Advertisement

Sustainability and Mining: The Case of the Kola Peninsula

  • Vladimir Didyk
  • Ingrid Bay-Larsen
  • Håkan Sandersen
  • Ludmila Ivanova
  • Ludmila Isaeva
  • Galina Kharitonova
Chapter
Part of the Springer Polar Sciences book series (SPPS)

Abstract

This chapter discusses sustainability issues related to two mining companies – JSC “Apatit” and JSC “North-Western Phosphorous Company” – in the towns of Kirovsk and Apatity in the Murmansk region of Russia. These companies have been exploiting apatite-nepheline ore deposits in Khibiny, the largest mountain massif on the Kola Peninsula. The main question posed here is how knowledge about environmental, economic, cultural and social values decision making and knowledge systems are applied in decision making. A case study of Kirovsk and Apatity was undertaken to further understand the local planning regime and sustainability in Kirovsk and Apatity, including environmental integrity, indigenous groups and their subsistence economy, community benefits, effective engagement, and mining companies’ self-reporting on sustainability. The main challenges to sustainable mining are identified for the three major stakeholder groups – mining companies, local communities, and government authorities. The chapter concludes that perceptions of sustainable development in these Russian industrial towns are shaped by the dominant role mining industry plays on the Kola Peninsula in influencing the quality of life of local people and their perceptions of environmental concerns, including questions of pollution and landscape aesthetics.

Keywords

Arctic mining and sustainability Social license to operate Local planning regimes Environmental integrity Kola Peninsula Indigenous people 

References

  1. Acron. (2016). Acron homepage. Retrieved 17 Feb 2016, from http://www.acron.ru/en/sustainability/environment/.
  2. Armitage, D. R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R. I., Charles, A. T., Davidson-Hunt, I. J., Diduck, A. P., Doubleday, N., Johnson, D. S., Marschke, M., McConney, P., Pinkerton, E., & Wollenberg, E. (2008). Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armitage, D. R., Berkes, F., Dale, A., & Patton, E. (2011). Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global Environmental Change, 21, 995–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, H. A., & Vancley, F. (2003). The international handbook of social impact assessment – conceptual and methodological advances. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boutilier, R.G., Thomson, I. (2011). Modeling and measuring the social license to operate: Fruits of a dialogue between theory and practice. Social license.com. Retrieved 17 Feb 2016 from http://socialicense.com/publications/Modelling%20and%20Measuring%20the%20SLO.pdf.
  6. Burdge, R. J. (2002). Why is social impact assessment the orphan of the assessment process? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 20, 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crotty, J., & Rodgers, P. (2012). Sustainable development in the Russia Federation: The limits of greening within industrial firms. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19(3), 178–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Decree. (2014). Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 2907.2014. No. 1398-r. Retrieved 17 Mar 2015, from http://pravo.gov.ru/proxy/ips/?docbody=&nd=102356578&intelsearch=%F0%E0%F1%EF%EE%F0%FF%E6%E5%ED%E8%E5+%EF%F0%E0%E2%E8%F2%E5%EB%FC%F1%F2%E2%E0+%D0%D4+%EE%F2+2907.2014+%B9+1398-%F0.
  9. Didyk, V. (2015). Development challenges for a single-industry mining town in the Russian Arctic: The case of Kirovsk, Murmansk Region. Russian Analytical Digest, 172, 2–6.Google Scholar
  10. Gushchina I. A., Polozhentseva O. A. (2012). Material and social well-beings factors of social adaptation of mono-towns’ population//“ The North and the Market: Forming the Economic Order”. 2012. No.2, p. 64.Google Scholar
  11. Hovik, S., Sandström, C., & Zachrisson, A. (2010). Management of protected areas in Norway and Sweden: Challenges in combining central governance and local participation. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 12, 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Iakovleva, T., Bay-Larsen, I., Kharitonova, G., & Didyk, V. (2012). Entrepreneurship and sustainability in nature-based tourism: The role of institutional profiles in Northern Norway and Northwest Russia. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 25(4), 433–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kirovsk. (2011). Kirovsk municipality: “Strategy of socio-economic development of the Kirovsk municipality up to year of 2020”. Approved by decision of Council of deputies as of 20.12.2011. No. 85. Retrieved 13 Apr 2015, from http://kirovsk.ru/files/npa/sovet/2011/85/strateg_2020.pdf.
  14. Koivurova, T., Buanes, A., Riabova, L., Didyk, V., Ejdemo, T., Poelzer, G., & Taavo, P. (2015). “Social license to operate”: A relevant term in northern European mining? Polar Geography, 38(3), 194–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kokko, K., Buanes, A., Koivorova, T., Masloboev, V., & Petterson, P. (2015). Sustainable mining, local communities and environmental regulation. Barents Studies: Peoples, Economics and Politics, 2(1), 50–81.Google Scholar
  16. Leach, M., Scoones, I., & Stirling, A. (2010). Dynamic sustainabilities: Technology, environment, social justice. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  17. Lockie, S., Franetovich, M., & Sharma, S. (2008). Democratisation versus engagement? Social and economic impact assessment and community participation in the coal mining industry of the Bowen Basin, Australia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 26, 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martus, E. (2016). Contested policymaking in Russia: Industry, environment, and the “best available technology” debate. Post-Soviet Affairs, 1–22.Google Scholar
  19. MEM. (2016). Mining: part of sustainable development in British Columbia. Canada: The Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) and the Mining Association of British Columbia (MABC). Retrieved from http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/mining/sustainability/Pages/default.aspx.Google Scholar
  20. Mironov, A. (2015). The truth about the six million dollars. Khibinskiy Vestnik, 15, 121.Google Scholar
  21. Municipalities of the Murmansk region. (2014). Statistical yearbook. Murmanskstat – Territorial body of the Federal Service of state statistics in Murmansk region, Murmansk, 2014.Google Scholar
  22. NWPC. (2016). North-Western phosphorous company homepage. Retrieved 17 Feb 2016 from http://www.szfk.ru/en/.
  23. Nystén-Haarala, S., Klyuchnikova, E., & Helenius, H. (2015). Law and self-regulation: Substitutes or complements in gaining social acceptance? Resources Policy, 45, 52–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2017). Shaping projects, shaping impacts: Community-controlled impact assessments and negotiated agreements. Third World Quarterly, 1–17.Google Scholar
  25. Oldfield, J. (2002). Russian environmentalism. European Environment, 12, 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. PhosAgro. (2016). PhosAgro homepage. Retrieved 17 Feb 2016 from https://www.phosagro.com/about/holding/item636.php.
  27. Prno, J. (2013). An analysis of factors leading to the establishment of a social license to operate in the mining industry. Resources Policy, 4, 577–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Riabova L., Didyk V. (2014). Social license to operate for mining companies in the Russian Arctic: Two cases in the Murmansk region. Briefing note. ArcticYearbook2014. Http://www.arcticyearbook.com/index.php/briefingnotes2014/120-social-license-to-operate-for-mining-companies-in-the-russian-arctic-two-cases-in-the-murmansk-region.
  29. Riabova, L.A., Didyk, V.V. (2015). Sotsial’maya litsenziya na deyatel’nost’ resursodobyvayushchikh kompaniy kak novyi instrument munitsipal’nogo razvitiya [Social license to operate for the resource extraction companies as a new instrument of municipal development]. Public Administration Issues, Moscow, (3), 61–82.Google Scholar
  30. Vatn, A. (2007). Resource regimes and cooperation. Land Use Policy, 24, 624–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vik, J., Bay-Larsen, I., & Aasetre, J. (2011). Bruk og vern -brytninger om demokrati. In M. S. Haugen & E. P. Stræte (Eds.), Rurale brytninger (pp. 180–202). Trondheim: Tapir forlag.Google Scholar
  32. Voytekhovskiy YU. L., Miroshnichenko, T. A. (2014). ABCG heritage – Arctic biological, cultural and geological heritage and FODD – Fennoscandian Ore Deposit Database. Case studies of international cooperation in the Arctic zone. Vestnik of the Kola Science Centre of RAS, (2), 34–38.Google Scholar
  33. WCED. (1987). Our Common Future, World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Webler, T. (1995). “Right” discourse in citizens participation: An evaluative yardstick. In O. Renn, T. Webler, & P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizens participation -evaluating models for environmental discourse. London: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Wilson, E. (2016). What is the social licence to operate? Local perceptions of oil and gas projects in Russia’s Komi Republic and Sakhalin Island. Extractive industries and Society, 3, 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vladimir Didyk
    • 1
  • Ingrid Bay-Larsen
    • 2
  • Håkan Sandersen
    • 3
  • Ludmila Ivanova
    • 1
  • Ludmila Isaeva
    • 4
  • Galina Kharitonova
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Economic StudiesKola Science Center of the Russian Academy of SciencesApatityRussia
  2. 2.Nordland Research InstituteBodøNorway
  3. 3.Nord UniversityBodøNorway
  4. 4.Institute of the Industrial Ecology Problems of the NorthKola Science Center - The Russian Academy of SciencesApatityRussia

Personalised recommendations