Login

How can IA practitioners analyze information gathered through an IA process (informed by culturally relevant GBA Plus) in a way that does not overly simplify the data collected?

In the context of IA, IA practitioners risk oversimplifying complex issues by focusing solely on certain aspects of the phenomenon without fully considering how each interconnected component contributes to or influences the problem. This fragmented approach can lead to incomplete analyses and decision-making that fails to account for the broader systemic impacts, such as cumulative effects, socio-cultural dynamics, or interdependencies between environmental, social, and economic factors. A holistic approach that examines these relationships is essential for completing a comprehensive and accurate assessment. Oversimplifying complex issues in an IA can result in coming to conclusions that acknowledge only one factor that effects the community, and not addressing other contributing factors. Two strategies that can help practitioners avoid oversimplification during the IA process are the creation of community profiles and the collection and/or use of qualitative data. Community profiles can create a picture of the community’s social, cultural, political and economic context, and can include data about a range of things including local growth trends, the labour force, major employers in the region, the housing market, the presence of community groups and so on.  They can also include important specific cultural or historical information needed for culturally relevant GBA Plus. Gathering and drawing on qualitative data can help proponents develop a more nuanced understanding of effects and solutions that are based on the population’s input and perspectives. 

Additional detail

Creating community profiles that are reflective of the local population is a valuable tool for proponents to enhance their understanding of the social, cultural, political, and economic structures that help shape the local environment. The process of developing a community profile involves identifying community strengths, challenges, and attitudes, and assessing trends that can influence project outcomes. Some of the steps should include reviewing secondary sources, talking to local cultural and political leaders, making multiple community visits, interviewing members of diverse groups within the affected community, summarizing findings, and taking an inventory of area features including local businesses, land use and transportation characteristics, cultural resources, and community services. Another important facet includes reviewing local demographics, growth trends, the labour force, the state of the housing market, major employers and more. 

Through the lens of intercultural humility and ethical community engagement, proponents should respect community guidelines while developing community profiles. Where possible, communities should be invited and resourced to lead the development of their own profiles. Minimally it is important for IA practitioners to understand the community’s expectations and requirements for the data collection process, the limits on which sites and locations the proponents can enter, how findings should be interpreted and shared, who is allowed to enter their community, and more. Another reason why the community should inform or lead the development of a community profile is because they can refer to their lived experiences to explain how individual variables, such as the housing market, the labour market, and locally available resources, impact their daily lives. These details may not be easily captured through secondary data.

Examples

In 2022, the BC Environmental Assessment Office published an Assessment Report summarizing the environmental assessment process for the Cedar LNG Project, the proponent of which was a partnership led by the Haisla Nation. This project was initially under federal assessment but was substituted to the province, meaning it still had to meet the requirements of the Impact Assessment Act concerning effects within federal jurisdiction. This project was the first to be assessed under the IAA, marking a significant departure from previous legislation, such as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. As part of this process, the BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) consulted “deeply” with seven First Nations in the region on whose territory the project would take place. The EAO worked with each Nation and gave them the opportunity to work collaboratively on Nation-specific assessments. Depending on the desire of the Nation, these sections were drafted by the EAO and approved by the Nation, drafted collaboratively with the EAO, or drafted independently. These sections meant that Nations could bring information and analysis into the IA that was relevant to their communities. In some cases, this involved a significantly different approach to assessment. For instance, the Kitselas assessment, which was drafted independently by the Nation, states that the valued components approach to IA was not appropriate for them. It states that “Kitselas community members have indicated that the term “component” implies (1) a division of the natural and human environments into parts and (2) a process of ranking these parts in terms of importance. This is at odds with the Kitselas worldview that is premised on equal importance of all parts of a single interconnected system and a responsibility to care for those things” (BC EAO, 2022, p. 694). The approach taken was to organize the assessment around Kitselas values. It then assessed the effects on these values using a scale from disrespect to respect. Incorporating these sections gave the Indigenous Nations the opportunity to analyze and assess effects drawing on worldviews, processes, and approaches that are culturally appropriate to them. Including and drawing on these may reduce reductionist analysis and conclusions in western government-led processes.

The Harmonized Impact Assessment Twinning of the TransCanada Highway includes historical context that explains the historical relationship between the Anishinaabe and the Crown, treaty 3 and its promises, and the subsequent years in which the Anishinaabe experienced “outright attack, indifference, physical and economic marginalization and, yes, even genocide” (p. 1). This is critical context for understanding the reasons for previously not supporting the project and the importance of a better relationship for the twinning project.

Citations and useful resources

See All Frequently Asked Questions