Indra Overland Ranking Oil, Gas and Mining Companies on Indigenous Rights in the Arctic HIGHLIGHTS The top-ranking Arctic • company on indigenous rights is Teck Alaska Incorporated. Over 60% per cent of • companies operating in the Arctic are poorly prepared to respect indigenous rights. • Petroleum companies scores than mining companies, although the best performer is a mining company. • The ranking indicates ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples does not guarantee that a country provides an adequate enabling environment for companies to respect indigenous rights. the start of • Between work on the ranking in This ranking evaluates the public commitments, formalised procedures and institutional arrangements of oil, gas and mining companies for handling indigenous rights in the Arctic. The purpose of the ranking is to support norm formation and to contribute to improving the performance of companies on indigenous rights by highlighting which companies have made a public commitment to indigenous rights, and to what extent. The ranking covers 92 oil, gas and mining companies involved in onshore resource extraction above the Arctic Circle. Each company is assessed according to 20 criteria related to indigenous rights. The criteria were selected by evaluating the main guidelines and legal instruments related to resource extraction and indigenous rights in the Arctic. These criteria include commitments to international standards, the presence of organisational units dedicated to on indigenous issues, transparency, and procedures for consulting with indigenous peoples. The actual performance of companies on indigenous rights is not assessed – only their public commitments, formalised procedures and organisational setup. Companies operating in the Canadian and US Arctic do better overall in the ranking than their counterparts operating in the Asian and European and it is therefore experimental. Comments and feedback are welcome, to indra.overland@nupi.no in 2016, the number of eligible companies dropped precipitously, mirroring a steep decline in Arctic resource extraction. 1 TABLE 1. Ranking Arctic extractive companies on indigenous rights Rank Company Rank Company Average 1 Teck Alaska Incorp. US 3.75 Arctic Marine Engineering-Geol. Exp. RU 2 Total E&P NO 3.70 Aurion Resources FI 3 MMG Resources CA 3.60 Auryn Resources CA 4 Arctic Slope Regional Corp. US 3.55 Avalon Minerals SE 5 Statoil NO 3.40 CGRG DK 6 Doyon US 3.30 Dalmorneftegeophysica RU 7 Bainland CA 3.00 ERIELL RU 8 Kinross Gold RU 3.00 Geo Mining NO 9 Polymetal Int. RU 3.00 Hudson Resources DK Imperial Oil CA 2.95 Kandalashka Al. Smelter (RUSAL) RU ENI US Kovdorsky GOK RU 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 2 Average Exxon Mobil Alaska US Gazprom RU 2.76–2.94 Magnus Minerals FI Malmbjerget Molybdenum DK Norge Mineral Resources NO Norilsk Nickel RU Agnico Eagle Mines FI ALROSA RU Bashneft RU Nortec Minerals FI ConocoPhillips Alaska US Northern Cross CA Repsol US Northern Iron NO Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. US Northern Shield Resources DK Boliden SE Novourengoyskaya Burovaya Komp. RU First Quantum Minerals FI Nussir NO Gold Fields Netherlands FI PhosAgro RU 17 2.51–2.75 2.26–2.50 Hilcorp Alaska US Platina Resources DK Novatek RU Skaland Graphite NO Rosneft RU SK Rusvietpetro RU Severneft-Urengoy RU The QUARTZ NO Anadarko Petroleum US YaregaRuda RU Anglo-Am., Sakatti Mining FI Arktikmorneftegazrazvedka RU Dragon Mining FI Beowulf Mining SE Eurasian Minerals SE Brooks Range Petroleum US LKAB SE Caelus Energy US Lukoil RU Commander Resources CA NANA Regional Corp. US Komnedra RU RN-Shelf-Arktica RU Lovozero GOK RU Achimgaz RU North-Western Phosphorus Co. RU Almazy Anabara RU Norwegian Rose NO BP US Shahta Intaugol RU 2.01–2.25 18 1.76–2.00 Petoro NO Taranis Resources FI Arctic Gold NO Tertiary Minerals FI Elkem NO Usibelli Coal Mine US GDF SUEZ E&P NO Yamalzoloto RU Ironbank Zinc DK Nenetskaya Neftyanaya Komp. RU Nordic Mining NO Northern Radiance RU Northgas RU Nuna Minerals DK Omya Hustadmarmor NO Severstal RU Sibelco Nordic NO Vorkutaugol RU 1.51–1.75 1.26–1.50 1.00–1.25 The ranking The evaluation of ethical guidelines and standards requires an assessment of how far, and in what way, companies have committed to these instruments. This ranking therefore assesses the public commitment, formalised procedures and institutional arrangements for handling indigenous rights of companies involved in onshore oil, gas or mining in the Arctic, in terms of some of the most important industry guidelines and standards. The ranking covers 92 companies. The companies are assessed on 20 criteria, for each of which a company can score from 1 (worst) to 4 (best). (For an overview of the criteria, see below). Afterwards, an average score is calculated for each company, which can likewise range from 1 to 4. To limit the list to a manageable size and to ensure clear rules, only those companies operating north of the Arctic Circle were considered for inclusion. Only the top 10 companies are ranked individually, while the rest of the companies are grouped at diferent levels according to which part of the scale their average score is on (the lowest group comprises those companies with average scores from 1 to 1.25, the second lowest from 1.26 to 1.50 etc.). Company No 1 in the ranking is Teck Alaska Incorporated. Teck already has an impressive merit list (Teck 2016). It has been classiied as one of the one of the Best 50 Corporate Citizens and one of the Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations for the fourth consecutive year by Corporate Knights, with the top rank in the Metals and Mining category and the second-best of all Canadian companies. It is also assessed by Sustainalytics as being among the top 50 Socially Responsible Corporations and included in the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index (DJSWI) for the past six years, where it is among the top 10% of the world’s 2,500 largest public traded companies. This track record did not inluence the assessment of Teck for this ranking. However, for a new and experimental ranking such as this one, Teck’s track record could be interpreted as showing that the ranking makes sense. The companies that follow Teck at the top of the ranking are, in rank order: Total E&P, MMG Resources, Arctic Slope Regional Corp., Statoil, Doyon, Bainland, Kinross Gold, Polymetal International and Imperial Oil. Although none of the top ten companies in the ranking achieve the highest possible score, these do very well and are arguably the least risky companies to carry out resource extraction in Arctic areas with indigenous peoples. The top-ranked companies operating in each of the various countries are as follows: TABLE 2. Top company by country of operation Canada MMG Resources Denmark/Greenland Nuna Minerals Finland Agnico Eagle Mines Norway Total E&P Norge Russia Kinross Gold Sweden Boliden USA/Alaska Teck Alaska Incorp It is worth noting that companies have been classiied according to the Arctic country in which they operate, not their country of origin. It is also important to emphasise that the ranking does not assess the actual behaviour or track record of the companies, but rather how well equipped they are to take into account indigenous rights in terms of their formal institutional, staing and communications set-up. There are several reasons for this approach. The irst two relate to practical issues in producing the ranking, whereas the third, fourth and ifth reasons relate to the potential use of the ranking. 1. It is diicult to ind factual indicators for actual performance that can be measured across a number of companies in this way, and the element of subjectivity is likely to be considerable in assessing it and it is therefore diicult to compare between cases. 2. Assessing the actual performance of so many companies in so many remote locations across seven countries would be prohibitively expensive. 3. Although an assessment at the formal and discursive level is more supericial than an assessment of actual performance, this ranking goes beyond supericial PR slogans to look comprehensively at the actual public commitments and institutional arrangements of the companies. 3 4. Formal and public recognition of indigenous rights is the irst step towards upholding those rights. If companies are coaxed into committing to rights on paper, it does not guarantee that they will uphold the rights in practice, but it may make it easier to hold them accountable later on. 5. The more companies formally and publicly recognise indigenous rights, the greater the pressure on other companies to do so, and the better the basis for the creation of business norms. Nonetheless, it also means that there may be a considerable gap between the position of a company in this ranking and its actual handling of indigenous rights: the ranking in itself does not guarantee good behaviour of any company, no matter how high its rank. Further analysis The results of this ranking exercise indicate that the majority of companies involved in Arctic resource extraction are ill-prepared to respect indigenous rights. As many as 62% of companies are piled up at the lowest four levels of the ranking. This means that their average score is in the lowest third of the ranking scale. These companies fulil almost none of the 20 criteria listed in Table 5 below; the only two criteria where many of them rise above the minimum score are: “Does the company have any unresolved conlicts with indigenous peoples in the Arctic?” (B3) and “Does the company have a formal procedure for submission of complaints that is accessible to indigenous peoples?” (C2). When companies get a good score on these two criteria, this simply means that no information was found about unresolved conlicts with indigenous peoples and that the companies have a complaints procedure that indigenous peoples could use (although it does not relect actual usage). On the 18 other criteria, many of which are more demanding, these companies almost consistently get the lowest possible score. This does not put their approach to Arctic indigenous peoples in a positive light. However, on the bright side, it means that for many companies it would be relatively simple to improve their score. The country where these lowly ranked companies are most over-represented is Denmark/Greenland. In fact, all of the companies operating in Greenland fall into this category. The country where they are second-most over-represented is Norway, where 88% of the companies fall into this category. There are quite a few companies operating in Russia among them too, but Russia is a large country and there are also many companies there that score higher. In Russia, only 31% of the companies score in the lower third of the range. It is not just foreign companies operating in Russia that make up the higher-ranked companies in that country either, as the only foreign company among the higher-ranked companies operating in Russia is Kinross Gold. Many of the others are well-known Russian brands, such as Alrosa, Gazprom, Lukoil, Novatek and Rosneft. Notably, there are also two companies operating in Russia among the Circumpolar top ten. 4 One might argue that the gap between formal commitments and actual implementation is greater in Russia than in other countries, and that a ranking such as this one is therefore too soft on companies operating in Russia. That may be, but it is diicult to argue that Danish, Norwegian or other companies that pay hardly any attention at all to indigenous rights should perform any better than their Russian counterparts, which at least pay lip service to indigenous rights. This also has implications for which approach is needed to encourage ethical practice among companies operating in Russia – not so much pressure for public commitments, as pressure for the practical implementation of the commitments they have already made. If one looks at the average scores of all companies operating in each of the countries, a similar picture emerges (see Table 3). Again Denmark/Greenland comes of worst. However, here Norway does slightly better than Russia. This relects the polarisation of companies operating in Norway: while some have low scores, the remainder are among the better companies in the ranking. At the top of the ranking are the companies operating in the US and Canada, with average scores well above the rest. Clearly, companies operating in North America are better at committing to upholding indigenous rights than are companies in the other parts of the Arctic. It is not surprising then that the top rank goes to a Canadian company operating in Alaska. It is also noteworthy that two of the countries that have not ratiied International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples have the highest average scores, whereas the only two Arctic countries that have ratiied the convention, Denmark and Norway, come out bottom and third from the bottom. This indicates that ratifying ILO 169 alone is not suicient to create an enabling environment for ethical company practice. As Table 4 shows, there is a striking contrast between companies in the petroleum and mining sectors, as the former have signiicantly better scores than the latter. The ranking does not show why this is the case, therefore at this stage one can only hypothesise. One possibility is that the oil and gas companies have a higher proile in the public domain than the mining companies, and that this leads to greater public scrutiny. This, in turn, forces oil and gas companies to take a more active stance on corporate responsibility issues. There are several potential reasons why companies in oil and gas might receive more attention: their role as the objects of inancial speculation; their perceived geopolitical signiicance; the dramatic visual impact of oil spills, and the fact that consumers personally and regularly ill their cars with gasoline. Modern societies also use large amounts of mined minerals, but many of those minerals, such as aluminium, are built into more complex items that are bought on a one-of basis. In any case, the diference between companies in the petroleum and mining sectors should not be exaggerated; after all, the top-ranked company in this report is a mining company. TABLE 4. Average score by sector Oil and gas companies 2.14 Mining companies 1.74 TABLE 3. Averages of companies operating in countries USA/Alaska 2.42 Canada 2.24 Sweden 1.89 Finland 1.84 Norway 1.78 Russia 1.77 Denmark/Greenland 1.47 5 Methodology Ranking criteria The ranking was created through the following work stages: In order to create a ranking, it is necessary to have numerical input. There are many questions about extractive industries and indigenous peoples that could be relevant for this ranking, but that nonetheless cannot be used since they do not lead to factual answers that can provide a basis for numerical scores. The criteria used in the ranking needed to fulil the following conditions: Stage 1. A set of criteria by which to assess the companies was developed. Stage 2. The criteria were piloted in two datagathering test runs and adjusted. Stage 3. A detailed deinition of companies eligible for the ranking was formulated. Stage 4. This deinition was used to compile a list of companies in each Arctic country. Stage 5. Data were gathered on all of the companies on all of the criteria. Stage 6. The data were processed and the inal ranking calculated. Parallel to these stages, the ranking project was presented to expert audiences on several occasions for comment and feedback: workshop at Arran Lule Sami Centre, • International 18 February 2014. at Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Afairs, • Meeting 21 November 2014. workshop with project partners, • International Hotel Scandic Victoria, Oslo, 2 February 2015. at Nord University in connection • Workshop with the international conference “High North Dialogue”, 17-18 March 2015. and Mineral Cluster Norway conference, • Mining Mo I Rana, 2 December 2015. workshop at Scott Polar Research • International Institute, University of Cambridge, 6-7 January 2016. policy brief on the deinition and delimitation of • Acompanies engaged in natural resource extraction in the Arctic was circulated to colleagues in several countries, May-June 2016. workshop in Hotel Scandic St. Olavs • International Plass, Oslo, 22-25 August 2016. 6 should be factual questions that can be • They answered “yes”, “no”, or “partially”. should in principle be possible for a company to • Itmake public the information providing the answer to the questions. order to be able to distinguish as inely as • Inpossible between companies at diferent levels, some of the questions should concern basic things that one would expect of most companies, whereas others should be more demanding of the criteria that many companies are unlikely to fulil. The criteria for the ranking are inspired by a number of existing guidelines and standards. In particular: Equitable Origin (2012), GRI (2013), ICMM (2010), IFC (2012), ILO Convention 169, Mining Association of Canada (2012), the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the UN Global Compact, and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Kreon (2015). TABLE 5. Criteria used to assess companies Criterion Related guidelines and standards A. International standards 1. Has the company committed itself to ILO Convention 169 on Tribal and Indigenous Peoples? ILO 169 2. Has the company committed itself to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? UN 2007 3. Has the company committed itself to any other written national or international rules or guidelines on indigenous rights? B. Company policy 1. Does the company have its own written policy on indigenous peoples? 2. Does the company require sub-contractors to follow its policy and principles on indigenous peoples? 3. Does the company have any unresolved conlicts with indigenous peoples in the Arctic? 4. Does the company have a workplace anti-discrimination policy that explicitly addresses discrimination against indigenous peoples? UN Global Compact 2013: 11, 12; WWF and Kreon 2015: 13 C. Company procedures 1. Does the company cover indigenous issues in its annual report or some other annual, publicly available report? UN Global Compact 2013: 20; TSM Protocol 2. Does the company have a formal procedure for submission of complaints that is accessible to indigenous peoples? UN Global Compact 2013: 11; WWF and Kreon 2015: 20 3. Are gender issues addressed in the company’s policy on indigenous peoples or in another document on the company’s approach to indigenous issues? D. Communication 1. 2. Does the company have guidelines speciically on how to engage in good faith consultations with indigenous peoples to ensure free, prior and informed consent for its project activities in Arctic areas? UN Global Compact 2013: 11; 21; EO100 Does the company ensure that information about its work in or near areas inhabited by indigenous peoples is accessible to the indigenous peoples? UN Global Compact 2013: 14; WWF and Kreon 2015: 19 E. Staing 1. Does the company have staf with competence on and experience of work with indigenous peoples? 2. Does the company have staf formally responsible for handling indigenous rights? 3. Are the company’s policy and procedures on indigenous rights included in staf training? UN Global Compact 2013: 36 F. Beneits and capacity building 1. Does the company have a policy of proit or beneit sharing with the indigenous people(s) in the Arctic areas where it works? 2. Does the company build any infrastructure for the indigenous people(s) in the Arctic areas where it works? 3. Does the company provide grants, scholarships or low-interest credit for the indigenous people(s) in the Arctic areas where it works to get training, education or start companies? 4. Does the company provide support for the development of capacity on the part of indigenous peoples to deal with the impact of resource extraction? 5. Does the company provide support for the cultural heritage of indigenous people(s) afected by the company’s activities in the Arctic? For each criterion there were four possible answers, each represented by a score between 1 and 4: TABLE 6. Possible answers and scores yes 4 partially 3 unclear 2 no 1 ICMM 2010: 61 UN Global Compact 2013: 51; ICMM 2010: 93 ICMM 2010: 89 The criteria were piloted in two test runs. In the irst test run they were tried through the tentative gathering of data on a sample of four of the companies. After some adjustments, a second test run was carried out on 18 companies. In both test runs, the sample was as diverse as possible to ensure multifaceted testing of the questions (companies from diferent countries; oil/gas/mining; diferent size). 7 Identiication of companies Several questions arose related to the methodology for identifying speciic companies for inclusion in the ranking. Again, one might think of this task as relatively straightforward, but in practice it is complex. There exists no central register of such companies at the circumpolar level, or even at the level of individual Arctic states. The data gathering therefore took the form of triangulation, using multiple written and some oral sources to identify relevant companies. The following sources were examined in order to identify companies involved in Arctic resource extraction: national lists of oil and gas and mining companies; databases of mineral extraction licenses; and maps of oil and gas licenses. Each of these avenues was pursued across the seven Arctic countries: Denmark/Greenland, Canada, Finland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the USA/Alaska. These written sources were supplemented with Google searches in English and Russian for the names of Arctic towns and locations (for example Hammerfest, North Slope or Yamal), in combination with relevant keywords (for example, “company”, “mine”, “oil” and “gas”). Searches were carried out in English and, where relevant, Russian. For a list of the sources used to identify companies, see Table 7. At irst, over 180 companies were identiied for potential inclusion in the ranking. As the work progressed, this number was reduced by around half. Interestingly, one of the reasons for the reduction of companies was that many of them went bankrupt, or at least called of their Arctic activities during the two years from 2014, when the initial list had 180 companies, and 2016, when the ranking was inalised. This is an indication of the dramatic decline in resource extraction in the Arctic during this period of declining commodity prices (see project paper ‘The Commodity Market Roller Coaster’). TABLE 7. Sources used to identify companies involved in natural resource extraction in the Arctic GLOBAL World’s Top 100 Mining Stocks http://www.mineweb.com/archive/top-100-mining-companies-what-a-difference-a-year-makes/ 2014 Top 250 energy companies http://top250.platts.com/Top250Rankings CANADA Members of the Mining Association of Canada http://mining.ca/members-partners/our-members The 100 largest oil and gas producers in Canada 2014 http://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2014/05/100-largest-oil-gas-producers-canada/ Oil and Gas Dispositions Northern Petroleum Resources https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-INTER-HQ-NOG/STAGING/texte-text/ le_mp_bsmd_pg_1371579383933_eng.pdf http://www.acareerinmining.ca/en/employers/employersites.asp DENMARK / GREENLAND List of mineral and petroleum licenses in Greenland http://www.govmin.gl/images/stories/minerals/list_of_licences/list_of_licences.pdf FINLAND 8 The Finnish Mining Industry: An Overview https://www.pwc.i/i/julkaisut/tiedostot/pwc-mining-overview-october2012.pdf Arctic Review 2013 – Logistics & Mining pdf, p. 40 http://www.slideshare.net/futurewatch/arctic-review-logistics-and-mining-futurewatchreport ‘Turning prospects into success: Mining Industry’, p. 21-22 http://www.temtoimialapalvelu.i/iles/1796/Mining_Industry.pdf Mining and exploration companies in Finland https://web.archive.org/web/20130526022027/ http://en.gtk.i/informationservices/mining_explcomp.html Active metal ore mines and current projects http://en.gtk.fi/export/sites/en/informationservices/maps/GTK_kaivokset_ja_tutkimuskohteet.pdf The Finnish mining industry, and overview 2012 https://www.pwc.i/i/julkaisut/tiedostot/pwc-mining-overview-october2012.pdf Mining, oil and gas companies in Finland Google search for “oil/gas companies Lapland” NORWAY Map of the Norwegian continental http://gis.npd.no/factmaps/html_20/ http://www.npd.no/en/Maps/Map-of-the-NCS/ shelf: the Barents Sea http://www.npd.no/Global/Norsk/4-Kart/Sokkelkart2014/Utsnitt_BH.pdf Map of the Norwegian mineral licences http://www.ngu.no/upload/Publikasjoner/Rapporter/2014/Mineral%20Resources2013_ screen.pdf http://www.ngu.no/prospecting Faktasider Oljedirektoratet http://factpages.npd.no/factpages/ RUSSIA Горнодобывающие предприятия http://www.gornoe-delo.ru/mining-enterprises/russia/ России - Горное дело Горнодобывающие предприятия в России http://www.orgpage.ru/rossiya/Россииобывающиеw.orgpage.ru/ Каталог нефтегазовых сайтов в России http://www.oilmedia.ru/dir/kompanii/2 Каталог нефтегазовых сайтов в России http://www.oilru.com/prom/22/ http://www.oilru.com/prom/39/ Google search: Апатиты Горнодобываюищий and Нефтегазоперерабатывающий, Мончегорск Горнодобываюищий and Нефтегазоперерабатывающий, etc. The same search with Мурманск и города Мурманской области: Апатиты, Никель, Мончегорск, Кировск, Кола, Кандалакша, Североморск, Полярный, Полярные Зори, Оленегорск, Заполярный, Ковдор, Нарьян-Мар, Воркута, Салехард (полярный круг проходит по городу), Норильск, Игарка, Верхоянск, Дудинка, Тикси, Диксон, Певек, Анадырь, Едарма, Хатанга Database of Russian business news articles as the source to navigate relevant companies http://polpred.com/?ns=1&cnt=195&sector=8&nlng=1&fo=2&fulltext=on&period_ count=1&sortby=date&page=2 SWEDEN Mining, oil and gas companies in Sweden Google search: “mining/oil/gas companies Norrbotten” Directory of Public Companies in Sweden https://info.creditriskmonitor.com/Directory/CountryASE.htm Arctic Review 2013 - Logistics & Mining pdf, p. 41 http://www.slideshare.net/futurewatch/arctic-review-logistics-and-mining-futurewatchreport Checked the article http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/country/2009/myb3-2009-sw.pdf USA/ALASKA Alaska Mining Licenses http://tax.alaska.gov/programs/programs/queries/mining/license/license.aspx?60610 List of Alaska Oil and Gas http://oil-and-gas.regionaldirectory.us/alaska. Companies/ Alaska producers and htm http://www.akrdc.org/issues/oilgas/overview.html explorers North Slope Unit Land Working Interest Ownership http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/publications/documents/northslope/northslope-wio-201608.pdf State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas, as of August 2015 North Slope Oil and Gas Activity State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas, as of May 2015 http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/GIS/Data/ActivityMaps/NorthSlope/North_Slope_Oil_and_ Gas_Activity_Map_20150505.pdf 9 References Equitable Origin (2012) EO100 Standard. https://www.equitableorigin.org/eo100-for-responsible-energy/overview/, accessed 29 November 2015. GRI (2013) G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative. Hanway, J., Holmes, J., Klein, M., Xiyue, M. L., McLean, A., Michaels, J., Paik, E. (2015) Proposal Concerning the Divestment of Wesleyan Univesity’s Endowment from Coal. Presented to the Wesleyan Investment Committee by the Committee for Investor Responsibility, 26 Feb. 2015. International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM)(2010) Good Practice Guide: Indigenous Peoples and Mining. London: International Council on Mining and Metals. International Finance Corporation (IFC) (2012) IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability. http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/c8f524004a73daeca09afdf998895a12/IFC_Performance_Standards. pdf?MOD=AJPERES, accessed 9 June 2016. International Labour Organisation (ILO) (1989) Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries. http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C169, accessed 4 Jan. 2016. Mining Association of Canada (2012) TSM Assessment Protocol: A Tool for Assessing Aboriginal and Community Outreach Performance. http://mining.ca/towards-sustainable-mining/protocols-frameworks Secretariat of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (2006) Backgrounder on Indigenous Peoples – Lands, Territories and Resources. Prepared for the sixth session of the UNPFII. www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpii/documents/6_session_factsheet1.pdf, accessed 15 June 2015. Teck (2016) ‘Teck Named to the Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations List.’ http://www.teck.com/news/newsreleases/2016-6828/teck-named-to-the-global-100-most-sustainable-corporations-list, accessed 21 Aug. 2016. UN (2007) Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf, accessed 3 July 2015. UN (2011) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. New York: United Nations. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf UN Global Compact (2013) A Business Reference Guide: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. https://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/human_rights/IndigenousPeoples/BusinessGuide.pdf, accessed 4 Jan. 2016. World Wildlife Fund and KREON (2015) Environmental Responsibility Rating of Oil and Gas Companies in Russia. Moscow: WWF. 10 Acronyms and abbreviations DJSWI Dow Jones Sustainability World Index GRI Global Reporting Initiative ICMM International Council on Mining and Metals IFC International Finance Corporation ILO International Labour Organisation TSM Towards Sustainable Mining WWF World Wildlife Fund Published December 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS About the author and the project Author: Research Professor Indra Overland (ino@nupi.no) Research Professor Indra Overland is Head of the Energy Programme at the Norwegian Institute of International Afairs (NUPI). He is also Professor II at Nord University and spokesperson for prixindex.net. He did his PhD at the Scott Polar Research Institute of the University of Cambridge and has since worked extensively on the post-Soviet energy sector, including oil, gas and renewables. He is co-author of Bridging Divides: Ethno-Political Leadership among the Russian Sámi. Review: Dr Emma Wilson Series editor: Professor Piers Vitebsky (pv100@cam.ac.uk) Design: Eileen Higgins (ehdesign@virginmedia.com) Copy editing: Niamh O’Mahony This paper is a product of the project Indigenous Peoples and Resource Extraction in the Arctic: Evaluating Ethical Guidelines at the Árran Lule Sami Centre, Ájluokta/Drag, Norway (Project Leader Sven-Roald Nystø, Scientiic Leader Professor Piers Vitebsky, Research Coordinator Dr Emma Wilson) and funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Afairs. The project also includes researchers from the Arctic Centre, Rovaniemi; the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow; the Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge; University of Tromsø, the Arctic University of Norway; ECW Energy Ltd; and Michigan Technological University. Project contact: Sven-Roald Nystø (sven.roald.nysto@arran.no) Árran Lule Sami Centre Árran – julevsáme guovdásj/lulesamisk senter © Báhko ISBN 978-82-7943-059-9 11