Ginoogaming First Nation Social Impact Assessment
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
` Ginoogaming First Nation Social Impact Assessment June 29, 2015 Submitted by Ginoogaming First Nation Social Impact Assessment ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A hearty ‘Migwach’ is needed for all those community members who participated in the engagement sessions with such enthusiasm and openness. Thus project could not have been completed without you, and your input is shown in the richness of the reports and annexes. Acknowledgement is also due for Chief and Council who on occasions went out of their way to meet for extended periods outside of regular hours, to ensure that input and guidance was available. No acknowledgements would be complete without highlighting the incredible assistance and talent of the GFN staff: Conrad Chapais who initiated the assessments, Erin Smythington- Armstrong who worked tirelessly to ensure the process ran smoothly, Calvin Taylor who helped guide the engagement, and Priscila Fisher and Marianna Echum, who were always available to assist, and even ran stations at the Open House on short notice. Also, a thank you is extended to Miller Dickson Blaise and Cornerstone Consulting, who worked in partnership with Beringia in many of the engagement sessions. Thank you to Jeff Cook and Glen Hearns from Beringia Community Planning. i June 29, 2015 June Ginoogaming First Nation Social Impact Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Ginoogaming First Nation (GFN) is facing new resource development projects in its traditional territories, with the potential for significant impacts on the Nation and their land. The anticipated impacts could be positive in terms of increased jobs and economic development. However, there is also the risk of negative impacts such as environmental degradation, increased social and health problems associated with substance abuse, and continued erosion of traditional values. GFN is taking these issues seriously and has undertaken a series of studies in 2015 to build their understanding and preparedness for the projects. The studies include a Community Needs Assessment, a Social Impact Assessment and full Community Economic Development strategy. The GFN staff have coordinated these studies to complement each other. These studies build on the previous work of the nation, such as the Consultation and Accommodation Protocol which outlines the actions the Nation will take to mitigate possible negative impacts on traditional, cultural and vocational uses of their land by its members. Both this Social Impact Assessment and the Community Needs Assessment were conducted by Beringia Community Planning and are complimentary documents. The Community Needs Assessment focuses on how best to take advantage of the opportunities, such as increased employment and economic development. The Social Impact Assessment focuses on mitigating or minimizing the potential negative aspects of the developments on GFN. The Social Impact Assessment was conducted to: Build a better understanding of the current situation, identify the potential impacts, and identify measures and actions to remedy or mitigated negative impacts, Increase community empowerment to advance community well-being, and identify specific actions to seize opportunities related to the new developments; and, Provide greater support for negotiations with government and industry regarding the developments, to build on and advance existing GFN initiatives Key areas of potential impacts There are both positive and negative impacts associated with mining activities. Figure 1 outlines the main themes associated with mining initiatives. The most notable positive impacts are greater opportunities for GFN members to benefit economically. These are related to both opportunities for individuals as well as generation of band revenue for general spending and community improvements. In this way, the ripple effects of increased Nation revenue could include better housing and infrastructure, access to amenities and recreation opportunities, improved diet, amongst others. ii June 29, 2015 June Ginoogaming First Nation Social Impact Assessment There are however, potential negative impacts associated with the benefits of economic development. There is concern from the community that increased jobs and economic activity combined with an influx of people to the region could lead to increased substance abuse. This could have very negative ripple effects on the community in terms of maintaining jobs, impact on family and education, and general social functioning. Figure 1 Positive and Negative Impacts Associated with Mining Development Other major concerns involve impacts on the environment including wildlife and fish. The effects will be different for different mining projects, for example the Ring of Fire developments will not have One day it is measurable impacts on the local environment around GFN as might going to be the Premier Gold or Goldstream Developments. However, the cultural and social impacts associated with earning money and a hard, very hard more vibrant regional economy would be similar. This assessment to get a moose uses Premier Gold as an example to look at potential impacts of new around mining projects, as there is more information available regarding this development. The information can then be applied to the potential Ginoogaming Goldstream mining operation 40km east of GFN. Joe Towegishig The key concerns identified by this Social Impact Assessment are listed below in Table 1. (1960) iii June 29, 2015 June Ginoogaming First Nation Social Impact Assessment Key concerns: 1) Decreased availability of fish, wildlife and traditional plants The quality of traditional foods will get worse. Minor amounts of increased pollution will add cumulative effects to an already stressed natural system. Already, there are problems with moose meat, fish, blueberries, in that they cannot be eaten. The quantity of traditional foods will diminish. Increased pollution and increased stress from additional hunters and fishers will make it more difficult for GFN members to access their traditional foods. Diminished trapping potential. However, limited economic impact, as trapping is not a source of economic activity in the community it is linked to culture and tradition. 2) Increased erosion of traditions and culture Decreased availability of traditional foods will diminish the strong connection that GFN members have to the land and their traditional practices. The influx of people and increased economic activity will come with greater distractions for youth and further distance them from tradition and culture. 3) Restriction of rights and title More people will set up tourist areas and fishing cabins, which restricts First Nation use because of private property. Less availability of traditional foods is a restriction of Rights and Title. 4) Increased negative health indicators The stresses associated with increased economic activity and jobs, as well as more money in the community could increase substance use, abuse and addiction. Influx of people and transitory nature of workers will lead to increased availability of drugs and alcohol Loss of traditions, culture and ‘time on the land’ could lead to increased use of drugs and alcohol. 5) Economic costs Decreased time on the land doing traditional practices could lead to other activities that may cost money Money spent on increased use of negative substances. Increased money spent on travel to find traditional foods – most people drive an iv June 29, 2015 June Ginoogaming First Nation Social Impact Assessment extra 2-3 hours on a hunting trip. Increased money spent on groceries (beef and fish) that would otherwise be from the land. 6) Increased crowding in housing Increased regional economy will lead to an increase housing prices causing members living locally to want to return to the reserve. If more jobs are available nearby, off-reserve members living further away will want to move back to take advantage of the situation. Table 1: Key Concerns of Social Impact Assessment Methodology The methods used in this impact assessment include: literature research, interviews with experts outside the community, a community engagement process (which formed the core of the study), and an analysis phase to help develop succinct recommendations. The community engagement process was lead heavily by the community itself. Between February and April 2015 a total of 75 community members were engaged through 17 interviews with experts and community members, 5 talking circles (which engaged 52 community members), and an Open House Community Gathering (where 42 adult community member attended). Excellent cooperation between Beringia Community Planning and Miller Dickson Blaise— who conducted the Economic Development study—helped to maximize resources by sharing information and even conducting joint engagement sessions. Key to the development of the Social Impact Assessment were discussions with Elders and trappers regarding the effects of cultural erosion from diminished land-based practices such as hunting and fishing. Trigger for the assessment There are significant resource development projects in and around Ginoogaming First Nation (GFN), ranging from mining to energy transmission corridors. Of immediate concern are mining developments related to Premier Gold’s Hardrock development located at the current site of Geraldton, 35 km from GFN. It is a proposed open pit mine with processing facilities, onsite treatment and storage. The project plans to extract an average of 6.5 M tones of mineralized material every year