Nunavut land use plan rejected for fourth time amid concerns over balance and consultation

The Nunavut Planning Commission’s recommended land use plan, nearly two decades in the making and regarded as one of the largest of its kind globally, has been rejected for a fourth time by its three signatories: Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI), the federal government, and the territorial government. The parties released a 200-page document on Friday outlining their reasons for rejecting the draft released in 2023. None of the signatories made themselves available for comment on Monday.

The proposed plan determines which areas of Nunavut are open for development and which are designated for protection, setting the terms for projects such as mining and specifying under what conditions development can occur. The process has spanned 19 years, with the current draft being the fourth version since work began in 2007.

The Nunavut Planning Commission stated in a news release that it recognizes the prolonged wait Nunavummiut have faced for an approved plan. The commission acknowledged that the three signatories provided significant direction regarding the need to incorporate regional Inuit perspectives and to balance conservation with economic development opportunities.

A primary concern for the signatories is what they describe as the plan's one-size-fits-all approach to zoning, which they argue does not reflect the distinct challenges and needs of Nunavut’s three regions. Despite repeated requests for regional differentiation, the commission maintained uniform zoning designations across the Nunavut Settlement Area. NTI, in its decision, highlighted its ongoing support for regional caribou protection measures led by respective Inuit associations. It cited the example of shifting caribou calving areas in the Kitikmeot region, suggesting that static habitat protections may not address the reality of wildlife movement.

In the Baffin region, NTI noted the plan’s focus on caribou seasonal habitat, mentioning that while calving season protections exist, there are none for the winter period. Across all three regions, Inuit associations have expressed a preference for flexible wildlife protection rules that can adapt to the migratory behaviour of animals.

Another significant area of contention involves overlays—additional rules or exceptions—applied to Inuit-owned lands in the proposed plan. The three signatories found this approach untenable, stating that it failed to take into account Inuit goals and objectives as mandated under the Nunavut Agreement. According to NTI, the commission declined to meet and consult with designated Inuit organizations regarding the concept of the Inuit-owned land overlay before implementing it in the draft plan.

The federal government also raised concerns about the zoning approach, highlighting that exceptions to some prohibitions could create administrative burdens for Inuit organizations by deferring land use decisions. The plan’s implications extend beyond Nunavut, affecting key caribou habitats for the Ghotelnene K'odtįneh Dene and the Athabasca Denesųłiné in northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The federal government stated that, as Section 35 rights holders under the Constitution Act, these First Nations must be consulted on revisions to zoning or requirements.

The government of Canada emphasized that the plan must be interpreted and applied in a manner that upholds the Aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous peoples.

NTI also criticized the plan for lacking a balanced approach between social development, conservation, and sustainable economic development. It argued that the land use designations prioritize conservation, with limited provisions addressing social or economic development outcomes. For instance, NTI referenced requests from the Kivalliq and Kitikmeot Inuit associations for increased support for sustainable mineral economic development in their regions.

The federal government objected to a ban on all-season access to projects, even where existing rights protections apply. Citing the Nunavut Agreement, federal authorities noted that any restrictions on land use must have the least possible impact on undiscovered mineral resources, while also considering environmental and social objectives. The government specifically objected to a provision in the plan that prohibits 'permanent all-season linear infrastructure'—such as roads or cables—outside the footprint of an existing right.

The territorial government expressed concern over certain restrictions in sensitive bird habitat areas, advocating for these to be lifted to allow for marine infrastructure development, including ports and cable projects.

The plan does contain exceptions for some major projects that have not yet completed regulatory approval, such as the Grays Bay Road and Port and the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link. However, the federal government noted that the eventual routing of these corridors remains uncertain, and requested that the plan reflect this possibility.

The Nunavut Planning Commission has stated its intention to address the concerns raised in the rejection. The commission’s statement comes amid ongoing anxiety among some Nunavummiut about potential damage to their lands as the planning process continues. Advocates and legal experts have warned that further delays in implementing a land use plan could contravene Inuit rights.

The core issues identified by the signatories revolve around the need for regional flexibility, meaningful consultation with Inuit and other rights holders, and a more balanced integration of conservation, social, and economic objectives. The outcome of the process holds significant implications for resource development, Indigenous rights, and environmental protection across Nunavut and adjacent regions.