Staking claims and shaking hands: Impact and benefit agreements as a technology of government in the mining sector

St‐Laurent, Guillaume Peterson; Billon, Philippe Le

doi:10.1016/j.exis.2015.06.001

Cited by 45 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The potential impact of a mining operation is dependent on a wide range of local factors, such as the nature of the mineral, the geological and geotechnical parameters, the extraction method, the nature and amount of waste generated (solid, liquid or gases) and the nature and the vulnerability of the environmental component (Castilla-Gómez and Herrera-Herbert, 2015). On regards to social effects, fear over land dispossession, economic marginalization, imperilment of cultural practices and traditional livelihoods, and also the inability to oppose the extractive modes are some of the impacts faced by local communities where mines operate (Peterson St-Laurent and Billon, 2015). Moreover, Hilson (2002) supports that the most pressing social problems in the mining activities are related with safety and health to both local community and workers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges and pathways for Brazilian mining sustainability

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brazil is one of the world key players in the mining industry. This sector has also a remarkable role on the Brazilian economic and social development. Nonetheless, the economic, social and environmental impacts of the sector have not yet been fully documented, debated or understood in reports presented by companies and public organizations in the country. In this context, this research aims to contribute to this debate by analysing sustainability in the Brazilian mining sector. For this research, the approach has used mostly a qualitative method, interviews, coupled with content analysis of reports of public mining agencies. Results showed that sustainability assessment and communication is still an emergent process in Brazilian mining, since only a few large companies have been reporting their sustainability initiatives. The results provide also evidence of the existing gap between large and small companies, with the latter showing lower levels of awareness of the impact of their activities. Based on these findings, this research has concluded on the need for closer cooperation between government, public mining agencies and companies to raise levels of knowledge and awareness within companies, towards sustainability practices and communication initiatives.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges and pathways for Brazilian mining sustainability

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, these regions all have complex governance structures that include: a mosaic of historic treaties and modern land claims agreements; multiple and overlapping Indigenous, regional, and territorial governments; and changing levels of federal and provincial authority and (more recently) devolution. Recent decades have also seen evolving legal requirements and institutional practices around securing Indigenous consent for large-scale resource developments, including the negotiation of Impact and Benefits Agreements (IBAs) between proponents and affected Indigenous groups (Bradshaw et al, 2018;Caine and Krogman, 2010;Cameron and Levitan, 2014;St-Laurent and Billon, 2015). In addition to provisions for financial benefits, employment, and business opportunities, these IBAs may include measures related to the mitigation of environmental impacts, monitoring, and protection of Indigenous land use, although they are frequently confidential (O'Faircheallaigh, 2018;Papillon and Rodon, 2017).…”

Section: Community Engagement and Mine Closurementioning

confidence: 99%

Planning for social and community-engaged closure: A comparison of mine closure plans from Canada's territorial and provincial North

Monosky

Keeling

2021

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The inevitable closure and remediation phase of a mine's lifecycle routinely causes negative socioeconomic and environmental impacts for nearby communities. While closure planning is meant to ensure post-closure human and environmental safety, it tends to favour short-term technical fixes over longer-term socioeconomic , cultural, and ecological considerations. For mines operating on Indigenous territories, where communities have complex and nuanced connections to land and varying levels of jurisdiction, these issues are further exacerbated by the exclusion of Indigenous voices from planning and decision-making. This research employed a qualitative document analysis of ten mine closure plans for mines in Northern Canada that are still operational to understand how the industry is actively planning for the closure and remediation of their sites. In particular, this work asks whether or not mine companies are incorporating Indigenous Knowledge into their mine closure plans, and how they are addressing the complex socioeconomic aspects of closure. This analysis showed that mine closure plans across Northern Canada inconsistently apply Indigenous Knowledge and expertise, and the methods used for community consultation in mine closure planning are left vague. While differences in policy between Northern territories and regions account for some of these inconsistencies, a company's willingness to work beyond baseline requirements imposed by governments is also an important factor. Additionally, these closure plans further demonstrate that the industry prioritizes technical aspects of mine closure over the social, cultural, economic, and ecological. For mine closure to be successful in a Northern context it must incorporate community expertise, emerge from the values and priorities of the Indigenous peoples whose lands mines are operating on, and account for a wider scope of social, economic, and cultural impacts.

show abstract

“…13 In the early days, especially in Canada, agreements focused on a combination of employment and environmental protections, while today they encompass a wide range of activities-from education and training, to funds for economic development, socio-cultural support and communications structures, environmental monitoring and protection, direct payments and finance or commercial terms (see Table A A.1.). In Australia these agreements are referred to as Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUA) in the case of Native Title Land, 14 in Canada they are called Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs), in New Zealand the terminology differs by agreement type, 15 and in the United States there is a mix of terminology related to specific legislation. 16 Here the term benefit sharing agreement will be used.…”

Section: Entering and Managing Benefit Sharing Agreements From A Place Of Strengthmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 Indigenous community programmes and service delivery 2015 [14]). As was noted in the section on Indigenous governance, strategic community planning can be used to prioritise programme and service delivery needs.…”

Section: Programmes and Services Across The Spectrum Of Ownership And Control And The Importance Of Funding Stabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Leading practices for resource benefit sharing and development for and with Indigenous communities

Raderschall¹,

Krawchenko²,

Leblanc³

2020

OECD Regional Development Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This OECD working paper summarises leading practices for benefit sharing, workforce development, and business and governance development for and with Indigenous peoples. This work has been informed by the OECD's programme of work on Linking Indigenous Communities with Regional Development, on Mining Regions and Cities and on Indigenous Employment and Skills Strategies. This working paper specifically aims to inform the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development of Australia. The paper covers six key policy areas: i) Indigenous benefits funds and benefit sharing agreements, ii) Indigenous governance, iii) Indigenous entrepreneurship, iv) Indigenous education and training, v) Indigenous employment, and vi) Indigenous community programmes.

show abstract

Staking claims and shaking hands: Impact and benefit agreements as a technology of government in the mining sector

Cited by 45 publications

References 70 publications

Challenges and pathways for Brazilian mining sustainability

Challenges and pathways for Brazilian mining sustainability

Planning for social and community-engaged closure: A comparison of mine closure plans from Canada's territorial and provincial North

Leading practices for resource benefit sharing and development for and with Indigenous communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About