEIRB partners. I analyzed a total of 77 documents; a full document list is available in Appendix A. These publicly available documents were downloaded from the online MVEIRB public registry (https://reviewboard.ca/registry), then uploaded to NVivo for qualitative coding and analysis. 4.2.3 Keyword Selection As the three EA processes consisted of many large documents, due to time constraints I was unable to read through them all in full. Using a text search query in NVivo for keywords 51 enabled me to find and skip between highlighted keywords and quickly decide whether sections were relevant. I selected keywords with external guidance from the GNWT and MVEIRB. The keywords (listed below) were chosen to find and signpost relevant passages where discussions of traditional food or food security might have come up in reports or transcripts in relation to harvested and store-bought food concerns. Certain keywords were more useful than others depending on the documents or contexts. I narrowed and edited my initial keyword list once I began coding, based on usefulness and practical considerations. For example, certain keywords were omitted due to many irrelevant results (for example, “caribou” was too broad of a term, whereas “harvesting” found passages more specific to food). Some keywords were frequent, whereas others were less common. List of keywords used as text search terms: food, foods, harvest, harvester, harvesting, harvested, subsistence, hunt, hunter, hunters, hunting, trap, trapper, trapping, trapline, fish, fisher, fishing, berries, berry picking, gathering, meat, eat, edible, nutrition, contaminant, contaminate, bioaccumulation, wellbeing, medicinal, diet, grocery, groceries, garden. 4.2.4 Qualitative Coding in NVivo Documents were coded using QSR NVivo qualitative analysis software, licensed through the University of British Columbia (UBC). Using a text search query of the above keywords enabled me to flag potentially relevant sections of the documents, then code to one or more relevant topics or emergent themes. The word “code,” as it is referred to in qualitative methods, is a topic, theme, or concept that can be saved and referred to later, to organize and make sense of the content (Bazeley & Jackson, 2014; Babbie, 2010). For example, a section of a hearing transcript where the safety of contaminated fish consumption is being discussed could be coded under my codes “contaminants,” “food value,” “cultural importance,” and “health, well-being, and social importance.” An initial list of codes was created prior to coding based on my conceptual framework and overarching themes expected, as well as the initial research objectives (See Appendices B and C for a full list of my coding structure and counts of coding frequency). I merged, removed and created new codes as new topics arose. Codes were arranged by topic as higher-level “parent code” topics and “child code” related subtopics (Bazeley & Jackson, 2014). The units of analysis were the three EA case study projects, the selected documents within each project, and the units coded ranged from a sentence to several paragraphs. 52 The process of finding emergent themes is called analytic induction (Babbie, 2010), which involves observing the existing data and drawing conclusions, hypotheses, and patterns from the data rather than testing an existing hypothesis. This can use manifest content (referring to explicit words), such as counting the frequency of certain words, or latent content (the underlying meaning) of a specific passage (Babbie, 2010). Both manifest and latent content coding was used, as selected keywords were used to facilitate finding relevant passages, and often were explicitly included (i.e.: “harvesting,” “consumption of country foods”), whereas latent content coding was used for sections or passages that were deemed relevant to a theme but may or may not have specifically included keywords (i.e.: "the land is our way of life and how we have survived for thousands of years”). 4.2.5 Analysis of Qualitative Coding I used both qualitative and descriptive methods for the document analysis, examining frequency of topics, common themes in the selected projects, and general occurrences of themes throughout the EA process. I examined overarching themes in discussions of food security, health, cultural, social, and economic relevance of traditional harvesting and availability and access to food, whether this is store-bought or traditional food. I used qualitative content analysis methods to analyze the EA documents and interview transcripts with the aim of interpreting and understanding the data (Babbie, 2010). Thematic analysis is the organization of content into emerging themes, reorganizing, combining, and splitting topics, and noticing patterns in the data (Bowen, 2009). Qualitative coding was used to categorize and code relevant sections of the documents and transcripts and organize these into relevant topics or themes. Qualitative analysis of documents allows for the generation of latent content which provides a deep understanding of what is going on rather than a quantitative or numeric analysis. For example, word frequency may provide a broad level of observation but not a deep understanding (Braun & Clarke, 2018). To answer my research questions, an examination of the nuances of quotes and their context is important to understand the bigger picture. I worked to interpret and understand different issues, concerns, stories and opinions raised in EA processes and their underlying meanings. I found this approach more useful for considering my research objectives. Thematic analysis guided my interpretation and development of themes. I used Braun and Clarke’s (2018) six-phase approach to thematic analysis to develop key themes from my 53 documents, codes and interpretation of the data. The phases consist of 1) familiarization with the data, 2) doing coding, 3) generating initial themes, 4) developing and reviewing themes, 5) refining, defining and naming themes, and 6) writing and analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2018, p.34). These phases are not sequential steps as they are recursive with much back and forth between phases, and between inductive and deductive reasoning. The themes are meant to explore threads of similar ideas or things that came up repeatedly in different manifestations. This was a qualitative analysis that seeks to deeply understand the meaning of food security in EA practices in the North, therefore, numbers were not used to show frequency of themes as, they can be reductive and imply that “more is better,” whereas less frequent themes or codes can be just as important (Braun & Clarke, 2018, p.141). Additionally, it is important to keep in mind that the coding process is inherently subjective. I have almost certainly missed things, or double-coded something to similar codes, so it is almost meaningless to analyze numbers as these are not entirely reliable and descriptive. These themes cannot be perfect and reflect my subjective understanding and interpretation of my work, they would be different if someone else had done this analysis. Reflexivity is crucial to understanding how my views and identity affected my analysis. Also, rather than “finding or revealing the truth,” I aimed to make sense of the data and tell a story of my understanding and interpretation of the data, because “data doesn’t speak for itself” (Braun & Clarke, 2018, p.197). Reflexive thematic analysis interpretation depends on the researcher, the context and bringing together all the information we know about a topic. While interpretation is inevitably subjective, it should be defensible (Braun & Clarke, 2018, p.199-203). 4.2.6 Document Analysis Limitations Qualitative coding is a subjective process, and the topics, themes, and organization, that I selected may have been completely different if this had been done by another researcher. I am aware of my own potential bias as the researcher; as document analysis outcomes are limited to the projects and documents I chose to examine, and my interpretation of them (discussed further in section 4.4.2). It is also guided by the input of key informants (GNWT and MVEIRB). A possible drawback of document analysis as a method is the potential bias in the documents used, as well as the biases and motivations of the people who originally created the documents for a specific purpose (Morgan, 2022; Babbie, 2010). These documents were 54 submitted to the public record or spoken transcripts in EA processes for the purposes of seeking an approval, assessing or objecting to a resource development project (Bowen, 2009; Hancock & Algozzine, 2017). This affects what data is collected and included in these documents. However, this specific purpose, and what data is included is why I am examining these, so it is not entirely a drawback in this case. Bias can also arise from biased selectivity, or availability and retrievability (Bowen, 2009; Babbie, 2010). As MVEIRB maintains a thorough online public registry, this did not pose an issue for the projects selected but may have influenced which EA projects were selected, in favor of more recent ones with all desired documents available online, or projects that I was more familiar with. One note is that I looked only at recent projects since the inception of MVEIRB and its online registry. While I could have examined older projects, it may have been difficult to track down hard copies of documents remotely. The MVRMA only came into effect in 1998, so prior to this, projects were entirely under federal control by the Federal Environmental Review Office (prior to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, now the Impact Assessment Agency). It would be less useful to compare an older regulatory regime, therefore I focused on more recent projects assessed by the current MVRMA regime. 4.3 Semi-Structured Interviews with EA Practitioners 4.3.1 Interview Design: Development of Interview Questions I used a semi-structured approach to the interviews that allowed participants to discuss what they deemed to be relevant and to be open to unexpected topics or insights I had not previously considered (Bouma et al., 2012). The interview questions were designed to be structured enough to elicit responses to specific questions, but deliberately open-ended to encourage discussion. The questions focused on food-related issues arising in EA processes, recommendations and potential for improvement, and regulatory consideration of food security. The interview questions are included in Appendix D and are discussed in more detail in the interview results (chapter six). An advantage of semi-structured interviews is recruiting people with the specific experience you are looking to learn from. It can be more effective to speak directly to these people rather than trying to gain this information through other means. 4.3.2 Sampling Design: Participant Selection, Recruitment, and Interview Process Interview participant sampling was non-probabilistic and purposeful; people with specific experience were recruited to provide insight on the research topic. Due to the scope specifically 55 on EA processes, interview participants were recruited for specific reasons including expertise in EA, professional experience or specific perspectives relating to food security in EA. The aim was to include a broad variety of participants which provides maximum variation in accounts. I recruited participants from federal, territorial and Indigenous governments, regulators, industry and consultants. I created a list of desired potential participants, and organizations and discussed with research partners; however, the final interviewees depended on participant interest, willingness, and availability. There were also aspects of convenience sampling as interviewees were the most easily accessible people, who I was able to contact, and who responded (Babbie, 2010). As I had previous work experience in EA in the north, this was partly biased towards people I knew professionally. Recruitment of potential interview participants was done initially by email and phone via publicly available contact information. Snowball sampling was used in some cases, whereby the initial participants suggested further interview participants, and in some cases facilitated an introduction (Bouma et al., 2012; Babbie, 2010). Fifteen interviews, including three group interviews, eleven one-on-one interviews, and one written response were conducted between April and October 2022 (Table 3). Due to COVID-19 considerations, all but one interview was conducted over the UBC-licensed Zoom videoconferencing platform. One group interview was conducted in-person in Yellowknife. Interviews were done either in small groups (2-5 people), individual interviews, or written responses to the interview questions. Interview participants were given an initial recruitment invitation, an individual or group interview consent form, and were provided with the interview questions ahead of time (see Appendix D). Participants reviewed, signed, and returned the consent forms prior to the interview, or consent was obtained verbally and recorded over Zoom. Table 3: Categories of interviewee organizations. Interviewee Organization Interviews (n=15) Number of people (n=22) Government (Territorial or Federal) 5 6 Indigenous Government or Indigenous Organization 3 3 Co-Management Board 3 7 Industry 1 1 Consultants or other 3 5 56 4.3.3 Interview Transcription, Qualitative Coding, and Analysis Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Initially, they were automatically transcribed during the interview using the Zoom closed captioning voice-to-text function, then later manually adjusted for accuracy using the audio recording. The transcripts were then imported into NVivo and coded thematically using the same coding structure used for the EA document analysis for consistency and ease of comparison. I examined each interview question for recurring themes between interviews, and included illustrative quotes that were either representative or memorable, these were anonymized but organized into categories as described above. Next, I examined the responses to interview questions and qualitative codes to identify key themes across the dataset and describe the overall insights and outcomes of the interviews (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). 4.3.4 Interview Limitations Limitations of the interviews include access and availability of participants, as I was only able to speak to people who were willing and available. Some people I wanted to interview had either changed roles, unreachable, not interested, didn’t have time to participate, or did not think their perspective would contribute much. Another limitation is the diversity of interview participants, I would have liked to interview a wider range of people but was limited by potential interviewees’ time and availability. Semi-structured interviews can also have bias, as both the researcher and the interview participants come with their own biases and objectives. Group interviews can have drawbacks like group dynamics, with certain people speaking or contributing more than others, and “groupthink” or the group agreeing rather than sharing differing opinions. Conversely, hearing others’ responses can stimulate discussion, encourage ideas, and help avoid repetition of the same points (Frey & Fontana, 2002). As most interviews took place over Zoom, this made conversations and developing rapport slightly more difficult. Also, internet connectivity or technology posed a challenge at times, as well as ensuring all group interview participants had a chance to speak. However, scheduling virtual interviews was much easier than if they had been scheduled in person. As EA and food security are two topics that are not typically considered together, one challenge was people being reluctant to participate in interviews because they did not consider themselves knowledgeable enough about both topics. While all interview participants were asked 57 the same questions, the responses of each person varied based on their work, experiences, and knowledge of the topic. 4.4 Ethical Considerations 4.4.1 Ethics Approvals The interview portion of this research underwent an ethics review and was approved by the UBC Okanagan Behavioural Research Ethics Board in February 2022 (Approval H21-02228). Participants were interviewed in their professional capacity and were not considered a vulnerable group. This project received a scientific research license (license #16980) from the Northwest Territories Aurora Research Institute, which included review by local and regional organizations. As my project was planned and conducted when COVID-19 made travel either impossible or uncertain, it was designed to be a desktop and remote study as much as possible. While I completed the health and safety protocol documentation to allow for possible in-person interviews, all but one interview was conducted remotely (Zoom or written). No travel to small remote communities occurred due to COVID-19 considerations. Most interviewees were based in Yellowknife, so travel to remote communities was not required. 4.4.2 Reflexivity and Positionality In qualitative research, the researcher is an instrument of data collection, and has the potential for bias and subjectivity (Simon, 2011; Creswell, 2018). Reflexivity is self-reflection by the researcher about their role, subjective experiences, background and culture, and how these may affect how the study was carried out and interpreted (Creswell, 2018; Darwin Holmes, 2020). Positionality acknowledges the position or identity of the researcher in the context of the community or topic being researched and recognizing that being an academic researcher is a position of relative power and privilege (Muhammed et al. 2015). My identity as a researcher is that I am white, middle-class, female-identifying, non-Indigenous, of settler descent. I was born and raised in Yellowknife, NWT on Chief Drygeese territory of the Yellowknives Dene First Nation, and Arviat, Nunavut. I am currently living and studying in Kelowna, BC on unceded Syilx Okanagan Nation territory. Having lived and worked in the north for most of my life, I would say I am an “insider” as a northerner myself and understand the northern lived experience to a good extent. I have worked in the NWT in EA processes in environmental consulting and government. While I am early in my career and still 58 learning, I am fortunate to have related work experience and professional connections relevant to this project. I am aware of my “outsider” identity while studying questions of food insecurity, traditional food systems, decolonization, and western and European control vs. Indigenous traditions. I am conscious that I am in a relatively privileged position as a white settler in an academic setting, and that I am benefiting academically and professionally from a topic that touches on aspects of Indigenous culture and traditions that are not my own. I have also not experienced food insecurity. My research focuses on the larger issue of northern food security and its consideration in an EA context. Also, as the researcher, I had the power to decide what topics and questions to pursue, whose voices and opinions to present and interpret in my analysis of results - this reflects my own values and biases (Muhammed et al., 2015). I am conscious of this power imbalance and how this may limit my results. 4.4.3 Indigenous Research Considerations Due to the nature of food systems in the NWT, this project considered some Indigenous topics around traditional food, harvesting and the link to culture. It was not conducted as community-based participatory research, as my research focus was how food is considered in EA processes. I worked to include a diverse group of interviewees and perspectives; most of my EA practitioner interviewees tended to be non-Indigenous. Due to time constraints I had to proceed with people who were willing and available to speak with me within the time I had for conducting interviews. I am aware that this may have limited the validity of my results. Limited capacity at Indigenous governments can be an issue in EA and this may be another manifestation of that. My interviews were aimed at EA practitioners and understanding food security’s consideration in EA processes. It was not to document experiences of northerners dealing with food insecurity, speak to Indigenous harvesters or to gather Indigenous knowledge. While important, this was out of the scope of this research project, and there is much other research examining these topics and perspectives already. I worked to include Indigenous voices and perspectives in various stages of my research. In the literature, I looked specifically for research by Indigenous researchers, participatory research, or research focused on Indigenous issues and perspectives. My document analysis included transcripts of public hearings where members of the public and Indigenous 59 governments, Indigenous organizations, and individuals spoke and provided their opinions and concerns. As quoted in Kovach (2018), “Just as corporations aspire to extract natural resources from Indigenous lands, much research within Indigenous communities is an extractive process.” While this can be true in the north, my research findings will be shared to ensure they benefit northerners. Also, EA assumes an extractive Western colonial and imperialist mindset around “development” of lands (Tuhiwai Smith, 2021). As Tuhiwai Smith (2021) writes, “Western knowledge and science are beneficiaries of the colonization of Indigenous peoples.” It is impossible to examine this topic without acknowledging the colonial and imperialist history of Canada, and legacy of intergenerational trauma from residential schools, displacement, and dispossession of Indigenous peoples in our country’s history, and disconnection from their language and culture. There has historically been “colonial education,” effectively positioning western knowledge and thinking as superior (Tuhiwai Smith, 2021). My research acknowledges this unsettling past while advancing Indigenous sovereignty and reconciliation and recognizing that traditional knowledge is equally valid as scientific knowledge. 60 Chapter 5: Document Analysis of Three MVEIRB Environmental Assessment Processes 5.1 Introduction In relation to my research questions, this chapter primarily addresses question 1) How is food security currently addressed in northern EA processes? This chapter explores my qualitative thematic analysis of documents from three separate MVEIRB EA processes. These cases all had food security or subsistence concerns. First, I outline the common themes I developed through my thematic analysis. Next, in my case studies, I discuss how these themes played out in each particular EA context. While there are many overlapping themes and topics amongst all three projects, some themes are more prevalent or unique to certain projects. These themes and case studies explore the concept of food security and food and how it manifests in northern EA processes. However, it is important to note that every EA and every project is different. These differences are a product of many factors, including the location, affected community, activity type, or nature of the proponent. The data and codes (full list of coding structure in Appendix B) are organized into the following seven key themes (Table 4) based on my understanding and interpretation of the data. There is inevitably an overlap between some aspects of these themes as they are complex and interrelated. It is difficult to tease them apart, as this is the nature of the issue of food, culture, land and environment, well-being and identity in the north. These themes broadly demonstrate different ways food security and food-related issues commonly present themselves in my three examined cases. The themes are broader than just food security, they describe potential impacts to food or values linked to food. The themes also fit well with the pillars of food security (availability, accessibility, utilization, stability) and the concept of food sovereignty as discussed in chapter two. I will discuss this more at the end of this chapter (section 5.3). First, I will describe the seven key themes. Next, the three case studies will show specific food security and food-related examples that came up in these processes, and how they relate to the themes. Finally, a discussion and summary bring the three case studies together to better understand their common and unique characteristics. 61 5.1.1 Description of Key Themes Table 4: Themes from thematic analysis. Theme Description and examples Cultural continuity Food’s link to cultural continuity, cultural and social importance. Transmission of traditional knowledge, language and skills to future generations, social capital and community cohesion, connection with the land, spiritual value. Holistic well-being Food’s importance for individual health and well-being – physical, mental, social, emotional - such as its nutritional value, being out on the land, practicing culture, strengthening relationships. Contaminants and perception of the land Contaminants, actual or perceived. Uncertainty and perception of safety of land-based food consumption and water. Can lead to avoidance of areas or country foods. Harvest pressure and access Access and harvest pressure – either lack of access or too easy for others to access for hunting and fishing. Links to seasonality or weather (change in ice, road, boat access, extreme weather), or other changes influencing access (i.e., new roads). Having to travel further distances may mean harvesting in another group’s territory, or others may be harvesting where they previously had not. Environmental degradation and climate change Physical impacts to wildlife habitat, fragmentation, barrier effects or removal of habitat, and changes to species types, abundance, and quality. Uncertainty or unpredictability of the environment. Cumulative effects, legacy development impacts. Economic factors Cost of living, access to and cost of store-bought foods, income and wage employment vs traditional livelihoods, ability to obtain equipment, fuel, time for hunting. Education and skills, availability, cost, transportation. Indigenous sovereignty Indigenous self-determination, self-sufficiency. Continued impacts of colonialism and forced assimilation. Responsibility over the land and its preservation for future generations. Distrust of government. Food is important for cultural continuity Food and food-related activities are important for practicing and continuing culture and traditions (Auger, 2016). Traditional knowledge is passed on through hunting, gathering and preparing food, speaking traditional languages and practicing food-related skills. Also, community cohesion and social capital are solidified by sharing food and teaching younger generations skills to be on the land, harvest and prepare food. This includes cultural ecosystem services or cultural intangibles (Satz et al., 2013) as well as the intrinsic value of the land, and the importance of place and being on the land (Gregory et al., 2020; Satterfield et al., 2013). The connection to the land and practicing culture is also often linked to Indigenous identity and 62 spirituality. A lack of cultural continuity and traditional foods can contribute to negative mental health outcomes (Jonasson et al., 2013). Food affects holistic well-being Food contributes to both community well-being and overall individual well-being in various ways. This can be seen in terms of food’s nutritional and cultural value affecting a person’s well-being, physical, and mental benefits of being on the land. Communal food-related experiences such as sharing food, harvesting, or preparing food can support social and community well-being. Food can also contribute to positive mental health. Country foods are commonly seen as more nutritious and healthier than store-bought foods, linked to overall well-being, and even that store-bought foods could be linked to illness. Contaminants and perception of the land affect food Contaminants in the environment, whether real or perceived, can affect relationships to land-based foods. Contamination can affect water quality, fish, wildlife, and bioaccumulation. When there is uncertainty about the presence or effects of contaminants, this altered perception and uncertainty about the safety of the land and food from the land can lead to avoidance of certain areas and reduced consumption of traditional foods (Jonasson et al., 2019). This in turn can lead to overconsumption of less nutrient-dense store-bought alternatives. Consumption of contaminated foods can have serious health impacts such as toxicity and chronic diseases like diabetes and cancer (Jonasson et al., 2019). Harvest pressure and access Access to harvesting and fishing areas, such as road, lake, or river access can affect availability of food. Conversely, if access is too easy, or becomes easier for more people, this can lead to overharvesting or decreased harvest success. For example, a new road might allow access to good hunting areas or fishing lakes or rivers that were previously remote. Regulatory mechanisms such as no-harvest zones and harvest restrictions such as for the Bathurst caribou and restricting harvest from roads all seek to manage these tandem issues of physical access and harvest pressure. Environmental degradation and climate change affect food Direct physical environmental impacts are regularly assessed in EA processes, such as land clearing, new roads or right-of-way construction, mining pits or waste rock piles. This can cause direct wildlife habitat loss or impact, habitat fragmentation and barriers to wildlife 63 movement. This includes indirect impacts like climate change and cumulative effects. Environmental disturbance impacts such as noise, dust, and vibration will also affect wildlife behavior and movement patterns, such as wildlife avoidance of disturbed areas. Economic factors affect food access Access to both store-bought and harvested foods can be limited by economic factors such as cost, employment and education. This can include having the financial means to purchase hunting and fishing equipment, as well as the skills and the time to be able to go out and harvest food. Barriers to accessing store-bought foods can include high prices, limited availability and poor quality, as well as socioeconomic disadvantages such as inequality and impacts of colonialism (Kenny et al., 2018). This also means people may be buying foods of lower nutritional value as these are generally cheaper. Indigenous sovereignty is key to food security Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination are closely linked to food sovereignty and food systems. Impacts to the land and the loss of ability and skills to harvest could impact sustainability and self-sufficiency to maintain traditional livelihoods and way of life. This relates to the ideas of power, control, and decision-making over land and food systems that are inherent in the concept of food sovereignty. While s.35 of the Constitution Act guarantees Aboriginal rights to hunt, fish and trap, it must also be possible and practical to sustain yourself on harvested foods – for example that the money and time invested in hunting will pay off as food. The shifts towards western, store-bought foods requires a reliance on income and the wage economy. 5.2 Document Analysis Case Studies 5.2.1 The Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road Background The Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road (TASR) project is a new 97 km all-weather highway connecting the community of Whatı̀ and the Tłı̨chǫ region to the NWT’s Highway 3 near Behchokǫ̀, and the main NWT highway system. The Tłı̨chǫ signed a comprehensive land claim and self-government agreement (the Tłı̨chǫ Agreement) in 2005, creating the Tłı̨chǫ Government. Whatı̀, a small 93% Indigenous community of 500 people, was previously only accessible by plane, or seasonal winter ice road for a few months a year, on average late January to mid-April (GNWT INF). The TASR would also lengthen the season that the more northern Tłı̨chǫ communities of Gamètı̀ and Wekweètı̀ are accessible by ice road. The road alignment 64 would follow an existing trail, an abandoned winter road, and would include a 60 m wide right-of-way clearing, 12 culverts and four bridge crossings. The proposed road alignment would be 77 km on territorial lands, and 17 km on Tłı̨chǫ lands, but the GNWT and Tłı̨chǫ Government agreed to transfer the Tłı̨chǫ right-of-way section to the territorial government. Road traffic was estimated to be 20-40 vehicles a day. In the construction phase, there would be several temporary work camps and borrow pits. Initial land use permit and water license applications for the TASR were submitted to the Wek’èezhı̀ı Land and Water Board (WLWB) in March 2016, then an EA was initiated in July 2016 by MVEIRB. The project developer was the GNWT Department of Infrastructure. The Tłı̨chǫ Government (TG) and Community Government of Whatı̀ largely supported the project. Once permitted, a private contractor hired by the GNWT would build and operate the road for 25 years in a public-private partnership. Since it is a permanent highway, it would operate indefinitely. The TASR would also support resource development in the area. Fortune Minerals’ NICO cobalt, bismuth, gold and copper mine north of Whatı̀ was previously assessed and approved in 2013 but has yet to begin construction. The road would serve as an access road to the mine, so would greatly increase the likelihood the mine would be developed, and estimated NICO mine traffic was included in road design. If constructed, NICO mine would bring economic activity and growth to the region. Road access would also “open up” this region to new resource development in the future. Food security was a topic of conversation in this EA in several different ways, as the new road had the potential to both help and hinder food security in Whatı̀. The key food-related themes in this case were 1) economic access in that the road access would lower cost of living and goods, 2) harvest pressure and access to both caribou and fish, and 3) change in harvesting having potential impacts to cultural continuity and holistic well-being. The road will lower the cost of living - economic In theory, the road would support food security by allowing cheaper access to store-bought foods. A key benefit of this highway was that it would provide year-round road access for truck transport of goods into Whatı̀, as well as allowing community members to drive to Behchokǫ̀, Yellowknife, or further south for cheaper access to groceries, fuel, and other services, thus lowering the cost of living. The developer predicted that “food security and the cost of 65 living could improve with project operations.” (MVEIRB, TASR REA, 2018). The road would allow for more frequent community resupply, employment, and industry opportunities, and would also bring potential tourism and other benefits. In the short‐term, construction may result in less country foods and more dependence on store‐bought foods. Once the road is operational, reductions in cost of living and food cost will begin to offset any reduction in availability of country foods. - GNWT, TASR REA, 2018. Most parties agreed the all-season road would decrease the high cost of living and improve overall quality of life (TG Tech report; TASR REA 2018). This would especially benefit people with lower incomes, such as Elders, youth and the unemployed (TASR REA, p. 5-38). Despite concerns about social and harvesting issues due to increased road access, it was generally agreed that the benefits would outweigh the risks: Yes…the food prices are pretty high in this community and even the fuel prices as well. The food prices across the country [are] not any better but yet once the winter road -- once the all-season road clings to our community, that it might…somewhat ease up…the freight rate and probability of looking up for a brighter future such as employment that might come along with. So, quite hopeful and confident that life might change for the better. -Whatı̀ Elder Louis Wederin, TASR hearing transcript, 11/15/2017, (p. 201) The road may affect hunting success – access and harvest pressure Increased access could increase fishing and hunting harvest pressure by outsiders in these previously harder to access areas, possibly in an unsustainable way. There can also be an impact from the road itself, with traffic scaring away wildlife, as well as causing barrier and fragmentation effects. Easier road access could increase harvest pressure in the region, especially from outsiders and non-Indigenous people. Harvest of barren-ground caribou (ɂekwo), particularly the Bathurst herd, is restricted due to plummeting population numbers (GNWT ECC). Boreal caribou (tǫdzı) are already a species at risk under the federal Species at Risk Act and the territorial Species at Risk (NWT) Act, and as many have switched to hunting boreal caribou, there is increased pressure on boreal caribou as a food source: “The WRRB [Wek’èezhı̀ı Renewable Resource Board] and Yellowknives Dene First Nation highlighted in their closing arguments the concern that with the current severe harvest restrictions on barren ground caribou, boreal caribou has become all the more important as a source of country food.” (TASR REA, 2018). New road access could increase hunting pressure on boreal caribou, further affecting sustainability of caribou populations, which would impact local harvesters. EA participants called for measures 66 such as no-hunting zones for non-Indigenous people, completion of boreal caribou range plans, or no-hunting rules around the road. However, a lack of baseline boreal caribou population estimates means it is difficult to know whether the population is increasing or decreasing, or to attribute any changes to the road and increased access (TASR REA p. 245). Caribou behavior could be affected by the road itself, for example by avoidance of the road, and due to impacts to movement like habitat fragmentation, and other road EA projects commonly assess this. Wildlife avoidance of the road might impact hunting success around the road and would require harvesters to travel further distances. The WRRB specifically mentioned the lack of analysis regarding hunting resulting from increased access from the road and the impacts this may have on caribou behavior, as well as the existence of the road itself and increased traffic (WRRB Technical Report). Roads are known to have a barrier effect to wildlife movement, and linear fragmentation divides habitat into sections. Any impacts on wildlife access or availability would affect the harvest economy (including food) and related cultural practices (Tłı̨chǫ TK Study). The road could also allow access to new species such as wood bison into the area, which could compete with and scare off preferred harvested species like caribou and moose (TASR REA, 2018, p. 251). The new road access would increase the likelihood of further cumulative developments in the area such as new mines, exploration, and discovery of new deposits. It is reasonably foreseeable that the NICO mine would go ahead once the road is constructed. This could have knock-on cumulative effects further impacting wildlife habitat and harvesting areas in the future. On the other hand, the new road access could bring beneficial effects such as employment, increased tourism, and even easier harvesting access for Tłı̨chǫ residents: ...we believe that the proposed Tłı̨chǫ all season road will lead to improved access to Tłı̨chǫ traditional lands, and throughout for Tłı̨chǫ citizens. This will, in turn, lead to increased accessibility for harvesters, especially for youth to be on the land, which in turn promotes the connection to Tłı̨chǫ language, culture, and way of life. Masi cho. -Jessica Hum, Tłı̨chǫ Government - TASR hearing transcript, 11/16/2017, p. 126-127 Fishing access and pressure The TG told MVEIRB that “… fishing, fish species, and fishing locations are crucial to the Tłı̨chǫ way of life” (TASR REA). Fish is a reliable and secure source of food and protein year-round, available even when other meat such as caribou or moose are not (TASR REA p. 67 233; WRRB technical report). Elders at the TASR hearings spoke of traditions of setting nets in both the summer and winter, and sharing fish, as well as feeding fish to dogs, which is important if hunters use dog teams to hunt other animals like caribou. Lac La Martre, the La Martre River, and other small lakes and rivers in the area are a productive fishery that supports traditional harvesting activities of fishing, hunting, and trapping near the proposed road. Fishing occurs year‐round and many people camp on islands in the La Martre River to set fishnets and prepare dry fish. The Review Board stated that the “impacts from increased access resulting from the Project are particularly significant because they are likely to affect an important subsistence fishery.” (TASR REA p. 234). People really live off fish here in Whatì. So, they really respect fish and if there are some changes in the fish they know right away. - Charlie Jim Nitsiza, July 11, 2017; WRRB Technical Report One concern was that with easier road access, non-Indigenous recreational sport fishing would place additional fishing pressure on the region, as it would be only a few hours' drive from Yellowknife. This increased tourism for sport fishing in the area could impact fishing success and size of fish, and potentially sustainability of fish stocks. If the…all-weather road is in, it's going to be lots of people from all over, non-Native, they might go fishing. It would be good if they be... watch out for that because we live with fish. We don't want them to go fishing and pick all the fish out. If we set nets that's how we live. They need to be watched if they're going to go on our land here to do fishing and other -- setting nets. It'd be good if you guys were helping. – Tłı̨chǫ Elder Jimmy Rabesca, Nov. 15, 2017, TASR hearing transcript, p.57 The Review Board cautioned the proponent against using "self-sustaining and ecologically effective" as an assessment endpoint, as social, cultural, economic values such as ability to harvest need to also be accounted for (TASR REA p.231). While the rivers and lakes can likely support some increased fishing pressure, the increased access will likely affect "size, distribution and health," of fish stocks, which also matter to people who rely on harvesting fish. Cultural importance, harvesting and identity Whatı̀ and the Tłı̨chǫ region rely on the traditional subsistence economy and harvesting, partly to offset the high cost of living and fluctuations in wage economy. In 2014, nearly 60% of households in Whatì reported that country foods accounted for at least half or more of their diet. The traditional economy goes beyond just harvesting activities, it includes the preparation, cooking and distribution of country foods. These activities involve the entire community—68 women, men, and children (PR#110 p5‐11). The traditional economy is also important for healthy eating, intergenerational relations and knowledge and cultural transfer, strengthening social bonds through food sharing, and a relationship with the land and wildlife (TASR REA, p. 19). There was concern that the road would affect Tłı̨chǫ culture, language and identity, and the new road would encourage more reliance on western lifestyles and the wage economy. Potential impacts to wildlife from the TASR would affect harvesters who rely on being able to hunt in the Tłı̨chǫ region. Elders and harvesters are concerned that the project will have adverse impacts on wildlife they hunt and on wildlife habitat - this “would affect both the local hunting economy and the cultural practices related to being on the land” (Tłı̨chǫ Government TK Study; TASR REA, p. 246) Food security is implicit in the discussion of "harvesting," which is often used as a proxy for way of life, traditional economy, and access to food. While food security and the food value of traditional foods in the public health and physical or socioeconomic sense is important, food-related concerns as raised in this EA seemed to touch on a more holistic well-being and existential sense, as Tłı̨chǫ culture is entwined in harvesting. This was clearly and explicitly recognized in the EA both by regulators as well as Indigenous government representatives and elders. Traditional foods are also key to a connection with the land, sharing stories, knowledge and language transmission with younger generations, which often revolves around hunting, preparing and sharing food. Aspects of Tłı̨chǫ identity relate to harvesting and land-based skills – including social and personality traits such as patience, acute observation, and adaptability (TASR REA). There was concern that the TASR would affect the prevalence of the Tłı̨chǫ language. As of 2009, 92% of the community of Whatı̀ fluently speaks the Tłı̨chǫ language and it is the primary language at home in Whatı̀ (Tłı̨chǫ Government; 2009 NWT Bureau of Statistics). The TG stated in their Technical Report: “Tłı̨chǫ language is currently in a state of crisis. Many factors have contributed to this loss of way of life, including disconnection from traditional practices, forced reduction in language use at residential schools, loss of community traditions such as collective hunting activities and many other factors.” The TG expects that the TASR will contribute to further decline of the Tłı̨chǫ language, as this occurred previously in Behchokǫ̀, where English is now the main language. 69 Measures and outcomes MVEIRB noted that many predictions were greatly uncertain, therefore it took a precautionary approach to its assessment and measures. Several mitigation measures in the REA related to socioeconomic monitoring relating to well-being, and harvesting including impacts to country food availability in Whatı̀ (Measures 5-1 and 5-2), and some indirectly, through wildlife management and monitoring. Measures 5-1 and 5-2 related most closely to food security and availability of country foods. People rely on country foods to offset the cost of store-bought foods. MVEIRB specifically recognized potential impacts to food, food security, and culture in the REA. These measures related to health and well-being indicators, monitoring, and adaptive management. Measures 5-1 and 5-2 include changes in harvest success and availability of country foods in Whatı̀. Measure 5-1 is the developer’s support of the community and TG, and 5-2 is the development of a framework and indicators to monitor and adaptively manage these. There were measures related to prioritizing northern hiring, particularly Tłı̨chǫ citizens (Measure 5-7), local contracting (Suggestion 5-9), and project-related training and education for Tłı̨chǫ citizens (Suggestion 5-10), which would benefit community members economically. Several wildlife management measures, while not explicitly harvesting related, indirectly support food security. Measure 6-1 directs GNWT-ENR to develop and implement a recovery strategy for boreal caribou in the NWT, and range plan, including population and harvest monitoring. A temporary no-hunting corridor along the road (Measure 6-2) aims to limit boreal caribou harvest until the recovery strategy is complete. Measure 6-3 will offset boreal caribou habitat lost by the road and right-of-way area. Measure 7-2 directs the GNWT, TG and WRRB to complete barren-ground caribou mitigation and range planning. Measure 8-1 directs Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the TG to jointly develop an Integrated Fisheries Management Plan, which would address the additional fishing pressure from new access. Next, Measure 9-1 directs the GNWT, TG, and WRRB to implement “monitoring harvest and managing wildlife to maintain successful harvest.” This would monitor Indigenous harvest to inform effective management of boreal and barren-ground caribou and moose populations. Measures 14-1 and 14-2 require annual progress reporting on MVEIRB’s project measures from the community, region, and developer – allowing for adaptive management and mitigation follow-up. Several suggestions from MVEIRB (Measure 8-1) include reviewing and learning from relevant 70 mitigation and management strategies of similar projects, such as the recent Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk highway. Summary The Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road was approved with several measures. Construction began in 2019, and the new Tłı̨chǫ Highway, or Highway 9, opened to the public on November 30, 2021. There is ongoing monitoring and development of well-being monitoring indicators by the TG and GNWT Health and Social Services, including several on food security. To date, the NICO mine has not begun construction. Food security was clearly a factor in the TASR EA, especially as MVEIRB dedicated measures specifically to the impacts to country foods and associated health and well-being impacts. The road could both help and hinder food security, but it seemed that the lowered cost of living and access to store-bought foods could potentially come at the expense of harvesting. 5.2.2 The Ekati Diamond Mine Jay Project Background Dominion Diamond Ekati Corporation’s (DDEC; Dominion) Jay Project was a proposed expansion of the Ekati Diamond Mine (Ekati), Canada’s first surface and underground diamond mine. The Ekati mine is located 310 km north-east of Yellowknife, on the arctic tundra near two lakes, Lac de Gras and Lac du Sauvage (see Figure 4 in Chapter 4). Ekati was originally approved by MVEIRB in 1996, and officially began operation in October 1998. DDEC submitted water license and land use permit applications in October 2013 for an expansion of Ekati mine involving two new open pits to access the Jay and Cardinal kimberlite pipes, and were referred to EA. However, the Cardinal portion was soon removed, and the application proceeded with just the Jay pipe. The proposed Jay project would involve construction of a horseshoe-shaped dyke in Lac du Sauvage, draining of the portion of the lake within the dyke area, and construction and excavation of the pit, and a nearby waste rock pile. The Ekati mine is already in operation, and Rio Tinto’s Diavik Diamond Mine is only 30 km away, so this area has had significant development impacts since the early 2000s. These large lakes, Lac de Gras and Lac du Sauvage, and the narrows between the lakes have historically been culturally important fishing areas, and barren-ground caribou migration habitat, where many communities would travel to camp and harvest annually. The area is 71 important both culturally and for procuring food. Many Indigenous groups, including the Łutsel K’e Dene First Nation (LKDFN), Yellowknives Dene First Nation (YKDFN), Denı́nu Kų́ę́ First Nation (DKFN), North Slave Métis Alliance (NSMA) and many Tłı̨chǫ communities, extending as far as Nunavut (Kitikmeot Inuit Association), rely on the Bathurst barren-ground caribou herd. The main food-related issues in the Jay Project EA relating to food were impacts to the landscape and caribou habitat, caribou harvest restrictions due to the Bathurst herd decline, traditional economy versus wage employment, cumulative effects, and the perception of the land. The importance of caribou for food, culture and tradition to many communities is one of the main topics in this project. The things that we're mostly dealing with is community affairs and social and people -- loss of lives, and loss of our food habitat. And so those are the things that are -- impacted us the most. And for myself, I'm a hunter. I live off the land. And this is the first time in my life that I have no caribou meat this year, so I'm living off the store food now, so that's a big question for me. – Brian Sanderson, Łutsel’ Ke Dene First Nation. Jay hearing transcript day 1, Sept 14, 2015, p. 245. The caribou is very, very important in our lives. They are our main source of food for our community. I'm very worried about the impact it will have for our future generations. We eat caribou almost every day in our livelihood. For me, it's like, what if you were told that cows are declining and you will have no beef for a while? Wouldn't you worry about it? Thank you. - Berna Catholique, Łutsel’Ke Dene First Nation. Jay hearing transcript, Sept. 15, 2015, p.355. ...our livelihood is caribou; that's where we eat from. We don't have caribou, we don't have food on our table. They mean so much to us. It's just not an animal. It's a sacred animal that gives its life for us to eat. - Cathy Marlowe, LKDFN member. Jay hearing transcript, Łutsel K’e, Sept 19, 2015, p.145. Cumulative effects and impacts to caribou The Bathurst barren-ground caribou herd is at historically low numbers, having declined approximately 93-95% from a population of 470,000 in the 1980s to an estimated 20,000 in 2015 (LKDFN Technical Report, TASR DAR; GNWT ECC website). In response to this, the GNWT imposed restrictions in 2015 on any harvesting from the herd, including by Indigenous harvesters, through a mobile no-hunting zone, tracked through radio collars. This ban was unprecedented and affects constitutional s.35 rights but was deemed necessary for the recovery of the Bathurst herd. 72 The Lac du Sauvage and Lac de Gras area has been important to Indigenous groups for cultural uses and largely for harvesting caribou, which was stressed by the LKDFN and YKDFN in their technical reports and in the hearing. This area already has significant cumulative effects to caribou, from the existing Ekati and Diavik diamond mines, as well as climate change, and the Jay Project would exacerbate this. The Jay Project would be in a historic caribou migration route and pose a barrier to caribou movement through habitat loss by the road and waste rock pile, and by dust contaminating plants eaten by caribou, as well as noise and sensory disruptions causing avoidance. And so ever since the mine is on our lands, we're having many caribou that used to migrate through there, they're not going through the migration areas anymore. And so, if we went onto your lands and developed all this, what are you going to give in return for us? It seems like you've taken away a lot of our resources from us. –Elder Phillip Dryneck, Behchokǫ̀ Jay Hearing Transcript, Sept. 17, 2015, p. 68-76. There was also no barren-ground caribou management plan, range plan or recovery strategy in place for the Bathurst caribou herd (Jay REA), despite the ongoing severe population declines. This means there were no thresholds or limits on development in place or criteria by which to compare or address the proposed development, in combination with other existing cumulative effects. Harvest restrictions and unfairness There was much discussion in this EA of the perceived unfairness of the ban on Bathurst caribou harvest while new resource development in key caribou habitat is being assessed and considered, even with severe declines in barren-ground caribou populations (Parlee, Sandlos & Natcher, 2018). This relates to hunting rights, and there was debate and concern as to whether this project should be going ahead when the Bathurst caribou population is so low that Indigenous groups cannot even exercise their s. 35 Aboriginal rights. There was intense frustration of the apparent disconnect: Does GNWT acknowledge that they have heard from Elders and land users that the mining industry has affected the caribou herds that are an important part of the Yellowknives Dene culture and are an important part of their food security, and are actually the focus of their exercise of Aboriginal and treaty rights? – Todd Slack, YKDFN, Jay Technical Session Transcript, April 24, 2015, p.143. In the LKDFN’s technical report, they stated: …if the Bathurst herd requires a hunting ban and is not healthy enough to sustain any harvest, then any other potential causes of caribou mortality that may reduce the 73 population cannot be sustained either. As the GNWT will only permit harvesting once the Bathurst herd population increases, then any impediment to population growth and herd recovery, such as the Jay Project, has a direct impact on traditional livelihoods and food security for the Lutsel K’e people (Jay REA; LKDFN Technical Report, p.5-6). What I'm saying is that the Company's holding the position that, even though they're minimal, the impacts they're going to have are not significant, whereas the GNWT has the position that any loss of caribou is significant, based on their harvesting ban. – Peter Unger, LKDFN, Jay Hearing, Yellowknife, September 15, 2015, p.90. Not unexpectedly, there was debate because Dominion, the developer, argued there would be no significant adverse impacts, and the Jay Project would conservatively cause a 0.3% decline in the caribou population annually, but would not reduce the Bathurst caribou herd’s ability to be “self-sustaining and ecologically effective” (Jay REA). However, there was much pushback to this conclusion in the hearings, and various parties argued that an acceptable endpoint should include the ability for sustainable harvest and Indigenous use of caribou, which MVEIRB agreed with in the REA (Jay REA, p.98). Not only would the Jay Project further impact Bathurst caribou populations, but this would affect the social, economic, and cultural well-being of the people of LKDFN, YKDFN and NSMA. The loss of harvested caribou meat means having to buy more expensive meat from the grocery store, which is also less nutritious than country food, so would have affect well-being from an economic and health perspective. And now that we have been banned, it has become illegal to [hunt]-- caribou. It has been sitting heavy on my mind for a long, long time. I am not used to eating meat from the stores. And now, the water all around us is going down. The water is getting really low. Pretty soon we're not going to have any fish. And -- the caribou diet is only with lichen. Now, if all of that is covered with dust, they're not going to be able to eat. - Elder Elizabeth Michel, Jay Hearing transcript p.112, Behchokǫ̀, September 17, 2015. Culture, health and well-being, social, future generations In their technical reports and in the hearings, almost all members of the LKDFN, YKDFN, NSMA and Tłı̨chǫ opposed the project due to the impact on caribou, traditional livelihoods, culture and cumulative effects. The harvest ban and loss of caribou translates into a reduction or loss of activities promoting knowledge transmission and cultural continuity, and connection with the land and places that are associated with harvesting. These also translate into a loss in community cohesion, or social capital, such as through sharing food in the community. There was a sense that their culture had been put on hold until the caribou recovered and they 74 were able to harvest again, and that the Jay Project would exacerbate this. Caribou are an important part of who they are, both for food and cultural identity (Jay REA, p. 117): We know that the caribou for all Aboriginal people in the area really defines the foundation for our language, culture, and way of life; it defines who we are. And because it defines who we are, the threat to the caribou brought to us means not only a further loss towards decline, but the loss of our way of life and our way of thinking, that we're tied to the landscape. - John B. Zoe, Tłı̨chǫ Government Presentation, Behchokǫ̀ Jay hearing transcript, Sept. 17, 2015, p.386. A transition towards more store-bought foods also means that less food is being shared, as sharing is common with country foods but less so with store-bought foods. We shared everything that was edible. (I)f we had caribou meat we shared. If we had fish — any kind of country foods — we shared with one another. But these days it's so different. Nobody will hand out a little piece of meat to share with you. – Elder Elizabeth Michel, Behchokǫ̀ Jay Hearing Transcript, Sept. 17, 2015 (p.117) Many hearing speakers stressed that harvesting and being on the land is not just for fun but for how they live and survive - they rely on wildlife, clean water, and land. Perception of the land and avoidance In the Jay Project scoping sessions, there were concerns about the mines creating “permanent scars” on the land, resulting in the loss of use of the land and water, and this would require compensation. Due to the presence of the mines, people have stopped using this area, and they find that caribou avoid it. “From start to finish, the Ekati mining operation will span more than a generation. This is an entire generation of traditional land users that have stopped using this area” (YKDFN Technical Report, p.25, PR#692; Jay REA). Many people in the hearings spoke of the caribou in this area now being less abundant, sick, or very thin. Also, there is a perception that the water tastes different and may be contaminated. While habitat can be offset or replaced elsewhere, this is not the case with culturally important areas, which have no equivalent replacement. Also, if these areas are perceived to be destroyed or contaminated because of the mines, it will result in avoidance and reduced use of these areas for traditional activities, including accessing food. In the Jay Project EA, there were concerns about water quality issues causing avoidance: “Aboriginal groups’ apprehensions and perceptions matter because they directly affect the likelihood, frequency and quality of traditional use of the Project area post-closure. Even if the water is not toxic, any elevated levels of TDS after closure that would result in perceived poor-quality water would likely adversely affect traditional us.” (Jay REA, p.54). 75 I'm Valadee Lockhart, and I'm twelve (12) years old and I'm a Lutsel K'e Dene First Nation member. I disagree with the Jay Project because of the caribou, fish, fresh water will be destroyed. Most importantly, you will be destroying the caribou migration route. Our ancestors lived off the land for hundreds of years. We can't survive off the diamonds. You've already did enough damage to our land from the current mines. Why do you need another project? Why? And twenty (20) years from now, you guys will be gone. We will still be here for hundreds of years. So, what's going to happen, our fish and our water, it will be contaminated. In the future when I'm older and ready to have children, I want them to be able to eat our traditional food and drink the fresh water that I'm able to do today. I hope the Jay Project won't happen. Masi cho. – Valadee Lockhart, Lutsel K’e Jay hearing, September 19, 2015. Whether the area is contaminated or not, the change in perception and avoidance of this area will cause a break in the continuity of use of these traditional sites, which may mean future generations will not use them. The act of avoidance effectively removes these important harvesting and traditional areas from use. There was a sense of grief over the change to the quality of the land and continuity of land use and cultural use, and a sense of responsibility to preserve the land for use by future generations. The Review Board recognized in the Jay REA (p.147) that this area has been “substantively removed from cultural use and knowledge sharing for more than a generation,” as it is perceived to be unhealthy and disturbed, and that this loss would significantly impact Indigenous way of life. Traditional economy vs. wage economy Many people at the Jay Project public hearings spoke passionately about the loss of harvesting and eating caribou meat due to the harvest restrictions. There was a sense of reluctance and that employment opportunities from the mine and relying on grocery store food was not an adequate replacement for the loss of caribou meat and decline in traditional lifestyles, as this impacted both physical and mental health. People stressed the link between the health of the land and caribou and the health of the people: I don't want to go in the grocery store and shoot my steak. It's impossible. Hey, I enjoyed going hunting on the land, because the caribou are very healthy. If the caribou are healthy, we are healthy. And, if the guys go through with the Jay pipe…you guys promise an opportunity to work. But I don't see that happening in the future, because most of our youth depend on us to teach them traditional knowledge. – Darryl Marlowe, LKDFN resident, Jay hearing transcript, Lutsel K’e, Sept. 19, 2015, p.138, emphasis added. It was also stated that harvested meat is important to offset the high grocery store costs, so has an economic benefit. This affected Elders more than young people, as they are not as accustomed to eating grocery store foods and really craved these traditional foods. 76 And when they talk about caribou and the impacts and the effects, nobody is talking about the trauma to our body when we do not have traditional foods. – Noeline Villebrun, Jay hearing transcript, Yellowknife, September 15, 2015, p. 302. This emphasizes the nutritional importance, but also the sense of overall well-being and health associated with country foods. The shift towards grocery store foods is seen as a negative thing, as a sacrifice that people are making, because they prefer to eat caribou and country foods. And so… taking it all together, the Yellowknives Dene have made a number of sacrifices. They've made sacrifice in terms of their…Aboriginal rights to hunt. They've made sacrifices in terms of…cultural practices surrounding the hunt and secondary activities that arise after the hunt. There's been sacrifices - nutritional. Just socio-economic -- nutritional sacrifices…. It’s well-documented that -- the meat from caribou…hunting generally, -- it offsets costs for things that now have to be bought at grocery stores. And that's -- these are all things that -- again, it wasn't really dealt with that much, but the -- you can't put these things in silos. Like -- the caribou are socio- economic. They are cultural. You know, they are spiritual. - Alex Power, YKDFN presentation, Jay Hearing, Behchokǫ̀, Sept. 17, 2015 p. 311-312. Measures and outcomes While there were several measures directed at caribou management, protection and offsetting of caribou habitat, there were no measures directly related to food security or the lost food value of caribou. Caribou, harvest restrictions and cultural use were significant topics of discussion in the Jay EA process, and many measures related to these. Impacts to caribou were mitigated in the following ways. Measure 6-1 addresses road mitigations from caribou impacts to mitigate barrier effects of the road and minimize habitat disturbance. Measure 6-2 (a) is a caribou offset and mitigation plan aimed to reduce impacts to cumulative effects on the Bathurst herd, such as timing of operations, and road dust suppression. Measure 6-6 requires “timely completion of caribou management plans” from the GNWT – this is necessary as it is difficult to make informed, data-driven decisions in the absence of clear management plans and recovery strategies. To address traditional use and way of life, Measure 7-1 consisted of a Traditional Knowledge Management Framework, aiming to incorporate traditional knowledge into decision-making. Measure 7-2 would support an on-the-land culture camp to retain traditional use of the area, transmission of cultural values, a connection with the land, and generational knowledge transfer. 77 Measure 8-1 was adaptive management of social impacts and well-being, to “minimize negative socioeconomic impacts of the Project on communities.” This considered assessing vulnerability and resilience to socioeconomic impacts, cumulative impacts on well-being at multiple scales (individual, family and community), and establish qualitative and quantitative indicators of well-being appropriate for a socio-economic assessment. Summary The Jay Project was approved with 22 measures and follow-up reporting requirements. However, it never began construction and the current Ekati owner, Arctic Canadian Diamond Company, has committed to not proceed with the Jay Project (WLWB, 2021), in favor of the much smaller Point Lake expansion project near the existing Misery pit. As the existing Jay Project mitigation measures are legally binding, they would remain in place and would still apply to the new Point Lake project, allowing Point Lake to not go through a full EA. However, if Jay is ever proposed again it will need to undergo another EA process (WLWB, 2021). To date, the Bathurst caribou harvest restriction remains in place, and the latest population estimate for 2021 is at 6,240 animals, down from 20,000 in 2015 (GNWT ECC website, 2023). 5.2.3 The Giant Mine Remediation Project Background Giant Mine is a former gold mine operated by several companies, including Royal Oak Mines Inc. from 1948 to 1999 (Jardine et al., 2013), and was one of the largest and most profitable in Canada. Located near Yellowknife, NWT, and the Dene communities of Dettah and Ndılǫ, Giant Mine produced gold and highly toxic arsenic trioxide as a byproduct for over 50 years. Royal Oak Mines Inc. went into receivership in 1999, and Giant Mine was transferred to the Government of Canada’s Indian and Northern Affairs (INAC, now called Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, or CIRNAC). It was under care and maintenance by Miramar Mining until 2004, when INAC and the GNWT began jointly looking at remediation and clean-up options. In 2007, an 11-person independent panel examined remediation options for the mine. One of the options included removal of the arsenic trioxide dust to store elsewhere. However, after extensive community consultation, they selected the "frozen block method” of freezing the 237,000 tons of arsenic trioxide dust in place underground. This minimizes risk from moving the contaminants and allows for the plan to be reassessed if technology changes in the future. 78 Remediation activities would consist of stabilizing the site, demolishing and cleaning up contaminated material such as buildings, contaminated soil, and stabilizing it underground, as well as long-term monitoring. A water license was initially submitted for the remediation project to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, and initially did not require an EA. After concerns were raised by the City of Yellowknife and YKDFN in 2008, the Giant Mine Remediation Project was referred to MVEIRB for EA, which was conducted from 2010 to 2012 (Jardine et al., 2013; MVEIRB public registry). Participation funding was provided to YKDFN, North Slave Metis Alliance (NSMA), and Alternatives North (a social justice coalition in the NWT). The Giant Mine Remediation Project is co-managed by the Governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories, under a cooperation agreement (GNWT ECC website, Giant Mine Remediation Project), and were co-proponents in the EA process. While the mine site is now undergoing environmental remediation, the legacy of its operations and arsenic contamination still affects the local community, particularly with respect to YKDFN and NSMA. The main food-related themes in this case were contaminants and perception of the land, impacts to cultural continuity and well-being from loss of access to food, and uncertainty and avoidance due to lack of trust and risk communication. EA for a remediation project The Giant Mine Remediation Project EA was for a site remediation undertaking, rather than a new development. So, it is a different type of EA approach because remediation, by definition, should be a net benefit in terms of contaminants and impacts as it is “cleaning up” or “restoring” the site. The remediation would stabilize and freeze the highly toxic arsenic trioxide dust underground, remove mine site buildings, and remediate the mine site itself. However, it would not address the vast and widespread arsenic contamination in surrounding areas, which have been effectively lost to local harvesters for a long time. The remediation process would not return the land to how it was before. Stories from Elders describe how the area was used culturally for fishing, fish camps, harvesting wildlife, picking berries and medicinal plants. The perception of this area is now that it is contaminated, dangerous and cannot be trusted. We've been pressured in the past to make decisions, and those decisions always turn out bad. Our people suffer, and the land is deteriorated. The animals that depend on it are no longer safe for us to eat, and this is going to affect our future people, and not only the Dene, but also other people that live in the North, that consider their home the North, the North their home. - Gerry Cheezie, Ndılǫ resident, Giant Mine Remediation hearing, Sept 11, 2012 79 There was a sense of grief about the historic loss of land use, the toxic contamination of the surrounding area that will never truly be the same, the need for perpetual care of the site, and concerns about impacts to future generations (Beckett, 2021). Many Indigenous groups and participants discussed the past impacts of Giant mine. There is still much pain, loss of culture and tradition. While this was deemed “out of scope” of the remediation project EA, the history, legacy and link to colonization, dispossession and loss of traditional land use remains a potent issue, and there seemed to be distrust that this would not happen again. Contaminants, perception of the land and safety of food consumption A major theme of the Giant Mine Remediation Project EA is contaminants, and the perception and uncertainty about possible contamination of food and water. A common comparison was that arsenic contamination is like a monster under the ground and possibly in themselves, with the real potential to harm them. This comparison elicits fear, uncertainty, avoidance, suspicion of whether the water, fish and wildlife are safe to consume: There's a -- monster down there. And that monster-- it's creating something in us because we're eating the fish, we're eating the animals. So -- we're like a walking time bomb, dying slowly because -- we eat all that -- we eat the fish. We eat the caribou. - George Tatsiechele, YKDFN. Giant Public Hearing Transcript, Sept. 12, 2012, p.391; Giant REA. The widespread contamination from Giant Mine is a source of fear and anxiety. Dene and Métis residents have emphasized that they are afraid about the arsenic pollution – to drink the water, to eat the fish (Giant hearing transcript, Sept. 12, 2012, PR#577 p.366, p.378). For residents, as we've heard, and indigenous people, awareness of this condition is psychologically pervasive and weighs on the mind – Bob Bromley, Member of the Legislative Assembly, Giant Mine Remediation Public hearing transcript, Giant REA There is powerlessness in this uncertainty about harvested food being safe, and the resulting mental and emotional weight is itself an impact. Contamination impacts the water, vegetation, fish and possibly other harvested wildlife, and remediation efforts will not be able to remedy all contamination entirely, so this problem will persist. As the mine is close to Yellowknife, Dettah and Ndılǫ, there was also concern about contaminated dust on plants and gardens in the community. This altered perception of the land leads to avoidance of these previously important areas and foods, which may ultimately affect food access and food security. 80 Where are the areas that would be safe for people to harvest or consume berries around the site and where is it not safe? – Shannon Ripley, Yellowknife Resident, Giant Mine Remediation Hearing transcript, Sept. 11, 2012, p.324-325. In 1951, a Dene child died from arsenic contamination from Giant Mine (Keeling & Sandlos, 2012). YKDFN and NSMA, who relied on this area now need to travel much further distances and are unable to use this land or drink this water that is right outside their doors. This certainly impacts food access and availability, increases distances to travel to harvest and gather food, and creates fear and uncertainty around what is safe for consumption or not. The governments [were] supposed to provide education, health benefits, housing, and they also told us we would never be prevented from harvesting on our lands. Everyone knows that, how dead it is. If you look in that photos it looks so ugly and dead, because that monster underneath has killed the land. They've broken -- the government has broken the agreements on many levels. When I say the "loss of land," I don't mean only the vegetation. We can't use that land anymore, everyone. Our ancestors had trails all over in that area. Those we don't use anymore. The loss of plants, medicine, the migration route, the freshwater, the food, our animal habitats, it's all lost. - Mary Rose Sundberg, Dettah resident, Giant Public Hearing, Sept. 12, 2012, Dettah. The EA laid bare the siloed thinking of government and an institutional avoidance of speaking outside of departmental mandates, which all added to community frustration. There was uncertainty whether the fish in Yellowknife Bay would be safe for consumption, and in the hearings no one seems able to answer this question. DFO, while responsible for fish, refused to comment on whether the fish were safe to eat, saying this was not their responsibility, they were only in charge of fish populations and habitat, not determining if fish were safe to eat, which would be Health Canada’s responsibility. But Health Canada was absent and did not participate in the EA process. At the September 12, 2012, Giant public hearing, DFO representatives were questioned about whether they themselves would eat fish from Baker Creek if served to them. DFO refused to answer, saying they would need more information (such as the results of the human health risk assessment or a consumption advisory on fish from Baker Creek) before deciding. Another point of contention was that DFO suggested remediation of Baker Creek for use as fish habitat, an extremely arsenic-contaminated creek near Giant Mine which flows into Great Slave Lake. Baker Creek has been historically important for coney (inconnu) spawning, but there was concern and uncertainty about whether these fish would be “healthy,” and there would be no accurate way of knowing in a lake as large as Great Slave Lake whether fish came from Baker 81 Creek or elsewhere. DFO stated that fishing from Baker Creek would not be recommended based on these facts. This is a significant environmental concern because the fish that use Baker Creek don't stay there. They migrate in and out of the area and eventually into the nets of the Yellowknives Dene fishers… So, it's not just the fish are - you used the word "healthy". We're not talking about a health issue with respect to fish. We're talking about arsenic levels within the fish tissue itself and what that means to other species who eat the fish, which is -- ourselves. - James Wahshee, Giant Public Hearing, Sept 11, 2012 Trust and communication of risks An important theme in this EA was Indigenous groups lack of trust and unclear communication from scientists and decision-makers. This sentiment is based on past experiences, widespread contamination, differences in values, and poor performance of agencies and the proponent (Jardine et al., 2013). There seemed to be a disconnect between the developer’s assumptions that remediation was inherently good, and the outcome would be a net positive, whereas the immense anger, grief and hurt of Indigenous groups due to environmental and cultural cumulative impacts and effectively permanent loss of use of this area, makes it difficult to separate past impacts with this remediation. This hesitancy to trust the government stemmed from a lack of effective risk communication (Jardine et al., 2013), as evidenced by the uncertainty around contamination, as well as a lack of input and control of the community. There was also a sense that people who were not from the region were making decisions affecting the people who lived there, and that there was a difference in understanding and values – that could not be addressed or reconciled: Your contractors have opinions about the creek, our contractors have opinions about the creek; no offence, but none of you live here and drink the water and eat the fish. YK Dene live here. North Slave Metis live here. – John Curran, MVEIRB Board Member. Giant Mine Remediation Project EA Hearing, Sept. 13, 2012. p.216 This emphasized the need for engagement with local Indigenous groups so they could have a say in guiding decision-making based on traditional knowledge, harvesting and land use. There was also distrust due to the Federal government (INAC) playing multiple roles as “proponent, regulator and inspector” (Affolder, Allen & Paruk, 2011), and the role of the federal decision-maker who signs off on the EA recommendation. This raised suspicion and lack of confidence and many people called for the creation of an independent oversight board (Affolder, Allen & Paruk, 2011). As Jardine et al. (2013) writes, distrust generally stems from past experiences and disconnect in values, leading to lack of social trust. This created a view that 82 government was prioritizing the economy over the environment, health, and well-being of people (Jardine et al., 2013). Long before the mine was built in 1938, our traditional camps were located around the present mine site. Our people knew about the gold. In fact, it was a Dene woman that showed the prospectors where to locate it. But it was of no value to us. What was important was the water, fish, game, the moose, the beaver, and the muskrat. And we fished at the mouth of Baker Creek. And this area was a favourite berry picking and firewood gathering site. - Rachel Crapeau, YKDFN, Giant Mine Remediation Scoping Hearing, July 23, 2008. This relates to the theme of Indigenous sovereignty as well as trust and perception of the land, as they feel like they are not the ones in control or making decisions about their own land and futures. For me, Giant Mine is a story of relationships failed: relationships towards the people, the land, and especially future generations. Trust has been eroded, and it will take many years for it [to] be restored, if ever. – France Benoit, Yellowknife resident, Giant Mine public hearing transcript, Sept.11, 2012, p. 313. Cultural continuity, identity, and future generations The loss of land use and harvesting in this area has an impact on cultural continuity and identity. Many people, especially YKDFN, spoke about the importance of the water, fish, and caribou to their identity, and how Giant Mine’s contamination had changed their ability to rely on the land and water. Because this is so entwined with their identity, there is immense grief from the loss, but also worry and fear about the future. “We eat a lot of fish here. We are lake people, we are fish people, we are caribou people, and fish is our main diet during this time of year. And we're really concerned about it, because if the fish is contaminated…eventually there might be miscarriages and other illness that might really come in the future. That may happen.” - Fred Sangris, YKDFN Elder, Giant Public Hearing, Sept 12, 2012 ...the Yellowknives Dene define themselves a very cultural essence of who they are is -- was based on coney and on caribou. Without either, they would not have been who they are and who -- who they still are. The Yellowknife River was a very, very, very important part of that, and Yellowknife Bay. And it was the coney who traditionally would come into this bay, up the river. And that was where they would be netted and -- and dry fish was made. - Randy Freeman, YKDFN, Giant public Hearing, Sept 11, 2012. Cultural continuity also involves passing on knowledge and culture to future generations. Many concerns about the proposed Project’s potential effects on, and moral obligations to, future generations. The Yellowknives are worried about Giant Mine site’s perpetual care, as well as its 83 effects on future generations, and that they will no longer be able to rely on the land. There seemed to be guilt and responsibility towards future generations: I’m here to represent my future generations, my grandchildren that are not yet born…. You talk about perpetual care, which means forever. What about our people? We need perpetual care forever because we're going to be worrying about this monster -- I call it a monster that's underground; that's going to be there forever. Every time we drive by there, we worry about it. So, we worry about our health, and our safety. And our emotional well-being. That is forever. So, have they thought about us Dene people, what we'll be living through. - Mary Rose Sundberg, Dettah band Councillor. Giant Public Hearing The impact that the contamination and loss of use of this area has on identity and culture is massive. The avoidance of this previously important area, and the uncertainty and fear about consumption of food, water and plants in this area will impact the ability to rely on it and require people to travel further to access these resources. The emotional impacts should not be discounted -- including stress, grief and worry for the health and well-being of future generations. Ongoing stress and anxiety can have physical effects, as well as affecting the sense of agency or sovereignty and control over their lives, identities, and relationship with the land. Section 115 of the MVRMA includes intergenerational equity and whether the proposed development “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." This could arguably be interpreted as cultural continuity but also sustainability of way of life, and the attendant ability to rely on the land. Measures and Outcomes Human health, contaminants, and the loss of traditional use, as well as the distrust issues were acknowledged in the Review Board’s REA measures and suggestions. Measures are legally binding, while suggestions are not. Several measures related to quantifying and monitoring contaminants and health impacts. Measure 5 recommended a risk assessment including an “examination of risks from a holistic perspective, integrating the combined environmental, social, health and financial consequences.” Measure 9 was for a health effects monitoring plan on arsenic and other contaminants in people. Measure 10 required a quantitative human health risk assessment to be completed before regulatory approval. The Government of Canada released the final Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment report in 2018, and included examination of contamination levels in country foods, soil and water, and exposure risk based on levels of 84 consumption. It found that there was a “low to very low risk” and that cleanup would further reduce risks. Measure 20 and suggestions 11 and 12 related to surface contamination and movement of contaminated dust during demolition and remediation activities, and the potential for this to affect communities. To address the distrust and communication issues, Measures 7 and 8 required the developer to negotiate a legally binding environmental agreement and creation of an independent oversight body put in place as an arms-length body to build and maintain trust. It would track and provide advice on environmental monitoring and results, manage funding and share conclusions with the public and communities in a culturally appropriate way. This eventually led to the creation of the Giant Mine Oversight Board (GMOB), after the Giant Mine Remediation Project Environmental Agreement was signed in June 2015 (GMOB.ca). In relation to traditional use of the area, Suggestion 16 encouraged the developer to “consult with Aboriginal groups with respect to reduced traditional use cumulatively resulting from the proposed Project in combination with contamination from Giant Mine. This should occur prior to finalizing Project design, so that design improvements may be used to address any remaining concerns.” In recognition of Giant Mine’s significance and impact to communities, Suggestion 2 was to “create a monument as a memorial to the impacts of past contamination from Giant Mine on Aboriginal communities and the environment.” Suggestion 3 was for the impacts of Giant Mine to the land and Aboriginal peoples be taught in school curriculums. Summary The key themes that came up in the Giant Mine Remediation EA case are contaminants and perception of the land, cultural continuity and well-being, access to and use of the land and food, as well as Indigenous sovereignty and sustainability, especially in the face of long-term perpetual contamination. There are no easy answers to these questions. While food and food security are underlying factors, these are intricately tied with issues of land use, culture and cumulative effects. It also recognizes differences in values between decision-makers, scientists, Indigenous groups, and the public, as well as control - who is making the decisions and what are their values, and at the end of the day, who is bearing the costs of development. In this case, contamination has led to alienation from the landscape and likely permanent loss of the Indigenous use of this area. Distrust or anger due to negative past experiences can affect people’s 85 faith in the entire system. Clear and transparent communication of risks, but also community involvement and input are crucial. Giant Mine Remediation activities began in summer 2021 and are expected to take about 10 years. The remediation project life is 100 years, with some maintenance and operation activities required in perpetuity (GNWT ECC – Giant Mine Remediation page). The Yellowknife Health Effects Monitoring Program study by Dr. Laurie Chan of the University of Ottawa is underway to address Measure 9. This consists of a longitudinal study looking at levels of arsenic in resident’s bodies. Also, the Community Wellbeing Around Giant Mine (Hoèla Weteèts’eèdeè) study is examining chronic stress and indirect impacts of living near the site. 5.3 Conclusion These three case studies and key themes demonstrate the different ways food-related issues commonly come up in northern EA processes. The case studies all stress the cultural importance of land-based foods and activities, access, and connection to the land. The cases differ by project type and therefore in the pathways of how each project impacts or has the potential to impact food. In the TASR EA, access is the main theme, in terms of the road increasing harvest access, and access to travel for cheaper groceries and fuel, and the balance between store-bought foods while also preserving Tłı̨chǫ foods, traditions and way of life. The Jay Project EA examines cumulative impacts to caribou, calving grounds and to a culturally important area, as well as the ability to harvest. The Giant Mine Remediation EA considered contaminants, trust, uncertainty and communication of risks, and loss of access to the land. The pillars of food access and availability can be affected through direct impacts to wildlife or their habitat, the cost of store-bought food, or having to travel further distances to hunt. Themes of food quality and adequacy came across in discussions of contaminants, food safety and perception of the land, and the nutritional value of harvested foods compared with grocery foods. Indigenous sovereignty and holistic well-being are inherent in having agency over food choices, culturally appropriate foods, and link to cultural identity and connection with the land. The importance of the environment, water, fish, wildlife, and plants for consumption is evident in all three case studies. It is impossible to disconnect or consider the “food security” value of these land-based foods separately from their cultural and place-based importance in this northern context. MVEIRB aims to take a holistic approach and does an excellent job 86 considering these implications. As Ehrlich (2021) describes, these complex interdisciplinary topics require systems thinking approaches. Some recommendations would be for certain parties to see the broader picture of their mandate. For example, fish populations are important because they are harvested and eaten by northerners. When land-based foods are being considered, they are intertwined with their importance for cultural continuity, traditional knowledge, and skills. Apart from the food itself, the activities associated with food gathering are just as important culturally. As many hearing participants said, grocery-store foods are not an appropriate or adequate replacement for harvested foods, and if harvested foods are not accessible, there is much more at stake than nutritional value. Food and the activities around producing it are a key part of the continuation of culture and community well-being. The Review Board addressed these food-related issues through measures like monitoring of country food consumption and access, wildlife or fish management plans, monitoring of socio-economic effects, ongoing monitoring programs and communication of contaminant risks. Only one case study (the Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road) explicitly had measures related to food security and access to country foods. However, food security may not come up in every EA process as it may not always be a relevant issue or a concern from communities. There are likely other themes I did not fully capture or consider, as this is a preliminary exploratory look at food security in EA and is focused on these selected cases. There are also important themes such as climate change impacts, and the economics and benefits of resource development and employment that are also very important, but I did not examine these in much depth here. The next chapter analyzes the results of the interviews. Consistency in themes and considerations are evident, reinforcing and supporting the results and validity of the document analysis and the themes it identified. 87 Chapter 6: Analysis and Results of Interviews 6.1 Introduction The following is a discussion of the results of semi-structured interviews with northern EA practitioners. The five interview questions I asked were: 1) How is food security defined? 2) What are the main food security- or food-related issues that arise in EA? 3) How can food security concerns be better addressed in EA in the future? 4) Have any recommendations been made on this topic? 5) Are there any other regulatory, administrative, or permitting settings where food security is addressed more so than in EA? Discussions were fluid and specific topics depended on the interview participants and their experiences and expertise. Some topics were mentioned in several different questions. 6.2 Defining Food Security in an EA Context 6.2.1 How Does your Organization Define Food Security? Most participants did not have a specific definition of food security. While participants had varying answers and aspects of their idea of food security that came to mind, most stated food quality and quantity as being important. More specifically, it was also mentioned that food needed to be safe, nutritious, affordable, healthy, culturally relevant, and available, as well as economic considerations such as access, agriculture and gardening, or reliability of supply chains. All participants recognized the importance of country foods in northern food security. It's ensuring that indigenous and other northerners have sufficient food to eat of good quality, I guess would be the two components, so the quantity and the quality are the key pieces, at an affordable price. And in a northern context, recognition within the Department of the value that country food…or traditional foods play in that food security. (Interview (I)7) Maybe it's sort of a thing that you know it when you see it. But there's probably some technical definition of like calories and all that sort of stuff…but, in the North, I think it's the access to culturally appropriate food and sustainable food. And so, that really is harvested country food and translate that down to what that means for northerners. So, I don't think food security is enough groceries from the South. I think it's got to be… obviously access to that in some sort of affordable way. But in the North, especially, for…remote Indigenous populations, food security has to have a country food aspect to it to be appropriate. (I13) 88 What is the “right” food? Interestingly, for many participants, there is a sense that food security for northerners needed to include the “right” nutritious food, or “sufficient food of good quality” (Interview (I)7). As one participant put it: “[It] can’t just be any food, junk food, fast food… it needs to contain the sustenance for life… if you want to consider some of these actual food security, it's not secure.” (I15). In remote communities, store-bought food is often not fresh, or very processed, so wild meat is very important for nutrients and protein. Healthy foods like fresh produce and meat can be unavailable or very expensive from stores. So, there was a conviction that wherever it came from, food security needed to include healthy and nutritious foods. But even considering this, country foods had more personal “meaning” and enjoyment, and cultural significance, as well as being nutritious (I15). Many interviewees mentioned that cost can be prohibitive to food access. This can include income and resources required to obtain store-bought foods, but also having the time, equipment, and skills to go out on the land and harvest. Poverty and affordability, while usually not explicit, is also an underlying issue. As one interviewee stated (about poverty): “...people often say they can’t afford to buy food at the store, and the land is their fridge or their grocery store. And so, it’s certainly there.” Tamika: “Yeah, they're not saying “we have issues with food security.” “Yeah. And they’re not saying: “we have issues with poverty,” but those things are both in the mix.” (I1) Food security in EA When food security is considered in northern EA, there is more of a land, cultural and traditional food context. It is more about considering impacts to land-based foods than the entire food system. Some considerations in northern EA are being able to harvest, contaminants, impacts to cultural practices and land use, as well as the ability to provide nutrition and food for sustenance and well-being, (I1, I10) From an EA perspective, I think we see food security more from an on-the-land cultural landscape, so traditional foods, harvesting, hunting, trapping. But I think as the GNWT as a whole… food security is much broader so access to agriculture… cost of foods and things like that. (I1) One interviewee mentioned that if food security (often in terms of harvesting and traditional food issues) comes up in EA it is often raised by Indigenous participants, not by the Review Board or government. Most food-related issues are scoped in due to concerns from 89 Indigenous parties. It is not usually stated as “food security,” but about wildlife as a food source, culture or survival. As a Review Board interviewee put it: “It’s always sort of an initial consideration, but then how deeply we dive into it depends a lot on what we hear from the people who actually be affected because they sort of know the most about their food sources and what their food security is like.” (I3) Other times, food security is raised by the developer as a “selling feature” of their project, such as roads or development projects can increase road access or create employment that would provide income (I2). Several people mentioned that in an EA context, for example in scoping of issues, it would be useful to explicitly state that certain things are important because of their food value – for example, caribou, plants, and other species that are harvested. Also having a clearer definition about what is considered food security in an EA context (and what is not) would help for scoping and defining issues (I1). Ultimately, it is the language used by the Review Board and legislation that matters The Review Board has not explicitly said it is required to discuss food security, so it is not often brought up by that term. But the Review Board must consider how likely a project is to “affect social, cultural and economic well-being, as well as conservation of the way of life of Indigenous peoples in the Mackenzie Valley.” There is a connection between well-being, harvesting and traditional foods for Indigenous peoples, which all relate to food security. So, while there is no specific definition, the Review Board considers many factors that are closely linked to food security. ...the terminology [or] language of the Review Board carries… a lot of weight, as you go through the EA... If what they mention are like “holistic”, and in terms of caribou and access to caribou… but they don't use the term food security, I think that drives part of the reason why we don't see that exact kind of phrase come back and be discussed. (I1) Some participants noted that the Ekati Jay Project was one of the first EA processes where food security was discussed as such and this was a more important topic in the Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road. Recently, the Review Board has been more explicit about the food value of wildlife and the importance of harvesting for both food and way of life. In the terms of reference (MVEIRB, 2021) for the recently underway Pine Point EA, the Review Board was more explicit about the importance of certain species as food sources, such as fish, moose and plants, 90 contaminants and bioaccumulation, and Indigenous land use. The Review Board is aware of these interconnected issues and how they relate to food security: “…we did come closer to defining food security and food sovereignty. It's still not a very specific definition, but we basically asked the developer to look at levels of food security, which we define as available and accessible food and then food sovereignty, the right and ability to produce and make decisions about their own health and culturally appropriate food… I would argue that those two are very closely intertwined and probably can't really be separated, food security requires food sovereignty. So, I think those definitions are important to consider in tandem.” (I2) Food sovereignty refers to having autonomy and control over food choices and food systems. Food sovereignty includes other factors that affect food access such as inequality, human rights and governance. As one participant put it: “Food security in and of itself is a goal. But food sovereignty is the means. It's the pathway to get to foods to be food secure” (I14). Food security definition can be context-dependent Interview participants described food security as consisting of various factors and noted that its exact definition will vary depending on the context or community. It can be subjective, and depends what people are eating, Indigenous or non-Indigenous people, income levels, which community, and varying perspectives. Several participants suggested taking the communities’ lead to define what food security means to them, as food security can mean different things in different contexts (I2, I3). For example, in the context of the Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road EA: Different groups of people have different views on what [food security] looks like and so, for example, from elders there was a concern, about changes to wildlife patterns would decrease food security and from the developer and… also the Tłı̨chǫ government or the Whatı̀ government, there was the view that better access to roads and grocery stores would increase food security. And so, the way that those different groups defined food security was different based on their own unique sets of perspectives, so just in terms of how we define food security, I think a lot of that is left up to the people. (I2) Diversity of foods supports resilience Two participants mentioned diversity and seasonality as being important to maintaining food security. There is recognition that strict caribou harvest restrictions, while necessary for recovery, have impacts on community food security and on culture. Some suggestions to mitigate this included encouraging harvest of alternate species. Being able to rely on a diversity of species and food sources is important for reliability (stability): 91 Food security is about being able to put food on the table, not just the same thing all the time, but a diversity of foods and in the northern context, that food harvested from the land, primarily from the land. Certainly, I think when we are using it, it really is about traditional harvesting. And so, it's not just being able to harvest, one thing I think is the important thing… it's not just about fish but it's about that basket of environmental resources - be it fish, caribou, geese, duck, seal...that arrive at different times of the year in a seasonal kind of approach. Having enough of that and having a diversity of that, that if you go out on the land and practice your or exercise traditional rights that there is the ability for them be successful in that endeavor. (I8) Local food production such as gardening, agriculture and livestock were discussed a few times. While these can be important for supplementing food security, this is generally not a focus in an EA context. In terms of diversity and resilience, gardening and local food production is an excellent way to diversify the food system to support stability of food supply, and to offset high prices of produce. Definition summary While everyone mentioned various aspects of food security, many points can be interpreted in the context of the four “pillars” of food security from the academic literature: accessibility, availability, utilization, stability (CCA, 2014; see chapter 2) and how these fit together. Based on my research, I have expanded on these and separated utilization into adequacy and acceptability (CCA, 2014). I would also argue for the inclusion of agency, relating to food sovereignty. While these factors relate to a broad overall definition, they remain important in determining whether food security is achieved in an EA context. Accessibility relates to physical, financial and social resources to obtain food – “Can you get it?” This could translate into questions of poverty and cost, having the means to buy or harvest food, or the social network for food sharing. As one participant put it, “caribou is available but it’s not necessarily accessible by everybody.” (I14). This could also be physical access, like having road access to cheaper goods, or the need to travel longer distances for hunting makes it less accessible. Availability refers to adequate supply and presence - is it there? Is there enough food of sufficient quality? This can translate to availability of store-bought foods, or whether there is wildlife around in sufficient quantities and location to be harvested. “You could have somebody with a very high income, and they go to a grocery store, and it's just simply not available. You can afford it. It's not there.” (I14) 92 Adequacy encompasses nutritional quality and food safety, such as contamination or perceived contamination. It can also relate to sustainability of food sources and food supply methods. Acceptability (or utilization or use) is preference and consumption, as well as cultural acceptable and appropriate food. “Is it something I like and will use? Just because we have lots and lots of tomatoes doesn't mean that people like tomatoes.” Just because there is food available at the store doesn’t mean this is what people want to eat, or people may not know how to use or prepare certain foods. Stability is having ongoing access and availability to food supply. “Is access and availability continuous?” This is having resilience to maintain access in the face of uncertainty and through shocks or changes, which can be economic, environmental, seasonal. For example, changing wildlife populations and migration patterns due to climate or development can cause uncertainty in harvest success. Changes in employment such as in mine closure can affect continuous access to food. Agency is having control over how food security is achieved, and a say in decisions and policies about food supply and food systems. This largely relates to the concept of food sovereignty – self-determination, autonomy and control over food choices. As one participant put it: “the right and ability to make decisions about their own health and culturally appropriate food.” This includes sustainability and long-term access to certain foods and not having to rely on grocery store foods. 6.3 Food Security-related Issues and Topics in EA 6.3.1 Based on Your Experience and Work in EA, What Have Been the Main Issues and Topics Raised Regarding Food Security, or Other Food-related Concerns? There was general acknowledgement that specific concerns in an EA depend on the type of project, specific effects related to that project, and importantly, past industrial activity and cumulative effects and their impacts on communities. The main issues and topics here relate to and reinforce my key themes in the previous document analysis chapter. These are: 1) impacts to land and wildlife, 2) access and harvest pressure, 3) cultural importance, 4) contaminants, perception and trust/confidence, and 5) potential for economic benefits. 93 Land and wildlife sustainability are important for harvesting and food security All interviewees mentioned sustainability of wildlife populations, and protection of the land to protect fish and wildlife habitats. Food security is first and foremost based on the integrity of the land and the continuation of sustainable natural resources, fish, wildlife are kind of the two main ones, as well as access to medicines and plant food sources. (I11) The importance of wildlife harvesting, particularly caribou, was by far the most widely raised issue and was mentioned in most interviews. Caribou are a culturally important species and a hot-button topic for northerners, often the number one issue in EA processes. Impacts to caribou like population and abundance, access, location, ability to hunt and where and when, migration routes, and effects of contamination are all commonly discussed in EA processes, more often than store-bought food, or economic ability to harvest. Caribou is definitely the big one: access to caribou, location of caribou, numbers of caribou, being able to hunt caribou in their traditional areas where now there might be mining, whether or not the meat is contaminated, so like all aspects of caribou, I would say is huge. And again, think about like, these cultural implications as well. Well, they do, it does get brought up sometimes in the context of, not necessarily food security, but when, especially at public hearings when the community members are talking about why it's important, it's like, we hunt a caribou and we share it with the community and we give it to our elders and so it's… I mean they're talking about it as a food source but not necessarily as food security per se. (I1) Counterintuitively, ensuring long-term sustainability of wildlife populations and protecting species in their habitat can sometimes go against immediate food security (I6). An example of this that many people mentioned is harvest restriction, specifically the Bathurst barren-ground caribou herd, which has rapidly declined in the past couple decades. So, a decision to restrict harvest can have short-term impacts on food security but is working to ensure the species’ survival long-term. Participants who worked in wildlife management and conservation acknowledged that their work likely had food security implications but that it was not the focus of their work (I6; I4). “In the NWT, the reduction in the caribou herds is a huge factor in food security, in contrast to even 20 years ago.” (I9) Project impacts and wildlife management have direct impacts on Indigenous food security. Participants recognized the frustration with perceived unfairness of allowing 94 developments that will likely impact a certain percentage of caribou, and yet there are restrictions on Indigenous harvesting, affecting their access to food and culture: …the hardships imposed on Indigenous people…goes beyond what's imposed on the proponent because you have as a result, low population numbers… what you do is you put in a …no harvest zone, like the management practices, restrictions on hunting and those types of things. And those have direct impacts on the food security, even though it's not the IGO [Indigenous Government and Indigenous Organization], like it's not the Indigenous peoples... it's not their project that you're talking about, and this is often the result of… projects being developed in the north, there are restrictions on caribou… Yeah, it was a big discussion on… balancing that and how fair or not fair it is or is perceived to be. (I1) Climate change contributes to other environmental changes that are impacting wildlife populations and abundance and making access to country foods more difficult. For example, reliable access at certain times of year due to timing of river and lake freeze-up, less ground freeze-up, stronger winds, water levels, and other uncertainties can all affect access (I11). On a larger scale, anything contributing to climate change will affect food security, such as a project’s greenhouse gas emissions. Access and harvest pressure In relation to environmental impacts, changes to the landscape can either increase or decrease access to land, lakes, and water for harvesting. Increased access to areas, such as remote lakes, could increase harvest pressure. For example, for the TASR, the project was predicted to cause more road access to lakes, streams and watercourses, increasing fishing in areas that hadn’t had it before. Cut lines or roads are “opening up” corridors for either human or predator access. For example, the diamond mines massively increased hunting access by creating ice road access. Roads can both increase and decrease food security as road access can make harvesting easier, but it could also decrease success – because better access can lead to increased (or unsustainable) harvest pressure. Hunting off the Tibbitt to Contwoyto winter ice road to the diamond mines is not allowed anymore, and harvesters can now only hunt caribou from the Beverly or Ahiak herds, rather than the Bathurst herd, which was the most accessible herd for many groups. This means more effort to hunt caribou as harvesters have to travel further distances, meaning higher costs of gas, machine upkeep, higher cost of living, and this is worsening (I1, I2). 95 The loss of harvesting habitat or imposition of harvest restrictions, means groups that rely on wildlife are having to go further afield and may end up harvesting in other Nations’ territories, or putting additional pressure on other herds or food sources, in turn affecting their food security and access: “They are losing huge areas where… food is not going to be accessible to them, and so there has to be offsetting areas, which you have to have cultural agreement then with other nations” (I3). This is something not often considered by EA practitioners. “…because there was a restriction on caribou harvest, the people who normally harvest those caribou were coming to the west into this other Indigenous territory and harvesting their moose. So, they're finding that…if you look at the system and the big picture that impacts from one project on a particular kind of wildlife that helps with security of country food can make changes even up to… three hundred kilometers away on another first nation and their own food security. And we hear about that in projects… quite some distance apart.” (I2) Cultural implications and well-being Most participants mentioned the cultural aspect of food and connection with the land as being important in EA. Food is inextricably linked with culture, skills, knowledge and language, which is why culturally relevant food is important. As stated by interviewees: “...the impact that not being able to hunt caribou for the Tłı̨chǫ, since the decline of the herds, has had…on a food security but on a cultural level as well.... the issue isn't just about the ability to get the food you need on the table, but everything that comes with that, and that's been such a big part for the Tłı̨chǫ, of the impacts of food security is the cultural loss. So, when thinking about what does food security mean? They say it's almost a broader meaning…of culture and cultural stability as well that comes with it.” (I12) “It's always going to come back to caribou, it's just important. Not to say that all the others aren't important but yeah, caribou is just sort of been in the front of our minds for a really long time. And for many of our Indigenous communities, particularly in the Tłı̨chǫ, their culture, language, way of life is defined by caribou, and so the significant loss that we've seen leads to the loss of those other things, notwithstanding the loss of country food and being able to eat it, but it's a loss of culture along the way, as well...And I think perhaps communities and food security would be part and parcel with their cultural values and how they go out and see those species so I don't think you can look at one without looking at the other, yeah. (I6).” There is often concern about cultural continuity, and having the land and foods be available for future generations: “There's often oral evidence of changes on the land and being concerned about people’s children and grandchildren being able to have access to traditional foods.” (I1) 96 Food security can be both at the level of the family unit as well as the community (I10, I2). New projects may change the balance of the food system on a community level: “country foods are shared versus groceries are purchased” (I2). Projects can change a communities’ culture of food sharing, and change lifestyles, so that instead of harvesting, they are working a day job, and may have less time and energy to harvest, or the harvesting skills can be lost. (I2) A participant from a wildlife co-management board said: “I recognize that some of the decisions we make also influence how they're able to participate in their culture… a lot of times harvesting is the place where elders pass along information to youth, it's while they're out on the land and they're harvesting and so some of that stuff is also lost when we're having to limit or restrict harvest. I think, food security is two very small words for a really big thing.” (I6) Also, culture ties in, not just access to caribou as a food source, but their presence on the landscape and intrinsic value. Several people mentioned that you cannot separate food importance from cultural value: “You can't break it down to just food security, and it probably is almost inappropriate to do so without tying in some of the other things…You have to think about it in the larger…cumulative effects picture of what happens when a caribou disappears, and it's not just food or nutrition that disappears. Probably even the more serious fact, especially given the widespread accessibility and the transportability of food these days...losing the meat is almost the lesser of all the losses, really, in the end.” (I15) One government participant described how this cultural and holistic well-being link came up in the recent Diavik EA for backfilling processed kimberlite into pits and underground: “the link between food security, particularly country foods, like caribou, like other valued species, and cultural well-being so, not just for their health, but also for their identity, their traditions, the way that intergenerational knowledge is communicated. And how that links up to human health so, not just in the biophysical way, but in that socio-cultural frame.” (I10) Trust and confidence, contaminants, and perception of the land Most participants mentioned contaminants as being a food-related concern in EA. Land-based foods might be available, but they may not be safe to eat due to contamination. This includes potentially contaminated dust that covers plants, berries: “… even the dust landing on their gardens was a food security issue, they didn't want to eat the food from their gardens anymore, because there's black dust covering it all the time.” (I3) 97 The uncertainty of safety may prevent people from using certain areas, or consuming certain foods, even if they are safe. There is not the same regulation or food inspection as store-bought foods, such as Health Canada, and if there is monitoring or data, sometimes it is not well communicated with communities. “It’s about reduced access to traditional lands, it's about not trusting traditional lands as providing clean food... Risk perception, which I think touches on people not trusting food sources on the land, because they believe they're contaminated, or they are contaminated [in] one way or another. So that leads to avoidance of areas, avoidance of activities and stuff like that.” (I9) Concerns about previous bad experiences with past developments are common in EA, for example if an area can no longer be used for harvesting or cultural uses because it is contaminated or changed. Several participants mentioned the example of Rayrock Mine, an old uranium mine in the Tłı̨chǫ area. Residual concern about Rayrock contamination continues to affect people’s use and feelings towards the land. Tłı̨chǫ citizens raised concerns at the Ekati Jay Project EA hearing in Behchokǫ̀ about how Rayrock has impacted their ability to use the area, if they cannot go there or fish there anymore, do not feel safe drinking the water. Even though this was a different project, there was concern and fear about similar lasting impacts. “...An example is the Rayrock mine in the Tłı̨chǫ area, we heard about that at the Behchokǫ̀ hearing for Jay. And they’re quite spatially distant, far apart in time, different commodities, but that's, you know, the ideas that that mine was built, and then there was contamination from Rayrock. And then that was an area we couldn't go anymore, couldn’t fish from there... So that informs the kind of mitigation measures, and what they want a new proponent to avoid.” (I1) “…on some of the canoe trips that have been done, some of the elders are seeing some dead fish floating on the water, and suddenly nobody wants to drink the water from a certain area, because it's as if, well Rayrock’s there, it must be because of that. Now it not always is, it might be low oxygen content in the water in that particular time, that place, or something. But the association of it is, well, we're seeing some impacts here, what is that?” (I12) The uncertainty, fear, and avoidance due to actual or perceived contamination can impact food security if contamination is affecting an area, or if the area is being avoided unnecessarily if it is assumed that any issues are related to the mine or contamination. This requires effective monitoring but also clear communication and for people to have trust in the science and decision-makers. 98 It's actually creating that sort of confidence that the land is okay to be used in certain areas, and other areas it’s not, but to go along with that you need good monitoring, so that those monitoring efforts can reinforce the…knowledge you could put that out there, and of course good people to be able to explain monitoring efforts. You can do all the scientific monitoring you want, but if a community doesn't trust the science... Some scientists are really bad at talking about what they know. They may know a lot, but are not very good at explaining it. So…a communication effort that is then needed to go along with that as well, it's pretty critical… (I12) One participant said that in order to gain the confidence and safety to eat the food from the land, there is a need for both scientific monitoring and “boots on the ground” Indigenous guardian-type monitoring. Boots on the Ground is a Tłı̨chǫ guardian program. “… you can send a whole bunch of scientists and say the food is safe to eat, but in the end it's actually the harvesters themselves that are going to say ‘the food is safe to eat, and I have the money, and the time and the trapping equipment and everything I need to be out on the land and I'm going to go do it.’” (I3) Potential for positive effects on food security – economic benefits, employment and access Many participants mentioned the potential for resource development to improve food security through increased employment, income for purchasing food or harvesting equipment, and potentially better road access for grocery transport, and for harvesting access. …when a mine provides jobs, and…food security is related to the affordability or accessibility of food. People having jobs kind of automatically makes food more accessible from…the most basic definition of what you could consider food security. (I15) This depends on the type of project, particularly infrastructure projects, as it largely relates to roads, such as the Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road and Mackenzie Valley Highway. The logic is that if there is a highway, it will be easier to get trucks in to transport food and prices will go down, with positive impacts on better food availability and lower price. When the diamond mines eventually close, it will affect the whole community, as it is more than just the employee relying on that income, but also their family, extended family, and elders. The potential for several hundred people to suddenly be out of work across the territory would have food security and other socioeconomic ramifications. 99 6.4 Recommendations 6.4.1 Reflecting on Previous EAs in the Territory, Have You Identified any Food Security Issues to be Considered More Thoroughly in Future Work or EAs? This section considers issues or challenges that participants found related to the consideration of food security. These include the following: 1) food security is unlikely to trigger an EA, 2) food security is a complex multi-disciplinary topic, 3) data and information needs, and 4) the need to consider indirect linkages and impacts. Food security itself is unlikely to trigger an EA The MVRMA trigger for an EA is the potential for significant impacts, which is important because it can be easily triggered. As one participant said: “it's just not well set up for something like food security, because there are other sources of food, whether it's traditional or not. But it does come up specifically related to…culture” (I15). Other topics may be broader than food security that are still food-related that come up in EA. Several people explained that food security is “not directly discussed, and not well-suited to triggering the need for an EA.” “It would be very hard to make an argument, based on just food security in its most basic definition that a mine, that a single operation would have a significant impact on a person or a community's ability to have food security. But if you talk about access to cultural activities and traditional foods, that's…a very different argument, because... perhaps the standard definition of food security doesn't give a lot of mention, like I said, to how that relates to like culturally appropriate food security or something like that where… you're eating food that you are traditionally eating and having access to that…” (I15). Food security is a complex issue limited by silos, mandates and lack of expertise Many participants noted a lack of expertise in food security, and it was clear there is a siloed focus on specific mandates, especially in government. Departments may not be specifically looking at the bigger picture or implications. “...the wildlife people are very much focused on you know population, and population dynamics, locations and areas, and not really thinking about harvesting, so I think there's a lack of connecting the dots between kind of all of the different components, and even, I mean in my mind there's like an obvious connection between water quality and food security, but that definitely like, doesn't get brought up.” (I1) Some strategic plans address this at a higher level, for example the GNWT’s Sustainable Livelihoods Action Plan (2019-2023), but these have no real connection to the EA or regulatory system and it is uncertain whether these are used in EA contexts. 100 Relevant data is needed for evidence-based decision-making In EA, there are many predictions and assumptions being made, but it is hard to predict how things will play out until it happens. Having appropriate and relevant data to be able to make informed decisions is crucial. Data requirements, particularly with respect to wildlife, was one challenge mentioned. For example, for caribou, knowing where they are, and how many of them there are will help future assessments and decision-making. The Review Board has made recommendations to GNWT related to wildlife data, as caribou comes up in every EA. There is a need for current and timely data to make decisions that can positively impact wildlife. Having access to detailed and up-to-date caribou information, such as population data, range plans, modeling and predictions about climate change, wildlife and ecosystems is important for decision-making, and it has a link to food security. There has been insufficient information in place for a long time, especially with the extreme decline of the Bathurst caribou herd (I3). Developments often happen rather quickly and decision-makers do not have time to wait years for plans and information (I2). Another participant stressed the importance of qualitative data collection, especially for socio-economic issues, and having them be more valued in impact assessment processes: “How can we get qualitative data and social sciences and themselves more valued in impact assessment processes to speak to these issues and experiences that people are having? And I find, at least in our work with Indigenous governments right now, that's more in tune with how they would like to communicate their experience of food security as well.” (I10) To make changes for social impacts, monitoring is needed to show what is happening, which requires appropriate methods and approaches (I10). While we know there is a link between food security and cultural well-being, it is hard to determine a single indicator, as there are many facets that contribute to food security. Small populations make collection and monitoring of human health, social data and impacts difficult. With very small communities, it can be impossible to keep data anonymous (I10). Also, there can be concerns about harvest tracking and rights infringement. People often do not want harvesting to be monitored as they fear it may lead to government restrictions, so partnering with Indigenous governments is essential. 101 Wherever possible, predictions or assumptions should be informed by data. For example, a participant mentioned that a prediction for both the TASR and the Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk Road was that road access would result in cheaper goods and cheaper access to goods. This is an expected and perhaps reasonable prediction, but it is also an assumption that may not be supported by data: A lot of these decision makers are housed in the south, and so they think: ‘Oh, well, there's a road now the cost will go down.’ But it's still very expensive to do anything up here and so when the policies are created they're not really thinking about does that change of access actually result in what we think it's going to result in, and the answer is very clearly no. (I10) Due to how federal policies around northern food subsidy programs worked, having road access may end up not changing or even increasing the cost of grocery store foods, on top of potential impacts to traditional harvesting and resources. Using real-world outcomes and lessons learned from other projects to inform predictions of new projects, rather than basing predictions on broad assumptions, was raised by several participants, particularly in the context of socioeconomic monitoring and impacts. This would provide more realistic predictions when it comes to future EA processes. For example, it may have made sense to use monitoring information and outcomes from the recent new Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk all-season road to inform predictions for the TASR, while recognizing the differences in the settings. Two participants said this was requested in the TASR EA and no information was available. Economic and self-sufficiency value of harvesting One participant (I11) described how the value of harvesting goes far beyond just the immediate food value. The land provides important resources allowing for economic self-sufficiency and the ability to not have to rely on the wage economy for food. “Then you got to go to the store, which means you're immediately locked into a very dependent system. And so, you depend on the wage, and you depend on access and getting to someone else's produce. (I11) “…when you look at the value of barren-ground caribou to the Dene people for the last…how many thousand years and then projecting forward for another, how many hundred or whatever number of years. And then compare that to the value of the diamonds over the… twenty-year span of [diamond mines]. I'm suspecting the caribou are far more valuable… You might be able to mine diamonds for twenty years, but you can't eat them, and then, once [caribou are] gone… you've lost that traditional food source. They've gone from…three hundred thousand barren-ground caribou to fourteen 102 thousand…which has reduced your harvesting capacity. What do you end up with at the end of the day in terms of quality of life and self-sufficiency? It's a question that's going to need to be asked, does it do more damage than it's worth when you start to look at loss of… access to traditional foods that people have relied on for so long, and will hopefully continue to rely on for as long as we can see into the future.” (I11) 6.4.2 Has Your Organization Made any Recommendations about How Food Security Impacts or Effects Could be Assessed Better in the Future, in EA or Elsewhere? Most interviewees said their organization had not made any formal recommendations related to food security, usually because they stated it wasn’t their area of expertise or it was not really what their organization did. In government, as this is a complex interdisciplinary issue, it requires interdepartmental coordination, dialogue, and cooperation, and they often defer to Indigenous governments. Many interviewees recommended communication with communities, listening to Indigenous Nations’ needs, and letting them take the lead. What is useful often depends on the community and their values, and the type of project and some want access to the land, some want jobs and training, and some want economic benefits. Indigenous-led assessments are becoming more common elsewhere in Canada. A few interviewees mentioned this might help see the bigger longer-term picture and issues that may impact Indigenous people. The NWT and other territories have a unique system with co-management boards established through land claim agreements and has Indigenous knowledge and involvement baked into it, so it is a bit of a different situation in the territories than elsewhere in Canada. Protection of the land and habitats supports sustainability of food security Some interviewees stressed that the main way to support food security is through protection of the land and habitats. Also, by supporting people to get on the land and be able to access these land-based foods, which can be through harvester support, purchasing equipment or gas. This promotes longer-term sustainability and access to food, and resilience to uncertainty. Protect the land and by protecting the land you're protecting wildlife, and by protecting the wildlife you're able to ensure a sustainable access to… traditional food sources which are considered to be much more highly nutritious and beneficial than what you get in the store. (I11) When I see Indigenous governments making recommendations on food security they're saying invest in land and well-being and in the traditional economy and they're saying 103 those investments are equally important…We're involved in an impact assessment process right now, and the investment to return people to a food secure…- and that's not how they say it - but the food security strategy is around purchasing hunting equipment for people. (I3) Harvesting alternative species can support food diversity and resilience Three participants (I2, I6, I12) discussed how, due to the harvest restrictions on caribou, they are recommending people adapt and pivot to harvesting new species. While caribou are the most traditionally hunted, there is a need and interest to pivot towards species like bison, moose, deer, rabbit, and ptarmigan. Training and workshops are being held to encourage people to hunt and use alternative species, for example, by teaching meat cutting, preparation and cooking animals they are less familiar with, as they are more readily available. Another method is encouraging trading with other communities to help support food availability. “…People are just used to caribou - it's what they've always eaten, that's what they want to eat, that's what they crave. And I don't think, it isn't that they don't want to necessarily eat the bison or the moose, or the others, it's just, they're less familiar with harvesting this thing that looks so different, right.” (I6) The rules around harvesting are changing. For example, an Indigenous government participant discussed how bison harvesting tags aren’t available at the right time of year, so the rules aren’t adjusting fast enough for people to be able to use these species. Being conscious that resource management decisions can have direct consequences on people’s ability to harvest, and thus on their food security situation, requires communication and listening to communities’ needs. Food security is often implicit in EA discussions Several interviewees explained that while food security does come up in EA, it is often implied rather than explicitly discussed. “…we don't directly call it food security. But I think it directly addresses it, I think if you go back to caribou right, what we hear from Indigenous groups, a lot of them, not everybody, but the people that are harvesting… I think they're saying, even [though] they're not stating explicitly, ‘this is an issue of food security, we harvest that food’. That caribou is gone from the landscape, look what you…- maybe industry developers, government -… have done to caribou…it’s declined 90 some percent, we’re very concerned, we've heard many times, very concerned about caribou disappearing from the landscape.” (I2) 104 EAs generally focus on environmental impacts to wildlife populations, but the consequences of these are not always brought into human terms of impacts to food security or culture. There is sometimes a dichotomy between wildlife fulfilling an ecological role versus communities being able to harvest and contributing to way of life and food security. This can result in measures focusing on wildlife populations or management rather than socioeconomic outcomes. “…the easiest example is focusing on the number of caribou rather than the consequence of the number of caribou. And it made it easy to avoid measures or responses to address the outcome, and so you know declining numbers of [caribou] directly equates to a food security issue, but if you don't talk about it in the food - in a food security context, then, then the consequences of that conversation are only going to be about the numbers they're not going to be about what happens to people.” (I8) Issues should be put in the context of food security to be explicit about implications and outcomes that could impact people’s well-being. While these linkages may seem obvious, there is a need for issues to be put into “food importance” terms in EA, so that appropriate measures and suggestions can be created to address them, otherwise they “don’t get translated to the kitchen table” (I8). This is important because if the mitigations are not put in the context of the actual issue, whether it is an impact to food access, culture or perception of contamination to name a few, the underlying issue may remain unaddressed. Interdisciplinary thinking and research into complex and indirect linkages There is a need for an integrated approach to food security and other complex interdisciplinary problems. Sometimes questions without clear answers arise in EA that are too complex to answer in the timeframe of an EA process. These questions may require the use of systems thinking to emphasize complexity and relationships between seemingly separate components, and integration across disciplinary boundaries or silos (Ehrlich, 2022). This can also consider how various impacts interact to collectively become significant. An interdisciplinary approach will require thinking “outside the silo” to address these potentially under-considered problems and mitigate unintended consequences. One example that several interviewees discussed is the socio-economic impact that closure of the diamond mines would have on income, wage versus traditional economy and food security, and the need to plan for this eventual transition. This would likely have significant impacts on communities, as these are high-paying jobs that would suddenly be gone. 105 Two hundred people in the Yellowknife losing jobs would be a hit. We'd feel it. I think the community would feel it a little bit. Two hundred people, in a small population of Behchokǫ̀ or Whati, or Gamètı̀ or Wekweètı̀ is a big hit. Because we know each employee is not basically supporting just them and their family, you know, and a grandma who is being supported as well, to a little healthcare, and there, or whatever. So, the potential upcoming impact of suddenly two hundred plus people out of work. (I12) Some considerations for this scenario would need to be around well-being and social services, the food system, whether this would have wildlife management implications if people are no longer working at a mine and are harvesting more or economically, whether this may mean an exodus if people are leaving to find similar mining jobs elsewhere in Canada. Obviously, there is no way to predict the exact outcome, but these complex scenarios illustrate the need for communication between disciplines, and consideration of the relationships between different components, such as in social-ecological systems. A few interviewees suggested encouraging research and data collection on these complex topics (by either academia, government, or industry), and the results could be drawn on to support many future EAs. Some other examples of these questions are: • How can a well-being lens be incorporated into EA? Include more nuanced qualitative data and social science methods to examine social and cultural effects. (I10) • Is there data on the link between the wage economy and wage employment and increased food security? Does it lead to stronger or healthier communities? It is uncertain that it does, however there is some evidence that people who have wage employment do get out on the land more. (I11) • What is the value of the traditional economy? For example, what is the dollar value of animals harvested? (I11) • To what degree is store-bought food an adequate replacement for country food? Does increased capital from the mining jobs result in increased access to more and better groceries? (I13) 6.5 Where Else is Food Security Considered? 6.5.1 Are There any Regulatory, Administrative, or Permitting Settings where Food Security is Addressed, More so than EA? The final interview question was whether there was any specific mandated “home” where the topic of food security was addressed. I received varied responses, but most participants did not have a clear answer or were unsure. Participants mentioned that EA generally does consider socio-economic impacts, which would theoretically include food security. There are several different places where bits and pieces of the puzzle are addressed. 106 Some places where food security can be addressed in direct relation to resource development projects are in socio-economic agreements and Impact Benefit Agreements (IBAs) (I15). Socio-economic agreements are EA follow-up programs between the developer and the GNWT, adjacent to MVRMA. Impact Benefit Agreements are agreements between the proponent and immediately impacted Indigenous communities or governments. They are not direct outcomes of impact assessment but do deal with socioeconomic pieces, and often include financial, employment or in-kind benefits. There are also often socio-economic monitoring and measures that come out of EA processes, for example, the Diavik EA, development of “community wellness indicators” –Tłı̨chǫ has three food security related indicators. Co-management boards and land use planning Some co-management boards and regulatory settings like land and water boards have jurisdiction that is limited to specific land and water usages, so their focus is not on socioeconomic outcomes like food security. Under the NWT Wildlife Act, renewable resource boards are responsible for wildlife management and are sometimes involved in EA, while local harvesting committees discuss and make recommendations to maintain sustainable levels of harvest. While it is implicit, the food and socio-economic implications are not stated. Co-management in the north started with wildlife management, which was clearly about harvesting for food (I1). Food security is implicit in legislation around co-management boards; however, land use planning legislation under the MVRMA explicitly states the importance of lands for “wildlife harvesting and other resource uses” (part 2, s.35). Land use planning is potentially a strong tool to examine cumulative effects and resulting impacts on food sources on a regional scale. Land use plans look at a broader landscape perspective, such as critical habitat, especially for larger ungulates (I5). Under the MVRMA, each regional land use planning board comes up with its own plan objectives. “The land use plan, a lot of the northern ones, one of the components will be conservation zones, and a lot of the conservation zones are conservation zones because they are important harvesting areas. Yeah, it’s definitely implicit. If the caribou don’t have enough to eat… that’s an important component. Like the visions for land use plans are quite broad so definitely, if it decreases food security it's not a successful plan, but it might not do anything explicit to maintain or improve it.” (I1) Territorial and Federal Government programs 107 Various GNWT departmental mandates relate to food security, and it was included in the 2019-2023 Government mandate. The Department of Health and Social Services have an anti-poverty initiative, community culture and innovation division, and the Office of the Chief Public Health Officer (OCPHO) considers food security, climate change, and health impact assessment. Data collection is done by the NWT Bureau of Statistics and socioeconomic departments. Industry, Tourism and Investment is the GNWT food security lead, but mostly looks at things like economic development, agriculture, and supply chains. Environment and Climate Change does wildlife range planning, climate change modelling, land use and sustainability planning, and has an On the Land Unit with harvester support programs. There is an Interdepartmental GNWT Food Security working group, but the focus is more on economics, health and social services, poverty, and less on traditional harvesting or EA considerations. They are working to create an official GNWT food security definition. There has been discussion of a country food policy and NWT food policy. The GNWT’s Sustainable Livelihoods Action Plan (2019-2023) includes food security as a principle of the plan and includes action items related to food security. The 2030 NWT Climate Change Strategic Framework – 2019-2023 Action Plan, led by GNWT Environment and Climate Change (previously Environment and Natural Resources (ENR)), contains action items related to food security and food production (I4). Federally, Agriculture and Agrifoods Canada is responsible for food security, and there is a national food policy in development. Under CIRNAC, the Nutrition North program has a grocery subsidy as well as a hunters-enabling program. This is not regulatory or permitting but comes out of policy around food security, implemented through a funded program (I14, I7). “So yeah, my sense is that the topic of food security does get some attention in EAs, but I just don't know that it has a… regulatory home or…one clear organization that has responsibility for that. I mean obviously, it's something that the Boards consider, or MVEIRB considers… it's not a topic that we give - my team gives a lot of thought to, so I find this a really interesting topic because…we talk a lot about impacts to fish or to caribou or whatever… in the back of our minds, we know it's…partly a food security issue, but when we comment on it, we don't often make that…I guess at a high level we make that link, but again, I guess, because of our mandate, we don't.” (I7) While various government departments consider parts of this question, there may not be a place where land-based, grocery-store and locally produced foods are considered all together: “Most federal or GNWT departments will just stay in the lanes of their own mandate.” 108 Indigenous Governments Some Indigenous governments and communities have their own food security plans. IBAs can provide funding for communities to do their own food security work. This could include doing their own environmental monitoring and communications about country food safety for communities to have more confidence in food and safety due to contaminants: … in places where food security has been really impacted, you're seeing nations promote and manage and control their own food security messaging…but that's all in response to contamination… I've seen nations for 20 years now be focusing on campaigns that help their communities understand that their food is safe, after doing the testing, after looking at whether the PCBs or dioxins, or whatever it is contaminated, you name your contaminant of choice - have been communicating to their nations, their members that their food is safe. (I3) Other Community Solutions A couple of participants discussed community harvests and more communal methods of food access, distributed first to elders, single moms and others that may not otherwise have access to wild meat. Hunters usually share with their own families first, then more widely as they see fit. Some communities have started paying harvesters to harvest full-time on behalf of the entire community and letting them distribute their harvest, as this is a better return on investment than paying someone to think about these issues at a desk (I13). People still have mixed feelings about selling meat, such as caribou. While people want fresh wild meat and are willing to pay, they do not want to encourage commercial harvesting. Local food production, such as greenhouses, animal husbandry and agriculture are gaining some traction in the north. Having locally grown or harvested products increases the security of supply instead of relying on everything being flown or driven up from southern Canada. With severe fires and flooding in recent years affecting road access, people have been thinking more about reliance on food from the south (I11). An example is the development of an Indigenous commercial or domestic fishery – including having a collective quota, purchasing fishing vessel(s), creating income and employment, and selling and distributing fish back into the community. Poverty or economic factors affect immediate access to food. There are programs addressing this such as income support, women’s shelter, and food rescue (I9). I have not focused on this here as it is less relevant to the resource development context. 109 6.6 Discussion Many factors go into defining food security, and this is context dependent. In northern EA, this requires consideration of land-based harvested foods. Food security is a complex and slippery concept - it is everywhere but also nowhere. It may be difficult to say a food security impact is significant because of the availability of store-bought foods or to argue that resource development projects will directly affect a community or individual’s food security. In fact, it is often argued that projects will create employment, provide better income to buy food, and thus support food security. However, it is impossible to disentangle traditional country food from their cultural, economic, health and well-being importance. These land-based food sources are not just food, but something much broader, a connection to culture, to memories and stories, to land and place. They are often more affordable and accessible than store-bought foods and shared more widely than groceries. If harvested foods are replaced by store-bought foods, going from a traditional economy to a wage economy. This can create a reliance on employment and income to purchase store-bought foods to maintain food security. Food sovereignty relates to Indigenous autonomy and the right to define and decide their own food system and the right to a self-sufficient traditional lifestyle. Common food-related topics in EA include wildlife habitat and harvesting, particularly caribou and fish; contaminants and perception of the land; cultural importance including knowledge transmission and continuity of way of life for future generations; and cost of living/economic considerations, generally around store-bought foods. Issues to be considered more thoroughly include ensuring monitoring and data collection, and acknowledging this as an interdisciplinary issue that requires collaboration and coordination between experts. Resources that are important culturally or as a food source or should be explicitly described as such. Most interviewees said food security is not a topic they consider regularly. While certain aspects related to food security are examined in EA processes, it is ultimately implicit. While this wasn’t a specific question I asked, many interviewees thought that MVEIRB is currently doing a good job at incorporating traditional knowledge, including communities’ issues, community wellness that includes food security, and understanding more complex interrelations. 110 Discussions of food security should include consideration of all food security pillars (accessibility, availability, utilization and stability) as interpreted appropriately for the given context. Food sovereignty (agency and autonomy) is also important as a means for sustainable, just, and culturally appropriate food security. “Food security” should be rethought as a much broader consideration – one that includes food sovereignty, well-being, cultural continuity and culturally appropriate food, sustainable access to food, and future generations’ access to the land and food environment. Food is at the nexus of physical health, economics and spiritual, mental, cultural and social health, and is therefore an interesting proxy for human impact and well-being. A systems-thinking approach should be used to fully understand the complex, holistic nature of food security (Ehrlich, 2021; Rohr et al., 2021). 111 Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusion This chapter discusses the results and conclusions of my research in the context of the two research questions, and the literature and current research in the field. 7.1 Discussion of Research Questions The purpose of this research was to explore food security in northern EA. Given the importance of harvested food to northern communities, resource development can have impacts on food security and cultural factors tied to food. The two research questions were: 1) How is food security currently addressed in northern EA processes? and 2) Is there a need for food security to be considered more explicitly in EA, and if so, how should this occur? I explored these questions throughout my review of the literature, thematic analysis of EA documents, and interviews with northern EA practitioners. 7.1.1 How is Food Security Currently Addressed in Northern EA? Food security is a topic that does come up in EA processes, whether explicitly or implicitly. It is often included in relation to socioeconomic or health impacts, or in terms of impacts to way of life and harvesting. As examined in my document analysis and three case studies, discussions of food and food security were illustrated through these main themes: • Cultural importance of food, cultural continuity (transmission of knowledge, skills, language, social and intergenerational cohesion, future generations) • Importance of food to holistic well-being (nutrition, physical, social, mental and emotional health, spirituality) • Contaminants, actual and perceived safety of the land and food, avoidance of areas • Harvest pressure and access (changes in harvest success, restrictions) • Environmental impacts affecting wildlife and wildlife habitat (loss, degradation, fragmentation or barrier effects, habitat quality, climate change and cumulative impacts) • Economic factors affecting food access (employment, poverty, cost of living) • Indigenous sovereignty and autonomy (food sovereignty, self-determination and self-sufficiency) The themes may not be applicable in all contexts but provide a broad overview of some ways that food-related concerns can play out in an EA context. My practitioner interviews mirrored these key themes for how foods considerations appear in resource development contexts. 112 7.1.2 Is There a Need for Food Security to be Considered More Explicitly in EA and if so, How Should this Occur? There is a need for food security to be considered more explicitly. It is implicit in the MVRMA (s. 115(1)) guiding principles for the MVEIRB process: (a) the protection of the environment from the significant adverse impacts of proposed developments; (b) the protection of the social, cultural and economic well-being of residents and communities in the Mackenzie Valley; and (c) the importance of conservation to the well-being and way of life of the aboriginal peoples of Canada to whom section 35 of the applies and who use an area of the Mackenzie Valley. This can be reasonably interpreted as including food considerations, as food is crucial to well-being and way of life. As section 35 of the Constitution Act upholds Aboriginal rights to hunting, fishing and trapping, it is implicit that these are important because of their inherent food and cultural value, and thus for Indigenous food security. While this research has shown that food security is somewhat addressed in assessment processes, it is rarely teased out. However, if this issue is brought up by communities in the context of social, cultural, and economic well-being as well as physical and mental health, it would be difficult for regulators to ignore. EA can be a valuable tool to address this issue and put binding commitments for mitigation in place. An example of a mitigation could be working with Indigenous groups to develop appropriate monitoring indicators related to their definition or interpretation of food security, then using this monitoring for adaptive management. Or, requiring clear communication of contamination data in an area, and what foods are safe (or unsafe) for consumption. Consideration should also ensure that all aspects of food security are met, as well as food sovereignty. As certain interviewees put it, there is a need to put concerns or impacts in the context of food security so the Review Board will know there is a need to create mitigations or measures specifically to address potential food security impacts. When issues are not stated explicitly as such, there is potential for real impacts to slip by undetected or unmitigated, or for measures to not be appropriate for the actual issue. Some recommendations include: • Establish a clear definition of food security and food sovereignty for use in EA contexts. 113 • Ensure that all four pillars (access, availability, utilization, and stability) are being met simultaneously when food security is being considered. If one is missing, it is not secure. • Listen to communities’ concerns and assess whether food security is an underlying implicit issue in oral evidence. • Incorporate and understand qualitative data in EA processes. • Collect relevant data to inform evidence-based assumptions and predictions, and use “lessons learned” to inform future work. • Encourage interdisciplinary communication to avoid siloed thinking and decision-making and consider how mandates fit into the bigger picture. • Consider that country foods and store-bought foods are not equivalent, due to the cultural significance of country foods. Store-bought foods are not a replacement for country foods. 7.2 Food Security Impacts Should be Considered Explicitly in EA and Other Levels of Resource Management Decision-making As there is no one regulatory or government mandated “home” where land-based food security is currently considered, food security should be considered at various regulatory levels of decision-making, especially when decisions are being made that could potentially impact (or benefit) food security, food systems or environments that support harvested wildlife. This could include land use planning, conservation areas, and management decisions, because there are many different contributing factors. Explicitly considering food security in EA would provide an integrative lens for a more holistic assessment. While food systems and food security may be well-suited to regional or strategic EA inquiry (Rohr et al., 2021), this is not often done. In the NWT, the Tłı̨chǫ Government has requested a regional study for the Slave Geological Province as per s.5.2 of the MVRMA; which if conducted, would be the first in the territory. In the NWT, it is more frequent and common that resource management decisions are made at project-level EA, in land use planning and in wildlife co-management settings. Until more regional or strategic EAs are completed or initiated, it is important for impacts to food security and food-related issues to be considered in project-level assessment, as well as other levels of resource management. EA scope is dependent on community concerns and the project type and location. Public participation and community engagement are important to understand the nature of the food system and socio-economic and cultural context of the community or region (Rohr et al., 2021). Rohr’s (2021) research interviewing food security experts found that public participation in EA 114 is particularly important, and often narratives and stories can elaborate on the region’s food system, cultural importance, values, and land use. 7.3 Recommendations and Conclusions 7.3.1 Strengths, Limitations and Applications of Thesis Some strengths of this research are that it merges two different fields of thought: food security and environmental management. Neither of these are new, but there is relatively little academic thought combining these two topics. While socioeconomic issues are often considered, there is little research on this multidisciplinary issue. The recent Blueberry River BC Supreme court ruling has shown that there must be a limit on development when cumulative impacts begin to infringe on meaningful ability to practice Aboriginal rights and way of life, so this research is a timely exploration of these related topics. Some limitations are that this research was mainly desktop based. For time and interviewee availability reasons, I was unable to send my results back to interviewees for member checking validation. This is a complex topic and I do not have expertise in everything, and to be practicable I was unable to give every aspect enough time and space. The research is based in the Mackenzie Valley, which has a relatively progressive co-management system grounded in land claim agreements, with Aboriginal rights, traditional knowledge considerations and this unique way of life baked into the legislation and process. The Review Board is already proactive and conscious of these interconnected issues and how they can relate to food security and overall well-being. It can provide a case study and example of how these food considerations are addressed under the MVRMA; however, this may limit how applicable this research is to other contexts elsewhere in Canada or other jurisdictions. Potential applications of my research findings include using these outcomes as guidance for EA practitioners, for example, through the development of a definition as reference to guide future consideration in EA, and the case studies as examples of how impacts to food have been considered in previous processes. The key themes can guide further thinking about how food can be affected by resource development. Food sovereignty is also important and should be considered in tandem with food security. 115 Possible future research directions drawing on the work of this thesis could examine legislation and case studies from different jurisdictions and how questions of food security, harvesting and s.35 rights are addressed and mitigated. It could include more quantitative and qualitative data collection, or collaboration with researchers already working in the field of northern food security. An economic assessment of the value of country foods in comparison to store-bought foods, a comparison of the wage economy with the traditional economy, and qualitative research on people’s perception of how resource development has changed their relationship with food and food systems would be interesting work that could be useful in EA processes. Food security is a complex interdisciplinary topic. While many topics that are discussed in EA are generally done by specific subject-matter experts, this topic requires interdisciplinary collaboration. This research examined the consideration of food security and food-related concerns in a northern Canadian EA context. I intend my research to spark discussion and further questions around the connection and interplay between resource development, the environment, food, culture, and Aboriginal rights. 116 Bibliography Aalhus, M., Oke, B., & Fumerton, R. (2018). The social determinants of health impacts of resource extraction and development in rural and northern communities: A summary of impacts and promising practices for assessment and monitoring. Northern Health, 6106 (January), 76. Abele, F. (2019). Canadian Contradictions: Forty Years of Northern Political Development, Fortieth Anniversary Special Issue (Dec.,1987), Published by: Arctic Institute of North America Sta. 40(4), 310–320. Abele, F. (2014). The Lasting Impact of the Berger Inquiry into the Construction of a Pipeline in the Mackenzie Valley. In Inwood, G. J., Johns., C.M. Commissions of Inquiry and Policy Change: A Comparative Analysis. University of Toronto Press, 2014, 88-112. Affolder, N., Allen, K., & Paruk, S. (2011). Independent Environmental Oversight: A Report for the Giant Mine Remediation Environmental Assessment. February 2011. Andrachuk, M., & Smit, B. (2012). Community-based vulnerability assessment of Tuktoyaktuk, NWT, Canada to environmental and socio-economic changes. Regional Environmental Change, 12(4), 867–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0299-0 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 Arctic Canadian Diamond Company. Retrieved from: https://arcticcanadian.ca/ekati-mine/. (Accessed January 2023). 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 Armitage, D. R. (2005). Collaborative environmental assessment in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(3), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2004.06.012 Auger, M. D. (2016). Cultural continuity as a determinant of Indigenous peoples’ health: A metasynthesis of qualitative research in Canada and the United States. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2016.7.4.3 Babbie, E. (2010) The Practice of Social Research (12th Edition). Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Bazeley, P; Jackson, K. (2014). Qualitative data analysis with NVIVO. In Journal of Education for Teaching (Vol. 40, Issue 2). https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2013.866724 117 Beaumier, M. C., & Ford, J. D. (2010). Food insecurity among Inuit women exacerbated by socioeconomic stresses and climate change. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 101(3), 196–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03404373 Beckett, C. (2021). Beyond remediation: Containing, confronting and caring for the Giant Mine Monster. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 4(4), 1389–1412. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848620954361 Berger, T. R. (1988). Northern frontier, northern homeland (Vol. 1). J. Lorimer & Company. Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2002). Perspectives on resilience. In F. Berkes, J. Colding, & C. Folke (Eds.), Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change (pp. 31-32). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511541957.004 Berkes, F., & Jolly, D. (2002). Adapting to climate change: Social-ecological resilience in a Canadian western arctic community. Ecology and Society, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-00342-050218 Bernstein, H. (2014). Food sovereignty via the ‘peasant way’: a sceptical view. Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6), 1031–1063. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.852082 Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 Bouma, G.D., Ling, R., & Wilkinson, L. (2012). The Research Process (2nd Canadian Edition). Oxford University Press. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. Sage Publications. Caron, N., & Plunkett-Latimer, J. (2022). Canadian Income Survey: Food insecurity and unmet health care needs, 2018 and 2019. 75. Retrieved from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/75f0002m/75f0002m2021009-eng.pdf?st=d_PMc_pI (Accessed April 2022). Chan, L., Batal, M., Sadik, T., Tikhonov, C., Schwartz, H., Fediuk, K., Ing, A., Marushka, L., Lindhorst, K., Barwin, L., Berti, P., Singh, K., & Receveur, O. (2019). FNFNES Final Report for Eight Assembly of First Nations Regions: Draft Comprehensive Technical Report. Assembly of First Nations, University of Ottawa, Université de Montréal. Christensen, J., & Grant, M. (2007). How political change paved the way for indigenous knowledge: The Mackenzie valley resource management act. Arctic, 60(2), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic236 Consolidated Environmental Agreement for the Ekati Diamond Project (2019). Independent Environmental Monitoring Agency (IEMA) website. Retrieved from: 118 https://monitoringagency.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2019-Update-Consolidated-Ekati-Environmental-Agreement-Amendments-FINAL.pdf (Accessed January 2023) Constitution Act (1982). Government of Canada Justice Laws Website. Retrieved from: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/index.html Coté, C. (2016). “Indigenizing” Food Sovereignty. Revitalizing Indigenous Food Practices and Ecological Knowledges in Canada and the United States. Humanities, 5(3), 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/h5030057 Council of Canadian Academies. (2014). Aboriginal Food Security in Northern Canada: An Assessment of the State of Knowledge, Ottawa, ON. The Expert Panel on the State of Knowledge of Food Security in Northern Canada, Council of Canadian Academies. Council of Canadian Academies. (2019). Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts: Toward Integrated Natural Resource Management in Canada. The Expert Panel on the State of Knowledge and Practice of Integrated Approaches to Natural Resource Management in Canada. Ottawa, ON. Creswell, W. J., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th edition). Sage Publications. Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, Treaties and Agreements. Retrieved from: https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100028574/1529354437231 (Accessed November 15, 2022). Cruickshank, A., Notten, G., Wesche, S., Ballegooyen, K., & Pope, G. (2019). Co-management of traditional foods: Opportunities and limitations for food security in northern first nation communities. Arctic, 72(4), 360–380. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic69363 Czyzewski, K. (2011). Colonialism as a Broader Social Determinant of Health. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 2(1). DOI:10.18584/iipj.2011.2.1.5 Dalseg, S. K., Kuokkanen, R., Mills, S., & Simmons, D. (2018). Gendered Environmental Assessments in the Canadian North: Marginalization of Indigenous Women and Traditional Economies. The Northern Review, 47, 135–166. https://doi.org/10.22584/nr47.2018.007 Daly, H. E. (1992). Allocation, distribution, and scale: towards an economics that is efficient, just, and sustainable. Ecological Economics, 6(3), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(92)90024-M Damman, S., Eide, W. B., & Kuhnlein, H. V. (2008). Indigenous peoples’ nutrition transition in a right to food perspective. Food Policy, 33(2), 135–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.08.002 119 Dana, L. P., Anderson, R. B., & Meis-Mason, A. (2009). A study of the impact of oil and gas development on the Dene first nations of the Sahtu (great bear lake) region of the Canadian Northwest Territories (NWT). Journal of Enterprising Communities, 3(1), 94–117. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506200910943706 Darwin Holmes, A. G. (2020). Researcher Positionality - A Consideration of Its Influence and Place in Qualitative Research - A New Researcher Guide. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 8(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v8i4.3232 Davison, C.M. & Hawe, P. (2012). All That Glitters: Diamond Mining and Tåîchô Youth in Behchokö, Northwest Territories. Arctic, 65(2), 214–228. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (12th Edition). Sage Publications. Desmarais, A. A., & Wittman, H. (2014). Farmers, foodies and First Nations: getting to food sovereignty in Canada. Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6), 1153–1173. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.876623 Döringer, S. (2021). ‘The problem-centred expert interview’. Combining qualitative interviewing approaches for investigating implicit expert knowledge. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(3), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1766777 DPRA (2013). Resource Exploration in the Sahtu Settlement Area: Opportunities and Challenges Prepared for: Government of Northwest Territories Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment. Retrieved from: https://www.iti.gov.nt.ca/sites/iti/files/resource_exploration_sahtu.pdf. Accessed January 2023. 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 Ehrlich, A., & Ross, W. (2015). The significance spectrum and EIA significance determinations. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 33(2), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2014.981023 Ehrlich, A. (2021). Collective impacts: using systems thinking in project-level assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 40(2), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2021.1996901 Erber, E., Beck, L., Hopping, B. N., Sheehy, T., De Roose, E., & Sharma, S. (2010). Food patterns and socioeconomic indicators of food consumption amongst Inuvialuit in the Canadian Arctic. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 23(SUPPL. 1), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2010.01097.x 120 Ericksen, P. J. (2008). Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.002 Fitzpatrick, P., Sinclair, A. J., & Mitchell, B. (2008). Environmental impact assessment under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act: Deliberative democracy in Canada’s North? Environmental Management, 42(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9098-2 Flowerdew, R., and Martin, D. (2005). Methods in Human Geography: A guide for students doing a research project (2nd Edition). Taylor & Francis. Friendship, K. (2010). Climate change and food security in the North: A literature review 2010. Report prepared for Arctic Health Research Network -YT. Retrieved from: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56afc7218259b53bd8383cb8/t/56be5a1c9f7266636bcd34e9/1455315485965/Climate_Change_Food_Security_in_the_North.pdf. Gamble, D. J. (1978). The Berger Inquiry: An Impact Assessment Process. Science, 199(4332), 946–952. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.199.4332.946 Gilbert, S. Z., Walsh, D. E., Levy, S. N., Maksagak, B., Milton, M. I., Ford, J. D., Hawley, N. L., & Dubrow, R. (2021). Determinants, effects, and coping strategies for low-yield periods of harvest: a qualitative study in two communities in Nunavut, Canada. Food Security 13:157–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-020-01112-0 GNWT Environment and Natural Resources (2015). Retrieved from: https://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/en/state-environment/183-country-food-use-nwt-ecozones. Accessed 2022. GNWT Environment and Climate Change. Barren-ground Caribou – Bathurst Herd. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.nt.ca/ecc/en/services/barren-ground-caribou/bathurst-herd. Accessed June 2023. Giant Mine Remediation Project Environmental Agreement. (2015). GNWT Environment and Climate Change. https://www.gov.nt.ca/ecc/en/services/giant-mine-remediation-project/giant-mine-environmental-agreement. Accessed July 2023. Gordillo, G., Mendez Jeronimo, O. (2013). Food Security and Sovereignty. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) (2019). Sustainable Livelihoods Action Plan 2019-2023. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.nt.ca/sites/ecc/files/resources/128-sustainable_livelihoods_ap_en_proof.pdf Gregory, R., Halteman, P., Kaechele, N., Kotaska, J., & Satterfield, T. (2020). Compensating indigenous social and cultural losses: A community-based multiple-attribute approach. Ecology and Society, 25(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12038-250404 121 Grey, S., & Patel, R. (2015). Food sovereignty as decolonization: some contributions from Indigenous movements to food system and development politics. Agriculture and Human Values, 32(3), 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-014-9548-9 Gunn, K. (2021, July 8). First Peoples Law. Time Is of the Essence: Treaty Rights and Cumulative Impacts in Yahey v. British Columbia. https://www.firstpeopleslaw.com/public-education/blog/time-is-of-the-essence-treaty-rights-and-cumulative-impacts-in-yahey-v-british-columbia 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 Halseth, R. (2015). The nutritional health of the First Nations and Métis of the Northwest Territories: A review of current knowledge and gaps. Prince George, BC: National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health. Hancock, D.R., Algozzine, B. (2017). Doing Case Study Research: A Practical Guide for Beginning Researchers (3rd Edition). Teachers College Press. Health Canada. (2018). Guidance for Evaluating Human Health Impacts in Environmental Assessment: Country Foods. Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Holmes TH, Rahe RH (1967). "The Social Readjustment Rating Scale". J Psychosom Res. 11 (2): 213–8. doi:10.1016/0022-3999(67)90010-4. PMID 6059863. Imperial Oil website, 2020. A Century of Production. Retrieved from: https://www.imperialoil.ca/en-ca/news/imperial-stories/operations/a-century-of-production (Accessed March 2023). Islam, D., & Berkes, F. (2016). Indigenous peoples’ fisheries and food security: a case from northern Canada. Food Security, 8(4), 815–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-016-0594-6 Jardine, C. G., Banfield, L., Driedger, S. M., & Furgal, C. M. (2013). Risk communication and trust in decision-maker action: A case study of the Giant Mine Remediation Plan. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 72(SUPPL.1). https://doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v72i0.21184 Jonasson, M. E., Spiegel, S. J., Thomas, S., Yassi, A., Wittman, H., Takaro, T., Afshari, R., Markwick, M., & Spiegel, J. M. (2019). Oil pipelines and food sovereignty: threat to health equity for Indigenous communities. Journal of Public Health Policy, 40(4), 504–517. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-019-00186-1 122 Kielland, N. (2015). Supporting Aboriginal Participation in Resource Development: The Role of Impact and Benefit Agreements. Library of Parliament, 1–11. https://lop.parl.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2015-29-e.pdf Keeling, A., & Sandlos, J. (2012). Giant Mine: Historical Summary. 21. http://research.library.mun.ca/638/ Kenny, T. A., Fillion, M., MacLean, J., Wesche, S. D., & Chan, H. M. (2018). Calories are cheap, nutrients are expensive – The challenge of healthy living in Arctic communities. Food Policy, 80(June 2017), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.08.006 Kenny, T. A., Little, M., Lemieux, T., Joshua Griffin, P., Wesche, S. D., Ota, Y., Batal, M., Chan, H. M., & Lemire, M. (2020). The retail food sector and indigenous peoples in high-income countries: A systematic scoping review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(23), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238818 Klinck, J., & Gibson, G. (2005). Canada’s resilient north: the impact of mining on Aboriginal communities. Pimatisiwin: A Journal of Aboriginal and Indigenous Community Health, 3(1), 116. http://caid.ca/JAICH2005v3n1p115.pdf Kovach, M. (2021). Indigenous methodologies: characteristics, conversations, and contexts. (2nd edition) University of Toronto Press. Kryzanowski, J. A., & McIntyre, L. (2011). A holistic model for the selection of environmental assessment indicators to assess the impact of industrialization on indigenous health. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 102(2), 112–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03404158 Kuhnlein, H. V. (2015). Food system sustainability for health and well-being of Indigenous Peoples. Public Health Nutrition, 18(13), 2415–2424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980014002961 Kuhnlein, H. V. (2017). Gender roles, food system biodiversity, and food security in Indigenous Peoples’ communities. Maternal and Child Nutrition, 13(September 2017), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.12529 Kuhnlein, H. V., & Chotiboriboon, S. (2022). Why and How to Strengthen Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems with Examples from Two Unique Indigenous Communities. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6(May), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.808670 Lambden, J., Receveur, O., Marshall, J., Kuhnlein, H. (2006). Traditional and market food access in Arctic Canada is affected by economic factors. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 65:4, 331-340. https://doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v65i4.18117 Lambden, J., Receveur, O., & Kuhnlein, H. V. (2007). Traditional food attributes must be included in studies of food security in the Canadian Arctic. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 66(4), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v66i4.18272 123 Lands Delegation Instrument (2014). Retrieved from MVEIRB, https://reviewboard.ca/process_information/legislation_and_regulation (Accessed November 15, 2022). La Via Campesina. (2018). Food Sovereignty Now! A guide to Food Sovereignty. European Coordination Via Campesina, 1–28. Lebel, L., Paquin, V., Kenny, T. A., Fletcher, C., Nadeau, L., Chachamovich, E., & Lemire, M. (2022). Climate change and Indigenous mental health in the Circumpolar North: A systematic review to inform clinical practice. Transcultural Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634615211066698 Leblanc-Laurendeau, O. (2019). Food Insecurity in Northern Canada: An Overview. 1–8. https://lop.parl.ca/staticfiles/PublicWebsite/Home/ResearchPublications/InBriefs/PDF/2019-18-e.pdf Lemke, S., & Delormier, T. (2017). Indigenous Peoples’ food systems, nutrition, and gender: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Maternal and Child Nutrition, 13(March 2017), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.12499 Liamputtong, P. (2019). Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences, 1–2248. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4 Loring, P. A., & Gerlach, S. C. (2015). Searching for progress on food security in the North American North: A research synthesis and meta-analysis of the peer-reviewed literature. Arctic, 68(3), 380–392. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic4509 Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB) (2004). Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines. Retrieved from: https://reviewboard.ca/process_information/guidance_documentation/guidelines (Accessed October 21, 2022). Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB) (2007). Socio-Economic Impact Assessment Guidelines. Retrieved from: https://reviewboard.ca/upload/ref_library/SEIA_Guidelines_Contents_and_Chapter_1.pdf Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board (2021). Arctic Canadian Diamond Company’s: Ekati Mine – Point Lake Project – MVRMA Ss. 126(3) Determination. Accessed June 2023. Retrieved from: https://registry.mvlwb.ca/Documents/W2020L2-0004/Ekati%20-%20Point%20Lake%20-%20Review%20Board%20s126%20Reasons%20for%20Decision%20-%20Nov%201_21.pdf 124 MVEIRB Guidelines for Incorporating Traditional Knowledge into Environmental Impact Assessment. (2005). Retrieved from: https://reviewboard.ca/upload/ref_library/1247177561_MVReviewBoard_Traditional_Knowledge_Guidelines.pdf (Accessed March 2023). MVEIRB Pine Point Mine Project Terms of Reference (2021). Retrieved from: https://reviewboard.ca/upload/project_document/EA2021-01%20Terms%20of%20Reference%20Final%20(2).pdf. (Accessed July 2022). Mackenzie Valley Land Use Regulations, Statutes of Canada SOR/98-429 (1998). Retrieved from Government of Canada Justce Laws Website: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-429/FullText.html Mantyka-Pringle, C. S., Jardine, T. D., Bradford, L., Bharadwaj, L., Kythreotis, A. P., Fresque-Baxter, J., Kelly, E., Somers, G., Doig, L. E., Jones, P. D., Lindenschmidt, K. E., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.02.008 Marushka, L., Batal, M., Tikhonov, C., Sadik, T., Schwartz, H., Ing, A., Fediuk, K., & Chan, H. M. (2021). Importance of fish for food and nutrition security among First Nations in Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health. 112, 64–81. Matheson, K., Seymour, A., Landry, J., Ventura, K., Arsenault, E., & Anisman, H. (2022). Canada’s Colonial Genocide of Indigenous Peoples: A Review of the Psychosocial and Neurobiological Processes Linking Trauma and Intergenerational Outcomes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116455 Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (2004). Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines. Retrieved from: https://reviewboard.ca/process_information/guidance_documentation/guidelines (Accessed October 31, 2022). Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB) (2020). Report of Environmental Assessment and Reasons for Decision - Diavik Diamond Mines Depositing Processed Kimberlite to pits and underground. Retrieved from: https://documents.reviewboard.ca/w/mvrb/PR196#!fragment/zoupio-_Toc29201583/BQCwhgziBcwMYgK4DsDWszIQewE4BUBTADwBdoAvbRABwEtsBaAfX2zgCYBODgBgEYArAA4AzAEoANMmylCEAIqJCuAJ7QA5BskRCYXAiUr1WnXoMgAynlIAhdQCUAogBknANQCCAOQDCTyVIwACNoUnZxcSA (Accessed June 2023). Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB) (2016). Report of Environmental Assessment and Reasons for Decision - Dominion Diamond Ekati Corp. Jay 125 Project. Retrieved from: https://reviewboard.ca/upload/project_document/EA1314-01_Report_of_Environmental_Assesment_and_Reasons_for_Decision.PDF Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB) (2018). Report of Environmental Assessment and Reasons for Decision - GNWT Tłı̨chǫ All‐Season Road Project. Retrieved from: https://reviewboard.ca/upload/project_document/Final%20TASR%20REA%20April%2003.pdf MVLWB Guide to Completing Water Licence Applications to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, 2003. https://mvlwb.com/sites/default/files/mvlwb/Application-Guides/Water%20License%20Apps%20Guide.pdf Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, Statutes of Canada (1998, c.25). Retrieved from Government of Canada Justice Laws Website: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/m-0.2/ (Accessed October 21, 2022). Morgan, H. (2022). Conducting a Qualitative Document Analysis. Qualitative Report, 27(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5044 Muhammad, M., Wallerstein, N., Sussman, A. L., Avila, M., Belone, L., & Duran, B. (2015). Reflections on researcher identity and power: The impact of positionality on community based participatory research (CBPR) processes and outcomes. Critical Sociology, 41(7-8), 1045-1063. doi:10.1177/0896920513516025 Newell, S. L., & Doubleday, N. C. (2020). Sharing country food: connecting health, food security and cultural continuity in Chesterfield Inlet, Nunavut. Polar Research, 39, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.33265/polar.v39.3755 Noble, B. F., & Bronson, J. E. (2005). Integrating Human Health into Environmental Impact Assessment: Case Studies of Canada’s Northern Mining Resource Sector. Arctic Institute of North America, 58(4), 395–405. Noble, B., & Bronson, J. (2006). Practitioner survey of the state of health integration in environmental assessment: The case of northern Canada. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(4), 410–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2005.11.001 Noble, B., Gibson, R., White, L., Blakley, J., Croal, P., Nwanekezie, K., & Doelle, M. (2019). Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Canada under directive-based and informal practice. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 37(3–4), 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019.1565708 Noble, B., & Hanna, K. (2015). Environmental assessment in the Arctic: A gap analysis and research agenda. Arctic, 68(3), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic4501 126 Noll, S., & Murdock, E. G. (2020). Whose Justice is it Anyway? Mitigating the Tensions Between Food Security and Food Sovereignty. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 33(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-019-09809-9 Northwest Territories Intergovernmental Resource Revenue Sharing Agreement (2014). Retrieved from: https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/nwt147526.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2023). Northwest Territories Land and Resources Devolution Agreement (2013). Retrieved from: https://www.eia.gov.nt.ca/sites/eia/files/final-devolution-agreement.pdf. Accessed February 2023. NWT Bureau of Statistics (2018). Population Estimates data. Retrieved from https://www.statsnwt.ca/population/population-estimates/ (Accessed October 21, 2022). NWT Bureau of Statistics (2018). Traditional Activities. Retrieved from https://www.statsnwt.ca/Traditional%20Activities/ (Accessed October 21, 2022). NWT Waters Act, Waters Regulations, 2014. https://mvlwb.com/sites/default/files/documents/TAB%207%20-%20Waters%20Regulations%20-%202014.pdf Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) (2019). Strategic Environmental Assessment in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait. Retrieved from: https://www.nirb.ca/content/strategic-environmental-assessment. Paci, C. D. J., Dickson, C., Nickels, S., Chan, L., Furgal, C. (2004). Food Security of Northern Indigenous Peoples in a Time of Uncertainty. Northern Research Forum Position Paper, 1–15. Paci, C., & Villebrun, N. (2005). Mining Denendeh: A Dene Nation perspective on community health impacts of mining. Pimatisiwin: A Journal of Aboriginal and Indigenous Community Health, 3(1), 71–86. Panikkar, B., & Lemmond, B. (2020). Being on land and sea in troubled times: Climate change and food sovereignty in Nunavut. Land, 9(12), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9120508 Parlee, B. (2018). Resource development and wellbeing in Northern Canada. Resources and Sustainable Development in the Arctic, November, 132–155. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351019101 Parlee, B. (2012). Finding Voice in a Changing Ecological and Political Landscape—Traditional Knowledge and Resource Management in Settled and Unsettled Claim Areas of the Northwest Territories, Canada. Aboriginal Policy Studies, 2(1), 56–87. https://doi.org/10.5663/aps.v2i1.17704 127 Parlee, B., Berkes, F., & Teetl’it Gwich’in Renewable Resources Council. (2005). Health of the land, health of the people: A case study on Gwich’in Berry harvesting in Northern Canada. EcoHealth, 2(2), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-005-3870-z Parlee, B., & Furgal, C. (2012). Well-being and environmental change in the arctic: A synthesis of selected research from Canada’s International Polar Year program. Climatic Change, 115(1), 13–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0588-0 Parlee, B. L., Sandlos, J., & Natcher, D. C. (2018). Undermining subsistence: Barren-ground caribou in a “tragedy of open access.” Science Advances, 4(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1701611 Peletz, N., Hanna, K., & Noble, B. (2020). The central role of Inuit Qaujimaningit in Nunavut’s impact assessment process. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(5), 412–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2020.1786763 Pelletier, N., Bamber, N., & Brandão, M. (2019). Interpreting life cycle assessment results for integrated sustainability decision support: can an ecological economic perspective help us to connect the dots? International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(9), 1580–1586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01612-y Polsky, J. Y., & Gilmour, H. (2020). Food insecurity and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Statistics Canada Health Reports, 31(12), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.25318/82-003-x202001200001-eng Power, E. M. (2008). Conceptualizing Food Security for Aboriginal People in Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 99(2), 95–97. Prieto, M. R., Laird, B. D., & Skinner, K. (2022). Dietary Intakes of Traditional Foods for Dene / Métis in the Dehcho and Sahtú Regions of the Northwest Territories. Nutrients, 14, 378. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14020378 Proverbs, T. A., Lantz, T. C., Lord, S. I., Amos, A., & Ban, N. C. (2020). Social-Ecological Determinants of Access to Fish and Well-Being in Four Gwich’in Communities in Canada’s Northwest Territories. Human Ecology, 48(2), 155–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-020-00131-x Prowse, T. D., Furgal, C., Chouinard, R., Melling, H., Milburn, D., & Smith, S. L. (2009). Implications of climate change for economic development in Northern Canada: Energy, resource, and transportation sectors. Ambio, 38(5), 272–281. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-38.5.272 Ratelle, M., Skinner, K., Packull-McCormick, S., & Laird, B. (2020) Food frequency questionnaire assessing traditional food consumption in Dene/Métis communities, Northwest Territories, Canada, International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 79:1, 1760071, DOI: 10.1080/22423982.2020.1760071 128 Ratelle, M., Haig, L., Laird, B. D., & Skinner, K. (2021). Game bird consumption in Dene communities of the Northwest. 24(6), 1229–1239. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980021000021 Roburn, S. (2018). Power from the north: The energized trajectory of indigenous sovereignty movements. Canadian Journal of Communication, 43(1), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.22230/CJC.2018V43N1A3310 Rodon, T., & Lévesque, F. (2015). Understanding the Social and Economic Impacts of Mining Development in Inuit Communities: Experiences with Past and Present Mines in Inuit Nunangat. The Northern Review, 41(2015), 13–39. https://doi.org/10.22584/nr41.2015.002 Rohr, V., Blakley, J., & Loring, P. (2021). A framework to assess food security in regional strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 91(September), 106674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106674 Rosol, R., Powell-Hellyer, S., & Chan, H. M. (2016). Impacts of decline harvest of country food on nutrient intake among Inuit in Arctic Canada: impact of climate change and possible adaptation plan. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 75:1, 31127, https://doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v75.31127 Ross, P., & Mason, C. W. (2020). “We Hardly Have Any Moose Around Here Anymore”: Climate Change and the Barriers to Food Security in the Dehcho Region, Northwest Territories. Arctic. 73(3), 368–385. Sabin, J. (2017). A Federation within a Federation? Devolution and Indigenous Government in the Northwest Territories. IRPP Study, 66, 0_1,1-27. https://proxy.library.carleton.ca/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/2187138496?accountid=9894%0Ahttps://ocul-crl.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/openurlinstitution=01OCUL_CRL&vid=01OCUL_CRL:CRL_DEFAULT&?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:of 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. Report prepared for the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/iaac-acei/documents/research/indigenous-mental-wellness-and-ia-en.pdf (Accessed May 2022) Sam-Aggrey, H. (2020). The role of Indigenous Local Knowledge (ILK) in Enhancing Indigenous Security in the Mackenzie Valley, Northwest Territories, Canada. In Routledge Handbook of Arctic Security, 392–405. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315265797-32 Satterfield, T., Gregory, R., Klain, S., Roberts, M., & Chan, K. M. (2013). Culture, Intangibles and metrics in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 117, 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.11.033 129 Satz, D., Gould, R. K., Chan, K. M. A., Guerry, A., Norton, B., Satterfield, T., Halpern, B. S., Levine, J., Woodside, U., Hannahs, N., Basurto, X., & Klain, S. (2013). The challenges of incorporating cultural ecosystem services into environmental assessment. In Ambio (Vol. 42, Issue 6, pp. 675–684). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0386-6 Settee, P., & Shukla, S. (Eds.). (2020). Indigenous food systems: Concepts, cases, and conversations. Canadian Scholars. Schnitter, R., & Berry, P. (2019). The climate change, food security and human health nexus in Canada: A framework to protect population health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142531 Sheehy, T., Kolahdooz, F., Schaefer, S. E., Douglas, D. N., Corriveau, A., & Sharma, S. (2014). Traditional food patterns are associated with better diet quality and improved dietary adequacy in Aboriginal peoples in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics. 28, 262-271 https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.12243 Skinner, K., Hanning, R., Desjardins, E., & Tsuji, L. (2013). Giving voice to food insecurity in a remote indigenous community. BMC Public Health, 13(427), 1–13. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/13/427 Snook, J., Cunsolo, A., Borish, D., Furgal, C., Ford, J. D., Shiwak, I., Flowers, C. T. R., & Harper, S. L. (2020). “We’re Made Criminals Just to Eat off the Land”: Colonial Wildlife Management and Repercussions on Inuit Well-Being. Sustainability, 1–19. Southcott, C., Natcher, D. (2018). Extractive industries and Indigenous subsistence economies: a complex and unresolved relationship. Canadian Journal of Development Studies / Revue Canadienne d’études Du Développement, 39(1), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2017.1400955 Southcott, C., Abele, F., Natcher, D., Parlee, B. (2018). Beyond the Berger Inquiry: Can Extractive Resource Development Help the Sustainability of Canada’s Arctic Communities? Arctic. 71(4), 393–406. Spring, A., Carter, B., & Blay-Palmer, A. (2018). Climate change, community capitals, and food security: Building a more sustainable food system in a northern Canadian boreal community. Canadian Food Studies / La Revue Canadienne Des Études Sur l’Alimentation, 5(2), 111–141. https://doi.org/10.15353/cfs-rcea.v5i2.199 The Constitution Act, 1867 to 1982. Section 35, Part II. Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada. Retrieved from Government of Canada Justice Laws Website, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-13.html#h-53 (Accessed October 31, 2022). 130 Thiessen, B., Noble, B., & Hanna, K. (2020). Analysis of impact assessment practice and mitigation for shipping activity in the Eastern Canadian Arctic. Arctic, 73(2), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic70471 Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2021). Research Adventures on Indigenous Lands. In Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (pp. 91–107). London: Zed Books. Retrieved April 12, 2023, from http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781350225282.0009 Tyson, W., Lantz, T. C., & Ban, N. C. (2016). Cumulative effects of environmental change on culturally significant ecosystems in the Inuvialuit settlement region. Arctic, 69(4), 391–405. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic4607 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. S.C. 2021, c.14. Retrieved from Government of Canada Justice Laws Website: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/u-2.2/FullText.html#:~:text=Indigenous%20peoples%20have%20the%20right,seeds%2C%20medicines%2C%20knowledge%20of%20the (Accessed December 2022). United Nations (2015). Sustainable Development Goals Retrieved from: https://sdgs.un.org/goals Usher, P. J. (1976). Evaluating Country Food in the Northern Native Economy. Arctic, 29(2). https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic2795 Wesche, S. D., & Chan, H. M. (2010). Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change on Food Security among Inuit in the Western Canadian Arctic. EcoHealth, 7(3), 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-010-0344-8 Wesche, S. D., O’Hare-Gordon, M. A. F., Robidoux, M. A., & Mason, C. W. (2016). Land-Based programs in the Northwest Territories: Building Indigenous food security and well-being from the ground up. Canadian Food Studies / La Revue Canadienne Des Études Sur l’alimentation, 3(2), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.15353/cfs-rcea.v3i2.161 Wilson, A., Levkoe, C. Z., Andrée, P., Skinner, K., Spring, A., Wesche, S., & Galloway, T. (2020). Strengthening Sustainable Northern Food Systems: Federal Policy Constraints and Potential Opportunities. Arctic, 73(3), 292–311. MVLWB, (2021). MVEIRB Reasons for Decision. Arctic Canadian Diamond Company’s Ekati Mine – Point Lake Project – MVRMA Ss. 126(3) Determination. Accessed from: https://registry.mvlwb.ca/Documents/W2020L2-0004/Ekati%20-%20Point%20Lake%20-%20Review%20Board%20s126%20Reasons%20for%20Decision%20-%20Nov%201_21.pdf Yin, R.K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th Edition). Sage Publications Inc. 131 Appendices Appendix A: List of MVEIRB Environmental Assessment Documents Analyzed in NVivo Document Analysis Project Name MVEIRB Document Name Project Phase Giant Mine Remediation Project EA0809-001_AN_Giant_Mine_EA_Technical_Report__Final_ Technical Reports Giant Mine Remediation Project EA0809-001_City_of_Yellowknife_Technical_Report Technical Reports Giant Mine Remediation Project EA0809-001_Environment_Canada_Technical_Report Technical Reports Giant Mine Remediation Project EA0809-001_Fisheries_and_Oceans_Canada_s_Giant_Mine_EA_Technical_Report Technical Reports Giant Mine Remediation Project EA0809-001_Giant_Mine_heaing_transcripts_-_September_11__2012 Public Hearings Giant Mine Remediation Project EA0809-001_Giant_Mine_hearing_transcript_-_September_12__2012 Public Hearings Giant Mine Remediation Project EA0809-001_Giant_Mine_hearing_transcripts_-_September_10__2012 Public Hearings Giant Mine Remediation Project EA0809-001_Giant_Mine_public_hearing_transcript_-_Sept_13__2012 Public Hearings Giant Mine Remediation Project EA0809-001_Giant_Mine_public_hearing_transcript_-_September_14__2012 Public Hearings Giant Mine Remediation Project EA0809-001_Giant_Report_of_Environmental_Assessment_June_20_2013 Report of EA Giant Mine Remediation Project EA0809-001_Meeting_notes_from_Giant_Mine_Remediation_Project_EA_ scoping_session_-_June_17_2008 Scoping Giant Mine Remediation Project EA0809-001_NSMA_Technical_Report_Plain_Language_Summary Technical Reports Giant Mine Remediation Project EA0809-001_Tech_session_transcript-_Oct__17 Technical Sessions Giant Mine Remediation Project EA0809-001_Tech_session_transcript-_Oct__19_2011 Technical Sessions Giant Mine Remediation Project EA0809-001_Tech_session_transcript-_Oct__20_2011 Technical Sessions Giant Mine Remediation Project EA0809-001_Tech_session_transcript-_Oct__21_2011 Technical Sessions Giant Mine Remediation Project EA0809-001_Tech_session_transcript-_Oct_18_2011 Technical Sessions Giant Mine Remediation Project EA0809-001_Terms_of_Reference-_Giant_EA Terms of Reference Giant Mine Remediation Project EA0809-001_Transcript_from_July_22__2008 Scoping Giant Mine Remediation Project EA0809-001_Transcript_from_July_23__2008 Scoping Giant Mine Remediation Project EA0809-001_YKDFN_Technical_Report-_Giant_EA Technical Reports Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_DDMI_-_Technical_Report Technical Reports Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_DDMI_TechReport_Response_from_Dominion Technical Reports Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_DFO_TechReport_Response_from_Dominion Technical Reports 132 Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_DKFN_Letter_to_MVRB_DDEC_Jay_Project_Technical_Report_31July2015_signed Technical Reports Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_DKFN_TechReport_Response_from_Dominion Technical Reports Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_EC_TechReport_Response_from_Dominion Technical Reports Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_GNWT_Technical_Report_July_31_2015 Technical Reports Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_GNWT_TechReport_Response_from_Dominion Technical Reports Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_Government_of_Canada_Technical_Reports__EC__DFO__TC_ Technical Reports Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_IEMA_Technical_Report Technical Reports Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_IEMA_TechReport_Response_from_Dominion Technical Reports Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_Jay_hearing_transcipt_-_Day_3__Yellowknife_-_Sept_16__2015 Public Hearings Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_Jay_hearing_transcripts_-_Day_1__Yellowknife_-_Sept_14__2015 Public Hearings Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_Jay_hearing_transcripts_-_Day_2__Yellowknife_-_Sept_15__2015 Public Hearings Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_Jay_hearing_transcripts_-_Day_4_-_Behchoko__Sep_17__2015 Public Hearings Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_Jay_hearing_transcripts_-_Day_5_-_Lutsel_K_e_Sept_19__2015 Public Hearings Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_Jay_hearing_transcripts_-_Day_6_-_Kugluktuk__Sept_21__2015 Public Hearings Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_LKDFN_Technical_Report_ Technical Reports Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_LKDFN_TechReport_Response_from_Dominion Technical Reports Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_NSMA_Tech_Report_Reference_DDEC__Baseline_TK_Report2014 Technical Reports Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_NSMA_Technical_Report_NSMA Technical Reports Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_NSMA_TechReport_Response_from_Dominion Technical Reports Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_Report_of_Environmental_Assesment_and_Reasons_for_Decision Report of EA Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_Scoping_sessions_-_Collected_summary_notes_Jan_2014 Scoping Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_TC_TechReport_Response_from_Dominion Technical Reports Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_Technical_session_transcipts_April_21__2015 Technical Sessions Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_Technical_session_transcripts_April_20__2015 Technical Sessions Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_Technical_session_transcripts_April_22__2015 Technical Sessions Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_Technical_session_transcripts_April_23__2015 Technical Sessions Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_Technical_session_transcripts_April_24__2015 Technical Sessions 133 Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_Terms_of_Reference Terms of Reference Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_Tlicho_Government_Technical_Report Technical Reports Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_Tlicho_TechReport_Response_from_Dominion Technical Reports Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_YKDFN_Jay_Project_TK_Report_with_email_cover Other Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_YKDFN_Technical_Report Technical Reports Ekati Jay Project EA1314-01_YKDFN_TechReport_Response_from_Dominion Technical Reports Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road 171027 Final GNWT Responses to Technical Reports Technical Sessions Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road 2017_Oct_11_TASR_Technical_Report_NSMA_Final_submission Technical Reports Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road DFO_Tech Report Technical Reports Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road EA-1617-01_Reasons_for_Decision_for_scope_of_EA_and_adequacy_statement Scoping Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road EA-1617-01_Summary_of_Community_Scoping_Session_in_Whati Scoping Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road EA-1617-01_Summary_of_Technical_Scoping_Session_in_Yellowknife Scoping Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road EA-1617-01_Terms_of_Reference Terms of Reference Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road ECCC_Tech Report Technical Reports Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road Final TASR REA April 03 Report of EA Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road MVEIRB re ALL-SEASON ROAD 11-15-2017 Public Hearings Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road MVEIRB re TLICHO ALL SEASON RD 08-15-2017 Technical Sessions Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road MVEIRB re TLICHO ALL SEASON RD 08-16-2017 Technical Sessions Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road MVEIRB re TLICHO ALL SEASON RD 08-17-2017 Technical Sessions Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road MVEIRB re TLICHO ALL SEASON ROAD 11-16-2017 Public Hearings Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road MVEIRB re TLICHO ALL-SEASON ROAD 11-17-2017 Public Hearings Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road NRCan_Tech Report Technical Reports Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road TG_TASRTechnicalReport_Final_11OCT2017 Technical Reports Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road WRRB to MVEIRB - Technical Report Submission FINAL 11Oct17 Technical Reports Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road WRRB to MVEIRB - Technical Report Submission FINAL 23Oct17 Technical Reports Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road YKDFN TASR-EA-1617-01 Technical Submission Technical Reports 134 Appendix B: Codebook from NVivo Coding Qualitative coding structure from NVivo qualitative analysis Parent code Child code Sub-code Cultural Importance Land use, connection with land, spiritual Sharing food Traditional language, knowledge transmission Food Value, Food Security Grocery and store-bought food Habitat and environmental impacts Wildlife behavioural change Climate change Contaminants Cumulative Effects dust, noise, air Offsetting, compensation and mitigation Socio-economic Change in perception Economic Cost Traditional economy and livelihoods Wage economy and employment Future generations Health wellbeing social Gender Nutrition Traditional Harvesting Fishing Fish habitat Fisheries management Increased fishing pressure Water quality impacts Hunting Change in harvest success Further distances to travel Harvest management and monitoring, (including harvest restrictions) Increase in predation success Increased hunting pressure Non-Aboriginal and recreational hunting or fishing Treaty and s.35 Aboriginal rights Land, road, water access Medicinal plants, berries Seasonality Trapping 135 Appendix C: Counts of NVivo Coding by Project Codes Ekati Jay Project Giant Mine Remediation Tłı̨chǫ All-Season Road Total Cultural Importance 151 51 69 271 Land use, connection with land, spiritual 94 46 27 167 Sharing food 8 0 17 25 Traditional language, knowledge transmission 42 6 55 103 Food Value, Food Security 161 115 70 346 Grocery and store-bought food 21 3 34 58 Habitat and environmental impacts 80 35 35 150 behavioural change 16 0 4 20 Climate change 8 0 0 8 Contaminants 75 245 8 328 Cumulative Effects 86 9 12 107 dust, noise, air 39 9 0 48 Offsetting, compensation and mitigation 21 17 0 38 Socio-economic 0 0 0 0 Change in perception 38 74 15 127 Economic 6 0 24 30 Future generations 0 33 0 33 Traditional Harvesting 0 0 0 0 Fishing 12 94 46 152 Fish habitat 25 50 7 82 Fisheries management 0 1 29 30 Increased fishing pressure 0 0 54 54 Water quality impacts 53 67 5 125 Hunting 19 16 34 69 Change in harvest success 48 1 46 95 Further distances to travel 29 6 3 38 Harvest management and monitoring 29 0 92 121 harvest restrictions 62 0 0 62 Increase in predation success 0 0 19 19 Increased hunting pressure 9 0 93 102 Non-Aboriginal and recreational hunting or fishing 3 1 70 74 Treaty and s.35 aboriginal rights 30 11 21 62 Land, Road and water Access 6 1 149 156 Medicinal, plants, berries 10 44 11 65 Seasonality 5 0 7 12 Trapping 10 1 41 52 Total 1196 936 1097 3229 136 Appendix D: Interview Forms: Recruitment Letter, Questionnaire, Consent Forms April 14, 2022 Dear Prospective Interview Participant, Re: Food Security and Environmental Assessment (EA) in the Northwest Territories – University of British Columbia (UBC) Research Project I would like to invite you to participate in an interview about food security issues in environmental assessment in the Northwest Territories. This research is investigating how food security and food-related issues are currently considered in EA, and whether any improvements can be made. The research will result in a thesis, a guidance and recommendation document, a plain-language summary, and academic journal articles. If you have experience in northern EA or related to northern food security, we would be interested in connecting with you about possible participation in an interview or focus group. This research is being completed by myself, Tamika Mulders, as part of my MSc degree program. The project is supervised by Dr. Kevin Hanna at the University of British Columbia, Campus, Okanagan, Department of Earth, Environmental and Geographic Sciences. The project is being conducted in partnership with the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) Department of Lands and the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB), who are also contributing funding for this study. The study has received ethics approval from the University of British Columbia, Okanagan, Behavioural Research Ethics Board, and has received a research permit from the Aurora Research Institute. Interviews and focus groups will be conducted beginning April 2022 and can be either in-person in Yellowknife (April 11-19, with further in-person dates this summer to be determined) or via Zoom video conferencing from April to July 2022, or even by written response. It all depends on your preference and availability. Interviews will take between 45 minutes to 1 hour. If you have time to help out by participating in an interview, or would like to learn more about this study, please contact Tamika Mulders by email at tmulders@student.ubc.ca. Kind regards, Tamika Mulders, MSc Candidate, Centre for Environmental Assessment Research at UBC Center for Environmental Assessment Research University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus Room 246, Fipke Centre for Innovative Research 3247 University Way, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7 137 Study Title: Food Security in Environmental Assessment in the Northwest Territories – UBC Okanagan Research Project Interview Questions 1. How does your organization define food security? 2. Based on the organization’s experience and work, in environmental assessments (EA) what have been the main issues and topics that are raised regarding food security? These can be common or unique mentions of food security related issues or impacts. 3. Reflecting on previous EAs in the Territory, has your organization identified any food security issues to be considered more thoroughly in future work or assessments? 4. Has your organization made any recommendations to government or other organizations about how food security impacts or effects could be assessed better in the future? (In EA or in planning) 5. Are there other regulatory, administrative or permitting settings or locales where food security is addressed (more so) other than EA? (For example, planning, territorial law, policies, or regulations). 138 Research Interview Consent Form - Individuals Study Title: Food Security in Environmental Assessment in the Northwest Territories – UBCO Research Project I. STUDY TEAM - Who is conducting this research? Tamika Mulders, Co-investigator and Primary contact M.Sc. Candidate, UBC Okanagan, Department of Earth and Environmental Science Contact: tamika.mulders@ubc.ca Dr. Kevin Hanna, Principal Investigator Associate Professor, UBC Okanagan Earth Environmental and Geographic Sciences Director, Center for Environmental Assessment Research Contact: kevin.hanna@ubc.ca / phone: 250-807-9265 This study is being conducted as part of a graduate research project. The research and study findings will be used as part of a master’s thesis, and findings may be submitted for publication in the form of an academic journal article, research summary or guidance document. II. SPONSOR – Who is funding this study? a. This study is being conducted by the Centre for Environmental Assessment Research at UBC, Okanagan Campus, and is funded by UBC, the Government of the Northwest Territories Department of Lands, and the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. III. INVITATION AND STUDY PURPOSE – Why should you participate in this interview? a. You have been invited to participate in this study because you have expertise in environmental assessment and work for an organization that is involved in environmental assessment in the Northwest Territories. b. We would like to learn more about how food security in the north is addressed in environmental assessment (EA) processes, and how it could be improved. IV. STUDY PROCEDURES - What will the interview entail? a. The interview discussion will take between 45 minutes to 1 hour. b. Participants in Yellowknife will be given the option of either in-person, Zoom videoconference or written response interviews. Participants outside of Yellowknife may be interviewed using Zoom or written responses. You may choose which method based on your location, personal preference and availability. Due to Covid-19 risks, interviews will not be conducted in-person outside of Yellowknife. c. You will have the opportunity to ask us any questions you may have. 139 b. We will ask you a list of questions about your organization’s involvement in environmental assessment processes, and how food security has been addressed in EA and could be improved. c. The researcher may take written notes or record the audio of the interview, with your consent. V. STUDY RESULTS - How will research results be shared? a. The results of this study will be included in a graduate master’s thesis and may also be published in journal articles and guidance documents to be provided to organizations involved in EA in the NWT. b. If you would like to be provided with the results of the study, you can provide your email address, or results will be available online on this website. VI. POTENTIAL RISKS OF THE STUDY - What are the risks of participating in the study? a. There may be potential for COVID-19 related risks for in-person interviews. The following precautions will be taken: a. Please review the attached Notice of COVID-Related Risks during Research. b. You have the option to participate remotely (Zoom videoconference or written response) if you prefer without any negative impact on your employment. c. A COVID-19 self-assessment tool for symptoms will be provided prior to your interview (if in-person). Please let the researcher know if you have symptoms and your interview will be rescheduled, or a remote option will be used instead. d. Physical distancing measures will be in place, N95 masks will be provided and worn by both participants and researchers, hand sanitizer will be available and cleaning protocols will be followed between interview participants. For interviews taking place in GNWT buildings, the building and vaccination protocol must be adhered to. b. Apart from possible physical COVID-19 risks, we do not anticipate anything in the study that will be harmful. Please let one of the researchers know if you have any concerns. You do not have to answer any question if you do not want to, and you are free to withdraw from the interview at any time. VII. POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE STUDY - What are the benefits of participating in the study? a. Taking part in the study may not help you, but your input and recommendations will be used to address the understanding of how food security concerns are addressed in EA in the Northwest Territories. IX. CONFIDENTIALITY - Will my participation remain confidential? How will my identity be protected? a. If you consent for your interview to be audio recorded, the audio file will be transcribed and stored on a secure UBC- approved server located in Canada. Your identity will remain confidential, and your responses will be de-identified and aggregated with other responses from your organization. 140 b. Data will be stored on a secure UBC-approved server located in Canada. Only the researcher and individuals involved in the research project will have access. The data will be stored until five years after the research is published. After this, data will be deleted. There is no secondary use of this data. c. Your confidentiality will be respected. Information that discloses your identity will not be released without your consent, unless required by law. (See Section IX. Limits of Confidentiality below.) d. All documents will be identified only by code number and kept in digital files secured at UBC. Participants will not be identified by name in any reports of the completed study. XI. OPEN ACCESS a. If the research data is made publicly available, it will be de-identified from individuals who provided data. XII. PAYMENT a. You will not be paid for the time you take to participate in this study. XIII. CONTACT FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE STUDY a. Please let one of the researchers know before or after the interview if you have any questions about the study, we will be happy to answer any questions you may have. b. If you have any questions or concerns about what we are asking of you, please contact the study leader or study staff. The names and telephone numbers are listed at the top of the first page of this form. XIV.CONTACT FOR COMPLAINTS - Who can you contact if you have complaints or concerns about the study? If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and/or your experiences while participating in this study, contact the Research Participant Complaint Line in the UBC Office of Research Ethics toll free at 1-877-822-8598 or the UBC Okanagan Research Services Office at 250-807-8832. It is also possible to contact the Research Complaint Line by email (RSIL@ors.ubc.ca ). Please reference the study ID H21-02228 to facilitate handling of your concern. XV. PARTICIPANT CONSENT AND SIGNATURE • Taking part in this study is entirely up to you. You have the right to refuse to participate in this study. If you decide to take part, you may choose to withdraw from the study at any time without giving a reason and without any negative impact. • Your signature below indicates that you have received a copy of this consent form for your own records. • Your signature indicates that you consent to participate in this study. _______________________________________ ___________________________________ Participant Signature Date _______________________________________ 141 Printed Name of the Participant signing above _______________________________________ Participant signature consent for audio recording Note: You may decline to consent to audio recording while still consenting to participate in the interview. _______________________________________ Participant consent for contact information to be collected for contact tracing purposes. For written questionnaire responses: “If the questionnaire is completed, it will be assumed that consent has been given.”
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Earth and Environmental Sciences
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Hanna, Kevin S. (Kevin Stuart), 1961-
Food security in environmental assessment in the Northwest Territories' Mackenzie Valley
Text