|
     |
     |
|
|
|
|
Appendix 4: Case Study Review NotesResults of the Case Study ReviewA case study review of Aboriginal submissions in three recent federal EAs was conducted to achieve the following objectives:
The case study review focussed on three specific EAs: the BHP Diamonds project, NWT; the Diavik Diamonds project, NWT; and the Voisey’s Bay Mine and Mill project, Labrador. These projects were chosen because they were situated in the heart of Aboriginal peoples’ territories and involved a relatively high level of involvement of Aboriginal people throughout the EA process. Listed below are the descriptions of each project, the Aboriginal groups potentially affected by the project and the results of the case study review. 
Case Study #1 − BHP Diamonds Project Project DescriptionThe BHP Diamonds project, a joint venture between BHP Diamonds Inc. and the Blackwater Group, involved a proposal to develop and operate a diamond mining project in the Lac De Gras area of the NWT. Five diamond-bearing kimberlite pipes would be mined; four located within a few kilometres of each other in the Koala watershed north of Lac De Gras and a fifth, 29 km to the southeast, adjacent to Lac De Gras. All the kimberlite pipes lie under lakes that would need to be drained before mining commences. All pipes would be mined by open-pit mining with subsequent underground mining of two pipes. The estimated life of a mine is 25 years. Other aspects of the proposed project included piling waste rock in the vicinity of each pit, a process plant to process ore and an impoundment basin for waste rock. The project also would include an airstrip, 400-person permanent camp, diesel power plant, integrated offices and security buildings. The project is situated within the traditional territory of many First Nation groups, Including the Dogrib, Yellowknives Dene, Lutselk’e First Nation, Metis Nation of the NWT and the Kitikmeot Inuit Association. All Aboriginal groups expressed interest in participating in the EA and provided submissions to the proponent and/or the RA indicating their concerns regarding the project. This project was examined under the auspices of a federal EA panel review (See BHP Diamonds Project under Case Studies in the bibliography). FindingsWhat environmental effects were identified as significant? None of the environmental effects of the project were deemed to be significant. After the panel review, the environmental effects were seen as being largely predictable and mitigable. The potential economic benefits were seen to be large and socio-economic environmental effects were noted as being both positive and negative. The panel believed negative socio-economic environmental effects could be dealt with through long-term monitoring and various programs developed by the proponent and government. Although many concerns were raised by Aboriginal groups concerning potential impacts on caribou, water quality, fish, vegetation and many other environmental components, the panel recommended that the project proceed. The proponent concluded that the environmental effects were insignificant for each environmental component mentioned in the EIS. What were the issues/concerns raised by Aboriginal people/organizations related to “significance” and what values did Aboriginal people believe should be addressed in the EA process? Issues and Concerns Many issues and concerns were expressed by Aboriginal groups regarding the potential impact of the project on their interests; the outstanding issues and concerns are listed below.
Possibly the biggest concern expressed by Aboriginal groups was the potential for the project to impact caribou. The health of the caribou herds is essential to traditional land-based lifestyle of Aboriginal people in the area.
Aboriginal groups indicated that the EA process had not gathered sufficient information and data on caribou. For example, Dogrib Elders stressed that adequate information on caribou cannot be attained in only two years of study (Dogrib Treaty 11, 1996). Other concerns included: a lack of information in general regarding the project; more data was needed on wildlife, fish habitat, socio-economic conditions, water, Inuit harvesting rights and other environmental components.
In various submissions to the proponent and/or RA, Aboriginal groups expressed their concerns about the issues they felt were important but had not been properly addressed in the EA process − such as the potential environmental effects on caribou. The project was allowed to proceed without addressing these effects; it was recommended that those concerns could be addressed through a caribou management plan. Other specific concerns of Aboriginal people that were not addressed in the EA included impacts of fuel emissions and dust associated with increased land and air traffic. The Metis Nation recommended the proponent specifically address issues that directly affect Metis lands and resources. Additionally, Aboriginal groups were concerned over findings in the EA process. For example, the EA report found that the changes to water quality and stream flow would not have significant widespread effects. However, Aboriginal groups were not convinced that the changes were not significant. Other findings questioned by Aboriginal groups were the ability of the proponent to fully assess the impacts on certain rivers without addressing cumulative effects of all past, present and future projects. Values
An important consideration raised by Aboriginal groups was the importance of eskers. Eskers are geological formations made by glaciers. These formations are very important to various Aboriginal groups and wildlife. Eskers were traditionally used as burial sites for Aboriginal people. They are also prime habitat for a variety of denning animals. Aboriginal people recommended that no eskers be destroyed without a full assessment by affected Aboriginal communities (See BHP Diamonds Project under Case Studies in the bibliography).
Aboriginal people identified caribou as being central to their way of life and indicated the importance of their protection. Aboriginal groups stressed the importance of caribou as a staple food source, as well as for clothing and shelter.
Beaver Were there recommendations made by Aboriginal people and/or organizations to improve the practice of determining “significance”?
Aboriginal groups identified the need to include traditional knowledge in designing and conducting further baseline studies, as well as ongoing research and monitoring programs relating to the project. To ensure traditional knowledge is properly acknowledged and recorded, Elders recommended that it be gathered on an individual basis. Several Aboriginal groups recommended that the proponent demonstrate how traditional knowledge would be utilized throughout the life of the project.
Decisions concerning the territories of Aboriginal peoples must be made by those who have travelled and worked on the land. This will ensure that informed decisions are being made.
Aboriginal people continually expressed the need for additional time and resources when participating in the EA process. Virtually all of the submissions made by Aboriginal groups to the panel indicated that they needed more time and/or resources to effectively participate in the EA process. Many stated that additional time and resources would have afforded them the opportunity to meet their own research requirements using their own methods. For example, a number mentioned that additional time was needed to allow for translation of key documents. Elders also recommended that funding should have been put in place to allow them to record their laws, which they felt were important to protect. In some instances, Aboriginal groups stated they did not receive adequate participant funding and could not fully respond to the proponent’s EIS.
Aboriginal groups in various submissions to the proponent and/or the RA indicated the need for greater consultation in the EA process. Further recommendations were to include the Metis when conducting the EA − to ensure they have an opportunity to participate and are meaningfully consulted throughout the EA process.
Aboriginal groups recommended being more adequately involved in various stages of the EA process, including the development of management and monitoring plans. They recommended that project approval be subject to the development of various management and monitoring programs considered necessary to ensure effective environmental management, and to ensure Aboriginal issues and concerns are addressed.
Case Study #2 − Diavik Diamonds Project Project DescriptionThe Diavik Diamonds project is situated at East Island in Lac De Gras, NWT. The project, involving both open-pit and underground mining, was described as having its facilities situated on the island, with open pits behind water-retention dikes located offshore. A processed kimberlite containment facility, country-rock areas, a diamond recovery plant, accommodation buildings, power generation facilities, mechanical and administration buildings and a 2,000 m airstrip would also be located on East Island. Other site developments included mine haul-roads, access roads, service roads, and quarry and borrow sites. The project is composed of four kimberlite pipes that have a combined geological resource of 37.4 million tonnes. Final closure of the mine would take place in 2030. Dene, Metis and Inuit communities reside within the proposed area for the Diavik Diamonds project. Aboriginal people from the communities view stewardship of the land and its resources as an important responsibility. The project was subject to a comprehensive study under the Act. ResultsWhat environmental effects were identified as significant? No environmental effects were identified as being significant in the EA report for the Diavik Diamonds project. The comprehensive study report identified the areas covered in the environmental effects analysis. Climate and air quality, global climate change, vegetation, terrain and wildlife were a few of the values and environmental components subject to an environmental effects analysis. The environmental effects for each of the environmental components in the comprehensive study report were identified as not likely to result in significant adverse effects. The EIS indicated that where environmental effects on certain environmental components, such as caribou, permafrost, and surface runoff, are not certain. The environmental effects could be addressed later, at the regulatory stage, and through ongoing monitoring. The project was approved with certain conditions (i.e. ongoing monitoring and mitigation). What were the issues/concerns raised by Aboriginal people and/or organizations related to “significance” and what values did Aboriginal people believe should be addressed in the EA process? Issues and Concerns
Aboriginal organizations had issues and concerns about how the significance of environmental effects was interpreted. The proponent indicated that certain environmental effects relating to dust emissions, climate change, regional impacts, wildlife, fish and fish habitat and many other environmental components were not significant. Aboriginal groups expressed the importance of having absolute certainty when determining environmental effects because the components of the environment are critical to their cultural, social and economic survival.
Aboriginal people also questioned the methodology or process of how significance was determined. Aboriginal groups questioned the thresholds used to determine significance. Aboriginal groups contended that thresholds for determining significance were set so high that all effects would be deemed insignificant. There were several examples throughout Aboriginal submissions in which the proponent predicted no significant environmental effects which Aboriginal organizations disagreed with. In particular, the Aboriginal groups disagreed that impacts related to dust emissions, wildlife, fish and fish habitat, climate change and surface water would not be significant. The RA concluded that the proponent’s criteria were consistent with evaluation standards for EA and reflected best practices in EA studies across Canada. Aboriginal groups were concerned that the environmental effects would not be localized as the proponent indicated in the EA. For example, Aboriginal groups felt increased hunting, changes in migratory patterns and many other factors would affect caribou at a regional level. In addition to uncertainties regarding the potential environmental effects of the project, Aboriginal groups expressed concern about the prediction models used by the proponent to determine impacts. They recommended Diavik closely monitor the project for its impacts on the caribou, other wildlife and water quality not just at the project site, but on a broad regional basis.
One Aboriginal group contended that Diavik did not collect sufficient data about community wellness, cultural well-being, traditional land use and economy, heritage resources and traditional knowledge. This type of information was viewed critical by the Aboriginal groups to a proper and comprehensive assessment of environmental effects. Aboriginal groups also held the view that the proponent had not collected sufficient information about the environmental effects of the project on surface water. In contrast, the RA was satisfied with the proponent’s assessment of surface water impacts.
Beaver Birds Were recommendations made by Aboriginal people and/or organizations to improve the practice of determining “significance”?
There were several recommendations in the Aboriginal submissions that additional funding should be made available to allow Aboriginal groups to carry out their own review of the project. Some Aboriginal organizations indicated they did not have the human resources to participate in the EA process.
A common statement was that Aboriginal groups need to be consulted more meaningfully in the EA process. They recommended that proponents should document the results of the consultations in a “issues database.” This would ensure that the concerns and issues raised by First Nations would be accurately addressed in the EA process. Additionally, Aboriginal groups recommended meeting directly with the Minister of Environment to ensure their issues were addressed.
It was recommended that the proponent should have held comprehensive discussions with Aboriginal groups concerning its predictions of environmental effects on Inuit and Aboriginal traditions in the Lac De Gras area. To ensure meaningful consultation, Aboriginal groups recommended that it be a legislative requirement for the proponent to work with the communities to address matters such as the project’s impact on water quality.
Aboriginal groups recognized that not all issues would be addressed by the EA, and further monitoring and review of the project would be necessary. Aboriginal groups recommended that they be involved in all future monitoring of the project and any further reviews that may be required. Aboriginal groups were concerned about the uncertainties of predicting impacts and strongly recommended the project be closely monitored.
Case Study #3 − Voisey’s Bay Mine and Mill Project Project DescriptionThe Voisey’s Bay Nickel Company (VBNC) proposed to mine nickel, together with some copper and cobalt, at a location in northern Labrador, 35 km south of Nain and 79 km north of Utshimassits (Davis Inlet). VBNC would start by mining 32 million tonnes of ore from an open pit, while carrying out more exploration to determine the quantity of below-surface ore. VBNC would then develop an underground mine, where it hoped to mine another 118 million tonnes. Other aspects of the project included partial processing of the ore on site, tailings ponds, an airstrip, docking facilities for ocean ships and a permanent camp for site personnel. During the EA hearings VBNC reported the project would create 570 jobs during construction, 420 jobs in the open pit phase and 950 jobs in the underground phase. The area in the project was being proposed is home to Aboriginal people, namely the Labrador Inuit and the Innu Nation. These two groups, whom would be most likely to feel any direct impacts of the project insisted on taking part in many aspects of the EA. On January 13, 1997, both the Inuit and Innu signed Memorandums of Understanding with VBNC that provided for their direct participation in the EA and recognized the interests of the Labrador Inuit Association and the Innu Nation. The Voisey’s Bay Mine and Mill Project was subjected to a panel review under the Act. ResultsWhat environmental effects were identified as significant? The panel reviewed all aspects of the project and considered the opinions of many groups of people, including Aboriginal peoples, in making its decision regarding the project. The panel concluded that the project would not seriously harm the natural environment in such a way as to deprive the Aboriginal peoples of country foods or their ability to harvest them. Air quality, contaminants in the environment, freshwater fish, fish habitat and marine mammals were some of the key environmental components addressed in the environmental effects analysis. It was concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects, however the panel recommended further measures (follow-up and monitoring) to ensure that there were no significant environmental effects. What were the issues/concerns raised by Aboriginal people/organizations related to “significance” and what values did Aboriginal people believe should be addressed in the EA process? Issues and Concerns Aboriginal peoples issues and concerns about the project and EA process centered on two primary areas: lack of information in the EIS and the methodology used to predicting potential impacts. Other issues were raised as well and these are also summarized below.
Virtually all of the submissions made by Aboriginal groups raised concerns about the lack of baseline information in the EIS. Lack of information occurred when referring to baseline inventories for watersheds, quantification of fish habitat and many other areas. Innu Nation also felt that the threshold for the adequacy of information about impacts had not been met.
Aboriginal submissions indicated a general disagreement about the findings in the EIS. The Innu Nation criticized the proponent’s prediction of the natural environment, terrestrial environment, environmental impacts, fish and fish habitats, marine mammals and social impacts. They felt the proponent had not sufficiently investigated possible environmental effects and had simply resorted to the use of the phrase “uncertain environmental effect” too often. For instance, Aboriginal submissions indicate that the EA did not address predicted water shortages in tailings ponds, physical disruption of fish habitat and chemical alteration of surface and groundwater sources.
The Innu Nation also felt that the threshold for the adequacy of information about impacts had not been met.
Aquatic life Fish habitat Were there recommendations made by Aboriginal people and/or organizations to improve the practice of determining “significance”?
Aboriginal groups had many recommendations to improve the criteria for determining significance. For instance, it was recommended that the proponent use the Department of Fisheries and Oceans habitat alteration, disruption, and destruction guidelines to address significance for the project. They felt these guidelines represent a tangible measure for determining significance. Additional recommendations focussed on certain rules and principles that should be applied to determining significance − for example, using the precautionary principle and incorporating duration, extent, severity and probability into the determination of significance. They also suggested that the method of determining significance should include models and assumptions that apply ranges (e.g. highs and lows, full life cycle of species etc.). Aboriginal groups also made several recommendations to clearly define the terms used to describe significance and to ensure that Aboriginal groups understand what they mean (in the case of the VBNC, EIS the terms “slightly,” “short-term,” “long-term,” “moderate” and “minor” were used to describe the significance of environmental effects).
The proponent relied on the use of various models to predict the significance of environmental effects. Aboriginal groups questioned the ability of the various models to accurately predict the significance of environmental effects. It was recommended that models be improved to take into consideration various scientific aspects such as water evaporation, estimating contaminant routes, decomposition of organic matter and uptake of contaminants by plants. Though these recommendations were very particular in nature, it can be generally stated that the development of the various models used by the proponent should be developed in conjunction with Aboriginal groups and/or their consultants to ensure that they take into consideration the full range of scientific and traditional knowledge available.
It was recommended that additional financial resources be provided to Aboriginal groups to participate more effectively in the EA.
Aboriginal groups recommended that the proponent gather further data on various environmental components deemed important to them and potential at risk from the project. Specifically, it was recommended that there be further marine mammal studies, development of a polar bear management zone, and further investigation of possible impacts of the project on lakes and tributaries. To ensure their concerns were adequately addressed, Aboriginal groups recommended that the proponent file additional information where its findings had indicated uncertainty about environmental impacts and then further assess the significance based upon the additional or new information. It was suggested that the gaps in knowledge and information could be filled by Elders who have invaluable insight about the land and resources. | Previous | Contents | Print Version | Next | |
|
