Mining has been a major economic activity in the Canadian Arctic for the last century. It has made a valuable contribution to the development of this fragile economy and to the living standards of its inhabitants. The benefits include jobs and income, tax revenues and the social programs they finance, foreign exchange earnings, frontier development, support for local infrastructure, and economic diversification into a broad range of activities beyond the life of the mine. These benefits emerge as the result of activities and influences of several actors that exercise differing degrees of power, whether coercive or exchange by nature. These benefits, however, do not come without costs, particularly to Northern peoples who have suffered historically from the inequitable distribution of resources benefits and inevitable, adverse socio-cultural and biophysical impacts of rapid resource development. <br /><br /> Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) are a mandatory aspect of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Proponents wishing to develop natural resources on Inuit-owned land are required to negotiate and complete an IBA with the Regional Inuit Organization. These agreements have evolved from simple socio-economic contracts, to multiparty assemblages of agreements designed to promote sustainability beyond the operating life of the mine. <br /><br /> A political ecology approach was taken. Using this approach, it was determined that the distribution of decision-making power appears to be unequal and largely confined to the Industrial and Regional Inuit Association actors. As a result, other affected interests were marginalized in the process including members of the local community, environmental and other non-governmental organizations, and federal, territorial and hamlet government actors. <br /><br /> Nevertheless, the use of IBAs signal a recognition on the part of all stakeholders that historic mining practices are no longer acceptable and that it is now necessary to move towards a more equitable and sustainable approach to mineral development. <br /><br /> In order to answer the question of an IBA's usefulness as a tool of sustainability, a set of sustainable mining criteria was developed and used to assess whether, in fact, the agreement could be used to promote a more sustainable path to mining development in the North. After the application of the criteria to IBAs in general and to one case study in particular, which fell under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, it was discovered that the IBA instrument is limited in its utility&mdash;at least in terms of its current structure. However, in conjunction with other agreements and review processes, the IBAs utility as a tool of sustainability may be enhanced. <br /><br /> By the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement's very nature, decision-making ability on behalf of the community is restricted to the Kitikmeot Inuit Association that only represents the interests of beneficiaries of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and the industrial proponent. Opportunities for broader community (non-beneficiaries) input appear limited, thus restricting the usefulness of IBAs as a tool of community sustainability, at least until this weakness is addressed. Moreover, on a broader level of analysis, it should also be noted that the IBAs still are designed to operate within the global, liberal, capitalist system which itself leads to power imbalances. Nevertheless, it should be noted that IBAs signal a recognition on the part of all stakeholders, that historic mining practices are no longer acceptable and that it is now necessary to move towards a more equitable and sustainable approach to mineral development.

Mining has been a major economic activity in the Canadian Arctic for the last century. It has made a valuable contribution to the development of this fragile economy and to the living standards of its inhabitants. The benefits include jobs and income, tax revenues and the social programs they finance, foreign exchange earnings, frontier development, support for local infrastructure, and economic diversification into a broad range of activities beyond the life of the mine. These benefits emerge as the result of activities and influences of several actors that exercise differing degrees of power, whether coercive or exchange by nature. These benefits, however, do not come without costs, particularly to Northern peoples who have suffered historically from the inequitable distribution of resources benefits and inevitable, adverse socio-cultural and biophysical impacts of rapid resource development. <br /><br /> Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) are a mandatory aspect of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Proponents wishing to develop natural resources on Inuit-owned land are required to negotiate and complete an IBA with the Regional Inuit Organization. These agreements have evolved from simple socio-economic contracts, to multiparty assemblages of agreements designed to promote sustainability beyond the operating life of the mine. <br /><br /> A political ecology approach was taken. Using this approach, it was determined that the distribution of decision-making power appears to be unequal and largely confined to the Industrial and Regional Inuit Association actors. As a result, other affected interests were marginalized in the process including members of the local community, environmental and other non-governmental organizations, and federal, territorial and hamlet government actors. <br /><br /> Nevertheless, the use of IBAs signal a recognition on the part of all stakeholders that historic mining practices are no longer acceptable and that it is now necessary to move towards a more equitable and sustainable approach to mineral development. <br /><br /> In order to answer the question of an IBA's usefulness as a tool of sustainability, a set of sustainable mining criteria was developed and used to assess whether, in fact, the agreement could be used to promote a more sustainable path to mining development in the North. After the application of the criteria to IBAs in general and to one case study in particular, which fell under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, it was discovered that the IBA instrument is limited in its utility&mdash;at least in terms of its current structure. However, in conjunction with other agreements and review processes, the IBAs utility as a tool of sustainability may be enhanced. <br /><br /> By the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement's very nature, decision-making ability on behalf of the community is restricted to the Kitikmeot Inuit Association that only represents the interests of beneficiaries of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and the industrial proponent. Opportunities for broader community (non-beneficiaries) input appear limited, thus restricting the usefulness of IBAs as a tool of community sustainability, at least until this weakness is addressed. Moreover, on a broader level of analysis, it should also be noted that the IBAs still are designed to operate within the global, liberal, capitalist system which itself leads to power imbalances. Nevertheless, it should be noted that IBAs signal a recognition on the part of all stakeholders, that historic mining practices are no longer acceptable and that it is now necessary to move towards a more equitable and sustainable approach to mineral development.

In a mineral development scenario, Aboriginal groups rely heavily on Environmental Assessment (EA) and Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) to address their interests and concerns. While EA and IBAs are separate processes – EA is legislated and informed by the Crown, and IBAs operate in the realm of private contract law – together, the two are ostensibly part of a parallel process that connect the Aboriginal group(s), Government and the mining proponent. Indisputably, IBAs support a more inclusive development based on consultation, partnership and participation. IBAs and EA have the potential to enhance Aboriginal involvement in mineral development and positively influence the design and planning of the mine. This thesis examines the Tahltan Nation’s involvement and participation in the Galore Creek Project in British Columbia, and demonstrates the challenges and opportunities that arose during the EA and IBA process. It uses key informant interviews to gain multiple perspectives – from the proponent, Tahltan, and Government, to understand how the Tahltan utilized the EA and IBA to participate in the mineral development.

Inuit exercise a significant degree of self-determination in Nunavut through the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, particularly in the area of non-renewable resource development. Self-determination is linked to both Inuit and Canadian identity and conceptualized in its democratic form as relationships of autonomy and interdependence mediated by resource management institutions. This thesis argues that democratic self-determination depends on local experiences of reciprocity and legitimate institutional representation. Nunavut’s institutional actors have the potential to establish locally acceptable norms of reciprocity and representation through (quasi-) constitutionally mandated Inuit Associations, an Inuit public government at the municipal and territorial levels, and resource co-management boards. Using a qualitative research methodology involving document analysis, semi-structured interviews and participant observation, this thesis explores how residents of Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, are experiencing democratic self-determination from the perspectives of representation and reciprocity. Results indicate that conflict between municipalities and Inuit Associations over the distribution of resource benefits can overshadow attitudes of reciprocity between public and Inuit spheres. Although both Inuit Associations and public governments are seen as legitimately representing local interests in resource development, each have distinct roles: Inuit Associations negotiate Impact and Benefit Agreements with industry as a matter of right, while public government’s role is the responsible delivery of social services. The legitimacy of Inuit Associations as representatives of Inuit interests was challenged by a minority of research participants who expressed concerns about elitism and unaccountability of Inuit officials, and educational barriers to non-elite participation in decision-making. Meanwhile the criticisms registered against the public governments illustrated contemporary attitudes of resentment based on a history of colonialism and distance from centre to periphery. The Nunavut Impact Review Board was found to be a valuable mechanism for managing Inuit-state relations in its ability to foster trust, though its ability to determine the just distribution of resource benefits is circumscribed. Ultimately, this research suggests that from the perspective of reciprocity and legitimate representation, the birth of Nunavut should not be considered an end to the struggle for greater local democratic control over economic and political destinies.

Inuit exercise a significant degree of self-determination in Nunavut through the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, particularly in the area of non-renewable resource development. Self-determination is linked to both Inuit and Canadian identity and conceptualized in its democratic form as relationships of autonomy and interdependence mediated by resource management institutions. This thesis argues that democratic self-determination depends on local experiences of reciprocity and legitimate institutional representation. Nunavut’s institutional actors have the potential to establish locally acceptable norms of reciprocity and representation through (quasi-) constitutionally mandated Inuit Associations, an Inuit public government at the municipal and territorial levels, and resource co-management boards. Using a qualitative research methodology involving document analysis, semi-structured interviews and participant observation, this thesis explores how residents of Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, are experiencing democratic self-determination from the perspectives of representation and reciprocity. Results indicate that conflict between municipalities and Inuit Associations over the distribution of resource benefits can overshadow attitudes of reciprocity between public and Inuit spheres. Although both Inuit Associations and public governments are seen as legitimately representing local interests in resource development, each have distinct roles: Inuit Associations negotiate Impact and Benefit Agreements with industry as a matter of right, while public government’s role is the responsible delivery of social services. The legitimacy of Inuit Associations as representatives of Inuit interests was challenged by a minority of research participants who expressed concerns about elitism and unaccountability of Inuit officials, and educational barriers to non-elite participation in decision-making. Meanwhile the criticisms registered against the public governments illustrated contemporary attitudes of resentment based on a history of colonialism and distance from centre to periphery. The Nunavut Impact Review Board was found to be a valuable mechanism for managing Inuit-state relations in its ability to foster trust, though its ability to determine the just distribution of resource benefits is circumscribed. Ultimately, this research suggests that from the perspective of reciprocity and legitimate representation, the birth of Nunavut should not be considered an end to the struggle for greater local democratic control over economic and political destinies.

In a mineral development scenario, Aboriginal groups rely heavily on Environmental Assessment (EA) and Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) to address their interests and concerns. While EA and IBAs are separate processes – EA is legislated and informed by the Crown, and IBAs operate in the realm of private contract law – together, the two are ostensibly part of a parallel process that connect the Aboriginal group(s), Government and the mining proponent. Indisputably, IBAs support a more inclusive development based on consultation, partnership and participation. IBAs and EA have the potential to enhance Aboriginal involvement in mineral development and positively influence the design and planning of the mine. This thesis examines the Tahltan Nation’s involvement and participation in the Galore Creek Project in British Columbia, and demonstrates the challenges and opportunities that arose during the EA and IBA process. It uses key informant interviews to gain multiple perspectives – from the proponent, Tahltan, and Government, to understand how the Tahltan utilized the EA and IBA to participate in the mineral development.

In a mineral development scenario, Aboriginal groups rely heavily on Environmental Assessment (EA) and Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) to address their interests and concerns. While EA and IBAs are separate processes – EA is legislated and informed by the Crown, and IBAs operate in the realm of private contract law – together, the two are ostensibly part of a parallel process that connect the Aboriginal group(s), Government and the mining proponent. Indisputably, IBAs support a more inclusive development based on consultation, partnership and participation. IBAs and EA have the potential to enhance Aboriginal involvement in mineral development and positively influence the design and planning of the mine. This thesis examines the Tahltan Nation’s involvement and participation in the Galore Creek Project in British Columbia, and demonstrates the challenges and opportunities that arose during the EA and IBA process. It uses key informant interviews to gain multiple perspectives – from the proponent, Tahltan, and Government, to understand how the Tahltan utilized the EA and IBA to participate in the mineral development. / Applied Science, Faculty of / Mining Engineering, Keevil Institute of / Graduate

No description available.