El desistimiento

The only Gwich’in Council International (GCI) document which we found for the project was the April 2018 Impact As- sessment in the Arctic: Emerging Practices of Indigenous-Led Re- view submitted to Gwich’in Council International. This report is a study on environmental assessment, in particular, an In- digenous-led impact assessment with two research questions. First, the document asks what the key features of this impact assessment are; and second, what the outcomes are there, and how they have worked. To answer these questions, the docu- ment uses specific case studies on environmental impact as- sessment, referring to ‘community based assessment.’

The key findings of the Gwich’in study report, consisting of 54 pages, including maps and pictures, are: “Indigenous parties are creatively using legislation and negotiated agreements to give force to Indigenous-led reviews. Indigenous-led impact assessments can be effective with a wide range of primary re- lationships.... All processes require a clear set of steps defining how the review will be conducted.... Creation of Indigenous-led approach does not negate participation and use of findings from state-led processes.... There are a variety of specific en- abling factors that will improve the chances of success of an Indigenous-led impact assessment.... There are distinguishing elements that make Indigenous-led impact assessment attrac- tive, such as the ability to ensure culture, language, and way of life” (Gwich’in Council International 2018, 4–5).

The (Re)mapping and (Re)defining indicator briefly defines the Gwich’in territory, with the 2018 document noting that the Gwich’in Council International represents “9,000 Gwich’in in the Northwest Territories (NWT), Yukon, and Alaska as a Permanent Participant in the Arctic Council, the only inter- national organization to give Indigenous peoples a seat at the decision-making table alongside national governments” (2018, 2). However, there is no detailed discussion or definition of the Arctic, only a consideration of “how to establish their own In- digenous-led impact assessment processes over resource devel- opment in their homelands” (2018, 7).

The Human Dimension indicator explains that “Indigenous parties are creatively using legislation and negotiated agree- ments to conduct reviews” (2018, 4). “However, even absent these powers, Indigenous-led assessments can successfully oc- cur, especially in high leverage situations” (2018, 42). Further- more, the document seeks to identify ‘enabling factors’ contrib- uting to the success of Indigenous-led impact assessment. This

is, in particular, due to the fact that “historically, Canadian Indig- enous groups have often not had a meaningful voice in impact assessment” (2018, 10), because, according to Gibson (2017), “Indigenous culture, traditional activities, rights, and title have by and large not been taken into comprehensive… account in the Crown-led and proponent-driven Canadian environmental assessment processes” (2018, 10). Here human capacity critically consists of “three elements related to capacity: funding, human resources, and relationship building” (2018, 38).

The Governance indicator reveals that the document is about “Indigenous-led impact assessment,” which is mentioned mul- tiple times (e.g., five times in one paragraph on p. 7). Within this context, the study illustrates how Indigenous governments can and have led their own impact assessment processes, how they established their own Indigenous-led impact assessment processes over resource development in their homelands, and how legislation and land claims set clear processes for impact assessment review. The document furthermore states that “where this powerful enabling factor is absent, the nation can seek such clarity through the establishment of a contract (IBA) [Impact Benefit Agreement] to define requirements for consent and impact assessment review” (2018, 42).

Interestingly, the document, which is based on a study com- missioned by Gwich’in Council International to inform its participants about “Good Practice Recommendations for En- vironmental Impact Assessment and Public Participation in the Arctic project” (under the auspices of the Sustainable De- velopment Working Group, SDWG of the Arctic Council) de- scribes in detail the “common characteristics that distinguish Indigenous-led impact assessment.” Those characteristics in- clude, among others, “a process derived from and steeped in the culture, traditional knowledge, and stewardship approach of the nation.... legitimate elements of an Indigenous group’s overall governance/stewardship rights and responsibilities within its territory.... Indigenous laws and norms.... Indigenous knowledge… brought in systematically through every phase of decision-making.... Cultural values tend to be more broadly defined in Indigenous-led assessment.... [with] more focus on oral discussion of issues.... [and there is] a greater willingness to consider a future without the project if costs are deemed to outweigh benefits” (2018, 13).

This method is about ‘self-governance’ and ‘self-determination’, as the document’s working definition for ‘Indigenous-led im- pact assessment’ indicates: “a process that is completed prior to any approvals or consent being provided for a proposed pro- ject, which is designed and conducted with meaningful input and an adequate degree of control by Indigenous parties— on their own terms and with their approval. The Indigenous par- ties are involved in the scoping, data collection, assessment, management planning, and decision-making about a project” (2018, 10). As a result, and based on the definition of ‘Indige- nous-led impact assessment,’ decision-making is carried out by the Indigenous parties.

The document also mentions the “willingness to support and engage the Indigenous-led review…[and the] pre-existing re- quirements for Indigenous engagement in both the NWT and Quebec There was also a willing and engaged proponent, which at least partially funded the effort” (2018, 40). Finally, central governments [for example,] “also play a role in supporting In- digenous-led impact assessment… governments and industry may be assets, not opposition… to encourage and support In- digenous-led impact assessment” (2018, 40).

Finally, the report identifies three different ‘lessons learned’ which are listed in the document. First, “effective Indigenous-led impact assessment includes a clear process for defining how consent will be given.” Second, “creation of an Indigenous-led approach should not negate participation [in] and use of find- ings from the state-led process. In fact, there are high benefits to at least ‘shadowing’ the state-led processes.” Finally, govern- ments and industry may be “assets, not opposition” (2018, 42). The International Treaties and International Cooperation indicator is briefly discussed, first, through the mention that Gwich’in Council International is a “Permanent Participant in the Arctic Council, the only international organization to give Indigenous peoples a seat at the decision-making table along- side national governments” (2018, 2) and second by identifying and proposing a potential “for international comparative work, including and especially significant to the Arctic, that focuses on Indigenous impact assessment processes, particularly those that are being led by Indigenous groups in other jurisdictions” (2018, 43).

The following indicators are not explicitly discussed in the doc- ument: Environmental Protection, Pollution, Climate Change, Security, Safety and SAR, Tourism and Infrastructure. The Economy indicator is discussed substantially via three case studies of the Indigenous-led impact assessment, that include the Tlicho of the Nico Project (North-West Territories), The Sivumut Project (Quebec), Squamish Nation Woodfibre LNG Project (British Columbia). These all address governance and co-management of resources, but have different relationship models: the Tlicho of the Nico Project is co-managed, the Sivu- mut Project co-developed, and Squamish Nation Woodfibre LNG Project is independent. As they all are about utilization of natural resources (mining and natural gas), and sustainable development, they are included in the economy indicator here.  The Science and Education indicator is not explicitly discussed in the Gwich’in Impact Assessment, but is implicit, given that the document is a study with methods and an ambitious re- search approach.

To sum up

The Impact Assessment in the Arctic: Emerging Practices of Indig- enous-Led Review report by the Gwich’in Council International is first of all a study—and an interesting one—on environmen- tal impact assessments, and in particular on Indigenous-led im-

pact assessment. Thus, it is also a study on self-governance and self-determination, how governance is interpreted, and how this plays a more important role in the globalized Arctic region, and possibly in world politics, too. Therefore, the document does not cover, nor is it intended to cover, most of the indicators of this overall analysis. The content of the report is, however, rich and includes both theoretical approaches and case studies. Its value is to examine, discuss and define environmental impact assessment, in particular Indigenous-led, through three case studies with different relationship models: co-managing, co-de- velopment, and independently run. Indeed, this report is more than a study of environmental impact assessment in a changing Arctic influenced by grand environmental challenges and big international/global actors from outside of the region. It is also an important contribution and presentation from Indigenous peoples’ perspectives to discuss, brainstorm, and (re)define self-governance/self-determination in general, and good prac- tices on impact assessment in the global Arctic, in particular.

Inuit Circumpolar Council

The Inuit Arctic Policy of the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) was adopted in 2010 (ICC 2010) and is currently in its third edition. The 121-page information-rich policy document (in- cluding pictures) was edited and revised by Aqqaluk Lynge and Marianne Stenbaek. It has eight sections: I. Goals and Objec- tives; II. Inuit Rights, Peace and Security Issues; III. Environ- mental Issues; IV. Social Issues; V. Cultural Issues; VI. Economic Issues; VII. Educational and Scientific Issues; VIII. Implementa- tion and Appendixes.

Another important ICC document is the Utqiagvik Declaration 2018 (ICC 2018), consisting of 13 pages (with no pictures) by the Inuit of Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and Chukotka, presented at the 13th _{General Assembly of the Inuit Circumpolar Council on}

16–19 July 2018 in Utqiagvik, Alaska. The main themes/sub-ti- tles are: International Indigenous Human Rights and Interna- tional Partnerships; Food Security; Families and Youth; Health and Wellness; Education and Language; Indigenous Knowledge; Sustainable Wildlife Management; Environment; Sustainable Development’ and Communication and Capacity Building. A General Assembly of the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) is held every fourth year. There are thus several Inuit declara- tions available, such as the Kitigaaryuit Declaration of July 2014 (ICC 2014), the Nuuk Declaration of July 2010, and the Utqiag- vik Declaration of 2006 (ICC 2006). Better known, however, is A Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Sovereignty in the Arctic, adopted by the ICC in April 2019 (ICC 2009), and inspired, per- haps even provoked, by the Illulissat Ministerial meeting and Declaration of May 2008.

In the 2018 Utqiagvik Declaration, the (Re)mapping and (Re) defining the Arctic indicator clearly defines, or redefines, the Arctic region by explaining the Inuit as “one Arctic people liv- ing in four nations across Inuit Nunaat, our shared homeland, that today encompasses northern Alaska, Chukotka, Canada,

and Greenland” (ICC 2018, 1). The Declaration continues that the Arctic region “poses extreme challenges to connectivity and [that] overcoming these challenges requires political will and in- frastructure” (2018, 10); “Inuit are more connected today than ever before due to the advent of the internet and social media” (2018, 11). Finally, “ICC will pursue novel initiatives that foster greater social, cultural, and political exchange between Inuit re- gions in order to enrich Inuit cooperation and unity” (2018, 12). The 2010 Inuit Arctic Policy (ICC 2010) makes a more politi- cal definition of the region arguing that “the Arctic is the Inu- it Homeland and has been inhabited by Inuit for thousands of years” (Inuit Arctic Policy 2010, 26). Hence “Inuit and other Arc- tic Indigenous peoples are ancient societies using and occupying vast traditional territories which pre-date the creation of modern states” (2010, 21). The “Inuit own or have jurisdiction over half the entire Arctic… [and] we are, in fact, the largest landholders in the world [and] The Arctic has been our home and our suste- nance for centuries” (2010, 9). “The Arctic is first and foremost the ancestral homeland of Inuit and other northern peoples” (2010, 22). Overall, the Arctic region and sub-Arctic areas, as well as the entire northern circumpolar world, is said by the Pol- icy to “form a single region in which many states and peoples are found. This region includes the Inuit homeland (Inuit Nunaat), which transcends the geographical boundaries [of the region] (2010, 21) and given that a “large part of the Arctic Ocean is contiguous to Inuit Nunaat, Inuit should therefore be consulted” [on all relevant issues] (2010, 45).

The 2010 Inuit Policy also discusses changes in the Arctic. “The Inuit world has changed profoundly… [and] Inuit Nunaat, our homeland, has become a major force in international and na- tional politics, in climate change research and science, in culture and arts, in minority human rights and models of Indigenous self-government. Arctic Sovereignty is one of our main concerns and is now also an international concern” (2010, 9). Finally, that “The Inuit Circumpolar Council and its Arctic Policy principles have played an important role in this development” (2010, 9). Concerning the Human Dimension indicator the 2010 Policy clearly states how critical it is that “Inuit be recognized and re- ferred to both nationally and internationally as a distinct ‘peo- ple.’ Inuit are not mere ‘populations’ or ‘minorities’” (2010, 13). In recognition of their distinctness, the seventh of November each year has been proclaimed ‘Inuit Day’ (2010, 11). The 2010 Policy further clarifies: “The Inuit are an integral part of Arctic ecosystems in harmony with… the dynamic processes of Arc- tic ecosystems” (2010, 34). In terms of Inuit history, “Inuit and other Arctic Indigenous peoples are ancient societies using and occupying vast traditional territories which pre-date the creation of modern states. These first inhabitants of the Arctic have their own laws, customs, institutions, cultures and rights which also pre-date those of Arctic states” (2010, 21). “The archaeological record of the Arctic is the history of Inuit and other northern Indigenous peoples” (2010, 73), but “people have underestimat- ed our adaptability and resilience. We were a rag-tag and young group of Inuit… but we were determined” (2010, 9).

Correspondingly, the 2018 Declaration reaffirms that “Inuit are one Arctic people living in four nations across Inuit Nunaat, our shared homeland” (2018, 1).

The 2010 Policy includes requests to both the Inuit Circum- polar Council (ICC) and to Arctic states regarding subsistence rights. “An Inuit Arctic Policy must recognize that Indigenous ‘subsistence’ is a highly complex notion” (2010, 29) [and the] ICC shall be greatly encouraged to undertake a comprehensive study on how best to address global forces, such as the ‘animal rights’ and other destructive movements that aim to destroy In- uit sustainable use of living resources” (2010, 82). This matter is seen as consistent with the “principles of self-government, [given that] Inuit and other Arctic peoples should have direct input in the formulation and implementation of Arctic co-oper- ation agreements” (2010, 22). On the other hand, Arctic States “should recognize that Inuit have the right to engage in tradi- tional contacts and in all forms of cooperation, including eco- nomic and social exchanges, and travel and trade across state and other boundaries” (2010, 88), and “trade among themselves regardless of national jurisdictions or boundaries” (2010, 81). The issue of ‘Inuit rights’ is an important part of the 2010 Poli- cy, both in general and at the national level (see the chapter on ‘Inuit Rights, Peace and Security Issues’). Nationally, the Inuit as “distinct Indigenous peoples… have both fundamental col- lective and individual [basic] rights”… [that] “must be guar- anteed in the national legal system of their respective states” (2010, 13) “across the circumpolar regions, including marine areas, and [that] transcend the national boundaries of Arctic states” (2010, 13). In general, the 2010 Policy strongly states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fun- damental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and inter- national human rights law[s]” (2010, 21). The 2018 Declaration correspondingly reaffirms “that the rights to lands, resources and territories and the right of self-determination [recognized and] affirmed by the United Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) [as an international human rights instrument], applies to our entire homeland, including lands, waters, ice, air space and resources” (2018, 1). Indeed, the 2018 Declaration goes back to the very roots of the ICC—“con- cern for the security and integrity of the Arctic environment prompted the establishment of ICC” as “the first non-govern- mental organization to call for the precautionary principle and vocalize the human rights dimension of the implications and impacts of a rapidly changing Arctic environment” (2018, 9). The 2010 Policy states that some of these human rights exist to “protect and promote Inuit rights and status within each state” (2010, 13). In pursuit of these rights, “Inuit must seek to obtain full participation in all national and governmental discussions and major issues affecting Inuit interests” (2010, 13) which “not only ensures recognition and respect for Inuit rights and inter- ests, but also protects the human and other fundamental rights and freedoms” (2010, 11). The 2018 Declaration echoes this opinion in terms of supporting Inuit “rights and self-determina-

tion on wildlife management issues” (2018, 8) and of directing the ICC “to participate collectively and strategically to ensure the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) action plans sup- port and enhance monitoring and sustainable use of Arctic bio- diversity” (2018, 8). Furthermore, Inuit aim to “exchange infor- mation amongst ourselves to build capacity regarding human rights instruments and apply them to co-management regimes and other governance bodies to advance our food sovereignty and self-governance of land, wildlife and ecosystems” (2018, 8). It should be recognized that “there is a profound relationship between human rights, peace and development” (2010, 20) in “formulating a comprehensive Inuit Arctic Policy” (2010, 9). This is because, on the one hand, these rights “are considered as individual and collective rights [including both] rights and du- ties” (2010, 20), and on the other, “severe economic disparities and human rights violations can pose a threat to world peace” while “peaceful relationships and peace are generally vital fac- tors in striving towards social progress and development” (2010, 20). Regarding Inuit subsistence rights, these include “hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering” (2010, 29), being “both col- lective and individual in nature. Inuit rights to harvest flora and fauna… are not limited to traditionally harvested species” (2010, 29). The feasibility of creating an “Arctic Environmental Bill of Rights” should be studied in this context (2010, 28). The 2010 Policy also states that “The harvesting practices of Inuit are a crucial part of their ancestral rights and tradi- tions” (2010, 30). And this economic self-sufficiency also in- cludes a reference to the problems Inuit encounter regarding “animal rights groups” (2010, 33). The ICC is asked to “rep- resent Inuit by promoting their rights and protecting their interests” in relevant international organizations, such as WIPO, the EU, NAFTA, IWC, IUCN, WTO (2010, 82). Ac- cording to the 2018 Declaration “elements of an overall strat- egy to counter international anti-harvest and animal rights groups would include [for example].... securing of expanded markets for products of Indigenous harvesting” (2010, 33). According to the 2010 Policy, rights are also connected to access to resources. For example, the document explains that “Inuit have the right to manage Arctic renewable resources including hydro-power” (2010, 29) and have “extensive rights in inland water areas within their traditional territories, as outlined in agreements with their respective nation states” (2010, 39). They should also “be involved in all aspects of economic development in order to enjoy such fundamental human rights as the right to work and the right to an adequate standard of living” (2010, 79). The 2010 Policy also speaks to issues of children’s rights. In par- ticular, “in ensuring that the rights of Inuit children are clearly recognized, it is beneficial to determine what children’s rights