Impact and Benefit Agreements
IN THIS SECTION:
-
This section provides additional insight to the emergence, contents, and now-common use of Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) to formalize relationships between mining firms and Aboriginal communities.
In order to gain access to Aboriginal traditional territories and obtain an auxiliary social license to operate, it has become common practice for mining firms to negotiate private settlements such as Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) with would-be impacted Aboriginal communities (Sosa and Keenan, 2001; Galbraith et al., 2007; O’Faircheallaigh, 2007; Prno, 2007; Lapierre, 2008). These legally-binding, private contracts are voluntarily initiated by resource developers and operate in addition to regulatory rules (Kennett, 1999a; Keeping, 2000).
Typical IBA provisions include direct and indirect economic incentives, employment and education opportunities, and measures for local cultural and environmental protection (Kennett, 1999a, Sosa and Keenan, 2001; Klein et al., 2004). Direct economic incentives include profit-sharing arrangements as well as cash payments and compensation funds to offset adverse local impacts of mining (Kennett, 1999a; Hodge and Killam, 2003). Local indirect benefits may include policies of selectively contracting local service providers for mine facility construction and operations (Kennett, 1999a; O’Faircheallaigh, 2006). Local employment targets and funded training opportunities are a central topic of most IBA negotiations (Kennett, 1999a; Sosa and Keenan, 2001) and are among the most commonly reported benefits included within IBAs (see Goldcorp, 2006; Kinross, 2007; De Beers Canada, 2009). Provisions for environmental protection, site remediation, and preservation of locally-significant habitat or other natural areas are equally significant, if not more important, to signatory communities (Gibson, 2006; Galbraith et al., 2007; Fiddler and Hitch, 2007). Additionally, corporate funding for community environmental education and monitoring has become a common element of recent IBAs (O’Faircheallaigh, 2007). Funds may also be secured for ‘soft benefits’ such as local socio-cultural activities and facility development (Sosa and Keenan, 2001).
The use of IBAS has become so common in northern regions that Aboriginal communities adjacent to proposed mineral development sites simply expect that an IBA will be signed prior to project construction (Galbraith et al., 2007). According to NRCan (2008), the number of IBAs and similar agreements is increasing rapidly. With over 130 agreements in place by 2008, including over 50 full-fledged IBAs (see Figure 4; NRCan, 2010), many Canadian mining companies have recognized their increasing obligation to work collaboratively with local Aboriginal communities. Such was true of DeBeers’ Victor diamond mine; not only were IBAs established with each of Attawapiskat, Fort Albany, Kashechewan and Moose Cree First Nations (see Figure 3), but the regional council of which these Nations are a part, recently established a resolution that prohibits mining projects within their traditional territory unless they are accompanied by an IBA (e.g. see Mushkegowuk Council Res. 2008-11-25). This official resolution reflects both the increasing Aboriginal interest in formal consultation and profit-sharing arrangements in support of resource development and an effort to strategically respond to high levels of mineral exploration and development pressure throughout northern Ontario.
Next >>