Meaningful and efficient? Enduring challenges to Aboriginal participation in environmental assessment

Udofia, Aniekan; Noble, Bram; Poelzer, Greg

doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2016.04.008

Cited by 40 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indigenous and non-Indigenous practitioners' concerns regarding Canada's federal EA processes have been previously documented (e.g., Skelton 2011a, 2011b;Udofia et al 2017). Such critiques are traceable to the initial Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in 1995 (Stevenson 1996;Usher 2000;Paci et al 2002).…”

Section: Open Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These EA process failures most often take the form of inadequacy of decision-making structures to respond to Indigenous concerns. These process failures may culminate in several ways: Indigenous resistance to engage (Udofia et al 2017), participant exhaustion (Baker and Westman 2018), perceptions of wasted resources and time by Indigenous Nations, and the perpetuation of poor relationships between governments and proponents (Booth and Skelton 2011b; Baker and Westman 2018). Baker and Westman (2018) studied the exhaustion and disappointment perpetuated by historical impacts of EAs that have failed to engage IK, stating:…”

Section: Historical Obstaclesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These authors noted that, while Indigenous Nations frequently make their interpretation of unresolved title or treaty rights clear, the federal EA process fails repeatedly to do so explicitly (Booth and Skelton 2011b). This failure, combined with the unsettled answer of legal land rights in locations where developments are proposed, is recognized as a core obstacle preventing the meaningful incorporation of IK in EA processes (Wiles et al 1999;O'Faircheallaigh 2007;Booth and Skelton 2011b;Udofia et al 2017). A pervasive challenge for Indigenous participants in EA processes is that Canadian EA as legislated does not provide the appropriate process to settle these lingering, unresolved, and consequential legal queries (Wiles et al 1999).…”

Section: Legal Obstaclesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compelling evidence to support the approval-oriented function of modern Canadian federal EA processes exists in contemporary responses to the Impact Assessment Act, condemned by some due to its " : : : potential effect on our [Canada's] ability to harness our natural resources and potential negative affect on our economy [and creation of] enormous uncertainty, more red tape and increased court challenges" (Findlay 2018). The assumption underlying this public pushback to EA reform may be embedded in an understanding that EA in Canada should primarily serve to increase efficiency of bureaucratic processes (e.g., Udofia et al 2017) and decrease hurdles in the way of industrial project approvals.…”

Section: Political Obstaclesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Indigenous knowledge and federal environmental assessments in Canada: applying past lessons to the 2019 impact assessment act

Eckert

Claxton

Owens

et al. 2020

FACETS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policy-makers ideally pursue well-informed, socially just means to make environmental decisions. Indigenous peoples have used Indigenous knowledge (IK) to inform decisions about environmental management for millennia. In the last 50 years, many western societies have used environmental assessment (EA) processes to deliberate on industrial proposals, informed by scientific information. Recently EA processes have attempted to incorporate IK in some countries and regions, but practitioners and scholars have criticized the ability of EA to meaningfully engage IK. Here we consider these tensions in Canada, a country with economic focus on resource extraction and unresolved government-to-government relationships with Indigenous Nations. In 2019, the Canadian government passed the Impact Assessment Act, reinvigorating dialogue on the relationship between IK and EA. Addressing this opportunity, we examined obstacles between IK and EA via a systematic literature review, and qualitative analyses of publications and the Act itself. Our results and synthesis identify obstacles preventing the Act from meaningfully engaging IK, some of which are surmountable (e.g., failures to engage best practices, financial limitations), whereas others are substantial (e.g., knowledge incompatibilities, effects of colonization). Finally, we offer recommendations for practitioners and scholars towards ameliorating relationships between IK and EA towards improved decision-making and recognition of Indigenous rights.

show abstract

Section: Open Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Historical Obstaclesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Legal Obstaclesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Political Obstaclesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Indigenous knowledge and federal environmental assessments in Canada: applying past lessons to the 2019 impact assessment act

Eckert

Claxton

Owens

et al. 2020

FACETS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, First Nations contest the sovereign authority claimed by the state, and resist or otherwise attempt to influence the hegemonic activities of the state. They do so by litigating against the government for trespassing on Indigenous rights [57], participating in institutional processes [47,58,59], as well as educating themselves and others about treaty-based relationships [60], Indigenous rights [50,61], and Indigenous world views [62][63][64][65].…”

Section: The Politics Of Colonial Water Governance In Canadamentioning

confidence: 99%

“We Don’t Drink the Water Here”: The Reproduction of Undrinkable Water for First Nations in Canada

Baijius

Patrick

2019

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

First Nation communities in Canada are disproportionately plagued by undrinkable water and insufficient household sanitation. In addition, water resource management in First Nation communities has long been a technocratic and scientific mission controlled by state-led authorities. There has been limited engagement of First Nations in decision-making around water management and water governance. As such, problems associated with access to drinkable water and household sanitation are commonly positioned as hydrological or environmental problems (flood or drought) to be fixed by technical and engineering solutions. This apolitical reading has been criticized for not addressing the root cause of the First Nation water problem, but instead, of reproducing it. In this paper, an approach using political ecology will tease out key factors contributing to the current water problem in many First Nation communities. Using case study research set in source water protection planning, this paper explains how persistent colonial practices of the state continue to reproduce undrinkable water and insufficient household sanitation. Solutions to this ‘water problem’ require greater attention to First Nations water governance capacity and structures.

show abstract

Inclusive approaches for cumulative effects assessments

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cumulative impacts of human activities and natural disturbance are leading to loss and extinction of species, ecological communities and biocultural connections people have to those ecosystems. Exclusive and extractive western science methodologies often hinder the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge holders in cumulative effects assessments (CEAs), which can lead to regional conflict and ineffective assessment and management of cumulative effects. We offer our reflections on the development of a collaborative CEA process with the Kitasoo Xai'xais, Nuxalk and Wuikinuxv First Nations in what is now known as the Central Coast of British Columbia. We designed our CEA around the guiding principles of respecting Indigenous sovereignty and regional autonomy, designing for trauma‐informed approaches, and prioritizing inclusivity and reciprocity. We focused our efforts on identifying current and future pressures on species of the Nations' choice. We relied on expert elicitation and data‐driven approaches to identify and map current and future cumulative impacts to predict their consequences for species' health. We used combinations of visualizations, numerical, oral and written materials to convey, elicit and share complex information with experts. We found a diversity of elicitation processes fostered the involvement of a variety of experts (e.g. Indigenous knowledge holders and Nation staff, regional biologists, Crown managers, tenure holders). We mapped over 90+ impacts to species in the region and after conversation and facilitated elicitation processes with over 50 knowledge holders, emerged with predictions for the consequences of seven plausible scenarios of future cumulative impacts for eight species as well as broad themes for the management of cumulative impacts to the lands and waters of the Nations with whom we collaborated. Our shared lessons can support researchers, planners, proponents, and Indigenous and colonial government agencies to conduct inclusive, collaborative and accessible CEAs that inform regional land and marine use planning. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

show abstract

Meaningful and efficient? Enduring challenges to Aboriginal participation in environmental assessment

Cited by 40 publications

References 40 publications

Indigenous knowledge and federal environmental assessments in Canada: applying past lessons to the 2019 impact assessment act

Indigenous knowledge and federal environmental assessments in Canada: applying past lessons to the 2019 impact assessment act

“We Don’t Drink the Water Here”: The Reproduction of Undrinkable Water for First Nations in Canada

Inclusive approaches for cumulative effects assessments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About