{"title":"怎样才能阻止地雷呢?加拿大努纳武特的土著干预和项目拒绝","authors":"Warren Bernauer , Emilie Cameron","doi":"10.1016/j.eiar.2025.108071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Indigenous groups who oppose extractive projects make use of a range of tactics and strategies, including intervening in impact assessment (IA) processes. This article examines four cases where IA authorities recommended against the development of proposed mines in Nunavut, Canada. By comparing these cases to the assessment of projects recommended for approval, we seek to draw broad conclusions about the different types of interventions that can potentially lead to project rejection. Based on an analysis of assessment and media documents, we found that Nunavut's IA Board recommended against project approval when Indigenous groups made technical, procedural, and political interventions within and alongside IA, when Indigenous rights-bearing organizations expressed substantial outstanding concern at the final hearing, and when there was already an operating mine in the region. These findings add nuance to critiques of IA as a tool for legitimizing extraction. In contexts like Nunavut – where IA processes substantially recognize Indigenous rights and mandate Indigenous representation – participation by rights-bearing groups may be more likely to influence IA outcomes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":309,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Impact Assessment Review","volume":"116 ","pages":"Article 108071"},"PeriodicalIF":9.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What does it take to stop a mine? Indigenous interventions and project rejection in Nunavut, Canada\",\"authors\":\"Warren Bernauer , Emilie Cameron\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.eiar.2025.108071\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Indigenous groups who oppose extractive projects make use of a range of tactics and strategies, including intervening in impact assessment (IA) processes. This article examines four cases where IA authorities recommended against the development of proposed mines in Nunavut, Canada. By comparing these cases to the assessment of projects recommended for approval, we seek to draw broad conclusions about the different types of interventions that can potentially lead to project rejection. Based on an analysis of assessment and media documents, we found that Nunavut's IA Board recommended against project approval when Indigenous groups made technical, procedural, and political interventions within and alongside IA, when Indigenous rights-bearing organizations expressed substantial outstanding concern at the final hearing, and when there was already an operating mine in the region. These findings add nuance to critiques of IA as a tool for legitimizing extraction. In contexts like Nunavut – where IA processes substantially recognize Indigenous rights and mandate Indigenous representation – participation by rights-bearing groups may be more likely to influence IA outcomes.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":309,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Impact Assessment Review\",\"volume\":\"116 \",\"pages\":\"Article 108071\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Impact Assessment Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925525002689\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Impact Assessment Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925525002689","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
What does it take to stop a mine? Indigenous interventions and project rejection in Nunavut, Canada
Indigenous groups who oppose extractive projects make use of a range of tactics and strategies, including intervening in impact assessment (IA) processes. This article examines four cases where IA authorities recommended against the development of proposed mines in Nunavut, Canada. By comparing these cases to the assessment of projects recommended for approval, we seek to draw broad conclusions about the different types of interventions that can potentially lead to project rejection. Based on an analysis of assessment and media documents, we found that Nunavut's IA Board recommended against project approval when Indigenous groups made technical, procedural, and political interventions within and alongside IA, when Indigenous rights-bearing organizations expressed substantial outstanding concern at the final hearing, and when there was already an operating mine in the region. These findings add nuance to critiques of IA as a tool for legitimizing extraction. In contexts like Nunavut – where IA processes substantially recognize Indigenous rights and mandate Indigenous representation – participation by rights-bearing groups may be more likely to influence IA outcomes.
期刊介绍:
Environmental Impact Assessment Review is an interdisciplinary journal that serves a global audience of practitioners, policymakers, and academics involved in assessing the environmental impact of policies, projects, processes, and products. The journal focuses on innovative theory and practice in environmental impact assessment (EIA). Papers are expected to present innovative ideas, be topical, and coherent. The journal emphasizes concepts, methods, techniques, approaches, and systems related to EIA theory and practice.