MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3100563657

Synthesis Report: Implementing a Regional, Indigenous-Led and Sustainability-Informed Impact Assessment in Ontario’s Ring of Fire

2020· article· en· W3100563657 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dayna Nadine Scott, Cole Atlin, Estair Van Wagner, Peter Siebenmorgan, Robert Gibson

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of WaterlooYork University
FundersStrong
KeywordsGeographyIndigenousSustainabilityVariety (cybernetics)Political scienceEnvironmental planningBusinessNatural resource economicsEconomic growthEcologyEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: the issue \nDevelopment in Ontario’s “Ring of Fire”, a significant deposit of minerals, including chromite, located in the boreal region of the far north of the province, has been on the table for many years. Despite the fact that successive governments have hyped the value of the resources, the remoteness and lack of infrastructure, as well as the inability of governments to obtain the buy-in of all of the First Nations communities in the region, has left the Ring of Fire undeveloped.\nThus, Ontario’s far north remains one of the world’s largest, most intact ecological systems. The boreal forest and peatlands play key roles in regulating the climate. Proposed mining in this region has generated significant controversy and conflict because the potential for wealth generation is accompanied by the potential for significant and possibly serious negative impacts and cumulative effects, as recently-proposed infrastructure developments quite literally ‘pave the way’ for multiple mines and generations of extraction. The proposals also present a likelihood of inequitably distributed benefits and risks at a variety of physical and temporal scales, with remote Anishinaabe and Anishini communities and their ways of life particularly vulnerable in this regard. These communities are already experiencing an ongoing state of social emergency with youth suicide, addiction and housing crises, as well as a persistent lack of essential community infrastructure, including safe drinking water.\nFor many years, analysts and First Nations leaders have been calling for a regional process in order to broadly assess the expected impacts of the proposed developments in the Ring of Fire. They have noted the complexity of the contemplated infrastructure decisions, the potential for lasting negative impacts, and vast cumulative effects. And yet, without this framework in place, provincial and federal impact assessment (IA) regimes are currently proceeding to assess two individual road proposals that threaten to open the region up to mining.\nObjectives \nWith this research, our team has synthesized knowledge across a range of areas, including Indigenous-led IA, regional and strategic approaches to IA, and the use of gender-based analysis plus in IA, and applied it to the example of Ontario’s Ring of Fire. In doing so, our primary aim has been to develop, test, and propose a workable plan for how such an approach could be adopted in the specific context of Ontario’s Far North.\nMethodology \nOur team began with a period of background preparation and literature review, including following the developments in the region over the fall months, including the progression of the project-level assessments that were being conducted at the federal and provincial levels for the Marten Falls Community Access Road and the Webequie Supply Road. The PI conducted a community visit, workshop and some interviews in collaboration with Neskantaga First Nation in November 2019. Subsequent to that visit, the team collaboratively prepared three draft models for how a regional IA could be implemented in partnership with an Indigenous\nGoverning Authority (IGA) in the region.\nThe team convened a day-long meeting with 14 community representatives, elders and leaders from Neskantaga First Nation in Thunder Bay on January 23, 2020 to discuss, debate and refine the models. The discussion was audio-recorded with permission, transcribed and coded. From there, the team finalized our recommendations and began drafting this report.\nKey messages\nThe key messages communicated to us by knowledge holders, elders, and leadership in the community engagement sessions included:\n• The people in the communities are the real authority; the grassroots and the elders must be heard for any process to be legitimate;\n• The appropriate Indigenous Governing Authority (IGA) must be a collective of affected First Nations, rather than one of the existing tribal councils or regional organizations, such as NAN or Matawa (on the basis of ecological connectivity and socio-cultural impacts related to probable infrastructure locations);\n• An Elders Advisory Council should be an integral element at all stages of decision-making;\n• The ongoing state of social emergency must be addressed first, before new projects can be adequately considered. Communities must be satisfied that any potential new projects or infrastructure will mitigate the crises, and enhance long-term social, cultural and ecological sustainability; and,\n• Any regional approaches need to provide a framework that can effectively guide project-level assessments and approvals, which in turn lead into community-level consent processes, in line with local protocols.\nResults\nThe recommended model includes a semi-permanent Ring of Fire Commission to be established by agreement between the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change and an Indigenous Governing Authority made up of impacted and interested First Nations. The Commission, in conjunction with an Elder Advisory Council, should develop a framework for cumulative effects; baseline data (including on the ongoing social emergency); criteria for a modified ‘positive contribution to sustainability’ test; and a regional plan. Under the umbrella of the Commission, we recommend a joint panel review process for making subsequent decisions about individual projects proposed for the region, within the parameters established by the Commission. Decisions on individual projects will subsequently be made independently by each relevant governing authority.\nFor more information, contact Professor Dayna Nadine Scott, dscott@osgoode.yorku.ca

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207