Login

How can IA practitioners follow promising practices for applying culturally relevant GBA Plus in IA if affected communities are hesitant to engage in the IA process?

Communities may be hesitant to participate in an IA for several reasons, including financial and time constraints, a lack of understanding or misinterpretation of the IA process, cultural restrictions on participating (e.g., in some communities, women and gender minorities may face social pressures and expectations that limit their willingness or ability to provide input or be involved in decision-making), or because they refuse the idea of resource development and extraction projects. These reactions could reflect deeper concerns about the potential harm these projects could cause or skepticism about whether the community will truly benefit or experience meaningful improvements. 

To address both barriers to participation and declining participation due to opposition to the project, it is important to recognize and navigate the nuanced reasons behind hesitance or refusal to engage. While practical steps like hiring translators, offering virtual sessions, closed group discussions, and providing childcare can reduce logistical barriers, practitioners should also consider the social and historical context that informs opposition. This involves understanding past experiences with similar projects, the perceived or actual harms that may have resulted from past projects, and the community’s skepticism regarding potential benefits.

Practitioners should engage with empathy, acknowledging the legitimacy of these concerns while creating spaces for dialogue that allows communities to express their perspectives without pressure or fear. Sharing detailed, transparent information about the project’s risks and benefits, while genuinely considering alternative approaches or mitigation measures proposed by the community, can foster trust. Incorporating local and Indigenous Knowledge into the process further signals respect and may help rebuild relationships with communities that feel marginalized or distrustful. Providing this type of context can help shape an IA practitioner’s attitude toward fostering meaningful, respectful engagement, even in situations of hesitance or refusal.

Additional detail

Communities may hesitate to participate in an IA for a variety of reasons, often deeply rooted in historical, social, political, environmental, financial, and cultural contexts. This resistance may stem from past traumas, such as experiences of exploitation, marginalization, or mistrust toward external actors and institutions. Barriers to participation can also include financial or time constraints, limited understanding of the potential benefits of participating, and a lack of access to relevant resources and documents needed for meaningful engagement. Social factors, such as patriarchal or gendered approaches to political participation, may further inhibit involvement. Additionally, communities may feel treated as research subjects rather than equal partners, exacerbating feelings of mistrust. In some cases, the presence of external actors conducting an IA can be perceived as an attempt to co-opt advocacy efforts or misrepresent the community. To address these concerns, culturally relevant GBA Plus practitioners can adopt promising practices to reduce barriers and foster trust, ensuring a more inclusive and respectful IA process. Here are some options and promising practices that culturally relevant GBA Plus practitioners can implement to address and reduce participants’ barriers to IA: 

  • Contact relevant community leaders to inquire about their insights
  • Focus on offering opportunities for collaboration and the empowerment of the communities participating
  • Contact relevant activists and community groups who are advocating for the rights of the affected communities and offer to pay them for their support in working with relevant community members and groups
  • Offer free transportation to the sites where discussions are being held or provide various opportunities to voice opinions (e.g., participants can provide written or recorded comments if they can’t attend any meetings) 
  • Offer childcare, honoraria, and other supports as needed for participating
  • Practice self-reflexivity to acknowledge any personal biases to ensure that any assumed stereotypes will not influence your conclusions about the IA
  • Try to identify the source and type of concern that community members are demonstrating and then find ways to address these individually (see example below about addressing participant concerns during an IA)
  • Ensure that the IA process is written plainly and made available in all the languages spoken by the community

Proponents should explore and articulate how systemic barriers, historical experiences, and related factors may contribute to a community’s hesitance to participate, ensuring that such interpretations are framed with respect. If communities decide not to participate in an IA, proponents can rely on secondary data, prioritizing sources authored or validated by members of the community under consideration. When using secondary data, it is essential to validate this information with the community to the extent possible and clearly indicate whether the data being used have been reviewed and agreed upon by the community. Since community input is a cornerstone of the IA process, it is equally important for proponents to address the limitations of the study when communities decline participation. This includes acknowledging how the quality, quantity, and depth of the data collected have been impacted. 

Given the sensitive nature of community resistance, it is vital to approach these situations with humility and avoid assumptions about the rationale behind a community’s decision not to engage. Rather than framing it as refusal, it is more constructive to consider this as a response rooted in past experiences, distrust, or perceived risks associated with the project. Proponents must maintain respect for the community’s autonomy while seeking to create opportunities for future dialogue. Careful framing and language ensure that the IA process remains inclusive, transparent, and respectful of the diverse perspectives of all affected community members.

Examples

Gender norms as a barrier to participating in IA

During an environmental impact assessment (EIA) conducted in the Maldives, local community groups declined participation due to their financial and time constraints, a lack of political will and the lack of environmental awareness (Zuhair and Karian, 2016). The lead proponents also noticed that there was an absence of women in the EIA discussions. Through listening to community members and assessing the local government structures, the proponents identified how the patriarchal, social and political context of the islands created an environment where men were encouraged to lead political discussions and women were encouraged to act compliant and refrain from speaking (Zuhair and Karian, 2016). Even when women were present in meetings, the discussions were typically dominated by women who had higher incomes, which contributed to discouraging the other women from fully participating (Zuhair and Karian, 2016). Another factor that shaped the political context of the country is the dominance of conservative religious beliefs and ideologies, which dictated that women should not attend the same forums as men (Zuhair and Karian, 2016). 

Addressing resistance to participating in IA

During an ethnographic study conducted in Copenhagen as part of an effort to improve social services, Vitus (2008) identified that some community participants were hesitant to fully participate in the IA process. During the process, Vitus (2008) found that the young boys who were ethnic minorities in Denmark were initially excited to share their experience but once they entered the interview room, they grew withdrawn, hesitant and cautious about the information that they shared. Through engaging in self-reflexivity and holding discussions with community members, Vitus (2008) concluded that the boys felt that they were being treated as “research subjects” rather than equal participants in the process of evaluating and bettering Denmark’s social services. In response, Vitus (2008) adopted more informal language when speaking with the boys and explained that they could participate on their own terms and share only what they felt comfortable with. Vitus (2008) also made attempts to create a more welcoming interview environment by asking fewer closed ended questions and switching to more open-ended questions, which allowed the interviewees to guide the process (Vitus, 2008).

Harmonized Impact Assessment

Harmonizing existing, or building new, processes that bring together Western science and Indigenous Knowledge reduces the possibility that conclusions will be contentious and also creates opportunities to build trust in IA processes. In 2008, the Governments of Canada and Ontario announced a plan that would twin a portion of the TransCanada highway that went through Anishinaabe territory. The Anishinaabe did not support the project as they did not feel they were meaningfully consulted. Ten years later, four Anishinaabe Nations came together to form a partnership, then signed an MOU with the Ontario Government, which was meant “to guide the relationship and the engagement process based on a spirit of cooperation and collaboration” (p. 1). The IA states that “This Harmonized Impact Assessment represents the Anishinaabe expression of collaboration. This document tells the story of the Anishinaabeg, the history of the relationship to the lands, the skies, the soils, and the waters, and the history of the relationship with settler governments” (Executive Summary). The approach/process taken is a harmonized impact assessment model that brings together Anishinaabe laws and teachings with western approaches to impact assessment. The model is based on three concentric circles, representing principles, process, and components. The outermost circle includes principles that are guided by Anishinaabe laws and teachings as well as the promising practices of IA from the International Association for Impact Assessment. The next circle (process) similarly brought together understandings from western IA processes (i.e. scoping, impact assessment, mitigation) and Anishinaabe laws (visioning, feasting). The third ‘components’ circle brought together western understandings of valued components with important Anishinaabe components. In the centre of the circle was well-being, which includes mental, spiritual, physical, and social dimensions. This process illustrates one attempt to bring Indigenous and Western knowledges together in a non-hierarchical way to centre different perspectives and understandings of effects and mitigations. 

Citations and useful resources

See All Frequently Asked Questions