The social impact management plan as a tool for local planning

Land Use Policy xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

The social impact management plan as a tool for local planning Case study: Mining in Northern Finland ⁎

Leena Suopajärvia, , Anna Kantolab a b

Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Lapland, PO Box 122, 96101, Rovaniemi, Finland PO Box 60, 99601, Sodankylä, Finland

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Social impact management plan Social impact Participatory planning Mining Finnish Lapland

The paper discusses social impact management plan (SIMP) as a planning tool for communities to continuously and adaptively manage and address the diverse social changes caused by mining developments. It introduces an empirical case study, where the SIMP is applied to deal with the possibilities and problems that the mining boom has created in a rural, sparsely populated municipality in Northern Europe. The making of the SIMP n the Sodankylä Municipality was the first community-led policy programme focused on mining in Finland. After collaborative planning with relevant stakeholders and political decision-making process, a SIMP laying out shared visions and mutually agreed actions was given the status of an official policy programme in 2018. However, there are several uncertainties related to the realization of the SIMP. From the viewpoint of governance dependencies, there are still differing opinions among the local stakeholders, including the mining companies, about what socially sustainable mining actually means and demands. Also, communities are often left with no other choice than to adapt to the interdependencies inherent in local governance, national legislation and politics. They also have to get used to international economic fluctuations and to the uncertainties intrinsic to the global production and consumption of metals. Nevertheless, the SIMP is a worthwhile effort to achieve the best local solutions related to mining in the northernmost parts of Europe.

1. Introduction The environmental and social impacts of large-scale resource extraction are usually assessed in the project planning phase. A social impact assessment (SIA) may be part of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process or part of licensing a project (e.g. Lockie, 2001; Vanclay and Esteves, 2011). Academics and practitioners in the SIA field have strongly criticized the present-day practices of conducting SIAs. According to Franks and Vanclay (2013, pp. 41), a SIA carried out ex ante “has historically been regulated as a once-off, single point-intime assessment document.” As it is done in the planning phase, there are no real measurable impacts to assess, and SIAs rather contain predictions of the social impacts that the project in question might have (Esteves et al., 2012). In addition, the cumulative impacts of a project can seldom be predicted before it starts to operate (Franks et al., 2010). The International Association for Impact Assessment (Vanclay, 2003; Vanclay et al., 2015), as well as scholars in the field in general, suggest that SIA should be understood as a continuous, adaptive management process – one including collaborative planning throughout the project cycle with the people impacted. In the 2010s a new practice-

⁎

oriented concept and approach, the Social Impact Management Plan (SIMP), was developed to mitigate possible negative impacts of mining and to strengthen benefits at the local level (e.g. Franks et al., 2010; Franks, 2012; Vanclay et al., 2015). The SIMP model involves an adaptive management process for resource projects that comprises not only an analysis of the baseline situation, but also an assessment and formulation of development alternatives and management strategies to avoid and mitigate negative social impacts and to enhance positive ones. Unlike social impact assessment during the planning phase of a project, a SIMP includes continuous monitoring, evaluation, and reporting of the ongoing social impacts of large-scale activities such as mining (Franks, 2012; Franks et al., 2010; Franks and Vanclay, 2013). Social impacts, for their part, are intended or unintended social consequences – positive or negative – of an industrial undertaking such as a mining project, as well as any processes of social change that the project triggers. They may be experienced at the individual, family, or community level in various spheres of life, including culture, communities, political systems, the environment, health, lifestyles, personal/property rights, fears, and aspirations (Vanclay, 2003; Vanclay et al., 2015). Local acceptance of mining is usually based on expected positive

Corresponding author. E-mail address: leena.suopajarvi@ulapland.fi (L. Suopajärvi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104046 Received 10 October 2018; Received in revised form 7 June 2019; Accepted 7 June 2019 0264-8377/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article as: Leena Suopajärvi and Anna Kantola, Land Use Policy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104046

Land Use Policy xxx (xxxx) xxxx

L. Suopajärvi and A. Kantola

Fig. 1. Exploration and mining projects in central Lapland, Finland. Sodankylä’s borders highlighted on the map. Information source: TUKES. Map drawn by: GTK.

where challenges and opportunities have arisen in the form of several mineral exploration and mining projects. The municipality decided to take the lead in preparing a social impact management plan for the whole mining sector together with the local mining companies and stakeholders. This process is described in Section 2. Thereafter, the process is evaluated in the context of theoretical approaches to the SIMP and SIA. In the Discussion section the empirical case is framed with three dependencies of governance: path dependence, goal dependence, and interdependence (Van Assche et al., 2014, 2015). Finally, some conclusions are presented on the community-led SIMP process as part of local long-term planning and on the use of the SIMP as a tool for managing the social impacts of large-scale industries in remote regions. The data for the present study consist of reflections by the facilitator and the researcher on the process of making the SIMP, notes and memoranda from participatory workshops, documents from the political decision-making process, and memoranda and notes from the steering group that was established to lead the SIMP process. The chosen approach is based on utilization-focused evaluation (Patton, 1997). As for the process evaluation, utility standards stress that it has to serve practical information needs. In this case, the reflections on the process were used in planning the consecutive steps. According to feasibility and accuracy standards regarding the collection of data for

social impacts, but contrary to environmental impacts and because of a lack of statutory control, they are not followed up. For example, Finnish legislation does not oblige mining companies to monitor social impacts during a project’s lifecycle. Moreover, state authorities have not made any policy recommendations regarding the social aspects of mining (Kokko et al., 2014). Hence, addressing social impacts mainly depends on the voluntary actions of the industry, and international mining companies have their own procedures regarding corporate social responsibility. For example, internationally operating Anglo American has a socio-economic assessment toolbox for improving its social performance management (Franks and Vanclay, 2013). In Finland, the largest mining companies, representatives of state authorities, and other stakeholders established the Finnish Network for Sustainable Mining (2018) in 2014. It supports mining companies in achieving sustainability and in reporting on their operation as part of their community social responsibility and self-regulation. Although there are guidebooks and reflective articles on social impact management plans and initiatives for managing the social impacts of mining (e.g. Holm et al., 2013; Franks and Vanclay, 2013; Porter et al., 2013), detailed cases and case studies putting theory into practice are sparse. The aim of this article is to give its own contribution to the meager body of practice-oriented research on the subject. The case study is situated in Finnish Lapland in the Municipality of Sodankylä, 2

Land Use Policy xxx (xxxx) xxxx

L. Suopajärvi and A. Kantola

human resources to take the tool forward, the municipality decided to join in the planning of the Nordregio-led Regina project as a part of the Northern Periphery and Arctic Programme (see Nordregio, 2018). The aim of the project was to increase the readiness of small communities in remote and sparsely populated areas for the development – or closing down – of large-scale, resource-based industries. In the planning phase, the social impact management plan model was chosen as one of the tools to be developed in the project. After drafting the general outline of creating the SIMP, the process started with baseline studies aimed at defining the socioeconomic characteristics of the municipality (Franks and Vanclay, 2013; Vanclay et al., 2015) and assessing the social impacts of mining in the community. A baseline study on the municipality´s population and mining developments (Kantola, 2016) and a survey on the experienced impacts of mining in Sodankylä were carried out in summer 2016 (Kuisma and Suopajärvi, 2017). Based on the survey on the impacts, mining was generally considered to have a positive effect on the vitality of the municipality, as it had brought new jobs and advanced the local economy. On the other hand, half of the respondents saw that mining has harmed the environment. In addition, the survey revealed a division between the municipal centre, the so-called mine villages, and villages further away. People living in the vicinity of the mines considered the situation in the municipality unfair, because they felt that they “are being sacrificed for profits to be made by others.” The most critical group among the other livelihoods was reindeer herders, who estimated that if expanded, mining would threaten their nature-based livelihood. The boom-and-bust nature of the mining industry also caused anxiety. A large majority (80%) of the respondents were worried about the dependence of local development on the economic cycles of the global mining industry (see more detailed Kuisma and Suopajärvi, 2017). The baseline study and the survey served as a platform for the SIMP process. Since “residents are rarely a homogeneous group” (Vanclay et al., 2015, pp. 37), mining was considered to have its pros and cons at the local level and its impacts were experienced in a variety of ways. There clearly was a need to manage the social impacts of mining in a way that would increase long-term positive outcomes. As a result, the Municipal Board endorsed a political commitment to the process in October 2016. They decided that the social impact management plan be made in the form of an official municipal strategy encompassing the mining programme’s objectives, action plan, and indicators for managing and monitoring social impacts.

the process and its evaluation, the information is to be adequate and the evaluation is to be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal. Finally, propriety standards stress the importance of a legally and ethically valid evaluation. 2. Mining as a challenge and opportunity – the need for a social impact management plan in Sodankylä Sodankylä is a resource-rich region in Finnish Lapland that produces hydropower, timber, and minerals. While forestry and hydropower production have a long history in the area, mining is a rather recent and rapidly growing industry. In the beginning of 2019, there are several mineral exploration and mining projects in different phases in Sodankylä. First Quantum Minerals started Kevitsa mine operations (nickel, copper) in 2012, which have been continued by Swedish multinationally operating Boliden since 2016. In spring 2017, AA Sakatti Mining, part of the international Anglo American parent company, began an environmental impact assessment process for the Sakatti project (copper-nickel-platinum group elements). The Sakatti project differs from the others in that it is located by the Viiankiaapa mire, which is protected by the EU-wide Natura 2000 nature conservation programme (Metsähallitus Parks and Wildlife in Finland, 2018). Terra Mining started gold mining at Pahtavaara in 1996, but the project has faltered because of several bankruptcies and ownership changes. In 2019, the mine is owned by Rupert Resources, a Canadian gold exploration company, which is also conducting further mineral exploration in the area. In addition to these established projects, a large number of other exploration projects and activities are underway in Sodankylä (Fig. 1). Sodankylä is a sparsely populated municipality with approximately 8600 inhabitants in an area of 12,440 square kilometres. It has problems typical of the remote European North: out-migration of younger generations and a rising proportion of elderly people, an overall decline in the number of residents, and a lack of educational and career opportunities – especially those for highly educated people (Glomsrod et al., 2017; Regional Council of Lapland, 2017). Hence, most of the local people welcome mining because it brings new jobs and in-migration, improving the future prospects of the small community (Saariniemi, 2018). Developments in the mining sector, especially opening of the Kevitsa mine, increased the number of jobs in Sodankylä by some 10 per cent in three years. Since 2012, the total number of jobs in the community has varied between 3500 and 3600 (Sodankylä Municipality, 2018). Currently, mining is the most significant private sector, which is one of the reasons for the local acceptance of the industry in the municipality (Kuisma and Suopajärvi, 2017; Saariniemi, 2018; see also Jartti et al., 2018). In sum, there are several projects going on in Sodankylä at different stages: exploration, development, operation, and standby. The impacts of the projects and the associated need for land-use planning, infrastructure, services, and housing represent an immense opportunity as well as a considerable challenge for the municipality. The authorities and politicians of Sodankylä therefore decided in 2016 to start creating a social impact management plan to address the diversity of issues related to mining.

2.2. Predictive assessment and revision of alternatives for the SIMP in Sodankylä The next step was to identify and predict the social impacts of mining and to evaluate their significance through participatory methods (Franks et al., 2010). A local steering group and a project manager were nominated for the Regina project to plan a participatory process that would support political decision making in the municipality and ensure that all relevant social groups are included and heard in the process. Accordingly, diverse groups were identified in the local community, including representatives of various industries and livelihoods (trade, tourism, reindeer herding, etc.) and members of mine village associations. Furthermore, actors in welfare services, education, and nature-related organizations such as hunting and fishing associations represented the third sector. The mining companies Boliden Kevitsa and Anglo American Sakatti were also actively involved in the process, as obtaining a social license to operate (e.g. Boutilier and Thomson, 2011; Thomson and Boutilier, 2011) typically adheres to the code of conduct of large mining companies. In this case, both companies were interested in developing the host municipality, as their priorities in Sodankylä include securing the wellbeing of their employees and recruiting skilled workers that will settle in the region. Rupert Resources, operating at the Pahtavaara site, chose not to take part in the process.

2.1. Scoping and formulation of alternatives: early steps of the SIMP process in Sodankylä The SIMP model starts by determining the scope of the process and by investigating the various ways to proceed (Franks et al., 2011; Franks, 2012; Franks and Vanclay, 2013). In Sodankylä, the leading authorities had recognised the necessity of a tool that would help municipal planners to respond to the needs of mining developments, to cope with the anticipated and unexpected impacts that the municipality and local people may encounter; and to ensure the retention of benefits in the local community and economy. Owing to a lack of financial and 3

Land Use Policy xxx (xxxx) xxxx

L. Suopajärvi and A. Kantola

Fig. 2. Formulating the shared goals and planning the tools to draw out a SIMP for Sodankylä Municipality in northern Finland. Implemented as a community-led process with a wide range of local stakeholders (Kantola, 2018).

division among locals. During the two following workshops it indeed became clear that there were fundamental conflicts of values and interests among the participants. For example, reindeer herders stated that searching for a compromise might actually violate the fundamental values and interests of vulnerable groups, including the herders themselves. Furthermore, the representatives of the mine villages repeatedly pointed out that they are the ones who suffer the most from negative environmental impacts. In addition to the conflicts of values and interests, the workshop participants directly and indirectly suspected that the process itself had a hidden agenda to legitimize the planned mining projects. Since the dominant critics stressed the importance of reconciling different livelihoods and local benefits, this aim ended up being one of the main objectives of the SIMP. Hence, heeding the diverse opinions and criticism made it possible to create a more balanced social impact management plan that pays proper attention to the different interest groups. The aim was not to discuss individual projects or vote “yes” or “no” on mining, but to define prerequisites, general goals, and objectives for coping with the challenges caused by the developing mining sector. Had the SIMP workshops taken place during the decision-making process of a single mining project, it would have made collaboration more difficult. An open conflict among local stakeholders could actually make collaborative planning impossible, necessitating a mediation process instead. The participatory process ended with a public seminar in May 2017, where the results of the process were presented to a wider audience that was allowed to comment on the SIMP. As the planning process entailed no decision-making power per se, the next step was to submit the SIMP to the municipal decision makers in order to get it formally accepted and thereby to give it the status of a legitimate policy programme.

Besides identifying the stakeholders, the steering group decided to launch three workshops to further elaborate the management of social impacts before sending the SIMP to municipal decision makers (Fig. 2). The three workshops shared the same agenda. First, the day’s theme and goals were introduced and a general discussion took place. Next, the participants continued by processing their ideas in sub-groups of four to eight persons. According to feedback from the participants, the general discussions were open and the group discussions lively. There were two main problems concerning the participatory process. First, it was difficult to engage and keep all the relevant groups in the process. Second, there were suspicions that the process would be used to legitimize mining. The problem in recruiting stakeholders had to do with a lack of resources, especially time. For example, people working during the day could not participate in the process if their employers were not willing to support the effort. Small organizations or entrepreneurs with few employees also had trouble taking part because it would have left them short-staffed. Moreover, representatives of village associations and reindeer herders had to go to the workshops at their own expense, which also narrowed down the list of potential participants. There was not much that could be done to avert the problem, but the workshops ultimately attracted some 30 participants representing almost 30 different stakeholders such as village associations, nature conservation associations, various livelihoods, and educational organizations. This was a good turnout in a municipality with only 8600 inhabitants and long distances to travel to the meeting venues. Although active recruitment was needed, the perceived importance of the issue at stake was crucial to participation. Besides the lack of resources, participation in the SIMP process may have been hindered by a fundamentally negative stance toward mining. The Sámi Parliament (Sámediggi), the self-governing body of the indigenous Sámi people, was invited to join in the process, because the northern areas of the municipality are part of the Sámi Homeland and mining eventually affects the whole municipality. However, the Sámi Parliament declined the invitation, stating that it does not accept mining insofar as it takes place in or affects the Sámi Homeland. On the other hand, the local nature conservation association and the local environmental movement against the Sakatti project replied differently. Although they argue that mining must not endanger the Viiankiaapa mire, as it is part of the European-wide Natura 2000 conservation programme, their representatives were involved in the workshops and in the steering group. In the first workshop, one of the most serious concerns cited by the participants was that the process itself might create conflicts and

2.3. A management strategy: the mining programme of the Municipality of Sodankylä A management strategy may be given the form of a management system, a policy programme, or a written document that preferably also includes plans for monitoring, reporting, evaluating, and reviewing the results of the process (Franks and Vanclay, 2013). As said, in Sodankylä, the strategy had the form of a policy programme with specific goals, activities, and evaluation indicators. The Municipal Board approved the mining programme in October 2017 and sent it to the Municipal Council for final approval. In November 2017, the Council unanimously rejected the programme and sent it back to the Board, 4

Land Use Policy xxx (xxxx) xxxx

L. Suopajärvi and A. Kantola

3. Discussion

urging stronger claims for local benefits. It also discussed the possibility of exercising stronger municipal power, even the power of veto, when decisions on mining are being made. At present, Finnish municipalities can reject uranium mines, but the only way they can control mining in general is through zoning (Pölönen, 2016). The Council also noted that the mining companies should pay local royalties or some other statutory compensation, which is not required in Finland at the moment. There were several reasons why the policy programme was turned down in the Municipal Council meeting. First, there were conflicts of interests and values in the municipality and among council members about mining in the area. Second, the environmental impact assessment process of the Sakatti project had started, and the related criticism of the project may have prompted the stricter demands voiced in the Council. Third, the municipal elections took place in Finland in April 2017, whereby many Council members were new and had not been involved in earlier decision making. Furthermore, Municipal Council meetings are open to the public and the media, hence offering a forum where political demands are put strongly forward for wider discussion (see Holm et al., 2013). Last, the council members took the policymaking process very seriously because of the importance of the mining industry in Sodankylä. The Municipal Board subsequently appointed a working group of leading politicians to develop the programme further. After negotiations between the political parties, the Municipal Board once again approved the programme with minor modifications in February 2018, and the Municipal Council finally approved it in March 2018. One of the outcomes of this political process was that the mitigation of environmental impacts and the importance of local economic benefits became emphasised. Table 1 summarises the objectives, actions, and follow-up indicators of the policy programme (Kantola, 2018). It addresses a range of themes, as social impacts by definition cover both positive and negative effects that an industrial endeavour may have on many if not all spheres of local life. Environmental impacts have a social dimension as well, for they may stir up a wide range of feelings among local people, change their daily life, and affect their health (Vanclay, 2002, 2003; Vanclay et al., 2015). After the Municipal Council had approved and launched the mining programme, the local steering group had its final meeting and the Regina project began to draw to an end. The municipal management team also discussed the programme, as its implementation was led by the municipal authorities. Further, it was essential to involve all municipal sectors, because mining has impacts on housing, infrastructure, day care, education, social services, and recreational services. In September 2018, the Mining Forum was organized as one of the objectives of the programme. The forum is to function as a local platform for communication, where the impacts of mining are followed up and the problems and possibilities of mining are addressed. The invited members comprise stakeholders taking part in the SIMP process, companies from various sectors, NGOs, mining companies operating in Sodankylä, local government officials, and political decision makers. When writing this in spring 2019, not much has happened in terms of implementing the programme. This is due to several reasons. After project funding ended, the scarce human and financial resources of the small municipality has made it difficult to continue the work. Since then, the municipality has applied for more project funding and is waiting for the decision. The members of the municipal management team and the personnel of the mining companies have also undergone changes, which has further delayed the implementation. In addition, a national discussion on shortcomings in the Mining Act – mainly the missing regulation concerning local taxes or compensation to be paid by mining companies to host communities – has started. Before the parliamentary election in April 2019, the demands to change the mining legislation were supported by several parties. Hence, the local actors are waiting for new regulations.

There were several reasons why the Municipality of Sodankylä started the unique process of making a community-led social impact management plan for mining. The first one is related to governance shifts. Governance is a coordinated attempt to make sense of reality and to control it. Even local planning is subject to multi-level governance. Consequently, even remote communities are interconnected globally as well as within a national context (Van Assche et al., 2014, 2015, 2019). This is especially the case in mining communities, as the state-led ‘command-and-control’ environmental management culture has changed into a complex interplay of multi-national mining companies, international law and regulation, changing national politics, and critical citizens around the globe acting via diverse NGOs (Prno & Slocombe, 2012). As argued in connection with the concept of governance path, governance at a certain moment and in a certain community is always the result of legacy (Van Assche et al., 2015, pp. 28). Our case of Sodankylä is a concrete example of this: as the role of the state has weakened, local communities are left alone to struggle with the uncertain developments of boom and bust industries such as mining. Currently, Finnish legislation disregards social issues related to mining, and there are no national policy recommendations for ensuring local benefits. Hence, municipalities are on their own in negotiating local mining-related affairs with global mining companies. Owing to its limited period of production and economic activity in the locality and its dependency on the global markets, the boom-andbust mining industry poses a challenge for local planning and decision making (Lockie et al., 2009). Sodankylä has already experienced this dependency, as the Pahtavaara mine is presently on standby and there were fears in 2015 that the Kevitsa mine would close because of economic problems. The problems in Kevitsa were eventually solved when Boliden bought the mine (YLE, 2016). Mining is in fact considered a “wicked possibility”, because the projects are only partially in the hands of the local decision makers (Kuisma and Suopajörvi, 2017). In terms of the mining industry´s fluctuations, the bust period is not the only risk. For example, during the recent mining boom in 2010 when the construction of the Kevitsa mine started, municipal planning could not react quickly enough. As a result, the local housing supply did not meet the demand, resulting in the use of fly-in fly-out workforce (Saariniemi, 2017). Also, there was a shortage of services for the foreign workforce and their families, among other things. In the words of the Mayor of Sodankylä, the opening of the mine “caught the entire municipality by surprise.” The explicit goal of the SIMP in Sodankylä, the mining programme (2018), is to foster economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable mining in the municipality. Although the basic reason for the SIMP is mining, the programme actually discusses a variety of social issues relevant for the local development (see Van Assche et al., 2017, pp. 311). Although mining is generally considered an opportunity for economic development, it often also entails anticipated or unanticipated side-effects (Vanclay, 2002; Asselin and Parkins, 2009). Especially its cumulative environmental impacts are an issue of concern in host communities (Franks et al., 2010, 2011). In Sodankylä – as in other places in the natural resource-rich European North (Beland Lindahl et al., 2018; Suopajärvi et al., 2016) – local people feel that they are the ones who experience most of the negative impacts of mining, because they are forced to live with fear caused by environmental hazards and risks. People also expect to get local benefits from industrial developments in their home area. Holm et al. (2013) have warned about the SIMP turning into a wish list of municipal services and infrastructure that mining companies should fund. Using the SIMP in such a manner may create harmful dependencies on the companies and risk the basic services and infrastructure during potential downturns in the industry. Moreover, in the Nordic welfare states, the provision of educational, health, and social 5

Land Use Policy xxx (xxxx) xxxx

L. Suopajärvi and A. Kantola

Table 1 A summary of objectives, actions, and indicators in Sodankylä’s mining programme (Kantola, 2018). Sodankylä Municipality’s Mining Programme. Social impact management and evaluation plan 2020, 2023, 2026, 2029. Section goal Social sustainability

Ecological sustainability

Economical sustainability

Objective

Action plan

Indicator

of people living in the of different livelihoods so that there are job and • Welfare • Development community increases education opportunities for whole families close to mining and pedestrian way investment and improvement projects • Villages • Road projects can benefit out of the Social impacts are evaluated and followed up and problems • mining projects solved: local mining forum established negative impacts and Housing and accommodation improved • The • losses are minimized and Facilitation of “Local Mining Forum” for impact follow-up and • compensated problem and possibility solving on municipality level together with stakeholders and industry culture has good ability • Local to act and develop Support for new inhabitants to settle in Sodankylä • safety increased Cooperation with national-level networks such as Finnish • Traffic • Network for Sustainable Mining residents settling into the • New community of values and knowledge about the nature and quality expectations • Protection • Local diversity of the nature shared and taken into account by mining industry and authorities of the wide • Protection recreational use of nature Active follow up of reports delivered by mining industry and • possibilities authorities about the environmental impacts: if needed additional research and measurements as well as actions voluntary nature • Additional required compensations of cooperation and communication about the • Development environmental impacts of communication / information tools of the • Development mining industry impacts on waters in surrounding environments impacts for local land use planning – participation on regional-level • Positive • Consistent economy land use planning + identification for the possible need of municipal-level general/strategic land use planning structure of the • Diverse business and livelihoods the local entrepreneurs to get involved in into mining • Support industry value chains service centre development • Mining and marketing activities for the new companies • Establishment for different sectors content and timed services (office and other premises) for • Right companies and enterprises with Lapland’s Arctic industry and circular • Cooperation economy cluster possibilities identifying fund/foundation • Negotiation • Impact evaluation and follow up

results of follow up survey for local • The people, every second year, about the experienced impacts of mining

of inhabitants, male/female • Number ratio, % of persons working at mine registered in the municipality

safety increased: less accidents • Traffic and less experienced unsafety agreements on voluntary • Cooperation basis with different actors, such as mining forum evidence about the diversity • Research of nature use of lakes and rivers is • Recreational attractive also in long term use of nearby areas close to • Recreational mine sites is attractive when mining projects are in operation and after closure

jobs and recruitment of locals • New companies and entrepreneurs • New of companies • Growth of tax revenue from jobs and • Growth business sector for municipality jobs sustaining, including • Existing traditional livelihoods such as reindeer herding

agreements between different • Voluntary stakeholders, for example “fund”/ “foundation”

about the indirect • Evaluations employment impacts for other sectors of jobs on other sectors than • Growth mining companies’ procurement % from • Mining local service providers

Table Kantola Anna 2018, translated and modified version of the SIMP table of Sodankylä Municipality’s Mining Programme, based on stakeholder process results. The SIMP of Sodankylä Municipality has been prepared together with wide range of local stakeholders, including different livelihoods and business sectors (mining, exploration, tourism, reindeer herding, services), associations representing villages near the mining sites, as well as third-sector actors in welfare services, education and nature-related organizations, such as hunting and fishing associations as well as nature conservation organizations. Also research reports have been in use, e.g. Social Impacts of Mining in Sodankylä https://lauda.ulapland.fi.

the municipality to lead the process and to take action to implement it. But the plan itself “has no magical power to reshaping the reality” as “it only has effects insofar as the existing actors incorporate it in their future interactions” (Van Assche et al., 2014, pp. 32). The Municipality of Sodankylä can also implement the programme alone, but only to a certain extent. The critical part on the way to achieve the general goal of sustainable mining is whether or not the companies volunteer to take part in the implementation. There are no guarantees that they will actively support the municipally set goals. As critically noted by John R. Owen and Deanna Kemp, while community relations and development (CRD) departments of mining companies may be involved in local planning and willing to engage in joint efforts, their headquarters do not necessarily exhibit equal interest in social issues. Furthermore, mining companies are interested in land, not people, and they consider socially sustainable mining to be core to business but not core business (Owen and Kemp, 2017, pp. 65). Interdependences between different actors at the local level is one factor affecting the outcome of the process, but the dependencies also involve other actors and other levels of governance (Van Assche et al., 2014). For example, a lack of interest among private construction companies in investing in remote municipalities is not in the hands of

services and the building of infrastructure are the responsibilities of the municipalities and the state. Nevertheless, the SIMP has been made in an attempt to bring forth the different kinds of knowledge of the local stakeholders, be they reindeer herders, hunters, fishers, nature conservationists, or mining company representatives. Understanding knowledge as a culturally constructed understanding of the local social-ecological conditions (Van Assche et al., 2017) instead of a mere professional expert opinion provided the stakeholders, authorities, and politicians with a way to discuss and define the possibilities and risks related to mining (Franks and Vanclay, 2013; Vanclay et al., 2015). In short, it made possible to set long term goals for the mining sector. Also, communication between the industry and the local stakeholders enabled the international companies to understand the local context and the way in which to gain the social license to operate (e.g. Boutilier and Thomson, 2011; Thomson and Boutilier, 2011; Vanclay et al., 2015). The process of making the SIMP was time-consuming and costly, and getting people engaged in the process was demanding. These problems are typically encountered in participatory processes, as noted by Vanclay et al. (2015). Now, as the SIMP is a written and formally accepted municipal document, the other stakeholders presumably expect 6

Land Use Policy xxx (xxxx) xxxx

L. Suopajärvi and A. Kantola

REGINA (Regional Innovation in the Nordic Arctic and Scotland with a special focus on regions with large-scale projects) project, and the Northern Periphery and Arctic programme for their invaluable contribution to the SIMP process. The authors also thank researcher Johanna Saariniemi, research assistant Sanna Pettersson, the guest editors of the special issue, and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the earlier versions of the text.

any municipality or mining company. Another example of issues that are beyond local control are decisions on taxes and royalties, which are made at the national level (See Holm et al., 2013). In addition, the global production and consumption of metals and economic fluctuations around the world are not in the hands of a single mining company or local authority. Complexity is a catchword of our era (Urry, 2003), but having shared visions and taking mutual action towards best local solutions are nevertheless goals worth striving for. This, after all, is the main idea of a social impact management plan.

References Asselin, J., Parkins, J.R., 2009. Comparative case study as social impact assessment: possibilities and limitations for anticipating social change in the Far North. Soc. Indic. Res. 94, 483–497. Beland Lindahl, K., Johansson, A., Zachrisson, A., Viklund, R., 2018. Competing pathways to sustainability? Exploring conflicts over mine establishments in the Swedish mountain region. J. Environ. Manage. 218, 402–415. Boutilier, R.G., Thomson, I., 2011. Modelling and Measuring the Social License to Operate: Fruits of a Dialogue Between Theory and Practice. Accessed 16 May 2018, 10 pp.. http://socialicense.com/publications.html. Esteves, A.M., Franks, D., Vanclay, F., 2012. Social impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 30 (1), 34–42. Finnish Network for Sustainable Mining, 2018. Finnish Sustainability Standard for Mining Translated Into English. Accessed 14 May 2018. https://www.kaivosvastuu.fi/ finnish-sustainability-standard-for-mining-translated-into-english/. Franks, D., 2012. Social Impact Assessment of Resource Projects. International Mining for Development Centre. Mining for Development: Guide to Australian Practices 15 pp. Franks, D.M., Vanclay, F., 2013. Social Impact Management Plans: innovation in corporate and public policy. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 43, 40–48. Franks, D.M., Brereton, D., Moran, C., Sarker, T., Cohen, T., 2010. Cumulative Impacts – A Good Practice Guide for the Australian Coal Mining Industry. Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining & Centre for Water in the Minerals Industry, Sustainable Minerals Institute, the University of Queensland. Australian Coal Association Research Programme, Brisbane. Franks, D.M., Brereton, D., Moran, C.J., 2011. Cumulative social impacts. In: Vanclay, F., Esteves, A.M. (Eds.), New Directions in Social Impact Assessments. Conceptual and Methodological Advances. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 202–220. Glomsrod, S., Duhaime, G., Aslaksen, I. (Eds.), 2017. The Economy of the North. Statistics Norway, Oslo. Holm, D., Ritchie, L., Snyman, K., Sunderland, C., 2013. Social impact management: a review of current practice in Queensland, Australia. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 31 (3), 214–219. Jartti, T., Litmanen, T., Lacey, J., Moffat, K., 2018. Finnish Attitudes Toward Mining. Citizen Survey – 2016 Results. University of Jyväskylä and Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation, Australia Accessed 24 April 2018, 36 pp.. http:// urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-7299-8. Kantola, A., 2016. Base-line Study of Sodankylä. Regina-project Unpublished report. Kantola, A., 2018. Summary of Sodankylä Municipality Mining Program and Social Impact Management Plan. Kokko, K., Oksanen, A., Hast, S., Heikkinen, H.I., Hentilä, H.L., Jokinen, M., Komu, T., Kunnari, M., Lépy, É., Soudunsaari, L., Suikkanen, A., Suopajärvi, L., 2014. A Sound Mining in the North: A Guide to Environmental Regulation and Best Practices Supporting Social Sustainability. University of Lapland, Rovaniemi Accessed 25 April 2018, 67 pp.. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-40-2464-1. Kuisma, M., Suopajärvi, L., 2017. Social Impacts of Mining in Sodankylä. University of Lapland, Rovaniemi Accessed 24 April 2018, 37 pp.. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978952-484-971-5. Lockie, S., 2001. SIA in review: setting the agenda for impact assessment in the 21st century. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 19, 277–287. Lockie, S., Franettovich, M., Petkova-Timmer, V., Rolfe, J., Ivanova, G., 2009. Coal mining and the resource community cycle: a longitudinal assessment of the social impacts of the Coppabella coal mine. Enviromental Impact Assessessment Review 29, 330–339. Metsähallitus Parks & Wildlife in Finland, 2018. Viiankiaapa. Accessed 14 May, 2018. http://www.nationalparks.fi/viiankiaapa. Nordregio, 2018. The Regina Website. Accessed 30 January 2019. http://www. reginaproject.eu/. Owen, J.R., Kemp, D., 2017. Extractive relations. Countervailing Power and the Global Mining Industry. Routledge, London & New York. Patton, M.Q., 1997. Utilization-focused evaluation. The New Century Text, 3 ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks 431 pp. Pölönen, I., 2016. Kaivokset kaavoissa. Kunnan harkintavalta yleiskaavoituksessa kaivostoiminnan ohjauksen näkökulmasta. (Mines in the Land Use Plans – Discretion of the Municipalities in Directing the Mining Activities Through Master Planning) Oikeus 1/2016. pp. 70–91. Porter, M., Franks, D.M., Everingham, J.-A., 2013. Cultivating collaboration: lessons from initiatives to understand and manage cumulative impacts in Australian resource regions. Resour. Policy 38, 657–669. Prno, J., Slocombe, D.S., 2012. Exploring the origins of 'social license to operate' in the mining sector: Perspectives from governance and sustainability theories. Resour. Policy 37, 346–357. Regional Council of Lapland, 2017. Population Changes in Lapland. June 2017, Accessed 3 May 2017. http://www.lappi.fi/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=52584& name=DLFE-32299.pdf.

4. Conclusions This article discusses the process of making a local social impact management plan (SIMP) in a small, remote municipality located in Finnish Lapland. The SIMP is a tool for assessing and managing the impacts of large-scale industries such as mining throughout the lifecycle of a project. The SIMP process encompasses profiling the baseline situation, alternative developments, management strategies, and, finally, the implementation of the plan. The Sodankylä Municipality is the first Finnish municipality that has started a community-led SIMP process for mining. The social impact management plan was made as a collaborative effort between several local stakeholders, including representatives from the mining industry. The plan was subjected to the municipal decision-making process, accepted, and given the status of an official policy programme. In this empirical case, the notion of multi-level governance means that the municipality has to advance local development in a situation where there is no national legislation safeguarding the profits and other interests of the host community in the presence of several international mineral exploration and mining companies interested in extracting the local resources. Also, there is an environmental NGO opposing one of the projects and heterogeneous local groups demanding that the municipality address and promote their interests in the mining developments. Considering all these actors with their varied interests in the situation, the power of the main authoritative local institution, the municipality, is weak in Finland when the mine is already in an operational state. In the planning phase, a municipality can decide on land use by zoning and it can give statements on environmental impact assessment and on the environmental licensing of a project. After that, however, there are no procedures that would safeguard the interests of host communities or guarantee local economic benefits. The official policy programme was accepted in 2018 and it is in the implementation phase in 2019. As local governance is shaped by the interdependence of different actors, it is uncertain whether all the joint goals of the SIMP can be realized. On the one hand, the implementation of the SIMP may be beneficial to all parties: The companies involved can learn to understand issues that may create social conflicts if not addressed, the local administration can use it for planning services and infrastructure, and the local residents can use it as a channel to express their interests and ideas. On the other hand, the implementation always involves competing interests, and history has shown that the reality rarely presents itself as envisioned. Even if a policy programme is explicitly focused on sustainable mining, diverse cultural views on the topic are bound to exist at the local level. Also, there are evident interdependencies reaching beyond the local level. Global economic fluctuations, international trade policies, and geopolitics all affect the future of mining communities. However, instead of acting upon these root factors, the communities can only adapt to them. Nevertheless, despite the complexity – or perhaps because of it – all attempts to negotiate sustainable future solutions for mining communities are more than needed. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the municipality of Sodankylä, the 7

Land Use Policy xxx (xxxx) xxxx

L. Suopajärvi and A. Kantola

Van Assche, K., Beunen, R., Duineveld, M., Gruezmahcer, M., 2017. Power/knowledge and natural resources management: Foucaultian foundations in the analysis of adaptive governance. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 19 (3), 308–322. Van Assche, K., Gruzmacher, M., Deacon, L., 2019. land use tools for tempering boom and bust: strategy and capacity building in governance. this issue. Land Use Policy. Vanclay, F., 2002. Conceptualising social impacts. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 22 (3), 183–221. Vanclay, F., 2003. International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 21 (1), 5–11. Vanclay, F., Esteves, A.M., 2011. Current issues and trends in social impact assessments. In: Vanclay, F., Esteves, A.M. (Eds.), New Directions in Social Impact Assessments. Conceptual and Methodological Advances. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 3–19. Vanclay, F., Esteves, A.M., Aucamp, I., Franks, D.M., 2015. Social Impact Assessment: Guidance for Assessing and Managing the Social Impacts of Projects. International Association for Impact Assessment. International Association for Impact Assessment 98 pp. YLE, 2016. Kevitsan kaivos myydään ruotsalaisyhtiölle. [Kevitsa mine will be sold to a Swedish company]. Accessed 14 August 2018. https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-8732550.

Saariniemi, J., 2017. Uusien kaivosalan työntekijöiden sijoittuminen Sodankylään. [Settlement of new mining employees in Sodankylä]. University of Lapland, Rovaniemi 14 pp. Saariniemi, J., 2018. Experienced Impacts of Mining in Sodankylä. Follow-up Study. University of Lapland, Rovaniemi 27 pp. Sodankylä Municipality, 2018. The Mining Programme of Sodankylä Municipality 2018–2021. Suopajärvi, L., Poelzer, G.A., Ejdemo, T., Klyuchnikova, E., Korchak, E., Nygaard, V., 2016. Social sustainability in northern mining communities: a study of the European north and Northwest Russia. Resour. Policy 47, 61–68. Thomson, I., Boutilier, R.G., 2011. Social license to operate. In: Darling, P. (Ed.), SME Mining Engineering Handbook. Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Littleton, CO, pp. 1779–1796. Urry, J., 2003. Global Complexity. Polity Press, Cambridge. Van Assche, K., Beunen, R., Duineveld, M., 2014. Evolutionary governance theory. An introduction. Springer Briefs in Economy. Springer Heidelberg. Van Assche, K., Beunen, R., Duineveld, M., 2015. An overview of EGT´s main concepts. In: Beunen, R., Van Assche, K., Duineveld, M. (Eds.), Evolutionary Goverance Theory. Theory and Applications. Springer.

8