mining in caribou calving grounds: can nunavut beat the status quo?

7/22/2019 Mining in caribou calving grounds: Can Nunavut beat the status quo?

1/7

The Nunavut Planning Commission is in the

process of developing a territory-wide land useplan for Nunavut. The new land use plan will re-

place existing regional land use plans in Nunavut,including the Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan,which currently regulates land use in the Kivalliqregion. Therefore, for better or for worse, the new

territorial land use plan may signicantly change theway mining proceeds in the region.

Land use plans stipulate what sort of activitiescan take place in dierent areas, and under whatconditions. They are intended to manage potential

land use conicts by balancing dierent interests

and land uses. In Nunavut, conicts between the in-terests of the mining industry and the interests ofIndigenous hunters is one of the most signicant

and dicult conicts land use planners will need toaddress.

The land use planning process has revealed anapparent divide in the Kivalliq region on how landsshould be managed. The federal government, the

Government of Nunavuts Department of Econom-ic Development and Transportation, and Nunavutsrepresentative Inuit organizations have all taken theposition that as much land as possible should be kept

open to mining and exploration under the new land

use plan. In general, these institutions seem hostileto creating new conservation areas through land use

planning. This position is based on a desire to createa positive climate for investment, and a fear that set-ting aside additional areas for conservation will dis-courage investment. Some of these institutions have

taken the position that no new conservation areasshould be created under the plan, while others haveadopted positions that would make it dicult for theplanning commission to create land use designationswhich ban mining and exploration in new areas.

The Federal Government, the Government of Nun-

avut, and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated mustapprove land use plans developed by the commis-sion. Therefore, these institutions aversion to new

conservation areas will likely have a substantial inu-ence on the nal outcome of the planning process.

On the other hand, many Nunavummiut wantthe land use plan to set aside additional areas frommining and exploration for cultural and ecological

reasons. This position is shared by various Huntersand Trappers Organizations and the regional wild-life management board in the Kivalliq. This positionis based on frustration and concern with the increas-

Warren Bernauer

ENVIRONMENT

Mining in caribou calving grounds:

Can Nunavut beat the status quo?

Photocredit:NationalOceanicandAtmosphericA

dministration.


2/7

2 Northern Public Afairs, July 2014

ing pace of mineral extraction in the region. These

concerned organizations and community membersare participating in the planning process throughconsultation meetings and written submissions tothe planning commission. However, it is unclear

what inuence this participation will have on the -nal land use plan.

The conict between hunting and mining inter-ests is most apparent in the question of the protection

of caribou calving habitat. Hunters and TrappersOrganizations from the Kivalliq, Nunavuts region-al wildlife management boards, the Beverly andQamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, and anumber of Indigenous communities in Saskatche-

wan and the Northwest Territories have called for aban on mining in caribou calving grounds under thenew land use plan. This position seems to put theseinstitutions in conict with the Federal Government,Nunavuts representative Inuit organizations and

some sections of the Government of Nunavuts bu-reaucracy.

An Aversion to New Conservation AreasUnder the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, theNunavut Planning Commission (NPC) is responsi-ble for developing and implementing land use plans

in Nunavut. Through the development of land useplans, the NPC has the authority to create land usedesignations that prohibit mining and explorationin areas previously open to industrial activity. The

NPC can, in eect, create new conservation areas.

However, the nal land use plan the NPC createsmust be approved by the Government of Canada,the Government of Nunavut, and Nunavut Tunn-gavik Incorporated, before it can be implemented.

Following years of communication with federaland territorial governments, Inuit organizations, themining industry, and community organizations, theNPC released the Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan to

the public in October 2012. In some instances, thenew draft land use plan provides weaker protectionfor the land and decreased opportunity for publiccontrol over mining than the current Keewatin Re-

gional Land Use Plan. For example, the new draftplan does not require exploration companies toabide by the federal governments Caribou Protec-tion Measures in sensitive caribou habitat. The newplan also does not provide the people of the Kivalliq

region the right to refuse uranium mining proposals.Stipulations for the implementation of Caribou Pro-tection Measures and popular control over uraniummining are included in the existing Keewatin plan.

NPC began touring Nunavut communities in

2012 to hold open houses and workshops on thedraft plan. This process is scheduled to be complete

by this summer. Comments on the draft plan were

due in early April and NPC will hold a public hear-ing in November. After making revisions to the plan,NPC will submit it to the Government of Canada,the Government of Nunavut (GN), and Nunavut

Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI) for approval.The Government of Canada, the Government

of Nunavuts Department of Economic Develop-ment, and Nunavuts representative Inuit organiza-

tions have submitted comments on the draft land useplan. In these comments, and in their earlier submis-sions, all three have taken the position that as muchland as possible should remain open for mineral ex-ploration and mining.

The federal government has jurisdiction overand administers mining and exploration on crownlands in the territory. In a submission to the NPC,dated April 5 2014, the Federal Government statedthat the land use plan for Nunavut should ensure

that the majority of the territory be kept open tomineral development. If a land use plan attempts

to pre-determine where exploration or mining cantake place and where not, the net eect is to discour-

age exploration and decrease investment. The sub-mission suggests keeping all areas open to mineralexploration, with the exception of communitieswildlife sanctuariesreserves, andother areas de-

ned as ecologically important. However, it doesnot provide any comment on what sort of import-ant areas, if any, should receive new restrictions.

The GNs Department of Economic Develop-ment and Transportation wrote to the NPC on Sep-

tember 24, 2013, expressing a concern that placing

restrictions on land use in some areas may unnec-essarily eliminate the potential benet the territorymay derive from the mineral wealth of the area.The letter requests that no new conservation desig-

nations be created until further geological researchand mineral assessments have been carried out.

This position is not necessarily shared by the GNas a whole. However, the Department of the Envi-

ronment (DOE) has yet to provide comment on thedraft land use plan. On April 10, 2014, GN DOEMinister Johnny Mike wrote to the NPC, inform-ing the commission that it would be unable to meet

the deadline for comments. Percy Kabloona, actingchair of the NPC responded to Mikes request for anextension on April 14. Kabloona wrote, the inabil-ity of the GN to provide data and feedback into theplanning process has been a recurring concern of

the NPC. The letter concludes that the NPC stawill consider a future submission as time permits.

Nunavuts representative Inuit organizations NTI and the three regional Inuit Associations manage and administer Inuit Owned Lands (IOLs),

lands to which Inuit hold title as a result of the Nun-avut Land Claims Agreements (NLCA). Early in the


3/7

planning process, NTI adopted a position which, ifmaintained, would impede the ability of the NPC

to create land use designations that prohibit miningand exploration in areas previously open to industri-al activity. According to the planning commissionsOptions and Recommendationsdocument, in early sub-missions NTI had adopted the position that a land

use plan should not place any restrictions on IOLs.It is questionable whether or not this position, if itextends to surface IOLs, is consistent with the in-tent of IOLs under the NLCA. Article 17 of the

agreement states that IOLs should contain a mix-ture of areas of value for renewable resource devel-opment, areas of value to non-renewable resourcedevelopment, areas of commercial value, and areas

of cultural signicance. The article further statesthat the selected IOLs should provide a balance ofthese characteristics to help encourage balanceddevelopment in Nunavut. A blanket oppositionto restrictions on activities on IOLs appears to be

a poor strategy to achieve balanced development.It would seemingly make it impossible for the NPCto apply designations which prohibit mining and ex-ploration where IOLs are located, even if these par-cels were originally selected for renewable resource

or cultural purposes.On September 25, 2013, the Kivalliq Inuit As-

sociation (KivIA) submitted comments on the draftland use plan. The submission recommended a

exible approach to land management, and dis-couraged the creation of new conservation areas. Itis important that certainty and exibility be a large

part of any land use planning in Nunavut versus set-

ting aside large areas for conservation.NTI submitted comments on the draft land

use plan in March of 2014, which might hint at achange from the previous position that there shouldbe no restrictions placed on IOLs. This submission

simply requested consultation to gain claricationon the impact of the new land use plan on a list ofIOL parcels.

However, later comment by the Kitikmeot In-uit Association on April 11 was much more openly

hostile to the creation of conservation areas. TheKitIA repeated NTIs original position that land useshould not be restricted on IOLs, to enable Inuit touse the land as they see t and to exercise their rights

as landowners to act as stewards of their own lands.The KitIA also requested a much more onerous pro-cess for the creation of new conservation areas in thefuture. The submission recommended that propo-nents of conservation areas provide a comprehen-

sive and modern multi-use geological and ecologicalresource inventory so that Inuit may understandthe opportunity costs associated with the establish-ment of such areas before decisions are made.The KitIAs submission also indicates an interest in

opening existing conservation areas, like the ThelonGame Sanctuary, to mining development. The sub-mission requests the federal government completea modern geological, economic, and ecological re-

source inventory for existing conservation areas.

Photocredit:MikeBeauregard(creativecommons)

Arviat, Nunavut, 2012.


4/7


Hunters Press for New Conservation AreasThe NPC held meetings in Kivalliq communities inthe fall of 2013. At the time of writing, only docu-mentation for the meetings in Baker Lake and Ches-

tereld Inlet had been released. Each communityvisit involved public meetings, community mappingsessions, and meetings with elected ocials from thecommunity. The documentation of these meetingsreveal that some members of both communities are

frustrated with the pace and scale of mineral explo-ration in the region, and want specic lands pro-tected from development through new conservation

areas.According to the NPC summaries, residents of

both Baker Lake and Chestereld Inlet indicatedthat they want employment and other local develop-ment from mining. However, the summaries also re-cord statements that suggest at least some residents

feel they are at the bad end of a colonial land grab.In a public meeting in Baker Lake, one resident is re-corded as saying, [The] Community itself is beingeaten alive. The land is disappearing. They go deep

into the ground. If I took and [sic] shovel and wentdown south and dug their ground up they would

not be happy. At the community mapping sessionsin both communities, residents selected lands theywant set aside from development for cultural and

ecological reasons.The Baker Lake and Chestereld Inlet Hunt-

ers and Trappers Organizations (HTOs) attendedthe meetings between local ocials and the NPC intheir respective communities. HTOs are community

organizations with recognized authority under theland claims agreement. Each community in Nun-avut has an HTO, with an elected board, whichrepresent the interests of local hunters. Both HTOs

complained that their hunting grounds have beenoverrun with mining and exploration activity. It hasbecome increasingly dicult to hunt caribou andsea mammals, they said, because mining, explora-

tion, and associated air-trac and marine shippinghave disturbed wildlife habitat. The Baker LakeHTO submitted a map at the meeting, indicatinglands they want protected.

The Baker Lake HTO had previously request-

ed the opportunity to have lands set aside from re-source extraction. In 2007, NTI held a consultationmeeting in Baker Lake on a draft policy to support

uranium mining. The Baker Lake HTO requested

that the nal policy should contain a chapter whichidenties areas where hunters in Baker Lake do notwant uranium mining and exploration to take place.This work was never done, and no such section exists

in NTIs policy today.Concerns with the pace and scale of mineral

exploration and mining in the Kivalliq are current-ly high, in large part because of a proposal from

AREVA ResourcesCanada Inc. to operatea uranium mine in theregion. The proposedKiggavik uranium mine

would involve four openpits, an undergroundoperation, a mill, roadinfrastructure, an air-

strip, and the storage of radioactive tailings in a

permafrost environment for perpetuity. The min-ing complex would be located 80 kilometers west of

the community of Baker Lake. AREVAs proposalis currently under review by the Nunavut Impact

Review Board (NIRB). AREVAs proposal is an ex-panded version of an earlier proposal to mine atKiggavik, submitted by Urangesellschaft in 1989.Urangesellschaft eventually withdrew the proposalin response to massive public opposition.

The Kiggavik uranium mine, if approved, mayalter the face of mining development in the Kival-liq. The Baker Lake area is surrounded by uraniummineralization, including in important cultural ar-

eas and caribou habitat. If AREVA is permitted to

construct milling and transportation infrastructure,other projects in the area could use this infrastruc-ture, decreasing overhead costs. This is how the ura-nium industry works in Saskatchewan, with AREVA

and Cameco regularly using infrastructure from oneanother to increase the protability of new projects.The price of uranium is currently low, likely too lowfor the Kiggavik project to be protable. However, if

the price of uranium rises enough to make Kigga-vik viable and regulators approve and licence theproposal a new rush of exploration and mining foruranium will likely come to the Kivalliq.

This problem of induced development hasbeen a central source of concern with the Kigga-vik project since it was rst proposed in the 1980s.Joan Scottie, an Inuit activist from Baker Lake, toldthe 1992 World Uranium Hearing in Austria, while

the environmental assessment is just about this oneproposed mine, we knew there is a lot of uraniumin our region. Its in the same geological formationas northern Saskatchewan, and we knew from theexperience there that once one mine is approved the

aboriginal people completely lose control of theirfuture.

[The] Community itself is being eaten alive. The land is disap-pearing. They go deep into the ground. If I took and [sic] shoveland went down south and dug their ground up they would not behappy.


5/7

5Northern Public Afairs, July 2014

Concerns with induced development have been

raised repeatedly during the current review of theKiggavik proposal by the Baker Lake HTO, theBeverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou ManagementBoard, and Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit. It

seems reasonable for hunters in the Kivalliq regionto expect government to help set aside lands andprotect them from mining before approving a proj-ect like Kiggavik.

Caribou Calving GroundsThe question of how sensitive caribou habitat es-

pecially calving and post-calving grounds will bemanaged is one of the most dicult conicts theNPC has to deal with. Several HTOs in the Kival-liq region, all three of Nunavuts regional wildlifemanagement boards, the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq

Caribou Management Board (BQCMB), and nu-merous Indigenous communities from the North-

west Territories and Saskatchewan have called formining and exploration to be banned in caribou

calving grounds. However, there has been a lackof acknowledgement of this movement, and a lackof support for it, from the federal government, theGovernment of Nunavut, and Nunavuts represen-tative Inuit organizations.

The BQCMB is an inter-jurisdictional co-man-agement board, consisting of government repre-sentatives and members from communities locatedthroughout the ranges of the Beverly and Qaman-

irjuaq caribou herds. The BQCMB is mandated by

the federal, provincial and territorial governmentsto make recommendations to government about themanagement of the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq cari-bou herds. The importance of calving and post calv-

ing grounds to the long-term sustainability of north-ern caribou herds was described by the BQCMB ina 2004 position paper:

Caribou cows during calving and

post-calving are both responsive to dis-

turbance and highly vulnerable. Recentresearch has shown that the cows need

uninterrupted foraging time to pro-

duce milk until calves becomes forag-

ers at about 3 weeks after birthThis3-week period is the time when calves

are most sensitive to the maternal and

environmental conditions that aecttheir growth, and when they are most

vulnerable to predation. Cows and

calves are also particularly vulnerable

during calving and post-calving periodsbecause they gather together in groups.

It is therefore critical to avoid both dis-

turbance of cows and calves during the

calving and post-calving periods, and

destruction of calving and post-calving

habitats.

Mineral exploration in calving grounds in Nunavut

is currently regulated through Caribou ProtectionMeasures (CPMs). CMPs were created by the feder-al government in 1978, in response to political agita-tion by Inuit in Baker Lake who were frustrated with

mineral exploration in their hunting grounds. CPMsprovide temporary seasonal protection for cariboucalving grounds by requiring exploration companiesto cease operations if signicant numbers of caribouare in the vicinity during the calving season.

However, some question whether the CPMsoer sucient protection. The BQCMBs 2004position paper notes that the CPMs were designedto regulate exploration, not mining, and therefore

do not provide for the protection of calving habi-tat. The position paper further argues that the gov-ernment monitoring program on which the CPMs

depended ended in 1991, leaving the applicationof CPMs largely to industry itself, and raising seri-

ous questions about enforcement. The BQCMBsposition paper concludes that long-term legislatedprotection (in the form of a ban on exploration andmining in calving and post calving grounds) is nec-

essary to protect the long-term sustainability of theBeverly and Qamanirjuaq caribou herds.

The BQCMB has made numerous submissionsto the NPC, all of which have called for explora-tion and mining to be banned in these calving and

post calving grounds under a new land use plan.

Since 2006, the BQCMB has submitted commentsto NIRB during screenings and reviews of proposedexploration and mining projects in the herds rang-

es. These submissions repeatedly stated the boardsopposition to projects located in caribou calving andpost calving areas.

Several HTOs in the Kivalliq have voiced op-position to mining in caribou calving grounds. The

Baker Lake and Repulse Bay HTOs both wrote tothe NPC in 2013, expressing their opposition tomining and exploration in calving grounds. In 2011and 2012, HTOs from Arviat, Chestereld Inlet

and Baker Lake passed motions specically oppos-ing Anconia Resources Corp.s Victory Lake explo-ration project (located in the Qamanirjuaq calvinggrounds) and submitted them to NIRB.

All three of Nunavuts regional wildlife boards wildlife management boards which consist of the

chairs of the HTOs of the respective region havealso opposed mining in calving grounds. The Kival-liq Wildlife Board unanimously passed a motion inFebruary 2013, stating the board strongly opposesany form of exploration and/or development in the

Kivalliq calving and post-calving grounds. Letters


6/7


of support for this motion were sent by the Qikiqtaa-

luk Wildlife Board in March and Kitikmeot Region-al Wildlife Board in May of 2013.

Some Indigenous communities in Saskatchewanand the Northwest Territories depend on the mi-

grating caribou herds that calve in Nunavut. Manyof these communities have therefore opposed min-ing and exploration in caribou calving grounds inNunavut due to concerns with trans-boundary im-

pacts. Lutsel Ke Dene First Nation, the AthabascaDenesuline Negotiating Team, the Northwest Terri-tory Mtis Nation, and the Fort Smith Mtis Coun-cil have all submitted comments to the NPC request-ing that mining and exploration in caribou calving

grounds be banned under the new Nunavut LandUse Plan. Further, the Athabasca Denesuline, Lut-sel Ke, the Yellowknives Dene First Nation, and theDene Nation have previously opposed specic pro-posals for exploration in Nunavut calving grounds

through NIRB screenings.The federal governments submissions to the

NPC did not specically mention the issue of calv-ing grounds. However, its submission did express an

aversion to the creation of large conservation areas,and the federal government has licenced many ex-ploration projects in Nunavuts calving grounds.

It is dicult to determine the GNs position onmining and exploration in calving grounds. The De-

partment of Economic Development and Transpor-tations submission to the NPC clearly indicates op-position to the creation of new conservation areas,while the Department of Environments position

remains unknown due to its inability to meet sub-

mission deadlines. However, during NIRB screen-ings of proposed exploration projects in calvinggrounds, the DOE has repeatedly expressed seriousconcerns with mining in these sensitive areas. For

example, during the 2011 NIRB screening of IronOres Maguse River exploration project, commentsfrom the DOE were extremely critical of the pro-posal because of its location in the Qamanirjuaq

herds calving grounds. The submission stated, Wedo not support the proposal as currently submitteddue to concerns that the project may have signicantadverse eects on the ecosystem and will cause sig-

nicant public concern. It appears this submissionwas intended to trigger a full environmental review.

However, the DOEs submission was only in-cluded as an appendix to the GNs larger submis-sion. The full GN submission included a cover letter

from the Department of Executive and Intergovern-mental Aairs, which recommended the project beapproved. The project was subsequently approvedby the review board. The DOE does not seem tohave commented on screenings for exploration proj-

ects since 2011, with the exception of one proposalfor coal exploration on Ellesmere Island, which it

opposed.

NTIs submissions to the NPC do not deal di-rectly with the question of caribou calving grounds.However, the KivIAs submission argues that thereis currently a lack of resources to properly manage

calving grounds. A signicant amount of work re-mains to be done to develop the types of informa-tion, policies and management tools that could beincorporated into a land use plan to provide more

specic guidance and direction on land use in cari-bou calving grounds. The submission suggests thatCaribou Protection Measures be updated with newresearch.

Regardless of the stated need for more eective

management tools, the KivIA has issued licences forexploration on IOLs in calving grounds, and haspromoted keeping calving grounds open for miningand exploration. The bluntest statement to this endwas made during the NIRBs environmental review

of Uravans proposed Gary Lakes exploration proj-ect in 2008. Responding to calls to have the Beverly

calving grounds protected from mining through theThelon Game Sanctuary Management Plan, NTI

and KIA indicated that they did not support suchprotection because, there are Inuit Owned Landsin this area, some of which where Inuit own themineral title and where Inuit have the right to ex-

plore and mine.Numerous factors likely inuenced NTI and

KivIA to adopt this position. That said, NTI has adirect nancial interest in keeping calving groundsopen for development. Beyond the land use fees

and royalties owing to Inuit organizations from ex-

ploration and mining on Inuit Owned Lands, NTIowns shares in Kivalliq Energy, a uranium explo-ration rm which recently acquired mineral prop-erties in the Qamanirjuaq caribou calving grounds

through the purchase of Pacic Ridges Baker LakeBasin project.

Looking ForwardIt is dicult to predict what the nal outcome ofthe planning process will be. The lack of substantive

comment from the GN DOE makes it impossible totell what position the GN as a whole will adopt onmining in calving grounds, as well as new conserva-tion areas more broadly. This is a topic which has re-ceived no discussion in Nunavuts Legislative Assem-

bly historically. However, the increased opposition tomining in calving grounds may provoke Membersof the Legislative Assembly to assume a more activerole in the issue. It also remains to be seen how allthree planning partners will respond to input from

HTOs, wildlife boards, and the wider public.The NPC itself seems to be in an extremely dicult


7/7

position regarding calving grounds. The commis-

sion must develop a plan to manage caribou calv-ing grounds without timely feedback and informa-tion from the GN DOE and in the face of risingopposition to mining and exploration in calving

grounds from HTOs and regional wildlife manage-ment boards. Further, the NPC must produce a planwhich will satisfy the federal government, the GN,and NTI. Regardless of what the NPC puts forward

in the revised draft land use plan at public hearingsthis fall, one thing is certain: a lot of people will beupset with the NPC for what it produces.

Warren Bernauer is a doctoral candidate in the Department ofGeography at York University.

Post-ScriptThe NPC received submissions from the Govern-ment of Nunavut Department of Environment andNunavut Wildlife Management Board in late May,as this issue of Northern Public Afairs was going to

print. The Government of Nunavuts submissionrecommended mining and exploration be banned incaribou calving grounds. The submission from theNunavut Wildlife Management Board supported

the BQCMBs submission, and recommended min-ing and exploration be banned in both calving andpost-calving grounds.

___________________________________________

Name (please print)

___________________________________________Address

___________________________________________Community Territory/Province

___________________________________________

Country Postal Code

___________________________________________Email address

(please include payment)

SUBSCRIBE

TODAY!Three issues for $28(plus GST/HST where applicable)

Individual (Canada): $28.00 Individual (United States): $49.00

Individual (International): $58.00

Institutional (Canada): $150.00

Institutional (United States): $175.00

Institutional (International): $200.00

(check one)

First issue mails Volume 3, Issue 1.

Subscribe online at

www.northernpublicafairs.ca .

Mail to:

Northern Public Afairs

P.O. Box 517, Stn. B,

Ottawa, ON CANADA

K1P 5P6

mining in caribou calving grounds: can nunavut beat the status quo?

Documents