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».