Power imbalances and sustainability challenges: a political ecology analysis of impact and benefit agreements in Canada's arctic mining sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• No study has employed a political ecology lens to critically assess the effectiveness of Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) in managing mineral development in Canada's Arctic, particularly in relation to local Indigenous communities. • A new framework categorizing the power dynamics and governance structures within IBAs is introduced, revealing the centralization of decision-making among regional Inuit associations and industry stakeholders, and the exclusion of local communities and those not directly benefiting. • The research utilizes a political ecology approach to examine the Jericho Diamond Project IBA in Nunavut, focusing on the implications of power imbalances and decision-making processes that shape natural resource development in the Arctic. • The findings reveal significant shortcomings in the current IBA model, including:. • -The centralization of authority, sidelining local communities. • -The confidentiality of agreements hindering public oversight and accountability. • Failure to address critical sustainability issues like infrastructure and social impacts. • The reinforcement of a wage economy, making communities vulnerable to global market fluctuations. • Exclusion of municipal governments, which creates gaps in meeting local community needs. • The study highlights that although IBAs represent an improvement over past mining practices, they do not ensure long-term sustainable development in the Arctic, particularly in terms of community well-being, environmental protection, and economic diversification. Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) are crucial for managing mineral development in Canada's Arctic, aiming to promote sustainability and distribute benefits to Indigenous communities. However, this study uncovers shortcomings in the IBA model that hinder its effectiveness. We analyse the former Jericho Diamond Project IBA in Nunavut through a political ecology lens to highlight power imbalances in decision-making for natural resource development. Our research indicates that IBAs centralise decision-making authority among regional Inuit associations and industry stakeholders, sidelining local communities and those not receiving benefits. Additionally, the confidential aspect of IBAs constrains public oversight and accountability. Current IBA structures fail to address community sustainability issues, including infrastructure and social impacts. They reinforce a wage economy that leaves Northern communities vulnerable to global fluctuations. Excluding key stakeholders, like municipal governments, creates gaps in meeting community needs. Although IBAs improve on past mining practices, they do not secure sustainable development in Canada's Arctic. This research calls for a reimagined IBA model better to balance economic opportunities with environmental protection and community well-being.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".