Abstract
Related climatic, socioeconomic and political pressures act on socio-ecological systems and drive change. Co-management boards such as the Nunavut impact review board (NIRB) in Canada’s north are linked, multi-level institutions that attempt to involve aboriginal stakeholders in decision making and collaborative learning through the application of traditional knowledge (TK), among other things. This case study describes the process of collecting and applying TK in the review phase of regulatory environmental impact assessment (EA) in Nunavut. Through a review of documentation from the Meadowbank EA, currently the only operating gold mine in the region, the type of knowledge collected and how it is applied to inform impact prediction, planning, design and monitoring are described. The results show TK in the form of factual observations, and past and current uses of land are most useful and complement modern science. Strategies for management, ethics, values and spiritual relationships are not directly applicable to project impacts, yet these facets of TK can be communicated experientially to project proponents through the EA process that is lengthy and encourages face to face contact with local stakeholders. Multi-level governing boards provide a forum for dialogue to combine TK and modern scientific principles—a good example for a broader science of sustainability. The cumulative impacts of ever more complex projects pose a challenge to the accuracy of traditional knowledge applied to EA.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
Dogrib is an older name for the Dene First Nation knows as the Tlicho.
References
ACIA (2005) Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Agnico-Eagle Mines (2010) Traditional Knowledge. Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Workshop, Appendix J, Meadowbank Annual Report
Agnico-Eagle Mines website (2015) http://www.agnicoeagle.com/en/Operations/Northern-Operations/Meadowbank/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 14 Apr 14 2015
Armitage DR, Plummer R, Berkes F, Arthur RI, Charles AT, Davidson-Hunt IJ, Diduck AP, Doubleday NC, Johnson DS (2009) Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Front Ecol Environ 7(2):95–102
Armitage DR, Berkes F, Dale A, Kocho-Schellenberg E, Patton E (2011) Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Glob Environ Change 21:995–1004
Chapin FS III, Hoel M, Carpenter SR, Lubchenco J, Walker B, Callaghan TV, Folke C, Levin SA, Maler KG, Nilsson C, Barrett S, Berkes F, Crepin AS, Danell K, Rosswall T, Starrett D, Xepapadeas A, Zimov SA (2006) Building resilience and adaptation to manage arctic change. Ambio 35(4):198–202
Chapin FS III, Robards MD, Johnstone JF, Lantz TC, Kokelj SV (2013) Case study: Novel socio-ecological systems in the north: Potential pathways toward ecological and societal resilience. In: Hobbs J, Higgs ES, Hall CM (eds) Novel ecosystems: intervening in the new ecological order. Wiley, New York
Environment Canada (2014) Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects Under CEAA 2012. Operational Policy Statement. Available at https://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=1DA9E048-1. Accessed 25 Feb 2015
Frey L, Botan C, Kreps G (1999) Investigating communication: an introduction to research methods, 2nd edn. Allyn & Bacon, Boston
Houde N (2007) The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: challenges and opportunities for Canadian co-management arrangements. Ecol Soc 12(2):34–50
Lyver P, Moller H, Thompson C (1999) Changes in sooty shearwater Puffinus Priseus chick production and harvest precede ENSO events. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 188:237–248
Meltofte Hans (ed) (2013) Arctic Biodiversity Assessment: status and trends in Arctic biodiversity. CAFF International Secretariat, Akureyri
Moller H, Berkes F, O’Brian Lyver P, Kislalioqlu M (2004) Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co-management. Ecol Soc 9(3):2
MVEIRB (2005) Mackenzie valley review board. Guidelines for incorporating traditional knowledge in environmental impact assessment. Available at: http://www.reviewboard.ca/upload/ref_library/1247177561_MVReviewBoard_Traditional_Knowledge_Guidelines.pdf. Accessed 9 Apr 2014
NIRB (2004) Nunavut impact review board final eis guidelines for the Meadowbank project
NIRB (2013) Nunavut impact review board technical guide series: Authorizing Agencies’ Guide. Available at http://www.nirb.ca. Accessed 10 Apr 2014
NTI and KIA (2006) Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and Kivalliq Inuit Association. Technical review of Final EIS, Meadowbank Gold Project. Prepared for Nunavut Impact Review Board
Sallenave J (1994) Giving traditional ecological knowledge its rightful place in environmental impact assessment. Northern Perspectives 22(1):16–19
Usher PJ (2000) Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental assessment and management. Arctic 53(2):183–193
Wheatley M (2001) Caribou co-management in Nunavut: implementing the Nunavut land claims agreement. The Ninth North American Caribou Workshop
Young OR (2010) Arctic Governance – Pathways to the Future. Arctic review on law and politics 1(2):164–185
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Handled by Jay T. Johnson, The University of Kansas, USA.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gondor, D. Inuit knowledge and environmental assessment in Nunavut, Canada. Sustain Sci 11, 153–162 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0310-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0310-z