Let’s Talk About Sustainable Development

At the 2024 Council of Yukon First Nations General Assembly, Yukon Premier Pillai updated the assembly on his government’s work including on the elephant in the room, Eagle Mine. He noted that all but one of the quartz mining projects in the Yukon, going back to the time of the Gold Rush, have resulted in a negative outcome, including the most recent mine failure at Eagle Mine. (The one mine that is the exception is possibly Brewery Creek Mine, which was also a heap leach gold mine and received the Robert E Leckie award for its concurrent mine closure practices, and natural cyanide neutralization process using bacteria, and molasses. It should probably also be noted that Indigenous mining pre-contact is another mining endeavour that did not result in a negative legacy.)

I’m sure Premier Pillai was not making the point that his government is no worse than any of the other governments before him, but rather, that there is a pattern in the outcome of modern mining projects that needs to change.

I suggest that the flawed pattern we are investigating is rooted in two things: our heavy reliance on linear power which only works in predictable situations, and, an outdated understanding of what sustainable development means.

The key to unlocking the benefits of a circular economy, ongoing consideration of cumulative impacts, adaptive management practices for unpredictable environments, and the ability to assess what is enough, is found in the addition of circular thinking.

Let’s start with a look at ‘the right to mine’. From a linear mindset, there are minerals and metals in the ground and humans have the right to use them to improve their quality of life. There will be costs and there will be benefits - waste and ore - as the linear economy sees it. “You have to break some eggs to make an omelette.”

In this mindset, power is the ability to assert one’s will, even against resistance. The company’s will is to extract resources at a profit, and the government’s will is to see that this is done in a way that minimizes environmental damage. What we have here is a pushing match. The Yukon Government has a lot of pushing power, but, as Premier Pillai mentioned in his GA address, they also have a drive to stimulate the Yukon economy. This places them in the awkward position of pushing back and pulling in at the same time.  Not an easy dance to perform.

Furthermore, our current regulatory system is only designed to block predictable dangers. It cannot protect us against unforeseen problems, or support the generation of benefits.

This is where circular power comes in. Knowing what we value and caring about all the cycles that are impacted generates this kind of power. As does keeping an eye towards generating new benefits, on many levels. Waste in one process is re-envisioned as a nutrient to another. Knowledge of these regenerative relationships before proceeding ensures sustainability. Continued circular thinking creates the resilience to flex as new conditions present themselves.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting circular processes are more valuable than linear ones. The point is, we need both. We need to see them as distinct and broadcast when we are in one mode or the other.

In circular thinking mode we ask ourselves questions like “why do I want mining in the Yukon?” Every citizen, government, mining company, and business needs to know this about themself, and bring this self-knowledge to the discussion around Sustainable Development.

Notice I didn’t ask why you don’t want mining. That’s a valid linear question, based on the need to push back. For a moment, though, let’s consider what we want more of when it comes to mining. Do we want end products that are in alignment with our environmental values? Let’s give language to those values. Do we want things like cars, medical procedures, and construction materials in our life that depend on metals and minerals? If so, what principles should guide those supply cycles? Do we want jobs and economic gains, and if so, what gives quality to those jobs and how much is enough?

There is an opportunity through this latest mining crisis at Eagle Mine to have a new kind of discussion, to devise new ways of creating sustainable development.

At a Circular discussion table, the intension is to increase our self-knowledge and our knowledge of what others care about. This mindset helps to create the conditions for a collaborative discussion. Attention is given to the intersection of a diverse group’s views, because this area of overlap contains wisdom. It’s also the place where group buy-in occurs, which supports self-regulation and compliance.

Some mining companies have introduced circular thinking through the establishment of a discussion table at the earliest stages of development. Anglo American, for example, takes responsibility for leaving a legacy of good in the regions where they mine by co-creating Collaborative Regional Development tables. At this hub they can learn about local values and needs. At first, they built facilities like local schools and medical clinics, but it wasn’t producing the kind of reach and impact Anglo American wanted. Through the collaborative discussion table they began to focus on building capacity, empowering participants, and working together with partners across sectors in the region. The result has been a positive legacy long after their mines have closed.

Another good question is what is Sustainable Development? The Yukon Environment Act (YEA) defines Sustainable Development as:

development that meets present needs without compromising the ability to meet the needs of future generations.

The YFN Land Claim Agreements defines Sustainable Development as:

beneficial socio-economic change that does not undermine the ecological and social systems upon which communities and societies are dependent.

Notice they are not exactly saying the same thing.  I see a gap in the YEA definition between today and the future making room for factors like dilution and natural restoration with the passage of time. The YFN Agreement seems more focused on the present. This makes it interesting to look at section 2.6.2.2 of any YFN agreement. It essentially states that the YFN Final Agreement clauses win to the extent that there is a conflict or inconsistency with Federal, Territorial, or Municipal laws. Take a look and decide for yourself what these clauses might mean when applied to a development application.

We are at a ripe time for rethinking what sustainable mine development means in the Yukon. With the advent of AI, robotics, and regenerative batteries, future mining operations are looking at as much as 30% cost reductions. This is a resource that could be available to create a regulatory system that supports truly sustainable development projects.