Key Principles for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Collaborative Impact Assessment in Canada

Abstract

Impact assessment (IA) is an influential planning tool used to evaluate the potential effects, benefits, and risks of project-level resource development. Indigenous peoples are often disproportionately affected by the adverse consequences of resource exploitation. However, the processes employed in Canadian IA to engage with Indigenous people have faced criticism, particularly on the following five matters: scope and coverage of impacts are inadequate; funding is insufficient; Indigenous knowledge is largely ignored; Indigenous communities do not set the terms of IAs; and Indigenous consent is not required as a condition of approval for projects that will affect Indigenous people or territories. Recently, changes in law and policy have given rise to a growing literature on collaborative IA (where the assessment is conducted by a non-Indigenous authority in partnership with Indigenous authorities) in Canada. This research employs an integrative literature review and a case study analysis to identify and evaluate the most commonly stated foundations of collaborative IA, and therefore the apparent underlying basis of the broad Canadian experience to respect and empower (without integrating) both Indigenous and non-Indigenous objectives, perspectives, and distinct ways of knowing in collaborative IA.