What does it take to stop a mine? Indigenous interventions and project rejection in Nunavut, Canada

Indigenous groups who oppose extractive projects make use of a range of tactics and strategies, including intervening in impact assessment (IA) processes. This article examines four cases where IA authorities recommended against the development of proposed mines in Nunavut, Canada. By comparing these cases to the assessment of projects recommended for approval, we seek to draw broad conclusions about the different types of interventions that can potentially lead to project rejection. Based on an analysis of assessment and media documents, we found that Nunavut's IA Board recommended against project approval when Indigenous groups made technical, procedural, and political interventions within and alongside IA, when Indigenous rights-bearing organizations expressed substantial outstanding concern at the final hearing, and when there was already an operating mine in the region. These findings add nuance to critiques of IA as a tool for legitimizing extraction. In contexts like Nunavut – where IA processes substantially recognize Indigenous rights and mandate Indigenous representation – participation by rights-bearing groups may be more likely to influence IA outcomes. • Project rejection via Impact Assessment (IA) is rare, including in cases where Indigenous peoples oppose the development. • The Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) has recommended against four mining projects since 2006. • The position of rights-bearing Indigenous groups on proposed projects significantly influenced IA outcomes. • Nunavut's recognition of Indigenous rights and strong co-management provisions enhance Indigenous influence in IA.