Abstract

The Northern Review 41 (2015): 81–109Environmental Assessment and related permitting processes have long struggled to identify and mitigate health and well-being impacts associated with resource development, especially in northern, largely Indigenous, jurisdictions. An opportunity to address this governance deficit has seemingly been provided through the growing use of mechanisms such as Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) and Health Impact Assessments (HIA). Their emergence has coincided with a growth in social determinants of health research that recognizes diverse concepts and complex drivers of Indigenous well-being; it is increasingly common for researchers to speak of the ”good life” and to recognize health disparities that are based in experiences of poverty, stress, trauma, cultural erosion, and environmental dispossession. Unfortunately, little of this research has come to influence contemporary HIA practices and the content or implementation of IBAs. Missing from these novel governance mechanisms is recognition that present-day resource development is complicated by legacies of colonialism and assimilation policies, which impact Indigenous well-being. In short, what matters to Indigenous communities and what is captured in an IBA or HIA seldom coincide. This argument is supported by evidence of Indigenous participation in the Wishbone Hill HIA in Alaska and the IBA signed in support of the Meadowbank Mine in Nunavut. Given this evidence, this article calls for refinement of governance mechanisms such as IBAs and HIAs in order to better understand and respond to the complexities that inform Indigenous well-being.

Highlights

  • Mineral exploration and extraction in Canada has long been recognized as a source of economic activity and opportunity, especially in northern jurisdictions

  • We argue that one key reason why Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) and Health Impact Assessments (HIA) have, to date, struggled to address community well-being concerns around mine development is because IBAs and HIA have insufficiently recognized and responded to the complexities that inform Indigenous understandings of and experiences with health and well-being

  • Article 26 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement specifies that an Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement (IIBA) is required for any major development in the Nunavut Settlement Area that might positively or negatively impact Inuit

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Mineral exploration and extraction in Canada has long been recognized as a source of economic activity and opportunity, especially in northern jurisdictions. We provide background information on IBAs and HIA, two dominant mechanisms used in the governance of contemporary resource developments to maintain or enhance the health and well-being of northern Indigenous peoples.

Objectives
Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.