DOCSLIB.ORG

Problems with the Environmental Working Groups for the Mary River

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Problems with the Environmental Working Groups for the Mary River Problems with the environmental working groups for the Mary River mine Report to the Hamlet of Clyde River and Nangmautaq Hunters and Trappers Association January 5, 2021 Dr. Warren Bernauer (Department of Environment and Geography, University of Manitoba) Dr. Glen Hostetler (Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba) Rowan Harris (BSc, University of British Columbia) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Baffinland’s Mary River mine uses a flexible approach to mitigating environmental effects. The mitigation measures are not set in stone in the NIRB project certificate. Instead, Baffinland is required to regularly update its management plans, based on advice from working groups. The members of these working groups include Baffinland, government authorities, Inuit organizations, and the Miitimatalik HTO. In some cases, non-government organizations participate as observers. For example, the Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) includes Baffinland, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Parks Canada, the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, and the Mittimatalik HTO. World Wildlife Fund and Oceans North are observers to the MEWG. The Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) includes the Government of Nunavut, QIA, and Mittimatalik HTO. When these groups were proposed, they were presented as a way to minimize the negative effects of the Mary River mine. Communities were told they could use the working groups to impose stricter mitigation measures if the mine ended up having more serious environmental impacts than expected. In other words, these working groups were supposed to provide the opportunity for adaptive management. Adaptive management is useful in situations where there is uncertainty about a project’s environmental impacts and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. It requires careful monitoring so participants can learn about the environmental impacts that are actually happening and if environmental management plans are successful in avoiding significant effects. Management plans need to be regularly revised based on this learning. The working groups oversee and review the findings of environmental monitoring programs and then make recommendations for revising environmental management plans as needed – this means that they have a central and key role in the proposed adaptive management approach to dealing with negative effects from the Mary River mine. Unfortunately, the experience with these working groups has not been positive. There is evidence that the adaptive management working groups at the Mary River mine are both dysfunctional and ineffective. As a result, real adaptive management is not taking place. This report outlines several problems with these working groups and identifies potential solutions. It is based on a review of documents available on NIRB’s public registry, as well as a review of academic literature pertaining to adaptive management. 1 Problem #1 – Working groups are controlled by the proponent Working groups at the Mary River mine are effectively controlled by the proponent. Baffinland organizes and chairs meetings, sets the agenda, commissions research, and revises management plans. Other working group members are left responding to Baffinland’s actions. The working groups are also advisory, which means there is nothing forcing Baffinland to follow the advice of other working group members. As a result, it is very difficult for other members to bring forward ideas and concerns. “QIA continues to have serious concerns regarding the efficacy of the TEWG and MEWG and how comments and recommendations from those Working Groups are acted upon by BIMC. Much of the monitoring, reporting and feedback conducted to date within those Working Groups continues to give the impression it is a “check-box” exercise, without any meaningful opportunity for adapting or changing practices based on the results.” (Qikiqtani Inuit Association, 2020) “Thus far, the MEWG has been an imperfect forum to recommend and discuss potential mitigation measures in response to monitoring results, with the majority of time during meetings spent on reviewing results. (…) DFO-FFHPP also notes that this current comment/response format does not provide a timely mechanism for resolution on incorporation and implementation of outstanding issues and proposed mitigation measures.” (Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 2020) “The GN has worked via the TEWG to bring forward [concerns with caribou monitoring] with support from other members. However, responsiveness on the part of the Proponent, in terms of revising monitoring plans, has been minimal.” (Government of Nunavut, 2020) This is a serious problem. Literature on adaptive management suggests that it only works when participants are able to meaningfully change management procedures. In fact, that is the essence of adaptive management (Allen and Gunderson, 2011; Doremus et al., 2011; Scarlett, 2013). If participants feel like their contributions are not resulting in change, they may feel discouraged and not want to continue (Conroy & Peterson, 2011). Some scholars argue that adaptive management works best when the Indigenous stakeholders hold the power (von der Porten et al., 2016; Slooten et al., 2000). As part of the review of the Phase 2 expansion, Baffinland has proposed new terms of reference for the Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG). However, the discussion of new terms of reference is internal to working group members. The draft terms of reference are not available on the NIRB public registry. The Hamlet of Clyde River requested to observe a MEWG meeting when the terms of reference were discussed, but Baffinland said no. 2 Problem #2 – Working groups are not transparent There is very little information available to the public about these working groups. Correspondence, draft research reports, presentations, and other key documents are not available on the NIRB public registry. Literature on adaptive management shows that transparency is important for successful adaptive management (Henriksen and Barlebo, 2008; Allen and Gunderson, 2011; Conallin et al., 2018; Emborg et al., 2020). In the case of the Mary River mine, the lack of transparency raises several specific problems. First and foremost, Baffinland could potentially use the working groups to keep critical discussions away from the public. Concerns with negative effects – by either Inuit hunters or government biologists – are not necessarily communicated to the public. There is concern that proponents could use the working groups to bury research that documents negative effects of their operations and/or bury criticisms of industry-sponsored research. This lack of transparency makes it very difficult for community organizations like HTOs to influence working group decisions – one of the biggest sources of power community leaders can have at their disposal is an informed and mobilized public. If the discussions and information are kept out of the public eye, it is impossible to create this sort of power. This lack of transparency is especially concerning for Hamlet Councils – they need to be able to access relevant information, because it affects the rights and well-being of their residents. Transparency is necessary so that community leadership and Inuit organizations can provide oversight and ensure that what is learned from monitoring programs and working group discussions is used appropriately to revise environmental management, so that the rights and well-being of Inuit are protected. External pressure like this is important to successful adaptive management. Transparency is also important for building trust, which is fundamental to successful adaptive management (see Problem #5 below). Problem #3 – Only one community-level organization participates in the working groups The MHTO is the only community-level organization currently participating in these working groups. However, the effects of this mine are likely to be regional rather than local. In other words, the effects will not be limited to the vicinity of the mine. As a result, decisions made by these working groups may affect the members of other HTOs in the North Baffin region. Hunters in other North Baffin communities should have the right to be represented in these working groups, either through the participation of their community HTO or the Qikiqtaaluk Wildlife Board. However, HTOs need to be careful how they approach this issue of direct participation in working groups. Participation can be a trap. If HTOs are not provided with adequate resources and if other structural problems are not corrected, participation could be, at best, a waste of time. 3 Problem #4 – The relationship of trust between working group members has deteriorated Academic literature on adaptive management suggests trust is vital for adaptive management to be successful (Norton and Steinmann, 2001; Henriksen and Barlebo, 2008; Allen and Gunderson, 2011; Greig et al., 2013; Rist et al., 2013; Fabricius and Currie, 2015; Gunderson, 2015; Conallin et al., 2018; Wilmer et al., 2018; Emborg et al., 2020). Recent exchanges suggest that the relationship of trust between community leaders, Baffinland, and QIA has deteriorated. Key issues affecting trust include: 1) The lack of community participation in negotiating the Inuit Certainty Agreement and previous Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreements 2) Lack of transparency regarding Baffinland’s long-term plans for the Mary River project (especially Baffinland’s
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RECLAMATION PILOT STUDY Mary River Mine Project
    RECLAMATION PILOT STUDY Mary River Mine Project Revegetaon Survey & Preliminary Reclamaon Trial REV.1 Prepared For Baffinland Iron Mines Corporaon 300 - 2275 Upper Middle Road East Oakville, ON L6H 0C3 Prepared By EDI Environmental Dynamics Inc. 220 - 736, 8 Ave. Southwest Calgary, AB T2P 1H4 EDI Contact Patrick Audet, PhD, RPBio Mike Seerington, MSc, RPBio EDI Project 19Y0005:2008 March 2020 Down to Earth Biology This page is intentionally blank. RECLAMATION PILOT STUDY Mary River Mine Project | Revegetation Survey & Preliminary Reclamation Trial TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 POST-DISTURBANCE REVEGETATION SURVEY............................................................................................ 2 2.1 SURVEY DESIGN ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 METHODS & ANALYSES ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 2.3 RESULTS SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6 2.3.1 KM52 — 1-Year Post-Disturbance ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Grade 5 Module 3B, Unit 3, Lesson 3
    Grade 5: Module 3B: Unit 3: Lesson 3 Conducting Research: Analyzing Expert Texts about the Mary River Project This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Exempt third-party content is indicated by the footer: © (name of copyright holder). Used by permission and not subject to Creative Commons license. GRADE 5: MODULE 3B: UNIT 3: LESSON 3 Conducting Research: Analyzing Expert Texts about the Mary River Project Long-Term Targets Addressed (Based on NYSP12 ELA CCLS) I can analyze multiple accounts of the same topic, noting important similarities and differences in the point of view they represent. (RI.5.6) I can explain how the author uses reasons and evidence to support particular points in a text. (RI.5.8) I can draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research. (W.5.9b) I can determine the meaning of unknown words and phrases, choosing flexibly from a range of strategies. (L.5.4) Supporting Learning Targets Ongoing Assessment • I can analyze the meaning of key words and phrases, using a variety of strategies. • Vocabulary terms defined on index cards and Frayer • I can support my research, analysis, and reflection on the Mary River project by drawing upon evidence Models from expert texts. • Point of View Graphic Organizer: Expert Texts • I can explain the reasons and evidence given to support two different points of view about the Mary River project on Baffin Island. Copyright © 2013 by Expeditionary Learning, New York, NY. All Rights Reserved. NYS Common Core ELA Curriculum • G5:M3B:U3:L3 • June 2014 • 1 GRADE 5: MODULE 3B: UNIT 3: LESSON 3 Conducting Research: Analyzing Expert Texts about the Mary River Project Agenda Teaching Notes 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Mining, Mineral Exploration and Geoscience Contents
    Overview 2020 Nunavut Mining, Mineral Exploration and Geoscience Contents 3 Land Tenure in Nunavut 30 Base Metals 6 Government of Canada 31 Diamonds 10 Government of Nunavut 3 2 Gold 16 Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated 4 4 Iron 2 0 Canada-Nunavut Geoscience Office 4 6 Inactive projects 2 4 Kitikmeot Region 4 9 Glossary 2 6 Kivalliq Region 50 Guide to Abbreviations 2 8 Qikiqtani Region 51 Index About Nunavut: Mining, Mineral Exploration and by the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA), the regulatory Geoscience Overview 2020 body which oversees stock market and investment practices, and is intended to ensure that misleading, erroneous, or This publication is a combined effort of four partners: fraudulent information relating to mineral properties is not Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada published and promoted to investors on the stock exchanges (CIRNAC), Government of Nunavut (GN), Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI), and Canada‑Nunavut Geoscience Office overseen by the CSA. Resource estimates reported by mineral (CNGO). The intent is to capture information on exploration and exploration companies that are listed on Canadian stock mining activities in 2020 and to make this information available exchanges must be NI 43‑101 compliant. to the public and industry stakeholders. We thank the many contributors who submitted data and Acknowledgements photos for this edition. Prospectors and mining companies are This publication was written by the Mineral Resources Division welcome to submit information on their programs and photos at CIRNAC’s Nunavut Regional Office (Matthew Senkow, for inclusion in next year’s publication. Feedback and comments Alia Bigio, Samuel de Beer, Yann Bureau, Cedric Mayer, and are always appreciated.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Report
    Project N Report NI 43-101 Technical Baffin Island-Mary River, Mary RiverIron OreTrucking o . 165926 Mary River, Baffin Island, Canada Mary River Iron Ore Trucking NI 43-101 Technical Report Prepared by: AMEC Americas Ltd. Prepared for: Baffinland George H. Wahl, P. Geo Iron Mines Corporation Rene Gharapetian, P. Eng. February 2010 James E. Jackson, P. Eng Project No. 165926 Vikram Khera, P. Eng VOLUME 1 Gregory G. Wortman, P. Eng REPORT Effective Date, January 13, 2011 IMPORTANT NOTICE This report was prepared as a National Instrument 43-101 Technical Re- port for Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (BIM) by AMEC Americas Lim- ited (AMEC). The quality of information, conclusions, and estimates con- tained herein is consistent with the level of effort involved in AMEC’s ser- vices, based on: i) information available at the time of preparation, ii) data supplied by outside sources, and iii) the assumptions, conditions, and qualifications set forth in this report. This report is intended for use by (BIM) subject to the terms and conditions of its contract with AMEC. This contract permits (BIM) to file this report as a Technical Report with Cana- dian Securities Regulatory Authorities pursuant to National Instrument 43- 101, Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. Except for the purposes legislated under provincial securities law, any other uses of this report by any third party is at that party’s sole risk. Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation Mary River Baffin Island Mary River Iron Ore Trucking NI 43-101 Technical Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Introduction and Scope of Work ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Socio-Economic Monitoring Report for the Mary River Project | Page Ii
    2019 SOCIO-ECONOMIC MONITORING REPORT FOR THE MARY RIVER PROJECT PREPARED FOR Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation 2275 Upper Middle Road East, Suite 300 Oakville, Ontario L6H 0C3 Stratos Inc. 1404-1 Nicholas Street Ottawa, Ontario K1N 7B7 Tel: 613 241 1001 www.stratos-sts.com ᑐᓴᒐᒃᓴᖅ ᑐᑭᒧᐊᒃᑎᑦᑎᔨᑦᑎᓐᓂᑦ ᑲᔪᓰᓐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᓴᓇᓂᕐᓄᑦ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᐊᓕᐊᓇᐃᒍᓱᒃᐳᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ ᓄᓘᔮᖕᓂ ᐃᓅᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᕘᒥ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᓗ. ᐊᑎᓕᐅᓚᐅᖅᐳᒍᑦ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᕚᓪᓕᕈᑎᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕐᒥᒃ 2019ᒥ ᐅᓪᓗᖅᓯᐅᑎᑎᒍᑦ ᑎᒥᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᑕ ᖃᖓᑕᓲᑎᒍᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᓂᒃ, ᓂᕿᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒧᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ, ᒪᓕᒃᖢᒋᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᒧᑦ ᓱᕈᖅᓴᕋᐃᑦᑐᓄᑦ, ᓄᓇᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐅᓯᔭᐅᓂᕐᓄᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᓕᕐᕕᖕᓂ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ. ᒪᓕᒋᐊᓕᖏᑦ. ᓄᑖᖅ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎ ᖃᖓᑕᓱᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓯᔭᐅᓂᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᑯᐊᐸᑎᒃᑯᓐᓅᕗᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᑳᓐᑐᕌᒃ ᐱᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᕗᖅ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᓐᓂᒃ 2019 ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕈᑕᐅᕗᖅ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓄᑦ ᐃᓗᐃᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓄᑦ ᐊᑑᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᓄᓘᔮᖕᓂ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᓂ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᑎᑭᑕᕗᑦ ᑕᑯᓯᒪᕗᖅ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐱᕚᓪᓕᕈᑎᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᒋᓪᓗᓂ ᑯᐊᐸᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᓐᓂᒃ ᑲᔪᓰᓇᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᓴᓇᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᓄᓘᔮᖕᓂ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ ᐅᐊᖕᓇᖓᓂᕐᒥᐅᓄᑦ ᐱᕚᓪᓕᕈᑎᒃᓴᖃᑲᐅᑎᒋᑎᖦᖢᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ ᐱᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᔪᒪᔭᖃᖅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒡᓗ ᓯᕗᓂᕐᒥ ᐱᐅᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᒃᑯᑦ ᑯᐊᐸᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᐊᕋᒥᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᒥᐅᓄᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ. ᓱᓕᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓗ, ᐱᕚᓪᓗᕐᑎᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐱᕈᕐᓂᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᒡᒋᖅᑐᓂᒃ. 2019ᒥᑦ, ᐱᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᖃᖓᑕᓲᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓯᑲᖅᑕᖅᑎᒋᓪᓗᓂᒋᑦ, ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᑯᐊᐸᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᒪᐃᓯᒪᕗᖅ; ᐊᑑᑎᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᓚᐅᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᖅᓯᕕᒃ ᓴᓴᐃᐊᑎᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᑲᖏᖅᑐᒑᐱᖕᒥ, ᓂᕿᑖᕐᕕᖕᓄᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑮᓂ ᑲᖏᖅᑐᒑᐱᖕᒥ ᐃᒃᐱᐊᕐᔪᖕᒥᓗ • ᐱᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᖓᑖᓂ $65 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᓄᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᖦᖢᒍ ᖃᔪᖅᑐᕐᕕᒃ ᐃᖃᓗᖕᓂ. ᑐᓂᓯᔪᓐᓇᕐᓃᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓲᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᒧᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑐᓄᑦ; ᐱᕚᓪᓕᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᑐᕌᑲᐅᑎᒋᕗᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓘᔮᖕᓂ • ᑎᑭᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᖓᑖᓄᑦ 1.2 ᐱᓕᐊᓐ ᑳᓐᑐᕌᑎᒍᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐊᑎᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖁᔭᐅᔪᓪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖏᓐᓄᑦ; • ᑐᓂᓯᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ $800,000 ᑲᓴᓂᒃ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᓇᖏᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᓄᑦ, ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᑦ ᐱᖓᓱᑦ ᑕᖅᑮᑦ 2019ᒥ ᑐᓂᓯᖃᑦᑕᕈᑎᑦᑎᓐᓄᓪᓗ 2016ᒥᑦ; ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑐᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᕐᕕᐅᓚᐅᖅᐳᖅ ᑳᓐᑐᕌᒃᑎᑎᒍᑦ
    [Show full text]
  • Baffinland Provides Update on Mary River Blockades
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Baffinland Provides Update on Mary River Blockades Mary River, NU, February 8, 2021 – The protest at Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation’s (“Baffinland”) Mary River Project is ongoing. There are more than 700 men and women currently at the Mary River Project site in Nunavut who are impacted by the protestors’ blockading of the air strip and the tote road. The Mary River airstrip is currently closed to all regularly scheduled air traffic. Food and supply flights have been suspended, as well as employee and contractor transfers, search and rescue flights, and other North Baffin air traffic support services provided by the Mary River airstrip. Baffinland understands that requests have been made by the organizers to be recognized as a Designated Inuit Organization under the Nunavut Agreement and for a portion of the royalties payable by Baffinland under the Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement to be paid directly to them. Baffinland hears these requests, but has no right or ability to grant them. Baffinland personnel have had numerous meetings with organizers, both at the blockades and in Pond Inlet, imploring the protestors to relocate off the airstrip and allow runway maintenance to take place and flights to resume. So far these discussions have not yielded any progress. On the evening of February 4, 2021, a group of protestors erected two blockades at the Mary River Project, one on the airstrip and one on a section of the tote road. To ensure the safety of every employee, contractor and protestor on site, the majority of operational activities have been suspended until such time as it is considered safe for them to resume.
    [Show full text]
  • Mary River Project
    Espoo Report Phase 2 Proposal – Mary River Project Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation Mary River Project NIRB File No. 08MN053 Mary River Project Espoo Report Phase 2 Proposal TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... i List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................................ii List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................ii Abbreviations and Acronyms ......................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... iv 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Overview and Background ....................................................................................................1 1.2 Regulatory Context ...........................................................................................................................2 2 Project Description ..................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of the Mary River Project: Impacts and Benefits
    Assessment of the Mary River Project: Impacts and Benefits By Dr John Loxley, FRSC, Department of Economics, University of Manitoba February 2019 Assessment of the Mary River Project Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement Dr John Loxley, FRSC, Department of Economics, University of Manitoba1 Contents Executive Summary 3 A. Looking Backwards 7 1. Background to the Mary River Project 7 2. The Price of Iron Ore and Changing Output Goals 9 3. Forecasts of the Financial Viability of the Mary River Project 10 4. Inuit, the Environment and the Mary River Project 14 5. The Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement 15 6. The Benefits Received by Inuit from Baffinland 17 7. The Minimum Inuit Employment Goals (MIEGs) 19 8. Failure to Meet MIEGs and Other Goals 19 9. Barriers to Employment 24 10. The Mary River IIBA Renegotiation 25 11. The Significance of Financial Benefits to Families and Communities 26 12. Meeting Indigenous Employment Targets and Delivering Other Benefits: Lessons from Other Resource Projects 27 Pilbara Mine, Australia 27 Voisey’s Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador 29 Diavik Diamond Mine, Northwest Territories 31 Agnico Eagle Mines, Nunavut 33 13. What Can We Learn from These Experiences? 35 B. Looking Forward: Medium Term 38 14. Forcing Employment and Other Goals by Regulating the Expansion of Output 38 15. A Financial Transfer Alternative to Employment Growth? A Dual Economy? 41 C. Looking Forward: Long Term 44 16. Implications for the Environment of 30 MT/a Output and Two Sea Outlets 46 17. Conclusion and a Recommended Way Forward 47 Bibliography 48 Appendix 1. Nunavut Institutions and Their Functions 55 1 The research assistance of Ms Elisabet Rodriguez Llorian is gratefully acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • Popular Summary
    Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Popular summary POPULAR SUMMARY August 2018 Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Project Summary 1 PROJECT SUMMARY The Mary River Project is an operating iron ore mine located on northern Baffin Island, in the Qikiqtani Region of Nunavut , in the Canadian Arctic. Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (Baffinland) is the owner and operator of the Project. Baffinland’s initial Project consisted of mining iron ore from the reserve at Deposit No. 1 at a production rate of 18 Million tonnes per year (Mt/a) and constructing a railway to transport the ore to market via a port at Steensby Inlet. The Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) issued Project Certificate No. 005 for this Project on December 28, 2012. In 2013-2014, Baffinland prepared an addendum to the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the Project and the Project Certificate was subsequently amended to include the mining of an additional 4.2 Mtpa of ore, trucking this amount of ore by an existing road (the Tote Road) north to a port at Milne Inlet. The total approved iron ore production was increased to 22.2 Mtpa (4.2 Mtpa transported by road to Milne Port, and 18 Mtpa transported by rail to Steensby Port). This is now considered the Approved Project. The 18 Mtpa Steensby rail project has not yet been constructed, however 4.2 Mtpa of iron ore is currently being transported north by road to Milne Port. The Addendum to the FEIS is part of the environmental assessment process established for a project under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Baffinland Iron Mines 2016 Annual Report to the Nunavut Impact
    Baffinland Iron Mines 2016 Annual Report to the Nunavut Impact Review Board Baffinland ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒃ 2016 ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ Project cer�ficate No. 005/ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖅ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑯᑕᖓ No. 005 March 31, 2017/ ᒫᑦᓯ 31, 2017 POPULAR SUMMARY | ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᖑᓯᒪᔪᖅ Introduction ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᔾᔪᑎᑦ This summary is part of Baffinland’s Annual Report to the ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᖑᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐃᓚᒋᕚ ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᖅᓯᐅᑎᖓᑕ Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB). This Report is a ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖓ ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ (NIRB). ᑖᓐᓇ requirement of the Project Certificate No. 005 issued to ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᖅᓯᐅᑎ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᐱᑕᖃᕆᐊᖃᑦᑎᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᓐᓇᓂᕐᒧᑦ Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (Baffinland), which outlines ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔾᔪᑎᖓᑕ ᓇᒻᒪ. 005 ᑐᓂᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ the terms and conditions for operation. The Report provides Baffinland) ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᔪᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒋᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᕆᔭᖓᓄᑦ. ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᐱᑕᖃᑦᑎᑦᑎᔪᖅ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑎᒻᒪᖔᑕ information on how Baffinland is implementing the terms ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒋᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᕆᔭᖓᓄᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᓐᓇᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔾᔪᑎᖓᑕ and conditions of the Project Certificate and its performance ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᑖᒃᓱᒧᖓ ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ. against them. Under the Nunavut Agreement (NA), the ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᖏᑎᒍᑦ (NA), ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ NIRB has completed a review of the potential ecosystemic ᐱᐊᓂᒃᓯᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖃᑦᑐᑎᒃ ᐆᒪᔪᓕᒫᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ and socio-economic effects of the Mary River Project (the ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐃᓂᖓ ᓄᓘᔮᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓕᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ Project) and has found that if the terms and conditions are ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᓕᖅᐸᑕ ᐱᓕᕆᓂᐅᔪᖅ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᐅᖏᓚᖅ implemented effectively the Project is not anticipated to ᐊᑲᐅᖏᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᐃᓂᖃᓐᓂᐊᕐᕆᐊᖓᓂᒃ. cause significant adverse effects. ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᓴᖅᑮᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᐱᕕᒃᓴᖃᕝᕕᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᐅᖃᓪᒪᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ The Report also presents an opportunity to discuss the yearly ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕐᖑᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓪᓗᐊᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᕐᒥᒃ Project activities and highlights what is coming ahead for the ᐊᕐᕌᒎᓂᐊᖅᑐᒥ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᑕᖐᔪᖅ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᓇᓂᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᐅᕙᓂ following year. The complete report can be found on the NIRB NIRB ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᕕᖓᓂ www.nirb.ca ᐊᒻᒪᓗᒃᑕᐅᖅ ᐅᕙᓂ Public Registry at www.nirb.ca as well as on the Baffinland ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᒃᑯᕕᐊᓂ www.baffinland.com/documents.
    [Show full text]
  • NUNAVUT IMPACT REVIEW BOARD MARY RIVER PHASE 2 PROPOSAL BAFFINLAND IRON MINES CORPORATION NIRB File. No. 08MN053 BAFFINLAND's
    NUNAVUT IMPACT REVIEW BOARD MARY RIVER PHASE 2 PROPOSAL BAFFINLAND IRON MINES CORPORATION NIRB File. No. 08MN053 BAFFINLAND’S RESERVATION OF OBJECTION TO THE MITTIMATALIK HUNTERS AND TRAPPERS ORGANIZATION’S REQUEST TO FILE NEW REPORTS - EXHIBITS 63, 64, 65, 66 AND 67 1. During its presentation at the Phase 2 Proposal Public Hearing held January 25 to February 6, 2021, the Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization requested to file several technical reports. The Nunavut Impact Review Board marked these documents as Exhibits 63-67 for identification. Baffinland reserved its objection to the entry of Exhibits 63-67 as evidence in the proceeding. 2. After considering the documents, Baffinland determined that it had previously been provided with copies of Exhibits 63, 64 and 66 at the September 2020 Technical Meeting; however, Baffinland had not previously reviewed Exhibits 65 and 67. 3. Baffinland has no objection to the entry of Exhibits 63-67. In response to the two new documents, Exhibits 65 and 67: (a) Baffinland has submitted a technical review to Exhibit 67 – “Cortisol Levels in narwhal (Monodon monoceros) blubber from 2000-2019” (NIRB Document No. 332989) as part of its written responses to questions filed March 22, 2021. This review is included under CR-5, Attachment 1: Golder Review of Paper on Cortisol Levels in Narwhal (p. 218/339). (b) Baffinland has prepared a very brief response to Exhibit 65 – “Trace metals and Persistent Organic Pollutants concentrations in Narwhals from Eclipse Sound” 2 (NIRB Document No. 332993). A copy of that response, authored by Christine Moore of Intrinsik Corp., is attached.
    [Show full text]
  • Blockades at Mary River Continue to Stop Food, Supplies Getting to Workers
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Blockades at Mary River Continue to Stop Food, Supplies Getting to Workers Mary River, NU, February 9, 2021 – The blockades at Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation’s (“Baffinland”) Mary River Project which are preventing any air traffic in or out of the site are ongoing. Yesterday, Baffinland met with Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI), the Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA), the Mayor of Pond Inlet, the Government of Nunavut, and the RCMP compelling all parties to find a way to help resolve the issue of the blockades. While there was an agreement for support from all parties attending, the attendees have yet to find resolution or make progress toward reopening of the airstrip at Mary River. Baffinland President and CEO Brian Penney impressed on attendees of the meeting that there are more than 700 men and women who are currently on site. Baffinland is responsible for the safety of every person at Mary River, including all employees, contractors, and the protestors. Many of the people working at Mary River have been on site for 21 days now and they are not being allowed to leave, nor are food and supply flights being allowed to land. Working in the high Arctic, those on site bring enough additional medicine and supplies for potential weather delays, however continued suspension of air travel and blocking of medicine and supplies will have an impact in the near term. The Mary River airstrip has been closed since February 4, 2021 and all flights including food, supplies, employee and contractor crew changes, search and rescue flights, and other North Baffin air traffic support services provided by the Mary River airstrip have been suspended.
    [Show full text]