Introduction

Nunavut is a unique region of Canada not only as its newest territory, but as an experiment in devolution of authority to its mostly Inuit inhabitants. The 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) led to the establishment of Nunavut with a number of co-management institutions whose objective was to bring together the federal and territorial governments with local Inuit organizations in a multi-level, linked governance framework and manage the region’s most important assets—biological and physical resources (namely wildlife, oil and gas, and minerals) and the Arctic culture and livelihood of its traditional inhabitants, the Inuit. Membership in some of these institutions is appointed jointly by the territorial and federal governments, and representatives of Inuit organizations. The idea is to encourage involvement in decision making that spreads authority among local stakeholders, bringing them into a central role on decisions of harvest level, extraction, monitoring and enforcement.

The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board has been used as an example of adaptive co-management that, among other things, empowers local resource users and enhances social learning in Narwhal, Bowhead and Caribou management (Armitage et al. 2009, 2011; Wheatley 2001). This paper focuses on the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB), a similar but lesser known institution that is solely responsible for conducting impact assessment of new infrastructure or resource projects that considers both environmental and socioeconomic impacts (NIRB 2013). Rather than determining harvest levels of biological resources, NIRB tries to determine the impacts of energy and mineral extraction on the community and suggest mitigation measures in a way that the costs and benefits can be weighed before an approval decision is made.

Both the costs and benefits can be high. Canada’s Arctic underground riches equal those on the surface, and the region has been prospected for energy and mineral development for decades, with substantial ore deposits confirmed. As a result, three sets of related pressures make this area a dynamic and vulnerable one.

Biophysical changes due to climate change affect the northern latitudes disproportionately and effects include accelerated glacier melt, thawing permafrost, altered species distributions and sea level rise among others (Meltofte 2013, Chapin III et al. 2006, ACIA 2005). A second pressure is a socio-political one, in that aboriginal rights in Canada are explicit and affirmed under Sec. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which have been interpreted by the courts as occupation of land, hunting, fishing and legal recognition of cultural practices. This relationship between Canada’s original and new inhabitants has been a difficult and defining aspect of Canadian history. The third pressure is socioeconomic. Resource development is a priority for the current federal government, and the potential of ice melt to open new shipping channels increases the economic incentive further, affecting livelihood patterns in the region. This has a profound effect on local communities who on one hand can share in the economic benefit, but on the other must accept extraction activities not in line with their traditional uses of the land. Due to these combined and related pressures, some authors suggest that the Arctic is about to, or has just recently crossed a tipping point into a new system configuration in biophysical (Chapin III et al. 2013) and socioeconomic (Young 2010) terms (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Map of Nunavut, Canada, in red. Meadowbank mine site is shown in relation to Baker Lake, about 70 km to the south

Full size image

This study reviews the application of traditional knowledge (TK) in the environmental assessment process of the Nunavut Impact Assessment Board, the co-management institution formed for this specific purpose. The aim is to describe the ways in which Inuit traditional knowledge is incorporated into the decision-making process of project planning, impacts prediction and design and monitoring using the only operating gold mine in the region, named Meadowbank, as an illustrative example. The discussion makes inferences on the adequacy of this data collection, and to what extent TK had an influence on aspects of the project and NIRB’s recommendations, as well as the difficulties still outstanding in giving proper place to TK in co-management arrangements. As an example of multi-level governance, putting together the authority of multiple government levels with facilitation of input from societal groups toward decision making, the NIRB serves as an example for sustainability science practice. Similar circumstances are likely to be encountered in larger-scale assessments such as that of the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and decisions on natural resource management among others, and which can draw lessons from this example.

Methodology

This analysis is concerned with the collection and application of TK in the environmental assessment process measured through the qualitative context analysis of selected texts. The method is used to identify occurrences of predetermined messages and meanings embedded in texts (Frey et al. 1999). Here, it was used to identify references to TK and determine its typology (Houde 2007) and the extent to which it is incorporated into project planning. The documents were read, and instances of TK collection or its impact on project components (location of construction or route of transport, for example) were recorded and classified. The documents were selected for their inclusion of TK data, some of which are required to be produced and submitted by the proponent, and all of which are publicly available and hosted by NIRB on their project website. Public hearing materials comprised written submissions to NIRB that were then presented orally, and only the written submissions were included in the analysis. It was not the objective to simply record instances of TK collection, but rather to assess the role of TK in the process of constructing and operating the project. Although it is not the main concern of the paper to assess the role of TK in NIRB recommendations or ministerial decision making, this is discussed in “Results” based on the final hearing and final hearing reports. The following documents from the proponent, NIRB and local stakeholders were reviewed (Table 1).

Table 1 Description of documents analyzed for this case study
Full size table

The next section introduces the EA process in Nunavut and the stages of the review process. Subsequent sections follow the stages of review of the Meadowbank gold mine from 2004 to 2010 to provide analysis of TK collection and use at each step. The types of TK collected in the EA are classified into six typologies following the work of Houde in 2007.

Environmental assessment and TK in Nunavut

The Nunavut impact review board is composed of a chairperson and eight members and reports to the Canadian Parliament through the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (formerly Indian Affairs). Inuit organizations play an important part in the board’s composition by nominating 4 members who are then appointed by the Governments of Canada and as a result the board is largely made up of local community members, although this is not prescribed. The Government of Nunavut also appoints members. NIRB makes recommendations on projects to the minister for final decision by way of voting after collecting and analyzing information from all stakeholders involved in EA. NIRB staff provides coordination and technical assistance (see http://www.nirb.ca/board-of-directors).

The environmental assessment process begins when a company or other proponent submits a project description to the Nunavut authorities. The following presents a simplified summary of this process for the purposes of illustrating relevant steps; the NIRB website provides more detail. For projects that are deemed to have a potentially large environmental impact after an initial screening, a full review is conducted prior to approval, and although legally this decision is initiated by the Minister as in Fig. 2, in practice this is determined by the NIRB Screening Report. There are three general stages of this full review process (see Fig. 2). Scoping and guidelines creation establishes the scope of the review, for example determining which project constructions will be assessed and determines which ecosystem components are potentially under threat. Wildlife, permafrost and groundwater, coastal and marine environments, and air and surface water quality are typical environmental elements that must be investigated. The second step involves a review of the environmental impact statement (EIS), a complex and lengthy series of documents which outlines the predicted impact of the project on the socio-ecological environment. The actual investigation of environmental impact is conducted by consultants on behalf of the proponent and this is then reviewed by experts at government departments and agencies. One or more public hearings are usually included and all submissions and statements are public domain. The third step consists of the board and its technical staff using the results of the review to write a final report recommending an approval decision (accept with conditions or reject) that is then directed to the relevant government minister for final decision.

Fig. 2
figure 2

NIRB review process. Phase 1 provides the scope and boundaries of the environmental impact statement (EIS), making it clear for the proponent which project elements will be measured for impact. In Phase 2, the EIS is reviewed by experts. All stages provide for public input which is considered in the NIRB final report. Adapted from http://www.nirb.ca

Full size image

How TK is to be collected and used to inform environmental assessment are not straightforward, and in some instances it is inappropriate to use TK in the environmental impact statement submitted by the proponent, but it should be engaged in the public review phase (Usher 2000). For its part, NIRB requires the proponent to incorporate TK, as long as the proponent has access to it, or can reasonably acquire it (NIRB 2013). There is still the practical question of what TK really is, and it is only relatively recently that a definition has been created for environmental assessment purposes. NIRB uses the Inuktitut term Inuit Quajimaningit in its documents to mean “local and community based knowledge, and ecological knowledge which is rooted in the daily life of the Inuit people, and has an important contribution to make to an environmental assessment.” Inuit Quajimajatuquangit describes the value system within which TK is held. A more specific definition than that which NIRB uses comes from its neighbor, the Northwest Territories. There, the impact review board identifies three elements of TK: knowledge about the environment (observations, associations or patterns, causal statements, predictions); knowledge about use and management of the environment (how the environment is used and managed, relationships with it, and cultural and social activities); and values about the environment (includes moral and ethical statements about humans, animals and the environment, and doing the “right thing” MVEIRB 2005). This positions TK as more than specialized information, but as a value system for using knowledge and strategies toward livelihoods within biophysical constraints.

Houde in 2007 goes further and breaks up TK into six topologies that encapsulate the previous definition: (1) factual observations, (2) management systems, (3) past and current uses, (4) ethics and values, (5) cultural identity tied to language and land and (6) cosmology (see Table 2 for a detailed description). It allows for distinction between knowledge that has a space dimension and an empirical basis that can be combined with modern science (1, 2), knowledge with a time dimension expressed orally but with possible substantiating artifacts (3), and knowledge beyond time and space linked to identity, values, ethics and philosophy that is a product of human—nature co-evolution (4, 5, 6). Collection and application of traditional knowledge is classified here into Houde’s six topologies of TK, ranging from factual observation to identity and cosmology, recognizing the varied nature of such knowledge systems (Houde 2007).

Table 2 Houde’s six faces of traditional knowledge (TK), used here to classify TK in environmental assessment documents
Full size table

Meadowbank gold mine environmental assessment

Meadowbank mine, located 70 km north of Baker Lake, is Agnico-Eagle’s first gold mine in Nunavut, and as of 2014 was the only operating gold mine in the territory. Cumberland Resources Ltd. (acquired by Agnico-Eagle in 2007) received approval from the Canadian government to proceed with construction in 2006 and it became commercially operational in 2010 with an estimated mine life of 7 years, although Agnico Eagle has applied for an expansion to a nearby lake, potentially extending mining in the area beyond 2019. It produced over 1.4 million oz. of gold in 2014 using surface mining methods of drilling, blasting and trucking. The mine employs nearly 700 people, many from local areas and acts as a major driver of economic development through creation of jobs (AEM 2015).

TK in the public hearings

Stakeholders have a chance to comment on the proponent’s plans for the project through public hearings at three stages of the EA review. The following local stakeholders made written submissions (NTI and KIA 2006) to all stages of the NIRB public hearings as described in Fig. 2: Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI)—an organization that represents Inuit interests under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement; Kivalliq Inuit Association (KIA)—an organization representing Inuit in Kivalliq region, where the mine is located; and the Municipality of Baker Lake—at 110 km away, the closest community to the mine site and the one most likely to be impacted. NTI and KIA hired their own consultants to prepare a joint review of the proponent’s final EIS. This submission is a technical review using scientific and modern engineering knowledge to provide a second opinion on the mine plans and TK was not explicitly included. The issue of using intermediaries as consultants to collect TK for the proponent or to collect Western knowledge for the Inuit creates its own difficulties in the trust relationship of the parties and the appropriate communication of that knowledge, with appropriateness best determined on a case by case basis (Usher 2000). The submission for Baker Lake emphasizes employment, business and infrastructure benefits, and likewise does not take TK into account. The role of the public hearing process and the final hearing report is discussed further at the end of the paper.

TK collection requirements in environmental impact statement guidelines

The EIS guidelines for Meadowbank gold mine (NIRB 2004) specify that traditional knowledge be included in baseline data about biophysical and socioeconomic environments. These guidelines form the basis of the proponent’s approach to collecting and using TK. One example is where in Section 4.21.2.1 the proponent is asked to discuss TK in assessing the importance of eskers (gravel ridges), both as transportation corridors for wildlife and their use as burial grounds. Section 4.13.2 advises the selection of valuable ecosystem components to consider species valuable for cultural reasons to the Inuit. The guidelines also require that the proponent makes traditional knowledge a separate chapter in the report. In it, the board directs the proponent to present and justify its own definition of TK, explain the methodology used to collect it and whether special efforts were made to seek TK from women. Next, the proponent must discuss how this collected knowledge is used in impact assessment and developing mitigation and monitoring programs. The proponent is also asked to integrate TK with Western-based science. There is a requirement to support interpretation of results and analysis in the EIS with a review of relevant literature, including TK. Caribou is given special consideration with respect to TK given the animals’ importance to culture and subsistence of Inuit in Canada. The guidelines call for a caribou management plan using TK to minimize project effects on caribou as well as address TK in project monitoring. The guidelines instruct the proponent to collect TK that is usable and compatible with Western science, as well as such data that could inform management and monitoring. This corresponds to Houde’s type 1 (factual observations) and type 3 (past and current uses) traditional knowledge, and as a result the proponent focuses on these two types of knowledge.

TK in environmental impact statement

Rather than incorporating the results of TK collection into the body of the EIS, a stand-alone report titled the Baseline Traditional Knowledge Report was produced by Cumberland Resources. The methodology of collection can be seen in the report itself referenced at the end of this paper. Presented here are the main study results and resulting considerations for the study design. Of special interest are sections on TK baseline information (Sec. 5) and TK in project design (Sec. 6).

Baseline data

Baseline data collected are primarily factual/observational (type 1) and temporal (type 3). Data on management systems (type 2) are collected occasionally. Data on ethics and values (type 4) and cosmology (type 6) are rare. The first section begins with describing traditional land use which is surveyed and presented on a map, noting the areas near the project site where traditional activities such as hunting and fishing occur, and culturally important sites exist. Some community elders quote observations of past land use here. The information is factual/observational and temporal, because the methods of TK are not described, instead locations and periods of TK practice are identified, allowing for a database of geographic locations connected with TK to be made and labeled as sensitive.

Valued ecosystem components (VECs), first identified during Phase 1 scoping, are described here with respect to population numbers, hunting and migration patterns, and Inuit-specific concerns of undesired impacts. The VECs considered here are harvested plants and animals, air, water, climate change and permafrost. Caribou and fish receive special attention. The knowledge documented is descriptive of ecosystem components and past and current uses. TK in the category of management systems is sparse in this section, but descriptions of fishing methods and fish preparation, as well as use of geese are described. Types 4 and 6 knowledge is only present around the issue of caribou’s respect and spirituality. Section 5, page 12 states “the caribou show respect by travelling to the DogribFootnote 1 from their calving grounds…when the Dogrib harvest caribou, the animal’s spirit is reborn and the population will remain strong.” The rest of the VEC section is almost exclusively types 1 and 3 TK. TK is presented first, then often verified with data from scientific studies, and both are presented with comparable value. The climate change section is supported by locally observed impacts such as earlier spring thinning and breakup of ice, increased diversity and abundance of flora, and change in habitat and range of certain animal species. In contrast, the section on permafrost contains no TK contributions.

Valued socioeconomic components (VSECs) were also identified and sections on archeological sites, employment opportunities and the youth are present in the TK report. The archeological sites include geographic locations of importance as well as descriptions of the artifacts observed there, such as one site associated with bullet making and presence of caribou bones. The information is overwhelmingly related to past and current practices (type 3). The employment and youth sections introduce TK that is re-interpreted by the author of the report. For example, elders were asked about what kind of jobs were good for young people and how unemployment affected youth in the past. The passage on p. 5–37 reads “what was clear in the responses of the Elders was that people in the past worked very hard to survive and that work was organized according to family members; everyone had an important role in keeping the family healthy.” The author goes on to say that with the advent of income earning employment, some of these trends of having to work hard are being reversed as self-respect improves. It is neither clear whether income earning improved self-respect, nor is it demonstrated that self-respect was somehow not present before people became employed and earned an income. The section goes on to include the opinion of the proponent in how the mine can help improve community wellness.

Project design

The last relevant section in the baseline report is TK and project design. Here, a table of community concerns is listed with 20 mitigation strategies to be employed by the proponent. Despite the name, project design considerations are exclusively minor or moderate adjustments or future commitments toward mitigating concerns of local communities. The concerns are related to project component impacts on the local environment (air, water quality, fish and wildlife), and only make use of the previously collected TK information when it presents a concern to be mitigated, as opposed to designing the project outright according to values, local uses and practices. The TK comprised mostly factual observations and some considerations of aboriginal land uses (types 1 and 3). The proponent, for example, proposes not to build fences in response to the concern that caribou movements will be affected, or to suppress dust with a certain solution in response to complaints of compromised air quality due to rising dust. One mitigation, of a ban on drugs and alcohol in the camp, can be a concession to aboriginal values (type 4). There are elements of the proponent’s EIS other than this baseline report that incorporate traditional knowledge in combination with modern science, but this is outside the scope of the current case study.

TK in NIRB final hearing (decision) report

In August 2006 NIRB issued its Final Hearing Report for the project, recommending approval subject to 86 terms and conditions. From a review of the report, there are few directions given to the proponent on traditional knowledge and they reflect information already gathered in earlier steps of the EIS, for example archeological surveys, accommodation of traditional activities and collecting baseline data. This does not tell us how such efforts would be incorporated into the project. TK-related conditions include:

  • The proponent would consult with hunter and trapper organizations (responsible for managing Inuit hunting rights under the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement) and ensure that community elders participate in specific elements of the project, such as to make sure shift work in the mine does not disrupt hunting activities.

  • Traditional measures were to be considered for keeping carnivores away from landfill sites.

  • Elders were to participate in monitoring and broad mitigation activities, including search and rescue operations.

  • The proponent was to organize a 1-day workshop in Chesterfield Inlet to collect TK and report any operation al changes as a result to the NIRB monitoring officer.

It is not clear what kind of TK would be considered here, since open consultations allow for expression of factual as well as value-based and spiritual elements of TK. There were other terms and conditions that did not specify the input of traditional knowledge as a necessity, yet they compel the proponent to consult with local stakeholders, including representatives of regional governments. For example, condition 62 specifies the proponent “shall develop and implement a noise abatement plan…in consultation with Elders, GN (Government of Nunavut), Health Canada (federal ministry of health), and Environment Canada (federal ministry of environment).” It is through repeated and various consultations with local stakeholders that traditional knowledge may be transferred directly through speech or in written form, or indirectly through personal interactions where values and attitudes can be expressed. This study did not attempt to quantify this, although it is addressed in the discussion and should be an area of further research.

TK in project monitoring

In issuing its project certificate for Meadowbank NIRB included two conditions for incorporating TK into monitoring activities. One was to hold a 1-day annual workshop to keep current on the area’s land activities and make operational changes if required. The 2010 Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Workshop Report (Agnico-Eagle Mines 2010) describes that year’s workshop in Chesterfield Inlet including semi-structured interviews with Inuit groups. 2008 and 2009 workshops were not held due to logistic and personnel issues. This presented an opportunity to raise issues not required for the original project application, mainly in the EIS guidelines. The topics discussed—travel routes, shipping hazards, VECs and other project-specific effects, took on a different nature from the EIS. TK was collected on type 2 management systems, and other higher-level knowledge types. It dealt with practices and strategies for travel, fishing and hunting, such as the design of harpoon heads and igloos, techniques for downing two or more caribou with one bullet, etc. Participants spoke freely about their values and links to the land. Inuit participants now also had a chance to focus on mine operations which they have been experiencing for around two-and-a-half years, and the workshop resulted in recommendations to the proponent on shipping hazards, contracting and training, ongoing assessment, and for possible search and rescue operations, which became an economic opportunity for knowledgeable community members who happened to be hired by the mine. TK types 2, 4, 5 and 6—types not well collected in the other stages of EA—emerged in a semi-structured consultation format.

Results and discussion

TK in EA review (Phase I and II)

In northern Canada, best practices have emerged for gathering and applying traditional knowledge in government programs and services (MVRB 2005), and these have been incorporated to form a guiding principle for the Nunavut Impact Review Board. From the contextual analysis of Meadowbank gold mine documents, there is a clear emphasis on gathering TK to describe ecosystem and socioeconomic components (VECs and VSECs) like animal movements and socioeconomic conditions, which have been identified as likely to be impacted by the proposed project. Type 1 factual observations (names, descriptions of components, locations and understanding of ecosystem dynamics) and type 3 factual knowledge about present and past uses (land use patterns, oral history, cultural sites) of these chosen VECs and VSECs make up the bulk of the EIS guidelines with regard to TK, and such was delivered in the final EIS by the proponent in its description of baseline information. Previous studies have considered this knowledge most useful in impact assessment and allows TK to gain wider credibility within the Western scientific paradigm (Usher 2000; Houde 2007). Specifically, empirical observations about environmental components can be verified by empirical study using modern scientific methods. Areas where a lot of uncertainty exists, such as in ecosystem interactions (predator and prey dynamics for example), modern science and TK stand on a more complementary footing, each having their merits (Moller et al. 2004). The types 1 and 3 TK can also serve the project objectives which are to successfully build and operate a mine. Type 2 TK, which Houde defines as “practices adapted to context, methods for conservation, sustainable resource use…” do not appear to be as useful to build a project, because this is knowledge geared to a different purpose: that of methods and practices for subsistence living. It may be of little use to collect information on how to butcher and preserve caribou meat if the mine has a cafeteria serving imported food, other than to know where hunting trails are to make roads around them, or to allow locals to use the roads on hunting trips. The proponent meets types 1 and 3 TK collection obligations well in the final EIS, sometimes going beyond factual information to talk about Inuit ethics and values, and some strategies for survival. These knowledge types were only present on only a few occasions in the baseline report. Table 3 summarizes these findings where shaded rows represent steps in the EA review examined here.

Table 3 Participation of proponent and local community in the review process
Full size table

When it comes to applying TK in design and planning, the review of the baseline TK report shows that considerations were made for mitigation strategies primarily using TK types 1 and 3. Two instances of Inuit ethics and values (type 4) were considered in agreeing to ban hunting, drugs and alcohol from the mine camp.

TK in EA monitoring (Phase III)

Although there is a lack of collection of types 2, 5 and 6, TK in the documentation during the review phase of the assessment (Phase I and II up until the Final Hearing Report), the monitoring stage of the EA post-NIRB decision shows consultations as part of NIRB-mandated terms and conditions allowed for these types of TK to be expressed. The monitoring workshop held in 2010 created an opportunity for direct and open communication of TK, with the result that Inuit values and identity were documented. Participants were able to provide baseline updates on valuable environmental components and also share their relationship with the land through stories from the past and their values on how things should be. For example, locals described what contributed to make places spiritual, not just their location but events that occurred there, and the spiritual practice of gift giving. Community members asked open questions which were answered by Agnico Eagle and published within the report. Much of type 2 knowledge from the workshop was incorporated into project monitoring in the form of recommendations focusing on search and rescue operations and other mitigation strategies. In previous instances, aboriginal people have voiced their positions in open communication but with little success (Houde 2007).

The results of this case study show that types 1 and 3 TK were most often collected and their use was in mitigation strategies in the EA review stage and operational safety at the monitoring stage of mine operations. TK was an important consideration in the final public hearing, resulting in terms and considerations that required the proponent to consult with local stakeholders, make use of traditional knowledge and use it to make design/operational changes where warranted. The focus on types 1 and 3 TK does not exclude other types of knowledge and values from being communicated to the proponent indirectly in the EA process. The Inuit identity, connection to the land, if not collected specifically from interviews, makes itself known once people spend time in the environment, talk to Inuit and form relationships based on trust and understanding. The EA process in Nunavut requires this input of time, often in face to face situations. The result is several years of interactions between the proponent and stakeholders. This study tried to quantify elements of TK from documentation, but no real definitive conclusion about the transfer of TK can be made without considering the indirect effect of ethics and values, language, culture, identity and cosmology (TK types 4, 5 and 6, respectively) through personal communication. The project team from Cumberland met over 5 years with representatives of the proposed project area. It is likely that the collective psyche of the Inuit, values and ways of thinking and doing things that are difficult to communicate and connect to Western science can be learned experientially by spending time in their environment. Inuit organizations were able to cross-examine both the proponent and government experts, offering another avenue of face to face communication. The co-management structure of the NIRB places Inuit in influential (if not in deciding) positions, allowing TK which is impractical to line up with Western science to be included in the process of administering and conducting the environmental assessment. For a long time, the lack of TK considerations in impact assessment resulted in inadequate baseline data, skepticism and incongruous perceptions of TK, and inadequate linking of social and ecological components of the environment (Sallenave 1994). This case demonstrates that in the last 20 years, those concerns have been addressed, even if some level of skepticism and mistrust will always be present.

New problems arise—or gain prominence as progress is made—and two of those apparent from this study are the fundamental misalignment of resource development with traditional Inuit values and the related problem of increasing the number and complexity of projects that will make cumulative impact assessment tools essential for accurate predictions. The first problem goes beyond impact assessment and concerns the preservation of Inuit livelihoods and identity and, by connection, integrity of the socio-ecological system. The inclusion of Inuit in the cash economy makes them dependent on non-traditional economic institutions, further pulling them from their traditional life. Already, communities are engaged in an internal tug of war between opposing resource projects on moral grounds or working in them for a wage. How communities will adapt to these changes and whether their connection to the land will erode should be an issue of concern to policy makers. Secondly, projects and the accompanying documentation are becoming more numerous and complex. It is difficult to get a handle on a project without a significant investment of time. When multiple projects operate within the same area, cumulative effects of each of them have to be calculated, increasing the complexity.TK may be inaccurate if based on empirical observations over time in settings without those effects and then later collected to describe baseline environmental information in areas, for example, where animal population migrations are under cumulative effects of multiple projects. Currently, frameworks for cumulative effects monitoring and assessment are priorities for Environment Canada, but in practice the proponent is expected to consider those effects in the EIS, including a consideration of available aboriginal traditional knowledge (EC 2014). Given that TK is built up with multiple observations over time, sudden external system changes where they are not expected may take time to be incorporated in TK and therefore cause inaccuracies. Lyver et al. 1999 describes how traditional estimates of Titi birds based on chick numbers could not be accurate without modern science that could account for predation and climatic changes later in life. This issue is compounded with the fact that proponents are experts on the effects of their own operations, and not in assessing the additional possible effects of projects by other proponents. These are two future concerns in incorporating TK into EA that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) and other responsible authorities will need to deal with.

Conclusion

While it was not the aim of this paper to determine the sufficiency of TK inclusion in environmental assessment, it does describe and classify the TK that is collected in the process and presents insight into the application of TK in impact prediction, planning, design and monitoring for the Meadowbank mine in Nunavut. It also makes the argument that Nunavut is a socio-ecological system undergoing rapid changes due to multiple, related pressures of social, political and environmental changes. The co-management process around TK application to environmental assessment has built upon and overcome previous challenges of compatibility with Western science. Yet, this example indicates that knowledge of baseline data collection and mitigation is most useful, as it can be adapted to project objectives. The institutional framework for EA in Nunavut should provide a good example for the management of other landscapes, from which some ideas may be transferrable to forest and biodiversity management. One of those is the governance structure that gives some level of autonomy and therefore decision-making power to resource users, and another is the fora for communication and information exchange among stakeholders.