reconsidering the canadian environmental impact assessment act: a place for traditional...

Reconsidering the Canadian Environmental

Impact Assessment Act

A place for traditional

environmental knowledge

Chris Pacia,*, Ann Tobinb, Peter Robbc

aFirst Nations Studies, University of Northern British Columbia, 3333 University Way,

Prince George, British Columbia, Canada V2N 4Z9bCarrier Sekani Tribal Council, 200–1460 6th Avenue, Prince George, British Columbia,

Canada V2L 3N2cAboriginal Relations Branch, Ministry of Energy and Mines, PO Box 9327 Stn Prov Govt,

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 9N3

Received 1 February 2001; received in revised form 1 September 2001; accepted 1 September 2001

Abstract

There is a fundamental assertion by indigenous communities, which is now beginning

to be recognized globally, that ‘‘we belong to the land.’’ The position of indigenous people,

both locally and globally, as traditional knowledge holders and legal entities with rights

and title to lands is challenging the authority of nation states in the development and

management of lands and resources. International bodies, such as the United Nations and

World Bank, continually place emphasis on bridging the implementation gap between the

inclusion and exclusion of indigenous communities in public policy. However, increasing

tensions exhibited between indigenous nations and nation states continue to surface. Much

needs to be written about the shortsightedness of state governments that continue to ignore

indigenous rights and title and the perils that await them. This paper will focus on a small

part of this larger question, examining the emerging struggle of legal recognition of

indigenous title, rights and cosmologies into the Canadian body politics as it relates to

environmental policy. In addition to broad policy implications associated with the

acceptance of indigenous people’s knowledge, there are also ethical issues of ‘‘integrating’’

0195-9255/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

PII: S0195 -9255 (01 )00095 -6

* Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Paci), [email protected] (A. Tobin),

[email protected] (P. Robb).

www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

22 (2002) 111–127

traditional knowledge as well as practical problems with ‘‘implementing’’ traditional

environmental knowledge (TEK) into legal and regulatory environmental regimes,

practices and policies. A significant new way to examine these questions is to examine

them through an Aboriginal resource planning approach. This approach will be formalized

in relations to current activity in British Columbia, Canada, where Aboriginal communities

and two levels of Canadian government are negotiating a balance between indigenous and

state aspirations to find complimentary and sustainable mechanisms for environmental

assessments. D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Many researchers argue that the principles and process of environmental

impact assessment (EIA) were actively expressed as part of the holistic cos-

mology of First Nations (Feit, 1991; Sadler and Boothroyd, 1994; Trosper, 1998;

Berkes, 1999). Christensen (1994, p. 9) noted that Aboriginal people ‘‘managed

natural resources for thousands of years, creating management authority that must

be reaffirmed in contemporary legislation.’’ Aboriginal management was well

established prior to government-conceived natural resource management in many

parts of the world and so we might assume that Aboriginal knowledge of the

environment greatly informs and is reflected in EIA. However, when we look for

examples of EIA that demonstrates this reality, we find that indigenous envir-

onmental knowledge is not playing a significant role in environmental assess-

ment, and so we need to ask why this is the case. A Canadian case study of EIA

and indigenous knowledge affords us the opportunity to examine well-established

and ongoing developments in these relationships.

The assertion will be made in this paper that traditional knowledge of First

Nations is being increasingly formalized in the development of treaties in British

Columbia, Canada. The British Columbia Treaty Process (BCTP) promises to

conjoin land (resources) and governance under the control of localized Abori-

ginal-Band governments. Notwithstanding the BCTP and federal environmental

legislation, such as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA),

Aboriginal people will continue to seek ways of including their knowledge and

input to improve environmental relations and assessments of development projects

in their traditional territories. The current 5-year review of the CEAA is an

appropriate time to ask about the position of traditional knowledge in the process.

What is traditional environmental knowledge (TEK) and what is its relative status

in environmental assessments to date? The paper begins with a brief description of

the CEAA and advances a theoretical alignment of TEK in EIA. In light of these

arguments, it is important to determine how First Nations’ knowledge, values and

interests are being advanced and suppressed.

While culturally heterogeneous and diverse, many indigenous elders assert

that they, in common, have a responsibility as stewards of mother earth. In

C. Paci et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22 (2002) 111–127112

modern nation states, this point of view is in direct conflict with legislation and

regulatory agencies, which have been assigned the responsibility ‘‘for the good of

all’’ citizens to determine the most effective and efficient use of resources.

Indigenous communities assert their sovereignty to traditional lands and resour-

ces through discourses of rights and title. In Canada, stewardship rights and

responsibilities of First Nations, Inuit and Metis people, are being worked out

through both legislation and the courts. Underlying the Canadian perspective is

the view of extinguishing broad rights over large tracts of land for defined

specific rights over local and considerably smaller portions of land.1 Indigenous

negotiators reject such an exchange. However, there are those in British

Columbia, the most westerly province of Canada, who view such an exchange

as the means whereby economic and social development, those topics that mesh

well with traditional and modern cultural goals and pursuits, can be advanced.

This is the heart of the conflict, which is expressed through public policy on

environmental matters and displayed most prominently in the actions of resource

development and environmental assessment.

2. A brief description of EIA

EIA functions to evaluate ‘‘the potential ecological effects of proposed

projects’’ by measuring the impacts of development projects before they have

been undertaken (Mueller and McChesney, 1994, p. 30). Governments have

found various ways to put the theoretical objectives of EIA into action. There are

times, however, when practice and theory do not match. The scale and duration of

proposed projects often serve as the criteria for the scope of the assessment and

cumulative long-term projects are difficult to evaluate with certainty. Such a

fundamental conflict is further compounded by the fact that the political

jurisdiction, not the ecological considerations, of a government agency often

sets the boundaries for an impact assessment. Regardless, the EIA processes,

screenings, comprehensive studies and panel reviews are subject to the scrutiny

1 Extinguishment has come to encompass the underlying goal of land claims policy in Canada.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, (1996b, p. 1) notes that the government’s goal has

been to ‘‘dispose of the claim by extinguishing Aboriginal title and perfecting the real Crown title in

exchange for a set of contractual rights and benefits.’’ Currently, any form of extinguishment of

Aboriginal title will be required to meet the tests for infringement set out by the Supreme Court of

Canada decision on Delgamuukw (1997). Rison (1999, p. 3) found that Delgamuukw ‘‘made it clear

that provincial laws could not now and never could extinguish Aboriginal rights or title.’’ However,

the uneasiness of many BC First Nations comes from the fact that the test for justification of

infringement and extinguishment has been expanded. The courts have expanded the infringement

rights from common objectives, such as conservation and environmental protection, to include ‘‘the

development of agriculture, forestry, mining, hydroelectric power, infrastructure and general economic

development of the interior of British Columbia’’ (p. 3).

C. Paci et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22 (2002) 111–127 113

of different constituents and expert opinions. How well is EIA theory being

actualized in Canada?

3. The CEAA

Cole (1993, p. 22) states that the primary role of the environmental review

process is to ‘‘inform the public of the concerns of all parties.’’ A study of the

federal environmental assessment legislation reveals gaps between the initial

hope to include ‘‘the concerns of all parties’’ and the realties of continued

development, informed more or less by scientific assumptions about the

environment. Sadler and Boothroyd (1994, p. 3) shed light on why the

government is struggling to find ways to integrate Aboriginal communities in

the assessment process.

Traditionally, the aboriginal perspective was holistic because environmental

assessment was an integral part of daily life. It was a feedback loop by which

people observed the consequences of past and present action and considered the

likely impacts of future action. The process was integrated with the cultural life

of the community. . .Environmental assessment was practised directly and

continuously by those who simultaneously harvested, managed and controlled

the resources. The knowledge generated by environmental assessment was

produced, refined, stored, disseminated and used by a rich system of testing,

observing, theorizing and communication involving complex social structures,

information networks, and rituals.

In Canada, EIA is formally carried out at both the federal and provincial

levels. The CEAA is the national Act for the environmental assessment process.

Since 1995, the Act has set out in legislation the responsibilities and procedures

for carrying out the environmental assessment of projects which involve, at some

level, the federal government (CEAA). The Act replaces the previous Envir-

onmental Assessment Review Process (EARP) Guidelines Order, which was

established in 1984 after a lengthy 10-year development process.

The 1995 Act is administered by the Canadian Environmental Assessment

Agency, which works to ensure the practices and policies of CEAA are followed

by all parties involved, including government. Ultimately, as stated by Sadler

(1996, p. 15), the Act’s purpose is to

� ensure that the environmental effects receive careful consideration before

responsible authorities take actions in connection with them,� encourage responsible authorities to take actions that promote sustainable

development and thereby achieve or maintain a healthy environment and

healthy economy,� ensure that projects that are to be carried out in Canada or on federal lands

that do not cause significant adverse environmental effects outside the

jurisdictions in which the projects are carried out, and


� ensure that there be an opportunity for public participation in the

environmental assessment process.

Currently, the legislation offers very little in the way of concrete involvement

of First Nations and their TEK. However, efforts have been made to develop

ways to increase the opportunities for First Nations’ involvement in some of the

reviews that the Act has undergone since its inception in 1995.

Wolfley (1998, p. 153) argues that ‘‘cultural values and diversity are as urgent

as biological diversity and must be manifested in scientific methods of valuing

lands, resources, ecosystems and human rights or that cultural knowledge must be

considered equally in evaluating and planning for future projects or activities

impacting tribal lands and resources.’’ It has proved exceedingly difficult to

reformulate scientific method to accommodate cultural values (Sinsheimer, 1980;

Berkes, 1999). Can legislation and other government policy be reformed to take

into account Aboriginal rights and cultural knowledge?

Aboriginal lands are influenced and conditioned by historical, cultural,

political and environmental variables that reflect very unique conditions. Cole

(1993, p. 32) observed that ‘‘because nature is stochastic, many variables, which

play an important role in one geographical location, may not apply for another

area. The effectiveness of baseline data can be enlarged through indigenous

traditional knowledge.’’ Specific Aboriginal environmental relations vary so

widely that we need to reject the universality, inherent in the current assessment

approaches and CEAA legislation.

To date, environment assessment theory has been conceptualized as a

mechanism of inquiry, never hermetically sealed, occurring as a means of valuing

the current state of flux found in living dynamic relationships that require

planning and adaptation due to development pressures. The CEAA is intended

to be both liberal and homogenous. This has meant that, in some cases, it is blind

to differences. Furthermore, strict adherence to universality, regardless of the

specific regional, cultural, ecological, political and historical context for an

assessment, exacerbates such ‘‘difference blindness’’ (Taylor, 1992).

The traditional knowledge policy of the Government of the Northwest

Territories (GNWT, 1996, p. 7) recognizes the important role of TEK in several

areas of environmental management, including land use planning, screening and

issuing land and water use permits, and establishing and managing protected

areas, wildlife management, EIA and environmental monitoring. These advances

at the territorial level are not reflected at the provincial level (Hannibal-Paci,

1999). While it remains to be seen if the standard set by the GNWT will be the

impetus for recognition of TEK in the CEAA, several conditions will be

necessary for this to become a reality.

The prevalence of land claims and self-government agreements has yet to have

a full impact on the formation of environmental assessment legislation in Canada.

The long-term effect of Aboriginal claims will cause reforms in current legislation,

most probably driven by Canadian courts as they establish the legal contexts of


Aboriginal rights and title. As Aboriginal rights and title are affirmed, there will be

both an implementation gap and a knowledge gap, which will require articulation

of TEK in policy and procedures for traditional lands and environments. There

may also be implications for so-called ceded territories as well, which is reflected

in the Review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Under the current

review, the federal government is negotiating the status of inherent rights under

‘‘some measure of Aboriginal law-making authority over the environmental

assessments taking place on Aboriginal lands. This is done in the form of self-

government agreements or in comprehensive land claim agreements with self-

government provisions’’ (1999, p. 11). There are many instances where ‘‘envi-

ronmental assessment regimes have been negotiated under land claim agreements

before the promulgation of the CEAA. . .The federal government is working to

clarify the administration of these regimes and their relationship with the Act’’

(ibid.). The agreements that are being negotiated between federal and Aboriginal

governments across Canada have identified the ‘‘need to harmonize the federal

environmental assessment process and the environmental process to be established

by the agreements’’ (CEAA, 1999, p. 34).

Legislation reforms are also in the works to change the application of the Act

to reserve lands. Currently, the Act does not require an assessment of projects

funded by federal authorities on reserve land when there is no federal involve-

ment in the project. Until the land claims and self-government agreements are

finalized, First Nations and the federal government want to ensure projects on

reserve lands are subject to adequate assessments. ‘‘. . .First Nations have the

authority to initiate and undertake these assessments. As an interim measure, a

memorandum of understanding has been signed between the agency and various

departments that provide funding for on-reserve projects to ensure environmental

assessments are carried out’’ (CEAA, 1999, p. 15).

There are significant problems with the federal government’s attempts to

harmonize TEK into EIA. Besides seeking to ensure consistent treatment, the

CEAA currently undervalues TEK. Furthermore, a general set of principles will

not necessary ensure a remedy to the haphazard approach of integrating TEK on a

case-by-case basis, at the discretion of the review panel, currently employed. In

the Review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (1999, p. 54), it states

that ‘‘the Agency has coordinated the first step in designing federal government

policy on how traditional ecological knowledge could be integrated into envi-

ronmental assessment. This has resulted in a report on a strategy for including

this knowledge in guidelines.’’

Another important report that has set the stage for the 5-year review of the

CEAA is the final report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People (RCAP).

The RCAP reported that Aboriginal people’s ‘‘management data included not

only immediate observation of variation and theories of cause and effect but also

the accumulated knowledge of countless generations of harvesters. Various tools

and techniques are still employed to modify the land and its resources’’ (1996,

p. 460). Aboriginal tenure reflects facts and theories about particular ecosystems


under the governance of a particular group. The knowledge and management of

these systems are both immediate (diachronic) and long term (synchronic). When

natural resource managers are interested in understanding the state of traditional

systems in Aboriginal societies, they need to begin by asking, what are the

preexisting tools and techniques used in the traditional system? The second

question is what are the tools and techniques that are displaced in this system,

why and what is needed to reestablish them?

Management authority of First Nations would have been, to a significant

degree, based on reliable intergenerational knowledge of the environment. The

linkage of cultural identity to knowing is situated in location-specific land.

Couture (1991, p. 55) found that ‘‘indigenous knowing and knowledge, as in past

eras, remains necessary to the survival and enhancement of native personal and

communal identity,’’ while Escobar (1998, p. 66) further notes that identity is

‘‘anchored in ‘traditional’ practices and forms of knowledge and as an always

changing project of cultural and political construction.’’

4. Indigenous knowledge as TEK

Indigenous knowledge has in recent years been articulated as TEK. However,

its application in environmental sciences and policy remains uncertain. Applica-

tion of TEK in the assessment process, for both project-specific impact assess-

ment and environmental assessment in resource management and planning

decision-making, supports various degrees of First Nations’ community-based

resource management initiatives. This section examines and advances the

rethinking of TEK as a participatory and interdisciplinary bridge in the envi-

ronmental assessment process.

Ecologist Berkes (1993, p. 1) argues that TEK derives from the ‘‘study of

systems of knowledge developed by a given culture to classify the objects,

activities and events of its universe.’’ TEK has gained some currency due to the

growth of ethnoscience. However, there is resistance by indigenous people to its

integration, seen by some as continued colonization and exploitation.

Marglin (1990, p. 16) found traditional to mean more than ‘‘fixed and

unchanging. Tradition is actually constructed and dynamic, except when it is

artificially frozen in an archaic pattern. The issue is the preservation of a space for

a relatively autonomous transformation of indigenous cultures, not the preser-

vation of cultures as static systems.’’ Ruddle (1993, p. 18) argues that ecological

knowledge ‘‘implies an awareness in a given society of the systemic interactions

among the components of an environment, an ethnoecological construct.’’ TEK

is, in part, a living dynamic process, which represents a cognitive-spiritual

awareness based on the relationship of indigenous people and their environments.

In the context of Aboriginal land tenure, TEK management practices and

concepts have been formulated through experiential processes of individuals,

typified as community-based mutual coexistence with the environment. Dis-


course, consultation and collaboration are significant means whereby knowledge

is codified and shared among users. Consultation between indigenous groups and

governments can either support and initiate the sharing of knowledge through

participation in decision-making processes or negate involvement and support the

status quo of development as usual. How TEK enters the assessment process is

parallel to a larger focus on environmental studies in general and Aboriginal

rights discourses in Canada and internationally.

The International Indigenous Commission’s (1991, p. 4) report to the United

Nations Committee on Economic Development found three general features of

indigenous knowledge. Ecological knowledge is sought through experimentation

as well as observation. Means or analogies from human kinship often express it,

although it can be as systematic as the algebraic terms employed by academic

scientists. Finally, indigenous knowledge is geographical, organized by reference

to particular places and people.

It is no surprise that Aboriginal people have a record of relations between

community members, nonhumans and lands (Gadgil et al., 1993). Escobar (1998,

p. 61) found that ‘‘unlike modern constructions, with their strict separation

between biophysical, human and supernatural worlds, local models in many non-

Western contexts are often predicated on links of continuity between the three

spheres and embedded in social relations that cannot be reduced to modern,

capitalistic terms.’’ Every culture has a set of paradigms, a collective set of values

and knowledge of the way to live and be in the world. This knowledge is found in

what is commonly termed a ‘‘worldview.’’

Cosmology works on several levels: spiritual, emotional, intellectual and

physical. The distinction that may be made about First Nations is that they have a

distinctive body of knowledge about specific environments that span several

thousands of years, in many cases since time immemorial. Chief Wavey (1993,

pp. 11–12) noted that ‘‘we spend a great deal of our time, through all seasons of

the year, traveling over, drinking, eating, smelling and living with the ecological

system, which surrounds us.’’ Aboriginal people are characterized as having

intimate knowledge of trap lines, waterways, spiritual and traditional lands as

well as knowing their relationship to Mother Earth. This relationship is expressed

in values such as sharing.2 According to Brascoupe (1994a, p. 4),

values are simply what we value in our lives, friends, community and spiritual

life. There are environmental values and social values. Western society has

placed a lot of attention on social values, with the result, an imbalance with

environmental values. Aboriginal people are presently (undergoing) a deep and

profound spiritual renaissance.

2 According to Escobar (1998, p. 71), ‘‘territory is seen as the space of effective appropriation of

the ecosystem, that is, as those spaces used to satisfy community needs and for social and cultural

development. . .sustainability cannot be conceived in terms of patches or singular activities or only on

economic grounds. It must respond to the integral and multidimensional character of the practices of

effective appropriation of ecosystems.’’


TEK is a relatively recent area of academic research, that is, the term and

associated theorizing and research have only been around since the mid-1970s

(Berkes, 1999). The main feature of TEK is indigenous knowledge. Indigenous

knowledge is not a recent concept. In TEK, researchers bring Western knowledge

perspectives to bear on indigenous knowledge in either a neocolonial or a

decolonial epistemology. The TEK paradigm discussed in this paper originates

in the research by ethnoscientists and cultural ecologists (Johnson, 1992; Berkes,

1993; Paci, 1995; Nazarea, 1999). Both specific (facts) and general (theory)

knowledge is held in the TEK of different Aboriginal societies. Primarily, TEK

will be discussed as a general theory,3 even though this can create some

problems. For instance, representing the plurality of diverse voices as ‘‘Abori-

ginal’’ may cause one to mistakenly conclude that this group is homogenous, that

is, all Aboriginal are the same everywhere. This is of course not true. Further-

more, not all members of a given community are TEK holders, and the

maintenance of this knowledge is patchy at best. There is a constant ebb and

flow of erosion and revitalization of this knowledge. Constantly, the traditions are

being adapted. One such adaptation is discussing TEK in the academy away from

the physical and spiritual context. The viability of this approach depends on the

expansion of academic norms and social and scientific inquiry.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996a, p. 461) describes

indigenous knowledge as ‘‘oral culture in the form of stories and myths

. . .coded and organized by knowledge systems for interpreting information

and guiding action. . .a dual purpose to manage lands and resources and to

affirm and reinforce one’s relationship to the earth and its inhabitants.’’

Aboriginal management has two significant characteristics: it is embedded

and holistic, part of a landscape that is both physical and cultural. There is

both the biophysical and cosmological guiding human conduct in Aboriginal

management systems. Duality exists as the integration of land and resources

with other relationships (i.e. family). Many of these systems are based on

access rules, where the numbers of a thing are less important than the resilience

and balance within a system (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples 1996a;

Hannibal-Paci, 1999).

TEK can be applied to the environmental assessment process, but this will

require legislation that responds to issues of equity and ecosystems. First Nations’

organizations, such as the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak (MKO, 1991),

advocate for the suspension of the ‘‘highest valued use’’ concept when assessing

environmental development. Aboriginal land and resource uses do not necessarily

represent the greatest extraction value today but may well prove in the long-term

to in fact be the highest valued use.

3 There are global extensions to the Canadian case, seen in a body of international Aboriginal

rights research, suggesting that indigenous knowledge, while situated, involve a set of well-developed

and common assumptions (Marglin 1990).


5. Aboriginal community resource planning: applying TEK

Stevenson (1996, p. 279) found,

Aboriginal people’s concerns are derived principally from three sources: (1)

traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), most notably, knowledge of ecosystem

relationships and appropriate behaviours governing the use of resources; (2) past

experience with Northern industrial developments (e.g., hydro, oil and gas, and

mining); and (3) a lack of specific knowledge about proposed developments and

how these may affect aboriginal lands and lifestyles, especially valued

ecosystem components and relationships.

While Stevenson prefers indigenous knowledge as a more appropriate term, it is

essential that Aboriginal interests in land and its use be articulated in whatever

terminology is employed.

Several Supreme Court of Canada decisions, notably Delgamuukw (1997),

have demonstrated that the federal government is legally obligated to fulfill its

fiduciary responsibility for Aboriginal interests, title and rights. Two issues

arising from Delgamuukw (1997) are (1) whether the Crown will acknowledge

that Aboriginal title precedes and was not extinguished by colonization and (2)

how Aboriginal interests and title will be reconciled with Crown title. It would

appear on the surface that assertions of Aboriginal rights and title override most

competing interests, i.e. private, municipal or provincial. However, as with

Aboriginal rights acknowledged in Sparrow (1990), the Crown can limit or

curtail Aboriginal rights in the interest of, as it was in this case, conservation

reasons (or, in other words, for the greater good). It is unclear if the same

arguments applied in Sparrow would hold true for delimiting Aboriginal title.

Furthermore, Delgamuukw (1997) places the onus to prove title on individual

First Nations. Therefore, the responsibility and costs fall squarely on their

shoulders. Aboriginal title is therefore not currently recognized by the Crown

as a fact, not until a First Nation has proven such status in a court of law or

through the negotiation of treaties, treaties that almost always require extinguish-

ment of Aboriginal title to traditional lands.

The current federal legislation ignores the federal fiduciary responsibilities to

Aboriginal people and hampers community-based planning efforts. Christensen

(1994, p. 3) notes that ‘‘there are no provisions in the CEAA that provide First

Nations with an opportunity to conduct environmental assessments that are

conducted within their traditional territories,’’ and he identifies the need for ‘‘an

environmental framework that facilitates sustainable development in Canada and

assures that First Nations’ rights and title are fully recognized and respected’’ (p. 4).

The CEAA presents national guidelines, which are not responsive to local

variations. Inclusion of TEK requires adaptation of the general application of

the assessment process, allowing for variation that can meet the needs of First

Nation communities, with some authority of enforcement for noncompliance at

the community level. Many First Nations’ organizations see EIA as a platform


for a larger inclusive mechanism for dealing with a variety of outstanding

issues that are largely environmental, a forum requiring participation by project

operators or proponents.

According to Clarkson et al. (1992, p. 46), ‘‘the only avenue to sustaining our

culture and our role as the caretaker of the planet is not through adopting the

nonindigenous systems but through the creation of our own mechanisms of

change based upon the values, beliefs and systems of our original teachings.’’

Environmental assessment and review is characteristically non-Aboriginal.

Although the process may be reformed so that all parties involved are enabled

to make informed environmentally sound development/sustainability decisions, it

is important to acknowledge an epistemological western bias. By working to be

included in the CEAA, First Nations have no guarantee that they would become

better able to participate in a process, which will necessarily address ‘‘increasing

evidence that the quality and quantity [of] our natural resources are diminishing

at an alarming rate’’ (ibid.). To ensure the success of this reformation, the Act

must reflect Aboriginal values, beliefs and original teachings.

The four tiered system presently utilized in reviewing projects under the

CEAA does not accommodate TEK and community needs. As such, the process

is not directly amenable to community resource planning. One solution to this

impasse as suggested by the Canadian Environmental Network (1994) is the

‘‘everything in unless excluded’’ principle. That is, exclusion would be based on

jointly agreed upon criteria ensuring the inclusion of TEK-based environmental

indices. First Nations must be supported to develop flexible indicators, so not to

be antithetical to the whole idea of TEK, independent from government and

industry influence. Indices can be established through continued systematic

monitoring of traditional territories. This approach promotes some degree of

national standards that are reflective of the unique conditions and needs of

situated knowledge. Keith (1994, p. 6) noted that ‘‘sets of indices on ecosystems

health, the capacity of systems to cope with stresses and the self-organizing

properties of ecosystems should be the principal focus of research and monitoring

methods. Monitoring initiatives should combine both scientific evidence and

TEK.’’ The environmental assessment process must recognize ecosystems health

as well as the complex histories and rights and title of Aboriginal people by

affirming Aboriginal relationships at the level of the environmental review panel

and other governmental interfaces within the process. From a First Nations’

perspective, current reviews rarely meet their needs.

Two examples of published books that examine the integration of TEK in

assessments and with ecology are Voices from the Bay (McDonald et al., 1997)

and The Land Still Speaks (Sherry and Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, 1999).

These two publications demonstrate the flexibility of traditional knowledge and

its currency to improving knowledge of a specific cultural geography. Further-

more, they demonstrate the potency of community control over specific know-

ledge, contested spaces and the inclusion of community-based environmental

indicators and values to guide federal, territorial and provincial processes.


The creation of a First Nations’ environmental assessment process has not

been widely discussed (Cole, 1993; Christensen, 1994; Paci, 1994; Sallenave,

1994; Stevenson, 1996). ATEK-based assessment process is more a theory than a

reality, but such a process could reflect what Penney (1994) termed a ‘‘sustain-

ability paradigm.’’ Penney (1994, p. 245) contends that the CEAA is oriented to

prodevelopment and a shift to sustainability would be ‘‘based on more revolu-

tionary interpretations of the meaning of ‘sustainable development.’ This para-

digm shift takes the principle task of environmental assessment to be the

maintenance and restoration of ecological integrity on a global scale’’ (ibid.).

Recognition of sustainability embraces community participation, fitting with

TEK as ‘‘a body of knowledge built up by a group of people through generations

of living in close contact with nature. It includes a system of classification, a set

of empirical observations about the local environment and a system of self-

management that governs resource use’’ (Johnson, 1992, p. 4).

In general, TEK-based assessment embraces an ecosystem approach. It is not

limited to serving themasters of antidevelopment, conservation or preservation and

its inclusion in the process considers human actions and their impacts as central.4

Within TEK, practices exist as teachings about the environment carried in core

values, ‘‘teachings passed down from our ancestors that crystallize our sense of

responsibility and our relationship to the earth that arises out of the original law’’

(Clarkson et al., 1992, p. 4). Stewardship is of the ‘‘plants, animals, minerals,

human beings and all life [experienced] as if they were part of ourselves’’ (ibid.).

The environmental assessment legislation may be relatively recent. However, the

concept has been an integral part of traditional knowledge for generations, reflected

by Johnson (1992) as a ‘‘system of self-management that governs resource use.’’

6. A note on documenting TEK

Primarily, indigenous knowledge is transmitted orally. It is maintained by the

coexistence of people and environments. As such, it is not easily communicated to

those of a different language, culture or in documentary form. TEK requires both

interviews and observation of practices. Beilawski (1992, p. 70) noted that ‘‘Inuit

knowledge resides less in what Inuit say than in how they say it and what they do.’’

The fundamental problem with documentation is that there is a growing need to

write down stories, making them more accessible. However, this also removes

them from context, which in turn has both immediate and long-term implications.

Oral traditions are taught and learned under certain conditions, within a

cultural milieu. The setting, actions and behaviours of both teacher/teller and

4 Although not specifically about bridging TEK in the assessment process, more about a rejection

of the development/sustainability dichotomy, Escobar’s (1998, p. 74) article supports ‘‘the

incorporation of cultural and technological criteria into an alternative production paradigm that goes

well beyond the dominant economic rationality.’’


learner/listener are important to the process. When traditions are written down,

they tend to be thought of as authoritative, the last word on a subject. However,

each telling of a story is different depending on the conditions of the narration.

This reflexivity is impossible with written narratives, which may have more than

one interpretation but never more than one version.

TEK should be written and recorded as the lowest level of understanding.

Specific knowledge at this surface understanding needs to be controlled by the

community. The elder–apprentice relationship is the highest level of learning and

teaching, where TEK can be fully and completely grasped. As such, communities

must be supported to maintain, enhance and develop indigenous knowledge. Elders

should be involved to council those documenting community knowledge for long-

term management.

Documentation of indigenous knowledge as TEK stimulates important ques-

tions. How will TEK be integrated and conceptualized in environmental

assessment and natural resources? Brascoupe (1994a, p. 1) warns that ‘‘[the]

lack of understanding of the relationship between TEK and potential resource

management’’ is an outstanding barrier. This is particularly relevant to the EIA

process and the 5-year review. Ultimately, the level of First Nations’ participation

must be greater than the current measures, as Vincent (1994, p. 71) found that ‘‘a

population cannot be invited to give its point of view when constricted by the

imposition of norms foreign to that population.’’ The norms of Canada negate

Aboriginal values and stand, as Doubleday (1993, p. 41) explained it, as ‘‘often

unstated tensions.’’ For Cole (1993), the environmental assessment process

maintains a hidden agenda of racism, while it remains to be seen if government

can resolve these debates over values to translate them into constructive change.

7. Conclusions

Over a decade has passed since Shapcott (1989, p. 56) observed that EIAwas of

less importance to native people than establishing rights and title to land. The heady

political momentum of the late 1980s and promising 1990s in Canada has not

resulted in the completion of modern land claims, treaties or other legislative

accommodation. Natural resource developments continue to impact and transform

Aboriginal communities and ecosystems. At the same time, social and natural

capital continues to be transformed into commodities, usually to the detriment of

Aboriginal communities. In British Columbia, the Treaty Process is nearing

completion at some tables. However, First Nations in that province are unsettled

by the framework offered by the provincial government, especially regarding

extinguishment of title.

The assessment process requires a fundamental shift in how Canadian’s value

the environment by knowing as much as possible about dynamic ecosystems and

cultures. Indigenous knowledge and values must be included in assessment

legislation or development will proceed according to its own implicit and explicit


needs. It is apparent that while TEK may have benefited policy makers, it was

often not sought (Feit, 1991). The growing movement to assert Aboriginal rights,

and the rejection of materialist traditions in ecology, has led many to want to

capture TEK for management of the environment (Berkes, 1999). Constitutional

changes after 1982 have increased Aboriginal people’s participation in the

environmental discourse in a significant way. Mueller and McChesney (1994,

p. 31) have identified ecological ethics in international assistance funding (trade

agreements) as a force influencing environmental assessment globally. It is

apparent from the literature that indigenous people have advanced their rights

arguments in the international arena by offering a powerful critique of devel-

opment as well as domestic policy in countries with indigenous populations.

Spalding et al. (1993, p. 64) argue that at the heart of EIA are the ‘‘notions of

identification and prediction of impacts associated with a proposed human action,

the evaluation and management of those impacts and the communication of

information to decision-makers.’’ Decision-makers are sometimes overly influ-

enced by developers and industry, and at times, this brings them into direct

conflict with local communities. Vincent (1994) found, for the Great Whale

Review Office, that most participatory approaches used by government take a top

down, minimal community input approach. It would be beneficial if governments

sought community participation and federal legislation may be able to accom-

modate Aboriginal cultural paradigms of the environment. However, First

Nations reject incursion on their jurisdiction over natural resources and govern-

ment attempts to limit their rights and title. Most often, the conflict between these

groups are worked out by the courts, indicating a failure in political processes.

Maintaining TEK within communities is of utmost importance. Involving

TEK in environmental management and the longer-term study of the environment

in general will require building linkages between communities (and individuals

within these communities) that are the holders of traditional knowledge with

universities and research centers, governments, industry, environmental groups

and nongovernmental organizations. It should be apparent that First Nations are

not clients or stakeholders with respect to some expert service provider. Instead, it

is theorized that the process of gathering environmental knowledge is comple-

mentary to ongoing social processes, and the application of TEK in envi-

ronmental assessment is mutually beneficial to all parties involved (Gadgil et

al., 1993). It is important to recognize the Western constructs utilized as value

free in managing natural resources. TEK requires changing the way things are

done, envisioning knowledge as a quilt made up of many smaller cognitive maps,

possibly representing more closely ecosystems thinking.5

5 There are cases where management was based on complex experimentation for which scientists

had insufficient measurements and disregarded traditional knowledge (Tanner, 1981). By quilt, I am

suggesting that we know ‘‘our world’’ by conceptual patches of local knowledge. A quilt results when

sufficient relational patches of local knowledge are combined.


References

Beilawski E. Inuit knowledge and science in the Arctic. North Perspect 1992;20(1):5–8.

Berkes F. Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. In: Inglis J, editor. Traditional ecological

knowledge: concept and cases. Ottawa: Canadian Museum of Nature and International Develop-

ment Resource Center (IDRC), 1993. pp. 1–10.

Berkes F. Sacred Ecology: Traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. Philadelphia:

Taylor and Francis, 1999.

Brascoupe S. Sustainable cultural development. Sustainable development and the past and future of

aboriginal employment in Canada. Presented at Carleton University, 1994 (unpublished).

Canadian Environmental Network. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act recommendations

for reform. Submitted to the Honourable Shiela Copps, Minister of the Environment and Deputy

Prime Minister, Ottawa, 1994 (unpublished).

CEAA. Review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: a discussion paper for public

consultation, 1999. Available at: http://199.212.18.103/discussion/discussion_e.htm (January

18, 2000).

CEAA. Canadian Environmental Assessment Process: a citizen’s guide. Hull, Quebec: Canadian

Environmental Assessment Agency.

Christensen EV. A discussion paper on First Nations environmental assessment. Prepared for the Dene

Nation, Yellowknife, 1994 (unpublished).

Clarkson L, Morrissette V, Regallet G. editors. Our responsibility to the seventh generation: indige-

nous peoples and sustainable development. Winnipeg: International Institute Sustainable Develop-

ment, 1992.

Cole D. First Nations’ environmental assessment guideline, first draft. Prepared for the Assembly of

First Nations, Environment Unit, Ottawa, 1993 (unpublished).

Copet W. An approach to community planning in aboriginal settlements. Can J Native Stud

1992;12(1):37–50.

Couture JE. Explorations in native knowing. In: Friesen JW, editor. The cultural maze: com-

plex questions on native destiny in Western Canada. Calgary: Detselig Enterprises, 1991.

pp. 53–73.

Delgamuukw v. British Columbia. 1997 3 S.C.R. 1010.

Doubleday N. Finding common ground: natural law and collective wisdom. In: Inglis J, editor.

Traditional ecological knowledge: concept and cases. Ottawa: Canadian Museum of Nature and

IDRC, 1993. pp. 49–51.

Escobar A. Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of

social movements. J Polit Ecol 1998;5:53–82.

Feit HA. Waswanipi Cree management of land and wildlife: Cree ethno-ecology revisited. In: Cox

BA, editor. Native people, native lands: Canadian Indians, Inuit and Metis. Ottawa: Carleton Univ.

Press, 1991. pp. 75–91.

Gadgil M, Berkes F, Folke C. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio

1993;22(2/3):151–6.

Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT), Traditional Knowledge Working Group. Response

by the government of the northwest territories to the report of the traditional knowledge working

group. Yellowknife, 1996.

Hannibal-Paci C. Securing the future for Lake Sturgeon: the debate about co-management. In: Wall D,

editor. Securing the northern futures: developing research partnerships. Edmonton: Canadian

Circumpolar Institute Press, 1999. pp. 81–6.

International Indigenous Commission. Indigenous peoples traditional knowledge and management

practices report. Prepared for the United Nations Committee on Economic Development, 1991.

Johnson M, editor. Lore: capturing traditional environmental knowledge. Hay River: Dene Cultural

Institute and IDRC, 1992.

Keith R. The ecosystem approach: implication for the north. North Perspect 1994;22(1):6–7.


Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, Natural Resources Secretariat. First Nations environmental

assessment project, vol. 1 Winnipeg: Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, 1991.

Marglin S. Toward the decoloniziation of the mind. In: Apffel-Marglin F, Marglin S, editors. Domi-

nating knowledge: development, culture, and resistance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. pp. 1–16.

McDonald ML, Arragutainaq Z. Novalinga voices from the bay: traditional ecological knowledge of

inuit and cree in the hudson bay bioregion. Ottawa: Canadian Arctic Resources Committee and

Environment Committee of Municipality of Sanikiluaq, 1997.

Mueller T, McChesney A. Environmental assessment regimes. Ecodecision. 1994;30–1 (January).

Nazarea, V. editor. Ethnoecology: Situated Knowledge/Located Lives. Arizona: University of Arizona

Press, 1999.

Paci C. Traditional environmental knowledge; entry points for discussion. Prepared for Keith Conn,

Environment Coordinator. Assembly of First Nations, Ottawa, 1994 (unpublished).

Paci C. Role of TEK in resource management and environmental assessment. Conference paper

presented at the community-based resource management conference. University of Manitoba,

Natural Resources Institute, 1995.

Penney S. Assessing CEAA: environmental assessment theory and the Canadian Environmental

Assessment Act. J Environ Law Pract 1994;4:243–69 (October).

Rison S. Delgamuukw justice, 1999. Available at: http://www.bcen.bc.ca/bcerart/vol9/delgamuu.htm

(January 18, 2001).

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Restructuring the relationship. Part 2, vol.2. Ottawa:

Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1996a. pp. 421–735.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Restructuring the relationship. Part 2, volume 2. 63 A

new approach to lands and resources, 1996. Available at: http://www.indigenous.bc.ca/v2/

Vol2Ch4s6.3.asp (January 20, 2001).

Ruddle K. The transmission of traditional ecological knowledge. In: Inglis J, editor. Traditional

ecological knowledge: concept and cases. Ottawa: International Development Research Council

and Canadian Museum of Nature, International Program on TEK, 1993. pp. 17–32.

Sadler B. International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment: final report, environ-

mental assessment in a changing world. Report prepared for Canadian Environmental Assessment

and the International Association for Impact Assessment, 1996.

Sadler B, Boothroyd P, editors. Traditional ecological knowledge and modern environmental assess-

ment. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, Center for Human Settlement, The International

Study of Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment, 1994.

Sallenave J. Giving traditional ecological knowledge its rightful place in environmental impact assess-

ment. North Perspect 1994;22(1):16–9.

Shapcott C. Environmental impact assessment and resource management, a Haida case study: impli-

cations for native people of the North. Can J Native Stud 1989;9(1):55–83.

Sherry E, Gwitchin, V. First nation the land still speaks: Gwitchin words about life in dempster

countery. Old Crow: Erin Sherry and Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, 1999.

Sinsheimer RL. The presumptions of science. In: Daly HE, editor. Economics, ecology, ethics: essays

toward a steady-state economy. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1980. pp. 146–61.

Spalding H, Smit B, Kreutzwiser R. Evaluating environmental impact assessment: approaches, lessons

and prospects. Environments 1993;22(1):63–74.

Sparrow Rv. [1990] 3 C.N.R. 160, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075, 70 D.L.R. (4th) 385 (S.C.C.).

Stevenson M. Indigenous knowledge in environmental assessment. Arctic 1996;49(3):278–91.

Tanner NM. On becoming human. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981.

Taylor C. Multiculturalism and ‘‘the politics of recognition’’. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1992.

Trosper R. Land tenure and ecosystem management in Indian country. In: Jacobs HM, editor. Social

conflict over property rights: who owns America? Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1998.

pp. 208–26.

Vincent S. Consulting the population definition and methodological questions. Background paper

no. 10. Montreal: Great Whale Review Support Office, 1994.


Wavey R. International workshop on indigenous knowledge and community-based resource manage-

ment: keynote address. In: Inglis J, editor. Traditional ecological knowledge: concept and cases.

Ottawa: Canadian Museum of Nature and IDRC, 1993. pp. 11–16.

Wolfley J. Ecological risk assessment and management: their failure to value indigenous and traditional

ecological knowledge and protect tribal homelands. Am Indian Cult Res J 1998;22(2):151–69.

Dr. Chris Paci completed an interdisciplinary PhD (History, Zoology and Natural Resources

Institute) from the University of Manitoba with a thesis title is ‘‘His Knowledge and my Knowledge’’:

Cree and Ojibwe Knowledge of Lake Sturgeon and the Possibilities for Co-Management in Manitoba.

He has been an Instructor at the University of Northern British Columbia since 1999, developing

community-based curriculum in First Nations Studies and teaching in the areas of traditional

environmental knowledge and Aboriginal community resource planning. He has published papers in

the Canadian Journal of Native Studies, Manitoba Archaeology Journal and Etudes/Inuit/ Studies, as

well having published several book chapters and numerous reviews. Chris has presented his work at

Canadian and international conferences.

Ann Tobin obtained her Master of Science in Natural Resource Management (1996) from the

University of Northern British Columbia. Her published thesis entitled Huckleberry Mine: A Case

Study in the Implementation of the BC Environmental Assessment Act was a critique of the newly

enacted provincial and federal environmental legislation (Canadian Environmental Assessment Act).

Currently, she works as the Natural Resource Manager for the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council (CSTC).

The CSTC represents eight First Nation communities in treaty negotiations with the provincial and

federal governments. She is involved with a provincial-based First Nations’ Environmental

Assessment Technical Working Group (FNEATWG) that has the mandate to deliver a First Nations

‘‘tool kit’’ to assist First Nation communities that have project development subject to the provincial

and federal acts on their reserve or traditional territory. The FNEATWG was involved in providing

comments for the CEAA 5-Year Review.

Peter Robb completed a Bachelors of Arts in Geography (1996) from Bishop’s University then

continued on to obtain a Bachelors of Science (2000) in Environmental Planning with a concentration

Aboriginal Planning. During his education, he worked in the British Columbia Treaty Process in the

field of forestry and community development. Currently, he is working for Ministry of Energy and

Mines, Aboriginal Relations Branch, in Victoria, BC where he represents the Ministry’s interests in the

BC Treaty Process.


reconsidering the canadian environmental impact assessment act: a place for traditional...

Documents