Ryan C. L. Bullock, Morrissa Boerchers, Denis Kirchhoff
{"title":"分析加拿大土著自然资源伙伴关系的控制、能力和效益","authors":"Ryan C. L. Bullock, Morrissa Boerchers, Denis Kirchhoff","doi":"10.1080/14660466.2019.1592413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Our work analyzed Indigenous partnership arrangements and conditions associated with natural resource development, specifically, the capacities identified by Indigenous peoples needed to participate in resource wealth generation. The review was needed to take stock of previously understudied and new partnerships emerging in Canada’s rapidly growing natural resource sectors where cross-cultural collaboration is becoming a feature, and in some cases a requirement, of new ventures. Results illustrate nine categories of arrangements (i.e., land use/regional planning processes; IBAs; MOUs; Indigenous businesses, joint ventures; environmental assessments; revenue sharing; advisory committees; and regional economic councils) used by Indigenous communities and their partners to assert their control and derive benefits from natural resource extraction. These included highly formal and technical legal arrangements, such as Impact and Benefit Agreements, and less formal arrangements such as Memorandums of Understandings and advisory committees. Using the five capitals’ (social, human, financial, built, and natural) approach we also synthesized existing knowledge of partnership capacities and benefits. We found benefits in each of the five capital areas, most of which were forms of human capital. Employment (50%), improved decision making (46%), and also financial support (33%) were the top cited benefits. Results build to the conclusion that differences exist between capacities needed to start working together (pre-existing supporting conditions), and those built through collaboration (new or enhanced capitals as beneficial outcomes). Development models will produce more and sustainable benefits where capacity building is both an explicit process objective and outcome of new partnership designs.","PeriodicalId":45250,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Practice","volume":"6 16","pages":"85 - 99"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14660466.2019.1592413","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analyzing control, capacities, and benefits in Indigenous natural resource partnerships in Canada\",\"authors\":\"Ryan C. L. Bullock, Morrissa Boerchers, Denis Kirchhoff\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14660466.2019.1592413\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Our work analyzed Indigenous partnership arrangements and conditions associated with natural resource development, specifically, the capacities identified by Indigenous peoples needed to participate in resource wealth generation. The review was needed to take stock of previously understudied and new partnerships emerging in Canada’s rapidly growing natural resource sectors where cross-cultural collaboration is becoming a feature, and in some cases a requirement, of new ventures. Results illustrate nine categories of arrangements (i.e., land use/regional planning processes; IBAs; MOUs; Indigenous businesses, joint ventures; environmental assessments; revenue sharing; advisory committees; and regional economic councils) used by Indigenous communities and their partners to assert their control and derive benefits from natural resource extraction. These included highly formal and technical legal arrangements, such as Impact and Benefit Agreements, and less formal arrangements such as Memorandums of Understandings and advisory committees. Using the five capitals’ (social, human, financial, built, and natural) approach we also synthesized existing knowledge of partnership capacities and benefits. We found benefits in each of the five capital areas, most of which were forms of human capital. Employment (50%), improved decision making (46%), and also financial support (33%) were the top cited benefits. Results build to the conclusion that differences exist between capacities needed to start working together (pre-existing supporting conditions), and those built through collaboration (new or enhanced capitals as beneficial outcomes). Development models will produce more and sustainable benefits where capacity building is both an explicit process objective and outcome of new partnership designs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Practice\",\"volume\":\"6 16\",\"pages\":\"85 - 99\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14660466.2019.1592413\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14660466.2019.1592413\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14660466.2019.1592413","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Analyzing control, capacities, and benefits in Indigenous natural resource partnerships in Canada
ABSTRACT Our work analyzed Indigenous partnership arrangements and conditions associated with natural resource development, specifically, the capacities identified by Indigenous peoples needed to participate in resource wealth generation. The review was needed to take stock of previously understudied and new partnerships emerging in Canada’s rapidly growing natural resource sectors where cross-cultural collaboration is becoming a feature, and in some cases a requirement, of new ventures. Results illustrate nine categories of arrangements (i.e., land use/regional planning processes; IBAs; MOUs; Indigenous businesses, joint ventures; environmental assessments; revenue sharing; advisory committees; and regional economic councils) used by Indigenous communities and their partners to assert their control and derive benefits from natural resource extraction. These included highly formal and technical legal arrangements, such as Impact and Benefit Agreements, and less formal arrangements such as Memorandums of Understandings and advisory committees. Using the five capitals’ (social, human, financial, built, and natural) approach we also synthesized existing knowledge of partnership capacities and benefits. We found benefits in each of the five capital areas, most of which were forms of human capital. Employment (50%), improved decision making (46%), and also financial support (33%) were the top cited benefits. Results build to the conclusion that differences exist between capacities needed to start working together (pre-existing supporting conditions), and those built through collaboration (new or enhanced capitals as beneficial outcomes). Development models will produce more and sustainable benefits where capacity building is both an explicit process objective and outcome of new partnership designs.
期刊介绍:
Environmental Practice provides a multidisciplinary forum for authoritative discussion and analysis of issues of wide interest to the international community of environmental professionals, with the intent of developing innovative solutions to environmental problems for public policy implementation, professional practice, or both. Peer-reviewed original research papers, environmental reviews, and commentaries, along with news articles, book reviews, and points of view, link findings in science and technology with issues of public policy, health, environmental quality, law, political economy, management, and the appropriate standards for expertise. Published for the National Association of Environmental Professionals