Abstract
Abstract: This article discusses the factors shaping contemporary reclamation regimes in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, northern Labrador, and Nunavik in northern Quebec. It distils policy documents, laws, research reports, and newspaper articles for a clear overview of current policy and practice in the North and shows that no overarching vision informs reclamation planning. Instead of direction from Ottawa, responsibility for policy-making now largely sits with provincial, territorial, and regional governments along with local land and water boards. Efforts to mitigate the impacts of new and legacy mines are complicated by the highly site- and case- specific nature of reclamation; the lack of a clear, ambitious technical and regulatory definition of reclamation; and the jurisdictional overlap and governance issues associated with cleanup. Addressing these wider policy challenges in the North is crucial to meet the expansive, expensive demands of mine reclamation. As well, remediation efforts that draw on traditional knowledge and encourage local involvement can mitigate and manage some of the worst impacts of northern resource development. Policy reform such as strengthened regulations and more rigorous government enforcement will help facilitate this. However, reclamation can also exacerbate inequality and environmental problems. Effective reclamation demands more than a particular technological fix or planning strategy; it involves a candid discussion of the goals and limitations of reclamation projects, both past and present. This article has been summarized in an accessible up-to-date poster and will be of interest to concerned parties grappling with a plethora of reclamation regulatory bodies and programs.
Highlights
This article discusses the factors shaping contemporary reclamation regimes in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, northern Labrador, and Nunavik in northern Quebec
To communities still coping with the enduring reclamation challenges of mine sites abandoned decades ago, contemporary reclamation still falls short of addressing their concerns
Efforts to mitigate the impacts of new and legacy mines are complicated by the highly site- and case-specific nature of reclamation; the lack of a clear, ambitious technical and regulatory definition or vision of reclamation; and the jurisdictional overlap and governance issues associated with cleanup
Summary
Contemporary reclamation practice ( referred to as rehabilitation in Quebec and Newfoundland and remediation in the territories)[13] generally involves planning, engineering, and management strategies undertaken to help monitor, mitigate, and remove disturbances and pollution in areas affected by mining and mining-related activities. When surveying the multitude of contemporary reclamation requirements, it is worth remembering that until the late 1970s and early 1980s, mining companies operated within a Canadian legal framework that was “open, straightforward, democratic, and encouraging,” which is to say, deeply favourable to them and often inattentive to environmental concerns.[16] But by the late 1980s, sustained Aboriginal and settler activism, often in opposition to particular projects, led to more proactive (albeit still fragmentary) environmental policy-making as well as a greater recognition of Aboriginal land rights and the duty to consult with Aboriginal communities.[17] Public unease about the social and environmental impacts of mining across Canada spurred companies to seek social licence for their extractive activities, most notably through the 1992 Whitehorse Mining Initiative (WMI).[18] Led by the president of the Mining Association of Canada and culminating in a multi-stakeholder accord in 1994, the WMI involved various levels of governments, environmental organizations, organized labour, and some Aboriginal groups such as the Inuit Tapirisat.[19] Together, stakeholders collaboratively addressed concerns, including abandoned mines, securities reform, and mine remediation approaches. Efforts to improve regulations for newer mines had their limitations: new legislation in the 1980s and 1990s across Canada requiring mine reclamation plans were stymied by a cap on the amount of required securities, leading to liability outstripping submitted funds.[23]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
