Sex, mines, and pipelines: Examining ‘Gender-based Analysis Plus’ in Canadian impact assessment resource extraction policy

Hoogeveen, Dawn; Williams, Aleyah; Hussey, Alisha; Western, S.; Gislason, Maya

doi:10.1016/j.exis.2021.100921

Cited by 7 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is surprising as some jurisdictions like Newfoundland and Labrador already require consideration of labour equity, and because it contradicts Hoogeveen et al's (2020) academic and grey literature synthesis report of Gender‐based Analysis Plus and impact assessment. That report found that “proponents and governments privilege equity employment measures as a method for the evaluation and inclusion of gender criteria” (Hoogeveen et al 2020, 14). What this suggests is that the EAs in BC are failing to even address the most basic issue of differential, highly gendered benefits known to accrue from mining: that men receive most of the higher paid jobs working in the sector.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With this form of argumentation, the proponent, in complicity with the regulator (the BC EAO), is able to minimize their responsibilities, ignoring cumulative social impacts and negating the ongoing impacts of colonial resource extraction (King and Pasternak 2019). Further, by negating responsibility and pointing to the community itself as a site of pre‐existing social problems—e.g., “in communities that are already fraught with social issues” (EAO Environmental Assessment Office 2013, 315)—the EAs pathologize both Indigenous and non‐Indigenous communities, a tendency found in both Kennedy Dalseg et al (2018) and Hoogeveen et al (2020).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The gendered demographics of mining labour were rarely addressed as only two EAs mentioned that women are disadvantaged in the mining labour sector. This is surprising as some jurisdictions like Newfoundland and Labrador already require consideration of labour equity, and because it contradicts Hoogeveen et al's (2020) academic and grey literature synthesis report of Gender-based Analysis Plus and impact assessment. That report found that "proponents and governments privilege equity employment measures as a method for the evaluation and inclusion of gender criteria" (Hoogeveen et al 2020, 14).…”

Section: Impacts Considered Are Narrow Failing To Consider Intersecti...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Those studying the policy terrain conclude that regulatory mechanisms, including EA, fail to provide the foundations for “a systematic, comprehensive analysis of the gendered and intersectional impacts of resource development” (Stienstra et al 2016, 3; Stienstra et al 2020). While are there several studies on regulations and policies as they relate to EA and gendered impacts (e.g., Hoogeveen et al 2021; Sax et al 2020), few studies “have examined how environmental decision‐making institutions and processes are gendered” (Kennedy Dalseg et al 2018, 136). More specifically, there is little empirical research that looks at completed EAs to examine if and how gendered concerns are taken up.…”

Section: Gender Mining and Environmental Assessment: A Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Inconsistent, downplayed, and pathologized: How mining's gendered impacts are considered in BC environmental assessment

Dempsey¹,

Doebeli²,

Hoogeveen

et al. 2022

Canadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To what extent do mining environmental assessments in British Columbia (BC) consider gendered impacts? How are they considered? And how are these considerations shaped during the environmental assessment process? To answer these questions we undertook a systematic review of all completed BC mining environmental assessments between 1995 and 2019 (n = 37). Through a careful reading of documentation archived in the BC Environmental Assessment Office registry, we found that 60% of projects did not consider the gendered impacts of mining development; the remaining 40% of projects inconsistently assessed gendered impacts. While noting an increase in gender considerations in environmental assessments since 1995, also quantified in our results is what has not changed. Even where gender is considered, the assessments often collapse this concern into one of “women's issues,” obscuring intersectional impacts and downplaying violence along racialized and gender diverse lines, including those experienced by Indigenous women, children, two‐spirit, trans, queer and non‐binary people. Environmental assessment is a regulatory tool designed to adjudicate the impacts of mining projects, yet our results lead us to conclude that it is also a tool of environmental injustice, compounding and further sedimenting heteropatriarchal and racialized patterns produced through generations of settler colonial resource extraction in BC.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Impacts Considered Are Narrow Failing To Consider Intersecti...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Gender Mining and Environmental Assessment: A Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Inconsistent, downplayed, and pathologized: How mining's gendered impacts are considered in BC environmental assessment

Dempsey¹,

Doebeli²,

Hoogeveen

et al. 2022

Canadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Roundtable agenda, speaker list, and list of attending organizations are included in the appendices. Briefly, after an overview of the goals of the EDC and presentation of three brief case studies of exemplar academia-community collaborations across different health priorities (COVID-19, climate change, and HIV) (Black Health Equity Working Group, 2021;Hoogeveen et al, 2021;Kaida et al, 2019;Loutfy et al, 2017), participants joined small, moderated discussion groups in which they were asked to reflect on four questions (Figure 2). Notetakers in each group captured the discussion and summarized key points.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Realizing the Promise of Disaggregated Data and Analytics for Social Justice Through Community Engagement and Intersectoral Research Partnerships

Kaida

Anderson

Barnard

et al. 2023

ESJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Canada, community and policy leaders have issued urgent calls to collect, analyze, and mobilize disaggregated data to inform equity-oriented initiatives aimed at addressing systemic racism and gender inequity, as well as other social inequities. This essay presents critical reflections from a national Roundtable discussion regarding how meaningful community engagement within academia–community–government research collaborations offers the opportunity to harness disaggregated data and advanced analytics to centre and address the priorities of equity-deserving and sovereignty-seeking groups. Participants emphasized four key priorities: (1) Building equitable and engaged partnerships that centre community-driven priorities and address structural barriers to community engagement; (2) Co-creating ethical data governance policies and infrastructure to support community data ownership and access; (3) Stimulating innovation and pursuing community involvement to create contextualized, advanced analyses and effective visualizations of disaggregated data; and (4) Building the capacity of all partners to effectively contribute to partnership goals. Capacity building was viewed as a bridge across a diversity of lived and professional expertise, enabling intersectoral research teams to collaborate in culturally safe and respectful ways. Beyond identifying key structural barriers impeding the promise of disaggregated data, we present practical opportunities for innovation in community-engaged scholarship to address social justice challenges in Canada.

show abstract

After 50 years of social impact assessment, is it still fit for purpose?

Vanclay

2023

Current Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social impact assessment is a field of applied social research that is now over 50 years old. With its ongoing evolution in practice and thinking, social impact assessment is a valued part of project development and will continue to be so. Over time, there has been a shift in understanding, from social impact assessment being a regulatory tool to now being the process of managing social issues throughout the life of a project. The range of issues considered has become much wider, now also including human rights. More than a tool or approach, social impact assessment is a discourse, a body of scholars and practitioners, a paradigm, and a philosophy about development and the rights of affected communities. The proper consideration of social impacts is now expected by all project stakeholders and is a requirement of international standards and project financing. There is now recognition of the need for projects to gain and maintain social acceptance, or a social license to operate and grow. Key current issues include: human rights; doing good rather than just doing no harm; benefit-sharing arrangements; Indigenous-led social impact assessment and community-based social impact assessment; and gender, LGBTQI+, two-spirit people, and intersectionality. Social impact assessment is increasingly being used to assist communities in negotiating Impact and Benefit Agreements (or Community Development Agreements).

show abstract

Sex, mines, and pipelines: Examining ‘Gender-based Analysis Plus’ in Canadian impact assessment resource extraction policy

Cited by 7 publications

References 22 publications

Inconsistent, downplayed, and pathologized: How mining's gendered impacts are considered in BC environmental assessment

Inconsistent, downplayed, and pathologized: How mining's gendered impacts are considered in BC environmental assessment

Realizing the Promise of Disaggregated Data and Analytics for Social Justice Through Community Engagement and Intersectoral Research Partnerships

After 50 years of social impact assessment, is it still fit for purpose?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About