Application. Joint Planning on Haida Gwaii

Joint land use planning between Indigenous Nations and the Provincial Government can lead to agreements that include provisions to protect natural areas and specific policies related to mineral development.  These policies can include land use plans that are the result of reconciling existing provincial and Indigenous plans or of a new joint planning exercise.

The Haida Nation has a history of joint management.  In 1985, the Haida declared Gwaii Haanas a protected heritage site and, in 1993, agreed to a co-management strategy with Parks Canada.  In 2010, the Haida Nation established a Marine Conservation Area Reserve that is co-managed with Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

In the initial phases of the provincial government-led Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) process for Haida Gwaii, the Haida Nation rejected the proposed process and, instead, insisted on a government-to-government decision-making model, where representatives of the Council of the Haida Nation would co-chair the planning process alongside the Province of British Columbia (BC).  This process led to the signing of the General Protocol Agreement on Land Use Planning and Interim Measures.  This protocol established measures for collaborative engagement between the two parties and an ecosystem-based management (EBM) framework to guide management strategies.

The Community Planning Forum (CPF) was the primary means to carry out discussions.  The first meeting was held in September, 2003.  The CPF consisted of 29 participants who represented the Haida Nation, local governments, the provincial government, non-governmental organisations, and business organisations.

An early step in the process was for the Council of the Haida Nation to develop a land use vision, the Haida Land Use Vision, which was presented to the CPF and finalised in 2005.  This vision represents a balance of ecological, cultural, and economic interests.  The vision was adopted by all representatives of the Planning Table except the forest industry.  The Province held a neutral position.

During the creation of the Recommendations Report, which was developed through a 17-month process, a consensus-based agreement was not reached on a preferred scenario for EBM.  Instead, the CPF representatives considered “viewpoints.”  Votes were taken on these Viewpoints for each area element of the EBM framework.  Where disagreement was more widespread, differing management recommendations are organised into opposing ‘perspectives.’  The tumultuous nature of the planning process, as described by Takeda and Røpke,^[1] involved widespread mistrust, civil disobedience, and political subterfuge.  As the authors state, this level of disagreement is far from the academic tendency to “regard collaborative planning processes in terms of…an idealised win-win outcome”^[2]; close scrutiny reveals that the joint land use planning process was anything but amiable.

As of April, 2006, areas of disagreement still need to be resolved, including the extent of new protected areas and of watersheds where mining is restricted. You are required to consider these two outstanding items.

Considerations

Your decision requires careful evaluation of a variety of historical, cultural, socio-economic, and environmental factors.  While a comprehensive analysis of mineral reserves in Haida Gwaii is beyond the scope of your contract, some important points to consider are:

• For the last 20 years (~1990-2010), Haida Gwaii has seen virtually no mining exploration, due in part to significant land use uncertainty and generalised opposition among island residents to large-scale mineral developments.  Previously, the mining industry had played a larger role in contributing to the Haida Gwaii economy.  Provincially, mineral exploration was also suppressed through the 1990s.
• A 2004 report, Revitalizing British Columbia’s Coastal Economy: A New Economic Vision for North and Central Coast and Haida Gwaii, describes the mineral potential for the area as “low.”  In addition, the report notes that past mines operating on the island have provided only a small economic benefit to nearby communities, while imposing significant environmental and social costs.
• A 2006 report, Socio-Economic Assessment of Haida Gwaii / Queen Charlotte Islands Land Use Viewpoints, argues that Haida Gwaii contains a disproportionate percentage of mineral resources, with roughly 3% of the province’s high/very high mineral potential within just 1% of the land base.  In addition, due to its physical proximity to foreign markets, Haida Gwaii is thought to have a competitive advantage regarding transportation.
• A robust mining industry requires large areas of available land for exploration purposes.  While the value of undeveloped deposits is unknown, lands withdrawn from disposition may have a negative economic impact for Haida Gwaii.
• Compensation costs for expropriation of existing mineral tenures are substantial.  These costs are to be minimised wherever possible.
• The options being considered are consistent with the Viewpoints and Perspectives stated in the Recommendations Report.  The options for PAs are based on the Agreements and Viewpoints outlined in section 3.1.1 Protected Areas of the Recommendations Report.  The options for NWMs are based on Perspectives outlined in section 3.3.6 Minerals of the Recommendations Report.  For additional details, refer to the socio-economic assessment completed by Pierce Lefebvre Consulting.
• The proposed PAs and NMWs outlined below are separate areas; there is no overlap of geographic areas between them.

Each of the options being considered for PAs and NMWs is summarised below.^[3]  First, a summary of projected impacts on mining activity is provided in Table 1.

Table 1.  Summary of Impacts of Options on Mining Activity

Negotiating position of the Council of the Haida Nation

The Council of the Haida Nation is committed to realising the PA2/NMW2 options (see below) as outlined in the Haida Land Use Vision.  These two options are consistent with the Haida Land Use Vision and are strongly advocated by the Council of the Haida Nation.  The Council anticipates that any deviation from this vision will result in significant litigation expenses,^[4] as well as economic losses resulting from continued land use uncertainty.

Negotiating position of the mining industry

Industry representatives argue that any increase in protected areas and no-mining watershed reserves beyond current management agreements will irrevocably compromise mining viability on the island.

Summary of options for protected areas (PAs)

The two options being considered for protected areas include ‘protected area 1’ (PA1) and ‘protected area 2’ (PA2).  The extent of the land base for each option is presented in Table 2.  These options are consistent with Viewpoints 1 and 2, respectively.

Table 2.  Protected Area Options

The estimated impacts of the options on areas identified as having potential for mineral exploration are provided in Table 3.  These areas are identified as having either high or very high potential for mining.

Table 3.  Protected Areas Options:  Impacts on Metallic Mineral Potential

The extent to which the land base for each protected area option overlaps with pre-existing mineral tenure is outlined in Table 4.

Table 4.  Protected Areas Options:  Impacts on Metallic Mineral Tenure

Summary of options for no-mining watershed reserves (NMWs)

The three options being considered for designation of important watersheds as reserves are ‘current management’, ‘no-mining watershed reserve #1’ (NMW1), and ‘no-mining watershed reserve #2’ (NMW2), as presented in Table 5.  No-mining watershed reserves are consistent with the intent of restricting mineral rights through available legislation.  These NMWs are in addition to the PAs.

Table 5.  Watershed Reserve Options

The estimated impacts of the options on areas identified as having potential for mineral exploration are provided in Table 6.  These areas are identified as having either high or very high potential for mining.

Table 6.  Watershed Reserve Options:  Impacts on Metallic Mineral Potential

The extent to which the land base for each no-mining watershed reserve option overlaps with pre-existing mineral tenure is outlined in Table 7.

Table 7.  Watershed Reserve Options:  Impacts on Metallic Mineral Tenure