Environmental Impact Assessment Under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act: Deliberative Democracy in Canada’s North?

FORUM

Environmental Impact Assessment Under the Mackenzie ValleyResource Management Act: Deliberative Democracy in Canada’sNorth?

Patricia Fitzpatrick Æ A. John Sinclair ÆBruce Mitchell

Received: 27 August 2006 / Accepted: 15 February 2008 / Published online: 27 March 2008

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Abstract We consider the extent to which the Mackenzie

Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA) provides an

opportunity for deliberative democracy to emerge within

the context of resource management in Canada’s North.

The focus is on the extent to which the tenets of deliber-

ative democracy are exercised in the environmental

assessment (EA) of the Snap Lake diamonds project. Data

collection included semi-structured interviews with

assessment participants, and a review of documentation

surrounding the EA process, and the case study. Results

combined four principles of deliberative democracy: gen-

erality, autonomy, power neutrality, and ideal role taking.

The EA conducted under the MVRMA can serve as a

deliberative process, as illustrated by opportunities for

dialogue, access to different perspectives, and learning

outcomes. However, many of these positive results occur-

red through nonmandated technical sessions. The absence

of participant funding also limits the deliberative potential

of the MVRMA.

Keywords Deliberative democracy �Environmental impact assessment � Learning �Northwest Territories (Canada) � Diamond mining

Introduction

Natural resource management lies at the nexus of human-

environment interactions. Consequently, there is consider-

able attention by the public, practitioners, and academics

on establishing management processes that minimize con-

flict while recognizing sustainability goals (e.g., Duinker

and others 2003; Gibson 2006; Mitchell 2002). The types

of management processes that are being tested tend to be

inclusive and open, which is consistent with the broader

trend toward more participatory environmental governance

(Dorcey 2004; Parson 2001). Parkins and Mitchell (2005)

indicate that this interest in more transactive and deliber-

ative approaches to decision making is ‘‘fueled by

increasing scientific complexity and uncertainty, along

with a lack of social consensus about how natural resources

should be managed.’’ Consequently, governments are

seeking more active participation in selected areas of

natural resource management.

The trend toward more active participation in issues of

resources management is illustrated through a variety of

initiatives arising from governance bodies, academia, and

civil society. For example, the adoption of the Aarhus

Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation,

and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters by the

European community has resulted in changes to European

law (Hartley and Wood 2005). Major financial institutions

involved in funding resource development also stipulate

public participation as one aspect of the lending process

(Pring and Noe 2002). There is also a move to include

participation as a human right.

In the natural resource and environmental management

context, environmental impact assessment (EIA) has a

significant history of including people in decision processes

(Petts 1999; Sinclair and Diduck 2005; Wood 1995). In

P. Fitzpatrick (&)

Department of Geography, University of Winnipeg, 515 Portage

Ave., Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3B 2E9

e-mail: [email protected]

A. J. Sinclair

Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Sinnott

Building, 70 Dysart Rd., Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3T 2N2

B. Mitchell

Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,

ON, Canada N2L 3G1

123

Environmental Management (2008) 42:1–18

DOI 10.1007/s00267-008-9098-2

fact, public participation has long been recognized as a

cornerstone of EIA process. In support of this, organiza-

tions, such as the International Association for Impact

Assessment, now have subgroups dedicated to improving

these participatory practices. There is also a wealth of lit-

erature, spanning both the academic and public genres,

which include, among others, guidance material about how

to get involved in EIA, written by state, public, and cor-

porate actors. The range of activities designed to strengthen

public participation illustrates the importance of this aspect

of resource management.

Deliberative democracy provides one lens through

which to examine the characteristics of the civil space

created to encourage participation, the decisions reached

through participatory processes, and the learning outcomes

associated with the participation. Grounded in the theory of

communicative action, deliberative democracy is con-

cerned with repoliticizing the public sphere to encourage

different publics to become more actively involved in

political decisions (Dryzek 1990). Deliberative democracy

is ‘‘based on criticisms of more episodic forms of demo-

cratic participation, where involvement is limited to voting

and where public deliberation is severely limited to issue

sound bites and popularity contests’’ (Parkins and Mitchell

2005). It thus advocates interaction among a broad range of

participants, with the expectation that by doing so the

decision-making process, and subsequent policy decisions,

will be more legitimate and rational (Abelson and others

2003; Baber 2004; Enslin and others 2001). Beyond con-

tributing to policy decisions, a deliberative processes is

expected to foster individual and social learning, as par-

ticipants are exposed to a range of different perspectives,

and engage in dialogue (Welton 2001). Thus, deliberative

democracy focuses on development both in the public

sphere and by individuals.

The Northwest Territories is one region in Canada in

which public participation has been identified as a key

component of decision-making surrounding resource

management. Our purpose here is to consider the extent to

which the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act,

1998 c.25 (MVRMA) provides an appropriate structure for

deliberative democracy to emerge within the context of

resource management in Canada’s North through the EIA

process mandated by the Act.

The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

(MVRMA)

Emerging from the resolution of three comprehensive land

claims in the region, the MVRMA is designed to ‘‘create a

system of land and water management’’ (preamble) ‘‘with

the intention of providing northerners decision-making

participation and responsibility in environmental and nat-

ural-resource matters’’ (MVEIRB no date). Thus, the

MVRMA establishes structures and processes designed ‘‘to

foster greater collaboration among key stakeholders in the

region’’ (Armitage 2005b). The Act creates six public

boards to oversee different resource management pro-

cesses, which includes land and water management, EIA,

and environmental monitoring and auditing (Under the

MVRMA, EIA describes the assessment process in its

entirety, whereas an EA is a specific stage in the

assessment).

The MVRMA was enacted in 1999, and expectations

were high. As observed by Gwich’in Tribal Council Pres-

ident, Nerysoo (1999), ‘‘For the Gwich’in, it is quite clear

that the intention of the legislation is to ensure that we have

participation in the decision-making processes that affect

the environment, that affect resource development, that

affect people and the way in which we develop land gen-

erally, and resources as well.’’

Indeed in the first audit of the legislation, completed in

2006, participation—in particular ‘‘the proactive nature of

community involvement and the degree to which public

input can influence the process,’’—is recognized as a

unique aspect of this resource management regime

(SENES Consultants Limited 2006). Furthermore, a pre-

liminary analysis of EIA under the Act concluded that it

had several innovative structures necessary to foster col-

laboration among participants, and provide for learning

(Armitage 2005a).

Deliberative Democracy and EIA

‘‘In its simplest terms, deliberative democracy refers to a

conception of democratic government that secures a central

place for reasoned discussion in political life,’’ (Cooke

2002). A deliberative process is situated in a public space,

where government and citizens, expressing a range of ideas

about an issue, meet and engage in dialogue, with the

idealized goal of achieving mutual understanding and

consensus (Dryzek 1990; Habermas 1984, 1987). A

deliberative process emphasizes discourse among people to

contribute effectively to decisions that affect them. While

discourse is a central design characteristic, advocates

suggest a deliberative approach benefits both the decision-

making process and outcomes (Cooke 2002; McGregor

2004). Public deliberation is viewed to educate citizen

participants, empower communities, result in fairer par-

ticipatory processes, strengthen the quality of the decisions,

and result in decisions that reflect modern social norms.

A deliberative process is governed by three sets of

‘‘rules’’, termed universal pragmatics (Habermas 1990;

Wiklund 2005):

2 Environmental Management (2008) 42:1–18

123

• logical-semantic rules necessary for individual com-

municative competence, which stipulate, for example,

that individuals should not contradict themselves,

• procedural rules that govern interaction among partic-

ipants, termed the theory of argumentation, which

identify four speech acts appropriate for debate, and

• process characteristics, which describe the ideal speech

situation necessary for noncoercive debate and (ulti-

mately) consensus among participants, termed the ideal

speech situation.

While there is no ideal model of deliberative democracy,

those presented in the literature draw on these rules

(communicative competence, the theory of argumentation,

the ideal speech situation) to evaluate the deliberative

potential of governance (Palerm 2000; Webler and others

1995; Wiklund 2005).

Consistent with the basic element of deliberative

democracy, namely including the public in governance

activities, all EIA legislation includes some requirement for

public participation, meant to achieve more informed

decision making (Petts 1999; Sinclair and Diduck 2005;

Wood 1995). The structures for deliberation encouraged by

deliberative democracy provide ‘‘a concise and general

summary of the requirements cited in [EIA] research for

impact assessment to achieve its analytical potential without

stunting democratic participation’’ (Baber 2004). However,

as observed by Wiklund (2005), the true deliberative

potential of EIA may rest not in opportunities for partici-

pation outlined by legislation or policy, but rather in the

flexibility of the institutions implementing these programs

to create more opportunities for interaction with the public.

A growing body of research evaluates EIA, and the

participatory aspects of EIA processes, based on criteria

derived from communicative action and deliberative

democratic tenets (Palerm 2000; Petts 2003; Webler,

Kastenholz and Renn 1995; Wiklund 2005). Each approach

focuses on the EIA process, drawing upon universal

pragmatics as the foundation for considering the delibera-

tive nature of EIA.

Deliberative Democracy and Learning

As noted above, deliberative democracy is concerned with

more actively involving the public in the political arena.

One consequence of more active participation is learning,

perhaps best described in this context as ‘‘the development

of individuals in a positive and coordinated man-

ner,’’(Webler, Kastenholz and Renn 1995). As people

interact in the public sphere, they are exposed to different

opinions, ideas, and evidence, among others, which provide

an opportunity for learning. Thus, participation in delib-

erative processes ‘‘improves the moral, practical or

intellectual qualities of those who participate: it makes

them not just better citizens—though clearly this is cru-

cial—but also better individuals’’ (Cooke 2002). Despite

these relationships, the role of learning is often underrep-

resented in the analysis of deliberative democracy (Morrow

and Torres 2002).

While a number of authors, including Webler, Kasten-

holz and Renn (1995), Palerm (2000), Poncelet (2001), and

Barabas (2004), recognize that when people are involved in

a deliberative process, such as EIA, learning may ensue.

Results presented in these evaluations focus on the process,

rather than outcomes. To more fully understand the

learning process and outcomes associated with a delibera-

tive process, we turned to transformative learning.

Transformative learning is a framework of adult learn-

ing and education with roots in the theory of

communicative action (Habermas 1984, 1987) and critical

pedagogy (Freire 1973). Learning ‘‘involves making a new

experience explicit and schematizing, appropriating, and

acting upon it,’’ (Mezirow 1991). Discourse surrounding

transformative learning centers on how to encourage

learning so an individual’s perceptions and consciousness

can be altered as that person is critically engaged in dis-

cussion. The overarching goal is to ‘‘help adults realize

their potential for becoming more liberated, socially

responsible, and autonomous learners’’ (Mezirow and

Associates 2000).

In the course of daily life, adults engage in activities that

must be understood in order to ensure appropriate and

effective action. In the act of providing a coherent frame-

work through which to understand an experience, one

confers meaning to the experience (Mezirow and Associ-

ates 2000). Learning, then, is the ‘‘process of using a prior

interpretation to construe a new or a revised interpretation

of the meaning of one’s experience as a guide to future

action’’ (Mezirow and Associates 2000). This process

results in revisions or reconstructions to the individual’s

frame of reference.

Rational discourse provides a medium through which

learning is promoted and developed (Taylor 2000). Thus,

understanding the conditions of the potential learning

activity is an important aspect of the analysis (Mezirow

1991; Sinclair and Diduck 2001). Learning is undertaken

by individuals who are engaged in dialogue, such as that

provided through deliberative democracy. In this way,

transformative learning is strongly influenced by the social

context in which it is undertaken (Jarvis 1987; Merriam

and Caffarella 1999). In doing so, transformative learning

builds on the social, situated nature of deliberation.

‘‘Knowledge is built together in a community of mutually

understood values and principles. This acknowledges

deliberation as a change process, one that invites each party

to the deliberation in a dynamic, interconnected way that

Environmental Management (2008) 42:1–18 3

123

moves beyond bargaining, compromise of consensus’’

(McGregor 2004).

A small, but growing, set of literature draws on trans-

formative learning as a framework for understanding

opportunities for adult development as they arise from

participation in EIA (Diduck 2001, 2004; Diduck and

Sinclair 1997; Fitzpatrick and Sinclair 2003; Sinclair and

Diduck 2001). This literature evaluates the learning envi-

ronment against conditions that foster transformative

learning, and discusses learning outcomes associated with

participation in EIA. Thus, learning can be an important

criterion through which to judge the success of participants

to adopt the attitudes necessary to undertake a deliberative

process.

Deliberative Democracy, EIA, and Learning

We adopted Wilkund’s (2005) framework for evaluating

the deliberative potential of the MVRMA, as facilitated

through EA. The framework was adopted after the empir-

ical research was completed. Although this may be

problematic in some instances, it was not in this case

because we had also used theory related to communicative

action and EIA process in developing our survey. This

framework contains four principles (Wiklund 2005):

• Generality: All those affected, or at least their interests,

shall be included.

• Autonomy: Everyone included shall be granted the

right of effective participation.

• Power neutrality: Distortions related to administrative,

economic and cultural power must be neutralized to

ensure that only the ‘‘forceless faces of the better

arguments’’ affect the outcome.

• Ideal role taking: Participants must adopt attitudes of

reciprocity and impartiality.

This framework emphasizes the political origins of delib-

erative democracy over those grounded in the rational

planning approach (such as Webler and others 1995;

Petts 2003), thereby providing ‘‘a democratic theoretical

foundation for deliberative E[I]A’’ (Wiklund 2005). Fur-

thermore, although learning was not originally considered

as part of this framework, it can readily be included as part

of the analysis.

We implemented the framework by establishing opera-

tional questions (Table 1). These questions are modified

from those originally posed by Wilklund (1995) for the

purpose of clarity, and to ensure that they strongly relate to

the literature regarding transformative learning (e.g.,

Mezirow 1991) and EIA (e.g., Petts 2003; Webler 1995), in

addition to deliberative democracy (e.g., Dryzek 1990).

These modifications are most clearly illustrated with

respect to the criterion of ideal role playing. The focus of

our inquiry changed from evaluating how the attitudes of

participants are reflected in specific actions (e.g., are the

participants listening and speaking sincerely?) to learning

outcomes. We chose this approach for two reasons (i) the

difficulty of trying to assess attitudes and whether they are

reflected in a decision, and (ii) the importance established

in the literature of learning as an outcome of deliberative

decision-making processes. Our approach embeds consid-

eration of individual and social development in the analysis

through consideration of the learning outcomes. We con-

sider if the participants leaned as a result of this process,

and what qualities of the process contributed to this

learning.

Methods

This study was qualitative, grounded in a critical social

science approach. Data surrounding the EIA process in

general were collected from the legislation, guidelines

prepared by the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact

Review Board (MVEIRB), and academic literature. Criti-

cal data related to the case study were collected from four

key sources:

Table 1 Theoretical principles (Wilkund 2005) and operational questions

Principles Operational questions

Generality: All those affected, or at least their interests, shall be included Was the EA open to interested parties?

Did participants represent a variety of interests?

Autonomy: Everyone included shall be granted the right of effective participation How was the public engaged in the EA?

Power neutrality: Distortions related to administrative, economic and cultural power must

be neutralized to ensure that only the ‘forceless faces of the better arguments’ affect the

outcome

Did the EA provide resources to ensure alternative

perspectives were presented?

Were steps taken to address the cross- cultural

context of the EA?

Idea role taking: Participants must adopt attitudes of reciprocity and impartiality Did participants learn as a result of the EA?

What qualities of the process best facilitated

learning?


123

• EA documentation (recall that an EA is a specific stage

in the EIA process under the MVRMA),

• Media coverage,

• Semi-structured interviews with assessment partici-

pants, and

• A post hoc analysis of the EA commissioned by the

MVEIRB.

Documentation surrounding the EA was compiled from the

public registry, which spans 22 volumes. This material,

including the impact statement, information requests (IRs),

technical session minutes, hearing transcripts, and corre-

spondences, were reviewed with reference to key

constructs related to participation and learning. Many of

the quotes that follow come from these data. Media

coverage related to the EA prepared by the Canadian

Broadcasting Corporation and News North Services was

collected from the press websites. Papers spanning a period

between June 1999 and July 2004 were viewed on-line or

in hard copy at the Yellowknife Public Library.

Semi-structured interviews were completed in August

2004 with 14 assessment participants, representing two

levels of government, the MVEIRB, the proponent, and

nongovernment organizations. Purposeful, stratified sam-

pling was used to ensure that participants were actively

involved, and represented each type of organization

involved in the assessment (Table 2). Participants were

identified from assessment documentation, and ones with

active involvement in key stages of the EA (including

scoping, IRs, technical sessions, and hearings) were pri-

oritized for interviews. Interviews, lasting up to

120 minutes, were tape recorded and transcribed. Partici-

pants were initially contacted by telephone or email, and

subsequently were interviewed at their organization.

A study conducted by the MVEIRB following the Snap

Lake EA served as a fourth source of data. Released in

February 2005, the intent of this study was to improve the

effectiveness and efficacy of the EA process. The MVEIRB

sought input from assessment participants through written

surveys and interviews (conducted by independent con-

sultants). Board input was sought during two separate

workshops. Where appropriate, recommendations from this

report are included in the discussion.

Data analysis relied on the theoretical principles of

deliberative democracy, already described above, to develop

a preliminary list of codes to index data (Bernard 1994).

NVivo, a qualitative analysis software, was used to organize,

sort, and code themes (QSR 1999–2002). This software

provided a one-window approach to formatting, cross-

referencing, indexing, and abstracting data (Huberman and

Miles 1994). It allows directly transcribed text to be put into a

database and then memos, codes, and families of codes can

be developed.

The validity of findings was protected through use of

two strategies: (i) triangulation and (ii) interview reliabil-

ity. Triangulation is meant to minimize research bias by

ensuring that findings reflect reality. Multiple sources of

data, found in the four datasets described above, were

considered with respect to each aspect of the framework—

each therefore was important to the data collection and

analysis phases. Second, draft findings were sent to

research participants for review. This was done to ensure

that participants’ views and experiences with the assess-

ment process had been correctly documented.

As noted elsewhere, a key issue surrounding the appli-

cation of deliberative democracy is the requirement to

balance the ideal of open participation against what Dryzek

(2001) terms the economy of participation, namely the

Table 2 Organizations involved as intervenors or directly affected parties in the EA of the Snap Lake project (MVEIRB 2003)

Government Community and aboriginal

government

Nongovernmental organizations Industry Public

INACa,b Yellowknive Dene First Nationb Canadian Arctic Resources

Committeea,bDe Beers Canada

Inc.a,bVarious

DFOa,b North Slave Metis Alliance NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines

NRCana,b Dogrib Treaty 11 Council World Wildlife Fund Canada—

Yellowknifeb

Environment Canadaa,b Lutsel K’e Dene First Nationa,b World Wildlife Fund Canada—

Toronto

Government of the Northwest

Territoriesa,bNorthwest Territory Metis Nation

Metis Nation, Raw-Edzo Local

#64

Dene Nation

a Attended July 20, 2001 meeting about the work planb Commented on assessment terms of reference


123

plausibility of including all participants in each and every

decision affecting them (Davies and Blackstock 2005;

Marshall and Jones 2005; Parkins and Mitchell 2005;

Parkinson 2003). We accept the view that legitimacy can

be achieved through representative participants (Davies

and Blackstock 2005; Parkinson 2003). Deliberative

democracy is meant to engage the public, or their repre-

sentatives, in decision making, and the participants

identified in this study represented different organizations

involved in the EA (including the MVEIRB, directly

affected parties and intervenors). This emphasis was

deliberate; while the EA process invites the general public

to be involved, the overwhelming majority of participants

in the Snap Lake process were affiliated with different

organizations as employees, consultants, members, or

experts. For example, during the technical sessions and

hearings, the documentation identifies many elders both

observing and participating in the event. However, when

speaking, the elders spoke as members of their community,

and thus were acting as representatives of their govern-

ments. Furthermore, these community governments, in

submitting written reports, make it clear that their sub-

missions were on behalf of their constituency, and that

consultation had been undertaken with members. However,

here we do not address the nature of these relationships,

e.g., how organizations consulted with their members.

The Snap Lake Project

The Snap Lake project was the third diamond development

in the Slave Geological province to be subject to an

assessment, but the first to be reviewed in its entirety under

the MVRMA. This project involves the construction and

operation of a diamond mine located 220 km northeast of

Yellowknife, at the headwaters of the Lockhart River

drainage system (Fig. 1). After undergoing a preliminary

screening, the project was subjected to a more rigorous

assessment, termed an environmental assessment (EA). As

summarized in the assessment recommendation, the project

underwent an EA due to significant public concern

regarding ‘‘cultural well being, lack of environmental

assessment, net effects on government, and issues of sus-

tainable development,’’ (MVEIRB, public registry, May

23, 2001). Against that context, we examined the EA

process for Snap Lake with reference to the principles of

deliberative democracy.

Generality

This principle provides a lens to examine the participatory

nature of the EA process. In other words, the principle

considers if the public is provided opportunities to become

involved in the decisions that affected them, as well as the

representative nature of those who become involved in the

review.

Seventeen organizations and many individuals partici-

pated in the EA of the Snap Lake project (Table 2). All of

the organizations had previously been involved with an EA

of a diamond mine in the Northwest Territories.

All interested individuals and organizations were given

an opportunity to be involved in the EA; the Board granted

all requests for intervenor or directly affected status,

resulting in the list of participants identified in Table 2.

Fig. 1 The Snap Lake diamond

mine is located northeast of

Yellowknife, Northwest

Territories, Canada (Map credit:

Weldon Hiebert, University of

Winnipeg)


123

However, this list of participants differs significantly when

compared to those involved with previous diamond-based

development. The total number of participant organizations

decreases from 50 in the first diamond-based assessment

(BHP Environmental Assessment Panel) to 17 in the Snap

Lake project (Table 3). The most significant decreases

relate to nongovernmental organizations (such as the

Roman Catholic Dioceses of Mackenzie, the Status of

Women Council, and the Canadian Nature Federation), and

community and Aboriginal governments. However, the

number of intervenors or those with directly affected status

do not accurately reflect the number of organizations which

were kept informed of all EA information by being copied

on the public registry (see information management

below).When comparing the distribution list regarding the

Snap Lake EA with participant organizations from the

previous diamond-based EAs, three categories of partici-

pant organizations (government, industry, and community

and Aboriginal government) level off with the same core

group of participants, while the fourth category, nongov-

ernmental organizations, experiences a sharp decrease

(again with a core group of participants). Organizations

that decided not to participate more actively were not

consulted in our study so we do not have data regarding

their specific reasons.

In situations where organizations choose not to partici-

pate in a decision-making process, some practitioners and

researchers consider whether the interests of the nonpar-

ticipants are adequately reflected in the decision (Davies

and Blackstock 2005; Dryzek 2001). While considering if

this aspect was beyond the scope of this research, one

measure of how well interests of nonparticipants were

reflected in the Snap Lake case could be that none of the

previously-active participants challenged the assessment

decision through litigation, which is usually cited as the

ultimate remedy for public engagement in resource man-

agement decisions and an approach practiced in Canada

(Zillman and others 2002).

Autonomy

This principle indicates a need to explore when and how

the public participates in the process. It considers how the

process fosters or hinders the ability of participants to

engage in argumentation at different points of the assess-

ment (Abelson and others 2003; Wiklund 2005).

Participation in the EA of the Snap Lake project was

encouraged through:

• inviting written submissions related to the draft terms

of reference and EA work plan,

• inviting written submissions regarding the conformity

of the impact statement to the guidelines,

• inviting written questions and answers regarding the

impact statement, called IRs,

• facilitating oral dialogue during 10 days of technical

sessions,

• preparing written technical reports surrounding the

potential impacts of the project,

• facilitating oral presentations, supported by written

material during 5 days of hearings, and

• maintaining a public registry about the project.

Table 4 lists key provisions for adequate participation, as

established by Sinclair and Diduck (2005) and compares

these provisions with opportunities for participation in an

EA established by the MVRMA, assessment guidelines

established under the Act, and as undertaken for the Snap

Lake EA. As illustrated in Table 4, the deliberative

potential of assessment is often ‘‘hidden’’ because legisla-

tion establishes minimum requirements and individual

cases often go well beyond the minimum, as in this case,

when large projects are being considered (Wiklund 2005).

Participants identified four key issues that had both

positive and negative consequences for public participa-

tion: the absence of public scoping sessions, the presence

of technical sessions, the way EA information was man-

aged, and hearings.

Scoping

Scoping is the process of determining what should be

included in the terms of reference for the developer’s

assessment report. Although not specified in the MVRMA,

public participation in EA scoping traditionally includes

both written comments and community meetings facilitated

by the MVEIRB. The draft work plan and terms of refer-

ence for the developer’s assessment report for the Snap

Lake project were released on July 25, 2001, and over

Table 3 Categories of organizations involved in diamond-based assessments in the NWT

Government Community and aboriginal government Nongovernmental organizations Industry

BHP NWT Diamond Project 6 17 23 4

Diavik Diamond Project 7 8 10 3

Snap Lake Projecta 5 (1) 7 (11) 4 (3) 1 (2)

a The number in brackets represents organizations included on the distribution list but not actively involved in the EA


123

30 days, the public was invited to submit written

comments.

The lack of public scoping meetings was identified as a

concern by one NGO and one Aboriginal government

organization, which expressed reservations at a public

meeting held just prior to the release of the work plan and

terms of reference (MVEIRB, public registry, July 21,

2001), and through a formal request submitted to the

MVEIRB (public registry, August 21, 2001, and August

27, 2001). As summarized by the Canadian Arctic

Resources Committee, ‘‘Northern communities rely on

personal relationships and communications, often where

English is not the preferred language’’ (Kevin O’Reilly,

public registry, August 21, 2001). Thus, using written

communication as the only form of public input during an

important stage of the assessment process decreases the

ability of interested parties to become involved in the

assessment.’’

Despite this appeal, the MVEIRB (public registry,

September 18, 2001) decided against holding public

scoping meetings. This decision was influenced by three

factors: (i) prior experience with recent diamond-based

development in the same region (which provided a foun-

dation for developing the draft terms of reference for the

Snap Lake project), (ii) the observation that the board

would provide opportunities for public comment at future

points in the EA, and (iii) the feedback would be provided

through the Terms of Reference and Work Plan.

As noted in Table 2, seven of the ten participant orga-

nizations and one member of the public submitted written

comments regarding the draft work plan and terms of ref-

erence for the review. Numerous specific requests were

addressed in the revised terms of references, including:

• a request for a revised approach to the spatial scope of

assessment (World Wildlife Fund, Yellowknife),

• the need to discuss ecologically representative areas,

specifically in the wildlife and wildlife habitat section

(World Wildlife Fund, Yellowknife),

• a discussion of forecasting models in the cumulative

effects section (World Wildlife Fund, Yellowknife),

• the use of milestone days rather than calendar days in

the timeline summary (NRCan),

• a desire to have information about the company’s

corporate history in the developer’s assessment report

(Yellowknife Dene First Nation),

• changes in the approach to traditional knowledge

(Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation),

• a request for a discussion around diamond sorting and

marketing diamonds (Government of the Northwest

Territories),

• specific additions to identified environmental impacts

of interest, including hazardous materials, air quality

and climate, terrain, water quality and quantity, aquatic

habitat, cultural resources, land and resource use,

economy, cumulative impacts, abandonment and res-

toration and follow up programs (MVEIRB 2001),

• the addition of two environmental impact topics, the

regulatory regime and corporate compliance (MVEIRB

2001), and

• general changes in document formatting (MVEIRB

2001).

Comments not addressed by the revised terms of reference

include the request by Environment Canada for clarifica-

tion of MVEIRB’s position on compensation for potential

negative impacts, and a discussion of how significance is

Table 4 Opportunities for public participation in EA under the

MVRMA legislation, guidelines, and as provided for in the Snap Lake

EA

EA stage Legislation Guidelines Case

study

Notice

Start of EA 126(5) s 3.5 4

Board site visit 4

Hearings s 3.15 4

Announcement of

authorizations

4

Public comment

Scope (draft terms of reference and

work plan)

Written comments s 3.9a4

Public sessions

Conformity analysis s 3.12b4

Technical review

Ad hoc technical meetings 4

Technical sessions s 3.13c4

Information requests s 3.14 4

Technical review s 3.13 4

Pre hearing conference s 3.15c4

Hearings

Formal hearings s 3.15c4

Community sessions s 3.15c

Access to information

Public registry s 3.7 4

Public record NAP NAP

EA decision

Distribution of decision s 3.16 4

Participant funding

NAP means the step could not be accessed by the publica Although opportunities for public participation are identified in the

guidelines, these steps may be completed in camerab While these steps are usually completed in camera, they may be

open to the publicc These steps are discretionary


123

determined by the MVEIRB with respect to public concern

(Yellowknife Dene First Nation).

Although scoping was not conducive to Aboriginal

participation, the panel was diligent in addressing the

written comments, as illustrated by changes to the terms of

reference, and absence of continued conflict over the terms

of reference throughout the review. Indeed, a post-assess-

ment survey conducted by the MVEIRB identified the

incorporation of participants’ needs in the terms of refer-

ence as one strength of the review (MVEIRB 2005).

Technical Sessions

Technical sessions were an addendum to the standard

MVEIRB process. These sessions, held for 10 days in

December 2002, in Yellowknife, provided an opportunity

for the participants to meet with the proponent’s experts to

resolve outstanding issues prior to the submission of

technical analyses of the developer’s assessment report.

Technical sessions were open to the public, but transcripts

indicate that participants were affiliated (including a range

of members, consultants, experts, and employees) with the

intervenor and directly affected organizations.

Two days were allocated for each of the five different

themes: water quality, fish and fish habitat, wildlife, geo-

technical and socio-economic issues. At each session,

participants were invited to present concerns related to the

theme; experts, representing the different organizations,

then discussed the information available in the assessment

documentation, contrasted with findings in the literature. In

some cases, an issue required additional information than

what had earlier been provided. An issue was considered

resolved if those involved in the specific concern felt the

issue had been resolved. Minutes were prepared by session

facilitators (independent consultants hired by the

MVEIRB), and several months later session transcripts

were provided. While the board did not attend the technical

sessions, MVEIRB staff and technical consultants were

active participants, along with intervenors, directly affected

parties, and members of the general public. Furthermore,

before leaving the meetings, the Chair of the MVEIRB,

Gordon Wray, reviewed the process used to that point, and

set out the context for the technical sessions: ‘‘I strongly

encourage you to have an open and informal exchange and

to work your way through the agenda in a focused and

efficient manner (MVEIRB public registry, November 25,

2002).’’

Assessment participants identified the technical sessions

as a strength of the EA process (MVEIRB 2005). Sample

commendations, collected from interviews and the assess-

ment report included: ‘‘I think getting everybody into the

room for those 10 days was probably the most beneficial.

Just having open discussion’’ (Interview 1), ‘‘I would like

to see more of that type of process [e.g., technical sessions]

included in the Board’s procedures’’ (Interview 12), and

‘‘The technical session approach, where we had one-on-one

dialogue, you know, got to the bottom of the issues and

concerns in a much more pro-active and consultative way’’

(MVEIRB 2003).

As these comments indicate, participants believed that

the technical sessions allowed open discussions, and one-

on-one dialogue with proponents and decision makers

expected in a deliberative context. This was achieved in

part by allowing a significant amount of time to discuss

different issue areas, by having trained facilitators leading

the sessions and through those facilitators using approaches

that contribute to dialogue, such as break out groups. At the

end of the technical session, people were left with a clear

understanding of what issues had been resolved and which

still required attention.

Although these sessions were successful, participants

still provided suggestions about how to strengthen this part

of the process:

• ensure that participants have clear direction on the

purpose of the technical sessions (namely to resolve

outstanding issues). Session facilitators should ensure

that issues are clearly scoped (see next bullet), and

participants are provided with ample opportunity to

resolve issues (Interviews 1, 6, 7),

• ask intervenors to prepare ‘‘draft’’ or ‘‘interim’’ tech-

nical reports to focus the process on ‘‘outstanding

issues’’ prior to the technical sessions (MVEIRB 2005),

• develop a system to track issues discussed during break

out sessions (Interview 12),

• provide outside facilitation for break out sessions

during the technical sessions (MVEIRB 2005), and

• notes should be available for editing by participants,

and become part of the public registry and record

(MVEIRB 2005).

In the end, participants liked the technical sessions because

they provided an opportunity for all involved, including the

public, to become actively involved in an iterative dialogue

focused on resolving issues. For many participants, this

was unlike other experiences they had with hearings or

boards in which participants present their cases, a few

questions may be asked, and the information given is later

judged against the variety of alternative perspectives

presented. In this case, the participants actually were able

to discuss the alternative perspectives.

And when you get to the technical sessions where you

have the proper people there to discuss issues you get

resolution so much quicker, and you can see where people

stand on the issues, and as a whole, you can get all the

parties involved, and I see that as being much more

effective (Interview 6).


123

Information Management

Ready access to information provided by proponents, and

to any comments offered by participants and regulators, is

essential for meaningful participation (Sinclair and Diduck

2005). There must be opportunities for the timely exchange

of information among all parties. A registry or repository

system is the basic means of public access to information

used in most Canadian jurisdictions. Such registries are

usually held in libraries as well as in other public buildings

to facilitate orderly access to the information. Some juris-

dictions provide Internet access (or partial access) to their

public registries.

The MVRMA makes provision for a public registry, and

states that the registry ‘‘is a complete set of documents

related to the environmental assessment.’’ It includes

‘‘documents from the preliminary screening file, plus the

Terms of Reference, the Developer’s Assessment Report,

all information requests, rulings, technical reviews, letters,

Reasons for Decisions, and any other documentation’’

(MVEIRB 2001). There was one, central location for the

Snap Lake project public registry, in the Review Board

office in Yellowknife. Much of the documentation,

including rulings, transcripts, presentations and an up-to-

date table of contents, was also posted on the MVEIRB

website, http://www.mveirb.nt.ca/.

For the Snap Lake project, MVEIRB staff forwarded all

material on the public registry to key contacts, such as

Band Managers or Wildlife Management members, in

affected communities, including groups not identified as

intervenors or directly affected parties. This resulted in the

creation of ‘‘satellite’’ registries located in communities

potentially affected by the development, and in organiza-

tions active in the review process. To ensure that the

records were consistent, and up to date, MVEIRB staff

periodically sent out a revised table of contents, against

which participants could compare their satellite documen-

tation information.

While the public registry appears to provide a compre-

hensive record of EA documentation, during the Snap Lake

EA the participants learned that the public record—the set

of documents on which the panel bases its decisions—

differed from the material on the public registry. The

public record maintained by MVEIRB included informa-

tion not found on the public registry that was deemed to be

in the proprietary interest of the proponent, as well as

correspondence between the MVEIRB and its staff.

This lack of harmony between the two sets of records

was of particular concern to the North Slave Metis Alli-

ance. It expressed dissatisfaction with being unable to

review documentation provided to the MVEIRB by its staff

or consultants (e.g., Janet Hutchison, public registry, Sep-

tember 17, 2002, Kris Johnson, public registry, April 9,

2003, May 15, 2003, North Slave Metis Alliance, public

registry, April 9, 2003), particularly regarding documen-

tation surrounding assessment activities not observed by

the MVEIRB (e.g., the technical sessions) or by the public

(e.g., the MVEIRB visit to the project site). Ultimately, the

MVEIRB (public registry, July 9, 2003) ruled against this

request, observing that as an administrative tribunal, it was

inappropriate for the board to comment on the fairness of

its processes and noting that any remedy would have to be

through the court system.

A second comment related to the need to improve

mechanisms to track issues. If a purpose of the EA process

is to narrow the focus of the review to key areas of interest,

then there has to be an efficient way to look up key issues,

and determine the status of discussion (e.g., resolved,

outstanding, on-going discussion, key parties, etc). Partic-

ipants advocated a nonpartisan system for recording

assessment issues, to make documentation more user

friendly. Thus, participants promoted the development of a

database designed to track efforts to resolve issues

throughout the assessment (MVEIRB 2005).

The need for information tracking takes on particular

importance when IRs become part of the review process.

As noted above, IRs, involving multiple series of written

questions and answers designed to clarify and strengthen

information provided in the developer’s assessment report,

were a new step in the assessment process. Three rounds of

IRs occurred during the Snap Lake process, resulting in

433 IRs issued by the Board, which required responses to

944 questions. This process, then, generated a significant

body of information. Nevertheless, all interviewed partic-

ipants indicated that this component of the review process

needs improvement: ‘‘IR rounds, although beneficial, took

a long time, and you did not really get the answer you

wanted in a quick time turn around’’ (Interview 1); ‘‘There

was probably another 5000 pages of information printed,

thereby negating the whole accessibility of information to

all’’ (Interview 2); ‘‘[IRs] can be an effective tool if it is

used properly, and I think it was kind of—it became a new

tool in this process, not everyone was familiar on how it

would be used, but it kind of became overwhelming, and

complicated things a bit’’ (Interview 6); one participant

also observed that having the IRs issued through the

MVEIRB challenged the integrity of the requests, as some

questions were either incorrectly reworded or never for-

warded (Interview 7).

Many participants felt that IRs should be approached

with caution, as technical issues are often resolved more

quickly and thoroughly through discussion, rather than

through written responses. Although none of the partici-

pants suggested that IRs should be eliminated, numerous

ways to strengthen this component of the review were

suggested. These included the need to:


123

http://www.mveirb.nt.ca/

• create opportunities for participants to narrow the scope

of the review earlier in the process (i.e., before the

technical review and IR processes). If the review is

focused on key issues of the concern to the assessment

community, the number of IRs will likely decrease

(Interview 5),

• limit the IR process to one, or at most two rounds,

• create blocks of time for the IR process, so that

deadlines for submitting questions do not occur before

participants have received and have an opportunity to

review responses to previous questions,

• provide resources for organizations to participate in the

IR process (see discussion below about participant

assistance),

• develop a template for information requests (MVEIRB

2005),

• provide a way to track issues as they change through

the IR process, and

• reduce editing of IRs by the MVEIRB (2005).

As these comments depict, participants had access to

significant amounts of information surrounding the Snap

Lake project, an important precondition for allowing

informed dialogue about the assessment in a deliberative

process. Results, however, support recent research sug-

gesting the next step in information management is to

ensure that data are presented in an efficient, readable

manner (Diduck and Mitchell 2003).

Hearings

The EA ended with five days of hearings, held in Yel-

lowknife between April and May 2003. As with the

technical sessions, hearing days were allocated by theme.

Daily activities included presentations and cross-examina-

tion by all directly affected parties, intervenors, the Board,

and the public interested in that topic. In this respect, the

hearing functioned much like other EA hearings in Canada,

parties presented their case to the Board and some cross-

examination of the evidence presented ensued. The

MVEIRB sat primarily during business hours. However,

the time frames were extended, where necessary, to ensure

that discussion related to the topic at hand was complete.

Furthermore, the Thursday session was extended into the

evening to provide elders with an opportunity to share their

thoughts with the MVEIRB. Hearings were simultaneously

translated into Chipewyan and Dogrib.

Although many participants found the hearings to be a

less effective mechanism for resolving assessment issues

than the technical sessions due to the lack of opportunity to

dialogue with other intervenors, all realized the importance

of this activity (Interviews 1, 2, 5, 12).

And I think often that an iterative consultation would be

more productive in a lot of ways than the formal procedural

thing. But of course then you get into legal things, and

again, another big challenge is to minimize the formality

and legality of the process while still making it so you

people can’t lie, and that they are being held into account

for what they said, and that sort of thing (Interview 12).

Hearings provide participants with one last opportunity

to discuss issues, although, as noted by two participants,

some became engaged in posturing because of the presence

of the Board. But, hearings are a significant part of process,

in that oral discussion is a key component of First Nations’

cultures, and hearings come closest to reflecting this

emphasis on dialogue: ‘‘[Y]ou have everyone sitting there

and you can see everybody’s faces, and you can put a face

to each company and each agency and board member,

whatever. And you can go and talk to them face to face and

say ‘This is our concern’’’ (Interview 31).

Although efforts were made to make the hearings

accessible to participants (simultaneous translation, modi-

fied hours of operation), further modifications had to be

made as the hearing progressed. For example, a change was

made on the first day to provide elders with accessible

seating. Furthermore, while time was allocated for elders to

testify, because this was during an evening session, not all

people who wanted to speak were able to attend the pro-

ceedings. As noted by one participant, ‘‘they often put the

elder’s thing in an evening session—well, I am not sure

that that is always really fair to the elders, because not

many people will show up to listen to them’’ (Interview

12).

That the MVEIRB was somewhat flexible and made

efforts to accommodate the needs of its participants was

important to ensuring good outcomes. However, one rec-

ommendation from the MVEIRB’s post hoc analysis was to

meet ‘‘with elders to discuss their needs when participating

in the EA process’’ (MVEIRB 2005b). Suggested aspects

for discussion include seating arrangements and time of

day for meetings.

Power Neutrality

This principle considers how the process is designed to

ensure that participants are judged only on the strength of

their arguments. It considers the capacity of citizens to

become involved in the deliberative process, and how the

process works to address potential power inequities

(Wiklund 2005). Operational definitions for this criterion

focused on two administrative aspects traditionally used in

Canadian EA to minimize barriers: (i) equal participation

by all interested groups and (ii) ability to contribute to

evaluating arguments based strictly on merit. In the first,

the operational definition focuses on the resources provided

to ensure alternatives perspectives could be brought for-

ward through the process and therefore considered. In the


123

second, we recognize there are multiple, culturally-based

ways of understanding the world, and many of these cul-

tural perspectives do not reflect the requirements of

Western social thought (see for example Berkes 1999; Ellis

2005; Kendrick and others 2005; Simpson 2000). Thus the

operational definition considers procedures undertaken to

respect the cross-cultural demographic of the Northwest

Territories, which include many different First Nations.

Participant Funding and Access to Alternative

Perspectives

Various researchers have noted the importance of partici-

pant (or intervenor) funding (e.g., Gibson 1993; Wood

1995), a view echoed by Canadian ENGOs. For instance,

the Canadian Environmental Network continues to advo-

cate a point they made some years ago that:

‘‘Effective participation by the public requires funding.

The disproportion of resources between proponents and the

public necessitates the establishment of an independent

funding body to provide adequate amounts of funding to

allow full and meaningful participation, at all steps, to

committed members of the public’’ (Canadian Environ-

mental Network-Environmental Planning and Assessment

Caucus 1998).

Participant assistance, when provided, is usually

reserved for large-scale EAs. In such cases, funding can

facilitate a more substantive dialogue by allowing partici-

pants to draw upon independent technical expertise related

to specific issues in the assessment (Lynn 2000; Lynn and

Wathern 1991). Funding can be used to prepare and par-

ticipate in scoping meetings, review draft assessment

guidelines, review the proponent’s EIS, and prepare and

participate in public hearings.

There is no provision for participant funding during an

EA under the MVRMA. Participants felt that this lack of

financial assistance limited the degree of public participa-

tion in the review process, as reflected in the following

comments: ‘‘and with De Beer’s Snap Lake, we couldn’t

afford, as a small organization, to intervene to the same

extent as we did with the other two projects. And it was

difficult to raise money; there was not participant funding’’

(Interview 3) and ‘‘to allow for better participation, you

need more money and more time’’ (Interview 10).

Without participant funding, some public organizations

were unable to conduct new research to help critique the

proponent’s data.

Despite the lack of financial capacity by organizations,

alternative perspectives were forwarded by some govern-

ment organizations during the EA. For example,

governments took an active, adversarial role in the EA; all

branches of government involved in the review—the fed-

eral and territorial governments, along with the

MVEIRB—believed their function was to challenge and

test assessment evidence (e.g., It is our job to ‘‘identify

issues and hash out issues’’ [Interview 6]). Thus, various

government agencies contracted independent technical

experts to review the documentation: ‘‘I would want to

compliment government for bringing forward the number

of technical experts... But more importantly, I think what

carried the De Beers Snap Lake process and made it more

rigorous, was the fact that the Board retained a whole raft

of technical experts, both on the socio-economic side, and

the environmental side, and that was absolutely key and

critical that they did that’’ (Interview 3).

One participant suggested that, in light of this govern-

ment function, participants do not need to hire independent

expertise to review the assessment material; to do so would

be a duplication of efforts. However, the majority of

research respondents did not share this opinion. Government

departments do not always complete an exhaustive, inde-

pendent review of EA material (see for example Fitzpatrick

2006). Furthermore, even if governments act as an inde-

pendent reviewer, the public may perceive that they are not

fulfilling this function, particularly given their participation

in the approval of resource projects. Consequently, partici-

pant funding strengthens the interactive policy-making

process by increasing the capacity of organizations to hire

independent technical advice.

A second source of material from alternative perspec-

tives was developed outside the MVEIRB environmental

assessment process. Baseline information about valued

ecosystem components was collected during a 5 year pro-

gram, managed by the West Kitikmeot Slave Society

(WKSS). This society was formed to oversee a research

program directed at creating baseline information to be

used for resource management in this region. During this

program, 19 projects conducted by independent researchers

were funded, covering issues ranging from local traditional

knowledge research to regional wildlife studies, at a

total cost of approximately eleven million dollars (David

Livingstone, personal communication, August 18, 2005).

Data collected through the WKSS were included in the

proponent’s development assessment report.

More closely tied to the Snap Lake project, however, was

an impact assessment, conducted by Lutsel K’e Dene First

Nation. Lutsel K’e is the closest community to the project.

In planning its approach to the review process, the com-

munity decided it wanted a more active role in the EA than

that of intervenor. It approached De Beers, and successfully

asked for funds for a community-based EA, based on tra-

ditional knowledge and history of the area. As noted by one

member of the community, ‘‘that report was provided to De

Beers, and it was included in its entirety, without De Beers

editing it, in their environmental assessment report—their

actual submission to the review Board.’’


123

For some, the lack of participant funding negatively

affected the degree to which participants characterized the

Snap Lake EA as equitable. Some observed that, although

the process was open to all interested parties and was con-

ducted in a fair manner, the government and the proponent

have easier access to the process. Not only did these groups

have access to capital to fund participation, but also

employees of these organizations were paid to attend the

proceedings: ‘‘No [I do not think all interested parties had an

equal opportunity to be heard in the process], I think it was a

bit easier for government, because that is what they are here

to do. But for the public and the First Nations groups, they

had a difficult time with capacity, keeping up to speed on the

information, and the information requests back and forth’’

(Interview 1). In light of this perceived inequity, such par-

ticipants did not view the proceedings as equitable.

Cross Cultural Perspective

One type of power distortion prevalent in modern Canadian

society relates to ways of knowing. As noted above, there

are different ways of knowing, and there is a growing lit-

erature surrounding how to respect and address cross

cultural perspectives, particularly traditional knowledge,

within EIA (see for example Stevenson 1996, Usher 2000).

This issue was of particular concern in the Snap Lake EA,

situated in the traditional territory of the Lutsel K’e Dene

First Nation.

Ellis (2005) identifies a number of barriers affecting the

full and equal consideration of traditional knowledge in

resource management in the Northwest Territories, draw-

ing from the experiences of the Lutsel K’e Dene Nation.

Although he reviews a variety of top-down and bottom-up

approaches surrounding the collection and use of tradi-

tional knowledge, he concludes that full consideration is

hindered by significant, systematic barriers, including

communication, conceptual, and political barriers. Ellis

(2005) observes that ‘‘strategies used to foster traditional

knowledge at the community level have had some suc-

cess….however, often this empowerment occurs in the

broader context of the needs and expectations of Euro-

Canadian agencies and their decision-making processes’’.

As noted above, Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation submitted

a community-based developer’s report, based on traditional

knowledge, to the MVEIRB. However, at least one First

Nations’ participant questioned how this document was

considered in the EA process: ‘‘The first step was getting

De Beers to include [the LKDFN developer’s report] in

their environmental assessment report. So I think that was

fairly effective. Now the second step was convincing the

regulators, and all the other intervenors, that this is some-

thing valid to do. In fact, De Beers had a much better time

handling the results of that report than say [other agencies

who] just had no clue how to deal with that stuff’’ (Inter-

view 31).

This participant then suggested that the structure of the

proceedings naturally hinders participation. If some of the

public is not well versed in Western democratic institu-

tions, participation is limited: ‘‘The opportunity is provided

to participate...but that participation is conditional on

people being able to act like Western bureaucrats, and that

is the real problem’’ (Interview 31).

This observation reflects the critique from Habermas’

theory of communicative action that communicative com-

petence is a precondition for participation. If people are not

skilled in Western-based political and legal institutions,

can these frameworks of governance ever be used suc-

cessfully to negotiate the lifeworld? Transferred to this

case study, this question asks if systems for managing

environmental resources do not reflect the needs and

decision-making processes of the constituents of the Ter-

ritory, can they ever be equitable and effective?

In July, 2005, the MVEIRB released guidelines for the

incorporation of traditional knowledge in assessments,

which may address some of the concerns identified through

the Snap Lake EA (MVEIRB 2005a). These guidelines

identify procedural aspects related to traditional knowledge

and EA under the MVEIRB (e.g., access to information

versus confidentiality), the importance of providing tradi-

tional knowledge in context (and opportunities for holders

of this knowledge to advise the board on the accuracy and

completeness of any information presented), and potential

methods to communicate traditional knowledge to the

Board members as part of the assessment process.

Ideal Role Taking

Although the literature advocates authority based on sound

argumentation, deliberative democracy also advocates

considering a variety of perspectives. To this end, this

principle considers the degree to which participants are

receptive to different points of view. From a methodolog-

ical perspective, as discussed above, this issue was

conceptualized through the notion of learning. One par-

ticipant explained this context-learning-EA nexus through

the following analogy:

‘‘You have got some serious symptoms and there is

nothing obvious there, but you go to one doctor and you get

one opinion there, if you go to 15 of them you get 15

different opinions, but by going to that number of people,

you are likely to build a very competent case on what is

actually wrong with you. And I think that EA is like that. It

provides scrutiny by more eyes, by eyes from different

sources, because people look at projects in different ways,

both on an individual level, an organizational level, and a

cultural level’’ (Interview 2).


123

Participants were asked to discuss what they learned

through their involvement, and how this learning was

facilitated through the EA process.

Learning

All participants noted that EIA is a learning process, as

reflected well by the following quotes: ‘‘I think that it is

always a learning experience. And when you have been

around as long as I have, you sometimes think you have

heard it all before, and it’s not true, there is always some

new point to be made’’ (Interview 12) and ‘‘I would find it

inconceivable that EIA isn’t a venue for learning. And if

you haven’t learned, you haven’t done an EIA’’ (Interview

2).

Likewise, all participants identified learning outcomes

associated with participation in the Snap Lake EA.

Learning outcomes addressed a number of aspects that

illustrate both the roles of experience and interaction.

Learning outcomes associated with the EA addressed:

• Project components and impacts (Interview 5, 7, 14,

31)—’’So people are now familiar with acid rock

drainage, they are familiar with dust deposition, they

are familiar with waste rock piles’’ (Interview 31),

• EA process (Interviews 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14)—’’We

learned that the information requests rounds, although

beneficial, took a long time, and you didn’t really get

the answer you wanted in a quick time turn around’’

(Interview 1),

• Ways of knowing (Interview 13, 14)—’’Because I do

believe that one of the biggest benefits of living up here

is listening to the elders, because one thing I

learned…is that the elder’s have their own message’’

(Interview 13),

• The community and methods of community engage-

ment (Interview 2, 5, 7 MVEIRB 2005)—’’We learned

a lot about the communities…so building trust and

maintaining it, and maintaining credibility is critical’’

(Interview 2),

• Community capacity—Our organization is now ‘‘say-

ing we don’t want to be another intervenor at the end of

the pipe, we want to involved from the beginning on

monitoring and baseline data collection and not on your

terms—but on [our] terms. So people have really

learned that this is possible. [We] have the capacity to

do that’’ (Interview 14),

• Organizational skills (Interviews 1, 5, 6, 7), including

how to use the process to further organizational

objectives (Interviews 3, 4, 8, 13)—’’The other part

of our strategy is to then make the consistent bank of

messages…[our presentations are] modified for the

specifics, but the general direction, the intent,

objectives, are consistent… So when we go to hearings

now, a number of our starting slides are always the

same, to get across the message—’Here is what we are

after,’ in terms of the general sense of our goals, as [an

organization]’’ (Interview 13),

• Interaction among different organizations (Interviews

12, 13)—’’Of course part of participating in these type

of things is you spend most of the time listening rather

than speaking, and that’s an opportunity to gauge other

peoples’ perspectives on these things’’ (Interview 12),

• How to communicate more effectively (Interviews 2, 3,

4, 7, 12, 13)—’’…the next time it comes around you

can get the visual things out there, and it will have a big

impact, and you don’t have to spend a lot of time

writing out huge reports that people aren’t going to

read, right? Get the things out there that will have an

impact, and aren’t necessarily easy to do, but in the

long term have a much better impact’’ (Interview 4),

and

• Deficiencies in policy regime (Interviews 3, 4, 8, 13).

This last group of learning outcomes indicates recognition

among participants of the fragmented resource manage-

ment system perpetuated by the MVRMA, despite the

intent of the Act to provide a system for resource

management in the North. Although the legislation

strengthens the intersection of EIA and regulatory man-

agement, it perpetuates the project- specific focus of EIA.

Thus, although the public may be actively involved in

project-specific activities, there is no venue for discussing

broader resource management issues that affect these

project-specific activities. As expressed by three partici-

pants, the EA of the Snap Lake project illustrated that no

opportunities arose to consider questions such as: ‘‘Is it

appropriate to pursue economic development directed at

putting a diamond on somebody’s finger?’’ (Interview 31)

and ‘‘Is the current pattern of diamond development

sustainable?’’ (Interviews 3, 4).

Problem fragmentation is seen by the public to be arti-

ficial, and, as such, serves as a regulatory barrier to

deliberative participation in assessment (Petts 2003).

When asked to identify the EA activities most clearly

associated with learning, respondents mentioned activities

that encouraged interaction among participants. Research

participants identified two activities that were cited as

particularly useful: (i) technical sessions—’’I think the

technical sessions, even with all their limitations, that is

where you get into the details. You ask questions, you put

on the table the ‘what ifs’’’ (Interview 7) and hearings—’’I

guess the ones that are most useful to people in general are

the public hearings’’ (Interview 31).

This finding supports previous research that identifies

face-to-face exchange as an important component of


123

deliberative democracy (Innes 1998; Webler, Kastenholz,

and Renn 1995).

Discussion and Conclusion

The EA process, as exemplified in the Snap Lake project,

addresses, to varying degrees, each of Wilkund’s (2005)

four principles of deliberative democracy. In terms of

generality, the EA was open to all interested parties; and,

although the number of intervenors and directly affected

parties was significantly fewer than those in previous dia-

mond-based EAs, many ‘‘alumni’’ organizations were

copied on all documentation. More research, however, is

needed to determine why some organizations chose not to

participate in the Snap Lake EA, and if their interests were

represented through the assessment process (Davies and

Blackstock 2005). Furthermore, additional attention must

be given to understanding how well the MVRMA serves

individual participants. As noted in the methodology, par-

ticipation in the EA was undertaken through representative

organizations. While the literature (Davies and Blackstock

2005; Parkinson 2003) suggests that this is an appropriate

way to balance deliberation with economy of participation,

we did not test this assertion, but this case indicates that the

MVRMA may provide an appropriate venue for such

testing. Research could also focus on achieving a greater

understanding of the nonparticipant (Diduck and Sinclair

2002) and the relationship between an organization and its

members (i.e., how well members’ views are being repre-

sented in an EA case). Furthermore, research should

consider if representative organizations do indeed promote

active citizenship: do the organizations create a venue

outside the government process to encourage participation

by members, or do they replace involvement by

individuals?

In terms of autonomy, the public was afforded multiple

and varied opportunities to be involved in the EA. Partic-

ipation addressed four of the five ‘‘key’’ provisions for

public participation in EA (Sinclair and Diduck 2005):

notice, public comment, access to information, and hear-

ings. Although the review of the draft terms of reference

and workplan did not take the format desired by some

participants, revisions of the terms reflected a majority of

concerns expressed by participants. What could have been

a significant barrier to active participation appears, in this

case, to have been avoided. This may have been a function

of the EA being the third assessment of a diamond devel-

opment in ten years, and thus the key issues for scoping

were largely known. More likely, however is that the Board

accepted the vast majority of recommended scoping

amendments submitted through written communication,

thus demonstrating that participation had a direct impact.

Perhaps most important to the deliberative potential of

EA revealed in this case was the presence of technical

sessions, which bring interested parties together for a

focused discussion of an issue. Feedback provided during

the assessment, through interviews, and during the post hoc

analysis, focused on the opportunity to sit across a table,

debate, and, where possible, resolve issues as a procedural

strength. Furthermore, hearings, a more traditional means

of facilitating discussion, are more efficient when under-

taken in combination with technical sessions. Successful

technical sessions, however, are facilitated by outside

parties, have a clear purpose, are well scoped, involve a

range of interested parties, and include a clear way to track

the resolution of issues. Additional methods, including

interest-based negotiations and mediation, may also fulfill

this function, although these methods must be tested within

the political and cultural climate of Northern Canada.

Results, however, suggest that rather than include technical

sessions as an addendum to the process, this aspect should

be used in future EA to increase the deliberative potential

of EA under the MVRMA.

Administrative barriers became more pronounced sur-

rounding efforts to neutralize power. Participant funding

(the fifth key provision of public participation) is not

available for EAs conducted under the MVRMA. As noted

in other research (Lynn and Wathern 1991; Sinclair and

Diduck 2005; Webler, Kastenholz, and Renn 1995), access

to financial resources is a key component for facilitating

participation, and while steps were taken to remedy power

imbalances, legislative change is required to provide par-

ticipant funding for future assessments. As a result,

participants had to rely on government, past research, and

other sources of funding to present alternative perspectives.

Although steps were taken to address the cross-cultural

context of the EA, more changes are needed to engage

Aboriginal people in EA, and develop a process that can

more adequately overcome cultural barriers to political

processes (see also Ellis 2005).

Participants had access to and were receptive regarding

different perspectives, as illustrated by learning outcomes

associated with this EA. There is some indication that

participants were able to adopt attitudes of reciprocity and

impartiality, as these are necessary for the types of learning

outcomes identified above, particularly those related to

ways of knowing, community engagement, and interaction

among organizations. An important addendum to this

finding is that interactive processes were identified as being

more conducive to learning (and, by extension, interaction

with other EA participants). This finding supports the view

that learning has a social and contextual dimension (Jarvis

1987; Merriam and Caffarella 1999).

Findings affirmed Wiklund’s (2005) hypothesis that

practice or implementation improves deliberative potential


123

provided in legislative requirements. While the deliberative

spirit is expressed through the preamble of the MVRMA,

the deliberative potential of the process was actualized in

this case through specific assessment steps. These steps are

more clearly directed through guidelines issued under the

Act, and through EA practice. As noted above, this com-

mitment to involving the public in the decisions that affect

them is considered a strength of the MVRMA (SENES

Consultants Limited 2006). However, because much of the

deliberative potential is situated outside the legislative

framework, it could be lost if the culture of the Board

changes. For example, much of the deliberative potential

expressed through this case was found in technical ses-

sions, a rarely used technique used in the assessment

process, directed by guideline under the Act. The technical

sessions provided an opportunity to resolve complex

technical issues prior to hearings in a dialogical setting, and

participants expressed clear support during this stage of the

EA.

Thus we conclude that EA conducted under the

MVRMA can serve as a deliberative process, as illustrated

by opportunities for dialogue, access to different perspec-

tives, and the learning outcomes associated with

participation in the EA of the Snap Lake project. The

process does encourage interaction and active citizenship,

as shown by the findings and confirmed by spokespersons

for participant organizations. As noted, however, much of

the deliberative potential depends on what the Board

chooses to do in a particular case to involve the public

rather than what is required by the Act. As well, the

absence of participant funding also limits the deliberative

potential of the MVRMA through constraining the infor-

mation that is presented and who can participate. Absent

from this review is an analysis of whether a deliberative

process ultimately leads to better policy decisions. Future

research, as noted by us and others, should endeavor to

address this broader question and thereby more clearly

verify the deliberative potential of EA.

Finally, results illustrate how deliberative democracy

provides a useful lens for evaluating EIA processes

because of its focus on the participatory aspects of policy

development (Parkins and Mitchell 2005; Petts 2003). As

summarized by Baber (2004), the structures encouraged

by deliberative democracy provide ‘‘a concise and general

summary of the requirements cited in EIA research for

impact assessment to achieve its analytical potential

without stunting democratic participation.’’ Beierle

(1999), suggests that a deliberative analysis addresses a

range of aspects, including representation, process,

information, and outcomes. Wiklund’s (2005) framework

is able to capture each of these aspects, particularly when

consideration is given to learning associated with

participation.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank research participants,

who volunteered to participate and provided wise insight about the

MVRMA and the Snap Lake EA. We would like to acknowledge the

two reviewers whose questions and comments greatly strengthened

the document. Financial support for this study was provided by the

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and the

Northern Studies Research Training Program.

References

Abelson J, Forest P-G, Eyles J et al (2003) Deliberations about

deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of

public participation processes. Social Science and Medicine

57:239–251

Armitage DR (2005a) Collaborative environmental assessment in the

Northwest Territories, Canada. Environmental Impact Assess-

ment Review 25:239–258

Armitage DR (2005b) Environmental impact assessment in Canada’s

Northwest Territories: integration, collaboration and the Mac-

kenzie Valley Resource Management Act. In: Hanna K (ed)

Environmental Impact Assessment: practice and Participation.

Oxford University Press, Toronto, ON, pp 185–211

Baber WF (2004) Ecology and democratic governance: toward a

deliberative model of environmental politics. The Social Science

Journal 41:331–346

Barabas J (2004) How deliberation affects policy opinions. American

Political Science Review 98:687–701

Beierle TC (1999) Using social goals to evaluate public participation

in environmental decisions. Policy Studies Review 16:75–103

Berkes F (1999) Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge.

Taylor and Francis Inc, Ann Arbor, MI

Bernard HR (1994) Research methods in anthropology: qualitative

and quantitative approach. Alta Mira Press, Walnut Creek, CA

BHP Environmental Assessment Panel (1996) NWT diamonds

project report of the environmental assessment panel. Federal

Environmental Assessment and Review Office, Ottawa

Canadian Environmental Network-Environmental Planning and

Assessment Caucus (1998) A federal environmental assessment

process: the core elements. Canadian Environmental Network-

Environmental Planning and Assessment Caucus, Ottawa

Cooke M (2002) Five arguments for deliberative democracy. In:

d’Entreve MP (ed) Democracy as public deliberation: new

perspectives. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC, pp 53–87

Davies BB, Blackstock K (2005) ‘Recruitment’, ‘composition’, and

‘mandate’ issues in deliberative processes: should we focus on

arguments rather than individuals? Environment and Planning C:

Government and Policy 23:599–615

Diduck AP (2001) Learning through public involvement in environ-

mental assessment: a transformative perspective. University of

Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada

Diduck AP (2004) Incorporating participatory approaches and social

learning. In: Mitchell B (ed) Resource and environmental

management in Canada: addressing conflict and uncertainty.

Oxford University Press, Toronto, ON, Canada, pp 497–527

Diduck AP, Mitchell B (2003) Learning, public involvement and

environmental assessment: a Canadian case. Environmental

Assessment Policy and Management 5:339–364

Diduck AP, Sinclair AJ (1997) The concept of critical environmental

assessment education. The Canadian Geographer 41:294–307

Diduck AP, Sinclair AJ (2002) Public involvement in environmental

assessment: the case of the nonparticipant. Environmental

Management 29:578–588

Dorcey AHJ (2004) Sustainability governance: surfing the waves of

transformation. In: Mitchell B (ed) Resource and environmental


123

management in Canada: addressing conflict and uncertainty.

Oxford University Press, Toronto, pp 528–554

Dryzek J (1990) Discursive democracy: politics, policy and political

science. Cambridge University Press, New York

Dryzek J (2001) Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy.

Political Theory 29:651–699

Duinker P, Bull G, Shindler BA (2003) Sustainable forestry in Canada

and the United States: Development and prospects. In: Shindler

BA, Beckley TM, Finley MC (eds) Two Paths Toward Sustain-

able Forests: public Values in Canada and the United States.

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, pp 4–17

Ellis SC (2005) Meaningful consideration? A review of traditional

knowledge in environmental decision making. Arctic 58:66–77

Enslin P, Pendlebury S, Tjiattas M (2001) Deliberative democracy,

diversity and the challenges of citizenship education. Journal of

Philosophy Education 35:115–130

Fitzpatrick P (2006) In it together: organizational learning though

participation in environmental assessment. Journal of Environ-

mental Assessment Policy and Management 8:157–183

Fitzpatrick P, Sinclair AJ (2003) Learning through public involve-

ment in environmental assessment hearings. Journal of

Environmental Management 67:161–174

Freire P (1973) Pedagogy of the oppressed. The Seabury Press, New

York

Gibson RB (1993) Environmental assessment design: lessons from

the Canadian experience. The Environmental Professional

15:12–24

Gibson RB (2006) Sustainability assessment and conflict resolution:

reaching agreement to proceed with the Voisey’s Bay nickel

mine. Journal of Cleaner Production 14:334–348

Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action: reason and

the rationalization of society. Beacon Press, Boston, MA

Habermas J (1987) The theory of communicative action: lifeworld

and systems. Beacon Press, Boston

Habermas J (1990) Moral conciousness and communicative action.

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Hartley N, Wood C (2005) Public participation in environmental

impact assessment: implementing the Aarhus Convention.

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25:319–340

Huberman AM, Miles MB (1994) Data management and analysis

methods. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) The Handbook of

Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp

428–444

Innes JE (1998) Information in communicative planning. Journal of

the American Planning Association 64:52–63

Jarvis P (1987) Adult learning in the social context. Croom Helm,

London

Kendrick A, Lyver PO, LKeDF nation (2005) Denesoline (Chipewy-

an) Knowledge of Barren-Ground Caribou (Rangifer tarandus

groenlandicus) Movements. Arctic 58:175–191

Lynn FM (2000) Community-scientist collaboration in environmental

research. American Behavioral Scientist 44:648–662

Lynn S, Wathern P (1991) Intervenor funding in environmental

assessment processes in Canada. Project Appraisal 6:169–173

Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (2003) Snap

Lake Project. Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review

Board, Yellowknife, NT, CA

Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (2005a)

Guidelines for incorporating traditional knowledge in environ-

mental assessment. Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact

Review Board, Yellowknife

Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (2005b)

Lessons learned form the MVEIRB’s Snap Lake environmental

assessment process. Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact

Review Board, Yellowknife, NT, CA

Marshall BK, Jones RE (2005) Citizen participation in natural

resource management: Does representativeness matter? Socio-

logical Spectrum 25:715–737

McGregor C (2004) Care(full) deliberation: a pedagogy for citizen-

ship. Journal Of Transformative Education 2:90–106

Merriam SB, Caffarella RS (1999) Learning in adulthood: a

comprehensive guide. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

Mezirow J (1991) Transformative dimensions of adult learning.

Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

Mezirow J, Associates (2000) Learning as transformation: critical

perspectives on a theory in progress. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

Mitchell B (2002) Resource and environmental management. Long-

man, Pearson Education Limited, Essex, England

Morrow RA, Torres CA (2002) Reading Freire and Habermas: critical

pedagogy and transformative social change. Teachers College

Press, New York

MVEIRB (2001) Environmental impact assessment guidelines. Mac-

kenzie Valley Impact Review Board, Yellowknife, NT, CA

MVEIRB (2003) Report of environmental assessment and reasons for

decision on the De Beers Canada Inc. Snap Lake diamond

project. Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board,

Yellowknife, NT, Canada

MVEIRB (2005) Lessons learned form the MVEIRB’s Snap Lake

environmental assessment process. Mackenzie Valley Environ-

mental Impact Review Board, Yellowknife, NT, CA

MVEIRB. no date. Introduction to the MVRMA. MackenzieValley-

EnvironmentalImpactReviewBoard, Yellowknife, NT, CA

Nerysoo R (1999) Address. Canadian Institute of Resources Law,

Calgary, AB

Palerm JR (2000) An empirical-theoretical analysis framework for

public participation in environmental impact assessment. Journal

of Environmental Planning and Management 43:581–600

Parkins JR, Mitchell RE (2005) Public participation as public debate:

a deliberative turn in natural resource management. Society and

Natural Resources 18:529–540

Parkinson J (2003) Legitimacy problems in deliberative democracy.

Political Studies 51:180–196

Parson EA (2001) Environmental trends: a challenge to Canadian

governance. In: Parson EA (ed) Governing the Environment:

Persistent Challenges. Uncertain Innovations. University of

Toronto Press, Toronto, ON, Canada, pp 3–30

Petts J (1999) Public participation and environmental impact assess-

ment. In: Petts J (ed) Handbook of Environmental Impact

Assessment: environmental Impact Assessment: process, Meth-

ods and Practice. Blackwell Science, Oxford, United Kingdom,

pp 145–177

Petts J (2003) Barriers to deliberative participation in EIA: learning

from waste policies, plans and projects. Journal of Environmen-

tal Assessment Policy and Management 5:269–293

Poncelet EC (2001) Personal transformation in multistakeholder

environmental partnerships. Policy Sciences 34:273–301

Pring GR, Noe S (2002) The emerging international law of public

participation affecting global mining, energy and resource

development. In: Zillman DN, Lucas AR, Pring GR (eds)

Human rights in natural resource development: public partici-

pation in the sustainable development of mining and energy

resources. Oxford University Press, Toronto, ON, pp 11–76

QSR (1999–2002) QSR Nvivo. Qualitative Solution Research Lim-

ited, Melbourne

SENES Consultants Limited (2006) NWT Environmental Audit:

regulatory regime, CIMP and status of the environment. Indian

and Northern Affairs Canada, Yellowknife, NT

Simpson L (2000) Anishinaabe ways of knowing. In: Oakes J, Riewe

R, Koolage S, Simpson L, Schuster N (eds) Aboriginal Health,

Identity and Resources. Department of Native Studies and


123

Zoology, Faculty of Graduate Studies, University of Manitoba,

Winnipeg, pp 165–185

Sinclair AJ, Diduck AP (2001) Public involvement in E.A. in Canada:

a transformative learning perspective. Environmental Impact

Assessment Review 21:113–136

Sinclair AJ, Diduck AP (2005) Public involvement in Canadian

environmental assessment: enduring challenges and future

directions. In: Hanna K (ed) Environmental Impact Assessment:

Process and Practice. Oxford University Press, Toronto, ON,

Canada, pp 53–74

Stevenson MG (1996) Indigenous knowledge in environmental

assessment. Arctic 49:278–291

Taylor, EW (2000) Analyzing research on transformative learning

theory. In: Mezirow JD and Associates (eds) Learning as

Transformation: critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress.

Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 285–328

Usher PJ (2000) Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental

assessment and management. Arctic 53:183–193

Webler T (1995) ‘Right’ discourse in citizen participation: an

evaluative yardstick. In: Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P

(eds) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: evalu-

ating Models for Environmental Discourse. Kluwer Academic,

Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp 35–86

Webler T, Kastenholz H, Renn O (1995) Public participation in

impact assessment: a social learning perspective. Environmental

Impact Assessment Review 15:443–463

Welton M (2001) Civil society and the public sphere: Habermas’s

recent learning theory. Studies in the Education of Adults 33:20–

34

Wiklund H (2005) In search of arenas for democratic deliberation: a

Habermasian review of environmental assessment. Impact

Assessment and Project Appraisal 23:281–292

Wood C (1995) Environmental impact assessment: a comparative

review. Longman Scientific and Technical, Essex, United

Kingdom

Zillman DN, Lucas AR, Pring GR (2002) Human rights in natural

resource development: public participation in the sustainable

development of mining and energy resources. Oxford University

Press, Toronto, ON


123

Documents

Environmental Impact Assessment Under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act: Deliberative Democracy in Canada’s North?