Mining and Arctic Communities

Chapter
Part of the Springer Polar Sciences book series (SPPS)

Abstract

This book focus on the connections between mining activities, knowledge politics and the valuation of landscape in selected case sites in Russia, Greenland and Norway. In our opinion, it fills a lacuna in the academic literature on mining activities in the north with its specific focus on the interrelated aspects of industrialized development and environmental concerns. This includes exploring the way that politics can help solve environmental problems by paying attention to the way particular knowledge systems (both scientific and public) influence environmental and developmental policies, and how landscape and its value as recreational or occupational space, or harvesting ground, is recognized in the context of mineral extraction and commercialisation processes. The book scrutinizes the way that concepts such as “sustainability” and “sacrifice zones” can be utilized in describing the mining activities and their economic, ecological and social footprints, as well as the political and scientific processes which make mining activities possible. Further, we aim to investigate the interconnectedness between the power to define the meaning and content of these concepts and the way they evoke moral and politicized conclusions as well as analytical ones.

Keywords

Pathways to sustainability Mining industry Landscape Environmental and social values Arctic communities 

References

  1. AMAP (2013). Kiruna Declaration. The eight ministerial meeting of the Arctic council. May 15, 2013. Kiruna, Sweden.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, O. (2013). Unintended consequences of renewable energy – Problems to be solved. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fonseca, A. (2010). How credible are mining corporations’ sustainability reports? A critical analysis of external assurance under the requirements of the international council on mining and metals. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17, 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fox, J. (1999). Mountaintop removal in West Virginia: An environmental sacrifice zone. Organization & Environment, 12, 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hayter, R. (2000). Singel industry resource towns. In E. Sheppard & J. B. Barnes (Eds.), A companion to economic geography (pp. 290–309). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Hoel, A. H. (2009). Do we need a new legal regime for the Arctic Ocean? The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 24, 443–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Iakovleva, T., Bay-Larsen, I., Kharitonova, G., & Didyk, V. (2012). Small business development in protected areas in Norway and in Russia – The role of external environment. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Special Issue “The Challenges and Opportunities of Sustainable Development”, 25, 433–450.Google Scholar
  8. Jürisoo, M., & Nilsson, A. E. (2015). The global context of mineral resources in northern Europe: geopolitical and sustainability dynamics. In: Stockholm Environmental Institute (ed) Discussion brief. Stockholm, 6.Google Scholar
  9. Kirsch, S. (2009). Sustainable mining. Dialectical Anthropology, 34, 87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Koivurova, T., Buanes, A., Riabova, L., et al. (2015). ‘Social license to operate’: A relevant term in Northern European mining? Polar Geography, 38, 194–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leach, M., Mearns, R., & Scoones, I. (1999). Environmental entitlements: Dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management. World Development, 27, 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lerner, S. (2010). Sacrifice zones. The front lines of toxic exposure in the United States. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  13. Metalprices.com. (2016). Copper prices and news. Available at: https://www.metalprices.com/p/CopperFreeChart.
  14. Nenasheva, M., Bickford, S. H., Lesser, P., et al. (2015). Nenasheva legal tools of public participation in the environmental impact assessment process and their application in the countries of the Barents Euro-Arctic Region. Barents Studies, 1, 13–35.Google Scholar
  15. Nicol, H. N., & Heininen, L. (2014). Human security, the arctic council and climate change: Competition or co-existence? Polar Rescord, 50(252), 80–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ramirez-Llodra, E., et al. (2015). Submarine and deep-sea mine tailing placements: A review of current practices, environmental issues, natural analogs and knowledge gaps in Norway and internationally. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 97(1-2), 13–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rosing, M., et al. (2014). Til gavn for Grønland. Nuussuaq: Ilisimatusarfik, University of Greenland/Københavns Universitet.Google Scholar
  18. Storm, A. (2015). Post-industrial landscape scars. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Svensen, H. H. (2015). Grønne grunnstoffer. Morgenbladet. Oslo, 1.Google Scholar
  20. Young, O. (2009). The Arctic in play: Governance in a time of rapid change. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 24(2), 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nordland Research InstituteBodøNorway
  2. 2.Faculty of Social ScienceNord UniversityBodøNorway

Personalised recommendations