Closing the regulatory gap: revisions to the conventional practice of ex-post plans for EIAs to protect the valued components of Aboriginal peoples in Canada

Abstract

Aboriginal peoples have distinct perspectives and relationships with the terrestrial and aquatic settings and components that sustain cultural modes of life. Valued components derived from these cultural understandings are to be incorporated into environmental impact assessments (EIA) that occur in their respective territories. Despite this technical and legal basis, Aboriginal cultures are often inadequately accounted for in many ex-post plans of development activities and projects. This paper examines changes made to the regulatory requirements of an expost plan that involved Aboriginal peoples and a pipeline project located in north-east British Columbia, Canada. The research context and the revisions made to the conventional practice are presented, followed by a discussion of the possible broader implications for future EIAs. The study provides useful insights into the deficiencies of conventional practices and contributes to technical understandings in terms of integrating and protecting Aboriginal cultures through ex-post plans.

Contemporary marine science, its utility and influence on regulation and government policy

“…This includes adding cultural heritage assessments (potential or known) to any coastal and marine development work as a form of compliance or regulatory and industry monitoring, such as EIAs, best practice guidelines, or equivalent Ocean SAMPs. There are many exemplar studies of EIA's that accommodate Indigenous perspectives (e.g., O'Faircheallaigh, 2007;McKay and Johnson, 2017;Muir, 2018) 11 that can be applied to marine prehistoric cultural heritage and to marine spatial planning (e.g., Gee et al 2017;Diggon et al 2022). 3 The plethora 4 of marine governance illustrated by also shows that there is a place for marine archaeology in European marine management and that it implicitly or explicitly is included in existing legislative instruments whether Acts or Regulations.…”

‘Out of sight, out of mind’ - towards a greater acknowledgment of submerged prehistoric resources in Australian science-policy as part of a common heritage

“…This includes adding cultural heritage assessments (potential or known) to any coastal and marine development work as a form of compliance or regulatory and industry monitoring, such as EIAs, best practice guidelines, or equivalent Ocean SAMPs. There are many exemplar studies of EIA's that accommodate Indigenous perspectives (e.g., O'Faircheallaigh, 2007;McKay and Johnson, 2017;Muir, 2018) 11 that can be applied to marine prehistoric cultural heritage and to marine spatial planning (e.g., Gee et al 2017;Diggon et al 2022). 3 The plethora 4 of marine governance illustrated by Boyes and Elliott (2014) also shows that there is a place for marine archaeology in European marine management and that it implicitly or explicitly is included in existing legislative instruments whether Acts or Regulations.…”

Reflecting on, and revising, international best practice principles for EIA follow-up

“…An IAIA best practice guide aiming 'to promote a meaningful integration of traditional knowledge as well as the respectful incorporation of Indigenous Peoples in impact assessment' (Croal et al, 2012, p1) implicitly encompasses follow-up practice. More explicitly, Muir (2018) maintains that 'Aboriginal cultures are often inadequately accounted for in many expost plans of development activities and projects' (p186) and advocates for 'collaborative planning and assessment processes that in turn may also increase the blending of TEK (traditional ecological knowledge) and science into ex-post plans' (p200) to ensure that the 'other ways of knowing' (p200) characteristic of Aboriginal peoples become part of EIA follow-up practice. Solbar and Keskitalo (2017) similarly highlight the value of 'non-scientific types of experiential knowledge' (p67) being incorporated into EIA follow-up.…”

“…Transparency is a principle within IAIA and IEA (1999) for all EIA practice as well within the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 1998), where it relates both to clarity of communication about the process and ease of access to EIA information. Transparency and accountability are also important to follow-up, as advocated by Doelle and Sinclair (2019), Devlin and Tubino (2012) regarding participation and community oversight, and Muir (2018) for collaboration in follow-up with community, especially where Aboriginal people are affected. Hollands and Palframan (2014) advocate 'better communication between stakeholders throughout the life cycle of the project' (p51).…”