IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cdh/commen/440.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Partnership’: Promoting Shared Interests for Resource and Infrastructure Development

Author

Listed:
  • Geoffrey Hale

    (The University of Lethbridge)

  • Yale Belanger

    (The University of Lethbridge)

Abstract

Social partnerships have become a key element for energy and related infrastructure development. Failure to secure social acceptance increases the risks of litigation of a project or political conflict that creates significant barriers to economically viable resource development. The central challenge facing governments, businesses, and affected communities is how to bridge the gap between regulatory requirements ostensibly intended to serve the broader public interest, and competing views of “legitimacy” based on the accommodation of diverse social and political interests and values. This challenge may be greatest in dealing with First Nations, especially the growing but often loosely defined legal recognition of rights to consultation and accommodation of their ways of life and uses of traditional lands. In this Commentary, the authors examine case studies of successful community engagement in different settings involving resource sector firms, local and provincial governments, Aboriginal communities, and other local stakeholders. The authors examine a number of approaches to addressing local concerns. Those are: • Building Multi-Stakeholder Groups and Networks: Local or regional industry working groups including industry representatives provide a valuable means of strengthening connections with local governments and communities, public health authorities and local emergency response professionals in order to reduce risks, address community concerns, and respond more effectively to occasional emergencies. The group process appears to complement the activities of regulators such as the Alberta Energy Regulator. • Multi-Jurisdictional Projects: Multi-jurisdictional initiatives require parallel processes that respect legal, institutional and social differences in various jurisdictions. The authors find successful examples of formal multi-stakeholder advisory processes in British Columbia that could inform future negotiations elsewhere. • Engaging First Nations and Aboriginal Communities: One major factor common to many past disputes with First Nations has been a frustrated community leadership. Consultation prior to detailed project design or approval has become a central factor influencing First Nations’ acceptance of resource projects affecting traditional lands. The energy sector’s involvement in hundreds of diverse communities points to a number of lessons. Provincial and federal governments and regulators can do more by promoting multi-stakeholder groups and disclosing more about emergency response plans. Industry bodies should promote cultures of continuous improvement reinforced by benchmarks and internal reporting requirements that demonstrate adherence. Energy firms themselves can look to international certifications of their processes of social partnership.

Suggested Citation

  • Geoffrey Hale & Yale Belanger, 2015. "Social Partnership’: Promoting Shared Interests for Resource and Infrastructure Development," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 440, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdh:commen:440
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cdhowe.org/public-policy-research/%E2%80%9Csocial-licence%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%9Csocial-partnership%E2%80%9D-promoting-shared-interests-resource-and-infrastructure
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xinyu Sun & Amelia Clarke & Adriane MacDonald, 2020. "Implementing Community Sustainability Plans through Partnership: Examining the Relationship between Partnership Structural Features and Climate Change Mitigation Outcomes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Ben Dachis, 2016. "National Priorities 2016: The Future of Canadian Energy Policy," e-briefs 224, C.D. Howe Institute.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Energy and Natural Resources;

    JEL classification:

    • Q1 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture
    • Q4 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdh:commen:440. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kristine Gray (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cdhowca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.