Impact assessment and indigenous self-determination: a scalar framework of participation options

Abstract

The implementation of the right of indigenous peoples to participate in impact assessment (IA) has moved rapidly in many jurisdictions. To facilitate comparative learning, this paper offers a scalar framework of participation options through standard IA phases and examines five IA regimes in Sweden, Norway, Canada, Australia, and Aotearoa/New Zealand. It is shown how practice is moving toward co-management and community-owned IA, with developments driven by strong indigenous demands and political recognition of material rights to lands and resources. Yet, while influence in IA has allowed for shaping project outcomes it has rarely supported the rejection of unwanted projects altogether. Moreover, some jurisdictions, such as Scandinavia, retain a much more limited consultation and notification approach. Community influence tends to be in evidence generation and follow-up while developers or state authorities retain control over decisive phases of scoping and significance determination. It is argued that indigenous participation is most meaningful through IA co-management that takes places directly with the state and throughout all IA phases, complemented with strategic community-owned IA.

Keywords:

• Impact assessment
• indigenous Rights
• self-determination
• participation
• Sami
• Sweden

Acknowledgments

This paper is an output from the project ‘Contested landscapes: navigating competing claims on cumulative impacts (CO-LAND)’, funded by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2016-2018 [NV-03501-15]. I am indebted to my project colleagues for stimulating conversations and encouragements. Kaisa Raitio (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences) and Alan Ehrlich (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board) generously commented on previous drafts of this paper. Sanne Holmgaard (Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research) kindly provided valuable inputs specifically to the review of Norway and Tumanako Ngawhika Fa’aui (University of Auckland) to the review of Aotearoa / New Zealand. I also thank two anonymous reviewers and the journal editor for helpful critique to improve the arguments. Any remaining errors in interpretation, especially of international examples, are of course mine alone.