Stakeholder Perceptions of Current Planning, Assessment and Science Initiatives in Canada’s Beaufort Sea

Fidler, Courtney; Noble, Bram

doi:10.14430/arctic4289

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But this is not unique to the Nunavut's regulatory process. A lack of institutional, community and research capacities in the Arctic (and many other locales) have been identified as limiting factors to meaningful stakeholder and community participation (Fidler & Noble, 2013;McCrank, 2008), and to adaptive management more broadly (Stratos, 2017). Through terms and conditions in the Hearing Reports, the responsibility of addressing information needs is often attached to the monitoring component of the NIRB IA process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“It would be a lot easier to hunt whales if they didn’t move.” Addressing marine baseline information challenges in Nunavut’s impact assessment process

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite advances in impact assessment (IA) practice in Arctic regions, persistent challenges remain. This article examines how baseline information needs and associated uncertainties are presented and understood in the regulatory context of IA. The focus is on marine-related information needs in the Nunavut IA process. The method used a document review of operational IA reports and focus groups with the Nunavut Impact Review Board – the agency responsible for IA in the territory. The results show that information challenges are largely linked to the availability, suitability and accessibility of data; while challenges to addressing information needs are related to broad capacity constraints, as well as responsibility, and cooperation among parties to the process. Similar to other settings, in Nunavut, there is a need to develop better guidance for parties regarding information uncertainties in IA and how such may be addressed. To help address information needs, there is also a need to clarify the roles, responsibilities and expectations of all parties (e.g. Inuit organisations, proponent, government and communities), as well as improving coordination and advancing collaboration, while also addressing capacity constraints.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“It would be a lot easier to hunt whales if they didn’t move.” Addressing marine baseline information challenges in Nunavut’s impact assessment process

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since most projects and activities do not trigger an IA, few opportunities exist to engage in meaningful discussions about development impacts and regional concerns (Udofia et al, 2017). Regional or strategic assessments can provide better opportunities to address concerns over the appropriateness of different types of development within a region, help communities define the most desirable growth scenarios, and capture those shipping activities that individually and cumulatively affect Arctic environments and communities, but do not necessarily trigger an IA (CCME, 2009;Fidler and Noble, 2013;Noble and Hanna, 2015). There have been some promising developments in the eastern Arctic, including the recent strategic assessment of offshore oil and gas development (NIRB, 2019b); the cumulative effects assessment of shipping across Canada as part of the Oceans Protection Plan (GC, 2018;Lerner, 2018), and the development under the same federal initiative of lowimpact Arctic shipping corridors (see Porta et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nunavut's land-use planning process, which also refers to the marine environment under the Nunavut Agreement, provides a more strategic approach for generating baseline data, defining management objectives, and easing the consultation burden placed on communities (Fidler and Noble, 2013). Currently, however, only one and a half out of three regions in Nunavut are covered under a plan, both of which have not been substantially updated since their approval in 2000 (NPC, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Impact Assessment Practice and Mitigation for Shipping Activity in the Eastern Canadian Arctic

Thiessen¹,

Noble²,

Hanna³

2020

ARCTIC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine traffic is increasing in the Canadian Arctic, largely because of changing ice conditions, a growing tourism industry, and natural resource extraction. Impact assessment (IA) is a primary instrument for managing the impacts of project development in the Arctic, but there has been limited analysis of the scope and application of IA for identifying and managing the impacts of shipping. This paper examines the impacts of shipping activity associated with mining projects in the eastern Canadian Arctic, including barge traffic and resupply vessels; the mitigation actions commonly prescribed in IA; and the key IA challenges facing decision-makers. Results show 71 impacts that may be considered common to IA applications for shipping, for which the mitigation strategies rely heavily on compliance-based measures and “best” practices to either minimize or avoid impacts, supported by follow-up programs that provide for adaptation of mitigation based on monitoring results. However, results also illustrate concerns over the ability of IA to effectively manage the cumulative effects of increasing Arctic marine traffic. Only a minority of projects involving marine transport trigger IA, even though other types of marine traffic, such as tourism, may generate similar types of impacts. The common impacts and mitigation solutions identified in this research and the lessons from monitoring can inform future IAs for shipping, improve permitting processes for shipping activities that do not require IA, and provide a foundation for a more regional or sector-wide approach to identifying and mitigating the cumulative effects of increasing vessel traffic.

show abstract

“…The other major actors in managing the harvest of subsistence resources are the territorial and national governments. Non-Aboriginal appointees sit on the major regional committees and have strong input in decision-making (Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 1984), and the Canadian government maintains jurisdiction over offshore environments in the ISR (Fidler and Noble 2013). Over time, interactions between actor groups have included conflicts over management priorities, the incorporation of indigenous knowledge and practices, and the role of scientific monitoring (Fast et al 2005, Kofinas 2005, Kocho-Schellenberg and Berkes 2015).…”

Section: Nested Hierarchical Organization Of Actor Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using social-ecological systems theory to evaluate large-scale comanagement efforts: a case study of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region

Tyson¹

2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Comanagement efforts are increasingly tasked with overseeing natural resource governance at a large scale. I examine comanagement of subsistence harvesting in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) of the western Canadian Arctic, using a socialecological systems framework. In doing so, this study joins a growing list of research that reviews design principles commonly found in successful small-scale commons management and applies them to a large resource area. This research uses the management of beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) and barren-ground caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) as case studies in understanding the management framework of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, as each species is important in Inuvialuit culture and is actively managed and monitored. Comanagement bodies in the study area display many of the institutional design principles that are characteristic of successful socialecological systems. Particularly mentionable are the presence of well-organized nested enterprises and a strong incorporation of local knowledge and monitoring. This supports the application of institutional design principles in large-scale analyses of resource management. However, due to the network of policy and management outside the ISR that influences each species, this research suggests that in cases of wide-ranging resource bases, these types of analyses may be better suited to evaluating broad management networks rather than discrete governing regions.

show abstract

Stakeholder Perceptions of Current Planning, Assessment and Science Initiatives in Canada’s Beaufort Sea

Cited by 11 publications

References 24 publications

“It would be a lot easier to hunt whales if they didn’t move.” Addressing marine baseline information challenges in Nunavut’s impact assessment process

“It would be a lot easier to hunt whales if they didn’t move.” Addressing marine baseline information challenges in Nunavut’s impact assessment process

Analysis of Impact Assessment Practice and Mitigation for Shipping Activity in the Eastern Canadian Arctic

Using social-ecological systems theory to evaluate large-scale comanagement efforts: a case study of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About