Expanding evidence and expertise in impact assessment: informing Canadian public policy with the knowledges of invisible communities

Figures & data

Table 1. Promising practices in (environmental) impact assessments

Approach category	Specific examples and sources	Basic overview	Relation to established (E)IA protocols	Intersectional features
Community-based impact assessments (CBIAs)	CBIA – Sweden (Lawrence and Larsen 2017)	initiated as a collaboration between Sami community and university researchers involved developing and implementing a community-led impact assessment used the typical structure of an EIA including a baseline and an assessment of potential impacts as a model used financial resources independent of the proponent	not connected to formal EIA (described as 'shadow' EIA) the purpose was to counter claims made by proponent-led EIA	guided by action-oriented research principles, such as community benefit and reciprocity the process as 'ontological self-determination' explicit attention to diverse community members possibility of community monitoring
	Extractive dispossession framework – Papua New Guinea (PNG) (Roche et al. 2019)	initiated in response to questions emerging during ongoing research collaborations with villages in PNG involved conceptual creation of framework (building on an earlier study in the Philippines) that identified eleven factors of extractive dispossession to illuminate impacts used research interviews with local communities (villages) to understand the scope of impacts based on factors of dispossession used financial resources independent of proponents	not connected to formal EIA the purpose was to think about dispossession and use process to assert rights by providing villagers with information for informing their resistance efforts	highlighted importance of process mixed methods appealed to diverse community members highlighted cumulative effects included power analysis in factors of dispossession
Community-led consultations	Consultas comunitarias – Guatemala (Holden and Jacobson 2008; Laplante and Nolin 2014; Janzen 2018)	initiated by civil society (several and ongoing occurrences) involved holding community votes to see whether residents want mining used traditional Mayan methods of communal decision-making used financial resources independent of the proponent	not connected to formal IA, but recognised as legitimate engagement in other Guatemalan legislation the purpose was to 'make a spectacle' to demand state and international response	explicit inclusion of different members of the community used locally-relevant decision-making methods
	Joint project siting – Australia (O’Faircheallaigh 2013)	initiated and funded by the state government involved establishment of a local Aboriginal organisation to 'oppose uncontrolled development' and Traditional Owner consultation and decision-making to give practical effect to Indigenous informed consent used local cultural ideas (wunan) to inform analysis and identify outcomes used state financial resources	connected to formal EIA process (ultimately undermined by a change in government) the purpose was to facilitate the community’s role in identifying a site for the LNG precinct	guiding principles included egalitarianism and full community participation men and women explicitly involved in consultations and leadership some details of the ensuing agreement made public Aboriginal engagement per international commitments

Lawrence, R; Larsen, RK. 2017. The politics of planning: assessing the impacts of mining on Sami lands. Third World Q. 38(5):1164–1180. doi:10.1080/01436597.2016.1257909.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Roche, Charles; Sindana, Howard; Walim, Nawasio; Wafi and Watut Communities. 2019. Extractive dispossession: 'I am not happy our land will go, we will have no better life'. The Extractive Industries and Society. 6(3): 977–992. doi:10.1016/j.exis.2019.05.006.

 Google Scholar

Holden, William N; Jacobson, R Daniel. 2008. Civil society opposition to nonferrous metals mining in Guatemala. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 19(4):325–350. doi:10.1007/s11266-008-9073-9.

 Google Scholar

Laplante, JP; Nolin, Catherine. 2014. Consultas and socially responsible investing in Guatemala: a case study examining Maya perspectives on the indigenous right to free, prior, and informed consent. Soc Nat Resour. 27(3):231–248. doi:10.1080/08941920.2013.861554.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Janzen, David W. 2018. Subject to a new law: historicizing rights and resistance in Maya anti-mining activism. Identities. 25(6):724–743. doi:10.1080/1070289X.2017.1305220.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

O’Faircheallaigh, Ciaran. 2013. Extractive industries and indigenous peoples: a changing dynamic?. J Rural Stud. 30:20–30. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.11.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar