2010 Northwest Territories Environmental Audit

2010 Northwest Territories Environmental Audit Submitted for 2010/2011 Fiscal Year Submission date to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: March 2011 2010 NWT Audit Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Report summarizes the second Northwest was largely unchanged. The 2010 NWT Audit Territories Environmental Audit (2010 NWT Audit) found that foundational elements of the system of conducted pursuant to Part 6 of the Mackenzie land and water management are still missing, Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA). resulting in uncertainty in, and criticism of, the NWT Audits are completed every five years to clarity, consistency and timeliness of MVRMA evaluate the: processes. effectiveness of the regulation of uses of land and water and deposits of waste on Unsettled land claims lead to uncertainty about the protection of key components of the land tenure and the amount of time it takes to environment from significant adverse navigate what has become perceived as a impact; politicized regulatory process. The absence of effectiveness of methods to monitor approved land use plans results in uncertainty cumulative impacts; and, about the acceptability of development across status of the environment. large areas of land. Gaps in regulation lead to uncertainty in how environmental impacts OBSERVATIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND associated with development, including social and RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AUDIT OF cultural impacts are, or even can be, regulated. REGULATORY REGIMES In light of these uncertainties, we heard from applicants and developers and some government The first NWT Audit was completed in 2005. That departments that MVRMA processes are used as Audit found that the integrated system of land an open forum for all issues in the region and and water management established in the reviewers use the MVRMA processes to forward Mackenzie Valley was generally effective in organizational or individual agendas that may not protecting the environment. Foundational be related to the specific application. These elements of the system of land and water uncertainties can lead to “public concern” which management were, however, found to be in turn can lead to additional uncertainty of incomplete, with this impacting on process process, and referral to environmental efficiency and timelines. Land claim agreements assessment for some projects that would not and land use plans had not been finalized. typically require such scrutiny. Traditional knowledge had not been fully integrated into monitoring and decision making. With respect to operation of Boards established Aboriginal communities lacked the resources and under the MVRMA and Land Claim and capacity to fully participate in land and water Self‐Government Agreements, we identified no management. Aboriginal consultation major concerns regarding the operation of the requirements were unclear. The scope of Renewable Resource Boards and Councils. Land environmental regulation did not fully address the Use Planning Boards and land use planning socio‐economic and cultural environment and some components of the bio‐physical initiatives under the Tåîchô Lands Protection environment. Department and the Dehcho Land Use Planning Committee were operational. Land and Water The 2010 NWT Audit found that while Boards and the Mackenzie Valley Environmental improvements had been made to the system of Impact Review Board were generally found to be land and water management, the overall situation effective in protecting the environment. 40061 – March 2011 ES‐1 SENES Consultants Limited 2010 NWT Audit Executive Summary phases and the focused mandate on land and Key criticisms directed at the Land and Water water during the regulatory phase cause Boards and the Mackenzie Valley Environmental misunderstanding. We found a lack of Impact Review Board were process related, understanding of the need to integrate the Land including: uncertainty in preliminary screenings; and Water Board authorization process within the the scope and timeliness of environmental broader context of federal, territorial and assessment; and the development and review of Aboriginal government environmental laws, management plans. regulations and approvals. We heard that regulatory agencies and other parties bring forth While the pace has been slow, we saw evidence of issues that are not within the mandate of the Land positive change. The Tåîchô amendments and Water Boards during the regulatory phase provided clarity to some sections of the MVRMA. and that Land and Water Boards struggle to keep Regulatory reform initiatives by the federal these processes focused. government and the Government of the Northwest Territories are underway. Land and In reaching the above conclusions, we identified Water Boards have established Working Groups to many comments and concerns as well as positive address many of the process concerns within their feedback. We carefully and objectively considered control. The Mackenzie Valley Environmental documentary evidence as well as the input of all Review Board is working towards more focused, participants to the Audit covering the 2006 to timely environmental assessment. Land Use 2010 period. We considered input from Planning Boards currently are adequately funded representatives of over 60 MVRMA Boards, Land and functioning. Aboriginal governments and Claim Boards and Councils, federal and territorial organizations are developing guidelines to assist governments departments, NGOs and industry applicants and developers in understanding their and industry associations through written requirements. MVRMA Boards have, and submissions and interviews. We also held 11 open continue to, develop guidelines to assist in houses throughout the Mackenzie Valley to solicit navigating the environmental assessment and community input. regulatory processes. The overarching recommendation of the 2010 During the 2010 NWT Audit, it became clear that NWT Audit is that a number of foundational issues while an integrated system of land and water need to be resolved in an expeditious manner management was the objective of the MVRMA, before a truly efficient, timely and integrated the meaning of this was not well understood. system of land and water management, as Integration was referred to “as assessing the envisioned under Land Claims and Self environment as a system” and “as Aboriginal and Government Agreements and the MVRMA, can be non‐Aboriginal participants acting as partners in implemented and judged as to its ultimate decision making.” Both of these interpretations effectiveness and timeliness. have merit. We also found integration misinterpreted as “Land and Water Boards serving The 2010 NWT Audit Report focuses on the as ‘one stop shops’ for all environmental changes required to solidify the foundations of a approvals.” fully integrated system of land and water management. Our objective in doing so was to We found that the differences in focus between focus efforts between now and the next NWT the broader environmental mandate of the Audit on addressing those foundational issues preliminary screening/environmental assessment that are most important to implementing a clear, consistent, timely and integrated system. The 40061 – March 2011 ES‐2 SENES Consultants Limited 2010 NWT Audit Executive Summary foundational challenges reported in the 2010 environmental monitoring programs are largely NWT Audit are not new. They have been occurring on a one‐off basis. previously identified to various degrees in one or more of the following reports: 2005 NWT Audit, The lack of progress in implementing CIMP has the Auditor General of Canada Audits of 2005 and hindered land use planning and the ability of 2010 and the 2008 Road to Improvement Report MVRMA Boards, regulators and the public to (the McCrank Report). They are: properly assess the cumulative impact context within which project‐specific decisions need to be Completion of Land Claim/Self‐Government made. CIMP data are rarely relied upon by negotiations; participants in the regulatory system. Completion and implementation of Land Use Plans; An additional $8 million over 2 years for the CIMP Clarification of community engagement and and Nunavut General Monitoring Plan was consultation requirements, including the Crown’s consultation responsibility as required announced during the 2010 Throne Speech. INAC under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982; is a developing a management system to support Development of clear processes and effective the data that CIMP collects from various sources systems to manage and monitor socio‐ and is working with the NWT and Nunavut on this economic, cultural and air quality impacts initiative. While encouraging, much of the associated with development; funding over the next 2 years will go towards Full integration of traditional knowledge in developing a program framework, a data monitoring and decision making; management system and administering the Adequate and stable funding of MVRMA Boards, including funding for improvement initiatives program. and variable workloads; and, Adequate and stable funding to facilitate the full INAC should develop, properly fund and carry out participation of Aboriginal organizations and a program to monitor cumulative impact in the communities. NWT. We also include observations and OBSERVATIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND recommendations on secondary areas where RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE USE OF incremental, substantive improvements could be TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE made in parallel with the required foundational

Load more