Problems with the environmental working groups for the 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 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, 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 , 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 intent to increase production to 18 MT/year) 3) Baffinland’s refusal to acknowledge that its existing operations have had negative effects that are significant to Inuit 4) Baffinland’s failure to employ sufficient numbers of Inuit at the Mary River mine Unless steps are taken to restore trust between working group members, the adaptive management of Phase 2 is likely to be unsuccessful.

Problem #5 – There is no consensus about ‘big picture’ goals and objectives Academic literature suggests that adaptive management requires participants to agree upon common goals and objectives from the outset. There needs to be a common understanding of what adaptive management is and how it should function for the Mary River mine. All parties should be involved in coming to this common understanding before specific environmental management plans are developed. While some disagreement between parties is inevitable, adaptive management often fails when there is no consensus on broad ‘big picture’ objectives for what adaptive management is supposed to accomplish (Allan and Stankey, 2009; Argent, 2009; Canter and Atkinson, 2010; Allen and Gunderson, 2011; Doremus et al., 2011; Susskind et al., 2012; Greig et al., 2013; Scarlett, 2013; Fabricius and Currie, 2015; Bond et al., 2015). In the case of the Mary River project, there is no common vision among working group members on at least two key issues. First, there is no consensus about what the environment on North should look like. In other words, there is no agreement about what changes to the environment are acceptable and what changes are unacceptable. This disagreement is reflected in conflicts over significance thresholds. Second, there is no consensus about how IQ should be used in adaptive management, in terms of methodology, validation, etc. If these issues are not resolved, it is unlikely that working groups will work together for a common cause, because there will be ongoing conflicts over these ‘big picture’ questions. Communities and Baffinland should establish a consensus on these questions before the project is approved. If consensus cannot be reached now, why should we expect it to be reached later?

4

Problem #6 – Learning is not well supported in the working groups Adaptive management in EIA follow-up is fundamentally about learning (Bond et al. 2015; Armitage et al. 2008; Gibson et al. 2016; Gunderson 2015; Arts & Morrison-Saunders 2004). It acknowledges that we do not know everything about the kinds and seriousness of impacts from the mine’s operations, and that we are not completely sure about the best ways to mitigate these impacts. In the NIRB assessment process predictions about impacts are made and mitigation measures are proposed, and then adaptive management is all about learning what the actual impacts are and the best ways of mitigating them. Without effective learning, adaptive management cannot succeed. For this learning to happen, the working groups need to operate transparently (see Problem #2), there needs to be active participation and input from all affected communities (see Problem #3), and working group members need to be able to trust each other (see Problem #4). And for the learning to actually improve environmental management, what is learned needs to be applied to modify environmental management plans and mitigation measures (see Problem #1) so that the larger objectives that were agreed upon (see Problem #5) are met. In other words, all of the problems described above also create serious concerns about the quality of learning in the working groups, and create doubts that learning will be effectively used to properly “adapt” environmental management for the Mary River mine.

Conclusions and Recommendations: The academic literature on adaptive management shows that, in some cases, it can be a good way to protect the environment. However, in other cases, adaptive management has failed to provide adequate environmental protections. Many scholars have come to the conclusion that, more often than not, adaptive management is unsuccessful (Suskin et al., 2012; Doremus et al., 2011; Williams and Brown, 2014). Adaptive management is difficult and time-consuming, and is therefore a risky approach to environmental management. In the case of the Mary River mine, this risk is increased by the problems outlined in this report, including inappropriate levels of corporate control, inadequate transparency, insufficient community-level participation, lack of trust, and lack of common goals/objectives. The following actions might help reduce this risk: 1) An independent, impartial third party should assume responsibility for the working groups, including chairing the groups and organizing meetings. The group or individual that will oversee the working groups needs to be trained in adaptive management and provided with adequate resources to ensure adaptive management occurs. The Nunavut Impact Review Board appears to be well-suited to perform this function.

5

2) All correspondence, draft research reports, and meeting minutes from the working groups should be uploaded to a public registry in a timely manner. Meeting minutes should carefully document the discussions held, including disagreements and different perspectives shared, and not just record decisions and actions. 3) Hunters and Trappers Organizations and the Qikiqtalluk Wildlife Board should be offered the opportunity to participate in the working groups. Proper resources should be provided to ensure their participation is meaningful and does not affect their ability to perform other functions. Other interested parties should be allowed to attend as observers to ensure transparency and public oversight. 4) Baffinland should work in partnership with affected communities and Inuit organizations to develop a definition of significant impacts that encompasses what Inuit believe is significant. 5) Baffinland should agree to an approach to IQ that satisfies the most affected communities.

References Allan, C., Stankey, G. (2009) Synthesis of Lessons. In Allan, C. & Stankey, G. H. (eds.) Adaptive Environmental Management: A Practitioner’s Guide. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Allen, C. and Gunderson, L. (2011) Pathology and failure in the design and implementation of adaptive management. Journal of Environmental Management. 92: 1379-1384. Argent, R. (2009) Components of Adaptive Management. In Allan, C. & Stankey, G. H. (eds.) Adaptive Environmental Management: A Practitioner’s Guide. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Armitage, D., Marschke, M., and Plummer, R. (2008) Adaptive Co-management and the Paradox of Learning. Global Environmental Change. 18: 86-98. Arts, J., and Morrison-Saunders, A. (2004) Lessons for EIA Follow-up. In Arts, J., and Morrison-Saunders, A. (eds.) Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-up. London: Earthscan. Bond, A. Morrison-Saunders, A. Gunn, J. Pope, J. and Retief, F. (2015) Managing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment by embedding evolutionary resilience, participatory modelling and adaptive management. Journal of Environmental Management 151: 97-104. Canter, L. and Atkinson, S. (2010) Adaptive management and integrated decision making: an emerging tool for cumulative management. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 28(4): 287-297. Conallin, J. Wilson, E. Campbell, J. (2018) Implementation of environmental flows for intermittent river systems: Adaptive management and stakeholder participation facilitate implementation. Environmental Management. 61: 497-505.

6

Conroy, M. J., Barker, R. J., Dillingham, P. W., Fletcher, D., Gormley, A. M., & Westbrooke, I. M. (2008). Application of decision theory to conservation management: Recovery of Hector’s dolphin. Wildlife Research, 35(2), 93-102. doi:10.1071/WR07147 Department of Fisheries and Oceans (2020) Comment’s on Baffinland’s 2019 Annual Report for the Mary River Iron Mine. July 27, 2020. Doremus, H. Andreen, W. Camacho, A. Farber, D. Glicksman, R. Goble, D. (…) Huang, L. (2011) Making good use of adaptive management. Centre for Progressive Reform. White Paper no. 1104. Dreiss, L. M., Hessenauer, J., Hessenauer, J., Nathan, L. R., Nathan, L. R., . . . Morzillo, A. T. (2017). Adaptive management as an effective strategy: Interdisciplinary perceptions for natural resources management. Environmental Management (New York), 59(2), 218-229. doi:10.1007/s00267-016-0785-0 Emborg, J., Daniels, S., Walker, G. (2020) A Framework for Exploring Trust and Distrust in Natural Resource Management. Frontiers in Communication, vol. 5, article 13. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2020.00013 Fabricius, C., Currie, B. (2015) Adaptive Co-Management. In Allen, C., Garmestani, A. (eds). Adaptive Management of Social-Ecological Systems. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Gibson, R., Doell, M., and Sinclair, J. (2016) Fulfilling the Promise: Basic Components of Next Generation Assessment. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice. 29: 257-283. Government of Nunavut (2020) Comment’s on Baffinland’s 2019 Annual Report for the Mary River Iron Mine. July 27, 2020. Greig, L. Marmorek, D. Murray, C. and Robinson, D. (2013) Insight into enabling adaptive management. Ecology and Society. 18(3): 24 Gunderson, L. (2015). Lessons from Adaptive Management: Obstacles and Outcomes. In Allen, C., Garmestani, A. (eds). Adaptive Management of Social-Ecological Systems. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Henriksen, H. and Barlebo, H. (2008) Reflections on the use of Beysian belief networks for adaptive management. Journal of Environmental Management. 1025-1036. Norton, B. and Steinmann, A. (2001) Environmental values and adaptive management. Environmental Values. 10(4): 473-501. Qikiqtani Inuit Association (2020) Comment’s on Baffinland’s 2019 Annual Report for the Mary River Iron Mine. July 28, 2020. Rist, L. Felton, A. Samuelsson, L. Sandstrom, C. and Rosvall, O. (2013) A new paradigm for adaptive management. Ecology and Society. 18(4): 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES- 06183-180463 Scarlett, L. (2013) Collaborative Adaptive Management: Challenges and opportunities. Ecology and Society. 18(3): 26 http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05762-180326

7

Slooten, E., Fletcher, D., & Taylor, B. L. (2000). Accounting for uncertainty in risk assessment: Case study of hector's dolphin mortality due to gillnet entanglement. Conservation Biology, 14(5), 1264-1270. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.00099-411.x Susskind, L. Camacho, A.E. and Schenk, T. (2012). A critical assessment of collaborative adaptive management in practice. Journal of Applied Ecology. 49(1): 47-51 von der Porten, S., de Loë, R. C., & McGregor, D. (2016). Incorporating indigenous knowledge systems into collaborative governance for water: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Canadian Studies, 50(1), 214-243. doi:10.3138/jcs.2016.50.1.214 Williams, B. and Brown, E. (2014) Adaptive management: from more talk to real action. Environmental Management. 53: 465-479. Wilmer, H. Derner, J. Fernandez-Gimenez, M. Briske, D. Augustine, D. Parensky, L. (2018) Collaborative adaptive rangeland management fosters management-science partnerships. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 71(5): 646-657.

8