Measuring Impacts: A Review of Frameworks, Methodologies and...

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.



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



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.



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

(e.g., AHDR, 2004; Burge, 1994; Vanclay, 1999; 2002; Juslen, 1995; Interorganizational…,

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



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.



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



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



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



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



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,



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



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



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



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

Ventures Limited, ConocoPhillips Canada Limited, Shell Canada Limited ExxonMobil Canada

Properties, and Aboriginal Pipeline Group.

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.



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



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



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



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



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.



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



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.



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.



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

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/sea-support.htm



participant intervention while Strategic Impact Assessment has been more of a policy instrument

also involving community participation has been an important issue in relation to Social Impact

Assessment (SIA). Secondly, the assessment requires the involvement and collaboration of the

private sector, NGOs, citizens' groups and other non-institutional organizations or individuals

interested in or affected by the management of the specific activity. Thirdly, the structures to

achieve participation may – but does not always - include core steering groups of key

stakeholders, general forums that meet regularly, technical panels, newsletters and various topic

or issue groups as required.

An EU Directive 4 sets the minimum requirements for carrying out strategic assessment of

effects on environment, as well as plans and programs defined, for which this is a compulsory

demand. This affects the Nordic EU members Sweden, Finland, Denmark. They, however, also

influence Greenland. Greenland is not as a member of EU. It followed Denmark into the EU

when Denmark became member in 1972, but left in 1985. At the same time it is linked to the

regulations through a commitment made when Denmark signedthe EU protocol on Strategic

EIA. The strategic EIA approach is supposed to assist in implementing principles of

sustainability, in that it (1) gives an opportunity for public involvement in policy formulation; (2)

ensures systematic appraisal of choices; (3) makes it possible to analyze cumulative effects; (4)

makes possible consideration of more diverse alternatives; (5) facilitates more continuous

communication between different actors; and (6) enables inclusion of dealing with problems

where system boundaries may occur.

As previously mentioned Greenland has agreed to comply with the EU protocol on SEA in 2010

while Faroe Islands is still undecided. The interpretations of the protocol and how it impacts the

actual assessments are, like in the other EU member states, a matter of complying with the

overall aims, but modifying the details according to the national specificities. In the case of

Greenland it is the Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum (BMP) that is in charge of these

modifications. A set of guidelines were established in 2009 (Government of Greenland, 2009)

and these guidelines, together with the EU protocol, provide a good overview of the status of

Social Impact Assessments in Greenland. 4 EIA Directive 97/11/EC



According to the guidelines, essential for the development of mining and energy extraction are:

(1) recruiting of Greenlandic labor; (2) engaging of Greenlandic enterprises; (3) focusing on

knowledge transfer (e.g. education programs) in order to ensure long term capacity building of

local competence within the mining industry and mining support industries; and (4) preserving

socio-cultural values and traditions.

The main objectives of an SIA process for a mineral project in Greenland are:

o to engage all relevant stakeholders in consultations and public hearings;

o to provide a detailed description and analysis of the social pre-project baseline situation as

a basis for development planning, mitigation and future monitoring;

o to provide an assessment based on collected baseline data to identify both positive and

negative social impacts at both the local and national level;

o to optimize positive impacts and mitigate negative impacts from the mining activities

throughout the project lifetime;

o to develop a Benefit and Impact Plan for implementation of the Impact Benefit

Agreement.

A final SEA report includes the following elements important from SEA perspective:

o Description of social baseline conditions such as relevant conditions in local communities

and Greenland at large, including any changes anticipated before the project commences.

Quantitative parameters should be used where possible.

o Presentation and analysis of alternatives, comparison of feasible alternatives to the

proposed project design, including how the community and Greenland would possibly

develop if the project is not realized.

o Outlining of the potential impacts by presenting predicted and assessed possible positive

and negative social impacts, in quantitative parameters where possible. In the description

relevant local, regional or national development plans should be taken into consideration.

o Presentation of development opportunities and mitigation of negative impacts

o A Benefit and Impact Plan should be developed with proposals of programmes how these

will be implemented in order to maximize development opportunities and mitigate

negative impacts.



o A Monitoring Plan shall propose approaches on how to monitor the effects of the

implemented Benefit and Impact Plan regarding parameters, time frame etc. Conclude by

suggesting a priority of the various monitoring approaches.

o An Evaluation Plan shall propose how to evaluate the monitoring results and whether

major adjustments to the Benefit and Impact Plan shall be done.

o Description of the public participation during the SEIA process and plans for public

participation throughout the project should be presented.

A detailed check list for the preparation of a SEIA depends to some extend on the project (type,

size etc.), environment (coastal, pristine, wildlife rich etc.) and place (separated from settlements,

in commuter distance to settlements, next to settlements), but the following list includes what in

most cases would be needed (Figure 4).



Figure 4. Socio-economic indicators used in Greenlandic impact assessments

4.3.2 SEIA indicators case study: Aluminum Smelter in Maniitsoq, Greenland

Discussions regarding the possibility of establishing an Aluminum smelter in Greenland took place

in the beginning of 2006, at which time Alcoa contacted the Greenlandic authorities. Alcoa wished to



initiate preliminary surveys with the objective of assessing the potential for establishing a smelter in

the central segment of West Greenland in the area between the towns of Sisimiut to the North and

Nuuk to the South (Hansen et al., 2009).

The most significant project milestones up till 2010 included the following steps (Hansen &

Rasmussen, 2013):

Spring 2006 - First enquiry by Alcoa.

July 2006 - Joint Action Plan (JAP) with Alcoa.

April 2007 - First open political decision regarding the plans.

May 2007 - Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Alcoa.

May 2008 - Open political decision on placement (Maniitsoq).

2010 - Open political decision on ownership (partner/concession).

2010 - Final political discussion on project (start/not start).

Further progress on the project required a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) which was

formally inaugurated in April 2007. Prior to the SEA, a working group performed a screening and

subsequently recommended a SEA. The first part of the SEA draft was published in December 2007.

A revised version was published in February 2008. And third (and final) version was expected to be

completed in the autumn of 2009.

The SEA reporting covered the following elements:

Nature and environment: This part of the analysis covered the Aquatic environment, Water

resources, Waste, Wastewater, Air emissions, Noise and Dust. The analysis included both the

physical and biological components of the environment.

Health: A basic review was made from the data materials registered by the National Institute of

Public Health showing data collected from a wide cross-section of the population. Data thus

included information from towns and communities; pregnant, newborn babies, children aged 0-

12 years, schoolchildren aged 15-17 years and adults 18 years and older. All data materials

included socio-demographic background information, health, living conditions and lifestyles,

making it possible to analyse the volume and the spread of disease and risk factors for chronic

diseases. In accordance with a joint program, prepared by AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and



Assessment Programme) the Centre for Arctic Environmental Medicine (CAM) has conducted a

series population surveys in Greenland including issues such as blood levels of persistent organic

contaminants (POPs), heavy metals and in addition, an analysis of fourteen different PCBs types,

a number of organic pesticides

Culture: In recognition of the hinterland behind the planned smelter between Kangerlussuaq and

Nuuk (Kangerlua is the largest and most resource-rich inland area in Greenland being relatively

easily accessible from the coast to inland through valleys, rivers and lakes) a focus has been on

archaeology and history as an important part of the SEA. Of importance of course are place

names, old settlements, historical literature, old maps, etc. documenting all that the area has been

used from the beginning of colonization in the 1700s and until today. But furthermore, history

can be pulled back even further in time. The archaeological research has contributed considerably

to show how the use of the area back to the first people in the country.

Regional development and economy: This part of the SEA mainly describes the consequences

that relate to each of the three cities where the aluminum smelter can be placed: Nuuk, Maniitsoq

and Sisimiut. The description focuses at the regional and socio-economic consequences in the

long view, and therefore mainly focusing on the operational phase of the aluminum smelter but

also looking into the construction phase as well and the hydroelectric power plants and the

aluminum smelter. These studies, together with this Strategic Environmental Assessment, form

the total basis for informing a Cabinet and County Council's decision on, among other things, the

location of the smelter. This decision was made at the County Council's spring meeting in 2008.

Cumulative impact assessment: The cumulative analysis has been conducted by collecting

existing and generated knowledge in the area obtained through the SEA in conjunction with a

review of available literature, reports and GIS data One of the critical issues in connection with

the SEA was the question of the potential consequences of the project on the mobility of the

population. The objective was to provide a better understanding of the mobility

characteristics of the Greenland population as a basis for analyses of the possible

consequences of major economic interventionssuch as this project. In order to do this, a

series of mobility studies were conducted (Rasmussen, 2010).



The basis of the analysis was a register-based analysis of population movements in Greenland

from 1995 to 2008. The population registers, located on Statistics Greenland in Nuuk, provides

information on each individual person in relation to fundamental information on gender, age,

place of birth, family situation, income and other socio-economic factors. Included in this is

information on where people have migrated from and where they have migrated to as well as

whether the move was temporary or more permanent. Added to the basic data was a survey

among 1,551 members of Greenland’s labor force. The third level of analysis has focused on a

group of 220 people specially selected for in-depth semi-structured interviews. The respondents

were asked a series of basic questions primarily related to issues such as qualifications and

affiliations. In addition, emphasis was on respondents' wishes, goals and interests in relation to a

future in their present home community, or alternatively, the ability to move. Furthermore a

series of questions looked into reflections on not only work at the aluminum smelter, but in

connection with other large scale projects such as mining, oil development and other new

industrial activities. A key question was on the attractiveness of such opportunities in the future.

Finally a survey among Greenlanders living in Denmark was undertaken. Included in this survey

were questions about which role the new economic activities in Greenland might have in relation

to this group's future mobility. All results from the different surveys has been made public

available as input into the public debate.

4.3.4 Summary. The described analysis resulted in two important outputs. First of all an overview

of the potential consequences of establishing the proposed aluminum smelter. It also enabled the

modeling of a set of scenarios that contributed to the assessment of the territorial consequences

presented in the discussions. The SEIA approach developed through the process has revealed a

number of gaps in the more conventional EIA and SIA approaches. Fairly early on it became

obvious that involvement of the public sphere in the process was crucial. Several rounds of

public hearing and consultation have been included in the SEA process. An analysis of the

timing of the public debates which have taken place during the past three years of the process

indicates clearly that after a very slow start the public debate flourished after significant decision

making processes were completed at the administrative and political level. Indicators suggest



that a democratic deficit exists in relation to the timing of significant administrative and internal

political decisions on the one hand, and public debate on the other (Hansen et al., 2009).

4.4 SEIA in Northern Russia (Kuklina, Petrov, Graybill)

4.4.1 Overview. The system of SEIA in the Russian North emerged in the 1990s. This said it is

important to realize that studies of environmental and socio-economic impacts of resource

development were conducted during the Soviet times, but remained largely unpublished (most of

them were confidential) and unutilized (Sokolova & Pivneva, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2006, 2007).

The formal socio-economic impact assessment (SEIA) in Russia was established as a part of

environmental impact assessment legislation in 1995 (under the Federal Law “On environmental

expertise”) and specified in the “Regulation of assessment of impact of planned economic and

other kinds of activity” ratified by Order of State Committee of Ecology of Russia on 16.05.00

#372 (Goskomekologia, 2000).

While no standardized procedure was specified, the SEIA process was expected to incorporate

experts’ examination of the compliance of the proposed resource activity with the International

Organization of Standardization, Environmental, Health, and Safety General Guidelines of

World Bank and other relevant documents and conventions (e.g. UN Convention on Biological

Diversity, International Labor Organization Convention), as well as compliance with federal and

regional regulations.

In addition, legislation pertaining to the Indigenous peoples and lands of traditional nature-use

gave further rights to these groups of Russian citizens. The Federal law “On the Guarantees of

the Rights of the Indigenous Small-Numbered Peoples of the Russian Federation” (1999)

introduced the term ethnologic assessment (etnologicheskaya ekspertiza or anthropological

expert review) defined as a scientific examination of the impacts of environmental and socio-

economic change on the development of an ethic group. Article 8 of the law gives the right to

Indigenous people to participate in EIA and Ethnological assessments.

A number of ethnological assessment methodologies were developed in the 2000s (Stepanov,

2006; Tishkov & Stepanov, 2004). For example, Tishkov and Stepanov (2004). Theysuggested



an ‘ethnological monitoring’ system consisting of 46 standardized indicators. The most extensive

SEIAs in the Russian North have taken place in Yamal-Nenets okrug (Bogoyavlensky et al.,

2002) and Sakhalin oblast (Obzor…, 2008; Murashko, 2006)

The role of ethnological assessment, however, has been relatively minimal in the decision-

making processes for regional development (Martynova & Novikova, 2012). Furthermore,

according to the amendments passed to the Federal Law in 2005 (which took effect in 2007) the

scope of environmental impact assessment was narrowed down to technical and other kinds of

documentation. As a result,extensive environmental and social-economic impact assessments are

no longer required. As a result, SEIA have very limited influence on decision-making unless

given priority by a company or demanded by local residents.

A typical SEIA in the Russian Federation consists of two parts: (1) Field studies and discussions

with experts to identify groups of people in zones of direct and indirect impacts and (2)

monitoring of environmental and social-economic changes during project design and

implementation. People impacted are both Indigenous and local (non-indigenous) communities.

Based on anthropological field studies, international and Russian experience and legislation

SEIA provide recommendations to mining companies and investors in respect to strategies and

forms of cooperation with local and Indigenous residents. It is important to point out that

ethnological assessment is built upon anthropological research and heavily relies on

ethnographic methods and largely has been concerned with Indigenous communities rather than

local people (although see Graybill 2013 for an exception). The ethnographic approach is argued

to be illuminating of the potential for SEI on Indigenous communities. Non-indigenous residents

are typically not included in these assessments except when the communities to be impacted are

a majority non-indigenous (i.e., in the case of Prigorodnoe on Sakhalin Island; see Bacheva et al.

2006).

The advantages of using qualitative methodologies to conduct SEIAs within and for Indigenous

and local communities may be summarized as follows: (1) an ability to identify processes,

patterns and relationships at the local scale, (2) an ability to appreciate the complexity and

interconnectedness within Indigenous and local communities, their vulnerabilities, resilience and



adaptability, (3) an ability to ‘view the impacts with Indigenous people’s eyes’; and (4) an ability

to account for both material and symbolic aspects of overall well-being (Novikova, 2010).

The qualitative and quantitative indicators used in SEIAs vary, but typically include the

following domains and variables:

o Critical natural resources and practices of their use (land, water, flora and fauna, rare

species, resources for gaming, fishing and gathering and areas of hunting)

o Economics of the territory and prospects of its development (jobs, educational

opportunities, services)

o Population (history, description of settlements and their sizes, ethnic and social

structures, where indigenous peoples are considered as a specific category is required,

natural and migration of the population, age and sex structure, marriages and

divorces, etc.)

o Social conditions (employment, health care, wages) and built social environment

o Historical and cultural heritage (mostly sacred places or archaeological sites)

o Technogenic risks of mineral and hydrocarbon resource development for the

population

o Social risks (prostitution, sexually transmitted diseases, cost of living, crime, etc.).

In instances where development takes place in Indigenous homelands and the ethnological

assessment is fully implemented, ethnographers study the impacts of resource development on

economic development, social and family relations, preservation of native language and culture,

and reindeer herding and fishing as a base of subsistence living for Indigenous peoples

(Vasilkova et al., 2011). In territories of the traditional nature-use by the Indigenous peoples the

impacts on traditional land use are subject for assessment. Usually the impacts are described

more in categories of environmental ethics than in economic terms. SEIA assesses possible

effects on each of the traditional land-based activities: hunting, fishing, reindeer herding, etc, and

identifies the main risks of oil extraction and transportation on traditional land use.



The implementation of SEIAs in Russia is truncated largely due to the weakness of relevant

legislation and the lack on legal mechanisms to enforce SEIA recommendations. Sometimes,

internal and systemic corruption in local places where local experts are asked to conduct SEIAs

also contributes to incomplete or biased reporting in an SEIA. The quality and extent of EIAs

and SEIAs depends on which shareholders participate in the projects. For example, since 2008,

the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development has taken an equity stake in the Irkutsk

Oil Company and, as a result, the company is required to conduct an SEIA. The company must

quantify social indicators, such as tax revenues, infrastructure development, job creation jobs,

and support for various cultural events that include local and indigenous residents, in its

assessment procedures (Bourtsev et al., 2008).

In some cases, in addition to the generic list of indicators found in most SEIAs, more specific

variables are used to address local stakeholder concerns. For example, in the

Verchnechonskneftegas SEIA, the representatives of Indigenous peoples requested an

assessment of health and quality of life that included such indicators as natural-climate

peculiarities, quality of water, soils, nutrition, radiation, illness rate among different age groups,

infectious, parasitic, zoonotic, and social diseases. These kinds of diseases were examined in

comparison among different age groups (children, teenagers, adults) and separately for

Indigenous peoples. Also perceptions of health conditions by local residents was analyzed based

on interviews with local dwellers.

4.4.2 SEIA indicators case study: Sakhalin-2. Multiple offshore oil and gas fields exist in the

shallow Sea of Okhotsk along the northern and eastern coasts of Sakhalin Island (part of

Sakhalin oblast in the Russian Far East). Here, the focus is on the SEIA developed for the

Sakhalin-2 development projects, as they have been the most contested in this region thus far.

Sakhalin-2 includes development of the Piltun-Astokhskoye offshore oil field and the Lunskoye

offshore natural gas field and the entire associated onshore infrastructure required for oil and gas

extraction and transportation. In the case of the natural gas, transportation occurs onshore, to

Russia’s first Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) plant. The project is managed and operated by

Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd. Corporate partners in this transnational operation



have changed many times, but the most important change occurred in 2006, when the company

went from being majority-owned by transnational corporations to majority owned by Russia’s

National Oil company, Gazprom (51% share; see Bradshaw 2006). The current composition of

transnational corporations with shares in Sakhalin-2 is Gazprom, Shell, Mitsui, and Diamond.

Before December 2006, Sakhalin-2 was Russia’s only large-scale energy project operating

without a Russian partner. During this era of development, Sakhalin-2 sought international

financing, such as from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) for

project development, which meant that international standards and procedures for hydrocarbon

development were followed, including SEIA development. Indeed, Sakhalin Energy (when

managed by Shell Corporation prior to 2006) wrote “the environmental, social and health impact

assessments for Phase 2 of the Sakhalin II Project have been prepared in accordance with

international best practice for impact assessments (Sakhalin Energy 2002). Environmental

Resources Management, Ltd, a UK-based company, conducted the SEIA with support of local

and non-local expert contracted advisers. They note that the Social Impact Assessment included

52 communities and focused on 22 mostly rural communities where temporary construction and

permanent Project facilities are sited or likely to be sited. Over 5,000 Sakhalin residents were

consulted in these 52 communities. Baseline information was gathered and key community

concerns identified.”

Fieldwork on Sakhalin in 2004-6 indicates that many local citizens were either not consulted or

were unaware of consultations being held in local and very small communities. Those who had

been contacted had been repeatedly contacted by Sakhalin Energy and were fatigued by the

interview processes they underwent (Graybill 2009). As Sakhalin oblast was a closed region

during the Soviet period, infrastructure linking these communities to the wider world is limited.

Many of these communities are remote and have had little experience with any kind of outsiders

(Graybill, 2009). Western interview and ethnographic techniques, then, exhausted local and

indigenous participants and even frustrated them at times, as they saw no benefits actually

accruing to them as this specific development path was laid before them. Thus, while concerns

about social and environmental harm and the impacts on transnational hydrocarbon development



on (re)emergent cultural and indigenous identities in the post-Soviet period were voiced by some

local and indigenous environmentalist and cultural activists interested in preservation of

landscape and territorial claims, ecology conditions and cultural traditions, Sakhalin-2’s attempt

to addressed many of these concerns in their SEIAs looked to many like “lip service” and not

actual change to development plans.

Bolstered by international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as GenderAction,

Pacific Environment, Wild Salmon Center and Friends of the Earth Japan, local environmental

and cultural activist groups battled transnational development from the mid-1990s until 2006 and

ensured that Sakhalin-2’s SEIAs addressed social and environmental concerns for local and

indigenous peoples in multiples sites across the island that were earmarked for hydrocarbon

development. Until 2006, both local and global environmental and cultural activists and the

local and non-local (both Russian and foreign) ethnographers hired as consultants by the

transnational hydrocarbon companies helped ensure that understandings of the struggle over

resources, both hydrocarbon and subsistence, were widely and continually publicized (Bradshaw

2005). Since 2006 and the transfer of majority holding in Sakhalin-2 to Gazprom, international

financing institutions will not finance this project (i.e., the European Bank for Reconstruction

and Development; Williams 2007) and much of the contract work for SEIAs has gone to local

(i.e., from Sakhalin) people (personal communication). Previously, SEIAs were written for

international lenders and ensured that SEIs would be addressed before or as development

continued. Indeed, many activist groups were emboldened by progress in this direction,

requesting “cultural” (in the case of Indigenous peoples) or “gender” (see Bacheva et al., 2006)

impact assessments in protests against extraction projects (see Graybill, 2009). This checks-and-

balances approach, alongside local—global environmental and indigenous activism, helped

ensure that hydrocarbon development followed international standards.

Gazprom’s majority control since 2006 has hushed discussions and knowledge of social and

environmental conditions in the ongoing development of Sakhalin-2, and some speculate that

environmental greening is unlikely to increase with Gazprom as the major operator (Bradshaw,

2006). Many of the SEIA components are now monitored by local experts, who are sometimes



part of local “good old boy” networks and provide minimal services for maximum fees (Graybill,

personal communication). Others provide very powerful and thoughtful data and expertise,

making for a very uneven landscape of SEIA knowledge and monitoring over time and space. It

remains to be seen whether environmental and cultural activists will regain the power they

attained in the early 2000s. It remains to be studied and known what the projected impacts on

communities across Sakhalin has actually been from the Skahlin-2 project. Prior to 2006,

Sakhalin Energy had been interested in monitoring impacts on communities and the environment

of the hydrocarbon infrastructure (e.g., roads, pipelines, waste facilities), construction camps,

indigenous enclaves (especially in Val, Nogliki and Chir-Unvd) and in-migration of local people

for jobs associated with hydrocarbon development. There has been no follow-up document from

Sakhalin Energy since 2006 illustrating attention to these initial concerns.

4.4.3 Summary. Summarizing the overview of the SEIA measurement frameworks in the Russian

North, we conclude the following. A truncated legal base for SEIA and lack of implementation

incentives and mechanisms make most systems of indicators insufficient and ineffective. At the

same time, the concept of the ethnological assessment (or anthropological expert review) is well

aligned with international practice and presents an advancement of qualitative methodologies,

which are often limited in SEIAs conducted in other Arctic jurisdictions. In addition to

legislative weakness, other important limitations of the SEIA process in Russia include:

o Public hearings are usually are organized when proponents already started the project.

o Public hearings are not widely publicized throughout communities that may be

impacted by development

o Geological explorations do not require impact assessments.

o SEIA are largely focused on Indigenous peoples (narrowly defined by the Russian

legislation) and thus lack consideration of the concerns of non-Indigenous residents

who might perceive themselves as “native” and have strong senses of place.

o Territories traditionally used by Indigenous peoples involved in SEIAs are often

located proximal to settlements with predominantly non-Indigenous populations who

may represent the numerical majority of a local population and may have different

views on resource development than Indigenous residents.



o Assessment does not provide alternative development scenarios that could provide

local communities with a full range of possible development choices

o Assessment is conducted either by consultants (both local and non-local) or by a

division of mining/hydrocarbon companies tasked with social development issues.

Any of these assessors may introduce bias into SEIA results.

o Sacred places are rarely taken into account, as they are not officially documented.

o There is little monitoring of (S)EIs during the project implementation phase and after

a project’s termination.

5.0 Discussion: Milestones, limitations and lessons from existing SEIA frameworks (Petrov)

The survey of existing SEIA measurement frameworks demonstrates a considerable variability

among SEIA processes in different circumpolar jurisdictions. At the same time we see that the

nature of indicators and approaches to their selection are relatively similar. Both domains and

specific measures are often based on same broad areas of interest (population, health, economy,

traditional culture, etc.) and data availability. However, the representation of different domains in

SEIAs is highly uneven and measures may vary widely depending on national and regional data

resources. This makes comparison, evaluation, validation and transfer of SEIA measurement

methodologies extremely difficult. An important step towards creating a circumpolar impact

indicators framework will be an inclusion of some common variables in all SEIAs conducted

across the Arctic. These minimum standards can be based on ASI six domains and seven

indicators, which are by design available in all Arctic jurisdictions (Larsen et al. 2010).

Summarizing cases of SEIA from different arctic jurisdictions and also synthesizing earlier SEIA

reviews in Arctic countries (MVEIRB, n/d) we can emphasize the following gaps prevalent in

SEIA measurement systems:

Lack of theoretical frameworks for developing indicators. Most SEIA are based on relatively

unsophisticated approaches to selecting domains and measures oriented towards ‘common

sense.’ This leads to imbalances or biased choices of variables based on what is available or of

particular interest or advantage to a proponent. While regulatory documents sometimes specify

what exactly should be measured, it is often not clear what conceptual foundations were used in



determining the assessed parameters. The same applies to SEIA methodologies that may or may

not be clearly identifiable, replicable and available for a meaningful validation and follow-up.

The fundamental questions of SEIA are what to measure and how to measure it. Both need to be

tackled from scientific positions and considered within the context of cutting-edge social science.

Therefore we advocate the continuation of developing relevant theoretical frameworks for SEIA

that are based on an interdisciplinary synthesis on the subject of socio-economic impact

assessment in the Arctic. Some advances in this area have been recently made by ASI (Larsen et

al., 2010; 2013) that provide scientific rigor to the selection and measurement of human well-

being indicators.

Nonintegrated, fragmentary measurement and monitoring systems. Related to the previous

point is the gap in integration and comprehensiveness of impact measurement systems. Many

existing systems provide nonintegrated, fragmentary measurement and monitoring that does not

adequately reflect the complex nature of human well-being. Certainly some SEIA are more

comprehensive than others, but the lack of the holistic picture of cumulative impacts on human

society and its environmental settings is a significant concern. The inclusiveness of SEIA is of

particular importance. The nuanced (and thus accurate) understanding of resource development

related SEI can only be achieved by integrated, but yet differentiated analysis that is capable of

revealing differential impacts on various groups within the affected society. Gender, age,

ethnicity, occupation, living arrangements and others are all differentiating factors that should be

readily considered in a comprehensive SEIA. This goal could be met though broadening

participation in domain/variable selection and monitoring processes. Involvement of TEK and

ensuring public participation are critical tools in moving towards inclusiveness of the

assessment. The response to this shortcoming is a development of integrated systems that

consider multiple domains of SE well-being based on state-of-the-art scientific and community

input.

Lack of integration between assessment indicators, monitoring and management. Another

significant gap in prevalent SEIA measurement practices is their detachment from management

of resources. Often SEIA is unlinked to local land use or resource management frameworks and

does not account for them while constructing indicators. Such disconnection makes SEIA less



powerful in its ability to reflect the impacts, and, on the other hand, such SEIA is less usable for

decision making and mitigation purposes. The solution is to develop a more integrated SEIA

framework (e.g., MVEIRB, n/d).

Indicators are limited to narrowly defined effects of projects. A common limitation of

existing SEIA is their narrow focus on impacts observed on communities directly affected by

resource development. Although such focus is understandable, it causes the lack of

understanding of broader impacts of industrial activity. As most projects involve capital, labor

and resources from communities and regions away from the actual development site, and

extensively interact with outside regions through trade, knowledge transfer, migration, etc., the

narrow scope of SEIAs and exclusively local system of indicators may be insufficient for

accurate representation of SEI. In addition, SEIA are typically limited to measuring effects of the

projects, but neglect broader impacts, such as institutional changes, policies, political issues, and

so forth. Usher (1993) argues that while SEIA cannot resolve all matters of policy, they could

assist in illuminating fundamental issues beyond direct socio-economic impacts themselves.

Limited ability to collect/analyze data and resultant predictive modeling based on

inadequate baseline data. Data limitations are the primary constraints of comprehensive and

accurate SEIA. Many Arctic regions are data poor and present additional challenges for data

collection and analysis. Availability of socio-economic variables is often limited to preexisting

indicators collected by national or regional statistical agencies, which are rarely ideal for

measuring effects of specific resource activities. The baseline data may also be limited in both

quantity and quality. Although targeted data collection conducted for SEIA may be beneficial for

the assessment, the one-time nature of such data acquisition precludes the use of relevant

indicators for monitoring purposes in the future, unless appropriate obligations are assumed by

the proponent or other parties involved. Modeling and prediction of impacts based on inadequate

data jeopardizes the accuracy of SEIA. One of the solutions to the data issue is the

implementation of data collection mandates within business-community agreements and

developing frameworks and local expertise for community self-monitoring.



Dependency on ‘imported’ indicators. SEIA measurement systems underwent considerable

evolution in respect to number and appropriateness of indicators used in analysis. The

implementation of collaborative planning and execution of SEIA and a growing inclusiveness of

the assessment process are important trends in improving SEIA frameworks. However, our

knowledge of indicators that are most adequate and effective in measuring human well-being and

human development in the Arctic is still limited. As a result, most SEIA resort to using general

indicators designed to measure SEIA in other regions, mostly outside the Arctic. Many

traditional indicators, e.g. related to incomes, demography, employment and other domains, may

not be able to adequately portray socio-economic well-being in the Arctic regions because of the

presence of traditional economy, sea and land-based activities, different cultural, family and

community relationships, etc. Development of northern specific impact measurement

frameworks required consideration of different (additional) domains and indicators. For example,

SEIA in the North should be considering effects on culture and traditional activities, as well as

impact on ‘fate control’ exercised by affected communities and residents (Larsen et al., 2010).

Many individual indicators also have to be adjusted to account for Arctic realities. Still it is

customary that SEIA rely on standardized measures. As mentioned earlier, the shortage of

necessary data exacerbates this problem.

Lack of understanding of impact significance and thresholds. The MVEIRB (n/d) notes that

identification of impacts’ significance and thresholds, although required by the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act, is very challenging due to the insufficient understanding of

social and economic thresholds. This situation is not unique for Canadian practice, but is a

general problem for SEIA. Many environmental thresholds are specified in legislation, directives

and guidelines. In the case of SEIA the assessment becomes more complicated as work towards

bringing the knowledge gap in respect to socio-economic impacts and thresholds is yet to be

accomplished.

Quantitative tilt. SEIA measurement systems in the Arctic maintain a considerable quantitative

tilt or a bias towards quantitative indicators. Prevalent practices of impact analysis, monitoring

and modeling involve qualitative parameters to be manipulated. This is appropriate for a large



variety of social phenomena, and qualification (to a certain degree) allows incorporating both

tangible and intangible impacts. However, there is a limit to which the latter is possible without

loss of information. In addition, qualitative data has its own meaning in use in assessments. They

allow for an illumination of internal heterogeneities in human societies (e.g., differences among

stakeholders, their understandings of reality, discourses), improving the holistic picture of

impacts (who, how and why affected?) and implementing participatory action as a part of SEIA.

For example, Novikova (2010) argues that anthropological methods of SEIA have advantages

because of their ability (1) to identify patterns and relationships at a local scale, (2) to reflect the

complexity and interconnectedness of Indigenous society, its resilience and adaptability, (3) to

‘view the impacts with Indigenous people’s eyes,’ (4) to account for both material and symbolic

parts of human well-being.

Many SEIA processes include community visits and extensive consultations prior and during the

assessment process, and possibly as a follow-up. However, there is still a disconnection between

qualitative and quantitative (indicator-based) components of SEIA methodologies. More needs to

be done in order to meaningfully integrate these two important sides of SEIA measurement

frameworks.

Limited follow-up and motoring during and after the project. Modern SEIA typically

contain elements of follow-up and indicators monitoring after the completion of SEIA and

during project’s implementation. However, often the emphasis in such follow-up activities is

placed on the verification of the accuracy of impact prediction rather than on impact

management and evaluation of impacts themselves (Noble & Storey, 2005). Follow-up activities

frequently do not have meaningful participation of communities and do not engage them in either

monitoring or management (Galbraith et al., 2007; Hunsberger et al., 2005). Enhancement of

follow-up and monitoring of SEIA components is key to improving the understanding of

resource development effects on Arctic communities and ensuring that they are able to receive

benefits and mitigate negative impacts.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925510000752#bib18

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925510000752#bib21



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



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.



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



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



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)



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).



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.



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



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

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1088937X.2011.593302

http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/tpog20/34/1-2



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.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/beech/iapa/2007/00000025/00000001/art00003





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.

48. MVEIRB, Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. 2007. Socio-Economic Impact Assessment Guidelines 2nd Edition Yellowknife 2007

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



http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/tpog20/34/1-2

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925510000752

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925504000770



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.



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

http://www.ebrd.com/

Measuring Impacts: A Review of Frameworks, Methodologies and...

Documents

Transcript of Measuring Impacts: A Review of Frameworks, Methodologies and...