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

Figures & data

Figure 1. Scalar framework for indigenous participation in IA.

Table 1. Key elements of indigenous participation in the selected IA regimes.

Community-owned (total influence)		• Extraction and re-insertion of SIA from formal EIA process and/or SIA with full community control. Recruitment of indigenous researchers into SIA team. Consultants supporting community with negotiation positions (AUS) • Communities (iwi and hapu) undertake own cultural IAs and employ their own IA experts (A/NZ)
Co-management (shared influence)	• Review Board members are nominated by community and government (50–50%) and drafts TOR for studies. Work funded jointly by developer and government (NWT) • Permanent Coordinating Committee composed of equal numbers from community and developer. Funding in-part provided by the developer (AUS) • Maori legally recognized as partners to government (A/NZ)	• All parties actively invited to submit evidence for hearings. Broad view on evidence, incl. testimony and other traditional knowledge, physical objects, photos, site visits. All matters of substance publicly disclosed online (NWT) • Culturally appropriate consultation process designed by elders. Legitimacy and weight to indigenous knowledge, oral submissions permitted, ample time for contributions and hearings, avoiding overt adversarial nature. Confidentiality agreements regulating disclosure of sensitive knowledge (AUS) • Culturally customized impact assessments (A/NZ)	• Decision by majority vote, aiming for consensus. The Review Board explains views on and weighing of evidence (NWT)	• IMAs play watch-dog role throughout project lifetime (NWT) • Private agreements guaranteeing role in the project’s Management Committee, benefits, funding, and protection from subsequent undermining of agreement (AUS) • Joint management agreements and long-term co-management and performance monitoring bodies (A/NZ)
Consultation (limited influence)	• Centralized consultation with the Sami Parliament prior to new developments (NO) • Statutory requirements, in some sectors and limited parts of the planning process, to meet and hear the views of the community (SE, NO)	• Statutory requirement to consider social and cultural impacts. Incorporation of Sami traditional knowledge, i.e. in traditional use studies and through oral testimonies (NO) • Voluntary corporate practice of inviting inputs to specific ‘reindeer herding analyses’ (SE)	• Determined by public authority through professional judgment and decision support tools (AUS) • Determined by subnational government (i.e. councils) (A/NZ). • Legal mandate for the Sami Parliament to temporarily veto permit processes till agreement is reached or government overrules the Sami Parliament. Obligation of authorities to consider social and cultural impacts (NO)	• Public authority defines permit conditions, incl. management and mitigation plans, with inputs from Sami communities (SE, NO)
Notification (no influence)	• Some sectoral legislation, e.g. for mining, places no requirements on the developer to meet or hear the views of the affected community (SE)	• Preference to Western and scientific knowledge. Failures to account for cumulative effects (SE)	• Determination made entirely by public licensing agency (SE, NO)	• Confidential and private compensation agreements disconnected from IAs (SE)
	SCOPING	EVIDENCE GENERATION	SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION	FOLLOW-UP

Figure 2. Indigenous influence across key IA phases.