GAP ANALYSIS REPORT #3 Measuring Impacts: A Review of Frameworks, Methodologies and Indicators for Assessing Socio- Economic Impacts of Resource Activity in the Arctic Andrey Petrov, University of Northern Iowa Contributing authors: Matthew Berman, UAA, USA, Jessica Graybill, Colgate University, USA, Philip Cavin, UNI, USA, Matthew Cooney, UNI, USA, Vera Kuklina, Sochava Institute of Geography, Russia, Rasmus Ole Rasmussen, Nordregio, Sweden/Denmark
56
Embed
Measuring Impacts: A Review of Frameworks, Methodologies and …yukonresearch.yukoncollege.yk.ca/wpmu/wp-content/uploads/... · 2014. 9. 26. · A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
GAP ANALYSIS REPORT #3
Measuring Impacts: A Review of Frameworks, Methodologies and Indicators for Assessing Socio-
Economic Impacts of Resource Activity in the Arctic
Andrey Petrov, University of Northern Iowa Contributing authors: Matthew Berman, UAA, USA, Jessica Graybill, Colgate
University, USA, Philip Cavin, UNI, USA, Matthew Cooney, UNI, USA, Vera Kuklina, Sochava Institute of Geography, Russia, Rasmus Ole Rasmussen, Nordregio,
Sweden/Denmark
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 2
Measuring Impacts: A Review of Frameworks, Methodologies and Indicators for Assessing Socio-Economic Impacts of Resource Activity in the Arctic Lead author: Andrey N. Petrov, University of Northern Iowa, USA & Yukon College, Canada Contributing authors: Matthew Berman, UAA, USA, Jessica Graybill, Colgate University, USA, Philip Cavin, UNI, USA, Matthew Cooney, UNI, USA, Vera Kuklina, Sochava Institute of Geography, Russia, Rasmus Ole Rasmussen, Nordregio, Sweden/Denmark
1.0 Introduction
This gap analysis report presents a summary of existing knowledge and practices pertaining to
the measurement of socio-economic impacts of resource development. In other words, it
critically reviews the work that has been done to allow the measurement of social and economic
impacts of resource development on northern communities. We review frameworks and systems
of indicators which exist in various Arctic jurisdictions and provide a more detailed description
of several key studies that illuminate both progress and gaps in measuring impacts of resource
development. In contrast to the ReSDAGap Analysis Report #2 (Schweitzer et al., 2013; Rodon,
2013) that deals with conceptualizing, capturing and systematizing the impacts, we focus on
measurement systems and methodologies that are part of socio-economic impact assessment
procedures found across the Arctic.
The guiding question put forth by ReSDA for this gap report is as follows: What work has been
done to allow the measurement of social and economic impacts of resource development on
Northern communities? In accordance with the guiding question the objectives of in this gap
analysis report include:
Provide a synthesis of existing practices: understand, compare and evaluate socio-economic
impact measurement frameworks that exist in various Arctic regions. How well these
frameworks are designed to address the challenge of sustainable development in the Arctic?
The report focuses on domains and variables utilized for deploying measurement systems,
their scope, methodology, implementation, and, wherever possible, effectiveness and
efficiency.
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 3
Identify best practices and missing links: Identify best practices and common shortcomings
in respect to selection of domains and variables and development of measurement
methodologies
Unveil barriers to success: Identify common barriers to effective and efficient impact
assessment strategies and coping mechanisms.
Consider options for a possible circumpolar impact assessment framework: is there a set of
principles, methodologies and indicators that are able to assist in establishing a pan-Arctic
framework of socio-economic impact assessment?
This gap report directly responds to several key questions and proprieties identified by the
ReSDA team. First of all, it provides material that helps with answering to ReSDA’s principle
research questions: how to measure the impacts of resource development and how to better
understand these impacts. Clearly, an adequate measurement of impacts is essential in order to
properly understand how benefits to communities from resource development can be improved
upon and how negative impacts can be mitigated. Communities must have access to adequate
information concerning positive and negative consequences of resource development if they are
going to make proper choices as to what type of arrangements they would like to agree to in their
relationships with both higher levels of government and industry.
2.0 Methodology: literature and key studies review strategy
A literature review aimed at identifying recent state-of-the-art developments and existing gaps
can rely on different strategies for the selection and systematization of available literature and
key studies material. In this report we, to the extent possible, employed a systematic literature
review process that is both inclusive and well-defined. Our review strategy was to conduct
internet and publication database searchers of academic, government and ‘grey’ literature
sources using such key terms as ‘impact assessment,’ ‘economic,’ ‘socio-economic impact
assessment (SEIA),’ ‘Arctic,’ ‘resource development,’ etc. In addition to overall searches, our
team also pursued regional summaries and an in-depth key studies approach in order to
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 4
illuminate both gaps and success stories observed in diverse Arctic regions. These case studies
were selected based on expert knowledge and consideration of the following criteria:
representative nature (of a given region’s impact measurement frameworks), availability of
methodological and technical descriptions, and importance of particular resource activity for a
region or the Arctic.
3.0 Nature of socio-economic impacts in resource development: types of impacts and
measures
3.1 Nature and Scope of SEIA
Gap Analysis 2 (Schweitzer et al., 2013) addresses the major conceptual aspects of
understanding socio-economic impacts of resource development. It is worth reminding that SEI
are part of cumulative impacts of resource development, which also include environmental
consequences of these activities (Therivel & Ross, 2007//MP). The study of cumulative impacts
(as opposed to focusing exclusively on environmental assessments) is becoming a standard
procedure in pre- and post-development assessment of (Duinker& Greig, 2006//MP; Frank,
2012). In the context of resource activities, environmental impacts assessment is much better
represented in the literature and implemented in practice (Mitchell & Parkins, 2011). In contrast,
socio-economic impacts assessment is in its relatively young stage, and its measurement systems
are merely emerging. This said, there are jurisdictions in which such assessments are required for
permitting purposes or otherwise imposed on development proponents by formal or informal
rules (e.g., through Impact and Benefit Agreements). This sporadic and dynamic nature of SEIA
presents an additional challenge for an analytical review.
It is worth noting that the history of SEIA is closely related to the Arctic. In the USA the need
for SEIA became apparent during the Alaska oil boom and pipeline planning in the 1970s (Burge
& Vanclay, 1995). In Canada the first SEIA when social impacts were analyzed in depth and
actually considered in decision making took place in the Mackenzie Valley (the Berger Inquiry,
Berger (1977)). By the 1980s most U.S. federal agencies incorporated SEIA in their regulations.
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 5
In northern Europe most counties adopted relevant legislation in the 1970s and 1990s. Russia
developed an impact assessment legislative and regulation frameworks in the 1990s and 2000s.
The fundamental question of SEIA in the Arctic is the definition and scope of socio-economic
impacts as pertains to resource activities. Vanclay (2002) defines social impacts assessment as: the process of assessing or estimating, in advance, the social consequences that are likely to follow
from specific policy actions or project development, particularly in the context of appropriate
national, state or provincial environmental policy legislation (p. 190).
In this reading, social impacts incorporate measurements of all social and cultural consequences to human populations of any public or private actions that alter
the ways in which people live, work, play, relate to one another, organise to meet their needs, and
generally cope as members of society. Cultural impacts involve changes to the norms, values, and
beliefs of individuals that guide and rationalise their cognition of themselves and their society. (p.
190)
There have been numerous attempts to define the scope of SEI. The key questions in this respect
are the identifications of socio-economic domains to be measured and indicators to be utilized.
Domains are spheres of human life that are associated with distinct activities, behaviors, norms,
locations, relationships and institutions. In social impacts literature domains are typically linked
with particular types of impacts. For example, Armour (1990) proposed to distinguish impacts
affecting “people’s way of life,” “people’s culture” and “people’s community”. This
classification since has been further elaborated by many analysis (e.g., Burge, 1994, 1999;
Vanclay, 1999; 2002; Juslen, 1995; Interorganizational…, 1994; 2003; Taylor at al., 1995; BOR,
2002) to include up to eight types of impacts corresponding to various domains of human life. In
the Arctic context, the Arctic Social Indicators Report (Larsen et al., 2010) proposed to consider
six domains that are representative of spheres of life important for Arctic residents. Based on
groundwork by the Arctic Human Development Report, ASI and other social indicators literature
2003; Larsen et al., 2010; GNWT, 2003) one can identify the following domains that are
considered relevant for measuring SEI of resource development in the Arctic:
o Human health
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 6
o Material well-being (incomes and wages)
o Employment & participation
o Social well-being and cohesion
o Population dynamics (demographics and migration)
o Cultural vitality (including traditional activities and closeness to nature)
o Empowerment and fate control
o Education and human capital
3.2 Social (socio-economic) Indicators
Social indicators can be defined as domain-specific or integrated data series that allow for a
comparison of human well-being (broadly defined) and its dynamics over time and over space,
showing trends, changes, and fluctuations in rates of change (Mitchell & Parkins, 2011; Force &
Machlis 1997). Indicators can be quantitative or qualitative measurements that are designed to
measure direct or indirect impacts of resource development on human lives. Indicators should be
clearly defined, reproducible, unambiguous, understandable and practical (Larsen et al., 2010).
In many cases assessments attempt to measure valued social and economic components. The
latter are identified by experts and community consultations. Social indicators then are
understood as measurable variables that describe the state and trends in valued social and
economic components (MVEIRB, 2007).
Significance determination is another important issue. It is a process of comparing project
impacts to existing (accepted) thresholds. In the context of SEIA such thresholds are often not
clear as they are not largely spelled out in legislation (such as environmental thresholds defined
in CEPA (MVEIRB, 2007)). The determination takes place based on guidelines, policy
statements, academic studies, and consultation with impacted communities, which are all subject
to interpretation.
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 7
Identifying possible indicators (measures) to be utilized for monitoring SEI is a challenging task.
Existing frameworks build on social domain classification to develop such lists of indicators.
Recent reviews of literature and practice demonstrate that these lists may incorporate dozens of
variables (Mitchell & Parkins, 2011). Earlier systems of indicators were characterized by an
eclectic approach with multiple variables sometimes organized into loose categories (Burge,
1994; Vanclay, 1999; 2002; Juslen, 1995; Interorganizatinal…, 1994; Kusel, 2001; Force and
Machlis, 1997). These frameworks have been criticized for lack of focus, the incorporation of
variables that have indirect connection to resource activity, and confusion between impacts and
contributing social processes (Vanclay, 2002). To alleviate these limitations some suggested
increasing the complexity (and, simultaneously, improving clarity) of the system by
differentiating between social change from social impact (i.e. between processes of change
resulting from resource development) and specific outcomes experienced by humans (Slootweg
et al., 2001, Vanclay, 2002). In this case, social processes may include demographic, economic,
legal, sociocultural, emancipatory and other processes of social change. In contrast, impacts are
supposed to be experienced or felt by humans: health, quality of life, social cohesion, cultural
well-being, livability of place and others (Vanclay, 2002).
Another option is to narrow down indicators to a small but representative set of qualitative or
quantitative variables. Such pragmatic approach aims to single out most important, relevant,
valid, and reliable measures from a variety of indicators available. Most ‘pragmatic’ indicator
systems are based on experts’ assessment of indicators quality (Mitchell & Parkins, 2011). For
example, ASI reports (Larsen et al., 2010; 2013) utilized seven indicators to characterize six
domains of human well-being. The indicators were selected based on definitional clarity, data
availability, robustness, scalability and inclusiveness. ASI argued that this approach can
“condense real-life complexity into a manageable amount of meaningful information” (Larsen et
al., 2010, p. 23).
It is apparent that both divorcing impacts from underlying processes and narrowing down the
number of indicators are important and not mutually exclusive ways to develop a robust,
effective and efficient system of measuring SEI of resource development in the Arctic. In the
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 8
following analysis we will evaluate existing measurement frameworks by examining their
abilities to differentiate impacts from processes (Vanclay, 2002) and employ social indicators
that meet conditions of definitional clarity, data availability, robustness, scalability and
inclusiveness (Larsen et al., 2013). Definitional clarity deals with the availability of an
unambiguous and measurable definition of an indicator. Robustness considers aspects of spatial
and temporal stability of the indicator over time. Scalability is refers to the extent to which the
data used to measure the chosen indicator can be collected at different geographical scales. Data
availability concerns whether the data that an indicator will use as a measure exists, and whether
it is retrievable. Finally, inclusiveness deals with an ability of an indicator to include various
groups of people, communities and regions (e.g., male and female, Indigenous and non-
Indigenous, rural and urban, etc.).
3.3 Methods and Tools of SEIA
SEIA is heavily based on methods utilized in social science disciplines, especially sociology, and
economics (Burge, 2004). Social indicators that deal with social processes and impacts are
typically embedded in surveys, workshops, focus groups, community meetings, ethnographic
studies, etc. Collected data (whether quantitative or qualitative) are employed to analyze
concerns, capacities and aspirations of local residents. Economic indicators are incorporated into
relatively standard analytical procedures, such as cost benefit, input-output and fiscal analyses.
Anticipatory assessments (most SEIA belong to this group) involved scenario-building and
comparisons with baselines and existing case studies of resource development impacts in
comparable environments. In addition, risk-benefit analysis is sometimes used when dealing with
projects that bears significant risk (e.g., to human health (MVEIRB, 2007)).
One of the issues with SEIA methodologies is their reliance to quantitative indicators. While
understandable (and often necessary) this ‘quantitative tilt’ introduces bias towards what
indicators are deemed useful and what SEIs are considered. Although many models allow for
measuring non-tangible impacts by assigning some quantitative measure (e.g., a dollar value) to
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 9
them, many quantitatively indiscernible impacts remain outside the scope of SEIA itself and the
following monitoring and mitigation efforts.
Recent years have seen an increase in qualitative and community-based methods. In addition to
data collection using standard techniques (work with statistics data, surveys), SEIA frameworks
emphasize other types of information gathering, such as townhall meetings, focus groups,
interviews, etc. An emerging practice is to involve community members in gathering and
analyzing information both before the start of the project, i.e. for the SEIA purposes, and after,
for the purposes of the SEIA follow-up and long term monitoring activities (Knopp et al., 2013;
Petrov et al., 2013).
4.0 Socio-economic impact analysis (SEIA): Arctic regional case studies and applications
4.1 SEIA in Alaska, USA (Berman, Petrov)
4.1.1 Overview. The fundamentals of the framework for SEIA in the USA are incorporated in the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) that requires consideration of impacts on
the human environment. NEPA established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) within
the Executive Office of the President, charging it with balancing environmental, economic, and
social objectives as it ensures that federal agencies meet their NEPA obligations (Sec. 102 [42
U.S.C. §4331(a)]). NEPA does not explicitly mention SEI, but does require that federal agencies
include social sciences in assessing the effect of federal actions on the human environment (Sec.
102 [42 USC § 4332(a)]). This has led agencies to consider social impacts explicitly in preparing
Environmental Impact Statements under NEPA.
In revising regulations in 1978, the President‘s Council on Environmental Quality made explicit
the requirement for government agencies to conduct social impacts assessments if the
biophysical impacts and social impacts are interrelated (U.S. Council on Environmental Quality,
1978). However, it was not until the mid 1980s that the federal courts required that social
impacts be considered (Freudenberg, 1986). Since that time, consideration of SEI has become
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 10
more systematic (Becker, 1997; Galisteo Consulting, 2002), and the environmental impact
assessment process has become the dominant framework at the federal level for assessing social
impacts. In the following years various federal agencies published and updated SEIA guidelines
and manuals (US Forest Service, 1982; Interorganizational…, 1994, 2003; BOR, 2002).
The Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment
(1994) published detailed guidelines for anticipatory SEIA in 1994. This document contained
definitions of social impacts, main principles of assessment planning and implementation and list
of suggested domains and variables. The updated version of these guidelines (Interorganizational
, 2003) suggests using 32 indicators, a number consistent with other recommendations in the
literature (see Burge, 1998, Galisteo Consulting, 2002). The overall methodological principle
embedded in the guidelines is a baseline-based comparative analysis of indicators with a usage of
existing case studies as scenario-building instruments. The list of suggested indicators is
presented in Table 1. They represent an eclectic mix of variables describing both social processes
of change and actual impacts of development (Vanclay, 2002).
Table 1. U.S. Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact
Assessment List of Recommended Variables
Population change Population size density & change Ethnic & racial comp. & distribution Relocating people Influx & outflows of temporaries Presence of seasonal residents
Community resources Change in community infrastructure Indigenous populations Changing land use patterns Effects on cultural, historical, sacred & archaeological resources
Community & institutional structures Voluntary associations Interest group activity Size & structure of local government Historical experience with change Employment/income characteristics Employment equity of disadvantaged groups Local/regional/national linkages Industrial/commercial diversity Presence of planning & zoning
Community and family changes Perceptions of risk, health & safety Displacement/relocation concerns Trust in political & social institutions Residential stability Density of acquaintanceships Attitudes toward proposed action Family & friendship networks Concerns about social well-being
Political & social resources Distribution of power & authority Conflict newcomers & old-timers
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 11
Identification of stakeholders Interested and affected parties Leadership capability & characteristics Interorganizational cooperation
Source: Interorganizational… (2003)
It is important to emphasize that the existing framework of indicators and its implementations
deal with anticipatory impacts. These applications are quite numerous and deal with multiple
scenarios based on assumptions informed by comparative case studies (communities in post-
development stage). Although it is likely that many indicators from this anticipatory framework
could be utilized for post-development monitoring of socio-economic impacts, the potential
shortcoming of this approach is the lack of variables designed to monitor the aftermath of
development. Measurements appropriate for identifying baseline conditions are not always
suitable for detecting change. Inability to account for actual consequences of resource
development is a problem typical for SEIA systems in general (Schweitzer et al., 2013).
4.1.2 SEIA indicators case studies: Alaska Man in the Arctic Program and Red Gog Mine SEIA
indicators. There is a long history of SEIA in Alaska, starting with considering effects on Inuit
during the Trans-Alaska Pipeline planning (1973). With the introduction of federal offshore oil
and gas lease sales in Alaska in 1976, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (later the Minerals
Management Service, now Bureau of Ocean Energy Management) began a Social and Economic
Studies Program to assemble social and cultural research on coastal communities that might be
relevant to impact assessment and planning (Peat Marwick and Mitchell, et al. 1977), which
eventually published over 100 technical reports that provided substance for the NEPA documents
related to oil and gas leasing. Much of the focus of earlier studies was on economic and
demographic changes.
During the 1970s, the University of Alaska’s Institute of Social and Economic Research
developed the Man in the Arctic Program (MAP), which included building an econometric
model of the state economy among other activities. The MAP model was first used to project
economic and demographic impacts of OCS leasing in 1979 (Huskey, 1979). When the Minerals
Management Service under Secretary of Interior James Watt, began aggressively offering
offshore oil and gas lease sales in Alaska in the 1980s, projections of population, employment,
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 12
and income change using the MAP model were incorporated into EISs for each sale. The MAP
model has been used in numerous other EISs to project economic effects of various projects and
programs such as the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline, and Susitna hydropower project.
In the 1990s, amid economic growth in urban Alaska and increasing concern for the well-being
of rural indigenous communities, studies to support federal EISs have focused more on regional
and local social, economic, and cultural effects. Important examples include impacts of the 1989
EXXON Valdez oil spill and associated cleanup activities, as well as the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council’s management of offshore fisheries in Alaska. As NEPA processes have
evolved to meet legal interpretation, the associated SEIA has become much more comprehensive
and sophisticated. A good example of contemporary practice is the Red Dog Mine expansion EIS
(Tetra Tech, 2009). The description of projected impacts of the mine and port expansion contains
separate sections on incremental and cumulative effects on land use and recreation, subsistence,
public health, cultural resources, transportation, jobs, income, and cost of living, and
environmental justice. Table 2 below shows a summary of cumulative effects.
Table 2. Cumulative Social and Economic Effects of Red Dog Mine Expansion
Resource Impacts
Land Use/Recreation
Cumulative effects of all projects on land use and recreation are expected to be less than significant because of the remote nature of, and limited access to, the area.
Subsistence DMTS port improvements and construction of the wastewater discharge pipeline could cause cumulative effects on Beluga whales, although construction could be timed to avoid critical periods.
Kivalina relocation could affect subsistence patterns, but impacts are likely to be independent of other projects.
The Noatak road could cause cumulative effects on caribou migration, although traffic would be limited. It may also provide improved access to hunting areas.
Global climate change would likely have broad impacts on subsistence, including effects associated with changes in sea ice, vegetation, water resources and habitat.
Public Health All of the projects that involve construction and development that create jobs could increase the positive health benefits associated with economic gains in the region. Construction related effects would, however, be short term.
Construction of the wastewater discharge pipeline could alleviate the public health concerns of Kivalina residents related to perceived contamination of their drinking water supply.
Increased dust from the Noatak road would not pose an additional risk. The road could further affect caribou movement and harvest, and resulting changes in subsistence may affect diet, and consequently, public health. DMTS improvements and construction of the wastewater pipeline
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 13
might cause additional impacts on beluga whale migration and harvest, but they could be timed to avoid harvest periods.
Cultural Resources
No significant impacts to cultural resources. All projects would be subject to the requirements of the NHPA.
Transportation The Noatak airport expansion and road could lead to improved access, although traffic on the road would be light. Improvements to the DMTS port may lead to additional ship traffic, and global climate change might lead to a longer open water season.
Socioeconomics All of the projects that involve construction and development, and create jobs, could increase the positive health benefits associated with economic gain in the region.
Construction related effects would, however, be short-term.
Residents of Kivalina could benefit from the relocation, while the increased access to Noatak via the road and the airport expansion could provide cumulative economic benefits to residents.
The cost of construction of the wastewater pipeline could reduce annual payments to NANA shareholders.
Environmental Justice
Construction of the wastewater discharge pipeline would address concerns voiced by Kivalina residents. Overall, there would be no cumulative environmental justice impacts.
Source: Table 3.19-3, Tetra Tech, 2009: 3-355.
If we were to take the point of view of the ASI domains of well-being (see above), there has been
little attempt in EISs to address potential impacts on control of destiny and health (other than
population) is still quite limited. There is also little discussion of effects on distribution of
material well-being within communities and regions. Impacts on cultural continuity have been
addressed only qualitatively.
While the NEPA EIS represents the main vehicle for SEIA in Alaska, the State of Alaska also
has a procedural requirement to determine that the disposal or use of state lands and resources is
in the “best interest” of the people of Alaska (AS 38.05.035). The Best Interest Findings (BIFs)
issued by the Department of Natural Resources provide a vehicle for SEIA information,
although, with limited legal requirements, they often serve mostly to build the political case for
potential controversial decisions. Nevertheless, BIFs for major resource disposals often contain a
substantial, although mostly qualitative, analysis of potential social impacts.
Examples of more comprehensive BIFs include those of state oil lease sales on the North Slope
(ADNR, 2008; ADNR, 2011). These include estimates of jobs by community, along with
qualitative discussion of potential effects on public health that exceed those of most federal EISs
in the level of detail. They also include description of mitigation measures required to reduce
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 14
adverse impacts of subsistence harvesting, training programs to enable local residents to obtain
industry jobs, and requirements for further consultation with affecting communities.
4.2 SEIA in Arctic Canada (Petrov, Cooney, Cavin)
4.2.1 Overview. In Canada the EIA process at the federal level is regulated by the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act of 2012 (CEAA, 2012) that succeeded the Act of 1992. For the
purposes of CEAA 2012, the environmental effects that are to be taken into account include
provision regarding impacts on Aboriginal peoples in respect to health and socio-economic
conditions, physical and cultural heritage, the current use of lands and resources for traditional
purposes, and any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or
architectural significance. CEAA 2012 emphasizes the cumulative effects on resource activity in
a region. According to the Act the EIA can be conducted either by a responsible authority or an
assessment review panel, which both can be conducted by federal government in cooperation
with another jurisdiction(s).
In addition to CEAA 2012 Canada’s federal government occasionally passes special legislation
that imposes EIA or similar procedures for specific regions and projects. For example, the
Mackenzie Valley Gas Project EIA has been conducted under the provisions of the Mackenzie
Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA, 1998) that created an integrated co-management
structure for public and private lands and waters in the Mackenzie Valley.
Various Canadian jurisdictions (provinces and territories) have their own legislative acts and
guidelines for conducting EIA. This situation may create additional complications for processing
of project submissions. However, often jurisdictions attempt to harmonize EIA requirements for
most efficient and effective environmental assessment that provides high quality information and
conclusions on environmental effects required to satisfy their respective legislative requirements
(e.g., GNL & GC, 2011).
Below we present several cases of SEIA conducted in recent years in the Canadian North with an
emphasis on domain and variable selection, measurement and monitoring. We present an
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 15
example of anticipatory SEIA that is fairly traditional in nature (Mackenzie Valley Gas Project),
an example of a functioning monitoring and follow-up program established to detect impacts
after an initial SEIA (Communities and Diamonds reports in NWT) and an example of an
integrated interjurisdictional measurement framework that both has anticipatory and follow-up
components (Labrador-Island Transmission Link project).
4.2.2 SEIA Indicators Case Study (anticipatory SEIA): Mackenzie Valley Socio-Economic
baseline indicators. The purpose of the Mackenzie Valley Gas Project environmental impact
assessment was to present information on communities and people that might be affected by the
proposed activities as part of the regulatory application process of the Mackenzie Gas project
(Imperial Oil, 2004). The assessment was conducted under the provisions of the Mackenzie
Valley Resource Management Act and guidelines of the Mackenzie Valley Environmental
Impact Review Board (MVEIRB, 2005; 2007). The socio-economic assessment was completed
in August of 2004. The stakeholders submitting the application are Imperial Oil Resource
The socio-economic volume of the report pursues an issues-focused approach to baseline
information. The focus is on community wellness which includes the physical, emotional, social,
cultural, and economic well-being of a community, including individuals, families, and the
community as a whole. The objective was to develop indicators of various aspects of the
community well-being from the available data. The Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA)
was designed to focus on project effects on the wellness of potentially affected communities.
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 16
Figure 1. Mackenzie Valley socio-economic baseline indicators
The study looked at 32 communities in the Northwest Territories and Alberta (Figure 1). The
study area was divided into five regions: Inuvialuit, Gwich’in, Sahtu, Deh Cho, and the Industrial
and Commercial center. The socio-economic measurements are broken down into six different
sections (domains):
o People and the economy
o Infrastructure and community services
o Individual, family and community wellness
o Traditional culture
o Nontraditional land and resource use
o Heritage resources
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 17
To run the analysis, data was collected from the 1991, 1996 and 2001 censuses of Canada,
special surveys conducted by the government of Canada and and the government of the
Northwest Territories, the government of the Northwest Territories Health and Social Services,
and RCMP administrative records. The indicators used in the study are extensive and provide a
wide range of data about individual communities to the NWT as a whole. They look at many
aspects of the community which helps to show the complete socio-economic status of each
community. While the MVEIRB process for impacts assessment included extensive input from
Aboriginal stakeholders and developed a relatively comprehensive measurement system, it is not
devoid deficiencies (Galbraith et al., 2007). One is that while the study presented more
information than perhaps would be needed for follow-up assessments, this assessment have not
provided the means for monitoring impacts after the commencement of the proposed resource
activity (since much of the data will no longer be collected again). It also fails to consider
impacts outside the eight communities in question, a common problem of SEIAs that are too
narrowly focused.
4.2.3 SEIA Indicators Case Study 1: SEIA Follow-up and Monitoring System: Communities and
Diamonds monitoring and EIA follow-up program indicators, NWT. The Communities and
Diamonds (CAD) report was established in 1997 (CAD, 1996-2011). The report was made a
requirement by the government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) through the GNWT socio-
economic agreement (SEA) in 1996 to reflect the commitments and predictions made by the
company during its environmental assessment. SEAs are follow-up programs for EIAs required
under territorial jurisdiction. There are now three diamond mines in the area that are covered
under the Environmental Assessment Reports and are included in the CAD: the BHP Billiton
Ekati Diamaond Mine, the Diavik Diamond Mine and the De BeersSnap Lake Mine. The report
is published once a year as a follow-up to the environmental assessments. The assessment
program is under jurisdiction of the Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment who
negotiate the agreement on behalf of the GNWT. CAD is used to identify impacts of resource
development and community responses to changes associated with mining activities. CAD is
also a useful tool to verify whether the assumptions made during the first assessment or proposal
of the project were correct. Increasingly CAD is being utilized as a monitoring tool to help
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 18
identify socio-economic trends occurring in the local communities. The report is a good example
of a post-SEIA follow-up and monitoring framework that helps communities, government and
the companies to better access the effects of development and devise response and mitigations
strategies. The recent CADs look at over 20 ‘socio-economic areas’ in Yellowknife, Bechoko,
Detah, Gameti, Lutsel k’e, Ndilo, Wekweeti, and Whati (all within NWT) and covers changes
since 1996. The list of monitored indicators slightly varies depending on which SEA it is related
to (CAD, 2011).
The official GNWT report looks at sustainable economic development through five groups of
indicators (domains):
o Community, family and individual well-being
o Cultural well-being and traditional economy
o Non-traditional economy
o Net effect on government
o Sustainable development
Within these five main groups there are 22 measurements of socio-economic areas with several
different subgroups of measurements depending on how the mining companies report each
indicator as they are slight differences in definitions. The main indicators reported by at least
least one of the mines are presented in Figure 2.
Data for the report comes from several sources. Some of the data originate from different
government agencies and departments that specialize in data collection of those areas of interest
such as NWT Bureau of Statistics and the RCMP. A large part of the data comes from surveys:
the NWT Community Survey, a Community Impact Survey, and the Census from Statistics
Canada.
Overall measurements used in the CAD monitoring and follow-up framework provide a
reasonably detailed analysis of socio-economic factors within communities affected by mining.
Over the years, and with the addition of new mines into the area, the Communities and
Diamonds Reports have become more detailed by including additional variables. However, there
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 19
are still more indicators that could be included within the report such as other health statistics,
along with demographic and migration patterns. CADs are often vague and inconclusive in
respect to attributing certain socio-economic changes to mining activities. Only a fraction of
monitored variables is deemed to be impacted by resource instruction. While understandable,
these uncertainties diminish the ability of CADs to effectively detect and measure impacts.
Figure 2. Socio-economic indicators used in Communities and Diamonds reports
4.2.4 SEIA Indicators Case Study 2: IntegratedIinterjurisdictional SEIA Frameworks: Labrador-
Island Transmission Link Indicators. The Environmental Impacts Statement (EIS) developed for
the Labrador-Island Transmission Link (Nalcor, 2012) presents evidence of evolution of the EIA
assessment towards a more comprehensive, integrated and interjurisdictional approach that also
includes a monitoring and follow-up plan. It is also an example of a system created under
overlapping federal and provincial jurisdictions. In order to assess the effects of the Labrador-
Island Transmission Link project on socio-economic systems, the proponent (Nalcor Energy)
identified and incorporated a number of Valued Environmental Components (VECs). VECs are
defined as particularly important aspects of the biophysical and socioeconomic environment and
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 20
determined through consultation of Aboriginal groups, governments, stakeholders, and the
general public to be most sensitive to adverse or beneficial changes directly related to this
project. The EIS Guidelines and Scoping Document (Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador and the Government of Canada 2011) provided the initialdirection for selection of
VECs and Nalcor has since refined and modified key components and issues to address in the
EIS.
The Socioeconomic Environment impacts component of this assessment included the following
seven domains. Domains and variables are listed in Figure 3.
o Historic and heritage resources
o Communities
o Economy, employment and business
o Land and resource use
o Marine fisheries
o Tourism
o Visual aesthetics
It is important to point out that Nalcor Energy included a Monitoring and Follow-up section
within all but one VEC descriptor section. The components identified to be within their ability
to monitor is the Economy, Employment and Business VEC out of which they will produce
monthly statistical reports characterizing the attributes of the workforce as well as reports of their
monthly purchases and sales to and from the surrounding communities. All other monitoring
efforts have been deemed responsibilities of local and vested agencies.
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 21
Figure 3. Labrador-Island Transmission Link socio-economic indicators
4.2.5 Summary. Summarizing these three examples of Canadian SEIA, it is evident that there are
commonalities among the three systems of indicators. First, the covered domains are almost
identical (although may be named slightly differently) with the exception of region-specific
domains such as fisheries and tourism inNewfoundland and Labrador. Indicators are also
generally similar: the population is characterized by basic population counts and demographic
parameters, some of which have direct relationships to social cohesion and well-being (e.g. teen
birth rate, single parent families); economic indicators used in these SEIA are typically dealing
with employment, labor force characteristics, income, and income assistance); health indicators
are based on morbidity statistics, suicide rates and sometimes accidents and STD data; social
issues are illuminated through crime statistics (either aggregate or classified by types of crime);
the housing subdomain, prominent in SEIA in the territories, include crowdedness and core need
data, education is also an important subdomain measured by educational attainment (mostly
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 22
secondary); cultural well-being is targeted in some assessments and is quantified using data on
traditional activities and language retention; some SEIAs also measure availability and use of
natural resources (abundance, harvest, tourism potential, etc.); finally the issue of governance is
included by incorporating assessment of government services or computing the ‘net effect of
government’ (CAD, 2011). This list can be continued. However, it is not difficult to notice that
the domains and indicators are not only generally similar, but also closely correspond with more
general indicators frameworks proposed for monitoring human well-being in the Arctic, such as
ASI (Larsen et al., 2010, 2013). At the same time, ASI indicators, which are general and
universally available by design, are not uniformly used among all SEIA case studies. Aligning
all SEIAs conducted in the North with ASI framework (or another common framework of basic
indicators) would be an important task to ensure completeness and comparability of SEIAs, as
well as to secure an ability of interested parties to monitor at least some variables in the future
(during and after the completion of resource activity).
The case studies also demonstrate the trend towards developing integrated, inter-jurisdictional
SEIA frameworks that include follow-up and monitoring components. Some of these are already
operational and stipulated in guiding documents (such as Socio-Economic Monitoring
Agreements in NWT, land claim agreements (e.g. Nunavut General Monitoring Program and
Cumulative effects program), and, increasingly frequently, impact and benefit agreements
(IBAs) (CAD, 2011; NLCA, 1999; Noble & Fidler, 2011). These instruments and frameworks
are important tools in the emerging impact monitoring system in the Canadian North. As a part
of building such a system, it is important to point out that, while inevitable, overreliance on
standard indicators, prevalent in modern SEIAs should be gradually reduced in favor of
community-based monitoring programs (CBM), which will be more reflective of community
needs and regional characteristics. In terms of the SEIA process we see a movement from
collaborative planning (negotiating anticipatory SEIA) towards collaborative, community-based
monitoring.
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 23
Summarizing the Canadian experience we can point out several important trends that have direct
connection with ReSDA’s mission and will likely constitute themes for future research efforts by
the ReSDA team:
o socio-economic impacts of resource development are increasingly not only assessed when considering whether a project should go ahead but also monitored and made public as a part of the follow-up programs
o communities are increasingly involved in determining what impacts need to be assessed and monitored, and become participants of the monitoring and assessment processes
o the development of commonly accepted and easily measured indicators helps ensure communities can adequately monitor and control impacts.
4.3 SEIA in Nordic Countries (Rasmussen)
4.4.1 Overview. The 1972 United Nations Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment
(UNEP, 1972) 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. In northern Europe Finland took off in the 1970’s with the first regulation involving impact
assessments (Lag om Miljökonsekvensbedömning 1973; Bjarnadottir, 2010), and the inclusion of
social aspects was formalized in 19741. In Denmark a comprehensive legislation regarding
impact assessment was established in 1989 (Bekendtgørelse, 1989) while Norway adopted the
first general legislation on environmental impact assessment in 1990 as part of the Planning and
Building act. The first Icelandic Act on Environmental Impact came in 1993, and the take-off in
Sweden was the inclusion in the Planning and Building Act (PBA) for environmental assessment
which came into effect in 1994. Both Faroe Islands and Greenland have – due to being within the
Danish Realm - been highly influenced by the Danish approaches, but at the same time also
lagging behind in the process of updating the legal framework in relation to the potential social
1 The definition of impacts in the legislation has its focus on the environmental impacts. However, these are defined as including social aspects such as: a safe, healthy, pleasant, socially functional living and working environment, protection of cultural values, functionality of communities, availability of services, etc. Even the social dimension is relatively well formulated in the legislation and can be understood as including soft aspects and not just quantitative and biophysical ones the social dimension is in practice outlined differently in different cases and areas, showing the difficulty of generate exact comparability in what it comprises.
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 24
impacts. First with Greenland moving from Home Rule to Self Government the issue of own
legislation in relation to Impact Assessment has become an important topic.
The issue of including a trans-boundary context to the environmental impact assessments was
introduced in the ESPOO (EIA) Convention in 19912. As of 2010 Greenland has agreed to
comply with the signing of the protocol as part of accepting the EU protocol on Strategic EIA
while Faroe Islands is still undecided. Due to the situation for both countries being part of the
Danish Realm issues such as international conventions is a matter for the Danish Government to
negotiate and sign on the behalf of the Danish Realm. The reason for this situation is that both
countries being part of the Danish Realm are in principle depending on any international
conventions considered joint matters by the Danish Government to negotiate and sign on behalf
of the Danish Realm. But in many cases the two countries are consulted by the Danish
Government and can be exempt from conventions if they choose to be. And in this case
Greenland is complying with the convention while Faroe Islands is undecided.
Strategic environmental impact assessment (SEA or just EIA in the EU terminology) has been a
process in the pipeline for the European Union since 1996 and was approved in 2001by the EU
Council by its Directive 2001/42EC, and it became binding for EU member countries since 2004.
The SEA is officially defined as a process aiming at assessing possible effects of sector policy,
policy planning, action programs and other strategic documents and regulations upon the
environment3. This process analyses what direct or indirect modifications in the environment
could emerge and how they would affect human environment, nature environment, biodiversity,
climate, as well as landscape and material values. The strategic EIA provides an opportunity, at
early stage of planning and elaboration of strategic document, to examine possible effects of
implementation of solutions included in the document, as well as to select the best alternative.
The integration of EU approaches into the Nordic SEA frameworks has several implications.
Firstly, while the Nordic approach to EIA used to have a tendency towards limited community 2 Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo, 1991) 3 SEA and Integration of the Environment into Strategic Decision-Making, Final Report, May 2001 http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/sea-support.htm
Lack of community participation in the measurement/monitoring/follow-up stages. Public
and community participation in SEIA process is a key to SEIA success in terms of its
credibility and effectiveness. Inclusion of community stakeholders also creates trust between
them and the proponent, a precondition for a successful relationship that results in project
completion. At the same time there are jurisdictions, such as Russia, where such meaningful
inclusiveness is an exception rather than practice. It is, however, important to reiterate that in
most SEIA, even in counties extensively practicing public participation, local communities may
not be effectively engaged at all states of SEIA. Typically, community involvement is high in the
initial stages (i.e. when the original SEIA is being prepared and submitted), but is much less
prevalent at further stages including monitoring and follow-up. One of the impediments is a lack
of community engagement in self-monitoring. Community-based monitoring (CBM) presents an
opportunity to bring local stakeholders on board by engaging and empowering them with an
ability to collect, analyze and share community-meaningful information that is also valuable for
SEIA (Knopp, et al., 2013; Petrov et al., 2013). To bridge this gap we suggest targeted efforts to
develop CBM frameworks in the Arctic. In addition to ensuring community participation in
SEIA follow-up, it will also serve as an important capacity building process.
Developer-driven assessment. In most cases SEIA are conducted and/or funded by
development proponents. This practice, although completely understandable, can result in certain
biases. In jurisdictions with co-management institutions or other similar arrangements the risk of
inherent bias is minimized. However, in regions without inclusive review boards, transparency
requirements and public oversight, this issue could be of concern. Advancement of co-
management and oversight institutions is a key to mitigating this potential problem.
Negotiated nature of indicators. While under different SEIA processes indicators selection and
implementation procedures vary, in most cases they represent a result of negotiations between
stakeholders including the project’s proponent, government, and local communities. A resultant
identification of valued components and indicators is based on negotiation between the parties.
Although this practice is highly valued as it brings stakeholders together and allows community
participation, it is important to realize that negotiated measures may have inherent biases. For
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 45
example, negotiated indicators may result in ‘comfort monitoring’ when SEIA indicators are
used for measuring impacts in certain ways and in certain places to appease local communities or
other negotiators, but to the detriment of effective monitoring (Noble & Birk, 2011). That is why
it is critical to establish flexible but firm frameworks, standards for SE impact monitoring that
would ensure consistency and limit possible biases embedded in impact indicators.
Lack of tools and techniques for addressing smaller projects. Many SEIA indicators
frameworks are designed to serve large projects. They may not be entirely suitable for smaller
projects (roads, small mines, etc.). The expectation is the there should be guidelines and
standards for completing such assessments. The proponents of smaller projects are also less
likely to have sufficient financial resources to conduct SEIA to the extent expected for larger
initiatives. This raises the problem of SEIA indicators’ cost-effectiveness. The task is to develop
cost-effective methods of SEIA. One option is an implementation of community-based
monitoring or co-monitoring, where costs and responsibilities are shared between proponents,
communities and government. This approach may also be useful to IBAs based on smaller
projects, which require continuous (and sometimes confidential) monitoring and assessment.
6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Prevalent and Best Practices
A number of conclusions can be made in respect to prevalent practices and trends in measuring
impacts of resource activity on northern communities. First, we will focus on emerging trends
and best practices that could be observed in Arctic countries.
Incorporation of SEIA in EIA is an important process that has been observed throughout the
Arctic. Most circumpolar jurisdictions integrated SEIA and measurement frameworks in law and
in practice of ecological impact assessments. Although the degree of such integration varies, the
availability of legal and practical guidelines is important for effective and efficient
implementation of SEIA in the arctic regions. Some jurisdictions require mandatory SEIAs
usually as a part of larger EIA framework. Many have recommended (or mandated) domains to
be assessed, although only a few have developed specific measurement criteria of assessment.
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 46
Availability of legal frameworks and institutionalization of SEIA in local, national and
international practices is another important process that started in the 1970s and is still
continuing. With the growing volume of legislation the complexity of SEIA is increasing and the
efficiency of the SEIA process must be taken into consideration. The good (and emerging)
practice in this respect is the collaboration between levels of government, proponents and local
communities to create comprehensive, structured, transparent and clear frameworks and
processes for SEIA. This also includes interjurisdictional collaboration between regions within
one country and between countries. Since Arctic regions exist within multiple external
frameworks (EU, for the Nordic North, U.S. for Alaska, etc.) and have to participate in imposed
practices, it is crucial that such collaborative action takes place. By the same token, the
prevalence of external frameworks leads to a considerable unification of SEIA practices (e.g.
among EU members). This, however, should not be done at the expense of the ability of SEIA to
account for local conditions. Examples of multilateral interjurisdictional collaborations are found
in the Arctic (see 5.2 and 5.4).
Another important trend and best practice is the increasing engagement of Indigenous and local
communities in SEIA. There has been a shift from formalized assessments based on secondary
statistical data to locally-focused, community-based approaches of impact assessment. MVEIRB
(2005) made a number of important suggestions in respect to best practices for building an
effective and efficient SEI monitoring system. These best practices include standardization of
SEIA terms, development of clear methodological guidelines (that will ensure the engagement of
community-based research, valuation of hard-to-measure but community-relevant impacts and
utilization of appropriate analytical tools), implementation of socio-economic benchmarks and
deployment of ‘best available’ mitigation practices.
We see the assessments spanning across more domains with less reliance on secondary data and
aggregated statistics. Recent SEIA (such as the Aluminum Smelter in Maniitsoq, Greenland)
followed elaborate quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Community engagement in SEIA
processes, albeit to a varying extent, became a common practice in all Arctic countries. In
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 47
addition to data collection using standard techniques, SEIA frameworks emphasize other types of
information gathering, such as townhall meetings, focus groups, interviews, etc. An emerging
practice is to involve community members in gathering and analyzing information both before
the start of the project and after, for the purposes of follow-up and monitoring (Knopp et al.,
2013; Petrov et al., 2013). Community Based Monitoring (CBM) is an important innovation that
allows for the conducting of SEIA, ensuring community involvement and relevance and,
potentially, reducing costs of monitoring and assessment. Given its advantages CBM is likely to
become a key tool in future SEIA practices.
The development of indicators systems that reflect local needs and characteristics is a related
research goal that is gradually becoming addressed in the modern SEIA frameworks. Along with
the advancement of Arctic-oriented well-being and human development measurement systems
and the establishment of CBM systems these indicators frameworks will guarantee the sensitivity
of SEIA to socio-economic characteristics, vulnerabilities, concerns, demands and desires of
Arctic communities. The overarching systems, such as ASI (Larsen et al, 2010, 2013), are useful
to provide general guidance in respect to domains and indicators to be used in the Arctic regions,
while community-based indicators are necessary to ensure adequacy and relevance of utilized
indicators.
Best practices available in the Arctic clearly demonstrate that follow up monitoring is critical for
proper assessment of resource activity impacts. Follow up plans and long-term monitoring
programs more frequently becoming an integral part of SEIA. At the same time this practice is
not universally prevalent and sometimes limited to monitoring the “correctness” of the initial
SEIA assumptions or conclusions rather than assessing actual impacts of resource development.
More elaborate plans and mitigation strategies are needed to make such follow-ups a meaningful
tool. In addition, SEIA need to be linked with social impacts management plans (SIMP) which
implement adaptive management strategies to mitigate social impacts (Franks et al., 2009).
6.2 Barriers to success: Emerging Knowledge gaps and Research Priorities for ReSDA
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 48
This section outlines barriers to success in implementing SEIA measurement systems. Table 3
provides a summary of most important impediments and corresponding priorities for ReSDA
research. These priorities are well-aligned with ReSDA mission and key questions the project
has to answer, specifically pertaining to the optimizing measurement systems and assessment
instruments to ensure adequate, representative and comprehensive understanding of the impacts
(and benefits) of resource development in the Arctic. Ultimately, completing these action items
will improve our ability to ensure that resource development benefits northern communities to a
greater extent with less negative impacts. While this list is not exhaustive, the included key
elements require immediate attention and have direct practical application for the purposes of
measuring socio-economic impacts of resource development in the Arctic. Table 4 provides a list
of specific subjects towards which we recommend ReSDA focus its research efforts in terms of
evaluating, developing and testing SEIA measurement systems.
Table 3 EMERGING GAPS AND RESEARCH PRIORITIES FOR ReSDA:
General Gaps/Barriers Priorities Lack of theoretical framework for developing indicators
Continue to develop relevant theoretical frameworks for SEIA, complete an interdisciplinary synthesis
Not integrated, fragmentary measurement and monitoring systems
Develop integrated systems that concern multiple domains of SE well-being
Lack of integration between assessment indicators, monitoring and management
Develop monitoring systems, including self-monitoring by communities that allow long-term observation of SE well-being dynamics. Develop more integrated SEIA frameworks that include monitoring and management components
Indicators are limited to narrowly defined effects of projects
Broaden the scope of SEIA where appropriate to include broader impacts such as such as institutional changes, policies, political issues, as well as territorially extended impacts
Limited ability to collect/analyze data and resultant predictive modeling based on inadequate baseline information
Enhance data collection, implement data collection mandate within business-community agreements, develop frameworks for community self-monitoring
Dependency on ‘imported’ (southern) indicators
Develop Arctic-specific indicators
Lack of understanding of impact significance and thresholds
Focus research efforts on understanding social and economic thresholds, resilience and adaptation capacities
Quantitative tilt Improve and integrate non-quantitative methodologies, develop community based monitoring programs (CBMP)
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 49
Limited follow-up and motoring during and after the project.
Enhance and implement follow-up and monitoring SEIA components, develop methodologies for long-term monitoring during and after project’s completion
Lack of community participation in the measurement/monitoring/follow-up stages
Develop principles of community involvement after project’s commencement. Direct targeted efforts to developing CBM frameworks
Developer-driven assessment Advance co-management and oversight institutions, improve understanding of co-management processes and implementation
Negotiated nature of indicators Develop flexible but firm frameworks, standards for SE impact monitoring
Lack of tools and techniques for Addressing Smaller Projects
Develop cost-effective methods of SEIA; ensure SEIA is conducted regardless of the scale of the project
Table 4. ReSDA’s focal subjects to be addressed
Specific subjects to be addressed Priorities/Strategies Local workforce Evaluation of local skilled work-force availability, involvement
and development
Human mobility and its impacts Evaulation of settlement consequences for other places of pulling skilled work force out of the labor markets
Gender Evaluation of gendered potential out-migration, employment and educational opportunities
FIFO (Fly-in/Fly-out) Evaluation of local impacts of major FIFO labor force from other places
Local/Indigenous cultures Evaluation of impacts on local/Indigenous cuiltures
Education and human capital Evaluation of impacts on educational attendance and attainment Long-term economic consequences and behavior
Evaluation of long-term economic behavior (e.g., savings)
6.3 A Circumpolar Socio-Economic Impact Assessment Framework?
Although it is not an intention of this report to propose a circumpolar systems of SEIA, it is may
be argued that such an effort is worth consideration. SEIA frameworks on the Arctic countries
continue to evolve both reflecting changes in their national legislation and globally/nationally
accepted practices and a turn to the regionalization of SEIA requirements. At the same time, few
frameworks utilized in the Arctic are building on experiences from other Arctic regions (or
similarly remote resource frontiers such as in Australia).
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 50
In the recent decade the Arctic social science community has been engaged in a series of projects
that substantially improved the understanding of human well-being and human development in
the circumpolar context. In particular, the Arctic Council’s (AC) Arctic Social Indicators and
Arctic Human Development Reports conducted under the auspice of the AC Sustainable
Development Working Group (SDWG) developed a system of domains that constitute the key
components of an Arctic human development monitoring system. Alongside other socio-
economic observing projects (Kruse et al., 2011), ASI and AHDR open a new opportunity to
place Arctic SEIA experiences in a circumpolar context. A recent success with the Arctic Search
and Rescue Agreement point to the fact the Arctic Council can play an important role in
developing SEIA principles to be considered for implementation by its members in their Arctic
jurisdictions.
Literature argues (Berman, 2011; Larsen et al., 2013) that the primary impediment for successful
socio-economic monitoring (and understanding of SEIA in a comparative circumpolar
perspective) is the lack of data comparability across different scales and nations. One of the
possible solutions may be an Arctic Council effort to work with national and regional statistical
agencies to develop international comparable data for monitoring socio-economic conditions and
impacts in the Arctic. The sharing of data and not less importantly methodologies of SEIA could
be the next step in the circumpolar collaboration among the Arctic nations. Partially, a
framework for such collaboration in respect to data collection and monitoring is outlined in ASI
II (Larsen et al., 2013). It appears to be clear that more collaborative efforts at different levels
(international, national, regional, etc.) and among different actors (state, proponents,
communities, Indigenous organizations, etc.) are likely to result in a more comprehensive,
Arctic-oriented, community-focused, and more thorough SEIA process across the North Pole.
One of the possible future scenarios is the creation of the Circumpolar Socio-Economic Impact
Assessment Framework, a set of recommendations that would include suggested indicators,
methods and practices for SEIA in the Arctic. It could be a part of a comprehensive Arctic
Cumulative Impact Assessment Framework.
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 51
Ultimately, this gap report has been designed to serve the mission of illuminating impact
measurement systems utilized to assess socio-economic impacts of resource development in
various Arctic regions, identify trends and gaps (both in knowledge and in practice), and suggest
possible research avenues to address some of these gaps. In this the report responds to several
key questions pursued by ReSDA: how to measure the impacts of resource development and how
to better understand these impacts. We end with expressing a strong belief that an adequate,
comprehensive and representative measurement of impacts (both in terms of indicators, process
by which they are applied and evaluation of outcomes) is essential in order to properly
understand how benefits to communities from resource development can be improved upon and
how negative impacts can be mitigated. We are convinced that communities must have access to
adequate information concerning positive and negative consequences of resource development if
they are going to make proper choices as to what type of arrangements they would like to agree
to in their relationships with both higher levels of government and industry.
7.0 Acknowledgements
We are indebted to a number of our colleagues who discussed issues of socio-economic impact
measurement with us as a part of the Nuuk workshop or at other venues. Specifically we would
like to acknowledge Keith Storey, Lawrence Hamilton, Timothy Heleniak, Chris Southcott, Peter
Schweitzer, Joan Nymand Larsen and Gail Fondahl.
8.0 References 1. ADNR (Alaska Department of Natural Resources). 2008. North Slope areawide oil and
gas lease sale: Final finding of the Director. July 15, 2008. 2. ADNR (Alaska Department of Natural Resources). 2011. North Slope Foothills areawide
oil and gas lease sales: Final finding of the Director. May 26, 2011. 3. Armour A. Integrating impact assessment into the planning process. Impact Assess Bull
1990; 8(1/2):3–14 4. Bacheva, Fidanka, Kochladze, Manana, Dennis, Suzanna, 2006. Boom Time Blues: Big
Oil’s Gender Impacts in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Sakhalin. Report for CEE Bankwatch and Gender Action. http://genderaction.org/images/boomtimeblues.pdf
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 52
5. Becker, Henk A. Social Impact Assessment: Method and Experience in Europe, North America and The Developing World. London, UK: UCL Press, 1997
6. Bekendtgørelse om vurdering af større anlægs virkning på miljøet (VVM). Bekendtgørelse nr. 446 af 23 juni 1989), 1989
7. Berman, M. 2011. Next steps toward an Arctic human dimensions observing system Polar Geography Vol. 34, Iss. 1-2, 152-143
8. BOR (US Bureau of Reclamation) (2002), Social Analysis Manuel Volume I: Manager’s Guide to Using Social Analysis; Volume II Social Analyst’s Guide to Doing Social Analysis (Resource Management and Planning Group. Technical Service Center, Denver Federal Center D-8580, Bldg. 67. Denver, CO
9. Bourtsev, S. & Cherdantsev, A. (eds) 2008. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Yarakta Oil and Gas Field Development Irkutsk Oil Company
10. Boverket (National Board of Housing, Building and Planning) 1994: The Planning and Building Act - The Law on Technical Qualities of Buildings and The Environmental Code with ordinances of relevance.
11. Bradshaw M J 2006 ‘Internal Dynamics of the Russia Energy Sector: Lessons from Sakhalin ,’Aleksantri Institute, University of Helsinki, for the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
12. Bradshaw, M J 2005. ‘Lessons from the First Generation Sakhalin Oil and Gas Projects’ for BP Exploration Ltd
13. Burdge R. A community guide to social impact assessment. Middleton: Social Ecology Press, 1994. Burdge R. A community guide to social impact assessment (rev. edn.). Middleton, Wisconsin: Social Ecology Press, 1999
14. Burdge, R. J., & Vanclay, F. (1995). Social impact assessment. Environmental and social impact assessment, 31-66.
15. Burdge, Rabel J. (editor) A Conceptual Approach to Social Impact Assessment (re-vised edition): Collection of writings by Rabel J. Burdge and colleagues. Middleton, WI: Social Ecology Press, 1998
16. Burdge, Rabel J. 2004. The Concepts, Process and Methods of Social Impact Assessment. Middleton, WI
17. CAD. 2013. Communities and Diamonds 2011 Annual Report of the Government of the Northwest Territories under the BHP Billiton, Diavik and De Beers Socio-economic Agreements. GNWT. Yellowknife.
18. CEAA 2012 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 52) 19. Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo,
1991) 20. Duinker, P. N., and L. A. Greig. 2006. The impotence of cumulative effects assessment in
Canada: ailments and ideas for redeployment. Environmental Management 37(2):153-161.
21. EIA Directive 97/11/EC 22. Force, J. E., and G. E. Machlis. 1997. The human ecosystem part II: social indicators in
ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources 10:369-383. 23. Franks D., Fidler C., Brereton D., Vanclay F. and P. Clark 2009. Leading Practice
Strategies for Addressing the Social Impacts of Resource Developments. Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of
Queensland. Briefing paper for the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Queensland Government.
24. Freudenburg, William R. 1986. Social Impact Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 12: pp. 451-478.
25. Galbraith, L., Bradshaw, B. & Rutherford, M. B. 2007. Towards a new supraregulatory approach to environmental assessment in Northern Canada. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 25(1): 27-41.
26. Galisteo Consulting. 2002. Social, Cultural, Economic Impact Assessments: A Literature Review. Albuquerque, NM
27. GNWT. 2003. NWT Social Insdicators. NWT Bureau of Statistics. 28. Goskomekologia. 2000. Provision on the assessment of the proposed economic or other
activity on environment. Executive Order #372 29. Governance of energy and climate adaptation in the Nordic periphery. (K-Base). Nordic
Council of Ministers Research Programme Report 2009:7. 30. Graybill, J.K., 2009. “Places and identities on Sakhalin Island: situating the emerging
movements for ‘Sustainable Sakhalin’.” In Environmental Justice of the Former Soviet Union. Agyeman, J., Ogneva-Himmelberger, E., eds. Boston: MIT Press.
31. Graybill, J.K., (2013). “Mapping an emotional topography of an ecological homeland: The case of Sakhalin Island, Russia.” Emotion, Space and Society (Available online first).
32. Guidelines for Social Impact Assessments for mining projects in Greenland. Bureau of Mining and Petroleum. Greenland Government 2009.
33. Hansen, K.G and Rasmussen, R.O. (2013): New Economic Activities and Urbanisation: Individual reasons for moving and for staying – Case Greenland. In Hansen, Rasmussen and Weber (eds) Proceedings from the First International Conference on Urbanisation in the Arctic. Conference 28-30 August 2012, Ilimmarfik, Nuuk, Greenland. Nordregio Working Paper 2013:6
34. Hansen, K.G., Lund Sørensen, F. and Jeppson, S.R. (2009): Decision processes, communication and democracy: The aluminium smelter project in Greenland. In Hukkinen, Hansen, Langlais, Rasmussen, Jeppson, Levänen, Lund Sørensen, Schmitt and Lange (EDS): Knowledge-based tools for sustainable
35. Hansen, K.G., Lund Sørensen, F. and Jeppson, S.R. (2009): Decision processes, communication and democracy: The aluminium smelter project in Greenland. In Hukkinen, Hansen, Langlais, Rasmussen, Jeppson, Levänen, Lund Sørensen, Schmitt and Lange (EDS): Knowledge-based tools for sustainable governance of energy and climate adaptation in the Nordic periphery. (K-Base). Nordic Council of Ministers Research Programme Report 2009:7.
36. Hunsberger, C., Gibson, R., Wismer, S. 2005. Citizen involvement in sustainability-centred environmental assessment follow-up Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25, 6, Pages 609–627
37. Huskey, Lee. 1979. Statewide Impacts of OCS Petroleum Development in Alaska. Special Report Number 1, Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program, Anchorage: U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office.
38. Icelandic Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (1993): the Act on Environmental Impact Studies.
39. Juslen J. Social impact assessment: a look at Finnish experiences. Proj Appraisal 1995;10(3): 163–70
40. Knopp et al., 2013. Inuvialuit Settlement Region Community - Based Monitoring Program (ISR-CBMP): Community-Driven Monitoring of Locally Important Natural Resources. White Paper for the Arctic Observing Summit (AOS). April-May 2013. Vancouver, CA
41. Kruse, J. Lowe, M. Haley, S., Fay, G., Hamilton, L., Berman, M. 2011. Arctic Observing Network Social Indicators Project: overview. Polar Geography Vol. 34, Iss. 1-2, 1-8.
42. Lag om miljökonsekvensbedömning, 1973. Bjarnadottir, H., ed. (2001) A comparative study of Nordic EIA systems. Stockholm, Sweden: Nordregio
43. Larsen J., Schweitzer, P. and Fondahl, G. eds. (2010). Arctic Social Indicators I. Steffansson Arctic Institute. Akureyri, Iceland.
44. Larsen J., Schweitzer, P. and Petrov, A. eds. (2013). Arctic Social Indicators II. Steffansson Arctic Institute. Akureyri, Iceland.
45. Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB) (2005). Issues and Recommendations for Social and Economic Impact Assessment in the Mackenzie Valley. Delivering on the Mackenzie Valley Review Board’s Mandate to Assess the Socio-Economic Impacts of Proposed Developments.
46. Mitchell, R. E., and J. R. Parkins. 2011. The challenge of developing social indicators for cumulative effects assessment and land use planning. Ecology and Society 16(2): 29.
47. Murashko, O. 2006. ЭТНОЛОГИЧЕСКАЯ ЭКСПЕРТИЗА В РОССИИ И МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЕ СТАНДАРТЫ ОЦЕНКИ ВОЗДЕЙСТВИЯ ПРОЕКТОВ НА КОРЕННЫЕ НАРОДЫ RAIPON, Moscow.
49. MVRMA 1998. Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (S.C. 1998, c. 25) 50. NEPA, National Environmental Policy Act (1970), Public Law 91-190:852-859.42,
U.S.C and as amended Public Law 94-52 and 94-83 42 U.S.C., pages 4321-4347 51. Noble B. and C. Fidler 2011. Advancing Indigenous Community – Corporate
Agreements: Lessons from Practice in the Canadian Mining Sector. Oil, Gas, & Energy Law. 9(4): 1-30.
52. Noble, B.F. and J. Birk 2011. Comfort monitoring? Environmental assessment follow-up under community-industry negotiated environmental agreements. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 31(1): 17-34
53. Noble, B.F. and K. Storey 2005. Toward increasing the utility of follow-up in Canadian EIA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(2): 163-180.
54. Norwegian Ministry for the Environment (1990) Environmental impact assessment in Norway: provisions in the Planning and Building Act.
55. Peat, Marwick, Mitchel and Co., URSA, CCC/HOK, and Dames and Moore. 1977. Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program Task Report: Literature Survey. Technical Report 2, Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program, Anchorage: U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office.
56. Petrov et al., 2013. Developing Inuvialuit Baseline Indicators System for (Self) Monitoring Community Well Being and Impacts of Resource Development. White Paper for the Arctic Observing Summit (AOS). April-May 2013. Vancouver, CA
57. Rasmussen, R.O., 2010: Mobilitet i Grønland. Sammenfattende analyse. (Mobility in Greenland. The comprehensive analysis). Nordregio, Stockholm. www.smv.gl/DK/mobilitet/rapporter/samlet_mobilitet_v04_feb2010.pdf
58. Report of the United Nations Conference On The Human Environment, United Nations Environment Programme Stockholm 1972
59. Sakhalin Energy 2002. Overview of Environmental, Social and Health Impact Assessment. Sakhalin Energy Investment Company
60. Schweitzer et al. 2013. ReSDA Gap Analysis Report: Impacts of Resource Development. 61. SEA and Integration of the Environment into Strategic Decision-Making, Final Report,
May 2001 62. Slootweg R, Vanclay F, van Schooten M. Function evaluation as a framework for the
integration of social and environmental impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal 2001;19(1):19–28.
63. Sokolova Z. & Pivneva, E. 2004. Этнологическая экспертиза: Народы Севера России. 1956–1958 годы. – М., 2004. – 370 с.;
64. Sokolova Z. & Pivneva, E. 2005 Этнологическая экспертиза: Народы Севера России. 1959–1962 годы – М.: Ин-т этнологии и антропологии РАН, 2005. – 411 с.;
65. Sokolova Z. & Pivneva, E. 2006 Этнологическая экспертиза: Народы Севера России. 1963–1980 годы – М.: Ин-т этнологии и антропологии РАН, 2006. – 380 с.;
66. Sokolova Z. & Pivneva, E. 2007 Этнологическая экспертиза: Народы Севера России. 1985–1994 годы– М.: Ин-т этнологии и антропологии РАН, 2007. 316 с
67. Taylor CN, Bryan CH, Goodrich CG. Social assessment: theory, process and techniques 2nd ed. Christchurch: Taylor Baines and Associates, 1995
68. Taylor, Nicholas C, Hobson Bryan and Colin G. Goodrich (2004), Social Assessment: Theory, Process and Techniques. Social Ecology Press, PO Box 620863,Middleton WI
69. Tetra Tech, Inc. 2009. Red Dog Mine Extension -- Aqqaluk Project: Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1. Seattle: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 2009.
70. The Interorganizational Committee on Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment 2003. Principles and guidelines for social impact assessment in the USA Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, volume 21, number 3, September 2003, pages 231–250,
71. The Interorganizational for Social Impact Assessment (1993), Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment, US Department of Commerce NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-F/SPO-16, reprinted in Impact Assessment, 12(2), 1994, pages 107–152.
72. Therivel, R., and B. Ross. 2007. Cumulative effects assessment: does scale matter? Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27(5):365-385.
73. U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. 1978. Reguluationos for Implementing the Procecural Provisions of the National Environmental Quality Act (40 CFR 1500-1508). Washington, DC: U.S. Council on Environmental Quality.
74. US Forest Service (1982), “Guidelines for economic and social analysis of programs, resource plans, and projects: final policy”, Federal Register, 47(80), 26 April, pages 17940–17954.
75. Vanclay F. Social impact assessment. In: Petts J, editor. Handbook of environmental impact assessment, vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999. pp. 301–26.
A. Petrov et al Measuring Impacts
ReSDA Gap Analysis Report #3 (2013) 56
76. Vanclay, F Conceptualising social impacts, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Volume 22, Issue 3, May 2002, Pages 183-211, ISSN 0195-9255, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(01)00105-6.
77. William R. Freudenburg, W.R. 1986. Social Impact Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 12, (1986) (pp. 451-478
78. Williams A. 2007. EBRD no longer considers current financing package for Sakhalin II. http://www.ebrd.com, January 2011.
79. Богоявленский Д.Д., Мартынова Е.П., Мурашко О.А., Хмелева Е.Н., Якель Ю.Я., Яковлева О.А. Опыт проведения этнологической экспертизы. Оценка потенциального воздействия программы ОАО «Газпром» поисково-разведочных работ в акваториях Обской и Тазовской губ на компоненты устойчивого развития этнических групп коренных малочисленных народов Севера. М., 2002. 134 с.
80. Василькова Т.Н., Евай А.В, Мартынова Е.П., Новикова Н.И. КОРЕННЫЕ МАЛОЧИСЛЕННЫЕ НАРОДЫ И ПРОМЫШЛЕННОЕ РАЗВИТИЕ АРКТИКИ (ЭТНОЛОГИЧЕСКИЙ МОНИТОРИНГ В ЯМАЛО-НЕНЕЦКОМ АВТОНОМНОМ ОКРУГЕ). Москва - Шадринск: Издательство ОГУП «Шадринский Дом Печати», 2011. - 268 с.+ 24 с. вкл.
81. Мартынова Е.П. , Новикова Н.И. Тазовские ненцы в условиях нефтегазового освоения. Этнологическая экспертиза 2011 года / Отв. ред. В.А. Тишков. М., 2012. - 132 с.
82. Новикова, N. 2010. Этнологическая экспертиза: на перекрестке истории, этнологии и юридической антропологии. Интеграция археологических и этнографических исследований: сборник научных трудов. Часть 1. Казань, 76-80.
83. Обзор документации проекта «Сахалин-2», касающейся коренных малочисленных народов Севера острова Сахалин // Люди Севера. Права на ресурсы и экспертиза. М., 2008, с. 288-311
84. Степанов В . Научная экспертизаИ законодательство о национально –культурном развитии В России // Этнология обществу . Прикладные исследования в этнологии. М ., 2006. С .79–109
85. Тишков В . А ., Степанов В . В . Измерение конфликта . Методика и результаты этноконфессионального мониторинга Сети EAWARN в2003 году М 2004, 321 с