EL SALVADOR’S MINING BAN AND MINING IN ONTARIO’S RING OF FIRE FROM THE LENS OF ECOLOGICAL LAW

CarlaSbert*†

INTRODUCTION...... 517 I. THE LENSOFECOLOGICAL LAW ...... 518 II. EL SALVADOR’S MINING BAN...... 521 A. BriefContext ...... 521 B. TheLaw ProhibitingMetal Mining fromthe Lens of EcologicalLaw...... 523 1. Ecocentrism...... 524 2. EcologicalPrimacy ...... 524 3. EcologicalJustice...... 527 III. MININGINONTARIO’S RINGOFFIRE...... 529 A. BriefContext ...... 529 B. Selected RulesGoverning Mining in theRingofFire from theLens of Ecological Law...... 531 1. AccessingMineralsand Land UsePlanning...... 532 2. Consultationand Free Priorand Informed Consent...... 534 3. Minimizing and RedressingHarm...... 536 C. Lens of EcologicalLaw Analysis...... 537 1. Ecocentrism...... 538 2. EcologicalPrimacy ...... 539 3. EcologicalJustice...... 541 CONCLUSION ...... 545

INTRODUCTION

As thetopicofthe workshop at whichthisEssay waspresented indicates, one of thechallengesofthe Anthropoceneisto shift from environmentaltoecologicallaw.Iunderstandecological lawasanew legal paradigm aimedatconstrainingeconomic activity within ecological limits and at promotingand supportinganecologically just society. To better

*Ph.D. candidate, University of Ottawa,Faculty of Law. ThisEssay waspresented at the Joint E4A Law andGovernance Initiative/ELGA Workshop, From Environmental to Ecological Law: An AnthropoceneChallenge,whichwas heldOctober 17–18, 2017 in Montreal,Quebec, Canada. †Thisresearch wasgenerously supported by the the Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canadaand the University of Ottawa. 518 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:517 understandthe challenges and opportunitiesfor ashift to this new paradigm,Ihave proposed a lens of ecological law and hereIapply this lens in twodifferent cases concerning mining. TheAnthropocene wouldnot have occurred without theBronze Age and it will not unfoldwithout minerals.Mineral extractionhas greatly expanded with theGreat Acceleration,1 contributingtoecological degradationand grave social impacts.2 We maybeunabletoimagine human civilizationwithout minerals, but we have to reimagine their extractionand usetoavoid harm to thelandscape, water, wildlife, workers, women, and communities. Ecological lawisone important leverto transform mining in theAnthropocene. Understanding how current laws differfromecologicallaw can contribute to this transition. To shed some light on this question, this Essay appliesalens of ecological law to twocase studies:ElSalvador’smetal mining banand theproposed mineral developmentinOntario’s Ring of Fire.

I. THE LENSOFECOLOGICAL LAW

The lens of ecologicallaw is an analytical tool forcritiquing existing lawtoidentify majorobstacles and opportunitiesfor ashift to ecological law.3 It is comprisedofthree interconnectedprinciples:

1. Ecocentrism: “[r]ecognize and [r]espect the[v]alue of all [b]eings” and theinterconnectednessamong them,equally “[p]romotingthe [i]nterests of [h]umanand [n]on-[h]uman [m]embersofthe Earth community.”4

1. MARINA FISCHER-KOWALSKI ET AL., UNITED NATIONS ENV’T PROGRAMME,DECOUPLING NATURAL RESOURCE USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSFROM ECONOMIC GROWTH 10 (2011);Will Steffen et al., The Trajectory of theAnthropocene:The Great Acceleration,2ANTHROPOCENE REV.81, 89 (2015). 2. See,e.g.,CLIVE PONTING,AGREEN HISTORY OF THE WORLD:THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE COLLAPSEOFGREAT CIVILIZATIONS 325, 327–28 (1993) (“The massive increase inmining operations to produce metals ...has inevitably made amajor andhighlyvisible impact on the environment.”); THE GAIA FOUND., UNDER-MINING AGRICULTURE:HOW THE EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES THREATEN OUR FOOD SYSTEMS 9(2014), https://www.gaiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ UnderMiningAgriculture_Report_lowres.pdf (“Given theEarth’s current ecological fragility, anyfurther devastationand ‘toxification’ of lands, soils,watersand biodiversity by mining wouldbeplanetary suicide”). 3. For adetailed discussion of ecological law,see Carla SbertCarlsson, AmparosFiled by Indigenous CommunitiesAgainst Mining Concessions in Mexico: Implications foraShift in Ecological Law,10MEXICAN L. REV.3,7(2017). 4.Id.at8. 2019] Mining from theLensofEcological Law 519

Theprinciple of ecocentrism considers the view of thehuman-Earth relationshipunderlyingthe law; whether theinterconnectedness of all membersofthe Earth community is recognized; and whether human and non-humanbeings areequally valued.5

2. EcologicalPrimacy: “[e]nsurethat [s]ocial and [e]conomic [b]ehavior and [s]ystems are[e]cologically [b]ound, [r]especting PlanetaryBoundaries.”6

Theprincipleofecological primacy involvesseveral relatedelements: ensuringhuman development is pursued without irreversiblyimpairing ecologicalintegrity7 or crossing planetaryboundaries;8 constraining materialand energyuse within ecologicallimits;9 and restoring and maintainingecological integrity.10 Some ecologicallaw scholars arguethat the“Holocene concept”11 of ecologicalintegrity shouldbealignedwith the concept of theAnthropocene.12 Iuse theParksCanadaAgency’s definition of “ecological integrity,” whichstatesthat“ecosystems haveintegrity when they havetheir nativecomponents(plants, animals and otherorganisms)

5.Id. 6.Id.at9. 7. See,e.g.,Stephen Woodley, Ecological Integrityand Canada’sNational Parks, 27 GEORGE WRIGHT F. 151, 158-59 (2010) (“In Canadian national parks, ecological integrity has evolved from ascientific idea into amanagement system.”);JackManno, Whythe Global EcologicalIntegrity Group? The Rise, Declineand RediscoveryofaRadicalConcept, in CONFRONTING ECOLOGICALAND ECONOMIC COLLAPSE:ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY FOR LAW,POLICY AND HUMAN RIGHTS 36–37 (Laura Westra, PrueTaylor &Agnès Michelot eds.,2013) (recognizing how theindustrial use of chemicals affectsecologicalintegrity); Kate Turner&Karen Beazley, An ExplorationofIssues and Values Inherent in theConcept of EcologicalIntegrity,32ENVIRONMENTS 45, 46 (2004) (exploringthe “various controversies andperceptions associated with thedefinitionofecologicalintegrity and of the rolesofscience and philosophyembodied in theconcept”);ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY:INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENT,CONSERVATION, AND HEALTH 22 (DavidPimentel, Laura Westra &ReedF.Nosseds., Island Press2000) (“[T]hereisagrowingbody of policyand lawthat mandates theprotectionand restorationofecologicalintegrity.”). 8. JohanRockström et al., PlanetaryBoundaries: Exploringthe Safe Operating Space for Humanity,14ECOLOGY &SOC’Y 32, 37, 52 (2009),https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/ art32/. 9. SbertCarlsson, supra note3,at11. 10.Id. at 20. 11.For example,Peter Burdon referred to ecological integrity as a“Holocene concept”during aquestionand answer session following an Economicsfor the Anthropocene Presentation. Carla Sbert, The Ring of Fireand theElSalvador Mining Ban fromthe Lens of Ecological Law,YOUTUBE (Jan.17, 2018),https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_zuIVL4DqI&feature=youtu.be. 12.Geoffrey Garver, AComplex Adaptive LegalSystemfor the Challenges of the Anthropocene, in ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS INTEGRITY:GOVERNANCE,LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS 232, 235 (LauraWestra et al.eds.,2015). 520 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:517 andprocesses (such as growth and reproduction) intact”13 with the understanding that “ecosystemsare inherently dynamic, and have ahistory of human interventionand evenmanagement.”14

3. EcologicalJustice: “[e]nsure [e]quitable[a]ccess to theEarth’s [s]ustaining[c]apacity for[p]resent and [f]uture [g]enerations of [h]umans and [o]ther [l]ife [f]ormsand [s]ystems,and [a]void the[i]nequitable[a]llocation of [e]nvironmental [h]arms.”15

Theprincipleofecological justice is basedprimarilyonKlaus Bosselmann’sconcept,which includes intragenerational,intergenerational, and interspeciesequity.16 Theprincipleofecological justiceprobeswhether thelaw provides ethical grounding fordecisions that lead to theequitable useofthe planet’ssustainingcapacity and promotes taking onlywhatone needs and thefairdistributionof—and restrainton—wealth.17 Finally,this principleaskswhether environmental harms areequitablydistributed among current and future generations of humansand otherbeings.18 In thecasestudies that follow,Iusethis lens of ecological law to reflect on theimplications of ashift from environmental to ecological law in thecontextofmining. By looking to El Salvador, Iconsiderwhether the first attemptbyacountry to banmetal mining is astepinthe direction towardsecological law.19 In considering themineral extractionproposed in Ontario’sRingofFire—whichiswithin one of themostecologically intact regions of theworld20—I searchfor elementsofecological lawinalegal framework that purportedlyensures mineral extractionissustainable.21

13.PANEL ON THE ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY OF CAN.’S NAT’L PARKS,UNIMPAIRED FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS?: CONSERVING ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY WITH CANADA’S NATIONAL PARKS 2 (2000),publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/R62-323-2000-1E.pdf. 14.Woodley, supra note7,at159. 15.Sbert Carlsson, supra note3,at11. 16.Klaus Bosselmann, Ecological Justiceand Law, in ENVIRONMENTAL LAW FOR SUSTAINABILITY:AREADER 150-52 (Benjamin J. Richardson&Stepan Wood eds., 2006) [hereinafter Bosselmann, EcologicalJustice and Law]; Klaus Bosselmann, THE PRINCIPLE OF SUSTAINABILITY: TRANSFORMING LAW AND GOVERNANCE 102–04, 106 (2ded. 2017) [hereinafter Bosselmann,THE PRINCIPLE]. 17.See Bosselmann, Ecological Justice and Law, supra note 16, at 157 (“[R]esource distribution is determined by sustaining thepotentialofresources in view of future needs ....”). 18.See id. (“[D]ecisions regardingthe distributionofresources must sustain the needs of future generations.”). 19.See infra PartII.B (evaluating El Salvador’sLaw ProhibitingMetal Mining through a lens of ecological law). 20.FAR N. SCI.ADVISORY PANEL,SCIENCE FOR A CHANGING FAR NORTH ii (2010) [hereinafter ADVISORY PANEL], www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/24006/302262.pdf. 21. See infra PartIII.C(applying a lens of ecological law to mining lawinOntario’s Ring of Fire). 2019] Mining from theLensofEcological Law 521

II. EL SALVADOR’S MINING BAN

A. BriefContext

TheRepublic of El Salvador is thesmallest country in CentralAmerica and themostdensely populated,with approximately 6.5millionpeople livinginanareaof21,040 square kilometers.22 Between approximately 1980–1992, thecountry experiencedabrutal civilwar in which70,000– 80,000 peoplewerekilledand one-fifthofthe populationwas displaced.23 Amountainous country with high seismic activity andextreme weather events, El Salvador also suffers fromserious environmentaldegradation, includingminimal forest cover, high erosion,and waterscarcity and contamination.24 Thecountry’s high vulnerability is exacerbated by climate change and deforestation, whichincreasethe likelihood of landslides and floods,25 and by poverty,which aggravates thenegativeimpactsofnatural disasters.26 HistorianChristopher M. White describes El Salvadorasa country “which simultaneously hasendured great hardshipwhile maintainingavibrantculture and an optimistic outlook forthe future.”27 El Salvador is also the first country in theworld to enact alaw prohibiting metalmining.28 Mineralextraction hasoccurred in El Salvador since themid-18th century,29 but mining has not beenamajoractivity in thecountry.30 Mining operations allbut came to ahaltinthe 1980s mostly due to thecivil war.31

22. See RenéSantamaria Varela et al., El Salvador,ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, www.britannica.com/place/El-Salvador (last updated Feb. 4, 2019)[hereinafter El Salvador, ENCYCLOPAEDIA](estimatingthe populationofElSalvador at 6.5million). 23.CHRISTOPHER M. WHITE,THE HISTORY OF EL SALVADOR 9, 109 (2009); El Salvador, ENCYCLOPAEDIA, supra note 22. 24.MINISTERIO DE ECONOMÍA DE EL SALVADOR (MINEC) [EL SAL.MINISTRY OF ECONOMY], SERVICIOS DE CONSULTORÍA PARALAEVALUACIÓN AMBIENTAL ESTRATÉGICA (EAE) DEL SECTOR MINERO METÁLICO DE EL SALVADOR,INFORME FINAL 5–6, 9–10, 12 (2011) [hereinafter METAL MINING SECTOR SEA]. 25.WHITE, supra note23, at 5; cf. Kristin Stranc,Note, Managing ScarceWater in theFace of Global Climate Change: Preventing Conflictinthe Horn of Africa,39HOFSTRA L. REV.245, 259 (2010) (“Scholarshave warnedofthe potentialfor increased natural disasters due to global climate change. The damagedonebysuch disasters is exacerbated by deforestationand over-cultivationof land.”(footnoteomitted)). 26.METAL MINING SECTOR SEA, supra note24, at 12. 27.WHITE, supra note23, at xvi. 28.NinaLakhani, El Salvador Makes History as FirstNationtoImpose Blanket Ban on Metal Mining,GUARDIAN (Mar.30, 2017), https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/mar/30/el- salvador-makes-history-first-nation-to-impose-blanket-ban-on-metal-mining. 29.METAL MINING SECTOR SEA, supra note24, at 33. 30.WHITE, supra note23, at 37. 31.METAL MINING SECTOR SEA, supra note24, at 33. 522 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:517

ReconstructioninElSalvadorafterthe waraligned with neoliberal trends throughout Latin Americatoencourage foreigninvestment.32 El Salvador reformed its mining laws in 1996 andadoptedmechanismsprotecting foreigninvestorstoattract mining companies.33 From 1995 to 1999 there wasmodestindustrialgoldand silver production,34 but currently only artisanalminingisongoing.35 By theearly 2000s,approximately 29 companies had obtained explorationconcessions in El Salvador, but no exploitationconcessions were active.36 At thesametime, environmental organizations,communities,and civil society groups beganopposingmetal mining due to therisks to waterand health,especially given thegrave waterpollutionand scarcity issues facing El Salvador. In 2006, theNational RoundtableAgainstMetal Mining (La Mesa NacionalFrentealaMineríaMetálica) submittedthe first proposal to ban metalmininginthe country.37 In 2007, La Mesa gainedthe supportof theinfluentialSalvadoranCatholic Church forapermanent prohibitionof metalmining,38 and apollfound that almost 65% of thepopulationopposed metalminingintheircommunity.39 A de facto moratoriumwas established in March2008 when thePresident publicly said he wouldworkwith the legislature to reform thelaw to permit miningonlyonceithad been shown

32.WHITE, supra note23, at 112; see Daviken Studnicki-Gizbert, Canadian Mining in Latin America (1990 to Present): AProvisionalHistory,41CAN.J.LATIN AM.&CARIBBEAN STUD.95, 100 (2016)(explaining that in the1990s, “[n]ew mining codes, new regulatory regimes, andnew institutional arrangementsbetween stateand industry were developedtochannel international capital into”Latin America’s mineralsector). 33.DecretoNo. 544, arts.1,3,Enero 24, 1996, DIARIO OFICIAL [D.O.], at99(El Sal.), https://imprentanacional.gob.sv/archivo-digital-del-diario-oficial/; see also DecretoNo. 732, art. 1, Noviembre 11, 1999, DIARIO OFICIAL [D.O.],at7(El Sal.), https://imprentanacional.gob.sv/archivo- digital-del-diario-oficial/ (outliningagoal of promotingforeigninvestment); Michael L. Dougherty, El Salvador Makes History,N.AM.CONGRESS ON LATIN AM.(Apr.12, 2017), https://nacla.org/news/ 2017/04/19/el-salvador-makes-history(explaining that in 1995, “El Salvador established a3%royalty rate for mineral production” to “secure foreign direct investment”). 34.Commerce Grp. Corp.v.Republic of El Salvador,ICSIDCaseNo. ARB/09/17, Noticeof Arbitration, ¶14(July 2, 2009), https://www.italaw.com/cases/296. 35.METAL MINING SECTOR SEA, supra note 24, at 34. 36. Id. 37. Nueva propuesta de Leyparaprohibir la minería en El Salvador,FUNDACIÓN DE ESTUDIOS PARA LA APLICACIÓN DEL DERECHO [FoundationofStudies forthe ApplicationofLaw] (Sept. 18, 2013) (on file with VermontLaw Review). 38.Press Release,Conferencia Episcopal de El Salvador [Episcopal Conference of El Sal.],La Explotación MineraenElSalvador: CuidemoslaCasadeTodos (May 3, 2007), http://www.caritaselsalvador.org.sv/documentos/otros/65-cuidemos-la-casa-de-todos/file. 39. See INSTITUTO UNIVERSITARIO DE OPINIÓN PÚBLICA,ENCUESTA SOBRE CONOCIMIENTOS YPERCEPCIONES HACIA LA MINERÍA EN ZONAS AFECTADASPOR LA INCURSIÓN MINERA EN EL SALVADOR (2007), www.uca.edu.sv/publica/iudop/Web/2008/finalmineria040208.pdf (reportingthat when peoplewereasked whether they agreed or disagreed that more mining projectsshouldbeopened, 49.5% responded they disagreedstrongly, while 14.5% responded that thedisagreed somewhat). 2019] Mining from theLensofEcological Law 523 that “gold [could] be exploitedtoboostthe economywithout damaging resources.”40 Thegovernment completed aStrategicEnvironmentalAssessment (SEA)ofthe metalminingsectorinSeptember 2011, documentingmultiple serious obstacles foreffectivelyaddressing theenvironmentalimpactsand risksofmetal mining activitiesinElSalvador.41 Theseobstacles included gravepotentialimpactstohealth and waterresources andthe government’s insufficient capacity to manage them.42 Thefact that thecountry wasbeing sued by foreignminingcompanies in twointernational investor–state disputes,43 and the2016arbitrationaward infavorofElSalvadorinone of them,44 contributed to strengthening supporttoban mining.45 Finally,in March 2017, El Salvadorbecamethe firstcountry to adoptalaw prohibitingall surface andsubsurfacemetal mining.46

B. The LawProhibitingMetal Mining fromthe Lens of Ecological Law

TheLaw ProhibitingMetal Mining (LPMM) bans allmetal mining activitiesaswellasthe useoftoxicchemicalsinmetal mining; cancelsall pending licensing procedures;and prohibits future politicians frompassing laws that allowmetal mining.47 TheLPMMcharged theMinistry of Economywith closingall minesand coordinatingthe remediationof mining sites—thelatterincollaborationwith theMinistry of Environment

40.Pac RimCayman LLC v. RepublicofElSalvador,ICSID CaseNo. ARB/09/12, Award, ¶6.125(Oct. 14, 2016),www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7640_0.pdf. 41.METAL MINING SECTOR SEA, supra note 24, at 72. 42. Id. 43.In2009, theminingcompanies Pacific Rimand Commerce Group,Inc. separately initiated investor–statedisputesagainst El Salvador. Pac Rim Cayman LLC,ICSIDCase No.ARB/09/12 ¶6.125; Commerce Grp. Corp. v. Republic of El Salvador,ICSIDCase No.ARB/09/17, Award,¶3 (Mar. 14, 2011). 44. Pac RimCayman LLC,ICSIDCase No.ARB/09/12¶11.17. In theothercase, the tribunal determined in March2011 that it didnot have jurisdiction because Commerce waspursuing thesame matters in courtwithin El Salvador (unsuccessfully,asitturned out). CommerceGrp. Corp.,ICSID CaseNo. ARB/09/17 ¶¶ 134, 138, 140. The SupremeCourtofElSalvador decided two domesticcases againstCommerce in 2010. PROCURADURÍAPARA LA DEFENSA DE LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS [ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS], INFORMEESPECIAL DE LA PROCURADURÍA PARA LA DEFENSA DE LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS –ELLEGADO DE LA MINA SAN SEBASTIAN YSUS IMPACTOS EN LA POBLACIÓN 46 (Jan.2016), issuu.com/pedrocabezas/docs/informe_especial_pddh__legado_de_la. 45. See Robin Broad&JohnCavanagh, El Salvador Votes forWaterOverGold,NATION (Apr. 4, 2017), https://www.thenation.com/article/el-salvador-votes-for-water-over-gold(explaining how attempts by corporations to undermine El Salvador’sminingban “sparked renewed resistance” and supportfor thelaw). 46.DecretoNo. 639,art.1,Abril4,2017, DIARIO OFICIAL [D.O.], at 6(El Sal.), https://imprentanacional.gob.sv/archivo-digital-del-diario-oficial/. 47. Id. at arts. 2–4. 524 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:517 andNatural Resources.48 Theban includes artisanalminingand establishes atwo-yearperiodfor thosepracticingittotransition to othereconomic activities with thesupportofthe state.49 TheLPMM“is of public orderand its provisions shallprevailoverany othertothe contrary.”50 Given that ecologicallaw aims to ecologically constrain economic activity,doesthisfirst lawprohibitingmetal mining signalashift to ecological law? Theanalysisthat followsreflectsonthe LPMMfromthe perspectiveofeach of theprinciples comprisingthe lens of ecological law.

1. Ecocentrism

In theminingban,thereare no elements of ecocentrism.The preamble to theLPMMstatesanunambiguously anthropocentricvisionunderlying theSalvadoran legalsystembynotingthatthe ConstitutionofElSalvador “recognizes thehuman personasthe origin and end of theactivitiesofthe State.”51 Moreover,the LPMM does not recognize theinterconnectedness of humans with otherbeingsorthe interests of non-human membersofthe Earth community.52

2. Ecological Primacy

Ecologicalprimacy impliesthat lawshould be informed by the scientific understandingofEarth systems,ecosystems,and theirrelationto human activities.53 El Salvador’s prohibitionofmetal mining is an example of ecological primacy,eventhough theLPMMdoes not usethe term ecological integrity or make any referencetoplanetary boundaries. The LPMMdecree notes that in establishing theban,the legislatureconsidered scientific knowledge concerning theecologicalvulnerability of El Salvador (especially relatedtowater), the impacts of metalminingonhuman and ecosystemhealth,and theenvironmental degradationproblemsfacing El Salvador.54 Thelaw aims to avoid pushing thecountry’s waterresources

48.Id. at art. 6. 49.Id. at art. 2. 50. Id. at art.9(translation providedbyCarlaSbert). 51. Id. at pmbl.I(translationprovided by Carla Sbert). 52.See id. (emphasizing that thelaw is designed to protect human persons). 53.See Sbert Carlsson, supra note3,at9(“Ecologicalprimacy provides clarityabout the need to ensure human development is pursued without irreversibly impairing natural systems....”). 54.DecretoNo. 639, at pmbl.IV–VI.The Preamble of theLPMMstates: IV.Thatin2010, theUnited Nations Environment Program ranked El Salvador as thecountry with thesecond worst environmental degradationinthe Americas after Haiti. Because of this, metalminingdue to its environmental 2019] Mining from theLensofEcological Law 525 beyond ecologicallimits andacknowledgesthat metalmininginvolves an unacceptableriskoftransgressing theselimits.55 As thecampaign to ban mining calledfor,56 theLPMMeffectivelyprioritizes water(ecological values)over gold(short-term economic gain).57 Also,the LPMM addresses at its source theproblem of ecological degradationfrommining.58 Rather than attemptingtomitigatethe negativeimpactsofmetal miningthrough “sustainablemining” standards,59 El Salvadorchosetoprevent further potentialharmtoecologicalvaluesbyprohibitingthe activity altogether.60 At thesametime, although theLPMMtakes aprecautionaryapproach in linewith ecological primacy,the banisnot quite ashift in paradigm. Rather,itappears to be arareexampleofthe sustainable development calculation(whereby environmental,social, and economic concerns are balanced) turningout in favorofenvironmentalconcerns because the ecological and social costsofmetal extractionwerefound to be so much greaterthan thepotentialeconomic benefits, especially giventhe absenceof astrong mining traditioninElSalvador.61 Another concurrence with ecological primacy is that while theLPMM seemstonarrowlyfocus on banningthe extractionand productionofmetals

impact on water resourcesbecomes athreat to thesustainabledevelopment and wellbeing of theSalvadoranfamily. V. That the activities of explorationand exploitation of metal mining, constitute athreattothe health of theinhabitantsofthe country, carry severerisks for the environment,characterized by endangeringforests,soils and water resources, due to aciddrainage, heavy metals and highlytoxicwastes, like mercury,cyanide and others; and by consumingimportant amountsofwater in all its operationphases,with the probability of destroying landscapes, polluting the airand generatingsocial conflict. VI.Thatthe StrategicEnvironmental Assessmentofthe Metallic Mining Sectorconductedin2011 by theMinistryofEnvironment and Natural Resources, concluded that theconditions of vulnerability in El Salvador implyanimportant barrier to the possibilitythatthe countrycouldguarantee metal mining that effectively controls itsenvironmental andsocial risks and impacts,orachieve a positive contributiontosocial andeconomic developmentofthe country. Id. (translation provided by CarlaSbert). 55. Id. 56.See Broad&Cavanagh, supra note45(emphasizingwater degradation as amotivationfor theLPMM’spassage). 57. Id. (explaining that El Salvador’s mining ban chooses “water over gold”). 58.DecretoNo. 639, at pmbl.V. 59.METAL MINING SECTOR SEA, supra note24, at 79. PacificRim vowed to apply “sustainablemining” standards in its El Doradoproject.Pac RimCaymanLLC v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No.ARB/09/12, Award, ¶3.8 (Oct.14, 2016), www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7640_0.pdf. 60.DecretoNo. 639, at art. 1; Broad &Cavanagh, supra note45. 61.DecretoNo. 639, at pmbl.VI; METAL MINING SECTOR SEA, supra note 24, at 55. 526 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:517 within thecountry,62 it also indirectly constrainsmaterialand energy use in El Salvador. Presumably, theconsumptionofenergyand materials,and the generationofwaste, that wouldhave resulteddirectly and indirectly from metalminingwill be averted.63 Yetnothing indicatesthat El Salvador intends to uselessmetal or to substitute theforegone locally sourcedmetals with metals produced elsewherewith less ecologicalimpact.64 Indeed, the net effectofthe ban couldbeworse forecological sustainability ifEl Salvador’smetal consumptiondoes not decrease andthe metals it could have producedlocally areimportedfromajurisdiction that hasworse practices or involves additional ecological impacts fromtransport.65 In contrast,ajurisdictionapplying ecologicallaw wouldarguablylimit the consumptionofmetalstothoserequiredfor basic needswithin that jurisdiction, userecovered and recycled metals (from landfills and other existing stocks within that jurisdiction) to satisfy thoseneeds,and only allowthe importofmetalsthat couldnot be obtained from thesesources.66 Lastly,asnoted,the LPMMalso ordersthe remediationofareas affected by mining, whichisconsistent with ecological primacy.67 However,the standard adopted—“to return to thepopulationthe conditions of ahealthyenvironment”68—does not conformwith ecologicallaw,which wouldinstead require restoringthe health of theecosystemasawhole—for

62.DecretoNo. 639, at art. 1(providing that thepurpose of theLPMMis“to prohibitsurface and subsurface metalmininginthe territory of theRepublic[of El Salvador]” (translationprovided by Carla Sbert)). 63. See,e.g.,GeoffreyBlight, Mine Waste: ABrief OverviewofOrigins,Quantities, and Methods of Storage, in WASTE:AHANDBOOKFOR MANAGEMENT 77 (Trevor M. Letcher &Daniel A. Vallero eds., 2011) (explaining that the“volumes of waste” produced from mining “are commensurately large”); The Market Underestimates theTremendous Energy Consumptionbythe Gold Mining Industry, SRSROCCO REP.(Feb.3,2019),https://srsroccoreport.com/market-underestimates-tremendous-energy- consumption-gold-mining-industry (calculating theenergy and productioncostsofvariousmetalsand materials). 64.See DecretoNo. 639, at art. 1(banning metalmininginElSalvador without explaining wherethe country wouldacquire metals). 65.Cf. Tiina Häyhä et al., From Planetary Boundaries to National Fair Sharesofthe Global SafeOperatingSpace—HowCan theScales be Bridged?,40GLOBAL ENVTL.CHANGE 60, 62 (2016) (“[I]nternational trade...allows acountry’senvironmental impacttobeexternalized, forexampleby relocating resource-intensive or highly polluting industries inother countries.Asaresult, theproduction (and potentialrelated environmental impacts) and consumptionofgoods increasinglyhappens in different locations andpartofthe territorially reduced environmental pressure in one country maycome at thecost of increasingimpact elsewhere.”). 66.For apreliminary discussion of need-basedmineralsuse, see CarlaSbert, Re-imagining Mining: The Earth Charter as aGuide forEcological Mining Reform,6IUCN ACAD.ENVTL.L. EJOURNAL 66, 84 (2015) [hereinafter Sbert, Re-imagining](explaining how societycould extractnon- renewable resources“based on thereasonableneeds of livinggenerations (equitablyconsidered) without jeopardizing theability of futuregenerationstoenjoy similaraccesstothose resources”). 67.DecretoNo. 639, at art. 6. 68. Id. (translation providedbyCarla Sbert). 2019] Mining from theLensofEcological Law 527 its human andother inhabitants—as well as reestablishing ecological integrity tothe greatestdegree possible.69

3. EcologicalJustice

TheLPMMdoes not make any referencetointragenerational, intergenerational, or interspeciesequity.70 Yetthe metalminingban is the result of asocialmovement groundedinconcerns regarding accesstoclean water, exploitationofthe country’s resources by foreigncompanies,and environmentaldegradationand pollutionthreatening health and livelihoods.71 These concerns areall relevant to ecological justice’s focus on equitableaccesstothe planet’s sustaining capacity and its questioning of unfairexposuretoenvironmental harms;although, under ecologicallaw they wouldnot be limitedonlytohumans.72 Also,asnoted above, theLPMMbansthe extractionofmetalswithin El Salvador,but it does not addressthe use of metals generally,73 which under ecologicallaw wouldbebased on needs andthe fair distributionof wealth.74 Finally,animportant aspect fromthe perspectiveofecological justice is thecommitment to supportartisanal miners—knownasgüiriseros—to transitiontoother economicactivities.75 Thereare serious,yet insufficiently studied anddiagnosed,health impacts relatedtoartisanalminingfor güiriseros,their families, neighbors, and othersinnearby communities.76 More broadly, thearea’ssustainingcapacity is underminedbythe pollution generatedfrommining, andthus not accessibletosupportthe flourishing of humansand otherbeingstodayand in thefuture.77 From theperspectiveof ecological justice,the transitionofgüiriseros to otheractivities wouldhave

69.Sbert Carlsson, supra note 3, at 11 (“Governments andindividualsshalltakeall available measures to enhanceand sustainthe capacity of social and natural systemstomaintaintheirintegrity.” (quotingNicholas A. Robinson, The Resiliency Principle,5IUCN ACAD.ENVTL.L.EJ. 19, 24 (2014))). 70.See DecretoNo. 639, at arts.1–11 (finding no reference to theterms intragenerational, intergenerational,and interspecies equityinthe LPMM). 71.METAL MINING SECTOR SEA, supra note 24, at 26–27. 72.Sbert Carlsson, supra note 3, at 11. 73.See DecretoNo. 639, at art. 1(providing onlythat mining is prohibitedinElSalvador); see alsosupra notes 62–66 and accompanying text (outlininghow El Salvador’smetal mining ban does not addressmetalsconsumptiongenerally). 74.Sbert Carlsson, supra note3,at12. 75.VLADIMIR PACHECO CUEVA,AN ASSESSMENTOFMINE LEGACIES AND HOW TO PREVENT THEM:ACASE STUDYFROM LATIN AMERICA 28–31, 40–41 (2017). 76. See id. at 41 (speculatingthat “the handlingofmercury maybeaffectingthe long term healthofthe Güiriseros,theirfamiliesand theenvironment”because“no toxicity pathway study [nor] serology of the region...ha[s] taken place”). 77. Id. 528 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:517 to ensurethe newactivitiesare ecologically viableand consistent with the equitablesharingofthe sustaining capacity of theregionbetween current andfuturehumans and other beings.78 Thetransitionshouldfurther be complemented by restoration of thesites,forests,and waterways that have beenimpacted, with thegoal of restoring thegreatest possiblelevelsof ecological integrity.79 Details arenot yet availableonhow thegovernment will supportthe transitionawayfromartisanal mining, and thereseems to be no progressonremediation of contaminated mine sites.80 Instead, artisanal miners appear to be working topermanently exemptartisanal mining fromthe metalminingban.81 In summary, theLPMMdoesnot represent afullshift in paradigm towardsecological law, but it is an important step in this direction. By foreclosing metalextractionand orderingthe restoration of El Salvador’s stressed ecologicalsystems,thislaw establishesaprecedent that recognizes ecological sustainability as apreconditionfor flourishingsocietiesand economies.82 At thesametime, however,becausethe ban is not grounded on an ecocentricworldview,itismorevulnerabletoshiftingshort-term human interests.83

78.Sbert Carlsson, supra note3,at7–11. 79.Id. at 9, 11–12. 80.The regulations implementingthe LPMM, publishedinJune2017, onlyadd that the Ministry of Economy will provide creditunder preferentialconditions and other types of support for güiriseros to “reconvert” to otherproductiveactivities. DecretoNo. 25,art.3,Junio2,2017, DIARIO OFICIAL [D.O.] at 7(El Sal.); seealso AlfredoCarías, La minería aún es causadedisputas en El Salvador,CONTRAPUNTO (Feb. 1, 2018), contrapunto.com.sv/sociedad/periodismociudadano/la- mineria-aun-es-causade-disputas-en-el-salvador/5784 (explainingthat theuncertainty surrounding the transitionfromartisanal mining generates distrust among the güiriseros). 81.AndrésMcKinley, Cuidado El Salvador:la‘minería verde’ es un mito,NOTICIAS DE AMERICA LATINA YELCARIBE (June 14, 2018), https://www.nodal.am/2018/06/cuidado-el-salvador-la- mineria-verde-es-un-mito-por-andres-mckinley/. 82.DecretoNo. 639,arts. 1, 6, Abril4,2017, DIARIO OFICIAL [D.O.],at5–6 (El Sal.), https://imprentanacional.gob.sv/archivo-digital-del-diario-oficial/. 83.For example, environmental groups arecalling for the metalminingban to be constitutionally enshrined, fearing thatchanges in thelegislature might lead to therepeal of theLPMM, especially given OceanaGold’s attempts “to influence thepopulation...with theidea of ‘Responsible Mining.’” MirinaGarcia, Threats to the LawAgainstMetallic Mining,VARGUARDIA (May 7, 2018), www.stopesmining.org/news/salvadoran-mining-ban/532-threats-to-the-law-against-metallic- miningvanguardia;McKinley, supra note 81. 2019] Mining from theLensofEcological Law 529

III. MININGINONTARIO’S RINGOFFIRE

A. BriefContext

Ontario’sFar Northisalightly populated region that coversabout 40% of theprovince’s territory.84 FirstNations make up more than90% of the region’stotal populationof24,000.85 Theregion is exceptional forits ecological features.86 In 2008, mining companies discoveredsubstantial mineral potential in an area of approximately 5,000 square kilometers inthe centralpartofthe FarNorth region, now knownasthe Ring of Fire.87 This area lieswithin thetraditionalterritoriesofnineOjibway and Cree First Nations unitedunderthe Matawa Tribal Council.88 Many companiesand individuals holdminingclaimsinthe area,89 but onlyone is currently activelypursuing aminethere.90 Despite theRingofFire’smineral potential, some questionthe feasibility of its development,primarilydue to thelack of transportand energy infrastructureinthe remote area and the challenge of negotiatingwith thearea’s FirstNations.91 TheFar NorthAct of 2010 wasmeanttoestablishacollaborativeland use planning process fordevelopmentofthe Far North,92 but it appears to have ledtofurther disagreementbetween theprovinceofOntario andFirst

84.Far North of Ontario,GOV’T ONT., www.ontario.ca/rural-and-north/far-north-ontario(last visited Apr. 14, 2019). 85. Id. 86. See ADVISORY PANEL, supra note20, at xi (providing that “[l]arge intactlandscapeslike theFar North are rare”). 87.JED CHONG,LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT,PUBLICATION NO.2014-17-E, RESOURCES DEVELOPMENTINCANADA:ACASE STUDY ON THE RING OF FIRE 1–3 (2014); ADVISORY PANEL, supra note20, at 65 (providing ahistoryofdiamond mining in theFar North). 88.Unity Declaration, Chiefs CouncilMamow-Wecheekapawetahteewiin (2011), http://www.matawa.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Mamow-Wecheekapawetahteewiin-Unity- Declaration-Signed-July-13-2011.pdf.The member First Nations areAroland,Constance Lake, Eabametoong, Ginoogaming, LongLake#58,MartenFalls,Neskantaga, Nibinamik,and Webequie. Id. 89. See MINISTRY OF ENERGY,N.DEV.&MINES,ONTARIO MINERAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 10 (2015) [hereinafter N. DEV.&MINES], https://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/sites/ default/files/mndm_mds_english_2015.pdf. 90. See LetterfromMark Baker,ProjectsEng’r,Noront Res. Ltd.,toDavid Bell, Project Manager,Can.Envtl. AssessmentAgency(Jan.22, 2012), https://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/ p63925/89363E.pdf (detailing the company’s ongoing environmental assessment in preparationfor mining). 91.Jody Porter, Ring of Fire Mining Development StillYears Away from Delivering on a Decade of Hype,CBC NEWS (Jan.30, 2017), www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/ringof-fire-talks- 1.3955236. 92.See Far North Act, S.O. 2010, c. 18, s. 5(Can.)(“The following are objectives forland use planning in theFar North: 1. Asignificant role for FirstNationsinthe planning.”). 530 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:517

Nations93 and is “viewedbyFirstNations in [theNishnawbeAskiNation] as an invalid lawand anew form of colonialism.”94 Still, the2014 Regional FrameworkAgreementbetween theMatawaFirst Nations andthe Ontario governmentestablishedacommunity-based negotiationprocessfocusing on land management,revenuesharing, and capacity building.95 Information on how theagreement will be implementedisscant,96 but dissatisfaction among someFirstNations is apparent.97 Mining andrelated developmentinthe Far Northwill have multiple environmentalimpacts, including: loss and fragmentationofhabitat, major rivers, wetlands andpeatlands;impactsongroundwater flowand surface waters; pollutionofthe air, soil,and water; and disturbance of wildlife.98 Mineral prospectinginthe Ring of Fire hasalready impacted theregion.99

93.Holly L. Gardner et al., The Far NorthAct (2010) ConsultativeProcess: ANew Beginning or theReinforcementofanUnacceptable Relationship in Northern Ontario, Canada?,INT’L INDIGENOUS POL’Y J., Aug. 2012, at 11–12; Peggy Smith, AReflection on First NationsintheirBoreal Homelands in Ontario:Between aRockand aCaribou,13CONSERVATION &SOC’Y 23, 26 (2015) (explaining that certain environmentalnon-governmental organizations “negotiat[ed] behind thescenes with government and industry, while avoiding any direct negotiations with FirstNations whomight oppose theirdirection”); see Catie Burlando, Land UsePlanning Policyinthe Far North Regionof Ontario:ConservationTargets, PoliticsofScale, and theRoleofCivil SocietyOrganizations in Aboriginal–StateRelations, at i(2012) (unpublishedPh.D. dissertation, University of Manitoba), https://umanitoba.ca/institutes/natural_resources/canadaresearchchair/thesis/PhD%20Thesis%20Burland o%202012.pdf (“Aboriginal organizations have condemned new comprehensive legislationfor opening theFar North Region to development ....”). 94. See Ontario’s FarNorthAct,NISHNAWBE ASKI NATION,www.nan.on.ca/article/ontarios- far-north-act-463.asp(last visitedApr. 14, 2019) (“In spite of its Treaty andinternational obligations, thefederal government of Canada didnot intervenetoprotect FirstNations in theprocess leadingupto th[e] [FarNorth] Act.”). 95. Regional FrameworkAgreement,First Nations-Ont., Mar. 26, 2014, Ministry of Energy, N. Dev. &Mines. 96. See,e.g.,Letter from Michael Gravelle,Minister of N. Dev. &Mines, to Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ont. (Jan. 11, 2016),www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/30001/333372.pdf (providing scarce informationonthe FarNorthAct’s implementation). 97. See,e.g.,Press Release, Nishnawbe Aski Nation, Neskantaga and EabametoongDenounce Wynne Government’s Failure on Ring of Fire Planning; SuggestitisTimetoRe-set the Regional Process(May31, 2018),www.nan.on.ca/article/may-31-2018-22595.asp(outliningthe FirstNations’ criticismofhow thegovernment has implemented theagreement); ChiefCorneliusWabasse, What Really Needs to Happen to Make theRingofFire aReality,HUFFINGTON POST (Feb. 22, 2015), https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/chief-cornelius-wabasse/ring-of-fire-development_b_6367606.html (“[D]evelopmentinthe Ring of Fire must be partofthe ongoing processofTreaty implementation. No longercan our Treatybeignored and violated. Newagreementscannot be reached while existingones aretreated as if they don’t exist.”). 98.ENVTL.COMM’ROFONT., SERVING THE PUBLIC:ANNUAL REPORT 2012/2013, at 66 (2013) [hereinafter ANNUAL REPORT], docs.assets.eco.on.ca/reports/environmental-protection/2012-2013/2012- 13-AR.pdf. 99. Compare Wildlands League, Flying Over the RingofFireinCanada,VIMEO (Dec. 12, 2015),https://vimeo.com/148702660 (documentingthe Ring of Fire Region priortoany mining activity), with JodyPorter, Mining ExplorationCausingPermanent Damage in Ring of Fire, Wildlands 2019] Mining from theLensofEcological Law 531

In July 2008, theOntario government announceditwouldprotect at least225,000 square kilometers of theNorthernBoreal region in an interconnected network of conservationlands100 and laterformalized this in theFar NorthAct of 2010.101 Ontario’sapproachinpracticetothe regional developmentofthisareahas beendeeplycriticized by theEnvironmental Commissioner of Ontario102 and otherswho hadpraisedthe conservation aims of theFar NorthAct of 2010.103 Oneofthe main concerns hasbeen thegovernment’s failuretoconductaRegional StrategicEnvironmental Assessment(R-SEA) beforeany development in theRingofFire.104

B. Selected RulesGoverningMininginthe Ring of Fire from theLens of EcologicalLaw

In contrast to theconciseSalvadoran LPMMreviewed earlier,105 the legalframework governingmininginthe Ring of Fire involvesasuite of lengthy andcomplex laws and regulations.106 Without attemptinga comprehensiveanalysis,Ireview below—fromthe lens of ecological law— some key provincial rulesthat applytomininginthe Ring of Fire.

League Says,CBC NEWS (June29, 2015), www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/miningexploration- causing-permanent-damage-in-ring-of-fire-wildlands-league-says-1.3129705 (describinghow “mining activity is causingpermanent damage in [theRingofFire’s] fragileecosystem”). 100.Press Release, Office of the Premier, Protecting Ontario’s Northern BorealForest(July 14, 2008),https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2008/07/protecting-ontarios-northern-boreal-forest.html. 101.Far North Act, S.O. 2010, c.18, s. 5(Can.) (providing that one objective of the Far North Actisthe protectionofculturalvalues and ecological systems“by including at least 225,000 square kilometres of the FarNorth in an interconnectednetworkofprotected areas”). 102.ANNUAL REPORT, supra note98, at 63–75. 103.Cheryl Chetkiewicz &JustinaRay, Ontario’sRing of FireDevelopment Plan HasMajor Flaws,TORONTO STAR (May 29, 2017), https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/05/29/ ontarios-ring-of-fire-development-plan-has-major-flaws.html(criticizinghow Ontario has implemented theFar North Act). 104.ANNUAL REPORT, supra note98, at 72; see also CHERYL CHETKIEWICZ &ANASTASIA M. LINTNER,GETTING IT RIGHT IN ONTARIO’S FAR NORTH:THE NEED FOR A REGIONAL STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IN THE RING OF FIRE [WAWANGAJING]4(2014), www.wcscanada.org/Portals/96/Documents/ RSEA_Report_WCSCanada_Ecojustice_FINAL.pdf (“R- SEA ...isadecision-supporttooland participatory process that addressesenvironmental sustainability at aregionalscale.”);ColeAtlin &RobertB.Gibson, LastingRegionalGains fromNon-Renewable Resource Extraction:The Role of Sustainability-Based Cumulative Effects Assessmentand Regional Planning forMining Development in Canada,4EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES &SOC’Y 36, 46–50 (2017) (explaininghow sustainabledecision making couldbeimplemented in theRingofFire). 105.See supra PartII.B(analyzing El Salvador’s LPMM). 106.See infra Parts III.B.1–3 (explainingthe legal frameworkthatregulates mining in theRing of Fire). 532 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:517

1. AccessingMineralsand Land UsePlanning

Under Canadian law, theprovinceofOntario owns themineralsinthe Ring of Fire and has jurisdictiontoregulatetheirextraction.107 While not beforethe courts,thisjurisdictioniscontested. According to Ontario, the Matawa FirstNations surrendered theirtraditionalterritoriestothe Crown under theJames BayTreaty (Treaty9), butmembersofthe FirstNations maintained aright to usethe lands “until [they] might be ‘taken up’ by the governmentfor avariety of purposes includingsettlement,miningand lumbering.”108 For theirpart, theeight Matawa First Nations party to Treaty 9(allexcept Long Lake #58 FirstNation) “assertthat they nevergave up theirland or theirright to governthemselves ....[A]ndthat they have shared jurisdictionwith Ontario.”109 Recognizing this important difference of interpretation, theanalysis below focuses primarily on thelegal framework in placeper Ontario’s interpretation. TheMiningAct governs dispositionofCrown-owned mineralsin Ontario.110 Consistent with thefreeentry system,111 prospectingonCrown lands,which arenot subjecttorightsheldbyothersorexcludedfrom mining, is open to anyonewho obtains aprospectinglicense.112 Licensees can then register mining claims.113 The2009 reform of theMiningAct114

107. See Constitution Act, 1867, 30 &31Vict. c. 3, s. 92A(1) (U.K.) (“In each province, the legislature mayexclusivelymake laws in relationto(a) explorationfor non-renewablenaturalresources in theprovince ....”), reprinted in R.S.C. 1985, c. 40 (Can.);BARRY J. BARTON,CANADIAN LAW OF MINING 151–52 (1993) (describing the twomaintypes of laws regulating mineral extraction in Canada). 108.Nigel Bankes, TheImplications of theTsilhqot’in (William)and Grassy Narrows (Keewatin)Decisions of theSupreme CourtofCanada forthe NaturalResourcesIndustries,33J. ENERGY &NAT.RESOURCES L. 188, 208–09 (2015); Treaty: James Bay TreatyNo. 9,MATAWA FIRST NATIONS MGMT., http://www.matawa.on.ca/66-2/ (lastvisited Apr. 14, 2019) [hereinafter JamesBay Treaty]. 109. James Bay Treaty, supra note 108; TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMM’NOFCAN., HONOURINGTHE TRUTH,RECONCILING FOR THE FUTURE 1(2015) [hereinafter HONOURING THE TRUTH], http://caid.ca/TRCFinExeSum2015.pdf (“The negotiationofTreaties, while seemingly honourableand legal,was often marked by fraud and coercion, and Canada was,and remains, slow to implement theirprovisionsand intent.”). 110. Mining Act,R.S.O.1990, c. M.14, ss.18–19 (Can.).For purposes of theAct,“‘minerals’ means allnaturally occurring metallic and non-metallic minerals, including coal,salt, quarry and pit material, gold, silver and allrare and precious mineralsand metals,but does not include sand.” Id. s. 1. 111.“The free entrysystem,alsocalledthe free miner or locationsystem, permitsthe mineral operator to enterlands where mineralsare in thehands of theCrown andobliges the government to grant explorationand development rightsifthe miner appliesfor them.” BARTON, supra note107, at 151. 112.MiningAct, c. M.14, ss.18–19, 27, 30. 113.Id. s. 27. 114. The provisionsofthe Mining Act cited hereinare those in forceorthat will enter into force following the completionofthe modernizationprocess. Forcritiquesofthe reform of theMiningAct andofthe Far NorthAct of 2010, seeKaren Drake, The Trialsand Tribulations of Ontario’s Mining 2019] Mining from theLensofEcological Law 533 and theFar North Actof2010 introduced limitations on mineral prospectingand extractioninthe FarNorth.Theseactsbar prospectingand extractioninareas wherecommunity-based land useplanning has not been completedorwhereminingisinconsistent with thecorresponding community-based land useplan.115 Also,nominingactivity is allowedin protectedareas.116 However,the province has discretiontoallow prospectingifitdecides mining is in “the social and economicinterests of Ontario,”regardlessofitbeing barred by acommunity-based land useplan or located in aprotected area.117 In addition, existingminingclaimsinthe Ring of Fire predate thesereforms andare protected by Section205 of the Mining Actand Section14(3) of theFar NorthAct of 2010.118 TheFar NorthAct of 2010 further regulatesthe development of community-based land useplans in theFar North, includingsubjectingthe plans to theguidanceset in theFar North Land UseStrategy.119 Under the Far NorthAct of 2010, thereare twoecologically basedobjectives forland useplanning in theFar North:

2. Theprotectionofareas of culturalvalue in theFar North and theprotectionofecologicalsystems in theFar North by including at least 225,000square kilometres of theFar North in an interconnectednetwork of protectedareas designated in community based landuse plans.

3. Themaintenance of biological diversity,ecological processes andecological functions,including thestorage and sequestration of carbon in theFar North.120

Act: TheDutytoConsultand Anishinaabek Law,11MCGILL INT’L J. SUSTAINABLE DEV.L.&POL’Y 183, 185 (2015)(“This paperargues that, despitethe[][2013] amendments, the Mining Act is still unconstitutional,asitruns afoul of theCrown’s obligations to consultAboriginal peoples and accommodatetheirrightspursuant to section 35(1) of the ConstitutionAct,1982 ....”(footnote omitted)); see also, e.g.,PenelopeSimons &Lynda Collins, Participatory Rights in the Ontario Mining Sector: An International Human Rights Perspective,6MCGILL INT’L J. SUSTAINABLE DEV.L.&POL’Y 177, 183 (2010)(“Although the[Mining] Act hasrecentlybeenamended...itcontinues to under- emphasize public participation andprivilege the rights of mining companies to explore andexploit mineral resources.”);BrucePardy &Annette Stoehr, The FailedReform of Ont.’sMiningLaws,23J. ENVTL.L.&PRAC.1,1(2011) (“Ontario’s mining reformsperpetuate andextend aregimeofpolitical management in whichdiscretionreigns,uncertaintypersists andapolitically-driven hierarchyof interestsispursued.”). 115. Mining Act,c.M.14,ss. 30(g), 204(2);Far North Act, S.O. 2010,c.18, ss. 12, 14(1) (Can.). 116. Mining Act, c. M.14, s. 31; Far North Act, c. 18,s.14. 117. Mining Act, c. M.14, s. 204(3);Far North Act, c. 18, s. 14(4). 118.MiningAct, c. M.14, s. 205; Far North Act, c. 18,s.14. 119. Far North Act, c. 18,s.8. 120.Id. s. 5(2)–(3). 534 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:517

2. Consultationand FreePrior and Informed Consent

TheEnvironmentalBill of Rightsestablishes mechanisms to inform andallowthe public to comment on decisions by theOntario government that mayaffect theenvironment, including many regardingmining.121 If an Environmental Assessmentiscarriedout foramining project,the process involvessomeformofpublic consultation.122 Consultationwith indigenous communitiesisgoverned by Section35ofthe ConstitutionAct of 1982; whereby, theCrown hasadutytoconsultindigenous communitieswhen consideringdecisions or actions that mayaffect treatyand Aboriginal rights—including mineral extractionprojects, but not prospectingand registering mining claims.123 The2009 Mining Actamendments require the governmenttoconsult indigenous communitiesbeforecertain stepsinthe mining processand “delegated certain proceduralaspectsofthe consultation processtoproject proponentsthrough its statutory scheme.”124 Forits part, theUnitedNations Declarationonthe Rightsof Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) establishesthe needtoobtainthe free prior and informed consent (FPIC) of indigenous peoples to carry out activities affecting theirterritories, includingmining.125 Although Canada has signed andpromisedtoimplement theUNDRIP, as per Recommendation43ofthe Truthand ReconciliationCommission,126 it recognizes FPIConlyasa

121.See Environmental Bill of Rights, S.O. 1993,c.28, s. 3(1) (Can.) (“This Partsets out minimumlevelsofpublic participationthat must be metbefore theGovernment of Ontario makes decisions on certainkinds of environmentally significantproposalsfor policies, Acts, regulations, and instruments.”);Classification of Proposalsfor Instruments, O. Reg. 681/94, s. 12 (Can.)(detailing regulations under theEnvironmental Bill of Rightsfor developing mining projects). 122.EnvironmentalAssessment Act,R.S.O.1990, c. E.18, s. 6(1),(3) (Can.) (providing that “[t]he proponent shallgivethe Ministry proposed termsofreference governing thepreparation of an environmental assessment,” which “shall give public noticeofthe proposedterms”).Provincial environmental assessmentsare not required for mining but couldbecarriedout on avoluntarybasis. Far North Act, c. 18, s. 8(4) (“[T]he Far Northland use strategy is not an undertaking as defined in the Environmental Assessment Act.”); Environmental AssessmentAct,c.E.18, s. 5(1) (“Every proponent whowishes to proceed with an undertaking shallapplytothe Minister forapproval to do so.”); see also MININGWATCH CAN., THE BIG HOLE:ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND MINING IN ONTARIO 6 (2014) (explaining that environmental assessments have “extremely limited public consultationand an assumptionthat impacts will be minimaland onlyroutinemitigationmeasures maybeapplied”). 123.MINISTRY OF ENERGY,N.DEV.&MINES,MNDM POLICY:CONSULTATIONAND ARRANGEMENTS WITH ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES AT EARLY EXPLORATION 2, 5–8 (2012)[hereinafter MNDM CONSULTATION POLICY], www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and-minerals/mining-act-policies- and-standards. But see id. at 4(“Aboriginal communitiesand provincial and federal governmentsdonot always sharethe same perspectivewhich cancreate challenges in consultationprocesses.”); Drake, supra note 114, at 186 (arguing that in “someareas in Ontario ...recording aminingclaim does in fact satisfy thetest for triggering the duty to consult”). 124.MNDMCONSULTATION POLICY, supra note123, at 2. 125.G.A.Res. 61/295, art. 28, UnitedNations Declarationonthe RightsofIndigenous Peoples (Sept. 13, 2007). 126.HONOURINGTHE TRUTH, supra note109,at20, 191 (outlining recommendation43, which “call[s] upon federal,provincial,territorial, andmunicipal governmentstofullyadopt and implement 2019] Mining from theLensofEcological Law 535 guidingprinciplethat doesnot amount to theability of indigenous peoples to deny consenttoanextractiveproject in theirterritories.127 Theprovince of Ontario has asimilarposition.128 In contrast,the Chiefs-in-Assemblyof Nishnawbe Aski Nation(NAN),including theMatawaFirst Nations, passed aresolutionestablishingthat“[p]roposed private development or Canadian government policythat affects anypartofthe NAN territory cannot proceed without theFPICofthe affected NAN First NationorFirst Nations.”129 Despite Canada’sadoptionofUNDRIP, theconstitutional duty to consult is, as Martin Papillonand ThierryRodon describeit, “at best a weak versionofFPIC.”130 Fortheirpart, Bruce Pardyand Annette Stoehr argue that theFar North Actand Mining Actamendments—which restrict mining to areas consistent with community-based land use plans—effectivelyamount to arequirement of consentfromthosecommunitiesfor mining in theirterritories, establishingan“Aboriginal ‘planning veto.’”131 YetasWapshkaa Ma’iingan observes,132 thegovernment ultimatelycontrols theland use planning processand canapprove aminingproject and otherdevelopments that areintheinterestofOntario,despite aconflictingcommunity-based land useplan.133

theUnitedNations Declarationonthe RightsofIndigenous Peoples as theframeworkfor reconciliation”). 127. See,e.g.,Philippe Hanna &Frank Vanclay, HumanRights, Indigenous Peoples andthe Concept of Free,Prior and InformedConsent,31IMPACT ASSESSMENT &PROJECT APPRAISAL 146, 151 (2013) (explaining Canada’s reluctance to supportthe UNDRIP); see also TaraWard, The Right to Free, Prior, andInformed Consent: Indigenous Peoples’ParticipationRightsWithin International Law, 10 NW.J.INT’L HUM.RTS.54, 54–55, 70 (2011) (exploring theevolutionofindigenous peoples’ developmentrights in Canada). 128. See MNDM CONSULTATION POLICY, supra note123, at 4(“Canadiancourts have generally not recognized alegal rightofFirst Nationsto...require FirstNationconsent to proposed activities.”). 129. Requirementfor Free, Prior and Informed Consent in NAN,NISHNAWBE ASKI NATION, www.nan.on.ca/article/requirement-for-free-prior-andinformed-consent-in-nan-496.as (lastvisitedApr. 14, 2019). 130.Martin Papillon&Thierry Rodon, Proponent-IndigenousAgreementsand the Implementationofthe RighttoFree,Prior, and InformedConsentinCanada,62ENVTL.IMPACT ASSESSMENT REV.216, 218 (2016). 131.Pardy &Stoehr, supra note114, at 8. 132. See Wapshkaa Ma’iingan (Aaron Mills), Aki, Anishinaabek,Kaye Tahsh Crown,9 INDIGENOUS L.J. 107, 113 n.15 (2010),https://ilj.law.utoronto.ca/volume-9-issue-1-2010 (“The[Far North] Actgives theMinisterofNatural Resources absolutediscretionover theterms of reference and over final approval of aland useplanand requires that landuse plans be developed pursuant to theFar North landuse strategy....”). 133. Mining Act,R.S.O.1990, c. M.14, s. 204(3) (Can.) (providing theLieutenant Governor in Council with thepower to approve anew mine “ifthe project is in thesocial and economic interests of Ontario”); FarNorthAct,S.O.2010, c. 18, s. 14(4)(Can.). 536 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:517

3. Minimizing and RedressingHarm

Anumber of statutes andregulations—including theMiningAct,the OntarioEnvironmentalProtectionAct (OEPA),the Ontario Water ResourcesAct,and theSpecies at Risk Act—aimtominimize environmentalharmand establish liabilityduringand aftermining operations.134 Generally,personscarryingout mining activitiesare responsible formaking notifications;submittingdocumentation; obtaining authorizations;and complyingwith thesubstantiverequirementsinthe different statutes,regulations,and theirapproved plans and permits.135 Government officialsgrant,deny, or amend authorizations;investigate compliance; issue orders requiringorstopping certain actions;and otherwise carryout work to prevent harm, as established in the regulations.136 Iwill touchonlyontwo examples:rehabilitationobligations under theMiningAct andeffluentdischarge limits underthe OEPA. TheMiningAct requiresprogressive rehabilitationupon closureof mining sites, includingfor advancedexploration.137 “‘[R]ehabilitate’means measures,including protectivemeasures,takeninaccordance with the prescribed standards to treat asite or mine hazardsothat theuse or condition of thesite,(a) is restoredtoits former useorcondition, or (b)is made suitablefor ause that theDirector seesfit.”138 Rehabilitationmust comply with thestandardsestablished in theMineRehabilitationCode of Ontarioorhigherstandards that maybespecifically authorized (for example, in aclosure plan).139 However,asPardyand Stoehr note, no substantivestandards actually exist, and therehabilitation requireddepends on it being “practicable” forthe proponent.140 Forits part, theOEPA generallyprohibits thedischarge of contaminantsintothe naturalenvironmentinamountsgreater than the regulations alloworifthe discharge“causes or is likelytocause an adverse effect.”141 Specific regulations implementing theOEPA applytominingof

134.Pardy &Stoehr, supra note114, at 9–11. 135.See, e.g.,MiningAct, c. M.14, s. 19(1) (“Any person who is 18 yearsoroldermay obtaina prospector’s licence onlinethrough themining lands administrationsystemifthe person has successfully completedthe prescribed Mining Act awarenessprogram ....”); id. s. 26(7) (allowinga Tribunal to cancel amining claim uponfinding “a willful contravention of any of theprovisions of this Actorthe regulations”). 136.See, e.g., id. s. 26(1) (authorizing the Tribunal to revokealicense); seealsoinfra notes 139–42 and accompanying text (describing mandatory rehabilitation measures). 137. Mining Act, c. M.14, ss.139.1(1), 140(1). 138.Id. s. 139(1). 139.MineDevelopment and ClosureUnder PartVII of theAct, O. Reg.240/00, s. 4(Can.). 140.Pardy &Stoehr, supra note114, at 12–13. 141.Environmental ProtectionAct,R.S.O.1990, c. E.19, s. 15(1) (Can.). 2019] Mining from theLensofEcological Law 537 metals and industrialminerals.142 These regulations establisheffluent discharge limits foranumberofparameters;143 lethality limits;144 and sampling, monitoring, 145 assessment,and reportingrequirements.146

C. Lens of Ecological Law Analysis

In contrast to El Salvador’s conclusions that mining couldnot be carried out without causingserious harm to peopleand transgressing ecological limits,147 Ontariohas developed alegalframeworkthat purportedlyensures mineral extractioninOntario’s Ring of Fire will be sustainable.148 However,asthe analysis below shows, some of theelements of Ontario’sframework arefar fromanexampleofecological law. Generally speaking,the Ring of Fire’s framework has no elementsof ecocentrism;149 containsimportant obstacles for ecological primacy and ecological justice;150 and opensonlyafew modestopportunitiesfor ecological lawfromthe perspectiveofthe thesethree principles.151

142. See,e.g.,EffluentMonitoring and EffluentLimits —Industrial MineralsSector, O. Reg. 561/94, s.2(Can.) (providingthat“[t]hepurpose of this Regulationistomonitorand controlthe quality of effluent discharged from” plantsthat produce, among other things,cement,lime, magnesium, graphite,and gypsum); Effluent Monitoringand Effluent Limits —Metal Mining Sector,O.Reg. 560/94, s. 3(1) (Can.) (“ThisRegulationapplieswith respect to every plant that is ametal mining plant and that ...dischargesatotal volume of process effluent ...ofmore than 50 cubicmetres.”). 143. See,e.g.,Effluent Monitoringand Effluent Limits —Metal Mining Sector, O. Reg. 560/94, s. 18(1) (Can.) (“Each discharger shall ensure that each analyticalresult obtained foreach limited parameter from eachsamplecollected fromaprocess effluent monitoringstream at thedischarger’s plant does not exceed the daily concentrationlimit specified for the parameter ....”). 144.See, e.g., id. s. 19 (providing that “eachrainbow trout acutelethality test andeach Daphnia magna acutelethalitytest performed on any grab samplecollected at aprocess effluentsampling point ...atthe plant results in mortality fornomore than50per cent of thetest organisms in 100 per cent effluent”). 145. See,e.g., id. ss. 20–30 (providing adetailed set of monitoringand samplingrequirements). 146.See, e.g., id. ss. 20–30 (describing requirementsfor collectingand reportingeffluent samples). 147.See supra Part II.B.2 (summarizing howElSalvadorbanned mining due to numerous environmental and health concerns). 148. See N. DEV.&MINES, supra note89, at 18 (explaining that Ontario adopted a “comprehensive mineral development strategy” with thegoal of being a“global leader in sustainable mineral development and production”). 149.See infra PartIII.C.1(contrastingthe principle of ecocentrismwith Ontario’s mining framework). 150.See infra Parts III.C.2-3(consideringwhether Ontario’s mining framework contains elementsofecologicalprimacy and justice). 151.See supra PartI(summarizing thethree principles of ecological law, which are ecocentrism, ecologicalprimacy, and ecological justice). 538 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:517

1. Ecocentrism

Thelegal framework governingmininginOntario is anthropocentric and utilitarian. Land andmineralsare the property of humans—either directly or through thestate andcorporations.152 Regulationofmineral extractionfocuses on theinterestsofpeople;land and other beingsare not legalpersons.153 Thehuman-Earth relationshipunderlying theMiningAct is about ownership and useofthe land by humanswith no reciprocal responsibilitiesowedtothe land.154 In contrast,the principleofecocentrism hassomeresonance with indigenous legal traditions that mayberelevant in theRingofFire.For example, theChief of WebequieFirst Nationhas noted that at thecoreof hisnation’slawsisabeliefinthe interconnectednessofbeings.155 Also, legalscholar John Borrowshas described Anishinabek beliefs concerning theEarth as alivingbeing and theagency of rocks,156 bothofwhich resonate with ecocentrism.157 Among thespecificrules noted,the mine effluent regulations underthe OEPA standout as incompatible with ecocentrism.Effluent monitoring requiresroutinelysubmerging rainbow trout and Daphniamagna in mine effluent to test its toxicity,with an acceptablemortality rate of “no more than 50 per cent of thetestorganismsin100 percent effluent.”158 Under the principleofecocentrism,itwouldnot be justifiedfor alaw to require the routinekilling of other beings to determinecompliance with an acceptable limit of toxicdischarge into theenvironment.159 Theseprovisions reflect an

152.ConstitutionAct,1867, 30 &31Vict., c. 3, s. 92A(1)(U.K.), reprinted in R.S.C. 1985, c. 40 (Can.). 153.See, e.g.,MiningAct, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.14, s. 2(Can.)(“ThepurposeofthisAct is to encourage ...the development of mineralresources,inamanner consistent with the recognitionand affirmationofexistingAboriginal and treatyrights...and to minimize theimpact of these activitieson public healthand safetyand theenvironment.”). 154. See,e.g., id. s. 19 (authorizing“[a]ny person” over 18 years of age to obtainaprospector’s licenseprovided certain criteriaare met); see also id. s. 1(defining“owner”as“everycurrentowner, lesseeoroccupierofall or part of amine, mine hazard or mining lands”). 155. See Wabasse, supra note97(“Webelieve that allthings in creationare connected. As part of our responsibilitiestothe Creator, we worktoprotect and nurture theseconnections and relationships.”). 156. See JOHN BORROWS,CANADA’S INDIGENOUS CONSTITUTION 244–45 (2010) (“The active natureofrocks meansthat they have an agency of theirown that must be respected when Anishinabek peopleuse them.”). 157.Sbert Carlsson, supra note3,at8. 158.EffluentMonitoringand EffluentLimits —Metal Mining Sector, O. Reg. 560/94, s. 19 (Can.). 159.See SbertCarlsson, supra note3,at8–9 (“Ecocentrism primarilyilluminates the law’s abilitytosupportand promoteaworldview in whichhumans arepartofnature andnomore important than other lifeformsand systems.”). 2019] Mining from theLensofEcological Law 539 anthropocentric and utilitarianviewofthe human-Earth relationship, where theenvironmentisareceptaclefor toxiceffluent andfishand crustaceans aredisposable “testorganisms.”160 These testsare alsounacceptable from an ecological justice perspective, as they negateinterspeciesequity.161 Ecologicallaw would, instead, allowonlythe generationofrecycled or neutralizedeffluent beforedischargeand require testingprocedures that do not involve destroying livingbeings.162

2. Ecological Primacy

To recall, restoringand maintainingecologicalintegrity is akey element of theprincipleofecological primacy.163 Because of therelative intactness of theFar North,the standard of ecological integrity seems particularly appropriate in this case;although, much remains to be learned to establishproperbaselines formonitoringecosystemresponses to changing conditions in theFar North (includingthoselinked to climate change and humanactivities) and to understand thepotentialimpactsof different types of development.164 ADraft FarNorth LandUse Strategy (Draft FNLUS) wasreleased in September 2015,which explicitly refers to ecological integrity in its description of theFar Northas“one of theworld’s largest,mostintact ecological systems, reflectingahigh levelofecological integrity and providing ecosystem servicesofglobalsignificance farbeyond its borders.”165 TheDraft FNLUSprovides some supportfor prioritizing ecological values, even though it doesnot establish constraints on developmentinthe Far Northtomaintainits ecologicalintegrity.166 For example, theDraft FNLUS’sguidance forcommunity-based land useplan developmentinareas whereminingisadesired land userecognizes

160.See, e.g.,Effluent Monitoringand EffluentLimits —Metal Mining Sector,O.Reg.560/94, s. 19 (Can.) (allowing fishand crustaceans to be used as testorganisms foreffluent monitoring). 161.See SbertCarlsson, supra note3,at12(explainingthatecologicallaw is based on the notionthat“humansand other species hav[e] equalintrinsicvalue”). 162.See id. at 20 (“The challenge of incorporating ecological primacy into lawinvolvessetting benchmarks forecologicalintegrityand mechanismstomeasure whetherecological integrityisbeing maintained and restored.”). 163. Id. 164. See,e.g.,ANNUAL REPORT, supra note98, at 75 (expressing concerns with impactsfrom mining in theRingofFire). 165.ONT.MINISTRY OF NAT.RES.&FORESTRY,FAR NORTH LAND USE STRATEGY:ADRAFT 7 (2015)[hereinafter DRAFT FAR NORTH LAND USE STRATEGY], www.ontario.ca/page/far-north-land-use- strategy. 166.See id.at25(identifying“[c]aringfor theland,”protecting watersources, and sustainability as guiding principles). 540 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:517 ecological constraints mayrender areas that have mineral potentialoff limits(except for areaswherethereare existing rights).167 Another opportunity for ecologicalprimacy is theFar North Science Advisory Panel recommendationtouse a“conservation-matrix model”for land useplanninginthe FarNorth.168 As described elsewhere:

TheConservationMatrixModel represents aparadigm shiftfrom reactiveconservationplanning in degraded systemstoproactive conservation planning in large, intact systems. Rather than addressing “how much is enough?” with regards to protection, this model addresses “how much is toomuch?” with regards to human development on thelandscape.169

Despite these opportunitiestofavor ecologicalconsiderations in determining how land maybeused, theFar NorthAct of 2010 also includes provisions that areinconsistent with ecological primacy.Inparticular,as already noted, it prioritizes mining interestsbygrantinggovernment discretiontoallowmininginareas subjecttoacommunity-based land use plan—that doesnot allowmining—andinprotected areas if themining“is in thesocialand economicinterests of Ontario.”170 Also,the Actprovides processestoamend community-based land use plans, including the boundariesofplanning areas, independent of ecological considerations.171 Ecologicalprimacy wouldrequire allamendments to considerthe impact on ecologicalintegrity(taking into account cumulative effects).172 Inow turn to therehabilitationrequirementsapplicabletominingin theFar North. From theperspectiveofecological primacy,rehabilitation measures fornew,ongoing, andabandoned mines(likethoserequiredby theMiningAct173)wouldbeimportant toolsfor restoring and maintaining ecological integrity, if they were tied to substantive, ratherthanprocedural,

167. Id. at 42. 168.ADVISORY PANEL, supra note 20, at xv. The Draft FarNorthLandUse Strategy proposes a “stewardship” approach that it deems similartothismodel.DRAFT FAR NORTH LAND USE STRATEGY, supra note165, at 28. 169. Conservation Matrix Model,CAN.BEACONS PROJECT,www.beaconsproject.ca/cmm(last visited Apr. 14, 2019) [hereinafter Conservation Matrix Model]. 170. Far North Act, S.O. 2010, c. 18, s. 14(4) (Can.); Mining Act,R.S.O.1990, c. M.14, s. 204(3) (Can.). 171.See Far North Act, c. 18, s. 10(3) (allowing theMinistertoamend “theboundariesofa planning areaafter acommunity basedland use plan is approved” provided certain criteria are met, including FirstNations approval). 172.Sbert Carlsson, supra note3,at11. 173.See Mining Act, c. M.14, s. 139–139.1(outlining therequirementsfor rehabilitating mining sites). 2019] Mining from theLensofEcological Law 541 standards.174 Also,the standards forremediationshouldbebased,not on what is achievable by theproponent,but on what is neededfor functioning ecosystems to retain theirintegrity.175 However,while some heavily contaminatedformerminingsiteshave been reclaimed,176 actually restoring them is adifferent matter: “‘Restoration’,especially of mining disturbances, is essentially impossible.Nomatterhow much moneyisspent on the‘reclamation’,the completerestorationofthe previous ecosystemis impossible.”177 Instead, thebest to be expectedis“aproductiveand suitable ecosystemthatwill replace thepre-mineecosystem andachievethe desired post-miningland use(PMLU).”178 Clearly,iffully restoringamined site is deemed impossible, then—fromthe perspectiveofecological primacy— mining shouldnot be allowedinareas with high levelsofecological integrity.179 Under thecurrent legal framework within theRingofFire, however, even areas critical to ecological integrity maynot be excluded fromminingbecause they arecovered under pre-existing mining claims.180

3. EcologicalJustice

Community participationinmineral extractionisacritical elementof ecological justice becauseitallows thoseimpacted to influence decisions on whether to disrupt theland andhow to distributethe benefits and harms

174.Compare Pardy &Stoehr, supra note114, at 13 (“Thepurpose of the[Mining] Actisnot to protect against environmental impact or provide forpublicsafety, but to facilitate mining.”), with supra notes 165–69 and accompanying text (outliningsubstantivestandards basedonecological primacy forauthorizingminingand restoringold mines). 175.Compare Pardy &Stoehr, supra note114, at 12–13 (explainingthatthe Mining Act “does not containstandards for rehabilitationofmining sites” andthatthe regulationsonlyapplytomines if “theyare found to be ‘practicable’”), with SbertCarlsson, supra note 3, at 10–11 (providing that one of thepurposes of ecological lawistorestore and maintain ecological integrity); seealso supra notes 6–14 and accompanying text (describing how ecologicalprimacyfocuses on promotingecological integrity). 176. See NAT’L ORPHANED/ABANDONED MINES INITIATIVE,NOAMI PERFORMANCE UPDATE 2009-2015, at 13 (2015),www.abandoned-mines.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/NOAMI-2015- UPDATE-ENG-WEB.pdf(“[Ontario’s Abandoned Mine RehabilitationProgram] has conducted rehabilitationprojects on more than 80 of thehighest priority abandonedminessites locatedthroughout Ontario.”). 177.SubijoyDutta,Raj Rajaram &BonnieRobinson, Mineland Reclamation, in SUSTAINABLE MINING PRACTICES –AGLOBAL PERSPECTIVE 179 (VasudevanRajarametal. eds., 2005) (citation omitted). 178. Id. 179.See Sbert Carlsson, supra note 3, at 11 (explaining that ecological primacyrequires governmentsto“forego non-essentialbenefits that maybeharmful to theEarth community”). 180.See FarNorthAct,S.O.2010, c. 18, s. 14(3) (Can.)(“Ifacommunitybased land use plan is made or amended after aminingclaim ...isrecorded, issued, or granted in an area to which theplan applies...[it] shall[not]affect, (a)the validity of themining claim....”). 542 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:517 thedisruptionentails.181 In theRingofFire,thismeans, at aminimum, requiringthe FPIC of Indigenous communities. But, as described above, the rulesand practices currently in place in Canada do notmeet this standard.182 Another aspect of theframework that is not consistent with ecological justice is theprotectionofexistingminingclaimsbecauseitfavors extractionofresources mostlyfor theshort-term gainofminingcompanies andtheirshareholders,instead of promotingthe equitableuse of theFar Northregionbypresent and future humans and otherbeings.183 Considering theimportanceofthe region for(pre-existing) biodiversity,184 no mineral extractionshouldbecarried outinthe Ring of Fire,regardlessofpre- existing mining claims.185 More fundamentally,fromthe perspectiveof ecological justice,ifminingdraws on theEarth’s sustaining capacity by extractingnon-renewablemineralsand destroyingthe land, thereshouldbe averygood reason to undertakeit.186 Yetaquestionrarelyposed of aminingproject is what arethe minerals for? This questioniskey fromthe perspectiveofecologicaljustice.187 If it is impossibletominewithout causingharmtoother beingsand restoring mined sitesisdeemed impossible,188 then mining canonlybejustifiedto obtainmineralstosatisfy basic human needs andwhenthere areno

181.See Sbert Carlsson, supra note3,at12(explaining thatecologicaljusticerequiresfair distribution of benefitsand harms and“includesthe concept of environmental justice”). Cf. Gabriela Ratulea &DanielSorea, Ecological Justice andthe MatterofFairDistribution, in LEGAL PRACTICE & INTERNATIONAL LAWS 297, 298 (2011) (“‘[S]ocial justice focuses on distributionbut is also concerned with individual recognition, participationand thefunctioning of thecommunity’, which means that socialjustice equallyappliestoecological problems. Hence we can extrapolateand speak aboutan ‘ecological justice’, as subset of social justicewhich is adistributiveone.”(footnoteomitted) (quoting DAVID SCHLOSBERG,DEFINING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 8(2007))). 182.See supra Part III.B.2 (describing how Canada hasimplemented theconcept of FPIC into its regulations governing mining). 183.See Far North Act, c. 18, s. 14(3) (exempting existing mining claims from community- based land useplanning); ANNUAL REPORT, supra note98, at 149 (commentingthat “the environmental sensitivity of an area” and“the potentialfor environmental impacts” “play no role in determining whether apermitisrequired”). Cf. MINING ASS’NOFCAN., FACTS AND FIGURES OF THE CANADIAN MINING INDUSTRY 12 (2017)(“The extractiveindustry, whichcombines mineral extraction with oiland gas extraction, contributed $124.8billion, or 7.5%,toCanada’sGDP in 2016.”). 184. See ADVISORY PANEL, supra note20, at xi (detailingthe Far North’s unique natural landscapes). 185.Sbert Carlsson, supra note3,at11. 186.See supra notes 15–18 and accompanying text (explaininghow ecological justice is centeredaround fair distributionand taking of theEarth resources fornecessaryreasons). 187.See Sbert, Re-imagining, supra note66, at 84–85 (articulating aneeds-based approachto mining, whichwouldonlypermitthe extraction of non-renewable resourcestosatisfy “the reasonable needs of living generations”). 188.See supra notes176–79 and accompanying text (explaining whyfully restoring mines is basically impossible). 2019] Mining from theLensofEcological Law 543 alternativemeans of obtaining them.189 Under thecurrent system,the reason forminingisthat companiesand theirshareholdersprofit from extracting mineralsfor awidearray of uses,including speculationthatmay or maynot relate to thesatisfactionofbasic needs.190 This is trueinthe Far North, wherecommodity markets—not community needs—drive extraction,191 and thebenefits accrue to mining companies.192 Many basicneedsare not metinthe communitiesofthe Far North, includingsafedrinking water,193 and someargue that mineral extractioninthe regionwill contributeresourcestoaddress these basic needs.194 However,the wealth frommineral extractionusually benefits corporations andtheirshareholders, rather than thecommunities, despite arrangementsthatcouldbeput in place formines to be “bridgestomore desirableand sustainable futures,” as ProfessorRobert Gibson suggests.195 Moreover,there areother sourcesofwealth that couldbemoreeasily tappedtosatisfy thesebasic needs;for example, corporations andthe extremelyrich could be taxedmoreeffectively.196 Proponentsargue that mining contributes to economic growth;provides revenue to governments andcommunities; and provides mineralsthatare needed forinfrastructure,

189.Sbert Carlsson, supra note3,at11. 190.Id. at 20 (“Globally,the [mining] sector is driven by thedemand forcommoditiesand the pursuitofprofit ....”). 191.Under theFar North Actof2010, forexample, community needs arenot thestartingpoint forthe land use planning process, but onlyaconsiderationinadecision to allowsometypes of developmentinthe absenceofalanduse plan. See,e.g.,Far NorthAct,S.O.2010, c. 18, s. 14 (Can.) (allowing theLieutenant Governor to approve mining in bothprotected areasand whenminingwould be inconsistent with acommunity-based land use plan). 192. Cf. MINING ASS’NOFCAN., supra note183 (highlightingthat mining makes up a significantportion of the Canadian economy). 193.Most MatawaFirst Nations communitiesare under boilwater advisories. SeeAdvisories for Ontario,WATERTODAY,www.watertoday.ca/maptest4.asp?province=8(last visitedApr. 14, 2019) (indicatingthe communitiesthat lack access to safedrinking water). Neskantaga hasbeen under aboil wateradvisory since 1995. Advisory forNeskantagaFirst Nation,Ontario,WATERTODAY, http://www.watertoday.ca/textm-a.asp?province=8&advisory=989 (lastvisited Apr.14, 2019). 194.CHONG, supra note 87, at 7–8. 195.RobertB.Gibson, Turning Mines into Bridges: GainingPositiveLegacies from Non- renewableResourceProjects,J.ABORIGINAL MGMT., Oct. 2014, at 4, 7; see also Atlin &Gibson, supra note104, at 49 (“Whileitischallenging forminingdevelopments to generate sustainable outcomes ...miningdevelopment can be designed and undertaken in ways that enhance prospectsfor lastingregional wellbeing.”). 196.See, e.g.,MAX LAWSON ET AL., OXFAM INT’L,REWARD WORK, NOT WEALTH 8(2018), https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/bp-reward-work-not-wealth- 220118-summ-en.pdf (reportingthat the2017 increase in wealth of the“2,043 dollarbillionaires worldwide” could “end extreme poverty seven times over”); seealso id. (“82%ofall of thegrowthin global wealth in the last yearwenttothe top 1%,whereasthe bottom50% saw no increaseatall.”); see also Atlin &Gibson, supra note104, at 49 (explaining how the Canadian Governmentshouldallocate a portionofits funds to creatingsustainableminingfeatures). 544 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:517 goods,and services that maintain and increasewellbeing.197 TheLibrary of Parliament estimates that “[t]hechromite in theRingofFire couldmeet NorthAmerican needs fortwo centuries.”198 Also,the mineralsdiscovered in theRingofFire include copper and nickel199—which areusedinlithium- ionbatteriesfor electricvehicles200—and copper andtitanium,which are needed forsolar panels.201 Thesemetalsare supposedlyneeded forthe fight againstclimatechange.202 Thequestioniswhether solarpanelsand electric carsare basic needs that should be satisfiedtoensurewellbeing or mere wants, whichare theresultofdemandgeneratedbycommodity marketsand consumer preferences,includingfor individually owned(electric) cars. What wouldthe need forchromite and theother metals in theRingofFire look like in adegrowth economy?Overcomingprofit-based extractionis one of themajorchallenges in ashift to ecological lawand an ecologically sustainableeconomy.203 Butdeveloping an alternativeframework for needs-based extractionrequiresmuchfurther research, debate, and experimentation. In summary, theframework governing mining in theRingofFire region is largelyinconsistent with ecological law.204 However,toolsthat various groups have recommendedtoguide development in theregion, like theconservationmatrix and sustainability-based regional assessments, provide an opportunity to further ecological primacy.205 Moreover, if

197. See,e.g.,CHONG, supra note87, at 5, 7–8 (discussingmultiple waysmining in the Ring of Fire could benefit FirstNations); N. DEV.&MINES, supra note89, at 11, 18 (proclaiming that mining in the Ring of Fire “presentsamulti-generational economic opportunity”that will “[a]ttract jobs and investment”). 198.CHONG, supra note87, at 3. 199.ADVISORY PANEL, supra note20, at 16. 200.Mark Burton&Eddie van der Walt, Electric-Car Revolution ShakesUpthe Biggest Metals Markets,BLOOMBERG NEWS (Aug. 2, 2017), www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-02/electric- car-revolution-is-shaking-up-the-biggest-metals-markets. 201.CLEAN ENERGY CAN., MININGFOR CLEAN ENERGY:TRACKING THE CLEAN ENERGY REVOLUTION 4(2017), http://cleanenergycanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/ MiningCleanEnergy2017.pdf. 202.See WORLD BANK GRP., THE GROWING ROLE OF MINERALS AND METALS FOR A LOW CARBON FUTURE 26 (2017) (identifyingcopper,nickel, andtitaniumas“commodities assumedtoplay a potentiallyprominentroleinthe energy shifttoacarbon constrained future”). 203.See SbertCarlsson, supra note3,at12(positing that ecologicallaw “impliesasocietythat aims to attain sufficient––not maximum––wealth”). 204.See supra PartsIII.C.1–3 (describinghow theelementsofecological laware absent from Canada’s framework). 205.See supra notes 168–69 and accompanying text (describinghow the Far North Science AdvisoryPanelrecommended theuse of theconservation-matrix model in theFar North); see also supra note 104 and accompanying text (explaining theidea of Regional Strategic Environmental Assessments). 2019] Mining from theLensofEcological Law 545 demands forindigenous jurisdictionover theRingofFire succeed,206 indigenous laws might fostervalues that resonate with ecological law207 or present different obstacles.208 Butasitstands today, theOntario framework that purportedlyensures that mining in theRingofFire is sustainableis anthropocentric;prioritizeseconomicinterests overecologicalintegrity; and favors afew mining claims over currentand futuregenerations of humans—themajority of whom areFirstNations on whosetraditional territoriesthe mining wouldoccur regardless of theirFPIC—and other beings.

CONCLUSION

This paperuses the lens of ecologicallaw to consideraspectsoftwo verydifferentlegalframeworks governing mining to considersomeof challengesand opportunitiesassociated with ashift to ecological law. El Salvador’s mining banprovidesanexampleofanopportunity to adopt ecological lawthatarises in thecontextofcritical environmental problems, such as waterpollutionand scarcity.209 However,itis questionablewhethertheseopenings provide solid foundations fora transitiontoecological law. Although thedecision to banmetal miningwas based in great part on theneed to avoidbreaching ecologicallimits, especially regardingwater,itdoesnot appear that this derived froman understanding of sustainability as ecological sustainability.Rather, the decisiontoban metalminingseemstohave resulted fromacalculationin whichthe government determinedthatthe negativeecological and social impactsofminingwerenot worththe economic benefits.210 Thus,this calculationmight have ledtoadifferent result ifElSalvadorhad atradition

206.See supra notes 107–09 and accompanying text (discussingindigenous jurisdictional claims to land in theRingofFire). 207.For example,Patrick Glennargues that underindigenous–chthonic–law:“Youdon’t simply have to repair damage tothe environment;you and your kind have to live entirelives which accord as much respect to the natural worldastoyourself.”H.PATRICK GLENN,LEGAL TRADITIONS OF THE WORLD:SUSTAINABLE DIVERSITY IN LAW 76 (OxfordUniversityPress 5thed. 2014). 208.Atthe sametime, other scholarscautionthat indigenouslegal traditions should not be assumed to be either ecologically basedorinherently sustainable. See,e.g.,BenjaminJ.Richardson, The Ties that Bind: Indigenous Peoples and EnvironmentalGovernance, in INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND THE LAW:COMPARATIVE AND CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES 337, 340–44 (Benjamin J. Richardson, Shin Imai & Kent McNeil eds.,2009) (arguing that indigenous lawdoes not always result in environmentally sustainableoutcomes). 209.See supra Parts II.A–B (describing some of the reasons whyElSalvadordecided to ban metalmining). 210.See supra Parts II.B.1–3 (outlininghow El Salvador’smetal mining ban lacks the elements of ecocentrism,ecological primacy, and ecologicaljustice). 546 Vermont Law Review [Vol.43:517 of mining andifprofitablemines were operating at thetime.211 Still, choosing “water over gold” andthe role of scienceinenactingthisban are important precedentsfor ecological law.212 TheRingofFire casestudy focuses on opportunitiesfor an ecological lawframework whichpromisessustainable mining in one of theplanet’s last remainingareaswith ecological integrity.213 Despite some toolsthat couldpromote ecological primacy and ecological justice,214 this framework ultimatelyprioritizes economicinterestsover bothecologicalimperatives and First Nations’consent foractivities that might impacttheirtraditional territories.215 Finally,the case study also demonstratesthatthe framework, and various environmental laws,governing mining in theRingofFire have anthropocentric and utilitariancharacteristicsthatare incompatible with ecological justice.216 Theunderlyingquestionisunderwhat circumstanceswouldecological lawallowmineral extraction. These twocasestudies showthatmining wouldnot be permittedinareas whereecological limitsare beingpushed to thebrink(as in El Salvador)and in areas whereecologicalintegrity remains high (asinthe Far NorthofOntario). Yetamining ban cannot be theonly possibleway to observe ecological primacy.Someformofminingcouldbe allowedinalready disturbed sites with ecologicalconditions determinative in each case. In addition, another decisive element is what purposethe extractedmineralsare used for, whichisaquestioncurrent lawdoesnot address.217 Minerals are used directlyand as part of goods andservices to satisfy basic human needsand will likelyalways be requiredfor this to some extent.218 Thus,key questions forecologicallaw and democratic

211.See supra PartII.B.3(arguing that themetal mining ban is subject to shifting interests becauseitisbased on an anthropocentricworldview). 212.Broad &Cavanagh, supra note45; see also supra PartII.B.2 (discussing someofthe ways El Salvador used science in deciding to ban metal mining). 213.See supra PartIII.A(describingCanada’s efforts to balance mineral development with environmental protection). 214.See supra notes 104, 168–69 and accompanying text (discussingtools such as conservation-matrixmodel and Regional StrategicEnvironmental Assessments). 215.See supra Parts III.C.1–3 (explaining how Canada’s framework governing mineral developmentprioritizes the economic interests of corporations); see also supra PartII.B.2 (criticizing the FarNorthAct andMining Actbecausetheyfailtorequire theFPIC of FirstNations over decisions that mayaffecttheir lands). 216.See supra PartsIII.C.1–3 (concluding that thelawsgoverningmineral development in the Ring of Fire areneither ecocentricnor based on ecologicaljustice). 217.See, e.g.,Far North Act, S.O. 2010, c. 18, s. 14(4) (Can.) (allowing theLieutenant Governor to approve mines that are“in thesocialand economic interests of Ontario”). 218.See WORLD COMM’NONENV’TAND DEV., OUR COMMON FUTURE,FROM ONE EARTH TO ONE WORLD,CH.8:INDUSTRY:PRODUCING MORE WITH LESS,¶2(1987) (“Many essentialhuman needs canbemet onlythroughgoods and services provided by industry.”). 2019] Mining from theLensofEcological Law 547 debate are: (1)whataneeds-based extractionframework wouldlook like and (2)the specific conditions underwhich ecologicallaw wouldallowfor mineral extractiontosatisfybasic needs. Ihave suggestedelsewherethat needs-based mining impliesreducing mineral demand; relyingprimarily on existingstocks andlandfillmining; and only allowing new extraction in exceptionalcircumstances andunder strict measures to avoidserious harm.219 Ecologicallaw wouldrequire the consent of potentially impacted people and theFPICofindigenous peoples if extractionwouldaffect theirtraditionalterritories.220 Ecological lawalso considersthe implications forthe abilityofother beings to accessthe sustaining capacity of theEarth.221 Perhapsbylimitingextractiontosmall volumes overlong periods of timeand usinglow impacttechnologies, mining is possiblewithout diminishingthe ecological integrity of the ecosysteminwhich minerals arelocated.222 However,thisisunthinkable under thecurrent capitalistlogicthat drives mining—a reminderthatashift to ecological lawispartofamuch broader shiftinworldview andsocio- economic paradigm.223

219.Sbert, Re-imagining, supra note 66,at85. 220.See supra notes 125–33 and accompanying text (discussing theconcept of FPIC of indigenous peoples). 221.Sbert Carlsson, supra note3,at11. 222.Sbert, Re-imagining, supra note66(outlininghow mining couldpromote “sustainability and equity”). 223.JOEL KOVEL,THE ENEMY OF NATURE:THE END OF CAPITALISM OR THE END OF THE WORLD?97(2007); see, e.g.,GeoffreyGarver, The Rule of EcologicalLaw: The Legal Complement to Degrowth Economics,5SUSTAINABILITY 316, 317 (2013) (claimingthat“contemporaryenvironmental lawisdeficient as ameans to enclose and regulatethe human enterprise”and advocatinginstead fora “degrowth movement,” which “provides aspecific context forthe emergence of theruleofecological law”); CORMAC CULLINAN,WILD LAW:AMANIFESTO FOR EARTH JUSTICE 59–61 (2ded. 2011) (“Shifting the paradigm of thehomospheretoanEarth-centredworldviewwill take theefforts of many peopleinmanyfields....”);MichaelM’Gonigle &PaulaRamsay, Greening Environmental Law: From SectoralReformtoSystemic Re-formation,14J. ENVTL.L.&PRAC. 333, 335 (2004) (developing a“green legal theory,”which “examine[s] therole of law ...inbothcreating systemicunsustainability, andinimpeding or facilitatingits resolution”).