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

ABSTRACT

Globally, the impacts of natural resource development raise concerns about the often disproportionate and negative consequences experienced by Indigenous Peoples, women, and girls. We know far less about the consequences for other often-invisible community members – such as women and girls with disabilities, youth, and people who identify as LGBTQ2S+. Further, promising practices for attending to affected communities’ diverse needs and experiences in impact assessment are sparse. In Canada, this gap is pressing because, in 2019, the federal government adopted a new Impact Assessment Act. The Act provides that 'the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors' should be considered in impact assessments. However, the Canadian government is ill-prepared for its implementation. Informed by intersectionality and Indigenous feminisms, our research asks: What are promising practices in impact assessments that are attentive to the expertise of, and impacts on, often-invisible people – specifically Indigenous women, non-binary/transgender/two-spirit persons, people with disabilities, and youth? Related, we identify tools and frameworks that can facilitate these promising practices, and argue for their inclusion in Canadian impact assessment regulations.

KEYWORDS:

• Intersectionality
• gender-based analysis plus (GBA+)
• impact assessment
• natural resource extraction
• Canada
• invisible community members

1. Introduction

This article explores how to actualise gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) in Canadian impact assessment (IA) legislation using evidence and expertise about understanding, monitoring, and mitigating the unevenly distributed benefits and burdens of natural resource extraction and development projects. GBA+ is a framework informed by intersectionality, a theoretical and practical orientation for examining and responding to how multiple concurrent systemic conditions and experiences, historically and currently, affect peoples’ social position and power. As we discuss in more detail below, taking up GBA+ and intersectionality in IAs is important for, among other reasons, advancing international human rights obligations, achieving positive community benefits, and understanding and responding to the experiences of often-invisible community members.

Globally, a large body of evidence articulates a range of impacts associated with natural resource extraction and development. In part because of strong neoliberal pressures that unquestioningly value economic growth and individual success, the (primarily economic) benefits that accrue for some affected people overshadow the negative and disproportionate burdens shouldered by Indigenous Peoples, women and girls, and in some cases, people at the intersections of these groups (i.e. Indigenous women and girls) (Stienstra et al. 2016; Manning et al. 2018a). Beyond this, many often-invisible community members remain overlooked. For instance, there is limited research about the consequences of natural resource extraction for women and girls with disabilities and people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, two-spirit or other non-cis, non-binary sexual and gender identities (LGBTQ2S+). Our reference to often-invisible communities and community members draws on Purdie-Vaughns’ and Eibach’s (2008) work on intersectional invisibility, which they describe as ‘attempting to move beyond the question of “whose group is worse off” to specify the distinctive forms of oppression experienced by those with intersecting subordinate identities’ (p. 378). Promising practices for addressing the wide-ranging needs of often-invisible communities are sparse.

In Canada, addressing this practice gap is pressing because a new Impact Assessment Act (IAA) was adopted in 2019, providing a window of opportunity for informing more inclusive IAs. Unlike its predecessor,¹ the IAA requires a broad assessment of health, social, environmental and economic impacts over the long term, as well as consideration of ‘the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors’ (IAA 2019, sec. 22(1) s). The IAA also provides a new planning phase to facilitate earlier and inclusive consultation with the general public, and with Indigenous Peoples based on Indigenous rights and the principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) (IAA 2019). As well, like its predecessor, the IAA requires consideration of impacts on Indigenous Peoples, and the use of Indigenous knowledges (IAA 2019).

These critical expansions and retained features respond more explicitly to the wide-ranging and largely negative socio-economic, health, and cultural impacts of natural resource extraction and development on northern and Indigenous women in Canada, and to the regular dismissal of the extensive and often unique knowledges of Indigenous Peoples (e.g. Baker and Westman 2018). They also operationalise several of Canada’s international commitments, including to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which affirms Indigenous Peoples’ right to give or withhold consent according to the principle of FPIC. However, because of persistent limitations discussed below, along with neoliberal pressures that privilege efficiency over inclusion and (unevenly distributed) individual benefits over community wellbeing, these policy expansions beg implementation attention, motivating our search globally for promising practices that can be applied in the Canadian context.

After outlining our methods and analytical approach, we review how the expanded provisions of the IAA fit with Canada’s evolving commitment to GBA+. In our findings, we build on promising examples of more inclusive IA protocols – particularly community-based IAs and community-led consultations – to describe how the IAA could reach its intersectional potential. These findings offer guidance for revealing and responding to the intersectional impacts of resource development and extraction and suggest why well-established knowledge about more inclusive practices remains so difficult to realise. We argue that the best way to actualise GBA+ in IAs is through properly resourced and meaningful community-led engagement. As such, innovative processes like the community-based IAs and community-led consultations we present, intentionally informed by GBA+, should be required by the regulations that guide IAs. Further, IA regulations should insist on appropriate ongoing monitoring by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) to ensure community-identified requirements are maintained.

2. Methods

This article draws on data gathered during three scoping reviews, and two complementary sets of key informant interviews. We review our methods briefly below; they are outlined in extensive detail elsewhere (Stienstra et al. 2016; Manning et al. 2018b; Stienstra et al. 2020).

2.1 Scoping reviews

Since 2016, we have conducted three English language scoping reviews on the impacts of, and responses to, natural resource extraction and development from a gendered and intersectional perspective. In one of these (see Stienstra et al. 2020), we searched for international examples from 19 countries from the Global North and Global South.² Arising from our ongoing research collaborations with northern and Indigenous women in Canada, the purpose of these reviews – funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada – was to better understand and articulate the scope of a problem we were observing in communities in which we work, and offer useable policy guidance related to IAs.

In the internationally focused scoping review, we examined 179 documents using an analytical framework of 17 questions, which focused on experiences of people often overlooked and invisible, and on intersectional participation practices related to natural resource extraction IA processes. Identified gaps in the literature informed a targeted Google community and policy literature search. Findings from the other two Canadian-focused scoping reviews (Stienstra et al. 2016; Manning et al. 2018b) are included to provide context and supplementary examples.

2.2 Key informant interviews

While conducting the internationally focused scoping review and one of the Canadian-focused scoping reviews, we also undertook semi-structured interviews – approved by the Research Ethics Board at the University of Guelph (REB #18-07-008) – with representatives from seven organisations working in Canada and internationally on natural resource extraction and IA processes, and with seven Indigenous and non-Indigenous women, all of whom had experience with past IAs in Canada. These key informants discussed their experiences with – and recommendations related to – the incorporation of GBA+ and other inclusive practices in IAs, including the many challenges Indigenous women and other often-invisible community members faced trying to influence decisions about resource extraction. Drawing on their vast experiences, they also offered wide-ranging suggestions for making IAs inclusive of often-invisible communities.

3. Development of GBA+ in Canada: setting the stage for intersectional requirements in the Impact Assessment Act, 2019

Canada’s formal commitment to gender mainstreaming (the requirement for gender-based analysis (GBA) of federal government programmes) began in 1995, following the United Nations’ ratification of the Beijing Platform for Action for Women. Since then, the Canadian government’s commitment to GBA has been uneven. In 2006–2007 the Conservative federal government cut funding and offices for women’s rights, yet concurrently required all government departments to undertake GBA in their funding submissions (Paterson 2010). In 2011, Canada introduced the ‘plus’ to GBA, acknowledging ‘… that GBA goes beyond biological (sex) and socio-cultural (gender) differences [to consider] … multiple identity factors that intersect to make us who we are … like race, ethnicity, religion, age, and mental or physical disability’ (Status of Women Canada 2018, Intro to GBA+ section, para. 1). GBA+ is meant to examine ‘how diverse groups of women, men and non-binary people may experience policies, programs and initiatives’ (Status of Women Canada 2020, What is GBA+ section, para. 2).

A 2015 programme review found the application of GBA+ was absent, incomplete, and/or inconsistent across federal government departments largely because there was no mandatory requirement (Clow et al. 2016). The election of a self-identified feminist Liberal Prime Minister in fall 2015 led to a number of developments. GBA+ is now required for all Memoranda to the federal Cabinet and Treasury Board submissions. A five-year Action Plan, substantially increased budget, and the upgrading of Status of Women Canada (SWC) into a federal department, Women and Gender Equality (WAGE), followed in 2018. WAGE has since strengthened its online GBA+ training course and other GBA+ resources for public servants. These expanded commitments may help support both the formal inclusion of GBA+ in the IAA, and more robust GBA+-related regulatory requirements moving forward (on GBA+ in the context of IA in Germany see Sauer and Stieß 2021, this volume).

3.1 GBA+, intersectionality and impact assessment

GBA+ is the federal government’s attempt to take up intersectionality, a praxis that recognises people are shaped by multiple systemic conditions and experiences, historically and currently, that affect their social position and power. Intersectional analyses look beyond individual identities to identify social, economic and cultural structures, institutions and practices that produce differences in power between men and women and among different groups of people (see also Sauer and Stieß, 2021, this volume). The importance of intersectional analysis has been raised for decades by Black feminist scholars (Collins and Bilge 2016) and advanced by feminist and human rights organisations in Canada. Some Indigenous feminist scholars suggest that the ideas of intersectionality are inherent in many Indigenous knowledges, while others suggest adopting terms such as red intersectionality (Clark 2016), in part to ensure that the effects of settler colonialism are sufficiently considered.

In our research, our greatest interest is with women and others who are often invisible in policy-making processes because of their experiences with multiple systems of oppression. For us, the objective of an intersectional analysis is to identify and address structural power imbalances and inequalities, particularly in terms of how they affect often-invisible communities – in part by challenging status quo assumptions about the distribution of benefits and burdens resulting from public policies and programmes. The failure to use an intersectional analysis in IA can have unintended consequences. For instance, an initiative in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) intending to protect the health of women in mining ultimately excluded pregnant and nursing women from critical employment opportunities because it failed to consider the intersection of gender and parenting status (Bashwira et al. 2014).

Until recently, gender-based analysis was largely absent from the IA process in Canada (Clow et al. 2016). In response to persistent limitations in several areas (e.g. including but beyond GBA+ considerations), the 2015 Ministerial mandate letter to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change called for a review of Canada’s then environmental assessment legislation. An Expert Review Panel, guided by a Multi-Interest Advisory Committee, was asked to consider questions related to issues such as interjurisdictional cooperation, evidence-based decision-making, and meaningful public engagement. Its process included efforts to seek public input into re-defining the scope and procedures for Canada’s new IAA, along with explicit Indigenous engagement (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2017). The Panel received extensive and wide-ranging submissions, including advice to make GBA+ a requirement in the new legislation, and to ensure participatory project review and monitoring (Stinson and Levac 2016). The report of the Expert Panel (2017) identifies specific measures for meaningful community participation, some of which have been adopted in the IAA. The new IAA (2019) includes mandatory requirements to consider GBA+ and Indigenous rights, despite wide-ranging opposition – particularly to the GBA+ provisions – from the oil and gas sector and some provincial governments (Manning and Levac n.d.).

3.2 Why include GBA+ and intersectional analysis in impact assessment?

There are several reasons to advance GBA+ and intersectional considerations in IAs (see also Sauer and Stieß 2021, this volume). In this context, GBA+ and intersectionality can be thought of as frameworks or sets of questions, that force analysts to consider consequences of natural resource extraction that are often ignored or eclipsed by a focus on economic benefits (primarily for men). They help focus attention on commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals and international human rights obligations. They also signal a commitment to mitigating the uneven distribution of benefits and burdens and the persistent exclusion of often-invisible community members from important decisions. Further, by taking up GBA+ and intersectionality, arguments highlighting links between colonial violence against Indigenous Peoples, including Two-Spirit activists, and the planet (Amor 2018) gain more salience.

The lack of attention to the impacts of natural resource extraction on often-invisible community members has serious consequences. It means, for instance, that the impacts of pollution on general health (e.g. Anderson 2019) and on pregnant women (e.g. Bashwira et al. 2014) are overlooked (see also Leuenberger et al. 2021, this volume). In addition, the long-term disabling effects of natural resource extraction and related violence and, in turn, future community service and infrastructure needs, are not addressed. Further, queer and transgender people are rendered invisible by adhering to binary understandings of gender. Yet the evidence of community violence and gender-based violence in resource-affected communities (e.g. Deer et al. 2019; see also Reynolds 2021, this volume), combined with more general knowledge about the persistent threats to personal safety faced by LGBTQ2S+ folks, makes it likely that they are at extreme risk for violence in these contexts.

Even though there is limited empirical evidence about the outcomes of using GBA+ and intersectionality in IAs, outcomes that have been documented highlight important instances of community benefits, safety, and inclusion. Keenan et al. (2016) note that ‘in some cases, women’s involvement in [community-company] agreement processes has triggered [their] subsequent involvement in [broader] community decision-making … . [but that] this did not necessarily lead to gender equitable distribution of benefits’ (p. 612–613). In their description of Indigenous Nations’ struggles with increased crime associated with natural resource development, Deer et al. (2019) argue that ‘tribal empowerment results in increased safety for tribal communities … . After instituting its own unique set of criminal programs, the Tulalip Tribe reported a steep drop in crime … . by helping offenders to recover rather than just “throwing them away,” … ’ (p. 30).

More inclusive approaches to IA also include important Indigenous knowledges and concepts that can shape legislation and political values more broadly. For instance, Altmann (2014) discusses how the concept of ‘buen vivir’ or ‘good life’ has been taken up in Bolivia’s and Ecuador’s Constitutions and how it encourages consideration of alternatives to capitalist domination. Broad and Fischer-Mackey (2017) point out that proponents of buen vivir (and various Andean Indigenous-language versions) include social movements, activists, and governments that opposed extractivist neoliberal development models and ‘affirmed a broad set of [associated] positive values, including ecological balance, equity, solidarity … community-based approaches’ (p. 1328). While these efforts have been undermined by political upheaval and increasing privatisation, the inclusion of ‘buen vivir’ opens possibilities for its influence again in the future.

3.3 But how can it work in practice?

GBA+ and intersectionality present challenges for IA practitioners, policy-makers, and researchers. Despite the advances noted above, there is little common understanding of GBA+ or intersectionality across the Canadian government or among domestic non-governmental organisations. Also, GBA+ has been critiqued for prioritising gender as the main axis of oppression and struggling to address the structural or systemic barriers and power relations at work (Stienstra 2017; Hankivsky and Mussell 2018). Further, the bureaucratisation of GBA+ may undermine its potential for transforming unequal power relations (Mason 2019) by focusing on individual identity factors over structural and systemic equality barriers.

The uptake of GBA+ and intersectional analysis in IAs in Canada is hindered by these challenges, and by insufficient resources, persistent power inequities that keep often-invisible community members excluded, and a lack of information about the consequences of natural resource extraction and major project developments for folks at the intersections of exclusion. Since 2018 – when a draft of the IAA was tabled – these challenges have prompted a flurry of research and workshops in Canada (often organised or co-sponsored by federal government departments) aimed at addressing implementation challenges. To contribute to these efforts, we ask: What are promising practices in IAs that are attentive to the expertise of, and impacts on, often-invisible community members – specifically Indigenous women, LGBTQ2S+ persons, people with disabilities, and youth?

4. Findings: towards intersectionality in impact assessment, planning and mitigation

Through our analysis, we uncovered two approaches that hold promise for advancing the intersectional practice of incorporating GBA+ in Canadian IAs. After discussing these approaches in some detail, we elaborate our argument that innovative and community-led approaches, such as these, should be required through Canadian IA-related regulations.

4.1 Promising practices in impact assessments

Community-based IAs (CBIAs) and community-led consultations show promise because they align with the intent and principles of intersectionality and attend to inequitable power relations. Table 1 summarises the key components, relationship to established IA protocols, and intersectional features of two types of CBIAs and two approaches to community-led consultations uncovered during our internationally focused scoping review. These approaches illustrate valuing Indigenous and community knowledges and being guided by equity-oriented principles.

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

4.1.1 CBIAs

CBIAs are initiated outside of formal IA procedures (see also Hill et al. 2021, this volume). They typically use resources independent of the proponent and identify impacts likely to be experienced by members of resource-affected communities. More specifically, the examples we reviewed were funded variously through academic partnerships or by governments and civil society. Their purpose is to counter or complement claims made by proponents in formal IA processes, and to provide communities with information useful for asserting their rights (see also Hill et al. 2021, this volume). They address well-documented challenges of proponent-commissioned IAs, including inadequately involving communities and ‘misunderstanding … Indigenous [or community] decision-making structures [which can result] in a low participation of local communities’ (Brodeur et al. 2019, p. 56).

The examples we uncovered were initiated through university-community research collaborations. One comes from a Sami community regarding the proposed Boliden copper mine in Northern Sweden. This CBIA, described as a ‘shadow’ environmental impact assessment (EIA) – critically from an intersectional perspective – allowed ‘ontological self-determination’ (Lawrence and Larsen 2017, p. 1169). Recognising that Western ontological positions are not universal opens the door for Indigenous knowledges to ground IAs. It also opens the door for welcoming the knowledges and experiences of LGBTQ2S+ folks, people with disabilities, youth, and other often-invisible communities. The community’s active role in scoping the CBIA helped fill gaps in consultation with the Sami that existed in the proponent’s EIA. This CBIA process used workshops, meetings, participatory mapping and interviews to establish a community baseline and identify potential impacts. The intersectional recognition that different members of the community have different relationships to the land and are likely to experience different impacts, meant that ‘a separate workshop was held for youth and women’ (Lawrence and Larsen 2017, p. 1170). This commitment could be expanded to include other often-invisible community members, such as LGBTQ2S+ folks. The CBIA also incorporated an assessment of potential cumulative impacts, which invites an intersectional understanding of how impacts can layer and interact to create additional and future consequences for community members.

Another CBIA example is called the Extractive Dispossession Framework, developed by Roche et al. (2019) for use in Papua New Guinea (PNG). This framework – which also considers cumulative impacts – uses 11 factors³ of dispossession to reveal common community impacts from large-scale developments, and assists communities to assert their rights in formal IA processes. The framework’s attention to procedural equity (e.g. separate discussion groups for women and men; explicit attention to power inequities) is important for pursuing intersectional analyses. Formal IAs might include similar features – such as discussion groups separated by gender – but their embeddedness in proponent-led consultations curbs the possibilities for meaningful discussions. Interviews with local villagers based on the framework helped identify ‘genuine concerns, experiences, fears and anxieties which [were] exacerbated by … [a] lack of relevant, independent information’ regarding a proposed mine (Roche et al. 2019, p. 990). This CBIA offers increased potential to identify impacts intersectionally because it is grounded in community-identified priorities, and because gendered inequality overlaps with almost all the other factors in the framework (Roche et al. 2019).

CBIAs could also engage diverse local knowledges in determining the focuses and process of community monitoring. Proponents’ community monitoring efforts often raise concerns about the independence of information and the concentration of power with the proponent. For instance, the Jangas Environmental Management Committee, which involves community members in water quality monitoring, finds that residents’ understanding of water quality impacts differs from the interpretations in Jangas Committee reports (Himley 2014). This indicates that community members’ knowledge is often overlooked due to underlying and unequal power relations. The importance of community monitoring – based on heterogeneous community needs – is also captured by the social water assessment protocol (SWAP) developed for use in Australia (Collins and Woodley 2013). Not discussed in detail here, the SWAP is another type of CBIA. It considers wide-ranging water uses and related issues and offers potential for revealing intersectional impacts during both the assessment and monitoring stages.

4.1.2 Community-led consultations

Community-led consultations can be embedded in formal IA processes or not and can be initiated and funded by governments, civil society, or proponents. Their benefits vary but can include drawing attention to the needs of often-invisible communities and engaging communities meaningfully in decision-making. They address problems with proponent-led consultations, which often fail to enable meaningful community participation and input, among other concerns (Manning et al. 2018b; Lorimer, key informant interview, August 2018). Strengthening community-led consultations is important because ‘consultation’ plays a prominent role in Canada’s efforts and obligations to fulfil its duty to consult Indigenous Peoples, governments, and Nations, and its broader legislative requirements to consult the public in IAs (IAA 2019).

We uncovered two interesting examples of community-led consultations with different design parameters and purposes. Consultas comunitarias (community consultations) are organised by civil society actors in Guatemala (Laplante and Nolin 2014). Consultas are an integral part of a participatory and inclusive dialogue that engages the full community, in keeping with ‘Mayan methods of communal decision-making’ (Holden and Jacobson 2008, p. 339). They operate outside of formal IA processes but allow especially often-invisible communities to express their position on mining developments near their communities (Holden and Jacobson 2008). Consultas ask community members to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on mining in their area, as part of a community-based democratic process (Janzen 2018) informed by ongoing community discussions about their circumstances, priorities, and dreams.

Even though their results have frequently been ignored by governments, consultas are a method of resistance for Indigenous communities, asserting autonomy and rights to self-determination (Laplante and Nolin 2014; Janzen 2018). Their democratic process offers additional legitimacy, and ‘the sight of campesino voters rejecting mining makes a dramatic spectacle … that the Guatemalan government, the mining industry, and the World Bank cannot casually ignore’ (Holden and Jacobson 2008, p. 339). Consultas are also inclusive of many members of communities by including men’s and women’s voices and, in some cases, ‘[allowing] unofficial tallies of youth’ votes (Laplante and Nolin 2014, p. 236).

The second example, called joint project siting, was initiated by and embedded in the formal EIA process of the state government of Western Australia, which created the ‘Northern Development Taskforce (NDT) to conduct the site selection process for [the Kimberley LNG Precinct]’ (O’Faircheallaigh 2013, p. 24). The process focused on including Indigenous Nations and knowledges and asserting the requirement for the fully informed consent of Aboriginal people. Its other purpose was to minimise the impact of offshore gas developments in the Browse Basin by centralising the location of the precinct (O’Faircheallaigh 2013). The process included funding for the Kimberley Land Council (KLC), a regional Aboriginal organisation, to engage in a Traditional Owner Consultation as an official component of the government’s process. The KLC convened a meeting of senior Indigenous men and women who developed ‘a consultation process and culturally appropriate representative structures’ (O’Faircheallaigh 2013, p. 24) to use in the process. Indigenous representatives established ‘a Traditional Owner Taskforce (TOTF) representing all native title⁴ claims groups along the Kimberley coast’ (O’Faircheallaigh 2013, p. 25), and agreed that all of those groups had to be consulted in keeping with the concept of wunan which recognises relationships of reciprocity and interconnectedness 'among people, between people and country, and between people, the country and the Dreaming' (Doonan 2007, quoted in O’Faircheallaigh 2013, p. 25).

Wunan was central to the TOTF process, requiring inclusive decision-making based on a consensus of all members of the Indigenous title groups. No final decisions about the site of the LNG Precinct could be made by the title groups’ TOTF representatives alone. Wunan also guided future-oriented decisions. The TOTF determined that ‘benefits arising from any development would have to be distributed widely among connected groups rather than confined to a single group that might ultimately end up with an LNG Precinct on its traditional land’ (O’Faircheallaigh 2013, p. 25). This process, promising in its early implementation features, was undermined by the election of a new state government in 2008 (O’Faircheallaigh 2013).

5. More promise than practice: what does this mean for Canada’s impact assessment practices?

Efforts to uncover promising intersectional practices in IAs come up short. Our analysis reveals that communities facing multiple exclusions are consistently overlooked, and that lack of political will combined with neoliberal pressures undermine even seemingly robust commitments to more inclusive IAs. Moreover, the examples presented are limited by their mostly voluntary nature and may not benefit from access to useful company data since they are initiated outside of formal IA processes. However, our analysis also suggests that CBIAs and community-led consultations, which feature elements of – and can be further enhanced by – GBA+ and intersectional commitments, may help to address the persistent exclusion of often-invisible communities. As such, we argue that regulatory requirements for tools that promise meaningful engagement with communities across all stages of an IA are necessary.

The benefits and importance of CBIAs have already been documented in the Global North, including in Canada, and in the Global South (Lawrence and Larsen 2017; Roche et al. 2019; Hansen, key informant interview, February 2020). These benefits include that they can be useful for identifying, mitigating, and monitoring the full range of community impacts. CBIAs informed by GBA+ can complement Indigenous-led IAs (IAAC 2020a). When required by regulations, CBIAs informed by GBA+ can facilitate the unique consultative and FPIC rights of Indigenous Peoples by requiring proponent compliance, address the persistent exclusion of Indigenous women’s experiences (Courtois, Ijtemaye, Jiménez, Lorimer, and Wolfrey, key informant interviews, August to September 2018), and reveal relevant knowledges of other often-invisible communities. The community-driven nature of CBIAs is critical to their intersectional potential because this feature makes them more likely and able to reject homogeneous understandings of the community (Collins and Woodley 2013; see also Hill et al. 2021, this volume). Future research in this area could usefully examine how CBIAs can be more effectively led by often-invisible community members, such as women with disabilities, youth, and folks who identify as LGBTQ2S+. The international literature does not clearly articulate the stage in the IA process where CBIAs should most usefully be triggered. However, we suggest that they should be initiated in the Early Planning Stage in the IAA (2019) when the IAAC has the opportunity to provide guidance to proponents.

Community-led consultations also demonstrate intersectional potential, especially if – as would be necessary when informed by GBA+ – there is a commitment to recognising that they cannot be designed as one-size-fits-all exercises. Consultas comunitarias are organised and led by civil society actors, rather than project proponents or their consultants, and use locally relevant decision-making methods, and Indigenous knowledges and decision-making protocols. The joint project siting example, and its commitment to wunan, required a consensus-based decision-making process inclusive of representatives and affected communities (O’Faircheallaigh 2013). This model, also based on Indigenous knowledges and governance systems, offers a way to think differently about the goals of consultation, including by upholding international commitments to FPIC. It aligns with the work of Indigenous scholars in Canada who encourage shifting the focus of the ‘duty to consult’ beyond discussions to outcomes and impacts of decisions. As Morales (2017) notes, ‘this notion that a good faith negotiation process [does not require] reaching an agreement runs counter to several Indigenous legal principles’ (Chapter 8, p. 67). Community-led consultations informed by GBA+ could also offer a way forward for addressing the needs and preferences of often-invisible communities during the planning phase of IAs (IAA 2019, sec. 11).

Why are CBIAs and community-led consultations informed by GBA+ not practiced more widely? We suggest there are many reasons for this, which we cannot explore in detail in this article, but which include limited internal community capacity (especially in instances were multiple concurrent IAs are being undertaken), time limitations, and proponents’ lack of knowledge and skills related to their development and implementation. Another important reason is that despite their promise, the neoliberal prioritisation of corporate and individual economic benefits over the needs of often-invisible community members is persistent. Regulations, which we acknowledge will alone be insufficient to address these issues, are nevertheless necessary for helping to ensure that inclusion does not depend on political will or on heroic Indigenous and civil society efforts to resist harmful natural resource projects. Regulations requiring CBIAs and community-led consultations informed by GBA+ will also need to be complemented by training and guidance on how to take up GBA+ and should require implementation monitoring to ensure community control. Community control is a key feature of the examples examined above, and a commitment implied in guidance related to Indigenous-led IAs (IAAC 2020a), reinforcing its importance. Regulations should also direct appropriate resources – that is, funding from the government – to CBIAs and community-led consultations, informed by GBA+. This can add capacity via making external supports (e.g. researchers and GBA+ consultants) available, and foster internal community capacity building, in turn enabling the participation of often-invisible community members whose knowledges can reveal consequential future impacts. For instance, people with disabilities can help a community understand how the potentially disabling effects of the resource sector – through environmental contamination and physical injury – will alter future community needs with regard to services. Importantly for civil society, legislation and regulations calling for GBA+ provide anchors that organisations can ‘latch onto’ in their efforts to advance safer and more inclusive futures (Hansen, key informant interview, February 2020).

Related, a reason that GBA+ is not practiced more consistently in IAs in Canada is that federal practice guidelines are still emerging, and sub-national guidelines are uneven. For instance, one Canadian province, British Columbia, is developing specific guidelines related to GBA+ in IAs, while, albeit limited in focus, Newfoundland and Labrador, has long required an assessment of women’s employment equity in natural resource extraction (Department of Environment, Climate Change and Municipalities, 2020). Overall though, no consistent model or method for applying GBA+ in IAs has been proposed and there is little agreement on how best to translate the commitments of intersectionality – particularly those related to dismantling structural power imbalances – into applicable tools and practices. Another reason that GBA+ is not widely taken up in IAs is the lack of appropriate resources for community organisations to meaningfully participate in IAs more generally, an issue repeatedly raised in the Canadian context (Manning et al. 2018b). Without regulatory requirements for CBIAs and community-led consultations informed by GBA+, the transformative potential of including GBA+ in the new IAA (2019) will remain unrealised. CBIAs and community-led consultations informed by GBA+ can draw on existing tools that facilitate inclusion (e.g. CRIAW and DAWN Canada 2014). While the federal government has allocated 5 CAD million over three years ‘to support the participation of the public and Indigenous groups in impact assessment and policy dialogue, and to support the development of Indigenous knowledge and capacity related to impact assessments and related activities’ (IAAC 2020b, Transfer payment programs less than 5 CAD million, para. 1), this commitment will require monitoring to ensure sufficient funding for often-invisible communities and their representative organisations. As noted, these funds from the government should also help to support CBIAs and community-led consultations informed by GBA+. Further, we suggest that these funds be recovered from project proponents, whose development costs should include extensive efforts to pursue meaningful engagement. This could happen indirectly, by having proponents contribute to the fund rather than to funding particular engagement efforts.

Resistance from the petroleum and gas industry in Canada to the inclusion of GBA+ in the IAA (Manning and Levac n.d.) suggests there could also be resistance to its implementation. As such, it is even more critical that CBIAs and community-led consultations – enhanced by GBA+ and intersectional commitments – are pursued through regulation by the federal government as a way to help counter the power imbalances inevitable in proponent-led consultation processes. Regulatory requirements with corresponding guidelines for undertaking GBA+, and funds for inclusive community capacity building and engagement, may result in the need for extensions beyond the legislative timelines dictated by the new IAA and may delay proponents’ development plans. Insufficient time for engagement will undermine GBA+-related commitments, create further inequities between better and worse resourced communities and organisations, and weaken the federal government’s claims as a supporter of the rights of Indigenous Peoples and other often-invisible communities. Ultimately, proponents need to be prepared to change their plans to address community concerns, especially those coming from often-invisible community members who are least likely to benefit from natural resource projects (Stienstra et al. 2016). To help, researchers and advocates can continue to demonstrate benefits and shortcomings, develop practical and innovative practices, and monitor and document resistance to GBA+ in IA. The implementation of CBIAs also offers a unique opportunity to explore how they can be more effectively led by often-invisible community members, such as women with disabilities, youth, and folks who identify as LGBTQ2S+. Researchers and consultants, in collaboration with communities, can also play an essential role in the development and implementation of CBIAs, again with commensurate funding. Because of the extent to which communities can become overburdened with consultative requirements, even community-led consultations might benefit – at a community’s discretion – from organisational and development support from external researchers and consultants. The resulting evidence will signal new directions for how to further advance GBA+ and intersectionality in IA theory, policy, and practice.

Acknowledgments

We recognise our presence on the territories of the Algonquins, Mi’kmaq, Attawandaron and Mississaugas of the Credit. We also wish to thank the key informants who gave generously of their knowledge, and the circle of advisors guiding one of the broader projects from which these data are drawn; their expertise continues to shape our thinking.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (formerly the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency) [3000671469]; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [872-2019-0034].

Notes

1. Until 2019, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 was focused primarily on the biophysical impacts associated with natural resource extraction. The definition of ‘environment’ in the new IAA, unchanged from its predecessor, does not include reference to social aspects or gender, though they are considered elsewhere and more broadly in the Act. Socio-economic impacts for Indigenous Peoples were considered (sec. 5(1) c, CEAA, 2012).

2. Included countries were Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Mexico, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Peru, South Africa, Sweden, and the United States of America.

3. Including gendered inequality and equity; fraudulent consent; poor/degraded services and facilities; displacement; destruction of sacred sites and places; imperialism/epistemicide; and environmental and social impacts.

4. Australia introduced the Native Title Act 1993 to establish a formal process for claiming, determining and protecting Aboriginal land claims.