ReSDA Gap Analysis: Measuring Socio-Economic Impacts

of Resource Development on Northern Communities

Progress Report

Andrey N. Petrov University of Northern Iowa

& Yukon College and report contributing authors

Background • Title: Measuring Socio-Economic Impacts of Resource Development

on Northern Communities

• Guiding Question: “What work has been done to allow the measurement of social and economic impacts of resource development on northern communities?"

• This gap report summarizes and assesses existing frameworks of socioeconomic indicators designed to identify, measure and track impacts of resource development on Arctic communities. The report first considers socioeconomic domains, which could be understood as major components or planks of human development and present a comprehensive yet attainable structure for measuring complex socioeconomic processes using a system of indicators. In order to develop a comparative view of socioeconomic impacts assessments (SEIA) conducted in different Arctic jurisdictions, the Report presents an analysis of case studies in four sectors of the Arctic: Canada, Alaska, Russia and Nordic countries. For each the contributors consider history of SEIA in the region, develop a matrix of common indicators, and provide assessment of their success. based on the extensive regional survey the Report provides a critical analysis of existing SEIA frameworks and identifies major knowledge gaps and possible improvement strategies

Research Team

• Andrey N. Petrov, University of Northern Iowa/Yukon College (lead)

• Matthew Berman, University of Alaska, Anchorage • Jessica Graybill, Colgate University • Lawrence Hamilton, University of New Hampshire • Tim Heleniak, University of Maryland • Rasmus Ole Rasmussen, Nordregio • Birger Poppel, University of Greenland • Students: • Philip Cavin, University of Northern Iowa • Matthew Cooney, University of Northern Iowa

Progress to date

• Intensive email correspondence (summer/fall)

• Meeting in Nuuk, Greenland (most contributors in attendance + observers)

• Development of report’s structure and scope

• Assignment of regional summaries and case studies: – Alaska (Berman, Hamilton), Russia (Graybill,

Heleniak), Canada (Petrov), Nordic (Rasmussen, Poppel)

Report's structure

Regional Summaries/case studies

• Guiding questions: • What is the brief history of SEIA in the region? • What SEIA measurement and monitoring frameworks exist in the region

(legal, institutional, etc.)? • What measures are utilized to fulfill SEIA (create matrix of (most used)

indicators with definitions and examples of applications)? • What are the examples (key cases) in which these frameworks were

applied (describe one or two resource projects: methodology (indicators, process), results)?

• What are the advantages, positive characteristics, innovative aspects of SEIA in the region? What have been major improvements/additions over time?

• What are the major shortcomings of the measurement and monitoring systems? What are the missing indicators?

• What are possible suggestion in improving SEIA measurement and monitoring frameworks in the region? Lessons for other regions?

Regional case studies

• Must be representative of the existing frameworks of SEIA in the region

• More recent cases are preferred

• Should follow guiding questions

• Examples of case studies: – Canada: NWT: Diamonds, Mackenzie Valley,

Normal Wells; Labrador Island

– Russia: Sakhalin

– Greenland:

SEIA frameworks in the Arctic

• International: created by international organizations: Arctic Social Indicators

• Transnational: implemented by proponents TNCs based on international experience

• National: established by legislation, implemented by federal departments (CWI)

• Regional: associated with CLCAs’ provisions, territorial/provincial regulation

• Local: community and/or project-specific

SEIA frameworks in the Arctic

• The 1972 United Nations Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment adopted a number of principles that contain elements to justify the elaboration and application of impact assessments as a policy tool, both at the national and the international level.

• Finland: 1970’s the first regulation involving impact assessments. The inclusion of social aspects in 1974.

• Denmark: legislation regarding impact assessment 1989. • Norway: adopted the first general legislation on environmental

impact assessment in 1990 as part of the planning and building act. • Iceland: Icelandic Act on Environmental Impact of 1993. • Sweden: Planning and Building Act (PBA) in 1994. • with EU regulations where the first EIA directive came in 1985. Later

the concept of Strategic Impact Assessments, including Social Impact assessment was added, and therefore need some additional comments

• Russia: 1991, 1995 “Ecological Assessment”; “Socio-Ecological assessment”

Canada: Overall SEIA frameworks

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 • 5. (1) For the purposes of this Act, the environmental effects that

are to be taken into account in relation to an act or thing, a physical activity, a designated project or a project are:

• (c) with respect to aboriginal peoples, an effect occurring in Canada of any change that may be caused to the environment on

• (i) health and socio-economic conditions, • (ii) physical and cultural heritage, • (iii) the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes,

or • (iv) any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological,

paleontological or architectural sig

General framework: Provincial and territorial regulation

• E.g., Environmental Assessment Act of Newfoundland & Labrador 2002

• CLCA-related documents and procedures: • Nunavut Impact Review Board • Section 12.7.2 of the NLCA the purpose of a monitoring program is: • “to measure the relevant effects of projects on the ecosystemic and socioeconomic environments in

the Nunavut Settlement Area” • Measures of Socioeconomic Environment

– Proximity to communities. – Archaeological and culturally significant sites (e.g. pingos, soap stone quarries) in the project (Local Study

Area) and adjacent area (Regional Study Area). – Palaeontological component of surface and bedrock geology. – Land and resource use in the area, including subsistence harvesting, tourism, trapping and guiding

operations. – Local and regional traffic patterns. – Human Health, broadly defined as a complete state of wellbeing (including physical, social, psychological,

and spiritual aspects). – Other Valued Socioeconomic Components (VSEC) as determined through community consultation and/or

literature review.

• Community-specific procedures: IBAs, community socio-economic monitoring agreements.

General framework: Provincial and territorial regulation

• Nunavut: • ◦ NLCA provisions • ◦ Cumulative Impact Management Framework • ◦ Impact & Benefit Agreements • ◦ Socio-Economic Monitoring Committees • NWT: • ◦ SEIA Guidelines • ◦ Socio-Economic Agreements /IBAs • ◦ ‘Communities and Diamonds’ • ◦ MGP Socio-Economic Impact Fund

General framework: measurement systems

• Legislation, regulation documents and CLCAs Require proponents to engage in process of SEIA as a part or in addition to environmental/ cumulative impacts assessment

• Provide only general description of what socio-economic parameters are to be measured.

• May specify domains (health, material well-being)

• Many region-specific, community-specific and project-specific frameworks

Measurement systems International

• Arctic Social Indicators (2010) • Arctic Council, circumpolar system to monitor

human development in the Arctic • 6 domains:

– Health and Population – Material well-being – Education – Cultural Vitality – Contact with nature – Fate control

DOMAIN Indicator 1 Indicator 2 Indicator 3 Indicator 4 Indicator 5

Health INFANT MORTALITY: number of deaths of children less than one year of age per 1,000 live births in the same year.

NET MIGRATION Difference between number of in and out-migrants during the year (estimates)

Material well-being

PER CAPITA HOUSEHOLD INCOME Total household income per capita

NET MIGRATION Difference between number of in and out-migrants during the year (estimates)

UNEMPLOYMENT unemployed expressed as a percentage of the labor force

PARTICIPATION RATE labor force expressed as a percentage of the population 15 years of age and over

TRANSFER PAYMENTS all cash benefits received from federal, provincial, territorial or municipal governments

Education STUDENTS IN POST-SECONDARY No data

STUDENTS COMPLETING POST-SECONDARY No data

RETENTION (10 YEARS AFTER) No data

Cultural vitality

LANGUAGE RET. Ratio between percent of respondents who repot an ability to conduct a conversation in a Native language and percent of Aboriginal population in total population.

SUBSISTENCE ENGAGEMENT percent of people 15 years of age or older that hunted, fished, trapped or engaged in other forms of subsistence harvesting during the year

Contact with nature

CONSUMPTION OF TRADITIONAL FOODS Percent of Households That Half or More of Meat & Fish Consumed in 2008 Obtained Through Hunting or Fishing

Fate control

PC OF LOCAL/ABORIG IN GOVERNING INST/POSITIONS Pc of Aboriginal people in government and managerial occupations (defined by NOC)

PC OF SELF-GENERATED INCOME (est.) Percent of personal income other than transfer payments

PC SPEAKING MOTHER LANGUAGE Ratio between percent of respondents who repot an ability to conduct a conversation in a Native language and percent of Aboriginal population in total population.

CENSUS (5 years) Aboriginal Peoples Survey (5 years) Data from NWT Bureau of Statistics

ASI Indicators matrix for NWT

Measurement systems: National (Canada)

• Community Wellbeing Index (CWB) - AANDC

• The Community Well-Being (CWB) Index is a means of measuring socio-economic well-being in First Nations, Inuit and other Canadian communities.

• A CWB index score is a single number that can range from a low of 0 to a high of 100. It is composed of data on income, education, housing conditions and labour force activity.

Measurement systems: Regional

• Communities and Diamonds -- NWT • Established in 1997 • Requirement by the GNWT: GNWT socio-economic

agreement (SEA) in 1996 • Published annually • Five domains:

• 1. community, family and individual well-being • 2. cultural well-being and traditional economy • 3. non-traditional economy • 4. net effect on government • 5. sustainable development

• 21 indicator

Communities and Diamonds indicators

Measurement systems: Local: project-specific

• Mackenzie Valley pipeline Baseline study • 2004 (one time only) • community wellness which includes the physical,

emotional, social, cultural, and economic well-being of a community, including individuals, families, and community as a whole.

• 32 communities in NWT and AB • Six domains, 54 indicators:

– People and the economy (10 indicators) – Infrastructure and community services (4 indicators) – Individual, family and community wellness (18 indicators) – Traditional culture (8 indicators) – Nontraditional land and resource use (10 indicators) – Heritage resources (4 indicators)

Measurement systems: Local: community-specific

• Norman Wells: DIAND Norman Wells Socioeconomic Monitoring Program, 1982-85

What indicators have been used - Greenland

Characteristics of Socio-economic impact analysis

List of relevant parameters for the description of the baseline

Important categories of information about the situation at the outset that may include the following (not a exhaustive list):

• Indicators of social and cultural well-being of the community / Greenland

generally – Housing/Dwellings: Number of residents in a household, area in m2 per

residents, the relationship between ownership and rented. – The importance of goods and services for Greenlanders: eg TV, computer,

favorite foods, sports centers etc. – The importance of heritage, traditions such as fishing, handicrafts, traditional

knowledge. – Languages spoken and at what level, especially Greenlandic, Danish and

English. – Land use: Hunting, fishing, agriculture, tourism, recreation, traditional routes,

etc. – Homelessness and crime.

List of relevant parameters for the description of the baseline

• Health – Disease Statistics, general health, the number of young mothers,

abortions, alcohol imports, abuse of drugs and alcohol, suicide statistics, etc.

• Population Demographics: – General demographics: mortality, fertility, number of inhabitants, infant

mortality, number of children per woman. woman, place of birth (in or outside reenland), etc.

• Recruitment for the project – To what extent the project will demand local and / or Greenland labor?

What categories of workers? – What are the qualifications required that the employees?

Alaska

• Man in the Arctic Program (MAP), which included building an econometric model of the state economy among other activities.

• The MAP model has been used in numerous SEIA to project economic effects of various projects and programs such as the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline, Susitna hydropower project, and the Minerals Management Service (now BOEM) OCS oil and gas lease sale program.

• Another big effort was related to the 1989 EXXON Valdez oil spill impacts and impacts of cleanup activities.

List of relevant parameters for the description of the baseline

• Socio-economic conditions – Income: Median Income (household and personal level) inequality. – Cost of Living: Consumer price index, construction cost index, comparison

of prices between countries. – Description of business structure: Which professions are represented,

how much profits generated which industries are particularly prominent. – Description of existing social structure: Employees categorized

occupation, unemployment, level of commuting among employees. – The size of the public sector relative to the private and semi-private

sector. – Education: Educational attainment. – Taxes: Personal income tax and corporate income tax and dividend tax. – Public goods: Infrastructure, roads, telecommunications, housing,

schools, kindergarten, health system, etc.

Arctic SEIA measurement common issues

• Not integrated, fragmentary

• Little monitoring, snapshot-based

• Limited ability to collect/analyze data

• Dependency on ‘foreign’ (southern) indicators

• Quantitative tilt

• Varying stakeholder’s interests, negotiated nature of indicators

• Lack of theoretical framework

• Comparisons are difficult

Arctic SEIA measurement common issues

Missing links: – Evaluation of local skilled work-force availability,

involvement and development – Evaulation of settlement consequences for other

places of pulling skilled work force out of the labor markets

– Evaluation of gendered potential out-migration – Evaluation of local impacts of major FIFO (Fly-in/Fly-

out) labor force from other places – Evaluation of impacts on local/Indigenous cuiltures – Evaluation of impacts on educational attendance and

attainment – Evaluation of long-term economic behavior (savings)