Monetary benefit sharing from dams: A few examples of financial partnerships with Indigenous communities in Québec (Canada)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Development practitioners have long recognised that the undeniable benefits of infrastructure projects based upon resource extractive activities, such as dam projects, often carry an associated price tag in terms of environmental and socio‐economic impacts on communities in their area of influence and on taxpayers in general. Beyond the mitigation and compensation of negative impacts, sponsors increasingly recognise the need for directly sharing project benefits with local communities. The economic rationale for benefit sharing is the existence of an economic rent. Other justifications for benefit sharing include: (a) the need for fair redistribution of benefits to negatively affected populations; and (b) the need for financing development investments over and above mandatory compensation for damages and losses. These issues need to be considered in decision support systems designed for planning dams. This article discusses mechanisms that ensure a direct monetary redistribution of project‐related revenues or profits from dam projects to local populations. A review of international case studies reveals that such mechanisms may pursue one or several of the following objectives: (a) providing additional long‐term compensation to affected populations; (b) establishing a partnership with local communities based on sharing of the economic rent generated by the dam project; and (c) establishing long‐term regional development funds. The review also reveals that the following five types of mechanisms may be considered: (a) revenue sharing; (b) development funds; (c) equity sharing; (d) taxes paid to local or regional authorities; and (e) preferential electricity rates and other water‐related fees. The article illustrates the revenue sharing and equity sharing forms of benefit sharing mechanisms with two examples of financial partnerships with Indigenous communities in the province of Québec, Canada: the Paix des Braves Agreement between the Government of Québec and the Grand Council of the Crees and the Minashtuk project.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it