Cultural impact assessments: Integrating culture with standard resource

management perspectives

Rick Budhwa, MACrossroads Cultural Resource Management Ltd.

CrossroadsCRM.com

Karl Sturmanis, MScChignecto Consulting Group Inc.

chignectogroup.com

Presentation outline• Definitions• Shortcomings in current approach• Community driven assessment and

Cultural impact assessment• Importance and benefits• Types of information used• Considerations for better CIAs• CIA in practice: 3 case studies• Future trends

Culture and cumulative effects

• Simply defined - “cumulative effects are changes to the environment that are caused by an action in combination with other past, present, and future human actions.”1

• Consideration of overall cumulative effects should meaningfully involve anthropologists and First Nations, and embed analysis and interpretations within a cultural umbrella, the ultimate holistic lens.

1: CEAA and IAIA (2012)

Cultural resource management (CRM)

1: Watkins and Beaver (2008: 10)

• CRM refers to the multiple processes through which anthropologists and other professionals manage impacts of the modern world on cultural resources. CRM is the management of “cultural landscapes, archaeological sites, historical records, social institutions, expressive cultures, old buildings, religious beliefs and practices, folk life, artifacts and spiritual places.”1

• Manages for the tangible AND intangible aspects of culture

Cultural resource management in BC: Current concept

Territories/Landbase

Cultural ResourcesNatural Resources

Archaeology

Traditional Knowledge Traditional Use

Wildlife Geology

Fisheries Water Quality

Ecology Soils

Botany Hydrology (etc)

Shortcomings within CRM process• We still focus on tangibles and quantitative

research and data

• This does not adequately portray Indigenous worldview or honour the definition of CRM

• Illustrated by two of the following examples: power dynamics and sense of place

Scenario 1: Power dynamics

• Valued cultural resources may be concentrated within specific regions• What happens if such resources are forced into other regions of a

traditional territory (ex. moose or goat)?

Scenario 2: Sense of place

• “Is a feeling or perception held by people, to a certain place on the landscape”1

• It possesses a strong identity and character, and a high degree of authenticity of which people attribute a special meaning and relationship

• Loss of ‘sense of place’ may have significant impacts on individuals and communities with connectivity to that place.

1: Cresswell (2004)

Culture Culture

Physical Physical heritageheritage

Knowledge, Knowledge, practices, spirit practices, spirit

relationships relationships

Social Social relationshipsrelationships

Land based Land based relationshipsrelationships

Ethnogeography

Ethnogeography, traditio

nal use,

, traditio

nal use,

cultural la

ndscapes

cultural la

ndscapes

Archaeology, cultural heritage

Archaeology, cultural heritageLanguage, k

inship, c

ultural c

apital,

Language, kinsh

ip, cultu

ral capita

l,

cultu

ral netw

orks

cultu

ral netw

orks

Oral history, songs, dances,

Oral history, songs, dances,

ceremonies, practices

ceremonies, practices

TangibleTangible

IntangibleIntangible

IntangibleIntangible

IntangibleIntangible

Gibson, O’Faircheallaigh and Alistair MacDonald (2008)

Cultural resource management in BC: Alternative concept

Territories/Landbase

Cultural ResourcesNatural Resources

Cultural Heritage Socio-cultural

Traditional Knowledge Archaeology*Traditional Use

Wildlife Geology

Fisheries Water Quality

Ecology Soils

Botany Hydrology (etc)

Socio Ec. Language

Health Spirituality

Budhwa and McCreary (2012)

Community driven assessments

• Any cultural assessment must be contextual to that community

• Each community has different levels of resilience and vulnerabilities, and different goals and priorities

• Therefore, communities mustbe involved in determining appropriate indicators for cultural assessment

Cultural impact assessment (CIA)• CIA documents areas or resources of cultural importance, and assesses

the potential impacts of a proposed development on these areas. 1• Most importantly, CIA identifies and manages for INTANGIBLE aspects

of cultural resources

CIA must assess:

• Physical impacts to landscape (such as impacts to archaeological sites)• Spiritual impacts to landscape and to people• Loss of sense of place and relationship to landscape. 2

1,2: Gibson et al. (2008)

CIA: Importance and benefits• CIA is the most effective way to determine the

overall impact of a development upon a culture• Community members assume

active roles in impact assessment process

• Control over archaeological process shifts from archaeologists to First Nations

• Contributes to greater certainty and social license

How to do CIA well

• Industry support• First Nations support,

capacity and continuity• Qualified cultural

researchers and consultants (i.e.anthropologists and other related socialscientists)

• Use case studies to guide your study

Past, present and futureRecognize that culture is a continuum, always changing and adapting to the needs of the people. For First Nations, it is often inappropriate to make distinctions, or ‘draw lines in the sand’ between old and new (ex. HCA protection date of 1846AD)

Importance of relationshipsRecognize that sound relationships require time to build and maintain, and involve the ability to listen. This results in mutual respect and cross-cultural understandingUtilize wisdomWisdom is a vital source of expertise about natural and cultural resources, like education and life experience. We must ensure wisdom is utilized effectively

Important considerations for CIA

How do we determine ‘significance’?• Many different types of significance (public, historic,

scientific, economic, cultural)

• Cultural significance is defined by values – what First Nations believe to be important, regardless of other values and significances

• Places of cultural importance can often maintain their significance even if they are not regularly used in a physical sense

Photo: Office of the Wet’suwet’en

Common components in CIA• Physical heritage resources• Cultural landscapes• Spiritual places• Relationships to the land and

animals • Language • Oral history• Sociocultural values• Methods for transmission of culture

and generational relationships• Traditional use and socioeconomic practices

Gibson et al. (2008)

CIA in practice

• Taseko Mines & Tsay Keh Dene

• Aurico Gold & Tsay Keh Dene, Takla and Kwadacha Nations (TKN)

• BC Hydro & Hagwilget Village

The “how”: Create a baseline program

• Biophysical and cultural programs• Environment includes human and

biophysical dimensions• All baseline studies must have the

capacity to identify and receive references to culture (culture flagging)

• Ensure sufficient temporal scope (program takes time!)

Taseko Mines & Tsay Keh Dene

• Exploration agreement signed 2012• Co-operative approach to Tsay Keh Dene

land use study• Co-operative approach to other studies

(ex. emphasis on the cultural aspect to understanding wildlife)

Aurico Gold & TKN• 2007 Joint panel report- Kemess North

not approved because "benefits would be outweighed by adverse social, environmental and CULTURAL effects and risks”

• Tse Keh Nay was approached by Northgate in 2010 to discuss alternative approach

• Kemess underground (avoid impact to Amazay Lake)

• Exploration agreement signed with AuRico Gold (formerly Northgate) in 2012

• Co-operative approach to environmental and cultural studies and commitment to cultural baseline studies program

Baseline studies program governanceCLIENT

ChiefChief Chief

Technical Rep Technical RepTechnical Rep

BIOPHYSICAL CULTURAL

COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND ENGAGEMENT

Wildlife��

Ecology� Fisheries��

STRATEGIC

OPERATIONAL

Water� Heritage��

Arch��

SocioEc� Health��

BC Hydro & Hagwilget Village• In October 2006, BC Hydro impacted burial site• Remains of unknown # of people were disturbed• This event caused significant psychosocial trauma within the

community• Main focus was closure (physical, mental, spiritual, etc)• Community driven and regular communications (transparency) • Results is a good relationship and a happy community

Future trends • Heritage stewardship responsibilities and

authority shifting to First Nations• Many First Nations have entered into

agreements with major industrial development proponents

• Reduced role of government agencies• Empowerment of First Nations by court

system• Emphasis of the importance good

relationships between industry, First Nations and researchers

Final thoughts

• Continue to engage and encourage co- operative agreements

• Need for commitment to the process and patience on both sides of the resource issues

• Time for opportunity

Thanks!• Tsay Keh Dene Band Bulkley Valley Research Centre• Takla Lake First Nation Office of the Wet’suwet’en• Kwadacha Nation Hagwilget Village Council• AuRico Gold Taseko Mines• BC Hydro

References• Budhwa, R. (2005). An Alternate Model for First Nations Involvement in Resource Management

Archaeology. Canadian Journal of Archaeology, 29, 20-45. • Budhwa, Rick and Tyler McCreary. (2012) Reconciling Indigenous Ontologies with Cultural Resource

Management. In, A Deeper Sense of Place. Oregon State University Press. Submitted for print.• Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A Short Introduction. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. • Fonseca, A. and Gibson, R. (2008) Application Denied - BC's Kemess North and Nova• Scotia's White Point project promised jobs and revenue, but the communities• were looking for overall sustaibability. Alternatives Journal 34:4.• Gibson, O’Faircheallaigh and MacDonald. (2008). Integrating Cultural Impact Assessment into Development

Planning. International Association for Impact Assessment Workshop • Johnson, J. T., & Murton, B. (2007). Re/placing Native Science: Indigenous Voices in Contemporary

Constructions of Nature. Geographical Research, 45(2), 121-129. • Klassen, M. A., Budhwa, R., & Reimer, R. (2009). First Nations, Forestry, and the Transformation of

Archaeological Practice in British Columbia, Canada. Heritage Management, 2(2), 199-238. • Lertzman, D.A. 2010. Best of two worlds:Traditional ecological knowledge and Western science in

ecosystem- based management. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 10(3):104–126. • MacDonald, Alistair. 2008. Integrating Cultural Impact Assessment into EIA: Overcoming Common Hurdles.

Presentation at IAIA Cultural Impact Assessment conference – Beyond the Biophysical. Yellowknife, NWT.• Watkins, J., & Beaver, J. (2008). What Do We Mean by 'Heritage'? Whose Heritage Do We Manage, and

What Rights Have We to Do So? Heritage Management, 1(1), 9-36.