DECISION MAKING AMONG THE INUIT

Prior to the implementation of the processes of environmental assessment and negotiations, Hydro-Québec and the Inuit had already agreed, early in 1989, to create a working group including four Inuit representatives for the purpose of circulating information among the Inuit population and acquiring feedback from it.

The Inuit perceived this working group as affording an opportunity to update their knowledge and to ensure that the people would be properly informed.

When negotiations between Hydro-Québec and the Inuit formally began in 1990, this working group was made part of the team designated for dealing with the proponent and participating in the environmental assessment process, in consultation with the people from the directly affected communities and the Nunavik population in general. This team was made up of lawyers, an array of consultants, three Makivik representatives, as well as six full-time and 12 part-time representatives from the three most directly impacted communities (see Fig. 3).

In conjunction with the other members of the team, the Inuit representatives undertook: (1) to make presentations at public hearings held in the communities;

(2) to respond to the consultation document distributed by Hydro-Québec in each community; and (3) to submit the EIS to the appropriate level of scrutiny required in the context of the environmental and negotiation processes.

Also, as mentioned earlier, Makivik tabled a 200 page report in which the EIS was analysed regarding its conformity with the Guidelines. Preparation of this docu-ment required contributions by some 20 experts and the involvedocu-ment of the 18 Inuit members; comments and recommendations from technical consultants were incorpo-rated in the input from the Inuit task groups. The resulting draft report was reviewed several times and the final document was tabled with the evaluating committees.

As consultations and discussions were taking place, representatives from the Inuit communities were apprising people of the developments and recording any feedback, primarily through community radio stations, which soon became the medium of choice for reaching the members of the community. As a matter of fact, all Inuit were listening in at certain times during the day and thus were able to phone in their comments directly. Through this procedure the community representatives were able to bring back to the team the public consensus as it was built up.

This inflow of ideas was not limited to the three most affected communities, since the Makivik Corporation kept the general Nunavik population abreast of ongoing negotiations and the progress made in the environmental assessment process. Finally, in February 1994, at a meeting held in Montreal, more than 70 representatives from all Nunavik communities ratified the previously mentioned Kuujjuarapik Agreement-in-Principle that was the result of months of negotiations.

Thus a consensus was achieved through the iterative process; the affected communities as well as the general Nunavik population were an integral part of the decision making process.

7. CONCLUSIONS

In the context of the parallel direct negotiations and concurrent environmental assessment processes, the Grande-Baleine project was reviewed, discussed, analysed and changed. In drafting the Guidelines, the review committees bore in mind the wishes and concerns voiced by the most affected people. The Inuit participation in these decision making processes was based on an interactive dialogue between the Makivik Corporation and the members of the communities.

Step by step, a consensus emerged, as each and every project component was scrutinized. The Agreement-in-Principle was signed only after a time consuming discussion that involved representatives from every part of Nunavik.

The principles embodied in the World Bank policy on public consultation and participation [2] were more than strictly adhered to, as the Inuit were not only involved in the environmental assessment process but were also able to enter into negotiations with the proponent of the project.

The methodology developed was not subjected to scientific analysis or valida-tion. Nevertheless, the expected results were achieved in terms of consultation and participation. Moreover, the community members gained a measure of confidence in and control over the events which they would not have had otherwise — they felt clearly that they were active players, not merely passive spectators.

Yet, some concerns remain unaddressed. Although the Premier of Quebec in November 1994 postponed the Grande-Baleine project indefinitely, the mobilization of the population within the communities of Nunavik will not be forgotten soon. One can hardly expect that these communities will emerge unscathed from the experience

they went through and that these events will have no social impact. The people in these communities are trying right now to identify and explain the disquiet they feel deeply. Because of this, Hydro-Québec was requested to investigate the social impacts from the project that was never realized.

R E F E R E N C E S

[1] BHATNAGAR, В., WILLIAMS, A . C . (Eds), Participatory Development and the World Bank. Potential Direction for Change. World Bank Discussion Papers No. 183, The World Bank, Washington, DC. Quoted in VINCENT, S., La consultation des populations. Définitions et questions méthodologiques. Dossier-synthèse n° 10:32, Bureau de soutien de l'examen public du projet Grande-Baleine (1994) 32.

[2] W O R L D BANK, Environmental Assessment Sourcebook, Vol. 1, Policies, Procedures, and Cross-Sectoral Issues, Environment Department, Chapter 7, World Bank Policy on Community Involvement and the Role of Non-governmental Organiza-tions in Environmental Assessment, World Bank, Washington, DC (1992).

HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS