|
531
|
Poelzer, G., A Stake in Mining: Participatory Elements in Swedish Mine Development, 39 The Northern Review 39, 43 (2015) 2014 Walleye Seminar held in Northern Saskatchewan
|
2015
|
Resource Development
|
Academic - NGO
|
LuleǾ University of Technology
|
Abstract: In Sweden, the recent proliferation of mining explorationƒ??due to mineral prices and government policyƒ??offers the possibility for socio-economic development in the North. However, it also creates issues of permanent social and environmental change, spurring many to demand greater participation and input in the development process. In much of the theoretical literature on governance, the participatory elements hold major significance. Therefore, determining where and when the state holds influence over participation remains important for those interested in the impact of new governance arrangements on participation. This study looks at two cases in Sweden, Pajala and Kiruna, to assess whether the practices in these communities follow the legislation or if new actors assume these responsibilities. The findings raise additional questions regarding the role of the state and draw into question the importance of legislation with regard to participation. The paper is part of a special collection of brief discussion papers presented at the 2014 Walleye Seminar held in Northern Saskatchewan, which explored consultation and engagement with northern communities and stakeholders in resource development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
531_A Stake in Mining Participatory Elements 388-1-958-1-10-20150617.pdf
|
|
532
|
Espiritu, A., Kautokeino and Kvaslund Compared: Rejection and Acceptance of Mining in Communities in Northern Norway, 39 The Northern Review 53, 60 (2015).
presented at the 2014 Walleye Seminar, held in Northern Saskatchewan
|
2015
|
Resource Development
|
Academic - NGO
|
The Barents Institute, UiT The Arctic
University of Norway
|
Abstract: This paper analyzes the events and discourses that have led two ostensibly similar northern communities in Norway to come to diverging decisions regarding mining on their territories. Kautokeino and Kvalsund are similar in that they each have Indigenous interests to consider: they have undergone economic hardships that make resource extraction an attractive option for local development: and both have considerations of environmental concerns should mining take place. Despite these similarities, Kautokeino has rejected the mining of gold from their territories, while Kvalsund has approved the mining of copper on theirs. I examine why each community chose different paths to mine and not to mine, within a framework of discourse analysis that foregrounds the companies that have proposed to mine in these regions and their differing relationships to the local communities, Indigenous and non-Indigenous. I argue that the cultivation of good relations with community stakeholders, local, and national governments can lead the way to an acceptance of mining development. The paper is part of a special collection of brief discussion papers presented at the 2014 Walleye Seminar, held in Northern Saskatchewan, which explored consultation and engagement with northern communities and stakeholders in resource development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
532_Rejection and Acceptance of Mining 389-1-959-1-10-20150617.pdf
|
|
533
|
Kimmel, M., Fate Control and Human Rights, 31:2 Alaska Law Review 179, 206 (2014).
|
2014
|
General
|
Academic - NGO
|
Alaska Law Review
|
ABSTRACT The loss of territoriality over lands conveyed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act had adverse impacts for Alaskan tribal governance. Despite policy frameworks that emphasize the value of local governance at an international, regional, and statewide level, Alaskan tribes face unique obstacles to exercising their authority, with consequences for both human development and human rights. This Article examines how territoriality was lost and analyzes the four major effects of this loss on tribal governance. It then describes two distinct but complimentary strategies to rebuilding tribal governance authority that rely on both territorial and non-territorial authority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
533_Fate Control and Human Rights_ The Policies and Practices of Loca.pdf
|
|
534
|
Knopp, J. et al., Indigenous and Ecological Knowledge for Understanding Arctic Char Growth, in Fishing People of the North: Cultures, Economies, and Management Responding to Change page 177 (Carothers, C et al, eds., 2012).
|
2012
|
Science/Research
|
Academic - NGO
|
Alaska Sea Grant
University of Alaska Fairbank
|
|
27th Lowell Wakefield Fisheries Symposium Report
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
534_IK Arctic Char Growth.pdf
|
|
535
|
Eythorsson, E. and Brattland, C. New Challenges to Research on Local Ecological Knowledge: Cross-Disciplinarity and Partnership, in Fishing People of the North: Cultures, Economies, and Management Responding to Change page 131 (Carothers, C et al, eds., 2012)
|
2012
|
Science Research
|
Academic - NGO
|
Alaska Sea Grant
University of Alaska Fairbank
|
|
27th Lowell Wakefield Fisheries Symposium Report
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
535_New Challenges to Research?on Local Ecological Knowledge.pdf
|
|
536
|
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
|
1966, In force 1976
|
|
Governemnt, International
|
United Nations, Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner
|
|
International Law
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
536_International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.pdf
|
|
537
|
INTAROS Community -Based Monitoring Experience Exchange Workshop Report, May 10, 2017, Maryann Fidel, Noor Johnson, Finn Danielsen, Hajo Eicken, Lisbeth Iversen, Olivia Lee, Colleen Strawhacker. INTAROS, the International Arctic Research Center (IARC) at University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council (YRITWC), and Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge of the Arctic (ELOKA).
|
2017
|
Science Research
|
Academic - NGO
|
INTAROS, the International Arctic Research Center (IARC) at University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council (YRITWC), and Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge of the Arctic (ELOKA).
|
Continued work and engagement is required to further develop responsive CBM programs in the Arctic. CBM programs are critical to support Alaska Native peoples in building a sustainable future that preserves culture and community. Below are some of the good practices and needs that were identified during the workshop and dialog.
CBM program should:
ƒ?½ Be collaborative, co-producing knowledge and projects.
ƒ?½ Gather information that is relevant to communities and adaptation needs.
ƒ?½ Empower Indigenous peoples to address local decision making needs.
ƒ?½ Utilize TK to fill information gaps, especially baseline conditions.
ƒ?½ Avoid duplication by building on what is already in place.
ƒ?½ Build bridges between two worlds, Native and Science.
ƒ?½ Have data sharing agreements in place, which are co-created by all parties involved and clear to all participants.
ƒ?½ Share data with participating communities in locally accepted forms of communication for example in plain language reports, stories and newsletters.
ƒ?½ Contribute to communities through training, employment, and honoraria and by providing information needed to inform decision making needs.
ƒ?½ Be inclusive, including youth, Elders, and women.
CBM programs need to:
ƒ?½ Shorten the distance from data collection to action by putting relevant information in the hands of those doing the adapting. Science is too slow to address the rapid changes people are experiencing.
ƒ?½ Collect data that is used to inform the management of wildlife, fish and the environment. Regulations are not keeping up with the fast changes people are experiencing, which can cause hardship for those living off the land.
ƒ?½ Enhance cooperation for sharing data.
ƒ?½ Understand that limited internet connectivity makes communication and real time data sharing difficult: find creative ways to effectively communicate.
ƒ?½ Engage communities in a greater role to identify monitoring needs with attention to changes that are occurring across many communities.
ƒ?½ Support networks of Native communities so that they may identify shared priorities and identify how science can best contribute.
ƒ?½ Work to change the system: Alaska Natives are forced to work within a system that doesnƒ??t reflect their way of thinking.
ƒ?½ Build trust and relationships.
ƒ?½ Support education, for scientist to understand Native ways, and for Native youth and others to get involved in science.
ƒ?½ Build effective networks so communities know what others are interested in and can share lessons learned about adaptation.
ƒ?½ Develop programs that monitor the impacts of industrial development.
ƒ?½ Work to: Change funding systems so that they fund community priorities and not just academic priorities. Increase sustained funding opportunities for monitoring. Educate funders about funding needs to properly document TK. Support sustained priorities so they donƒ??t change with the ƒ??political wind.
|
Workshop Report
|
|
An opportunity for practitioners of community-based monitoring (CBM) and observing programs to come together to exchange experiences and perspectives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continued work and engagement is required to further develop responsive CBM programs in the Arctic. CBM programs are critical to support Alaska Native peoples in building a sustainable future that preserves culture and community. Below are some of the good practices and needs that were identified during the workshop and dialog.
Best Practices
CBM program should:
ƒ?½ Be collaborative, co-producing knowledge and projects.
ƒ?½ Gather information that is relevant to communities and adaptation needs.
ƒ?½ Empower Indigenous peoples to address local decision making needs.
ƒ?½ Utilize TK to fill information gaps, especially baseline conditions.
ƒ?½ Avoid duplication by building on what is already in place.
ƒ?½ Build bridges between two worlds, Native and Science.
ƒ?½ Have data sharing agreements in place, which are co-created by all parties involved and clear to all participants.
ƒ?½ Share data with participating communities in locally accepted forms of communication for example in plain language reports, stories and newsletters.
ƒ?½ Contribute to communities through training, employment, and honoraria and by providing information needed to inform decision making needs.
ƒ?½ Be inclusive, including youth, Elders, and women.
CBM programs need to:
ƒ?½ Shorten the distance from data collection to action by putting relevant information in the hands of those doing the adapting. Science is too slow to address the rapid changes people are experiencing.
ƒ?½ Collect data that is used to inform the management of wildlife, fish and the environment. Regulations are not keeping up with the fast changes people are experiencing, which can cause hardship for those living off the land.
ƒ?½ Enhance cooperation for sharing data.
ƒ?½ Understand that limited internet connectivity makes communication and real time data sharing difficult, find creative ways to effectively communicate.
ƒ?½ Engage communities in a greater role to identify monitoring needs with attention to changes that are occurring across many communities.
ƒ?½ Support networks of Native communities so that they may identify shared priorities and identify how science can best contribute.
ƒ?½ Work to change the system: Alaska Natives are forced to work within a system that doesnƒ??t reflect their way of thinking.
ƒ?½ Build trust and relationships.
ƒ?½ Support education, for scientist to understand Native ways, and for Native youth and others to get involved in science.
ƒ?½ Build effective networks so communities know what others are interested in and can share lessons learned about adaptation.
ƒ?½ Develop programs that monitor the impacts of industrial development.
ƒ?½ Work to: Change funding systems so that they fund community priorities and not just academic priorities. Increase sustained funding opportunities for monitoring. Educate funders about funding needs to properly document TK. Support sustained priorities so they donƒ??t change with the ƒ??political wind.
|
|
|
|
537_INTAROS CBM Experience Exchange Workshop Report (2017).pdf
|
|
538
|
Fidler, C. and Noble, B., Advancing strategic environmental assessment in the offshore oil and gas sector: Lessons from Norway, Canada, and the United Kingdom, 34 Envtƒ??l Impact Assessment Rev. 12, 15 (2012).
|
2012
|
Resources
|
Academic - NGO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
538_ADVANCING REGIONAL STRATEGICFidler__Noble_JEAPM_2013.pdf
|
|
539
|
Banerjee, S. Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. 34.1 Critical sociology 51-79 (2008)
|
2008
|
General
|
Academic/NGO
|
University of Western Sydney, Australia
|
|
Paper/Report
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
539_Corporate social responsibility_criticalsociologyfinal.pdf
|
|
540
|
IFC Performance Standards, Performance Standard 7: Indigenous Peoples, Guidance Note 7 Indigenous Peoples (2012).
|
2012
|
General
|
Academic - NGO
|
International Finance Corporation
|
Objectives
‹?õ To ensure that the development process fosters full respect for the human rights, dignity, aspirations, culture, and natural resource-based livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples.
‹?õ To anticipate and avoid adverse impacts of projects on communities of Indigenous Peoples, or when avoidance is not possible, to minimize and/or compensate for such impacts.
‹?õ To promote sustainable development benefits and opportunities for Indigenous Peoples in a culturally appropriate manner.
‹?õ To establish and maintain an ongoing relationship based on informed consultation and participation with the Indigenous Peoples affected by a project throughout the projectƒ??s life-cycle.
‹?õ To ensure the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of the Affected Communities of Indigenous Peoples when the circumstances described in this Performance Standard are present.
‹?õ To respect and preserve the culture, knowledge, and practices of Indigenous Peoples.
|
Guidelines
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
540_Updated_GN7-2012 pdf
|
