Leveraging impact assessment for satisfactory project outcomes: benefits of early planning and participatory decision-making

ABSTRACT

This article demonstrates to proponents that adopting good practices early in the impact assessment process can help to achieve positive project outcomes. Drawing from a case study of the Adaptive Phased Management Project proposed by Canada’s Nuclear Waste Management Organization, we show ways in which impact assessment can be leveraged to achieve beneficial outcomes for interested parties through early planning that includes a commitment to transparency and participatory engagement. A considerable benefit of the approach we outline is the establishment of good relationships between stakeholders, rights-holders, and the proponent, which facilitate dialogue regarding the goals of each party and how implementing the project can help to achieve them. Examples of stakeholder, Indigenous community, and proponent collaboration during early planning for the regulatory approval process, including legislated impact assessment, of a multi-billion dollar infrastructure project with an extended timeline are provided.

KEYWORDS:

• Community participation
• decision-making
• early planning
• impact assessment
• indigenous knowledge
• waste management

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to encourage proponents to adopt good practices in impact assessment by demonstrating how this facilitates achieving positive project outcomes for interested parties. It is no secret some proponents view impact assessment as a regulatory hurdle that must be cleared so they may get on with their project (Pope et al. 2013; Morrison-Saunders et al. 2015). As such, impact assessments for single projects are routinely presented to those who may be most affected as a fait accompli, without meaningful opportunities to shape studies, conduct analyses, or interpret the findings in a manner that influences how and why a project is undertaken. This often leads to a process that is unsatisfactory for all involved, including proponents (Curran and M’Gonigle 1999; Muir 2018; Eckert et al. 2020).

We submit that when proponents apply good practice principles (e.g., IAIA 1999; Gibson 2006; Bond et al. 2012; Gibson et al. 2016; Gélinas et al. 2017; Fischer et al. 2019), then what might be considered a fruitless exercise in issuing permission(s) can become a collaborative process that results in better projects and greater satisfaction in surrounding communities (Seaborn et al. 1998; Morrison-Saunders et al. 2015; Noble 2016; TNC 2017; IAEA 2018). This article argues, by way of case study of Canada’s plan for the long-term management of its used nuclear fuel inventory, that impact assessment can be leveraged to achieve beneficial outcomes for stakeholders, Indigenous communities, and proponents by using early planning (Gélinas et al. 2017; IAEA 2018; IAAC 2019) and a holistic approach (Bond et al. 2012; Tengö et al. 2014; Noble 2016) that incorporate transparent evaluation factors (Tengö et al. 2014; Erhlich and Ross 2015; MacKinnon et al. 2018) and participatory engagement (IAIA 1999; Bond et al. 2012; Gibson et al. 2016; Gélinas et al. 2017; IAEA 2018; Fischer et al. 2019; Bice 2020).

The authors bring over 20 years of collective experience with the project (as members of the proponent organization) to bear on this case study. We have directly engaged with potentially affected stakeholders and rights-holders, and are actively undertaking impact assessment studies that focus on the priorities of the people most likely to be affected by the project while ensuring regulatory requirements are met.

Background

The process to implement a long-term strategy for the management of radioactive waste in Canada has a long history beginning with the recommendation of underground disposal for nuclear wastes in 1977 (Hare et al. 1977). This recommendation was echoed shortly afterward by a concurrent Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning (Porter 1978, 1980). An Environmental Assessment of the Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL) concept of geological disposal in the Canadian Shield,¹ commonly referred to as the Seaborn Panel, was initiated in 1989. Ten years later, the Seaborn Panel concluded the AECL concept was scientifically sound, but the proponent had not demonstrated broad public support. A recommendation of the Seaborn Panel was the creation of an agency to study options for the long-term management of used nuclear fuel in Canada (Seaborn et al. 1998).

In 2002, the Government of Canada, through the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, assigned this responsibility to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), and required the NWMO to manage all nuclear fuel waste produced in Canada subject to regulatory requirements, including impact assessment. The NWMO operates as a not-for-profit under the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, and was established in accordance with the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act by Canada’s nuclear fuel waste owners: Ontario Power Generation, Hydro-Québec, and New Brunswick Power Corporation. These organizations, along with AECL, are mandated to fund the NWMO’s operations. The NWMO is governed by a Board of Directors, and is subject to oversight by Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources. We receive ongoing advice from the Advisory Council, an independent body established under the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act. The NWMO contributes to reporting by the Government of Canada at meetings of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management to demonstrate Canada is meeting international commitments to safely manage radioactive waste and used nuclear fuel.

Adaptive Phased Management

Currently, used nuclear fuel is safely stored on an interim basis near or at sites where it was produced in facilities licensed by the national regulator – the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). Canadians have made clear it is important to develop a long-term management strategy for Canada’s used nuclear fuel, and not leave the problem for future generations (NWMO 2005). Canada’s plan, known as Adaptive Phased Management (APM), emerged from a three-year dialogue with both specialists and the general public in Canada (Box 1). The end point of the technical method is the centralized containment and isolation of Canada’s used fuel in a deep geological repository in an area with suitable geology. The plan is guided by the values and objectives Canadians indicated were important for decision-making about managing used nuclear fuel (NWMO 2005). The federal government selected APM as Canada’s plan in June 2007. It is consistent with long-term management best practices adopted by other countries with nuclear power programs, including Finland, France, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom (NWMO 2018a). Since 2010, the NWMO has been engaged in a multi-year, community-driven, site selection process to identify a site where Canada’s used nuclear fuel can be safely contained and isolated in a deep geological repository. The site selection process is grounded in a set of guiding principles that reflect Canadians’ values and concerns such as prioritizing safety, being inclusive and fair, and respecting Indigenous rights (NWMO 2010). Table 1 shows the overall timeline for the project.

Table 1. APM Project history and timeline estimates for future milestones

Developing Canada’s Plan	2002	The NWMO is created.
	2005	The NWMO completes three-year study with interested individuals, including specialists, Indigenous peoples and the Canadian public.
	2007	Government of Canada selects APM and mandates the NWMO to begin implementation.
Developing the siting process	2008 to 2009	Work takes place with citizens to design a process for selecting a preferred central site for the deep geologic repository.
Identifying a site using the siting process	2010	The siting process is initiated.
	2010 to 2013	Twenty-two communities initially express interest. In collaboration with interested communities, the NWMO conducts initial screenings.
	2012 to 2015	Preliminary studies are initiated to further assess suitability. Areas with less potential to meet project requirements are removed from further consideration.
	2015 to 2023	The NWMO expands assessment to include field studies. Areas with less potential are removed from further consideration.
		2017 Initial borehole drilling begins.
		2020 Two communities remain in the site selection process.
		2020 to 2023 Narrowing down process and subsurface studies continue.
	2023	A single preferred site is identified.
Impact Assessment and Licensing (timelines for regulatory approvals determined by legislative framework)	2023–2026	Impact assessment studies are submitted and approved in accordance with the Impact Assessment Act. License to Prepare Site application is submitted and granted in accordance with the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.
	2028–2032	Construction licence application is submitted and granted in accordance with the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. The application seeks approval for the design of the nuclear facilities the NWMO will build.
Construction and Operations	2033	The NWMO starts construction for the repository and associated surface facilities at the selected site.
	2043	The NWMO begins transportation and emplacement of Canada’s used nuclear fuel in the deep geological repository.
	2088	Post-operations commence. The NWMO monitors the site for about 70 years and then starts decommissioning it.

Together, municipalities, Indigenous communities, and the NWMO are working towards the partnership required for the project to proceed beyond the site selection phase. This is being achieved through dedicated grassroots engagement over more than a decade to identify priorities for the people who will be most impacted by the APM Project. Engagement activities have increasingly become centred on partnership, willingness, and how the project could contribute to community well-being. In 2019, communities and the NWMO began working together to develop a shared vision of the project for areas continuing in the site selection process. This shared vision reflects on how the project might best fit with the community and area, and its potential to help advance towards a future envisioned by those who live there (NWMO 2020a). Addressing social, economic, and cultural objectives of communities is essential to demonstrating project fit and to laying the foundation for the sustainable and resilient partnerships needed for the implementation of the project. Community visioning (e.g., Martil and McCulloch 2020) is one meaningful benefit of participating in early planning for impact assessment. A diverse group of people are having the opportunity to explore, collectively, what it is they want for themselves and their community regarding the natural environment, infrastructure, character and culture of the community, and economic and financial considerations. This will help people decide whether hosting the project would bring them closer to achieving their vision. The APM Project is expected to result in 23 CAD B (2015 dollars) in expenditures over 150 years, contributing to the economic and social well-being of communities that are in proximity to the site (NWMO 2020a), although the economic incentive is only one facet of impact that must be considered. The expression of a community’s vision of its future, gained through these early planning studies, is useful in understanding how the project can support the achievement of that vision, and as a template for progressive planning regardless of whether a community hosts the project. This could include, for example, improved understanding of how to best plan for and accommodate community growth, what educational and recreational programs are highest priority to retain and attract youth in the area, opportunities to collaborate in the implementation of new technologies that would enhance existing local households and industries, and how to sustain those intangible values and cultural practices that contribute most strongly to community cohesion.

While many benefits can be achieved through hosting, the project may contribute to social and economic pressures that will need to be managed to ensure the area’s long-term well-being and sustainability. For example, it is essential communities near the selected site are equipped to manage an influx of project workers. The NWMO is committed to continuing engagement with communities to fully understand what assistance, such as job training, affordable housing, and infrastructure investment, is necessary. Also, given the health and environmental risks associated with exposure to radioactive materials, stigma may occur regardless of the strong safety case (NWMO 2017a, 2018b; IAEA 2018; Fischer et al. 2019; Vanclay 2020). We have learned through engagement this risk is amplified for Indigenous communities considering their strong connection to the land and their stewardship responsibilities to protect Mother Earth (Barnaby and Emery 2008; NWMO 2016, 2020a). The NWMO is supporting communities in developing their own narrative as to why they are participating in site selection and how the project can help them achieve their vision of the future based on their own values, which is a considerable benefit for communities involved in this early planning for impact assessment. Continuing to work with interested municipalities, First Nation and Métis communities, and others in the area as they reflect on the potential environmental, social, cultural, and economic effects of hosting Canada’s plan helps ensure a wide range of potential effects, some that are positive and some that may be areas of concern, are recognized and considered (NWMO 2020b).

Table

Box 1 Selecting Adaptive Phased Management: A Three-year Study The purpose of the NWMO is to develop and implement, collaboratively with Canadians, a management approach for the long-term care of Canada’s used nuclear fuel that is socially acceptable, technically sound, environmentally responsible and economically feasible. The NWMO was required to study at least three technical options for long-term nuclear waste management: ● deep geological disposal in the Canadian Shield (updated AECL concept) ● continued storage at nuclear reactor sites (where used fuel is currently safely stored) ● centralized storage, above or below ground, anywhere in Canada The three-year study was an iterative process, responsive to expectations expressed by citizens, and supported by three milestone documents, each followed by a round of public engagement: ● Asking The Right Questions: described the issue; proposed key questions to assess the options; invited comment ● Understanding the Choices: described the management options; outlined the assessment framework; presented a preliminary assessment for discussion ● Draft Study Report: proposed a fourth option – Adaptive Phased Management; invites further dialogue to refine the recommendation The assessment process incorporated technical considerations provided by specialists, and social and ethical considerations that emerged from dialogue with citizens. More than 18,000 citizens contributed to the NWMO study, including more than 500 specialists in natural and social sciences and technical disciplines. Notably, 2,500 Indigenous people participated in dialogues organized and delivered by 15 national, regional and local Indigenous organizations. Eight objectives emerged from dialogue: fairness, public health and safety; worker health and safety; environmental integrity; security, community well-being, economic viability and adaptability. Through the study process, two important requirements became evident: ● the approach must be safe and secure for people, communities, and the environment; and ● it must be fair, both to current and future generations. The recommendation that emerged from the NWMO study was outlined in Choosing a Way Forward – The Future Management of Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel (Final Study), issued in November 2005 ([NWMO] Nuclear Waste Management Organization 2005). It is both a technical approach and a management system with the following key attributes: ● Ultimate centralized containment and isolation in an appropriate geological formation ● Phased and adaptive decision-making ● Optional shallow storage at the central site as a contingency ● Continuous monitoring ● Provision for retrievability ● Citizen engagement

Policy Context

Once a site is selected, and the NWMO has formed an effective partnership that could be maintained throughout the 100+ year timeline of the APM Project (NWMO 2015), an impact assessment under the Impact Assessment Act will be required. In the newly adopted Impact Assessment Act the federal government of Canada has confirmed that impact assessment is intended to be an early planning tool that promotes sustainability, and also supports decision-making by regulators, rights-holders, Indigenous peoples, local land users, and other stakeholders (IAAC 2019). Indigenous peoples in Canada hold Aboriginal and Treaty rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act. Because of these constitutionally protected rights, the Canadian impact assessment process requires special consideration of Indigenous interests as directed in subsection 22(1) of the Impact Assessment Act. For this reason, special attention has been given to Indigenous peoples throughout this article.

Early Planning for Impact Assessment

The site selection process is designed to identify a site that ensures safety and security of people and the environment, and contributes to their well-being, hence sustainability, by meeting high scientific and ethical standards. The NWMO is following a dialogue-driven approach underpinned by safety, fairness, participatory engagement, and shared decision-making that includes plural values. Fundamental to the process is the understanding that the APM Project will only proceed with the involvement of the interested community, First Nation and Métis communities in the area, and surrounding communities, working together to implement it (NWMO 2010, 2020b). A foundational component of the NWMO’s approach is interweaving Indigenous Knowledge with western science in a trustworthy and respectful manner as part of informed decision-making (NWMO 2016).

The ultimate goal of the site selection process is to build confidence² the chosen site can meet accepted safety standards, and to achieve the necessary partnership prior to triggering legislated impact assessment and licensing. From 2010 to 2012, 22 communities in two Canadian provinces expressed their interest in participating (Figure 1). The site selection process comprises a series of steps, which are described in detail on the NWMO’s website. The first step involved the NWMO formally launching site selection after which a local community could voluntarily agree to join the process. Immediately following that agreement, a high-level screening for ‘showstoppers’ was undertaken by the NWMO (Step 2). One community did not pass this initial high-level screening due to the unsuitability of the local geology. Upon completion of Step 2, communities were given the option to continue to Step 3 (Preliminary Assessments of Suitability), which employs the participatory approach described in the article. In 2013, we began to fairly and efficiently evaluate the potential for the 21 communities that voluntarily decided to continue with preliminary assessments of suitability (Step 3) to one day host the APM Project consistent with early planning for impact assessment. The NWMO has 35 individual learning agreements in place with communities and organizations (NWMO 2020a). As to be expected when following a community-driven process, there are differences in application and pace that reflect the priorities and concerns of each specific community. Technical, social, and cultural considerations, including Indigenous community concerns, are considered when concluding siting studies in a particular area. As of August 2020, two regions remain in the siting process. These include one municipality in a crystalline rock setting (Ignace) and one municipality in a sedimentary rock setting (South Bruce).

Figure 1. As of August 2020, two of the original 22 communities that expressed interest in the site selection process for Adaptive Phased Management continue to be assessed

The NWMO recognized it was important to have ongoing impartial advice on both participatory engagement and scientific investigations. Accordingly, independent advisors and expert bodies were established to provide guidance and review on technical, social, and Indigenous matters (Table 2).

Table 2. Independent advisory groups commissioned by the NWMO to provide strategic advice and technical review of the implementation of Adaptive Phased Management

Independent Advisory Body	Mandate
Council of Elders and Youth^a	advisory body comprising Indigenous Elders and youth provides counsel on the application of Indigenous Knowledge in the implementation of the APM Project advises on importance of developing and maintaining respectful and good relationships with Indigenous peoples
Environment Review Group	internationally recognized experts in biodiversity, lands and resources management, and professional practice of impact assessment provides independent expert advice and guidance on environmental programs, Indigenous Knowledge, and impact assessment planning
Geoscientific Review Group	internationally recognized experts in geoscience disciplines reviews NWMO’s geoscience and siting plans, ensuring technical work consistently meets best practice standards
Independent Technical Review Group^b	internationally recognized specialists with significant experience in technologies associated with implementing used nuclear fuel geologic repositories^b
Municipal Forum	assembly of municipal association representatives with experience and expertise on municipal issues and challenges advises the NWMO to incorporate good practices when communicating with local governments and associations

^aThe Council of Elders grew from the Elders Forum, a previous advisory group that was in place between 2005 and 2012. During a traditional ceremony, former members of the Elders Forum were honoured. They were thanked for their years of advice and thoughtful assistance to the NWMO, and to Indigenous organizations and communities involved in the NWMO’s work.

^bThe Independent Technical Review Group (ITRG) was established in 2008 and completed its mandate in 2013. Following completion of the ITRG, the NWMO coordinates independent input into its work through assembling groups of experts with relevant subject matter expertise (e.g., Environment Review Group; Geoscientific Review Group).

Recent themes of the Council of Elders and Youth’s discussions with the NWMO resulted in the issuing of two key documents that guide all work the NWMO undertakes: an Indigenous Knowledge Policy (NWMO 2016); and a Reconciliation Policy (NWMO 2019). These policies affirm how the NWMO will act and form the basis for much of what is described in this article. The Indigenous Knowledge policy formally commits that Indigenous Knowledge will inform all aspects of the NWMO’s work while ensuring that Indigenous Knowledge is respected and protected in its application. The Reconciliation policy makes a commitment that the NWMO will contribute towards reconciliation consistent with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada Call to Action #92 (TRC 2015). Legacy issues in the Canadian development sector have fostered mistrust between Indigenous communities, and federal and provincial governments, and industry (Muir 2018; Eckert et al. 2020). Further, the Seaborn Panel findings firmly established that working in the status quo will not result in a successful project (Seaborn et al. 1998). In recognition, the NWMO established its early planning processes on a foundation of willingness, which requires strong relationships between communities and the NWMO built on trust, rights, and equity. Through participatory engagement with Indigenous peoples regarding the NWMO’s mission, we have consistently been told Indigenous voices must inform how the APM Project proceeds from planning through implementation if we are to effectively build and maintain these relationships.

A further example of independent advisory bodies influencing our work stems from advice received from the Environment Review Group. The members noted a flaw in many previous attempts to incorporate Indigenous Knowledge into impact assessment has been attempting to blend different worldviews into a single decision-making process for evaluating the extent of significance to project impacts rather than adopting a holistic approach that accommodates plural values. The Indigenous participants in the ERG indicated our initial concept of a linear, reductive valued component-focused framework was incongruous with the Indigenous worldview of holism and balance, and would not resonate with Indigenous community members. We realized this could be a barrier to meaningful participation by Indigenous communities in the assessment, and would curtail discussions regarding willingness to proceed with the APM Project within their traditional territory. Based on this advice, our impact assessment framework for the APM Project strives to respect the integrity of scientific, Indigenous, and local knowledge and values. Our solution to this challenge is for knowledge holders from each system to collaboratively design and implement a process where parallel assessments are undertaken using a common evidentiary basis with regular information exchanges between knowledge holders (Mayhew and Webster 2019). This way, the impact assessment will include sufficient information for stakeholders, Indigenous communities, regulators, the proponent (NWMO), and governments to confidently arrive at a decision on whether significant impacts would likely occur should the APM Project proceed at a specific location. The approach creates legitimacy for the decisions taken regarding the assessment of the project, and contributes to a partnership that reflects the positive outcomes sought by the NWMO, rights-holders, and stakeholders. Our framework is strongly influenced by Tengö et al. (2014), who argue for a co-production of knowledge approach (i.e., holistic approach) that emphasizes (1) knowledge generation by collaborators has an equal starting point and contributors define the goals and mutually agreed ways in which to achieve the goals; (2) Indigenous Knowledge, local knowledge, and western science are complementary, (3) knowledge generated within each system must represent the values and context of its own system without assigning dominance of one system over the other through the need for external validation, and (4) the co-production of knowledge envisioned should be determined collaboratively with those involved from the outset.

As we interweave Indigenous Knowledge and western science in the impact assessment for the project, we must allow both knowledge systems to remain distinct, like a tapestry or strands of a braid, so the value both knowledge systems bring to how decisions are made can be recognized in an equal and transparent way. The NWMO’s Indigenous Knowledge policy (NWMO 2016) recognizes participatory engagement and co-production of knowledge can lead to new insights and a more holistic picture of project-related impacts. Similar to Tengö et al. (2014), we have found it is important that knowledge holders have opportunities to learn independently, and to learn from each other, in a safe space that is open and respectful (Perritt and Mayhew 2019). The success achieved to date by the NWMO using participatory engagement as a means for ongoing knowledge sharing and mutual learning that supports transparent decision-making early in project planning is a valuable demonstration of the benefits of good practice for impact assessment. The following sections provide examples of how we have done this, and why we encourage others to consider adopting similar approaches in their own impact assessment processes.

Evaluation Factors

The impact assessment literature advocates the importance of transparency in how a proponent decides whether its project would be likely to result in significant impacts (Lawrence 2007; Ehrlich and Ross 2015; Jones and Morrison-Saunders 2016). Similarly, the SEA guidelines for nuclear power programmes published by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) emphasize engagement and public participation to build trust and confidence in decision-making (IAEA 2018; Fischer et al. 2019). The NWMO published a series of factors relating to safety along with a series of factors that go beyond safety, so that decisions related to site selection are transparent for all involved (NWMO 2010). These factors address the basic questions (Figure 2) early planning assessments are meant to answer for each community that joined the site selection process, and are designed so Indigenous Knowledge holders, interested local people, and trained scientists collaboratively find a site with strong potential to be both technically and socially acceptable for the APM Project to be advanced to the legislated impact assessment process. Comprehensive information on the site selection process is publicly available on the NWMO’s website.

Figure 2. Preliminary assessment studies consider safety and factors for siting that go beyond safety

Using the natural environment as an example, the key criterion identified in the site selection decision-making framework is ‘potential to avoid ecologically sensitive areas and locally significant features, including factors identified by Traditional Knowledge’ (NWMO 2010). Generating the needed data to facilitate decision-making for this particular factor is being achieved using standard impact assessment methods³ and the innovative strategies aligned with principles of a holistic approach employing participatory engagement and transparent decision-making outlined in the previous sections, including:

• Community involvement to improve understanding of the study area with Indigenous Knowledge and local input. For example, Anishinaabe⁴ guides assisted university-trained ecologists with navigation and logistics that promoted field work efficiency and increased safety while the team undertook field studies in remote wilderness areas. The ecologists participated in traditional ceremony and made daily offerings of tobacco respecting the land, its Indigenous inhabitants, and its history. These protocols were established by local First Nation communities as an element of their own Indigenous Knowledge studies and are integral for accommodating plural values.

• Working with local stakeholders and practitioners who are regarded as experts in their field to assemble information about the environmental conditions in and around municipalities, as well as objectives, issues, and concerns regarding the natural landscape. The synthesis of this information set the stage for the ongoing engagement and research on potential impacts, both positive and negative, which could be realized if the APM Project proceeds at a specific location. The early planning for impact assessment involves continued dialogue with interested and potentially affected municipalities so the program adequately reflects and incorporates feedback received. Inclusion of the results of engagement with communities early in the process means concerns are considered and studies are conducted in a culturally-appropriate manner. For example, local stakeholders in the Ignace area have shared their strong desire for non-lethal sampling of fish and game, whenever possible.

• Establishing collaborative research programs to reduce uncertainty in potential impacts, including cumulative effects, which could be attributable to the APM Project. For example, the areas continuing in the site selection process are within the range of protected bat species for which there is a high level of uncertainty on potential impacts from development projects acting cumulatively with the effects of white-nose syndrome, a fungal disease caused by an introduced pathogen (COSEWIC 2013; ECCC 2018).

Further discussion on the benefits of collaborative studies is provided in the following sections.

Participatory Engagement

Community Involvement in Studies

Working collaboratively with Indigenous communities and potential partner municipalities from the outset of our mandate has been paramount (NWMO 2020a). The site selection process spans more than a decade, and interest and conversation in both the municipality that initiated participation and in surrounding Indigenous and municipal communities need to be sustained throughout this process, including multiple election cycles. One of the many considerations taken into account during the site selection process is the likelihood that this progressive dialogue and learning can be maintained. Given the very long timeframe anticipated for the project (100+ years), maintaining this collaboration between the NWMO and its partner(s) will be an important task for those who will come after us (see Fischer et al. 2019 regarding such multi-generational considerations). In this regard, what we can do, and are doing, is lay the foundation for these mutually beneficial relationships to mature in an agreeable and honourable manner. As the NWMO has worked with Indigenous communities during the site selection phase of the APM Project, the importance of ceremony and spirit within the Indigenous worldview has become clear to those of us who utilize western science to understand the world around us. As an organization, we have accepted that when advice is received through ceremony, there is responsibility to implement that advice (Reo 2011; Johnson et al. 2016; Perritt and Mayhew 2019). At the invitation of Elders and community leaders, NWMO staff had the privilege of participating in ceremony that informs decisions Indigenous communities make regarding site selection, which has then informed decisions the NWMO has made regarding site selection activities. Studies being led by scientists trained in academic institutions make time and space for ceremony as an essential research component of Indigenous Knowledge; for example, prior to the initiation of borehole drilling to advance sub-surface investigations in the Ignace area, First Nations community members conducted ceremony and land use studies to their own satisfaction. This Indigenous Knowledge was interwoven with geoscientific, ecological, and local stakeholder input to identify the specific borehole locations. The continuation of sub-surface investigations in a mutually agreeable manner is a considerable benefit of this approach.

As noted, desktop studies and fieldwork have been undertaken early to better inform decisions on site selection. Where Indigenous Knowledge and local input is available at this phase of assessment through engagement directly related to the APM Project or previously documented information, it informs the design of field studies (Tulloch 2018). Again using the natural environment for illustration, field verification studies were undertaken to determine the reliability of desktop information and to better understand potential for habitat use by key biodiversity values such as species-at-risk (as defined by regulatory lists) and characteristic organisms (e.g., ecological umbrella or keystone species⁵; or values perceived by stakeholders and/or Indigenous peoples to be representative of an area). Moose, an iconic species with important cultural and economic attributes in one of the areas continuing in the site selection process, is subject to population management in Ontario but is not included on regulatory lists of species-at-risk (MNRF 2018). In conversations regarding people’s concerns about the APM Project, some Indigenous community members and local harvesters have expressed the importance of maintaining moose populations to support traditional practices as well as recreational and commercial hunting (e.g., Jaremy and Latoski 2008; NWMO 2017b). Accordingly, studies commissioned by the NWMO have evaluated and will continue to evaluate whether activities associated with the APM Project could impact this valued species (Tulloch 2018; Wood 2019a, 2019b). This is especially important as good impact assessment requires using input from directly-affected locals in identifying valued components to be studied (Landsberg et al. 2013; Rosa and Sánchez 2016; TBC 2018). The field studies also provided an important opportunity for Indigenous community members, local land users, and trained ecologists, geoscientists and engineers to investigate potential repository areas together to help the NWMO narrow down to a single site for the APM Project. Through this experience, we learned the value of NWMO staff and its consultants participating in cultural awareness training appropriate to the regions in which we are working, delivered by local Indigenous community members whenever possible. Indigenous community members, The Council of Elders and Youth, and The Environment Review Group have told us these opportunities to learn and work together are forging the trust and mutual respect that are vital to achieving the informed willingness necessary for the APM Project to proceed. This finding is consistent with the impact assessment good practice literature (Croal and Tetreault 2012; Arctic Council Indigenous Peoples’ Secretariat 2015; TNC 2017; Muir 2018; Bice 2020).

Collaborative Research Programs

For some time the literature has pointed out that although desirable, it is challenging to effectively apply western science, Indigenous Knowledge and local information to arrive at sound assertions of a project’s anticipated impacts (e.g., Stevenson 1996 ; Ross et al. 2006 ; Greig and Duinker 2011; Tengö et al. 2014; MacKinnon et al. 2018; Vanclay 2020). Through engagement activities and typical environmental studies (e.g., identifying ranges for species-at-risk that overlap with the generic project footprint in the various siting areas under investigation), we accept there are uncertainties regarding impacts that might occur should the APM Project be implemented at either of the remaining site selection areas. To reduce such uncertainty, and therefore build confidence in the assessment, we support and participate in technical research partnerships with Canadian universities and non-governmental organizations, and have co-operation agreements in place with eight international counterparts that promote sharing of best practices for nuclear waste management (NWMO 2020a). In 2018 and 2019, for example, we held workshops that brought together Indigenous Knowledge holders and international scientists to bridge the gap that exists among scientists about Indigenous Knowledge and explore ways of working together. Participants discussed how Indigenous Knowledge that includes advice and guidance received through ceremony can be combined with remote sensing data and laboratory analyses to understand an area of land from multiple dimensions.

Taking an example regarding biodiversity conservation, myotis bats, federally and provincially designated as endangered species, are assumed to occur in both siting areas that remain in the site selection process (Golder 2014; Tulloch 2018). Myotis habitat use at northern latitudes is not well understood (ECCC 2018), and it would be impractical to make a valid assessment of how the APM Project could cumulatively impact these bats with current understanding. Recognizing the need for reliable data to achieve the mitigation hierarchy regarding impacts to these endangered species (Ekstrom et al. 2015), we have established a multi-year partnership with biologists dedicated to the conservation of native bat species in Ontario that involves primary research, knowledge-sharing across systems, capacity building, and engagement activities with the public. This approach satisfies the collective need to generate information on anticipated impacts of implementing the APM Project that is useful for decision makers from different cultural groups ranging from the community level to governments (Arctic Council Indigenous Peoples’ Secretariat 2015; Reo et al. 2017). The cumulative effects assessment of the APM Project can then be credibly conducted using the knowledge co-created by bat researchers, NWMO scientists, Indigenous knowledge holders, and citizen scientists through the research partnership to better understand feasibility of myotis bat recovery potential in Ontario (ECCC 2018).

Reflections

The foundation of the approach we are advocating is recognizing impacts of the APM Project should be judged to be acceptable, or not, by those who will live with the project-related changes, and not solely from the viewpoint of the proponent or the regulator. We recognized the importance of participatory engagement with those most likely to be impacted by the APM Project as early as practical, including meaningful involvement for Indigenous communities and local community stakeholders in decision-making based on a published set of evaluation factors that holistically apply western science and Indigenous Knowledge. The NWMO reached out to Indigenous communities and municipalities openly and with a strong desire to understand what the communities need from impact assessment studies to make their own decisions regarding acceptability of the APM Project. Instead of starting the conversation with valued components, we (the proponent) judged appropriate for study, we have sought to understand not only what to study, but also how to do the studies. We listened to the requests and try, whenever possible, to respect them. By demonstrating respect for different ways of making decisions, interested parties are engaging in richer dialogue and consideration of diverse viewpoints, which is a benefit of being involved in early planning for impact assessment. This participatory engagement has allowed us to continue building trust by working side-by-side to collect data and then interpret that data in the knowledge system relevant to those involved. It has also been instrumental in receiving the necessary regulatory permissions for advancing sub-surface investigations.

This has not been without some challenge. In many cases, municipalities that entered into the site selection process had no existing relationship with their Indigenous neighbours. Since our process requires partnership to progress, participation in the site selection process by these Indigenous communities is necessary for the interested municipality to remain in consideration. The NWMO has invested considerable effort into facilitating these relationships between communities. As a result, we have developed positive relationships with municipal and Indigenous communities as evidenced by their continued voluntary participation in the site selection process and early planning for impact assessment, a further benefit of the approach adopted.

We have also come to understand that communities may seek to address much larger land use and development issues than those attributable to our project, and that we must be prepared to provide support to communities as they work through such issues. For example, there may be historical contamination that is part of the local context. Recognizing these larger legacy issues, we are providing support to communities for their own land use and occupancy studies, which include topics and areas much broader than could reasonably be impacted by the APM Project. Indigenous communities have told us these studies are necessary for them to assess the project within their own knowledge system, and therefore, arrive at their own conclusion on whether they wish to proceed with the project. The need for such support and accommodation is evident in the published evaluation factors and relevant policies described in this article, which specify that Indigenous Knowledge must inform decision-making.

The lessons learned that we believe to be of most value to the impact assessment community, especially proponents, are as follows:

• Indigenous Knowledge should be shared as the knowledge holders see fit. This can be a barrier for giving equity to Indigenous Knowledge values and knowledge since it often does not align with the western science paradigm of documentation (publication, peer-review, etc.). Communities confirmed they will not share their knowledge with us unless they are confident it will be both protected and respected in the process, and they would cease participation in site selection if their knowledge is not reflected in decisions. Much of the ongoing relationship-building with Indigenous communities is managed under Memoranda of Understanding that impose limits on how we share knowledge we receive from the various communities. Accordingly, we only publish what has been shared with us when a community is explicit that it is appropriate to do so. We are currently working with communities to establish protocols for documenting their knowledge in the formal impact assessment that is required by the regulatory process.

• There is a misconception that interweaving Indigenous Knowledge with western science means educating Indigenous people about technical (western science) aspects of the project. Successfully including Indigenous perspectives within a project requires western scientists to accept Indigenous Knowledge as equal in decision-making. Over-coming the notion that any Indigenous Knowledge received must be validated by western science before it can be applied is a critical element. We must remain vigilant that Indigenous Knowledge equitably informs project decisions, upholding our policy, and avoiding circumstances where Indigenous Knowledge, especially as it relates to intangibles such as spiritual value, is discounted. There is considerable value in Indigenous representation in the NWMO’s governance structure, senior management, and throughout the organization as this creates a positive and trusting environment for Indigenous knowledge to be received and honoured. Not only is this approach of applying western science and Indigenous Knowledge required by the Impact Assessment Act, if done well, it builds very good relationships that contribute to positive outcomes for both the proponent and rights-holders.

• Time is a critical variable in maintaining respect and trust between industry, Indigenous communities, and municipal stakeholders. Applying this understanding to early planning, scheduling, budgeting, and decision-making promotes more effective relationships leading to project implementation in a manner that is positive for impacted Indigenous communities, local municipalities, and the proponent. Communities require their own time to prepare for participating in early planning for impact assessment. This includes opportunities to learn from knowledge keepers, conduct ceremony, and contemplate how the project can help achieve the things most important to them. Project management needs to account for these activities to maintain mutual respect for western science and Indigenous knowledge in advancing site selection studies and early planning for impact assessment. Commitment to participatory engagement and transparency in decision-making means the proponent cannot fully control the process, and must be prepared to move forward at a pace that is acceptable for those who will experience the greatest impacts.

• Advancing a contentious project through impact assessment is difficult. It requires patience from interested parties, and willingness to pause, reflect, and change course to accommodate plural values in the impact assessment and project implementation. Our experience demonstrates that misunderstandings and conflict may occur, but when mutual trust and respect exist, it is possible to work through such occurrences and continue moving forward collectively. As stakeholders and rights-holders are often dissatisfied with the impact assessment process, we have accepted the onus is on us as the proponent to demonstrate respect and responsiveness to community concerns and values.

Conclusion

While much more work is needed, and knowing the outcome of the APM Project impact assessment is some years away, the examples documented in this article demonstrate the value to proponents in engaging early and often with Indigenous communities and local stakeholders in a transparent manner utilizing a decision-making framework that accounts for plural values. Development projects, and nuclear waste management projects, in particular, have failed to advance beyond the regulatory phase in the absence of such participatory engagement and transparency (Seaborn et al. 1998; IAEA 2020). The continuing voluntary participation of communities in site selection and early planning for impact assessment that appear to have high potential to meet the required technical and social requirements for hosting the APM Project is an accomplishment considering the challenges experienced in other countries, and previously in Canada, when working towards a permanent solution for radioactive waste.

Acknowledgments

William Ross has made many valuable contributions to this article. His guidance and helpful input have led to substantial improvements from early drafts. Allan Webster has also provided thoughtful comments on earlier versions of this article. Bob Watts, James Wagar, and Joe Gaboury have offered their insights into Indigenous cultures to the benefit of their NWMO colleagues and are patient partners in learning to work together. Finally, feedback from three anonymous reviewers resulted in a more reflexive and contextualized article.

Notes

1. The Canadian Shield forms the stable core of the North American continent. It is a stable craton created from a collage of ancient plates and accreted juvenile arc terranes that were progressively amalgamated over a period of more than 2 billion years.

2. In this case, potential municipal and Indigenous partners, regulators, and the proponent all require confidence the selected site can achieve the necessary technical and social standards.

3. Detailed environmental data collection and interpretation using desktop studies, field verification, and focused fieldwork.

4. Anishinaabe is an ethnic term, referring to shared culture and related Algonquian languages of Indigenous peoples of the North American Great Lakes area.

5. For the purpose of this article, we adopt the definition of umbrella species by Roberge and Angelstam (2004), who offer a general description as ‘a species whose conservation confers protection to a large number of naturally co-occurring species.’ For defining keystone species, we use the Oxford University Press (2019), which states a keystone species is ‘a species exerting a major influence on an ecosystem, especially one on whose activities the survival of other species depends.’