This Special Section explores the interplay between Indigenous peoples, industry, and the state in five proposed and active mining projects in Canada and Sweden. The overall aim is to identify factors shaping the quality of Indigenous community-industry-state interactions in mining and mine development. An ambition underlying the research is to develop knowledge to help manage mining related land-use conflicts in Sweden by drawing on Canadian comparisons and experience. This paper synthesizes the comparative research that has been conducted across jurisdictions in three Canadian provinces and Sweden. It focuses on the interplay between the properties of the governance system, the quality of interaction and governance outcomes. We combine institutional and interactive governance theory and use the concept of governability to assess how and why specific outcomes, such as mutually beneficial interaction, collaboration, or opposition, occurred. The analysis suggests there are measures that can be taken by the Swedish Government to improve the governability of mining related issues, by developing alternative, and more effective, avenues to recognize, and protect, Sámi rights and culture, to broaden the scope and increase the legitimacy and transparency of the EIAs, to raise the quality of interaction and consultation, and to develop tools to actively stimulate and support collaboration and partnerships on equal terms. Generally, we argue that Indigenous community responses to mining must be understood within a larger framework of Indigenous self-determination, in particular the communities’ own assessments of their opportunities to achieve their long-term objectives using alternative governing modes and types of interactions.

Mine developments in Indigenous territories risk disrupting Indigenous cultures and their economies, including spiraling already high levels of conflict. This is the situation in Canada, Sweden, and Norway, as elsewhere, and is fostered by current state legal framework that reflect historical trajectories, although circumstances are gradually changing. Promising institutional changes have taken place in British Columbia (BC), Canada, with respect to new legislative reforms. Notably, new legislation from 2019 intends to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in the province, by promoting consent-based and collaborative decision-making mechanisms. New environmental assessment legislation is another example; this legislation includes early engagement, collaborative decision-making, and Indigenous-led assessments. The article’s aim is, first, to analyze how Indigenous communities can influence and engage in the mining permitting system of BC, and, secondly, to highlight the positive features of the BC system using a comparative lens to identify opportunities for Sweden and Norway regarding mining permitting and Indigenous rights. Applying a legal-scientific and comparative analysis, the article analyzes traditional legal sources. The article concludes that the strong points that the BC regime could offer the two Nordic countries are: the concept of reconciliation, incorporation of UNDRIP, the spectrum of consultation and engagement approaches, and the structure of environmental assessments. All three jurisdictions, however, struggle with balancing mine developments and securing Indigenous authority and influence over land uses in their traditional territories.

Mining has proven to be a controversial form of resource development throughout the circumpolar north. This article compares two mining projects—the proposed Prosperity gold and copper mine in central British Columbia, Canada and the proposed Kallak iron ore mine in Norrbotten County in northern Sweden—that have endured long and protracted approval processes that have caused tensions and disputes between mining companies, Indigenous peoples, communities and state actors. In an effort understand the particular development paths taken by these two mining projects, this article examines the institutional determinants that structure relationships between industry, Indigenous communities and the state in Canada and Sweden. Using an historical institutionalist theoretical approach, the article focuses on the manner in which the structural features of the political systems and the environmental assessment and permitting processes in both countries have shaped the mine approval process. It also identifies particular critical junctures—important events and decisions that influenced the trajectory of the approval processes in profound and consequential ways. The article finds that institutional determinants, both historical and contemporary, have played a critical role in determining outcomes in both cases. In particular, it demonstrates the ways in which the structures of the Canadian and Swedish political systems have historically excluded Indigenous peoples from the decision-making process for resource development projects such as mines. It also shows how broader institutional contexts, as well as specific events and decisions, have complicated and politicized the mine approval processes, a situation that has heightened tensions on all sides.

Recent global and regional assessments of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) show that Nature's Contributions to People (NCP) are under an alarming threat due to the continuing loss of biodiversity. These assessments call for increasing conservation efforts and a more sustainable use of biodiversity to enhance the chances of halting biodiversity loss and reversing current trends. One of the strategies to achieve change is to mainstream biodiversity into sectoral policies. Mainstreaming, a concept that can be traced back to the Brundtland report, promotes the integration of the environment into political, societal, and economic planning and decision-making. Based on the review of key studies undertaken during the regional assessment for Europe and Central Asia, we develop a stepwise approach to analyze the current status of mainstreaming of biodiversity and NCP. The approach can be used both for policy design purposes and diagnostic evaluations. It demonstrates that mainstreaming has the potential to improve the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity as well as the sustained provision of NCP. However, based on the status of implementation across Europe and Central Asia, we conclude that mainstreaming needs to be pursued and implemented in a stronger and more systematic way. The results of our assessment provide important input to national strategies and policies but also to the ongoing process of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity while developing the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.