“Sustainability” Substituting “Subsistence”?

Analysis of Sustainable Development Discourses at Pebble (Mine) in Bristol Bay, Alaska
Dylan Elek McFarlane 2009

SD4002 Dissertation in Sustainable Development Supervised by Dr Tony Crook of the School of Social Anthropology & Prof Jan Bebbington of the School of Management, University of St Andrews

McFarlane 2

Cover Page, Top: Bristol Bay Natives working at the Pebble prospect (New York Times 2008); Bottom: Red Dog Mine port facility, Alaska (EPA 2007)

Submitted as an integral part of the MA in Sustainable Development, University of St Andrews, April, 2009. I declare that this dissertation is 14,601 words in length, excluding appendices, bibliography and figures. I declare that the School of Geography and Geosciences informed me of, and that I have agreed to abide by, the Ethics, Risk Assessment, and Local Health and Safety rules, codes and procedures associated with this part of my degree; that I have completed and signed the relevant Ethics Self-Assessment and Risk Assessment forms and that I have obtained appropriate Ethics Approval for this project. I certify that I have read the University's policy on Academic Misconduct; that the following work is my own work; and that significant academic debts and borrowings have been properly acknowledged and referenced Signature__________________________ Date ___________

McFarlane 3

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................ 5 List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8 I. Introduction........................................................................................................................................................... 9 A. Statement of the Issue............................................................................................................................... 10 1. Research Questions .......................................................................................................................... 13 2. Literature ............................................................................................................................................. 14 B. Pebble Ownership and Facilities .......................................................................................................... 16 II. Background ....................................................................................................................................................... 19 A. The Three Discourses of Sustainability and Subsistence ............................................................ 20 1. The 2008 Media Battle: Fish versus Minerals ....................................................................... 20 2. Alaska Land Claims and Mine Permitting ................................................................................ 20 3. The Theory of ‘Social License to Operate’ .............................................................................. 21 B. Red Dog Mine in Northwest Alaska ..................................................................................................... 22 III. Research Methods ......................................................................................................................................... 28 A. Limitations ................................................................................................................................................. 30 IV. Mediated Discourse ...................................................................................................................................... 32 A. The Dual Discourse .................................................................................................................................... 34 1. Sustainability Science ...................................................................................................................... 36 2. Subsistence Culture and Society ................................................................................................. 42 B. The Keystone Center ................................................................................................................................. 45 1. Analysis of “The Dialogue”............................................................................................................. 46 2. Concluding Keystone’s Mediation .............................................................................................. 49 V. Alaska’s Discourse .......................................................................................................................................... 51 A. Alaska, the Last Frontier .......................................................................................................................... 52 B. Historical Injustice ..................................................................................................................................... 54 C . Permitting Conservation and Development .................................................................................... 58

......... Strange Bedfellows and Green Alliances? ..................... 60 VI........................................................................... 77 Appendix A: Ethics Self-Assessment Form....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 66 B............................................................ 78 Appendix B: Risk Assessment Forms ......... Conclusion... 67 VII.................................................................................... Fish Talk ............................................................................................ 70 Websites ........................................................................................ 1 Source of Life” .............. 91 ............................................. 86 Appendix C: Ethics Clearance ............. “The No................................... 62 A....................................... 68 Bibliography...McFarlane 4 D................................................................................................. “No Net Loss” or The Promise of Salmon .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Finally. I also express gratitude to the students and staff from the Sustainable Development class of 2008/9 for help and encouragement. I am grateful to friends and family who have seen me through the process. Thanks go to all the participants who have developed my understanding. sustained my motivation.McFarlane 5 Acknowledgements I am indebted to the time and stimulus shared by Professors Tony Crook and Jan Bebbington. . and continue on living and working in Bristol Bay and beyond. thank you for your support.

... 38 Figure 8........................ Map of Pebble site relating fish observations to mine facilities ........................................................ Poster from the Inupiat Ilitqusiat social movement in 1982 ................... 26 Figure 6... Location of Pebble claim area within the Nushagak and Kvichak drainage .. 12 Figure 3.......... Communities near proposed Pebble mine development....................... Salmon populations at three headwaters of the Nushagak and Kvichak rivers .................... Diagrammatical subsistence and sustainability .................... Drying salmon at a fish camp in Alaska ................................................ 17 Figure 4..... Alaska in the Northern Arctic........................... 11 Figure 2................ 33 Figure 7..................... Location of Bristol Bay................. 62 Figure 10.... 19 Figure 5............................................................. 55 Figure 9............ Who owns Bristol Bay? ....................................................................... 64 .....McFarlane 6 List of Figures Figure 1................................ Timeline of sustainability initiatives in the mining industry ........

....................... Large Mine Permitting Team NANA ................................................... Nushagak-Mulchatna Watershed Council PLP ......................................................................................Northwest Alaska Native Association NMWC ...... Pebble Limited Partnership ..................................................................... Bristol Bay Native Corporation DNR .................................................................................................. Environmental Impact Statement LMPT ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... Acid Rock Drainage BBNC ........................... Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act ARD................................................................. Department of Natural Resources EIS .........McFarlane 7 Abbreviations ANCSA ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

000 media conflict pitched Pebble as a classic Alaskan land use battle between conservationists and developers – fish versus gold. about sustainability science and subsistence culture and society. a proposal to mine a large. gold. low-grade deposit of copper.000. perceptions of sustainable development have attracted concerted effort by the largest international mining companies. interviewing moderate and radical “stakeholders”. and Dena’ina Natives. and molybdenum lays at the headwaters to the world’s largest wild salmon fishery in Bristol Bay. Indigenous landscapes may not be fixable by new constellations of stakeholders or engagement models incorporating principles of sustainable development and corporate social responsibility. Alaska. Yup’ik. During 2008. engaging in many subsistence practices – most importantly salmon fishing – oppose the development.McFarlane 8 Abstract The transition towards “sustainable mining” reveals a new discursive field in the interactions between mining companies and people impacted by mineral extraction. In Southwestern Alaska. Since 1999. . Aleut. Issues of indigenous empowerment and industry best practice were removed from the public dialogue and replaced by an entertaining spectacle. new legislative initiatives and a $10. The supposed “transition towards sustainable mining” requires further academic. I analyzed this discourse in the media. as well as other Alaskans. trans-disciplinary engagement. I present these interactions differently. as two conflicts.

we are all implicated in “sustainable mining”. In the future.McFarlane 9 I. . threatened by the world’s next largest mine. you will be sustaining a connection to over thirty hard rock mining operations in more than a dozen countries. assuming you connect to the internet or mobile phone this day. you may be cycling gold and copper from Alaska. and you might choose now to understand the powerful significance of the Nushagak and Kvichak rivers. mostly on lands claimed by indigenous peoples. and. Our lives are surrounded by built environments which began with one large hole in the ground. Introduction Whether you agree with it or not.

sitting within spawning waters of the greatest salmon population left on the planet. the Pebble mine project poses a sustainable development and subsistence problem. Pebble is a massive copper-sulphide deposit located 200 miles Southwest of Anchorage. in every sense the source of life in Bristol Bay. cultural identities. but it faces increasingly rigorous and assertive opposition. Pebble mine is currently at a pre-feasibility and pre-permitting stage of development. at headwaters to the sustainable Bristol Bay fishery (see Figure 1 and 2). and the prolific sockeye salmon runs. How should we assess these intangible impacts from a mine? What different meanings does the development proposal entrain? Who controls the powerful discourse of “sustainability”? . Pebble is the world’s largest undeveloped copper-gold resource.McFarlane 10 A. Pebble mine risks destroying renewable resources. Statement of the Issue In rural Alaska.

grida. Alaska in the Northern Arctic (edited from http://maps. accessed 22/4/09) .no/go/graphic/arctic-mappolitical.McFarlane 11 Bristol Bay Pebble Vancouver Juneau Anchorage London Figure 1 Location of Bristol Bay.

3. Stakeholders reflect a specific.alaskawild. I argue: 1. accessed 26/4/09) I analyzed the Pebble discursive event in order to test the limits of “sustainable development” as a tool. Mediazation of cultural conflict demonstrates the social encounter between indigenous people and a mining company. Alaska’s “Large Mine Permitting Process” discourages indigenous empowerment. .McFarlane 12 Figure 2 Location of Pebble claim area within the Nushagak and Kvichak drainage (http://www. strategy or ideology imposed on indigenous Alaskans. contested understanding of sustainability and salmon.jpg. 2.org/wpcontent/images/pebble_areawide051205_small. Specifically.

McFarlane 13 These three discourses at Pebble – mediated discourse. fishing. 1. practiced. Pebble is a land-use battle that facilitates a greater understanding of the power and practice of sustainable development and subsistence in Alaska today. 2 Herein indigenous people of Alaska are collectively referred to as Natives or Native Alaskans. The social relations introduced by the Pebble proposal lead to questions about Native subsistence: Sustainable development is defined by convention to Brundtland. Alaskan discourse. and gathering. Alutiiqs. indigenous Yup’ik Eskimos. and Dena’ina Athapaskans2 of Bristol Bay understood. Hunting. Research Questions My principle research aim was to understand how language shapes practice at the Pebble mine development in Bristol Bay. The critical question was: Does the discourse of sustainable development substitute for the practice of subsistence? This entails clarifying the symbolic meanings of these competing ideologies. 1 . their subsistence way of life satisfied physical and psycho-cultural needs. Over millennia. as “development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. and experienced some form of sustainable development. This qualitative analysis has relevance for policy makers and other stakeholders. Ideology is defined simplistically as “meaning in the service of power” from (Thompson 1990). Aleut. and fish talk – suggest the critical relationship between sustainability and subsistence. Further questions about the former: What is the language of sustainable development? How is it used in the Pebble project? What are the implications? The practice and ideology of sustainable development1 function differently under sociohistorical inquiry.

complements the practical challenges of the Pebble development. Cottle. The form and function of both sustainable development and subsistence rely on symbolic discourse to appropriate shared meanings. conscience of competing epistemological and ontological positions. Three examples include Berger’s Village Journey (1985). for Pebble. 18) but a contextualized literature base is more likely to transect key issues relevant to different disciplines and epistemologies. I do not claim to cover all bases however. This challenges conventional knowledge production at sites of resource extraction that drives research (and policy) according to the principle of economic scale. Negrine and Newbold 1998. forming the communicative links between ideology and a practice.McFarlane 14 Have new western. this includes socio-economic impacts. Literature This dissertation begins to establish a peer-reviewed literature base for the socio-historicalstudy of resource relations of this area. “meaning in the service of power”. human and environmental health. Alaska. An integrative analysis. to paraphrase Thompson (1990). corporate values extinguished traditional cultural knowledge and value systems? How is the encounter at Pebble interpreted by Native Alaskans? What does “living in two worlds with one spirit” mean to Bristol Bay Natives? Answers to these questions are explored using discourse analysis. important work on biodiversity conflict and rural management might be included for future study. Ideology is. 14 (2006) and . Holistic approaches are recommended for discourse analysis (Hansen. 2. The broad literature reviewed for this research spans disciplinary boundaries to reflect emerging perspectives of indigenous-corporate resource relations analysis. the Journal of Cleaner Production Vol. Bristol Bay.

Woody and Trasky 2008). whose rhetorical undermining reduces the credibility (or likelihood) for balanced bi-cultural opinions3. the Nushagak-Mulchatna Watershed Council in 2004. . Three important “local” works came from the fields of law (Parker. Rasin. The latter effect is achieved by Sherwonit’s (2008) popular article from Yale University. environmental studies and media analysis (Wilson 2008) and impact assessment/planning (NMWC 2004). titled “Alaska’s Pebble Mine: Fish Versus Gold”. In the engineering field. 3 Some would argue this is not even possible. But Lertzman and Vredenburg (2005) have made a powerful case for cross-cultural dialogue and bi-cultural interlocutors in an ethical business approach to resource extraction with indigenous people.McFarlane 15 O’Faircheallaigh and Ali’s Earth Matters (2008). presented 180 questions about socioeconomics. seeking an appropriate area-based discursive context. The law review by Parker et. Finally. human health. Each reflects a moderate and radical position suggested for political anthropology (Filer 1999). Wilson’s (2008) “Indigenous Empowerment: The Pebble Mine and Environmental Justice in Bristol Bay. framing analysis of Pebble to directly support concerns of Bristol Bay Natives. provoking the reorientation of the project towards local issues. or to dramatize opponents in a political setting. Berger combines legal and anthropological insight to evoke a powerful assertion of native sovereignty in Alaska. Alaska” speaks powerfully. important transformations reflecting sustainable development and corporate social responsibility values driving innovation and technical change are reviewed by the Journal of Cleaner Production Vol. 14. or the schools of anthropology and management. al. ethnographic reflection. Finally. stakeholder analysis. Context-specific peer-reviewed literature about Pebble mine contrasts between traditional knowledge and scientific perspectives. O’Faircheallaigh and Ali’s compilation gathers geographically disparate studies of CSR and SD in the extractive industry in a strong attempt to transcend the disciplinary scrum often polarizing our perspectives. Reviewing the social impacts of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. and environmental health impacts to proponents. (2008) scientifically deconstructs the legitimacy of Alaska’s “Large Mine Permitting Team” (LMPT). My academic position is sited somewhere between social impact assessment. balancing against the tendencies to either neutralize stakeholders in a permitting process.

NDM has been extracting water from the freshwater ponds surrounding the area of the proposed mine. mineral property rights were bought by Canadian company Northern Dynasty Minerals (NDM) in 2001.dnr. NDM entered into a 50:50 partnership with Anglo American plc. with the Northwest Arctic Native Assocation (NANA). and staffed the Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP) in Anchorage.8 billion pounds of molybdenum (a metal used to harden steel). permits were submitted to extract water from three local creeks. http://www. Previous commissioner of the state’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 94 million ounces of gold. and initiated broad studies in anticipation of permitting and construction. operator of Red Dog mine in Northwest Alaska). NDM had acquired leases to 153 square miles of state land selected for mineral development. the largest zinc mine in the world. a holdings company also located in Vancouver. Shivley negotiated the Red Dog mine project in Northwest Alaska. An underground mine of comparable size five thousand feet deep at Pebble East. located another significant mineralization. with mining developments mostly in British Columbia. A physical mine footprint destroying 30 square miles of wilderness habitat. Since 2001.gov) . and DNR websites (http://www. and 4. John Shivley was selected as PLP’s chief executive officer.com. By 2004. In 2006. The mineral resource contains an estimated 72 billion pounds of copper.McFarlane 16 B. and is regarded internationally as the “future of US mining and metals”. The Bristol Bay mineral accumulation rivals the Grasberg complex of Indonesia.northerndynasty. NDM is a subsidiary of Hunter Dickinson Gold (HD Gold). In 2007. covering an area about two square miles at Pebble West.com. PLP. http://www. Discovered in 1988 by Cominco (now Teck Cominco.alaska. Pebble Ownership and Facilities4 The Pebble mine project is a proposed development of an extensive copper-gold-molybdenum occurrence (NDM 2009). and applied for water rights permits in 2006. The Vancouver-based company advanced the exploration project. • • 4 All information is available from NDM. The expected mine model includes: • An open pit mine two thousand feet deep.pebblepartnership.

Over 100 miles of undersea cables and transmission lines to transmit power to the mill. • • • • • • • • Figure 3 Map of Pebble site relating fish observations to mine facilities (www. and Upper Talarik Creek A mill to crush. mill. embankments.org. A 104-mile road and over 120 stream or tributary crossings to connect port and mine. accessed 22/4/09) . ore and wastes between the mine area. wells and pipelines to transport water.renewableresourcescoalition. Various stream diversions. and waste storage facility Annual use of 35 billion gallons of water drained from South and North forks of Koktuli River. and concentrate the extracted ore. A new 200-megawatt power plant located outside Bristol Bay.McFarlane 17 • • Totally or partially dewatering 60 lineal miles of aquatic fish habitat. The largest embankments would be over three hundred feet high. process. A deep-water port to load ore concentrates onto ocean freighters. Two 104-mile ore concentrate pipelines. Five earthen-wall dams spanning nine miles to contain 8 billion tonnes of acid-generating tailings.

al. especially at a mine of Pebble’s scale. Tailings storage facilities are also threatened by the nearby Lake Clark fault line. but the mine is likely to generate acid rock drainage (Parker et. Waste rock. A report comparing predicted water quality to actual water quality at hard-rock mines similar to Pebble indicated that. MacHardy and Lawson 2006). Substantive issues of ARD and pollution are further undermined by procedural issues of inadequate data sampling and reporting (Moran 2007). Maest. and leach into fish habitat. the majority (76%) of mines developed ARD (Kuipers . regulated.McFarlane 18 The varied cumulative impacts are unpredictable. estimated. is high. which may seep and dissolve copper or other heavy metals. following National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) oversight and permitting. mixing with air and water to create the sulphuric acid. Several billion tonnes of mill tailings would likely create acid mine drainage (ARD). and mitigated according to strict state and federal law. the probability of failure. . 2008). Even the few relatively certain detrimental affects human and environmental health will be forced to absorb over generations are complex and varied. which has to be engineered against in perpetuity. Although ARD is scientifically analyzed. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) currently being prepared for Pebble mine should be expected to fail.

“But who exactly are all these local workers who will fill the 1.000 to 2.000 jobs? In the entire Lake and Peninsula Borough. the population is just over1.” (Dembosky 2006) Figure 4 Communities near proposed Pebble mine development (http://www.pebblerpartnership. I also analyze one precedent to Pebble which is located in Northwest Alaska – the Red Dog mine. accessed 20/4/09) . three quarters are Alaskan Native.600. Background In this section I provide a brief introduction to the three discourses I observed in Bristol Bay of Pebble mine.com.McFarlane 19 II.000 square miles. which includes 14 towns spread across 24. More than 43 percent of the population is under 18 or over 65 years of age.

Pebble represents a dual discourse between sustainable development and subsistence. More than fish versus minerals. and uncertainty about the metaphysical construct of “sustainable mining”. Pebble mine is symbolic to both ideologies and three discourses appearing in the analysis are briefly framed below. In the encounter between Native Alaskans and the mining companies. The Three Discourses of Sustainability and Subsistence Dubbs (1988. images of Native Alaskans were appropriated for production of a singular “conflict” around Ballot Measure #4. rural Alaska. sovereignty. legislation which would shut down the proposed Pebble development. and increased idealizing: it presented an impossible choice: fish or minerals. 2. Alaska Land Claims and Mine Permitting In 2012. In the media.McFarlane 20 A. this repressive communication obscured important issues. More than being a consumable conflict however. the Pebble mine may be permitted by the State of Alaska as another use of its natural resource wealth (Figure 3). The 2008 Media Battle: Fish versus Minerals In the summer of 2008. abstracted stakeholders. the more likely antagonisms permeating in the struggle center on claims for indigenous empowerment. Social uses of these symbolic cultural forms by powerful development and conservation forces repressed other communication acts. 1. the Clean Water Initiative. conflict was the conclusion. the media spectacle revealed a battle between particularly powerful and hidden characters. continuing a pattern of deep rooted colonial development . While Pebble is one of the greatest issues linking people of Bristol Bay to the world today. 1992) asserts that in remote. sustainability competes with a prefigured world of subsistence discourse and practice.

Neither industry affirms indigenous sovereignty claims. fought against by Native Alaskans. meanings of sustainability are interpreted differently. the discourse of sustainable development and responsibility resonates in land. or poverty. sustainability is granted via production of the “social license to operate” (SLO). the state fails. However. wilderness. . In these resource relations. For the former. Alaska’s lands and waters have long attracted extractive industries. culture. Native Alaskans have become the bargaining chips in the Pebble mine development game. The Theory of “Social License to Operate” In Bristol Bay villages. who entrust government controls. strongly oppose Pebble mine. and constitutional mandates to regulate during the mine’s life. but increasing poverty (due to plummeting world prices) and loss of control are rarely scrutinized. 3. representing the majority of the 6. the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act created new entities: Native corporations. and fear destruction of their fishing and subsistence way of life (BBNC 2008). do not trust the State of Alaska. an intangible and transient measure of community assurance (Nelsen and Scoble 2006). and subsistence. sustainability is practically a given law. To the fishing industry. “green” ideologies are fixated to ill-defined and ubiquitous claims. to both mining and fishing interests. From an indigenous perspective. chained to perceptions of emptiness. In 1971. legislative statutes. although many Natives work in the fishery. who are claiming subsistence rights and indigenous empowerment today (AFN 2008.000 people from Bristol Bay. Wilson 2008). Their resolutions are met by non-Native Alaskans. In both cases.McFarlane 21 commencing in the late 1700’s (Dubbs 1988). Shareholders of Bristol Bay Native Corporation (BBNC).

and subsistence preferences dictate management decision-making. Lead and silver are also extracted from the relatively small mine footprint. Attention has been paid elsewhere to Prudhoe Bay: state and local economies are dependent on royalties from oil production. the largest zinc mine in the world. NANA will receive 25% of the net smelter return. and continuing to rise up to 50% during the next twenty-five years. NANA shareholders are the majority of the workforce. Production has increased each year at the open pit. The socio-cultural impacts of extending Red Dog’s operating life. including 50:50 personal sharing in management. The two major demands formulated between the initial opposition at discovery in 1953 and the 1979 NANA shareholder majority support were 100% Native hire within 12 years. Beginning 2009. The purity of the zinc is unparalleled in North America – it is nearly 20% of the ore body. incorporated to the Northwest Arctic Native Association (NANA) and has been the largest zinc mine in the world since 1989. Throughout the last two decades. signed a Development and Operating agreement to Red Dog. three decades after discovery. Cominco Alaska and the Northwest Alaska Native Association. I examine the case of Red Dog however. up dramatically from their current 4% share. respectively. NANA bargained and won significant control over the resource development. and zero-impact operations. subsistence advisory.McFarlane 22 B. after twenty years already. In 1982. are inconclusive (Aqqaluk Extension SEIS 2008). NANA. and Northwest of Alaska. Prudhoe Bay and Red Dog provide a context to indigenous-corporate resource extraction. earning over $1 billion for Canadian-based Teck Cominco and NANA Regional Corporation. and tough consensus building. and employment . The deposit is located on land owned by Inupiat Eskimos. but are in the unique position of being held entirely by Native corporate interests. industrial developments located on traditional Native lands in the North. because it is locally and internationally promoted as a cornerstone case for corporate social responsibility and sustainable development. Red Dog Mine in Northwest Alaska The Prudhoe Bay oil filed and Red Dog zinc-lead mine are two similarly large. local conflict. NANA leaders assert a repeated claim about the decision to mine zinc at Red Dog: “We Walk in Two Worlds with One Spirit”.

In Kivalina. Does it reveal a power imbalance between Inupiat or just the increasing impacts associated with proximity to a mine? Kivalina elders already have a position to oversee and manage environmental impacts and change. and also reviews all reports and communicates impacts. the nearest village downstream of the mine. This idea is documented in the story told by Mclean and Hensley (1994): “Red Dog Mine is an example that mining is compatible with indigenous people’s values and the principle of sustainable development. the committee has the authority to stop all transportation. internal conflicts were created. a group sued Teck Cominco in 2004 for thousands of water pollution violations under the Clean Water Act. NANA and Teck operators applied for permits to sustain production past 2012 to 2031. for example. The Subsistence Advisory Committee engineered the 52-mile transportation route between mine and sea port and other facilities. prior and informed consent (FPIC). Additionally. Is this a true. positive story of indigenous-corporate mineral development? The story of the Inupiat (who form 85% of the region’s 7. forming the Subsistence Advisory Committee which has the power to stop the mine traffic during caribou migration. These two opposing perspectives of Red Dog mine sought contradictory fates for the resource development. Within Kivalina also.” Mclean and Hensley characterize the agreement as a static and fixed document. And a lot of people – a lot of people not only in the NANA . and sought alliances with NGOs to differentiate their impacts social impacts from fellow NANA shareholders.500 people) and the mining company have been highlighted as a relationship demonstrating absolute free. This idealized state of two consensual parties offends the reality of continuing struggles and the experience of those marginalized by Red Dog. But Kivalina residents experienced marginalization. Red Dog management is shared evenly between NANA and Cominco employees. but I do not really support the lawsuit that these six people brought up. reported by one resident: “I am a Kivalina resident. During the same period. During caribou migration.McFarlane 23 committees. and similar powers control operations to allow for whale hunting during the spring.

ties to nature. the dispositional explanation given by Mclean and Hensley (2004).McFarlane 24 region. Griego and Saylor 2008). education. meaning to “fix” social relations between Native Alaskans and Teck Cominco. mirrors the researchers’ hierarchical obedience to state practice. Mclean and Hensley’s (1994) story reveals the ideological assumption between subsistence culture and sustainability science. Although they admit to a definition of human development uniquely accorded to Arctic Native people. Discoveries of anomalous lead. but in the State read about that and they think it’s the whole community” (Haley. their pre-fixed conclusion. Even though there is widespread recognition of Red Dog’s positive impact on wage employment. foreshadowed in their title “social conditions”. faces renewed government regulation and wide public criticism now that Kivalina highlighted Red Dog as being the largest source of toxic pollution in the USA. on the other hand. Teck Cominco. and cumulative environmental degradation. documented and completed. and health/social service provisioning by NANA shareholders in Northwest Alaska. Fay. were addressed only after the reality of the mine’s impact could be witnessed. The relationship may be strong between NANA and Teck Cominco today. the two villages closest to the mine site harbor “feelings of powerlessness and frustration”. Another social survey completed by Haley et. cadmium and other minerals along the 52 mile haul road between mine and port stirs even greater controversy. Therefore. but “partnerships” are rarely without regular conflict. the state of sustainable development is finished. quickly wears down upon closer inspection. fail to reveal anything more than their brief conceptual social history. The impacts of fate control and cultural continuity have not been carefully examined at extractive developments in Alaska. Sustainable development and corporate social responsibility. cultural continuity. and formal scoping hearings do not provide . But the decision to mine occurs before subsistence claims will be practiced: issues of fate control. al. of responsible corporate practice shared between two different but equal sets of cultural values at Red Dog. (2008) during the mine extension proposal reflects American positivist research positionality.

The lasting symbolic image is related in this poster: . This might have important implications at Pebble. regulation of “local knowledge” and socio-cultural effects of Red Dog has encouraged quantitative anthropology. pre-fixed conclusion. the Inupiat Ilitqusiat movement. al. In response to this. In the “social conditions” report. the balance and structure of NANA subsistence culture achieves a pre-decided. to strengthen Inupiat cultural values and identity” (Haley et. It does not relate the special relationship indigenous maintain in Alaska or North America. continues to slide into oblivion. Redmond’s (1998) comprehensive survey of industrial development impact’s on indigenous Arctic people argues that the Inupiat values have been vital to the corporate culture of NANA (Redmond 1998). the report does acknowledge that potential negative cultural outcomes of Red Dog promoted a “proactive collective response. that Natives and non-Natives receive equal representation and accountability beneath State law. different discursive formation. an illumination of Inupiat values and cultural resources demanded a new. The long struggle towards this however. 2008). Linked to this. modeling data collection on the economic-political need to produce achievable outcomes according to sustainable development principles. a sort of cultural revival during the fight against Red Dog mine. under the development assumption that exposing too much difference risks the extension of the mine’s life. Life histories and experiences are removed. In the Inupiat Ilitqusiat social movement.McFarlane 25 adequate access to information or a positive forum to discuss environmental management issues.

Perhaps the incorporation of Red Dog mine into subsistence livelihoods . the non-Native who led the struggle for the unique benefit-sharing agreement. involves living these values daily. John Shivley. according to the subsistence worldview. where the importance of responsibility to others is ingrained to mine employees. suggests that significant cross-cultural transactions require time and tough decisions. Shivley says: “I am responsible to all other Inupiat”. transforming subsistence and sustainability ideology at the Red Dog Mine (McLean and Hensley 1994) This subsistence ideology continues to function at Red Dog operations. The natural fight for cultural survival.McFarlane 26 Figure 5 Poster from the Inupiat Ilitqusiat social movement in 1982.

McFarlane 27 explains why NAN shareholders have become defensive during the trial of Pebble? A 2009 report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggested that subsistence harvests have declined in the area near Red Dog. . Strict sustainability programs fail to produce a science which can speak in two languages. I propose a different analysis to reflect the incongruence of subsistence and sustainability currently practiced by Pebble permitting agencies. understanding that changes in caribou and whale harvests relate to improper human and animal relations rather than strictly environmental impacts from Red Dog’s open pit. “we walk in two worlds with one spirit? Inupiat can subsist in the corporate world. harvesting the wealth of the Red Dog mine in order to maintain social ties and their other world of well-being (Haley and Magdanz in O’Faircheallaigh and Ali 2008). Perhaps there is another meaning to the statement. There is strong indication here that subsistence ideologies cannot entrain themselves easily into sustainability paradigms such as practiced in environmental impact statements produced by US federal and Alaskan state agencies. Most of the complaints hurled at that 650-page federal study came from NANA shareholders.

project papers are stacked like mountains. of a pre-determined domain. Alaska from a qualitative perspective. and one could argue. mine permit applications and baseline data. Being unable to visit Bristol Bay physically. and opponents. and appropriateness of. regulators.McFarlane 28 III. magazines. media analysis. and reflection. Employing a variety of internet sources. p. Access to. online blogs and “you tube” videos. novels. legislative filings. hermeneutics. radio and television programs. industry reports. Social science in the US has a distinct positivist epistemology. The enormous online resource offers challenges and opportunities to the researcher. corporate mailing lists. petitions. I attempted to incorporate an exhaustive source of multimedia objects: newspapers. Even public relations vice-president . I attempted to embed myself in the informational “debate” being transmitted in this resource context to extended places and times. I had to rely on technically-mediated mass communications – the internet – and constantly weigh the positionality of authors and organizations. Research Methods "to interpret ideology is to explicate the connection between the meaning mobilized by symbolic forms and the relations of domination which that meaning serves to maintain" (Thompson 1990. assimilating. literature review. proponents. NGO documentaries and recorded interviews. Like all modern resource developments in North America. interdisciplinary method of enquiry. knowledge is a central theme in the arguments between scientists.21) This dissertation analyzes the Pebble mine discursive event in Bristol Bay. and an analysis of power relations embedded in the discourse form a different. I have used multiple methods to understand the Pebble mine in the context of sustainability and subsistence including: participant observation. engaged in counting. live online webcasts. My interpretation of Pebble is situational. measuring. semi-structured interviews. the indigenous-corporate encounter.

water. and The Times from London.McFarlane 29 of PLP. conducted a formal media analysis. exposing a perspective to indigenous empowerment posited on environmental justice (giving a clear right to clean air. and subsistence) rarely considered by others. approaching some form of social auditing. showing that Native views are marginalized in the state’s largest media organization. a Bristol Bay Yup’ik. Wilson. such as: the Bristol Bay Times. 5 Personal Communication 14/3/09 . considering more local and international media sources. I have expanded his media enquiry specifically and broadly. the Anchorage Daily News. The demand reiterated by Wilson and others seeking greater disclosure from Pebble Limited Partnership influenced my decision to expand the media enquiry. His quantitative analysis spreads four years and 300 newspaper articles. said he could not find even recreational time to read Wilson’s (2008) paper which I found inspirational5. Mike Heatwole. Los Angeles and New York Times.

Together. Pebble mine will end. to predict positive mitigation from environmental impacts (Kuipers et. news media organizations. with one of the largest accumulation of binders and binders of data for any given project ever in an Alaskan locality. and historically under-develops society (Power 2002). In order to resist this “domestication”. “You Tube”. Limitations For the eight months I kept a journal. I discovered a precarious flaw in my method. a public online video network. habitat. By focusing on covering every aspect as a sustainability agenda suggests. a multi-day set of hearings from consultants researching meteorology. these productions also differentiate Bristol Bay residents who might simply choose to. However. hosted many videos made by local residents utilizing song. and other stakeholders. and have the ability to. one way or another. I watched and listened to streaming online audio and PowerPoint presentations of the DNR working groups. and displaying a variety of symbolic forms in pictures and language. observant and critical (Thomas 1993). I had become a walking. al. express themselves in this manner. In November 2008. 2006).McFarlane 30 A. etc. I have risked ignoring the real stories of struggle taking place on the ground. hydrology. mean I imitated the mode of knowledge production initiated by industry and government permitting processes. Another new form of information transmission explored was the “webinar”. dance. Despite the mountains of information proponents or myself acquired. reflecting on thoughts and feelings. we risk a cultural failure of un-negotiating culture from politics. This new public-private interaction offers transparency and . geochemistry. I believe the journal kept me honest. they performed an informal and diverse discursive function versus the formal public hearing procedure. socioeconomics. Online videos and webcasts presented unique challenge. talking environmental impact statement. and drama. One of the strident criticisms of this process is that it fails the majority of the time. I accumulated more resources and knowledges than I could legitimately claim to manage. I observed over forty videos posted from Bristol Bay communities. reifying the claim I meant to challenge about sustainability ideology. and balancing and framing that in a model that is not recognized even by nonNative Alaskans.

but at the same time reifies a hegemonic discourse. .McFarlane 31 accountability from the industry and government point of view. social ties to land. Clearly. Indian or Aleut person who claims ancestral heritage. or similar characteristics. stating that “we will listen before we act”. dispassionate enquiry into the situation. This limited a clear. I had to be critical of the new claim expressed beginning 2007 from PLP. and to what would be heard. Research tends to reflect the researcher and the wealth and magnitude of knowledge which was available to the analysis of Pebble met a peculiar personal position that sought to acquire all viewpoints and give a position to the least powerful of Pebble. boundaries are demarcated on who. I am an “Alaskan Native”. when. but I observe the term “Native Alaskan” to refer to the self-identified Eskimo. and this justified my long search for alternative or marginalized voices. re-making their communicative instruments to impress on others the idea of substantive change. and pushed the limits of time and energy. One final issue is problematic use of “Native” terminology.

The mediated discourse programmed a symbolic battle – fish versus minerals – and extended this linguistic form in an expansive time and space world. Mediated Discourse The first discourse I present is the mediated discourse. Television. quasi-interactive mass communication (derived from Thompson 1990).McFarlane 32 IV. This indigenouscorporate encounter appropriates cultural symbolism and detaches the “sustainability” spectacle from “subsistence practice”. radio. introducing the diagrammatical sustainability and subsistence-centered development (see figure 6). internet and other pre-formative acts mediated Pebble mine’s discourse. ”Mediated” is used to describe the normalizing mechanisms news and other organizations employ to capture and mediate ideology and culture in technical. .

McFarlane 33 Figure 6 Diagrammatical subsistence and sustainability .

Toronto. between sustainability or development. Media distributors and industry supporters from California. “greenies” and the “greedy”. is not a locally conceived reading. In the media. exploring for deposits similar to Pebble. critical engagement did not imply any educational social forum but rather sought political tick marks between two given possibilities: fish or gold. I worked for another summer from interior Alaska in the mineral industry. New York. Production of these forms severed the reality of the encounter. and sign posts cost over $10. all too easy to imagine someone getting killed over it. Stakeholders continue to perform these roles. a fight on the last frontier between conservation and development. forcing a questioning of the usefulness of mass communication. London and beyond were more impressed by the perceived David-Goliath biblical struggle: this was Alaska’s biggest land battle. As the spectacle spread outside of Alaska. the proposition could have eliminated or radically altered all large-scale mining across Alaska. but I argue that the choice between one industry or another. (2006) ‘The emperors new clothes: Sustainable mining?’ Journal of Cleaner Production 14. the two historical nemesis of sustainable development. The conflict produced in the media that summer on the television.”6 During the summer of 2008. 309-314. . Referring to the Ballot Measure 4 aimed at stopping Pebble mine. The Dual Discourse “The truth is that sustainability implies something quite different depending on which side of the bulldozer you are on. A poster engaged my interest: “Mining Rocks – Vote No on 4”. A. Indians and Aleuts of Alaskans dominated the symbolic exchanges from both pro-mining and oppositional camps.000.McFarlane 34 A.000 (Bluemink 2008). The images of Eskimos. radio. internet. newspapers. “At the decibel level the discourse concerning the Pebble Mine is set at. the cultural dynamic operating in Alaska was avoided.”7 6 Whitmore.

rather. Aleut. whereas local meanings are actually regularly contested. in the Pebble fictional book Whisper to the Blood. wild sockeye salmon fishery in the world. The proposal from Vancouver and London is negotiating between subsistence and sustainability. For all different social histories of this area. is it appropriate to ask –least of all in a three-minute televised snap – whether fishing or mining represents “sustainable development”? The hasty pace of these mass communication exchanges severs any realistic engagement process. The symbolic choice between fish or minerals eliminates all dialogue to distant audiences. biologically sustainable. or how much money the fishery industry is worth. but the Pebble mine is located at the Nushagak and Kvichak rivers. Future scenarios are community decisions. but these voices of Bristol Bay have been squelched. Dena’ina. consumable conflict. The sharpened symbolic representations observed in the media removes the possibility of a complex truth to be discovered locally. quoted from “The Pebble Blog” (http://community. or political judicators.com/adn/node/138812?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted#Comments_Container.McFarlane 35 Managing the Pebble mine. accessed 6/3/09) . The Bristol Bay watershed nurtures the largest. such as how many jobs the mine will bring. people have revolved around the fish. The important questions to ask and decided involve asking: can/should fishing and mining coexist at Pebble? If so.adn. But one of the five guiding 7 Dana Stabelow. In other words. and by whom? These questions are beyond environmental baseline studies. “The mine” portends a powerful oppositional force. the Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP) and Alaska Division of Natural Resource “Large Mine Permitting Team” aim towards responsible and sustainable mining. Alutiiq. Yup’ik. Neither fishing nor mining industry can proclaim itself to be a subsistencecentered development. contested meanings of sustainability continue to define their self-descriptions. not an individualized. Over $100 million has been spent by the PLP on socio-economic and environmental studies – is this the value of traditional knowledge and cultural values? Media networks communicate quantitative and positivist information. and other people of Bristol Bay share localized meanings about the land where they live and existed for generations. how. admittedly the risky location. stakeholder consultancies.

The media could break through the disciplinary scrum of Academia and engage stakeholders. Pebble mine and sustainable development are rather inconsequential. and the emerging concepts of sustainable development. Media should capture differences at sites of resource extraction. But the story is never as powerful interests or advocacy groups would lie to admit: at Pebble. 1. Mass communication technology empowers this ideology of sustainable development and since the year 2000. rather than pre-determine a conflict. and committing to a ”particular regard for the specific and historical situation of Indigenous Peoples” (ICMM 2009). and assess the impacts of Pebble.McFarlane 36 principles CEO John Shivley is explicitly qualitative: “We will listen before we act. For Native Alaskans. pre-staked out positions of subsistence or sustainability to act into a development conflict game? A problem has persisted for many years not between the mining industry. there are multiple conflicts and multiple stories. their subsistence worldview captures diverse survival strategies over generations. overseen by a threemember team who has never turned down a large mine permit in Alaska. How do stakeholders receive. reflect power asymmetries. indigenous peoples.”Exploring this claim in the media reveals that misunderstandings and contested meanings of “sustainability” are regularly hidden. Despite envisioning “respect. these differences have only one legitimate process. meaningful engagement and mutual benefit” with local indigenous people. the powerful discursive form of this “sustainability dialogue” further marginalizes the specific and local . So far. Sustainability Science The announcement of a “Transition to Sustainable Mining” demonstrates the rapidly changing dialogue of the mineral industry. or do they occupy in the media. and use “sustainable development”. and their struggle towards cultural continuity and ties to the land is not determined by fights the television presents to us. understand. the global mining industry has increased its annual production of “sustainability” literature.

The science of sustainability suggested here is about quantity. and CEO-led . consent. Whitmore 2006. it grapples with the global dialogue group – the International Council for Mining and Metals (ICMM) – founded in 2002 after the two-year production of the Mining. complex issues such as “no go” zones. Most importantly. Fearing the growing power of social movements and environmentalists opposing mineral extraction. Their growing body of literature addresses inter-related. or how much money has been spent on social investments (Anglo American 2009). sustainability is approached by the industry as a global phenomenon risking future access to resources. The ICMM establishes a global. reports. toolkits and frameworks are applied like tools to a machine at projects around the world. Coumans 2005. The mining industry has sought to separate claims made at local and global levels. benefit agreements and good governance. Anglo American. Weitzner 2002. Corporate and engineering disciplines translate sustainability into concrete mechanisms. Whiteman and Mamen 2002.McFarlane 37 cultural meanings of resource extraction. legitimacy. the work of consultants and nongovernmental organizations (Miranda. Chambers. systemic program of sustainable development. Danielson 2004. restricting accountability mechanisms into reflections of a sustainable development ideology. Vice-president of public relations Mike Heatwole admitted to the need for “recalibrating the dialogue” at Pebble – is this dissimilar to the idea of social engineering? Despite interdisciplinary attempts. human rights. and other mining transnational companies now publish glossy reports detailing their “green” activities. Rio Tinto. for the most part. For example. risk. environmental accountability. Moody 2002). and Sustainable Development project (see figure 7 for a timeline of sustainability initiatives in the mining industry). conceptualizing corporate-indigenous reciprocity and sustainability in the mining industry remains. Models. Minerals. such as how many meetings between company employees and local persons have occurred. The global mediation phenomenon of sustainability is further reflected in the Pebble Limited Partnership. resource renting. not quality: these international initiatives flood the market with information and knowledge. grounded in principles. Anglo America’s SEAT (Socio-Economic Assessment Toolbox) program reduces the description of various projects to community engagement indicators.

Governor Jay Hammond defined responsible resource development by asking four questions: • • • Is it environmentally sound? Do most Alaskans want it? Could it pay its own way? . Academic perspectives must challenge the naturalization of sustainable development. consultancies. de-legitimated localized resource dialogues. industry associations and government agencies is important. but it has also naturalized stakeholder positionality. recognized in the mining industry as pro-development with powerful lobbying groups and entrenched interests from previous industrial developments. such as oil extraction in Prudhoe Bay.McFarlane 38 assurance mechanisms. and hi-jacked the cultural conflicts which may be necessary at most sites of resource extraction. Figure 7 Timeline of sustainability initiatives in the mining industry (Lins and Horwitz 2007) The science of sustainable mining depends on a stable. thin tanks. Enter Alaska. Critical engagement between NGOs. From 1974-1982. regulated social environment.

economic dependency. the politicization of Pebble defended the permitting protocols and environmental legislation. the sustainability conflict focuses on the impacts and risks downstream to water quality and specifically the salmon fishery. usually according to political motivations – or greed – unfortunately. air and noise. and economic factors usually associated with sustainable development. degradation of wilderness. But overall. wage relations. social. defended by a long. a unique program to invest oil royalties to cover future state budgets. Hammond oversaw construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and creation of the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend Program. Hammond’s colloquial. 9 Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Two implicit ideas might be re-stated: first. loss of livelihoods. The dispute in 2008 over the Clean Water Initiative – Ballot Measure #4 – politicized Pebble. conservation and development. the idea of limitations (due to our technological and social organizational capacities and environmental impacts). These imperatives are translated in the current dialogues between stakeholders today. issues of fate control and cultural continuity take precedence over economic and environment balancing acts. At Pebble. most entrenched by fishing interests. . Other impacts include the mine’s footprint. and second. Expanded further. according to state law. The issues of acid rock drainage captures the most bitter and costly attention. health problems. The effect of this dramatization was perhaps constructive to education and cross-cultural interaction at Dillingham. Prudent use of natural resources is a stated goal of Alaska’s constitution. and loss of Native sovereignty and culture (Bryan 2008). Who judges the efficacy of the supposed “rigorous and comprehensive” assessment however? Current environmental and 8 During his time. tourism. the idea of helping the poor (meeting the needs of the present). Alaskan definition of sustainable development is largely obscured by the globally accepted Brundtland Commission of 19879. the regional hub of Bristol Bay. and also paying out annual oil dividend cheques to every Alaskan resident. federal inquiry into Pebble is required under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) of 1971 that demands multiple agencies and over sixty permits regulating various mine activities. complex permitting process and environmental safeguards at modern operations (Redmond 2006). SD is jointly defined by local and global processes.McFarlane 39 • Does it meet our constitution's mandate? (to manage resources for the people's maximum benefit)8 The four questions guided complex decision-making broadly fitting to the environmental. new infrastructure and industrial developments. who are mandated to balance costs and benefits. orientating sustainability science to policy-makers. and in Native Alaskan communities.

com/pages/environment/environment-pre-permitting. economic and social scientists are producing the most extensive research ever. especially the state regulatory bodies. but these promises provide no further explanations of what sustainable development actually means in the context of Native Alaskan subsistence culture. occupy thousands of documents. producing opposing 10 See http://www. building trust and relationships between both Pebble employees and stakeholders. Media distances these encounters. but self-critical appraisement is not yet a concern to scientific analysis for sustainability. there is no need to polarize the complex science of Pebble mine into a viewable media spectacle – the real work on the ground is rather boring. MacHardy and Lawson (2006). hundreds of environmental. Localizing the understanding of resource relations can draw out the cultural impacts of mining. engineering. manual labor.McFarlane 40 socio-economic baseline studies and the upcoming Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are thousands of pages long. further undermining concerns for environmental justice and indigenous empowerment (Wilson 2008). Maest.pebblepartnership. A $5 million “Sustainable Bristol Bay Fisheries and Communities” fund and policy of “No Net Loss” assures investors of commitments to sustainability and local community values. in 2007. review and discuss with society. The strongest selling point distributed in the media for the Pebble project is the expected one thousand jobs it will produce. the scientific community should be utilized to educate. cost hundreds of millions of dollars and then cement itself in the EIS. helping to read. and their multi-disciplinary effort towards “responsible and sustainable mining” will incorporate hundreds of scientific perspectives. Instead. Besides the regular and systemic failure of this scientific endeavor identified by Kuipers. what does this show about the local feeling toward the development? This power differential in knowledge production is overlooked by most actors mediating the Pebble “conflict”. In fact. conscience of the links between knowledge production and power. but if these are not being taken not by local labor. only one in ten employees at the Pebble property originated from Bristol communities. and mostly employed in menial. At Pebble.php (accessed 26/4/09) . already constituting the largest scientific investigation for any single project site in Alaska’s history10. study.

McFarlane 41 perceptions of the “other”. and sovereignty? The Alaska Federation of Natives and Bristol Bay Native Corporation. Emerging perspectives from different fields could suggest what Brand and Karvonen (2007) call an “ecosystem of expertise”. many conventional processes are changing. decentralization of management responsibilities to local governments. using GPS satellites and first- . culture. there is no single process of dialogue and stakeholder engagement. and social instability”. he suggests: “community-based land use planning. cultural disruption. Berel 2000). but to date. integrated resource management. could suggest alternative procedures. or have they already been assimilated into Alaskan politics and identity? Can engagements for sustainability empower Native identity. Dubbs (1992) identifies a different development concept for Northern Arctic communities. incorporating strategies for “lasting and secure livelihoods that minimize resource depletion. and industry dialogues incorporating various principles and frameworks for their members. The globalized discourse of “sustainable mining” has been slowly nationalized in the United States through multi-stakeholder “Sustainable Minerals Roundtable” meetings. Are there approaches to sustainability resolution which may be suited to Native Alaskans. and as previously stated. environmental degradation. according cleaner production and environmental efficiency. and a project planning collaboration team (Bryan 2008). although the Keystone Center has suggested three: independent science panels. two indigenous organizations critical of the Pebble proposal. Is there really hope that the ideas embedded in sustainability science trickle-down to on the ground truths? McKittrick’s (2006) ground-truth trekking. legislative change. Further overlapping processes to empower Bristol Bay Natives and other residents abound. Interdisciplinary education is increasing in the field of mining engineering (Costa and Scoble 2006. community participation on resource management boards. joint fact finding groups. The new discursive is changing the industry. community education programmes. [and] international cooperation and recognition” (Dubbs 1992). but there’s no indication still how encounters in Alaska are transformed by these events. Sustainability science can incorporate some of the following measures. Sustainable development remains mostly in the realm of ideas at the international level.

Subsistence is more than survival. Briones. Subsistence Culture and Society Most remote. a spiritual heritage and memory. Extractive industries must build completely different mining scenarios. 2. unknown life-worlds which may relate to land. the person said. La Vina and Menard 2003) for more robust mine risk assessments. Although subsistence uses of fish and wildlife are a component of all anti11 Personal communication 16/4/09 . fish. Bincange. however. First. and gather to sustain themselves. a different development strategy. Second. develops an interesting way of mapping the life-cycle of a mine from a local perspective. animals. A new science and art of mining engineering must emerge. Perhaps the new social and environmental impact assessments are little more than a rational unification of sustainable development ideas. rural Alaskans hunt. and society. Burris. Berger (1985) describes it thoroughly with words and photographs representing the diverse knowledges and practices of subsistence ideology. “people are all the same everywhere you go.McFarlane 42 hand observations. Shearman. a heuristic device to satisfy our particular culture’s future scenarios about the world. Social licensing discourse analysis and conflict resolution theory might develop into a form of sustainable development impact assessment. Subsistence is a way of life. The science of sustainability at mine sites is building new perspectives nevertheless. Is “sustainable mining” anything more than the emperor’s new clothes? Whitmore (2006) suggests that the new phraseology of “life-cycles” and “industrial ecology” are simply substitutes for “cleaner production” and “environmental efficiency” which emerged after the environmental movement in the 1960s. everyone wants a future for their children”11. Is sustainability abstracting us from reality? One Anglo American employee referred me to a basic fact of social relations with mineral developments: “Essentially”. people want clean air and clean water. assuming existence of other. engaging in traditional village activities on the land. they want what’s in their best interest. such as joining together mine closure risk modeling (Laurence 2006) with critical ecosystem risk mapping (Miranda. differently. And finally. they are interested in three things.

Dillingham.McFarlane 43 Pebble mine media campaigning. the world go around right now. An assumption led by CEO Shivley is that corporate values and Native culture are integrated to the same extent in Bristol Bay as in NANA. but we can’t identify who we are by the amount of money we make. While many legislators from outside of Alaska considered this to be a generous and liberal offer from the federal government. Subsistence is a cosmological orientation to the land. animals. even though the subsistence-system is given strategic primacy in Native village life: “The totality of the subsistence system has sustained generations of Alaska Natives in the rural homelands for thousands of years . and it is important across Bristol Bay from small villages to the largest town. unsure how their one hundred shares they received for their corporation could substantiate for thousands of years of memory and cultural history. and the enormous runs of sockeye salmon and other fish have tied otherwise distinct peoples together. . There. perhaps there is a “clash” between corporate and Native values still: “Absolutely. many Native Alaskans were angry and confused. If we are . . in my opinion. unfortunately. when in fact. and over two hundred village corporations were established. the Pebble mine has been most vociferously opposed. Alaskan Native tribes were divided into twelve regional groups which adopted a corporate form. none go to any length to present a qualitative in-depth description. exchange shares and assets. the ramifications of ANCSA have been ignored. Broader changes have impacted the worldviews in this locality. About one billion dollars and forty-four million acres (~10% total land of Alaska) was divided among the various groups. and it provides. changed laws and attitudes in profound ways. and social relations. Salmon canneries have been operating for over sixty years. For most stakeholders engaging Pebble. You cannot base your culture on money. Money makes. such as PLP. This sustenance is inextricably both physical and psychocultural. the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. ANCSA. Have Native Alaskan’s been assimilated into the fishing industry? In 1971. the single most important anchor in the lives of rural residents (Dubbs 1988:17). location of salmon canneries and most fisheries-related activities. but culture and spiritual values of subsistence remain important. Native corporation shareholders cannot “sell out” in the same way other businesses.

ANCSA had different effects across Alaska. p. the Bristol Bay Native Corporation maintains an official neutral position on the Pebble project. declares “your land loves you: love it back”. and regions such as NANA.McFarlane 44 a corporation that failed miserable – we had to liquidate everything – we’re still going to be Alaska Natives. it provides “an arena in which membership. Nunamta Aulukestai (Caretakers of Our Land) formed a coalition of villages in 2001 to protest the mine and protect the land from any industrial development. work-play. . and role-appropriate competence are portrayed” (Hensel 1996. patterned on interactions discussing the land. We have no value financially. We’re human beings. The limits of corporate social responsibility are being tested by increasing claims to cultural sovereignty. Subsistence is an identity marker for Native Alaska’s. a “new harpoon” economy has not sold out on cultural pursuits for wage employment. in McClanahan 2000) One sign of the youth group “Rebels to the Pebble”. PLP does not seem to be receiving this important message still. productionconsumption. or performing activities on the land. producing internal differences and various meanings to corporate and subsistence values.” (Brad Angasan. conceiving an ethic of loving the land which is binding people together in the struggle12. an outside stakeholder engagement consultancy was hired to fix the social interaction problem. 104). but maintained both strong social ties to Native identity and pursued what we might consider conventional economic development. Instead. commercial fishermen and Native Alaskans. lodge owners. Subsistence cross-cuts many usual dichotomies of public-private. and to isolate your culture on an economic value is impossible. That’s ridiculous. We don’t have a choice but to try to operate our corporations as Alaska Natives. Dillingham-born Vernor Wilson argues that a unique spirit of community has formed between sport anglers. Currently. allegiance. 12 Personal communication 7/2/09. It doesn’t make sense at all. Another group. Colt (2001) suggested that both winners and losers were created by ANCSA.

a key leverage point for acquiring their social license to operate. massively damaged the lives of 50. Although Anglo American discounts the exercise as “academic”13. and recommends a three-staged “Keystone Dialogue Process”. at the Ok Tedi mine dilemma. . The idea of free. and help solve society’s challenging problems. develop social empowerment. social. prior. including independent science panels.org/ : “The Keystone Center is a non-profit organization founded in 1975 to ensure that present and future generations approach environmental and scientific dilemmas and disagreements creatively and proactively. Todd Bryan submitted the draft Stakeholder Assessment and Dialogue Feasibility Study for the Proposed Pebble Project Southwest Alaska (Bryan 2008). The Keystone Center In 2007. Keystone played in Papau New Guinea.” (Bryan 2008) Previously. The document categorizes five stakeholder groups. and project planning collaboration. and at Pebble. Ok Tedi earns 20% of PNG’s gross domestic product. and the asymmetric power relations in current decision-making processes disparaging cultural conflict.McFarlane 45 B. their SD mandate is clarified in documents and their website. Keystone’s involvement signifies two important points: the existence of competing cultural understandings associated with “sustainable mining” in Bristol Bay. identifies environmental. joint fact finding. http://www. Brewer and McGee 2007). informed consent (FPIC) for resource development has faded. They claim to inform citizens. Pebble Limited Partnership employed the Keystone Center to report on stakeholder issues and community discussions of “sustainable mining options” at Pebble. replaced by the new sustainability and social licensing heuristics. one of the worst sustainability disasters of the world (Adler.000 people along the Fly River system that were subsisting on the area and its resources.keystone. The Keystone Center is an arbitrator of sustainable development. and economic issues. Keystone came to “redress” people on the Fly 13 Personal communication 15/4/09. but following twenty-five years of riverine tailings disposal and chemical spills. In September 2008.

multiple-use agreement in line with balancing conservation and development goals. structured stakeholder dialogue process”. an external organization to both Bristol Bay and Alaska. and civic groups14. their expertise is admittedly social. to determine stakeholders and dialogue processes to move the development proposal forward. 1. The significant risks to water and salmon in Bristol Bay have already been studied and shared by Alaskans outside the state permitting process. including tribal councils. or as they call it "interest-based negotiation skills" .html (accessed 26/4/09) .McFarlane 46 River system. and their first proposition is a workshop to introduce Keystone politics. students. They are the key protagonist in the "sustainability conflict". Could it have been a 14 See Andrew 2008 and http://www.as a way of neutralizing the existing polarization created in the media battle of 2008. While Keystone is yet another outside group contracted to help solve the technical and political environmental risks at Pebble. The timing of Keystone’s engagement program dovetailed the pro-Pebble results after the Ballot Measure #4 vote. Keystone represents a new sustainable development framework. Historically linking to the leader’s of the American Revolution.com/the-protection-effort. employed to establish a “long-term.ak2uk. Analysis of “The Dialogue” Keystone in 2008 began a social assessment for PLP. Keystone assumes their dialogue process between science and society is a harbinger of social empowerment. villages. Democratic values of American society are certainly reflected in their prospectus: Keystone provides “independent facilitation…a [consensus-based] multi-stakeholder steering group…participation that is open to all and…from a broad range of perspectives”. and fix long-term liabilities towards communities impacted by environmental destruction. Is this neutral? The Alaska DNR has a process in place to ensure management decisions and permitting decisions for such projects represent broad-based.

26) that an "informed public is an empowered public". they represent the moderate and radical position intended by Colin Filer (1999). Todd Bryan.as they are more . Keystone symbolizes good governance. Like the MMSD engagement process. Ekwok. and distrustful of anyone ‘working for Pebble. Their moderate stance might by located in what they do not explicate in detail. locking them into positions either for or against Pebble. They would like to assume this away . For example. informing scientists. which Danielson (2004) concluded was led by a deadline-drive rather than a consensus-driven model of sustainable development. and decision-makers of the diverse understandings and impacts of the Pebble mine proposal.” (Bryan 2008) The big question about Keystone's "Independence" is whether. We found this with at least two representatives of advocacy organizations and with three of the Alaska Native communities we hoped to visit (Nondalton. acknowledges challenges to Keystone’s claimed neutrality and objectivity: “In fact.McFarlane 47 strategy of Pebble. Their assessment derives from the American cultural vision of Thomas Jefferson (p. for anthropologists. but do not address. Keystone took two weeks for stakeholder input before they went travelling all across the Bristol Bay and Lake and Peninsula region to talk with nearly one hundred people. the assessment team discovered a contingent of stakeholders who are so opposed to the proposed mine. One is the legitimacy and role of traditional ecological knowledge. and Bristol Bay community groups. and accountability. The two largest challenges to Pebble they identify. planners. gathering stakeholders and listening to their issues. and New Stuyahok). transparency. leaders. the report’s lead author. Anglo American. the democratic values Westerners expect of positive stakeholder engagement and responsible mineral development. But Keystone also fixates villages. or Northern Dynasy to ignite a polarized media debate? Or is this the fault of the self-interested individuals and NGO opponents to the project? The Keystone process suggests openness.’ that they would not talk to assessment team members.

Project planning collaboration assures that a middleground consensus will emerge (most likely to advance the project).or even mention . addressing: "commercial. The proposed project planning collaboration will be incredibly complex and is incredibly risky .by suggesting uncertainty about how to integrate science and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). p. 24) .This statement can indicate an assumption that the mine will fail in those regards already. p. Keystone justifies a failure by Alaskan political and management processes. habitat loss and degradation. Additionally." (Bryan 2008. It requires incredible time and resources. declining public health. McClanahan 2006. although provides no insight . these groups are not "essential for the project planning to move forward. These "outlying groups" represent the extreme positions of groups that "oppose or see no need for a Dialogue" in an initial stakeholder mapping of the conflict. and includes very complex "goals. Keystone specifically enquires into the preordained losses from development. rules for reaching agreements. Berger 1985. How can subsistence and sustainability be expected to just merge naturally by placing them at the same table? The second challenge they do not reconcile is the problem of project planning collaboration. In Keystone's assessment. Keystone's process explicitly seeks positioning stakeholders so that they represent individual issues and perspectives. sport.McFarlane 48 interested in the public-private relationship-building than cross-cultural negotiations . because the perceived "radicals" are kept away. Joint fact finding is about gathering new information. Anders and Anders 1986).a prescriptive process! That would entail finding a figurehead Native from Bristol Bay to sit with other scientists talking a different language.perhaps why the Pebble management is not committing to the idea. and the loss and displacement of Alaska Native culture" (Bryan 2008.23). discussion guidelines. Keystone . working with the media. working with constituencies. Especially. and subsistence fishing and hunting." (Bryan 25). and assurances that involvement does not represent acceptance or support of a propose mine.of the role played by Alaska Native corporations since 1971 and the new organizational forms and new corporate worldviews they have developed (Colt 2001. The most likely scenario they provide is that individual TEK experts will be placed in the independent science panels . following recommendations from the science panels. their third recommendation to follow from the independent science panel and joint-fact-finding stages.

Keystone is hurtling into this local conflict to inform people. The middle-class consumer may relate to this model of doing responsible mineral development. Since the autumn of 2008 they contacted all stakeholders. and Kenai Peninsula and have recommended a Dialogue process which would implicitly require their further involvement with the society's concerned. and data management services to the Pebble industrial development proposal. Aleut. the importance of subsistence was highlighted repeatedly. visited all relevant regions in Anchorage. At first. Keystone reminds a little bit of the story of judge Thomas Berger. rapidly bringing in a wide range of stakeholders. Dena'ina and other tribal affiliations in Bristol Bay. visiting Alaskan communities in the late 1970s upset about ANCSA. Concluding Keystone’s Mediation . Lake and Peninsula. which resisted any pre-inscribed models for involving people in resource management. the intended mediation reflects a hidden cultural encounter that requires another. 2. and that is exactly what the Pebble Limited Partnership expects as an outcome to “The Dialogue” at Pebble.McFarlane 49 produces mediated information. In those journeys. As villages felt doomed to fail and other lawyers or consultants swooped in to take advantage of bureaucratic struggles. Native Alaskans. it can hardly be expected to understand or negotiate issues of cultural significance to Yup'ik. Bristol Bay. Nevertheless. Unconcerned with local culture or history of Euro-American transgressions. Keystone’s involvement has been major and fast. have a unique understanding and relation of their own that "sustainability" rarely perceives of beyond romanticizing. and leaving as quickly and quietly as it came. but more importantly to mediate a social setting so that everyone is ready to move forward with a three-stage process. different discourse analysis. This model is inadequate in registering cross-cultural engagement or protecting environmental justice concerns of local indigenous. Berger fought with Natives against the structural marginalization of bureaucratic channels and federal commissions themselves (Berger 1985). new information. as the first and primary users of natural resources.

McFarlane 50 Bristol Bay already has organizations dedicated to long-term decision-making and local, intelligent processes to engage with the proposed mine. The fight in the media has maybe not been about polarization (from the local point of view) between fish and minerals, but between which context in which we understand and negotiate Pebble. Keystone identified stakeholder's feelings of loss of control resulting from the state land management and planning. Keystone questions whether the public policy context (managed by the state governor, legislature and "Alaskan" people) or the technical context (the DNR Large Mine Permitting Team) is conducive to dialogue. I support that neither of these procedures, nor the Keystone anti-politics machine, recognize the legitimate socio-cultural meanings that influence perceptions in Bristol Bay.

McFarlane 51

V.

Alaska’s Discourse

“Resolution of land claims with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971 accelerated resource development in the state, leading to an era of unprecedented economic expansion.” (Berman 2003)

In 1968, discovery of North America’s largest oil field – Prudhoe Bay15, on the North Slope of Alaska – aligned political and economic interests to settle land claims with Alaska’s indigenous peoples. Passing the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971, government extinguished all aboriginal title to lands as well as hunting and fishing rights. ANCSA established twelve regional corporations and over two hundred village corporations, obliging Native Alaskans to the business world as managers and shareholders of capital, corporate assets, and voting rights. Native Alaskans received an aggregate transfer of 44 million acres of land (about 10% of Alaska) and about $1 billion to share between corporations. The second discourse in my analysis of the Pebble mine discursive event posits the historical rights to subsistence worldviews which are undermined by state permitting protocols and a construction of an “Alaskan” identity linked to hegemonic discourse. I highlight the fluid positionality of Alaskans contextualizing the Bristol Bay resource encounter. At the Arctic frontier, Alaska is continually shaped by outside media descriptions, prescribing land values that balance conservation and development goals. The Alaskan discourse prides itself on a shared, private ownership of the Pebble decision-making process, affirmed further following defeat of the Clean Water Initiative, Ballot Measure #4, in 2008.

15

Alaska’s first large-scale industrial development – the Prudhoe Bay oil field – captured international attention in 1989 at the Exxon Valdez oil spill and still evokes battle cries between development and conservation forces in the state.

McFarlane 52

A. Alaska, the Last Frontier

“It was in the following year, 1968, that I resigned my professorship, sold or gave away all my possessions, and with my family moved to the Lake Illiamna wilderness.” Bob Durr (1999) Down in Bristol Bay, p.217

Many of us who live in Alaska like to believe we are somehow different to the rest of the USA, somehow more independent and self-sufficient, more wild and free. Alaska, the 49th state of the USA, contains about 1/5th the land mass of the contiguous “lower 48”, and for the most part does remain sparsely populated and independently-minded. Ideas about Alaska continue to reflect the frontier ethic, boldly engrained in American literature, populare culture, and history. The recent movies Grizzley Man and Into the Wild substantiate this construction today of Alaska, promoting the frontier mentality, a place where one can start a brand new life, where nature and human meet in raw flesh with no disguise. Neither of these documentaries captures the dependence and addiction of Alaskans to extractive industries and government bailouts however. Also, neither film features the one in five of us who are Native Alaskan Indians, Eskimos or Aleuts. In Hollywood fashion, Alaska retains the wild, free, independent ideal which appeals to the masses. One could see that Alaska is also fractured, differentiated, socially diverse, but these relations are concealed in the realm of the Alaskan discourse. Even literary scholars muddle up an accurate identification of Alaska. Bob Durr’s Down in Bristol Bay (1999) tells his personal crusade story to prove his manhood commercial fishing in Dillingham, Southwest Alaska. Durr acknowledges the “ancient wisdom” and subsistence livelihood of its’ indigenous peoples, but chooses the dangerous and lucrative path with “D Inn Crowd” of local fishermen philosophers/alcoholics. There is a lack of academic responsibility incorporated into this narrated text, a lack of critical analysis into the hard issues in that rural part of Alaska. Alcoholism is the single greatest scourge facing Native Alaskans – it is my generation’s “Great Sickness”. Velma Wallis, Harold Napoleon, and many other regarded Native

Other tourists and mediators of Alaskan symbolism partake on cruise ships through the Southeast of the state. Durr ignores the actual politics of Native Alaskans and leaves them in a romantic box on a cabin shelf. He’d rather go killing some fish and Jim Bean instead. the famous “Inside Passage”. they wonder at the endless islands carpeted by thick old growth cedar forests. but they never see the forests on the other side of the islands that have been clear-cut (Dombrowski 2001). . tour or move to Alaska.McFarlane 53 Alaskan authors mobilized villages towards healing and community values – but Durr chooses otherwise. an important struggle within the Pebble permitting process. long-term perspective. ANCSA is critical to understanding how Alaskan’s perceive the Pebble project in a holistic. There. Like other free-minded individualists who visit. The Alaskan discourse hides meanings of subsistence and sustainability.

McFarlane 54

B. Historical Injustice

The late 1960s were a time of struggle for indigenous people of Alaska. Shortly after oil was discovered on the North Slope in Prudhoe Bay (the largest reserve in North America), Federal government sought a settlement of land ownership with the area’s ancestral people. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 changed significantly legal and social relations among Native Alaskans, and between Natives and the white majority. ANCSA divided Alaska into twelve regions according to broadly identified linguistic and cultural categories – this constituted twelve distinct peoples sharing common identities. Another group was established for Alaska Natives living outside of the state during passage of the Act. The thirteen groups were turned into corporations, the profit-focused organizational entity, and the US federal government granted a $1 billion sum and forty-four million acres of land, shared equally according to population estimates. Over 200 native villages were also corporatized. Each Native Alaska living in 1971 of at least one-quarter blood received 100 shares of regional stock in their corporation, and another 100 shares under their village corporation. By the 1980s there was great frustration with how ANSCA was playing out, and great fears about the future loss of all Native land by gradual non-Native sales of stock. Thomas Berger, an Canadian ex-Supreme Court judge who orchestrated the comprehensive inquiry into native land claims under the Mackenzie Pipeline proposal in Northwest Canada , toured throughout Alaska on a similar expedition. Visiting over 60 communities and hearing hundreds of witness testimony, his stories in Village Journeys (1985) reflect a serious problem about ANCSA: shortterm political goals to develop on the North Slope usurped traditional tribal communities and cultures, cutting them off from their subsistence lands. Additionally, while Title VIII of ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Agreement) protects Alaskan subsistence rights, the stipulation is “rural” and not “Native” meaning marginalization of the latter, already impoverished group, is a State priority. It is why the Alaska

McFarlane 55 Federation of Native (political lobby group) aimed their 2008 number one priority in Washington D.C. (again) as “Protection of Subsistence Hunting, Fishing and Gathering in Alaska.” Conflicting images of Alaska’s land o ownership resulted from the land-use decisions during use ANCSA. Federally-managed lands, mostly for conservation as National Parks, constitute the managed majority of areas, and the state selected certain lands it could to develop for long long-term economic and environmental values. Native corporations were designated into the twelve tal different regions, but own and manage only a small area. Pebble proponents claim that the land in Bristol Bay where the proposed mine sits was selected specifically for mineral development, and prudent use should bring the project, at least, to the permitting agency for review. d

Figure 8. Who Owns Bristol Bay? Above, a map locating the twelve Native Alaskan Corporate regions . (www.firstalaskans.org); below, a legal land status map displaying the dissproportionate share of federal land ownership elow, and management under the Alaska Constitution of Alaska. The large tan area of Bristol Bay has been earmarked for mineral development by state and federal institu institutions. (www.gov.state.ak.us)

McFarlane 56

Since Alaska’s earliest contact between Euro Americans and Native Alaskans, resource Euro-Americans extraction has set the place and pace of social interaction. Bountiful furs, fish, minerals, and timber lured foreigners to the barren coasts and boreal forests. Fish more than gold was the imber issue of foreign ownership upsetting a large enough consensus of non Native Alaskans in 1959 to non-Native declare Statehood. With the rise of environmentalism, conservation legislation, and popular legislation, media disgusted by the perceived consumptive lifestyle of America, another new frontier was constructed for Alaska, a social last frontier. Without consent of Native Alaskans, resource management at the Pebble prospect continues to reflect specific values not shared across cultures. More than half the world’s mines are built on indigenous land. The social history of these relations is told in stories, in most cases, of loss and suffering, extraction and assimilation. At , assimilation Pebble, the debate centers on environmental impacts and job creation. The prudential use of natural resources stated in Alaska’s Constitution prescribes a pragmatic view of Pebble: economic development and environmental conservation. Another key stakeholder – Bristol Bay stakeholder Native Corporation (BBNC) – demonstrates strong political and economic agency, as well as a

Strong native regional corporations demonstrate the resilience. a broad and equal array of stakeholder positions are staked. and assimilation: “It is a common Western tactic in colonizing indigenous peoples and our lands – incite division. but BBNC is relegated away from the permitting process. adaptability and continuity of Native Alaskan leaders and their communities. Gwich’in leader of Native Movement frames history as unjust Western acquisition through theft. Statehood Act (1959) and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Agreement (1971).grist. and force assimilation. Evon Peter. productive and developed economy. A new conflict is caused at Pebble mine when this mechanism forces both conservation and development without regard to other worldviews.html (accessed 24 March 2009) . 16 http://www. existing as equals under the environmental. or vibrant and diverse society. The development and health of a Native community is not necessarily defined by a healthy mitigated environment. and social umbrella. but by strategic change and adaptation. co-opt leaders.”16 Within a paradigm of “sustainability”. exploitation. Subsistence rights have been extinguished three times in the short history of Alaska: Treaty of Cession (1867).McFarlane 57 different corporate strategy reflecting its unique position.org/comments/interactivist/2006/02/06/peter/index1. Native Alaskans have no legal right to subsistence. economic.

salmon. wild.McFarlane 58 C. When Jay Hammond. or other emotions. just like the lump sum ANCSA payments –significant at the time (~$1 billion) –pricing fails miserably to describe the real value of things. one should follow the money trail.” Joseph Daniel (2009) “The Pebble Mine Nightmare”17 As far as telling a good story about contested developments. and therefore one shouldn’t misunderstand how marketing efforts by opposition groups will give only cursory – some might say ceremonial – acknowledgement to Native ideas. subsistence is over one hundred times cheaper to replace than the image of a pristine wilderness. is $30 billion nationally. if the DNR has any interest in locally important indicators of human development. but his unique style attempted to instill the ideal iterated by Berger (1996): the culture of a people has no price. grizzly bears. Glaciers. and sacrosanct. J. a Bristol Bay resident himself. rural Alaska. fear. This is the Alaska we all know of from the Discovery Channel. Thus. The existence value of Alaska. anger. language retention. regardless of any animosity.wildonthefly. between humans and animals.is a far sexier sell. Hammond did risk losing political credit. even as a conservation cause. such as fate control. or cultural continuity. Permitting Conservation and Development “Let’s talk marketing…the iconic image of Alaska as America’s (if not the world’s) premier wild fishery – the Holy Water…. Colt’s (2001) study of the economic value of healthy Alaskan ecosystems calculates that the net economic value of subsistence (according to substitutes) is $1. The simplistic description of these results is that the environment is prized much more highly than the culture of remote.com (accessed 22/4/09) . (2009) “The Pebble Nightmare” Trout Unlimited http://www. on the other hand (according to substitutes). Subsistence practice values things in relation to other things. they might try to ask different questions during the task working group sessions. 17 Daniel. asked – do the people want it? – he actually went straight to those people and asked them. However.7 billion. the harsh. pragmatic truth needed to be exposed. or about $180 billion internationally. In Alaska. Pure.

The knowledge gained by the permitting process is authentic only to the Alaskan’s who are defining authenticity.McFarlane 59 The DNR supports rational objectives in balancing ecosystem loss with economic gain. Negotiations and cultural conflict must be expected over any shared natural resource. . We know already what dispositions and arguments to expect in these performances. attempting to represent Alaska as a single unitary politic. but the stereotypes and characterizations produced via rapid permitting agencies with rushed deadlines situates both produce and receiver in incomplete social relations. The state structure de-legitimates tribal self-determination and discourages cultural politics and Bristol Bay indigenous voices. producing prestaked out positions that Natives then come to occupy. Baseline studies reify the struggle between conservation and development. especially in the frontier of Alaska.

because they have a better bestalternative. even though it is over twenty miles away. Strange Bedfellows and Green Alliances? Ali (1999. similar transactions occur. endangering the proposition by DNR of a balanced and neutral stakeholder engagement and permitting process. Looking at decision-making potential of two mutually opposed groups – government and industry. The moving image has been a symbolic force used by Nunamta Aulukestai and other local organizations fighting the mine. He has a vested interest in conserving his private property near the proposed mine site. At Pebble. According to Ali. Producing the popular film “Red Gold” – which depicts the Native Alaskan. Are these green alliances? What is the responsibility in relating positions with or without Native Alaskans. but it could also be that he is playing both sides in order to cash in on some settlement later on in the agreement (Bluemink 2008). He is a wealthy non-Native resident who offers financial strings to the anti-Pebble contingency. on Lake Iliamna. the situation is not that at all. often in search of their own personally consumption. directors Travis Rummel and Ben Knight.McFarlane 60 D. Bristol Bay lodge-owner Bob Gillam largely self-financed the 2008 media battle against Pebble mine. sport angler. Another strange bedfellow of the Pebble resistance consists of the team. and the indigenous and environmental NGOs – he is wary of the usurpation of subsistence ideology accorded in green alliances. Rummel and Knight spent a short fishing season interviewing people in Bristol Bay. and let the story speak for itself in the video. for or against the Pebble . and commercial fishermen coalition fighting Pebble – they have transformed the perspectives of Alaskans. although it was commissioned by sport fishing company Trout Unlimited and gives most time to the story of the fly fishing on the Nushagak River. and determining what the best-alternative to the development is often reveals that NGOs do not have the same bargaining interests as indigenous groups. 2003) analyzes indigenous resource development contexts according to a planning and land management strategies. Is the Pebble resistance a case of strange bedfellows or tenuous green alliances? Do the opponents of Pebble embody the transparency and disclosure principles they demand from others? Alaska is known for acquiring many strange characters fleeing to the great North. or piece of the good life.

. The state’s large mine permitting team chooses to not take on board any ideas of indigenous empowerment.McFarlane 61 mine? An Alaskan discourse indicates that Pebble permitting does not integrate a socio-historical lens into the cultural impact assessment.

I’ll still be a fisherman. I will still hunt. then I don’t know what the State of Alaska is going to do because we as Alaska Natives will continue to live. continue the right to self-management no matter what. If they fail to do that. Drying salmon at a fish camp in Alaska (Wilson 2008) “I understand that there have been commissions in the past that have said the exact same thing we are saying. But we can no longer ignore the Alaska Native community. I will still live in the village no matter what rule or paper they put in front of me.” .McFarlane 62 VI. Fish Talk Figure 9. They have to recognize tribal government in Alaska.

wild salmon of the Nushagak and Kvichak rivers are threatened near the proposed Pebble mine. commercial. it provides common ground to sport. or some providential. This third discourse explores the centrifugal symbol of Pebble – red salmon .which remain the renewable resource. In a sustainability discourse. Bristol Bay remains a marginalized site of today’s globalized markets and overseas competition. Andrew.crystal clear expanses of water and vast wide open tundra etched with rivers and lakes. Bristol Bay Native Corporation shareholder18 “Currently.142. still a “fisherman’s frontier” that shapes social organization and spiritual relationships between animals and people. Representations of subsistence ideology is appropriated by many non-Natives seeking to gain an “aboriginal mind”. the Bristol Bay watershed is teeming with life -. infrastructure and access routes to these remote areas.com (accessed 24/4/09) . But fish embody more than an economic or environmental meaning. Bristol Bay salmon link sustainability and subsistence discourses at Pebble. Salmon have always been a source of social conflict in Alaska. A. There is little trace of human presence. (2000) Growing up Native in Alaska. p.” Bobby Andrew.adn. Mineral development will bring roads. acidified water. authentic. (2008)“BLM management plan endangers Bristol Bay native culture” Anchorage Daily News http://www.McFarlane 63 Brad Angasan. Anchorage: CIRI Foundation. B. (2000) in McClanahan. property rights and notions of antiquity link modern and traditional notions of fishing. in addition to toxic dust. cultural identity and source of all life in Bristol Bay. The Pebble mine qualifies the diagrammatical sustainability and subsistence lifeworlds which vie to reshape coastal and rural Alaskan communities. primordial wisdom which Native culture assumedly sustains: “Commercial salmon fishing could be the way to make it out of the world of words and back to 18 19 Angansan. pools and puddles. Nunamta Aulukestai (Caretakers of Our Land)19 The clean. dead fish and deep scars on our land. B. and subsistence users who rarely agree on fishery management.

The Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds . p. justified by its’ own economic make-up. marginalizing subsistence practice. and water extraction area (See figure 10).McFarlane 64 earth” (Durr 1996. whereas subsistence use generates less than $2 billion (Colt 2001). Figure 10 Salmon populations at three headwaters of the Nushagak and Kvichak rivers (Woody 2009) All major salmon and fish species inhabit the area of the Pebble mine site. The valorization of subsistence discourse reflects egoism contained within sustainability ideology: reflecting from a perception of a broken. “Frontier” Bristol Bay offer’s an escape from unsustainable society and culture. Further.5). unjust Earth. mill. the good life is constructed through difference. sustainability offer’s a $30 billion “existence value” to Bristol Bay. tailings impoundment. This discourse of sustainability upholds the existence of Bristol Bay.

In the environmental documentary Red Gold. define commercial fishing practices. a seamless connection between Native history and culture with contemporary mixed fishery practices misrepresents the dualism in Bristol Bay. The “sustainability” of the Bristol Bay wild salmon industry (if it exists economically) is increasingly distinguished by limited access. despite strong efforts by the Nushagak-Mulchatna Watershed Council (2004). by the polarization it encounters in the realm of politics. Even the environmental and cultural record might be scrutinized. . While Wilson (2008) and other Bristol Natives applaud the unusual cooperation from the various salmon interests. renewable commercial fishery is challenged. but they continue to organize shared understandings and perceptions. Quinn. Fewer Native villagers and more fishermen from the western states Washington and Oregon. Schindler and Rogers 2003). The perception of a local.McFarlane 65 have been utilized differently and by multiple groups over two hundred years. such as Pebble mine presents. the concept of cooperative watershed management has not been at the forefront of the Pebble permitting process. The scientific perspective is flawed however. Bristol stocks in global perspectives are unique: the amalgam of discrete spawning populations has sustained their productivity and “biocomplexity” unlike anywhere else on the planet (Hilborn.

Social licensing requires casting industry against industry. al. The Pebble Project. estimated. this denies the fishery resource a plural construction via different actors. i. fisheries biologists have become critical of documentation methods. 2006. separate social. and sport anglers. to gain political capital for the project to advance. consumed as the staple diet by nearly every Native and non-Native household (Wilson 2008). Clark et. stating correctly that the rise of farmed salmon depresses the price received by commercial fishermen (Knapp 2004. Even within this latter analysis.e. ”No Net Loss” or the Promise of Salmon According to the Pebble Limited Partnership. Carol Ann Woody resigned from the permitting studies at Pebble mine when her critical insights into complex. Native Alaskans. The 42 million salmon returning to their original waters in 2008 offer a shared livelihood transecting subsistence and sustainability discourse (Woody 2009). long-term analysis was denied. The decision to permit Pebble’s development hinges on understandings and relationships to the sockeye salmon which empower or disparage these social relations. The “baseline” studies that CEO Shivley champions are perhaps less concerned with mobilizing economic justification against salmon fishing than to subordinate all knowledge production to a common social cause. neutralizing cultural values and reducing perspectives to quantitative analysis.McFarlane 66 A. and economic costs and benefits can be determined. Accordingly. a “no net loss” policy justifies the promise of salmon and economic development (NMWC 2004). Salmon is the primary subsistence harvest in Bristol Bay. The “social license to operate” sought by Pebble’s CEO John Shivley demands differentiating the different meanings of salmon to prescribed science and cultural values. at Pebble. Rand 2008). Pro-mining organizations challenge the economic sustainability of Bristol. environmental. Social licensing becomes a cultural practice as well as corporate strategy. The nourishment salmon harvesting sustain go beyond cultural continuity or healthy diets to provide an eclectic social mixture of commercial fishermen. The social licensing process necessitates a dualist construction of industry. and mitigated during policing of the mine. . against the emerging engineering theory of industrial ecology.

” (Fienup-Riordan 1990. rural Alaskan communities (Loring and Gerlach 2008). Aleut. Salmon will be maintained as the number one source of life in Bristol Bay. “The No. according to a cultural logic very different from their own. and London. conflict will likely continue in the arena of fisheries development and game management. The humansalmon relationship integrates multiple perspectives and helps us to understand long-range change affecting remote. Vancouver. Alutiiqq. environmental health. citizen-activists. fought for by Natives and non-Natives alike. and Athapaskans.183) The first Bristol Bay fishermen were indigenous Yup’ik. p. particularly human/animal relations. NGOs. Salmon are the pivotal link between human health. perhaps the best that can be hoped for is an increased awareness on the part of nonnative researchers. and policy-makers can hear in Anchorage. Their historic patterns of social organization and unique cultural meanings with salmon still evoke controversy with Euro-American scholars as we try to understand the aboriginal salmon fishery (William 2008). managers. . Even with such an awareness. 1 Source of Life” “Today.McFarlane 67 B. In opposing Pebble as they stand in relation to the development. Native Alaskans play to a sustainability tune which scientists. The unique relationship Native’s share with the fish challenge other organizations of principles guiding resource decision-making. and politicians of the meaningful organization of Yup’ik social relations. and socio-economic change throughout history in Bristol Bay.

while the environment is claimed by distant perceptions and values about “the last frontier”. sustainable development has always existed. and Knight. hahaha! It’s just a matter of mindset. Alaskan. the only thing that’s really constant is change.com/main. At the end of the North American continent.” Eleanor Johnson. (2007) “Red Gold”. At the proposal of Pebble mine. Conclusion “The only way I’d be assured that it was being done right is for my own people to be doing the job. Bristol Bay Native Alaskans engage with Pebble at junctures between their historical subsistence culture and the new encounter with sustainability discourse. and fish talk – offer only a limited perception of competing realities at the Pebble mine development. you got a wonderful life!” Mayor of Nushagak Point21(Red Gold 2007) In Bristol Bay. T. 21 Rummel. Alaska. Nondalton Resident20 “We think we’re the richest people on Earth.html (accessed 6/11/08) 20 . and I think in that we do have some protection. The three discourses presented here – mediated. Filmed by Felt Soul Media http://www. some safety… But. Localizing decision-making may increase the perception of conflict. Society is a IDC (Iliamna Development Corporation) (2008) “Bristol Bay Voices” video from Engaging Communities http://www. but the value of sharing and conserving resources over multi-generational timeframes is represented in Alaskan constitutional mandates and natural communal heritage of varied people. so you deal with it.feltsoulmedia.McFarlane 68 VII. and you can see the beauty in everything.com/ (accessed 28/4/09). B. new terminology risks undermining claims for sovereignty.engagingcommunities. If you’re a poor fisherman. Alaska has a unique connection to the “outside”. you know. The economy is dependent on the petroleum sector and federal government.

history. Positive resource relations depend on political risk and cultural survival: subsist with salmon. But if we reevaluate our discourses. and then their life ends. reaching the exact same creek where they were born. salmon in the millions swim together upstream to spawn.McFarlane 69 constantly changing amalgam of cultures and traditions. Subsist on sustainable salmon. positions. We must continue striving to educate ourselves and share views about the Pebble proposal. How can competing discourse control and transform the Pebble mine? Will Pebble mine contribute to subsistence? The clear opposition from local residents and tribal members of Bristol Bay must indicate to the State of Alaska and Pebble Limited Partnership that we are not on common ground. we might choose the same water to swim in together. Alaskans have to think about Pebble mine now. including subsistence discourse and practices. Every summer in the Nushagak and Kvichak rivers. you are either sustaining the salmon or subsisting with salmon. Support salmon. and our salmon. . Their prolific struggle culminates in the fertilization of a new generation. surviving the Pacific Ocean and Brown Bears along their journey.

and Anders. M. 413-423. 213-233. P. (1986) ‘Incompatible Goals in Unconventional Organizations: The Politics of Alaska Native Corporations’. (2008) “UAA debate team banters over proposed Pebble mine” Alaska Journal of Commerce http://alaskajournal.html (accessed 26/4/09) Andrew.. (1999) “Green Alliances? Anti-Mining Activism and Indigenous Communities in the ‘New World”’. Organization Studies 7 (3). and van Zyl. and Indigenous Development Conflicts. Anders. Andrew. J.156. Baker.adn. (2006) ‘Book review: Mining.trcr.157/~keystone/files/file/about/publications/FINAL_Ok_Tedi_Report-08-24-07. the Environment. T. London: Anglo American plc.H. K. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23.culturalsurvival. S. C. M. (2003) ‘Evaluating the effectiveness of British Columbia’s environmental assessment process for first nations’ participation in mining development’.bc. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press. http://www. Ali. K. (2004) “Sustainable Development in the Mining Industry through Communities – The Teck Cominco Experience” Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation http://www. and Morse. 299-304. Cultural Survival. G.shtml (accessed 12/10/08) BBNC (Bristol Bay Native Corporation) (2008) BBNC Report to Shareholders Concerning the Pebble Mine Survey. and Indigenous Development Conflicts. Berkel.pdf (accessed 4/2/09) .ca/docs/2004bittman_horswill.pdf (accessed 24/4/09) Bittman. (2007) “Miner’s Convention Will Explore the ‘Social License to Operate’ “ Alaska Journal of Commerce http://alaskajournal.com/stories/040608/oil_20080406018. London: Earthscan. D. (1985) Village Journey. and McGee.. 1179-1180. Berman. D. Tuscon. (2003) “Sustainable Development and Sustainable Income from Alaska’s Resources” Institute of Social and Economic Research http://www. Anchorage: BBNC. 2003’ Journal of Cleaner Production 14. S. (2008) “BLM Management Plan Endangers Bristol Bay Native Culture” Anchorage Daily News http://www. (2003) Mining. A. S. and McLelland.McFarlane 70 Bibliography Adler. Fall 1999. and Horswill.com/stories/110407/nat_20071104017. Journal of Cleaner Production 8. Brewer. S. R. (2000) ‘Integrating the environmental and sustainable development agendas into minerals education’. 581603. 23. J.shtml (accessed 23/4/09) Bauman.com/opinion/story/616559.alaskaneconomy. M. Basu. Bauman. (1999) Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable.72.3. S. (2006) ‘Industrial ecology framework for achieving cleaner production in the mining and minerals industry’ Journal of Cleaner Production 14.edu/Publications/Berman_SNR. D.alaska. Berger. Anglo American (2009) Report to Society 2008.pdf (accessed 26/4/09) Ali. the Environment.org (accessed 9/3/09) Ali. The University of Arizona Press. London: Anglo American plc.uaa. Bell. J. B. New York: Hill and Wang. (2007) “The Ok Tedi Negotiations” The Keystone Center http://208. Anglo American (2008) Report to Society 2007.

(2001) “The Economic Importance of Healthy Alaska Ecosystems” Institute of Social and Economic Research http://www. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin 12 (1). P. . A. Bryan. Clark. (2004) Sustainable Development in the Natural Resource Industries: New Perspectives. (2009) “The Pebble Nightmare” Trout Unlimited http://www. K.ankn.blm.McFarlane 71 BLM (Bureau of Land Management of the USA Government) (2008) “Bristol Bay Resource Management Plan” BLM http://www. and New Opportunities.ppt.com (accessed 22/4/09) Danielson.html (accessed 24/4/09) Dubbs. J.ankn.. Environmental Science and Policy 4. A. L.html (accessed 24/4/09) Durucan. and Munoz-Melendez. G.motherjones.us/spar/csp/docs/reddog/rafinal/fin_exec_sum.juneau. 1-146. and Karvonen.. Journal of Cleaner Production 14. Sustainability: Science. (2006) “Minions of Mids” Mother Jones http://www.edu/curriculum/Articles/PatrickDubbs/susdev. A.gov/ak/st/en/prog/planning/bay_rmp_eis_home_page. London: University of Nebraska Press.uaf. (2006) “On the Cultural Impacts of Mining” Mother Jones http://www. Cantrill. and Scoble. and Carroll. (2006) ‘An interdisciplinary approach to integrating sustainability into mining engineering education and research’. S. (2007) ‘Earth’s natural wealth: an audit’. 34-41.pdf (accessed 4/12/08) Dembosky.uaa. Colt. M. J. 185-203. Denver: The Keystone Center.uaf.gov/mlw/mining/largemine/lmpt_process. (2001) ‘Using the ‘sense of self-in-place’ construct in the context of environmental policymaking and landscape planning’. Korre.edu/curriculum/Articles/PatrickDubbs/anotherdev. S. 1-11. T. Krasnowski. (1992) “Sustainable Development and Indigenous Peoples: Authors and Actors in Rural Alaska” Alaska Native Knowledge Network http://www. (2001) “Alaska Natives and the ‘New Harpoon’: Economic Performance of the ANCSA Regional Corporations” Institute of Social and Economic Research http://www. LLC. Daniel. D. Dubbs.dec. Journal of Cleaner Production 14. (2006) ‘Mining life-cycle modeling: a cradle-to-gate approach to environmental management in the minerals industry’. (2008) ‘Stakeholder Assessment and Dialogue Feasibility Study for the Proposed Pebble Project Southwest Alaska’. A..state.com/environment/2006/05/minions-midas (accessed 13/12/08) Dembosky. S.alaska. J. and Senecah. (2006) ‘The Commercial Salmon Fishery in Alaska’. Practice & Policy 3 (1). DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation of the State of Alaska) (2007) “Red Dog Risk Assessment Executive Summary” http://www.wildonthefly.com/politics/2006/06/cultural-impacts-mining (accessed 13/12/09) DNR (Department of Natural Resources of the State of Alaska) (2008) “Permitting Large Mine Projects in Alaska” Office of Project Management and Permitting http://dnr.motherjones. News Scientist 2605. S. New Rules. P.org/tourism2/documents2001/Econ-HealthyEco. S. Mecum. (accessed 25/4/09) Colt.edu/iser/people/colt/econ337_f03/vmi_newharpoon.ak. (2001) Against Culture. R. Costa.iser.html (accessed 25/4/09) Brand.pdf (accessed 24/4/09) Cohen. A. A. McGregor. (1988) “Another Development in Rural Alaska” Alaska Native Knowledge Network http://www. Denver: Domani.. R. (2007) ‘The ecosystem of expertise: complementary knowledges for sustainable development’.alaska. P. 1057-1070. 366-373.pdf (accessed 23/4/09) Dombrowski.

legis.org/downloads/?dl_cat=30 (accessed 25/4/09) Hasselbach. Knight. Rummel and B.. and Saylor. S. S. (2009) “The Process and Requirements for Large Mine Permit Applications in Alaska” State of Alaska http://www. S.firstalaskans.. B.. S. Ver Hoef. Neitlich. N. Fay.ak.state. B. Goldsmith. and Newbold. E. A. Cottle. S. (2008) “What Drives the Alaskan Economy?” Institute of Social and Economic Research http://www. Sherry. R. The Anthropology of Power. Holter: Paia. Negrine.us/aces/doc_log/2007-10-25_scott_goldsmith_presentation_house_edt&t. (2007) “The Alaska Economy: How Are We Doing” Institute of Social and Economic Research http://lba. 1-31.uaa. Flensburg. In Cheater.edu/conference2003/pdf/Proceedings/Proceedings/Session%204/ABSTRACT_Flensburg.google.pdf (accessed 26/4/09) Fienup-Riordan. H.uaa. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing. Crecelius. A.alaska. and Eberhart. B. Berryman.iser. Felt Soul Media (2009) Red Gold. W. Science of the Total Environment 348. (2008) “Social Conditions” Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Red Dog Mine Extension – Aqqaluk Project http://www. S..edu/Publications/researchsumm/UA_RS_13.pdf (accessed 24/4/09) Goldsmith.cfm?fa=docjump&documentid=177 (accessed 2/4/09) Haley. (2007) “The Remote Rural Economy of Alaska” Institute of Social and Economic Research http://www. C..swwrc. London: Routledge.legis. C. New York: Palgrave. S. G. 88-103. G. Oxford: Oxford University Press. J.state.asp%3Fsession%3D26%26docid%3D1360&ei=yebwSeX8MtmZjAfrqZS4DA&usg=AFQjCNEa1zPU wQZVqLLur4Pj83ZGVedVEA&sig2=e2C7BtWkRI6CO9lPDIVb_g (accessed 23/4/09) Gibson. (2006) ‘Sustainability assessment and conflict resolution: Reaching agreement to proceed with the Voisey’s Bay nickel mine’. Earth Matters.. Hensel. Ford. C. Hansen. (2005) ‘Native Voices: Pure Water is More Precious Than Gold’. K. Fairclough.iser... Wolk. Denver. J. Cambridge: Polity Press.wsu. (1998) Mass Communication Research Methods.. (1990) Eskimo Essays. Our Future: Analysis of the Status of Alaska Natives Report 2004” First Alaskans Institute http://www.. C. S and Magdanz (2008) “The impact of resource development on social ties” in O’Faircheallaigh. R. Hammond. E.com/ (accessed 23/4/09) Haley.org/index..ak. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Fogels. P. New York: Thomas Dunne Books. and Bohle.pdf (accessed 24/4/09) Goto. (2005) ‘Spatial patterns of cadmium and lead deposition on and adjacent to National Park Service lands in the vicinity of Red Dog Mine. S.co.edu/Publications/u_ak/uak_remoteruraleconomyak. 211-230.us%2Fbasis %2Fget_documents. Journal of Cleaner Production 14.pdf (accessed 24/4/09) Goldsmith. Interview by L.McFarlane 72 Durr. . Griego. 91-129.. G. Alaska’. J. T. (2004) “Our Choices. (1996) Telling Our Selves. (1999) ‘The dialectics of negation and negotiation in the anthropology of mineral resource development in Papua New Guinea’. S. Hauser. A.alaska. Irvin. Video by T. (1999) Down in Bristol Bay.reddogseis. Filer. Hawaii. and Ali.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww. 334-348. L. (2003) “Keeping it Clean – An Alternative Approach to TMDL in Alaska” Washington State University http://www.. (2007) “Potential Impacts of the Proposed Pebble Mine on Fish Habitat and Fishery Resources of Bristol Bay” Eye on Pebble Mine http://eyeonpebblemine. London: Rutgers University Press.

(2008) “They Don’t Want Here a Mine City” Fish Alaska Magazine http://www. Anchorage: The CIRI Foundation. J. A. Liles..pebblepartnership.thebristolbaytimes. (2009) “Rebels bring message to the forum” The Bristol Bay Times http://www. (2006) Alaska Native Corporations: Sakuuktugut. H.edu/iser/people/knapp/Knapp_BB_Price_Projections_Oct04_Exec_Summary..1. A. (2007) “The Great Salmon Run: Competition between Wild and Farmed Salmon” Institute of Social and Economic Research http://www. R. Washington D. Lins. T. G. Journal of Business Ethics 56.full. S. PNAS(Procedings of the National Academy of Science) http://www.pdf (accessed 25/4/09) Kuipers.org/content/100/11/6564. P and Gerlach. McDowell Group (2008) “An Assessment of the Economic Development Support Needs of the Bristol Bay/Lake and Peninsula Region” The Pebble Partnership http://www. and Rogers. and Horwitz.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VP64V34RRW1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_u serid=10&md5=4ded7d0db91594510624341d7e728ddf (accessed 24/4/09) McClanahan. Executive Summary” Institute of Social and Economic Research http://www. Judd. Winnipeg: IISD. and Lawson. (2002) ‘Environmental management system implementation in the mining industry: a key to achieving cleaner production’. (2007) “Sustainability in the Mining Sector” FBDS (Fundação Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável) http://www. E. Lertzman.alaska. 19-41.iser.fishalaskamagazine. and Vredenburgh.fbds.McFarlane 73 Hilborn.br/IMG/pdf/doc-295. V. (2005) ‘Indigenous Peoples.uaa.com/news/show/4885 (accessed 13/2/09) Knapp. McClanahan. 285-298. (2003) ‘Biocomplexity and fiheries sustainability’. 239-254.org. ICMM (International Council on Mining and Metals) (2009) Annual Review 2008. (2008) ‘Shivley Brings His Experience to Pebble’ Alaska Business Monthly (November 2008) 82-85.edu/iser/people/Knapp/pubs/TRAFFIC/The_Great_Salmon_Run. MacHardy.alaska. T.pdf (accessed 25/4/09) Hilson. (2008) “Food. Schindler. and Nayee. G. and human health in Alaska: an integrative health approach to food security” Environmental Science and Policy http://www. Resource Extraction and Sustainable Development’. (2006) ‘Optimisation of the mine closure process’. D. Laurence.pdf (accessed 25/4/09) .com/archives/2008/708_pebble.. (2006) Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines: The reliability of predictions in Environmental Impact Statements.pdf (accessed 25/4/09) Knapp. (2004) “Projections of Future Bristol Bay Salmon Prices.uaa. G.sciencedirect.com/files/Pebble%20Fund%20Report%20Final%204. P. Quinn. D. Maest. C.pdf (accessed 26/4/09) Letherman. T. D. K. G. C.iser. Liles. London: ICMM. and Anderson. D. culture. Journal of Cleaner Production 14. P. Anchorage: The CIRI Foundation.) (2000) Growing up Native in Alaska. (2008) ‘Pebble Spending Hits $140 Million in 2008’ Alaska Business Monthly (November 2008) 66-69.. J. A.pnas.html (accessed 4/3/09) Loring. Roheim.C.. IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development) (2002) Seven Questions to Sustainability. (ed. International Journal of Mineral Process 64.: EARTHWORKS.

pdf (accessed 25/4/09) Nelsen. 823-839. P. 1315.com/environment/2006/05/midastouch (accessed 13/12/08) Miranda.org/article. Alaska report 34 (3). M. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Knowledge Network. C. (2005) “Response to the Nushagak-Mulchatna Watershed Council ‘180 Questions about the Pebble Project’ “ Bristol Bay Native Association http://www.. R.wri. 319-342.com/landres/natres/180qs.com/landres/natres/questions. P. M.org/publication/mining-and-criticalecosystems-mapping-risks (accessed 23/4/09) Mirsepassi.com/i/pdf/ndm/NDM-Facts. Briones. Chambers. (2005) “Framework for Responsible Mining” http://www.org/Alaska%20Hard%20Rock%20Mining%20-%20Rothe%20Jan06. (2008) ‘Clean Water defeat ratchets up Pebble Mine fight’. World Resources Institute http://www. (2006) “Where the Threatened Waters Flow” Alaska Ground Truth Trekking http://www. Neumayer.com/images/stories/pdfs/2008_Annual_Report.minesandcommunities. Mineral Exploration 26 (1). S. K. C. (2002) “SD Unsustained: A critique of the MMSD Project” Mines and Communities http://www. (2006) ‘Social License to Operate: Industry Survey Results’.bbna. Shearman. R. and Coumans.. H. (1996) Yuuyaraq: The Way of the Human Being. A. D.bbna.pdf (accessed 25/4/09) NANA (Northwest Arctic Native Association) (2009) “2008 Annual Report” NANA Regional Corporation http://www. Moody.pdf (accessed 4/12/08) Napoleon. NANA (Northwest Arctic Native Association) (2008) “2007 Annual Report” NANA Regional Corporation http://www.motherjones.frameworkforresponsiblemining.php?a=1527 (accessed 25/4/09) Moran. A. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.org/docs. and Scoble. 1-2. Basu. and Ali. (2006) “The Midas Touch” Mother Jones http://www. and Menard. Burris. J.org/wp-content/uploads/pebble-hydrogy-geochemisy-moran-sep07. EIA follow-up and aboriginal participation in environmental management: The Canadian experience’ Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27. M.pdf (accessed 4/12/08) NDM (Northern Dynasty Minerals) (2009) “Pebble Fact Sheet” Northern Dynasty Minerals http://www..nana. J. Bincang.com/images/stories/pdfs/2007_Annual_Report. La Vina. R.. C. E. Environmental and Planning A 36.northerndynastyminerals. (2008) Earth Matters.. and Weaver. (2003) Localizing Knowledge in a Globalizing World.html (accessed 24/4/09) Miranda.. O’Faircheallaigh. (2007) ‘Environmental agreements. and Perkins. (2007) “Pebble Mine: Hydrogeology and Geochemistry Issues” Eye on Pebble Mine http://eyeonpebblemine. (2004) ‘What explains the uneven take-up of ISO 14001 at the global level? A paneldata analysis’.nana. Northern Dynasty Mines Inc.reformakmines. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. J.pdf (accessed 24/4/09) Miller.McFarlane 74 McKittrick. F. M.. A.htm (accessed 4/12/08) O’Faircheallaigh. S. E. (2003) “Mining and Critical Ecosystems: Mapping the Risks”.pdf (accessed 26/4/09) NMWC (Nushagak-Mulchatna Watershed Council) (2004) “180 Question about the Pebble Project” Bristol Bay Native Association http://www. . O’meara.

Becaert.pebblepartnership. Rothe. J.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mine1sep01. L. (2006) “A Review of Industrial Hard Rock Mining in Alaska” Alaskans for Responsible Mining http://www.iucnredlist. V.icmm.. Filmed by Felt Soul Media http://www.html (accessed 4/2/09) Rand. London: Rio Tinto plc.html (accessed 13/2/09) Power.org/newsandpublications/publications/research_reports/art3576. (2005) ‘The role and implementation of LCA within life cycle management at Alcan’. and Becker. P.channel6.edu/environment/publications (accessed 2/3/09) Richards. Alaska Law Review 25 (1).ca/www/media_lib/MAC_Documents/Speeches/English/kimberley.ca/pdac/publications/pdf/sd-csr-publication-final. M.McFarlane 75 Parker. (2007) “Alaskan economy faces a fork in the river” Los Angeles Times http://www.php (accessed 23/4/09) Peeling. T.nytimes.oxfamamerica. R.. and Buxmann. A.com/main. Aubertin. Minerals. 1327-1335.mining.org/Alaska%20Hard%20Rock%20Mining%20-%20Rothe%20Jan06. and Knight. (2002) “Native Experience: The impact of oil and mineral development on the indigenous people of Arctic Alaska” Channel 6 Television Denmark http://www. and Trasky. (2007) “Red Gold”. (2008) ‘Life cycle assessment of mine tailings management in Canada’.. G.156700.com/pages/environment/environment-pre-permitting. Session Three: Planning and Building a Mine. (2008) “Oncorhynchus nerka. Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (4). 471-479.org/details/135301 (accessed 25/4/09) Rebitzer. In: IUCN 2008 Red List of Threatened Species” IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources) http://www. (2002) “Digging to Development? A Historical Look at Mining and Economic Development” Oxfam America http://www. 1-50. G. G. F.com/2008/10/22/us/politics/22mining.pdac.feltsoulmedia.yale. L.com/page/1161/mining-and-indigenous-peoples-issues-review (accessed 23/4/09) Repetto. Rosenbaum. (2008) ‘Pebble Mine: Fish.story?coll=la-home-center (accessed 13/2/09) Rummel. Render. Redmond. (2008) “Palin’s Hand Seen in Battle Over Mine in Alaska” The New York Time http://www. J.latimes. Journal of Cleaner Production 13. Raskin.html (accessed 6/11/08) .pdf (accessed 24/4/09) Roosevelt.0. and Copper” Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies http://www. C. C.pdf (accessed 23/4/09) Pebble Limited Partnership (2009) “Pre-Permitting Environmental/Socio-Economic Data Series Report” The Pebble Partnership http://www. (2004) “Mining and Indigenous Peoples Issues Review” International Council of Mining and Metals http://www. K. J. A. Rio Tinto (2007) 2006 Sustainable development review.pdf (accessed 4/12/09) Powell. 324-333. (2001) “Towards Sustainable Mining” (speech given at the Sullivan Roundtable: The Role of Industry Associations. and Testing the Limits of Alaska’s “Large Mine Permitting Process” ‘. 6/11/01) Mining Association of Canada http://www.dk/native/uk/page700. and Deschenes. Woody. M. Leaden.. PDAC (Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada) (2007) “Sustainable Development and Corporate Social Responsibility” PDAC http://www. B. (2006) ‘ “Precious” metals: The case for treating metals as irreplaceable’.html (accessed 25/4/09) Reid. M. R. M. (2004) “Silence is Golden.reformakmines. Journal for Cleaner Production 14.

Wiek. (2006) ‘The emperors new clothes: Sustainable mining?’ Journal of Cleaner Production 14. Journal of Cleaner Production 17.edu/mines/smr/Report. and Lohry. H.pdf (accessed 25/4/09) Whiteman.msp?id=2062 (accessed 12/10/08) Thabrew. J.pdf (accessed 23/4/09) Weitzner. Wilson. (2002) “Meaningful Consultation and Participation in the Mining Sector? A Review of the Consultation and Participation of Indigenous Peoples within the Mining Sector” The North-South Institute http://www. Schindler. V. London: Sage. (2008) “Indigenous Empowerment: The Pebble Mine and Environmental Justice in Bristol Bay.McFarlane 76 Runhaar.ca/english/pdf/weitzner_mining_eng.edu/mines/mlc/Research/RMP%20and%20Sustainability%20Final.yale. J. C. (2008) ‘Putting SEA in context: A discourse perspective on how SEA contributes to decision-making’.nytimes. R. 67-76. (1990) Ideology and Modern Culture. J. V. (2008) “Alaska’s Pebble Mine: Fish Versus Gold” Yale Environment 360 http://e360.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss (accessed 13/2/09) .html (accessed 25/4/09) Yardley.brown.nsi-ins. and Ries. D. and Mamen. Cambridge: Polity Press.pdf (accessed 25/4/09) Whitmore.thebristolbaytimes.com/2008/08/23/us/23alaska. UNR (University of Nevada. (2002) “Cutting-Edge Policies on Indigenous Peoples and Mining: Key Lessons for the World Summit and Beyond” The North-South Institute http://www. A.nsi-ins. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (3). Alaska” Brown University http://envstudies. B.pdf (accessed 25/4/09) Schroeder.org/atf/cf/%7BE729E68D-22F3-4596-950354FE676F2264%7D/SchindlerFishPointsforHearings.html (accessed 25/4/09) van Zyl. Thomas.savebristolbay. Thompson. (2007) “Sustainability of Bristol Bay Salmon Fisheries” Save Bristol Bay http://www. A.ca/english/pdf/lit_rev/lit_rev_final. (2008) “Salmon put Dillingham grad through Ivy League school” The Bristol Bay Times http://www. (1993) Doing Critical Ethnography. (2009) ‘Environmental decision making in multi-stakeholder contexts: applicability of life-cycle thinking in development planning and implementation’. L..edu/theses/archive20072008/VernerWilsonThesis.unr. Reno) (2003) “Draft Report of the Sustainable Minerals Roundtable” UNR http://www.nature. G. K.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/alaska/preserves/art26347. (2008) “Vote in Alaska Puts Question: Gold or Fish?” The New York Times http://www. R.unr.edu/content/feature. (2007) “Incorporating Sustainable Development into the Resource Management Plan Process” University of Nevada http://www. D. W. (2009) “Fish surveys in the headwater streams of the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages” The Nature Conservancy http://www.pdf (accessed 25/4/09) Woody. 200-209.com/news/show/2814 (accessed 12/2/09) Sherwonit. 309-314.

adn.ak2uk.bristolbayalliance.org (accessed 24/4/09) .com (accessed 4/12/08) Eye on Pebble Mine (2008) “Home page” http://eyeonpebblemine.org/Default.reddogseis.com/ (accessed 4/28/09) EPA (Environmental Protection Agency of the U. E.aspx (accessed14/10/08) TU (Trout Unlimited) (2008) “Home page” http://www.renewableresourcescoalition.ak. (2009) “The Pebble Blog” http://community. (2007) “Pebble Mine” Alaska Ground Truth Trekking http://www.com/ (accessed 23/4/09) Pebble Mine Alaska (2008) “Home page” http://www. E.nana.htm (accessed 2/12/08) Engaging Communities (2008) “Home page” http://www.com/adn/blog/61223 (accessed 23/4/09) Bristol Bay Alliance (2007) “Home page” http://www.org/ (accessed 25/4/09) Keystone Center (2009) “Home page” http://www.edu/index.pebblepartnership.S.state.aitc.bbnc.org (accessed 25/4/09) AITC (Alaska Inter-Tribal Council) (2007) “Home page” http://www.teckcominco.nativefederation.com (accessed 24/4/09) Red Dog Alaska (2009) “Home page” http://www.dec.engagingcommunities.reddogalaska.org (accessed 25/4/09) ARM (Alaskans for Responsible Mining) (2007) “Home page” http://www.com/ (accessed 24/4/09) DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation of the State of Alaska) (2008) “Red Dog mine” http://www.us/spar/csp/sites/reddog.reformakmines.com/ (accessed 24/4/09) Teck Cominco (2009) “Home page” http://www.uaf.keystone.com (accessed 4/12/08) Renewable Resources Coalition (2009) “Home page” http://www.com/ (accessed 24/4/09) NANA (Northwest Arctic Native Association) (2009) “Home page” http://www.org/ (accessed 26/4/09) McKittrick.McFarlane 77 Websites AFN (Alaska Federation of Natives) (2008) “Home page” http://www.html (accessed 24/4/09) BBNC (Bristol Bay Native Corporation) (2007) “Home page” http://www.aktrekking.stoppebblemine.org/ (accessed 24/4/09) ANKN (Alaska Native Knowledge Network) (2009) “Home page” http://www.org (accessed 24/4/09) Resource Media (2009) “AK2UK Home Page” http://www.net (accessed 25/4/09) Bluemink.com (accessed 4/12/08) Pebble Limited Partnership (2009) “Home page” http://www.) (2007) “Home page” http://www.pebbleminealaska.ankn.com/ (accessed 14/4/09) Stop Pebble Mine (2009) “Home page” http://www.com (accessed 4/12/08) TAP (Truth About Pebble) (2007) “Home page” http://truthaboutpebble.savebristolbay.

Do NOT exceed 75 words . the issue of whether basic . Alaska SD4002 Supervisor(s): Tony Crook. if required. where appropriate. This project analyzes how different stakeholders (including me) in the Pebble Mine development project perceive and process various information and symbols during engagement and negotiation about the mine and concepts of sustainable development. Elucidation. concentrating on any issues raised specifically in the red sections.ac. and addressing. Rationale: Please detail the project in ‘lay language’ This summary will be reviewed by UTREC and may be published as part of its reporting procedures. e. can be given in Q 31. Ethical Considerations: Please detail the main ethical considerations raised by the project. The email containing the application must have the Researcher(s)’ name in the ‘subject’ box.McFarlane 78 Appendix A: Ethics Self-Assessment Form Approval Code: UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS TEACHING AND RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE (UTREC) ETHICAL APPLICATION FORM Researchers Name(s): School/Unit: Please indicate Dylan Elek McFarlane Geography & Geosciences/Sustainable Development Email(s): dem7@st-andrews.approx 5 lines (for database reasons). ‘Ethics Application – Smith’ One original hard copy must also be submitted with the signatures of all applicants and supervisors. Jan Bebbington Date: 08/12/08 Applications should be submitted electronically to either the Secretary or Convenor of the School Ethics Committee as one single file containing all relevant documents.g.uk Please Tick: Staff Postgraduate Undergraduate (Module Code): (double click on the box then click ‘Checked’ for a cross to appear in the box) Project Title: Discourse Analysis of the Pebble Mine Conflict in Bristol Bay. Semi-structured interviews are an integral aspect in addition to a literature review and reflective journal.

or information of management strategy is strictly managed through anonymity and disclosure agreements.ac. Do NOT exceed 75 words .approx 5 lines (for database reasons). please give details of the application and the date of its approval: Approval Code: Date Approved: Project Title: Researchers Name(s): RESEARCH INFORMATION 1.McFarlane 79 ethical criteria has been met in all supporting documentation and if not why not. Estimated Start Date: 2.uk/aandp/create/ethical.esds. Elucidation. can be given in Q 31 Disclosure of culturally sensitive material. Estimated Duration of Project: 10 January 2009 1-1. Does this research entail collaboration with other researchers? If YES state names and institutions of collaborators: YES NO 5. Is this research funded by an external sponsor or agency? If YES please give details: YES NO For projects funded by ESRC please be aware of the Ethical and Legal Considerations found at http://www. This summary will be reviewed by UTREC and may be published as part of its reporting procedures. If ethical approval has been obtained from the University of St Andrews for research so similar to this project that a new review process may not be required. if required.5 months 3.asp 4. If the research is collaborative has a framework been devised to ensure that all participants are given appropriate recognition in any outputs? N/A YES NO .

research with policy or other implications etc. e.g. Estimated duration of Participant Involvement 1 – 1. Q30 & Q 31.g. 9. Who are the Intended Participants (e. Where projects raise ethical considerations to do with roles in YES NO N/A research. responsibilities to funders. Unpublished data but with appropriate permission. Pebble Mine development stakeholders (Bristol Bay locals. Is this research solely concerned with a. publication strategies/authorship. intellectual property. have you taken appropriate steps to address these issues? Research/Fieldwork to be conducted: Anstruther. government officials. Fife. mining industry employees. students) and how will you recruit them? 10. Have you obtained permission to access the site of research? If YES state agency /authority etc… & provide documentation If NO please indicate why. Published secondary data sources? b.5 hrs ETHICAL CHECKLIST 11. KY10 3EA Scotland 7. N/A YES NO . If there are no other ethical considerations please sign and submit the form. Location of 8. etc.) recruited via email contact. an archive YES NO YES NO curator? If you have answered yes to Q8a or 8b but the project has other ethical considerations please go to Q12.McFarlane 80 6.

21. Where appropriate has ethical approval been sought and obtained from an external body e. i.g. a. without having to give an explanation? 16. and expand in Q31 if necessary. refer to the relevant guidelines and complete Q31. Will you tell participants that they may withdraw from the research at any time and for any reason. give them a brief explanation in writing of the study? 21. in those cases where it is appropriate? 17. Questionnaires. (Social Anthropology Geography/Geosciences & Biology only) Will you obtain written consent from participants. If you answer YES. a. 13. and when the data will be destroyed? 20. Participant Information Sheet. If the research is photographed or videoed or taped or observational. who will have access to it. please tick the appropriate answer. will you ask participants for their consent to being photographed or videoed or taped or observed? b. With questionnaires and/or interviews. or b. etc… WORKING WITH CHILDREN/VULNERABLE PEOPLE Do participants fall into any of the following special groups? If they do.e. it must be clearly illustrated in the relevant paperwork which must be attached i.e. Will you tell participants that their participation is voluntary? 14. NRES/LREC or other UK Universities? If YES.McFarlane 81 N/A YES NO 12. it will not be identifiable as theirs? 19. Debriefing Form. Please answer either a. will you give participants the option of omitting questions they do not want to answer? If you have answered NO to any question 11 . Will you describe the main project/experimental procedures to participants in advance so that they can make an informed decision about whether or not to participate? 15. Please answer either a. Will you obtain written consent from participants? b. please give a brief explanation in the statement of Ethical Considerations on Page. Advertisement. Will you debrief participants at the end of their participation. please attach a copy of the external application and approval. Consent Form. 1. or b. (Social Anthropology & Biology only) Will participants be free to reject the use of intrusive research methods such as audio-visual recorders and photography? 18. Will participants be clearly informed of how the data will be stored. Will you tell participants that their data will be treated with full confidentiality and that if published. .

N/A YES NO 23. 28. People engaged in illegal activities e.g. Other vulnerable groups If you have answered YES to Q22 you must obtain Enhanced Disclosure Scotland approval. you may need to obtain Education Authority. e. lecturer/student? If YES.g. equivalent documentation from the countries you have resided in? Information on what is required can be obtained from UTREC. do you have: 1. radiation and biological (including GMAG) risk assessments been submitted to the appropriate Safety Committee for approval? 30. Institutionalised persons f. including any results. (Bute Medical School & Biology only) Have appropriate chemical. children. If you have been in the UK for less than a year. carers. 24. field assistant(s). Patients (including carers of NHS patients) d. institutions. police. Is there any realistic risk to any paid or unpaid participant(s). helper(s) or student(s). who to contact for help. involved in the project. etc. If YES a copy (or copies) must be submitted with this application to be retained by the School. of your research have the potential to cause any damage. Are any of the participants in a dependent relationship with the investigator e. People in custody e. 27. Children (under 18 years of age) b. If NO please explain in Q31. have the appropriate risk assessment forms been submitted to the appropriate Safety Committee(s)? 29.g. have you constructed appropriate letters to. parents.g. 26. Police. experiencing either physical or psychological distress or discomfort? If YES. give details in Q31 and state what you will do if they should experience any problems e. If working with children. give details in Q31 and state why it is necessary and explain how debriefing will occur. Is there any realistic risk to the investigator? If YES. a. please give full explanation in Q31. Will your project involve deliberately misleading participants in any way? If YES. Your Enhanced Disclosure Scotland Certificate? 2. harm or other problems for people in your study . institutionalised person(s) or vulnerable people. Furthermore.McFarlane 82 YES NO 22. If working with children or vulnerable people. Do you think the processes. RISK AND SAFETY N/A YES NO 25. headteachers. People with learning or communication difficulties c. drug-taking g. LREC (NHS) clearance.

consent. Full disclosure. . Participation will be conducted with only clear consent and any measures of anonymity shall be granted to the best of my efforts. data of strategic management or confidential material regarding the Pebble Mine development will be destroyed as requested. It may be that in order to do this you need to expand on the Ethical Considerations on page. There is an obligation on the Lead Researcher & Supervisor to bring to the attention of the School Ethics Committee (SEC) any issues with ethical implications not clearly covered by the above checklist. ETHICAL STATEMENT 31. and anonymity will be clearly communicated. but “co-research” about the Pebble Mine. Bristol Bay Aleuts. the objective being not research in itself. Write a clear but concise statement of the ethical considerations raised by the project and how you intend to deal with them.McFarlane 83 area? If YES please explain in Q31 and indicate how you will seek to obviate the effects.1. Additionally. and sustainable development. Intuits. its stakeholders. Disclosure of culturally sensitive material is the most important ethical consideration. and Athapaskans who participate in interviews have the authority to participate in the study in the manner they see most fitting.

Other please list: DECLARATION I am familiar with the UTREC Guidelines for Ethical Research (http://www. 5. and have discussed them with the other researchers involved in the project. Ethical Application For m Participant Infor mation Sheet Consent For m Debriefing For m External Per missions Letters to Parents/Chil dren/Headteacher etc… Enhanced Disclosure Scotland and Equi valent (as necessary) 8. 2. *MRC and *ASA (*please delete the guidelines not appropriate to your discipline) Guidelines for Research practices. *ESRC.shtml) and *BPS. 3.ac. 7.McFarlane 84 DOCUMENTATION CHECKLIST Please tick as appropriate: N/A YES NO 1.st-andrews.uk/utrec/guidelines. 4. 6. Advertisement 9. .

Researcher(s) Print Name Signature Date 08/12/08 Supervisor(s) The supervisor must ensure they have read both the application and the guidelines before signing below. Debriefing Forms. Participant Information Sheets. Print Name Signature Date dd/mm/year Dylan Elek McFarlane YES NO OFFICIAL USE ONLY STATEMENT OF ETHICAL APPROVAL This project has been considered using agreed University Procedures and has been: Approved Not Approved More Clarification Required New Submission Recommended Referred to UTREC Conveners Name Signature Date: dd/mm/year (Please used these additional pages to attached any supporting documents i. Consent Forms.) . Letters to Parents/Headteachers etc. Questionnaires.e.McFarlane 85 (Students only) My supervisor has seen all relevant paperwork linked to this project.

uk/services/safety/webpages/forms/index. Major fieldwork involves semi-structured telephone interviews with various stakeholders in the “Pebble Partnership” for a period of 30 minutes to one hour. and what other stakeholders are important. This analysis utilizes the work of Fairclough (1992) and Thompson (1990) on discourse analysis. The associated guidance notes should be read before completing this form. Staffing at Fieldwork Site 5. social change. A stakeholder map (continually updated) depicts some of the important players and I will use this to assess the discourse from the "fish" and "mine" camps respectfully. These results on the construction of the discourse will inform wider questions about the cultural dialogue taking place. The completed form should be held in an accessible location within the School/Unit 3.st-andrews.ac.. Brief Description of Fieldwork Please include in this section the objectives of the fieldwork and as much detail as is reasonably practicable about the work activity.html 1. al.McFarlane 86 Appendix B: Risk Assessment Form Form FRA 1 School / UnitProject Number: University of St Andrews Fieldwork Risk Assessment Form NOTES: 1. such as private wildlife lodge operators and subsistence users. Anstruther. St. Alaska Upper Flat 11 Shore St.) School of Geography & Geoscience/Sustainable Development Discourse Analysis of the Pebble Mine Environmental Conflict in Bristol Bay. This form has been designed to be completed as a Microsoft Word document and is available at the following URL: http://www. Fife KY10 3EA. Dates of Fieldwork: 6. asking: What kind of Sustainable Development do we wish to create? What is “sustainable mining”? . ideology and modern culture. including postures as to the states of the fishing and mining industries in Alaska regarding sustainability. (2003) work on Area Studies to cast the notion of Sustainable Development within Alaska. Location of Fieldwork (Indicate also any FCO warnings. a literature review and reflective journal. The objective is to assess analyze how the pebble mine conflict is constructed. their relevant benchmarks. Andrews Self Jan 10 – Feb 10 (2009) 4. School/Unit 2. Title of Project 3. 2. utilizing Mirsepassi et.

minerals and sustainable development. participants. and I therefore will keep a journal and seek ways of engaging with the study subject such as writing letters to newspapers in the objective of co-researching the prospects for a positive consensus for mining.McFarlane 87 The process of critical analysis will be incorporated to critical reflection and consultation (Filer 1999). myself . Who is at risk? Alaskan public. 7.

net . These are the residual risks. Foreseeable Emergencies Predetermined Actions by Worker Predetermined Actions by Supervisor Severe exhaustion Rest Rest 10. Clear confidentiality agreements 9. Please list the residual risks in the left column.McFarlane 88 8. uk Alexander McFarlane (+001)32167669 19 & alexander51@b ellsouth. & E-mail Dylan McFarlane 07506801029 dem7@standrews. Emergency Actions This section should detail the actions to be undertaken in the event of an emergency. Hazards of Fieldwork Activities (Please list main hazards below) Control Measures to eliminate or minimise the risks of the hazards Residual Risk Number (1-36) 9 12 Mental/Physical Exhaustion Disclosure of mining/sustainability perceptions/assumptions Study breaks every 2hr min. In the right column estimate the “degree of residual risk” using the scale provided in the guidance notes.ac. Contacts Names of Participants in the Fieldwork Telephone (Fieldwork Site) E-mail (Fieldwork Site) Name of Next of Kin Next of Kin Tel. Hazards and Control Measures Some risks may remain after all reasonably practicable control measures have been implemented.

bebbington@standrews. Print Name: Signature: Date:.uk E-mail Name(s) of Contact at School / Unit Telephone Tony Crook (Social Anthropology) Jan Bebbington (Management) 01334462818 01334462348 tc23@standrews.ac. .McFarlane 89 Describe Any Special Arrangements for Contact with Fieldwork Site: N/A Fieldwork contact will have 24/7 mobile phone access within U. Insurance YES Has appropriate insurance been arranged for this fieldwork ? If YES. Fieldwork Supervisor I am satisfied that all foreseeable significant hazards associated with the fieldwork have been identified and that the related risks are adequately controlled.ac.uk jan.ac.K. give details: National Health Service is sufficient to mitigate identified risks.uk 11. 12. Name(s) of Local Contact at Site of Work Telephone E-mail Dylan McFarlane 07506801029 dem7@standrews.

........................ ............................................. ....................... I refer this application for consideration by the University Fieldwork Sub-Committee.................. ...................................................................................... ........McFarlane 90 13................ ....................................................... ................. ................................ 14......... In no instance should the fieldwork be approved where insurance arrangements are not satisfactory.. Print Name: Signature: Date:.......................................................... For Completion by the University Fieldwork Sub-Committee The University Fieldwork Sub-Committee approves / does not approve this fieldwork project............ Approval of the Fieldwork by the Head of the School/Unit Tick One: □ □ □ I hereby approve this fieldwork.................................. Signature(s) & Date ....................................... Name(s) .............................................. Print Name: ........................................ ......................................... ....... .................................................................... I do not approve this fieldwork and reject this application........................ ................................................................................................... Other Participant(s) including Undergraduates – I hereby declare that I have read and understood this risk assessment and that I agree to comply with the control measures specified........ .. In view of the high level of residual risk.............................................

ac. Risk Assessment.uk .Consent Form.uk To: gg@st-andrews.doc application/msword 32.uk .doc KB 132.ac.uk .bebbington@st-andrews. I sent numerous emails during February.uk Subject: SD4002 D. tc23@st-andrews.ac. and Consent Forms emailed to participants in my "Discourse Analysis of the Pebble Mine Environmental Conflict in Bristol Bay.ac. Dylan McFarlane -----------------------------------------------------------------University of St Andrews Webmail: https://webmail. Risk.74 3 MCFARLANE . Both dissertation supervisors have approved ethical clearance. Consent Forms Part(s): MCFARLANE .Risk Assessment. rmw11@st-andrews. the office still failed to locate the physical documents or confirm the electronic application. jan.UTREC Ethical 216.ac. Risk Assessment and Consent forms were submitted in December 2008 to the main office of the School of Geography and Geosciences.st-andrews. at my last inquiry on 20/4/09. Date: Mon. 8 Dec 2008 13:19:23 +0000 From: dem7@st-andrews.McFarlane 91 Appendix C: Ethics Clearance Electronic and hard copies of Ethics.84 KB Attached are the UTREC Ethics.uk .90 2 application/msword Application.doc application/msword KB 4 MCFARLANE .ac. Alaska".MCFARLANE Ethics.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful