Indigenous Peoples, Natural Resources and Governance (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Extractive Industries and Society, 2019
Surveying existing literature, this article offers a preliminary assessment of the intersection of Indigenous governance and Arctic extractive industries, with a special focus on how Indigenous governance institutions position themselves vis-à-vis resource extraction in three regions: Nunatsiavut (Labrador, Canada), Greenland and Sápmi (the Sámi territory in Scandinavia). As a survey of existing scholarship, interviewing representatives of the extractive industry or Indigenous governments was beyond the scope of this article and hence, the analysis and conclusions are both preliminary and schematic. They do demonstrate, however, that the relations and strategies vary considerably and tend to depend on the degree and jurisdiction of the Indigenous self-governing authority. Further, they point to a pressing need for more detailed research in this area.
At the intersection of Arctic indigenous governance and extractive industries
The Extractive Industries and Society, 2019
Surveying existing literature, this article offers a preliminary assessment of the intersection of Indigenous governance and Arctic extractive industries, with a special focus on how Indigenous governance institutions position themselves vis-à-vis resource extraction in three regions: Nunatsiavut (Labrador, Canada), Greenland and Sápmi (the Sámi territory in Scandinavia). As a survey of existing scholarship, interviewing representatives of the extractive industry or Indigenous governments was beyond the scope of this article and hence, the analysis and conclusions are both preliminary and schematic. They do demonstrate, however, that the relations and strategies vary considerably and tend to depend on the degree and jurisdiction of the Indigenous self-governing authority. Further, they point to a pressing need for more detailed research in this area.
Resources, 2019
International standards refer to Indigenous peoples’ right to benefit from resource development, participate in decision-making and determine priorities in development planning that directly affects them. While good practice exists in benefit sharing, Indigenous peoples still lack opportunities for a meaningful role in strategic planning. In his role as UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya identified a ‘preferred model’ of resource development in which Indigenous peoples have greater control over planning decisions and project implementation, and consequently a more meaningful share of the benefits of resource development. This paper explores the requirements of international standards and guidance alongside different models of benefit sharing in practice by extractive industries in Arctic and sub-Arctic contexts. It is based primarily on desk-based analysis of international hard and soft law and industry standards, while also drawing on ethnographi...
Indigenous Rights, Sovereignty and Resource Governance in the Arctic
Strategic Analysis, 2013
While oil and gas industries are already well established in Siberia and Alaska, the melting of the Arctic ice cap is opening up new areas of the High North to hydrocarbon exploration. According to the US Geological Survey (USGS), the Arctic is expected to hold about 22 per cent of the world's undiscovered, technically recoverable conventional oil and natural gas resources (about 13 per cent of undiscovered oil reserves, 30 per cent of natural gas, and 20 per cent of natural gas liquids). 1 Greenland waters are believed to be particularly rich in oil, and may contain reserves of up to 50 billion barrels, equivalent of Libyan oil reserves. 2 Of the Arctic Council's five member states bordering the Arctic Ocean, Russia and Norway have already submitted continental shelf claims to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Another two member states, Canada and Denmark (on behalf of Greenland) are in the process of submitting their claims. Sovereign rights to offshore hydrocarbon reserves are key issues at stake in these claims. While some analysts see the scenario as a 'scramble' for Arctic hydrocarbons, others highlight the huge technological difficulties of oil and gas extraction in the Arctic, and suggest that territorial disputes are relatively insignificant. 3 Nevertheless, the Arctic region's substantial mineral and hydrocarbon wealth makes issues of sovereignty and governance all the more important to stakeholders, including indigenous peoples as well as states. The Arctic Council is an important forum for discussing circumpolar affairs such as resource management and environmental protection. In addition to the eight Arctic states
Mitigating the Risks of Resource Extraction for Industrial Actors and Northern Indigenous Peoples
A collaborative relationship between native peoples and industrial corporations--two actors that value resource-rich land--is of vital importance for both the United States and the Russian Federation. A strong partnership between industrial and indigenous actors can help to ensure not only the stability of extractive projects, but also the protection of indigenous groups from the potentially existential threats associated with territorial loss. Cooperation between these two parties gains urgency as extractive corporations begin to explore the Arctic, a region of the world already home to over two dozen unique indigenous communities. In both the United States and the Russian Federation, there are legal precedents for negotiations regarding indigenous rights, natural resources, and the fuel-energy complex. Even so, parties involved in the extractive process frequently stray from these national and international legal guidelines. Our paper seeks to answer the question: why might rational actors--here, indigenous and industrial communities that are motivated by their preferences--fail to cooperate on extractive projects, even when robust collaborative agreements benefit all sides? We suggest that the explanation is twofold: first, indigenous land rights lack the consistency which may give indigenous communities control over their resources and cultural preservation; and second, a neutral and objective third-party mediatorÁwhether in the form of a state or an international bodyÁis often silent in, or absent from, the negotiation process, thereby undermining its authority to ensure fair and reasonable deliberations. Our findings can offer important insights for community-corporate relations, not only in the Arctic, but worldwide.
Resources, 2019
The governance of extractive industries has become increasingly globalized. International conventions and multi-stakeholder institutions set out rules and standards on a range of issues, such as environmental protection, human rights, and Indigenous rights. Companies' compliance with these global rules may minimize risks for investors and shareholders, while offering people at sites of extraction more leverage. Although the Russian state retains a significant stake in the oil and gas industries, Russian oil and gas companies have globalized as well, receiving foreign investment, participating in global supply chains, and signing on to global agreements. We investigate how this global engagement has affected Nenets Indigenous communities in Yamal, an oil-and gas-rich region in the Russian Arctic, by analyzing Indigenous protests and benefit-sharing arrangements. Contrary to expectations, we find that Nenets Indigenous communities have not been empowered by international governance measures, and also struggle to use domestic laws to resolve problems. In Russia, the state continues to play a significant role in determining outcomes for Indigenous communities, in part by working with Indigenous associations that are state allies. We conclude that governance generating networks in the region are underdeveloped .
This article explores the existing normative system's regulation of relations between indigenous peoples of the North and industrial companies in Russia. Special attention is given to the issue of responsibility in Arctic development by government, by industrial companies (company policies), and by indigenous small-numbered peoples (customary law). For all those involved in nature management in the Russian North, the potential for overcoming the dangers they face depends on a combination of these norma-tive frameworks. The study is based on legal anthropology methods, which combine ethnographic field research (including participant observation and expert interviews) and analysis of texts of national laws, regulations, internal corporate documents as well as traditional customs. It is grounded in principles of legal pluralism, which allows for the coexistence of multiple legal regimes governing interaction between indigenous people and industrial companies. The article concludes that what is required in the Russian North is full implementation of existing legislation and industrial companies' social together with environmental commitments, plus an integrated approach that takes into account local legal, ethno-cultural and historical practices, in addition to assessment by ethnological experts in the field of legal anthropology.
Resources
The aim of this Special Issue is to provide a comprehensive view of the benefit sharing and compensation mechanisms for the Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions due to industrial resource extraction. The papers cover the following topics: (1) Benefit-sharing frameworks in the Arctic. (2) Corporate social responsibility standards and benefit sharing by extractive industries in the Arctic. (3) Benefit sharing and international and national legislation. (4) The practice of implementing legislation to support Indigenous and local interests. (5) The methodologies for assessing compensation to Indigenous communities from extractive industries.
Revisiting the governance triangle in the Arctic and beyond
Indigenous Peoples, Natural Resources and Governance, 2021
From the governance triangle to meta-governance Large-scale projects to extract energy resources, minerals and fish are attractive to governments as well as for local communities. They promise to bring income, employment and well-being, while concerns over social and environmental consequences of such projects are also widely known and shared. Our cases in this book-of wind power development, aquaculture and mining-represent extractive industries. Recent Arctic research has focused on the conflicts between extractivism, Indigenous self-determination and government policies (