Search

This article examines whether impact and benefit agreements (IBAs) between industry proponents and indigenous communities, a common standard in natural resource development in Canada, could be a way to fulfil the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 169 benefit-sharing duty in Latin America, as many suggest. The article begins by analysing and determining the main features of this duty. It also reviews the key components of IBAs against the backdrop of the ILO Convention 169 benefit-sharing duty, concluding that it would be problematic to think of these agreements as ways to fulfil the obligation established in ILO Convention No. 169. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social licence to operate (SLO) is a term that is finding increasing acceptance in a number of industries. Like all new terms, its precise meaning and implications are still being investigated. Using data from previous studies, this paper offers an analysis of the SLO of two case studies with each study being viewed separately through the grid of a distinct theoretical framework. Case study 1 looks at the development of differential social licence negotiated in the Hamlet of Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, as a result of an impact and benefit agreement negotiated between Tahera Diamond Corp. and the Kitikmeot Inuit Organisation in 2004. The study demonstrates that general acceptance of resource development can be uneven and reflect an unequal distribution of decision-making power. In case study 2, stakeholders of a failed mineral development project were queried across time about the specifics of the proposed mine development and were queried about resource development across different levels of consciousness. Perhaps, SLO is variable across different levels of consciousness. The paper concludes with observations about the variable nature of SLO acceptance across populations and across levels of consciousness within individuals. Perhaps, the concept of SLO is, in fact, complex, difficult to define and measure and, at this point, of limited utility as a measure of resource development acceptance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social impact assessment (SIA) is now conceived as being the process of managing the social issues of development. There is consensus on what ‘good’ SIA practice is – it is participatory; it supports affected peoples, proponents and regulatory agencies; it increases understanding of change and capacities to respond to change; it seeks to avoid and mitigate negative impacts and to enhance positive benefits across the life cycle of developments; and it emphasizes enhancing the lives of vulnerable and disadvantaged people. We analyse the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing SIA. We assert that the SIA community needs to revisit core concepts, such as culture, community, power, human rights, gender, justice, place, resilience and sustainable livelihoods. It is incumbent on SIA practitioners to educate proponents, regulators and colleagues about these concepts, and to embed them into practice norms. Stronger engagement with the emerging trends of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC); human rights impact assessment; social performance standards; supply chain management; governance; local content and economic development will improve the relevance and demonstrable value of SIA to all stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In some jurisdictions in northern Canada, co-managed environmental assessment (EA) processes, such as that of the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB), have been adopted. In these same jurisdictions, Aboriginal communities are increasingly negotiating private agreements with mining project proponents as a means of managing impacts and ensuring that local communities secure benefits from the developments. This paper offers a formal assessment of the MVEIRB EA process, to determine whether the rise of private agreements might be attributable partly to deficiencies in the EA process. While the MVEIRB EA process excels in its use of traditional and local knowledge, and its fair and rigorous decision-making process, significant deficiencies remain, as the EA process does not adequately consider benefits, provide project-specific follow-up, or build trust and capacity among stakeholders. We argue that these deficiencies help to explain the rise of supraregulatory agreements; we suggest further research to assess their effectiveness for achieving positive outcomes [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]