Transcript
Urfolk og ressursutvinning i Arktis – Veikart til en bærekraftig mineralnæring i nord? Foredrag på GeoNor-konferansen 2015 “Industriell verdiskapning basert på geologiske ressurser i nordområdene”, 25.- 26.03.2015 Mo i Rana.
Sven-Roald Nystø Forskningsleder, Árran lulesamisk senter
Prosjekt: Urfolk og ressursutvinning i Arktis– Evaluering av etiske retningslinjer Tilskudd fra Utenriksdepartementet over 3 år Start 1.oktober 2013 – 30.september 2015 Innhold: 1: Evaluere etiske retningslinjer 2: Utføre feltarbeid i Russland, Norge(Sverige ?) 3: Utarbeide et rangeringssystem for selskaper for ressursutvinning i urfolksområder i Arktis 4: Engasjere og tilrettelegge for dialog mellom urfolk, myndigheter og industri 5: Se til andre arktiske land for erfaringer 2
Scope Contribute to facilitate ethical resource extraction in the Arctic that takes into account the rights and interests of indigenous peoples. The project will focus on the interface between indigenous rights and industrial development in the North. Current guidelines rarely function satisfactorily and conflicts occur. Give companies, indigenous peoples and governments a clearer understanding for their interaction and decision-making on resource extraction issues, thereby leading to a clearer framework. 3
Anticipated Outcomes
4
Extensive analyses of guidelines and laws on IP’s and extractive industry. Limitations –options. Policy briefs on Arctic best practises in improving dialogue between industry, indigenous peoples and governments To consult affected parties in order to contribute to international agreement an influence adoption and implementation of the relevant guidelines A possible methodology to assess, compare and rank companies involved in resource extraction in IP’s areas in terms of CSR and other indicators
While focusing on Norway, Russia and partly Sweden, we will remain aware of the global level in a comparative perspective
Workforce Sven Roald Nystø, Árran Lule Sámi Centre Project Leader Dr Piers Vitebsky, Head of Anthropology SPRI, University of Cambridge, Professor II, UiT (Research Coordinator) Dr Emma Wilson, Senior Researcher, International Institute for Environment and Development, London Dr Indra Øverland, NUPI, Oslo Dr Florian Stammler, Senior Researcher, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi Dr Natalia Novikova, Russian A of S, Moscow Mr Roman Sidortsov Esq, SPRI, Cambridge and Senior Energy Fellow,Vermont Law School, USA Dr Matias Åhrén,Faculty of Law, University of Tromsø Masterstudent Aike Selfors, Sami Centre, UiT
5
Corporate Social Responsibilities I.
II.
III.
6
A critical analysis of pros and cons and potential effects of CSR. In debt analysis of CSR ethical guidelines and other CSR instruments that are of the greatest relevance to resource extraction in the Arctic. Based on the analysis of the CSR instruments, a conclusion of how effective CSR can be, what such instruments have the best chance of improve business conduct, what are the gaps. We might also try to consolidate the existing jungle of CSR instruments to one or two proposed model CSR instruments.
Analysing CSR instruments: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
7
The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (initial analysis completed) The UN Global Compact (initial analysis under way) The UN Global Compact’s Business Reference Guide to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (initial analysis completed) The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises The Equator Principles (initial analysis completed)
Analysing CSR instruments 2: 1.
2.
3. 4.
5.
8
The International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) Performance Standard 7 on Indigenous Peoples (initial analysis completed) The International Council on Mining & Metals (ICMM) Position Statement on Indigenous Peoples and Mining Extractive Industries Transparancy Initiative Principles of Responsible Investment E0 100 Standards (initial analysis completed)
Fieldwork – Taking guidelines out in the field – Russia 2014-2015 Sakhalin Sahka Republic (Yakutia) Yamal Nenets Autonomous Region Komi Republic Nenets Autonomous Region
Feltarbeid i Norge 2015 - Goliatutbyggingen, 9
Nussirprosjektet (Kvalsund), Arctic Gold (Kautokeino) og Sement - mineraler (Tysfjord)
Governance through ranking
10
Most laws and international rules oriented towards states Many rules and principles exist, but do companies pay attention? Empowerment of non-corporate actors, including indigenous peoples Ranking grabs attention Ranking criteria can be stricter than laws
Governance through ranking II
11
Not just prohibition or condemnation, also winners > Also source of PR, reinforcing governmentality In contrast to laws, meet out reward and punishment to all immediately Shuffling ladder effect Awareness raising about indigenous rights and measures to handle them A governmentality perspective But not exercised by state
Examples from other Arctic countries - Finland The Finnish Innovation Fund «Sitra»: Multi-stakeholder roundtable process (10/2012 – 4/2013) on establishing the: Finnish Network for Sustainable Mining The mining industry and its stakeholders create a Finnish Network for Sustainable Mining with the support of Sitra. The network, built on cooperation and trust, promotes more responsible practices for mines in Finland based on international approaches. 12
Finnish Network for Sustainable Mining
13
Sustainable mining takes into account other economic activities, cultures, society and the environment. • Open and balanced dialogue • Active and constructive cooperation • Tools: indicators, management and evaluation systems: - Voluntary • No lobbying regarding legislation or legal enforcement • No statements regarding existing local conflicts of interest
The Network’s principles on collaboration – Signing as commitments
14
compliance with the law promoting mining practices that are responsible and ecologically, socially and economically sustainable throughout the life cycle of a mine transparent information on mining activities engagement in genuine dialogue with stakeholders, for example to settle any conflicts of interest in advance and take into account the operational needs of other economic activities
The Finnoish Network’s principles on collaboration – cont.
15
protection and conservation of biodiversity; management of environmental and social impacts systematic and comprehensive risk management ensuring the well-being of employees and promoting employment protecting cultural heritage • respecting the special rights of the Sámi people.
Finnish Network–Key Stakeholders
16
Mining Companies (4) Environmental NGO’s (2) Sami Parliament (1) Reindeer Herders Association (1) Financiers & Investors (1) Other Economic Activities (3) Labour Organisations (1) Value Chain (1) Municipalities and Counties (2)
«Towards Sustainable Mining» (TSM) - Canada Mining Association of Canada (MAC): Advocacy – to advance the business of mining TSM Initiative – stewardship and social license Established 2004, Core strengths; accountability, transparency and credibility; Program architecture: -Community of Interests (COI) Advisory Panel -TSM Protocols and Indicators - TSM Rating System - TSM Governance -TSM Verification System and Public Reporting 17
Protocols and Ranking System 6 protocols with indicators to report on: Aboriginal and Community Outreach Crisis Management Planning Safety and Health Tailings Management Biodiversity Conservation Management Energy Use and GHG Emissions Management Rating system: AAA – Excellence and Leadership AA, A- Systems/processes are developed and implementet, B- Procedures excist but, …. 18 C-No systems in place, activities reactive, etc
5/2/15 i Tromsø: Konklusjoner
19
The current situation Norway: Deficit regarding tools to develop extractive industry in Sámi Areas, particularly in terms of mining. We need a new machinery to handle these issues. Recommendation: Start drafting “The Road Map to Sustainable Extractive Industry in Norway” as a contribution from Norway to future Circumpolar Innovation. Regarding stakeholders and processes: Learn from other Arctic countries. Time schedule: What it takes to build mutual trust among key stakeholders.
4: Engasjere og tilrettelegge for dialog mellom urfolk, myndigheter og industri Prosess under utvikling (?), - men hva er hovedproblemstillingen?
Hvilket samfunn blir vi å ha her om 2030 år dersom vi slipper gruveindustrien til? Hvilke samfunnskrefter «slippes løs» i slike debatter? «Ingeniøren» versus «brikoløren» 20
Selskaper/ vs. «Alt fra ny-sjamanister til Statlige myndigheter kommunestyrer»
Engasjere og tilrettelegge for dialog mellom urfolk, myndigheter og industri II Hvilket veikart? 1: Erkjenne at det trenges et veikart og hvorfor? 2: Erkjenne at prosessen er like viktig som det substansielle resultatet, hva enn det måtte bli. 3: Erkjenne at det minst er tre hovedparter som etterhvert må sette seg rundt samme bord for å få prosessen igang, (men ikke med en gang): a) Statlige myndigheter b) Gruveindustrien c) Sametinget 21
Andre viktige håndgrep
22
Løfte gruvespørsmål og samiske interesser opp på et grenseoverskridende perspektiv, slik rapporten «Vekst fra nord» tar til orde for. Større andel av fortjenesten kommer til fordel for lokalsamfunnene, noen forekomster bør få ligge av hensyn til arktisk natur, urfolk og reiseliv. Industrielle aktører oppfordres til åpen dialog med lokalsamfunnene og Sametingene i Norge, Sverige og Finland, der beste praksis fra andre arktiske land tas i betraktning. «Regelverket for gruvedrift i skandinavisk arktisk bør ta hensyn til urfolks rettigheter og lokalsamfunnenes beste».
