Login

How can IA practitioners incorporate Indigenous Knowledge in IA as part of applying culturally relevant GBA Plus in IA?

According to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC), Indigenous Knowledge is a holistic system that is deeply embedded in the various cultures of Indigenous Peoples. Under the Impact Assessment Act (IAA), Indigenous Knowledge refers to a set of complex knowledge systems based on the worldviews of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Knowledge reflects the unique cultures, languages, values, histories, governance and legal systems of Indigenous Peoples. It is place-based, cumulative and dynamic. Indigenous Knowledge systems involve living well with, and being in relationship with, the natural world and have been passed down since time immemorial. Indigenous Knowledge systems build upon the experiences of earlier generations, inform the practice of current generations, and evolve in the context of contemporary society. Different First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities each have distinct ways of describing their knowledge. Knowledge Holders are the only people who can truly define Indigenous Knowledge for their communities. Indigenous women and girls, Two-Spirit, and gender diverse people also hold knowledges that are important and should be included.

When considering Indigenous Knowledge in IA, proponents can rely on the guidance of Elders, community groups, and residents to inform the process. In practice, proponents must make the effort to reach out to community leaders to learn about their guidelines and customs for research and community engagement. While developing a collaborative relationship with community leaders, proponents should focus on developing a well-rounded knowledge and understanding of their cultural practices, customs and beliefs, as these factors will influence how they may want the IA to be developed.

Additional details

The following practices can help proponents effectively incorporate Indigenous Knowledge:

Engage communities

Community engagement should prioritize integrating communities early in the planning phase, encompassing goal setting, tool selection, implementation, and outcome evaluation. Community engagement should involve gathering community insights to help identity effects, interpret findings, and make conclusions and recommendations. Consistent collaboration with local communities will help incorporate community perspectives, values, and knowledge into decision making processes. 

Conduct ethnographic fieldwork

  • Ethnographic research involves a researcher integrating into a community to collect data and learn about local cultural practices. This process involves studying communities’ routines, behaviours and interactions.
  • Ethnographic fieldwork can include participant observation, interviews, surveys, questionnaires and other research methods (Barone, 2020). 
  • Proponents should receive consent from a community before starting ethnographic fieldwork. They should also follow local guidelines for community engagement, research, and data collection.

Follow relevant community protocols and guidelines

Proponents must identify and adhere to the engagement protocols and guidelines that are established by the community. In practice, this should involve obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of communities; being transparent about the depth and types of information that participants are required to share for the IA; and explaining the benefits and disadvantages of participating. Being upfront about the perceived benefits and disadvantages of participating will help ensure that participants are well-informed about the complexities of the IA and how they will be impacted. Part of respecting community guidelines and protocols for engagement involves practicing intercultural humility.

Learn from Indigenous Knowledge

Here are some promising practices for learning from Indigenous Knowledge:

  • Take guidance from community members including local Elders, advisors and spiritual leaders
  • Minimize misinterpreting the community’s culture by working with language translators to shape the IA process (Goulding et. al., 2016)
  • Conduct ongoing community visits to establish a working relationship and develop familiarity with each other (Goulding et. al., 2016)

Examples

Examples of Indigenous research protocols and guidelines

The Raika community in India provides an example of community-driven research protocols. In response to their expulsion from the Kumbalgarh Forest, the Raika pastoralists of Rajasthan established a set of guidelines for external researchers to follow when conducting research within their community (Jonas et al., 2010). These guidelines emphasize their biocultural values and highlight their efforts to preserve unique livestock breeds connected to the Kumbalgarh Forest. The Raika also stresses how their pastoralist values have co-evolved alongside the growth of the forest (Jonas et al., 2010). Additionally, they outline their customary approach, which prioritizes free, prior, and informed consent regarding decisions on grazing rights, animal genetic resources, and the use of their traditional knowledge (Jonas et al., 2010).

Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch (MEW), which is also called Eskinuapimk, is a set of principles and protocols that focus on protecting and preserving the integrity and cultural knowledge of Mi’kmaw Peoples (Mi’kmaq are the Indigenous Peoples of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI, Newfoundland and Labrador and Gaspé Peninsula of Quebec). The facets included in MEW aim to guide research activities in a manner that ensures that the right of ownership over information gathered belongs to Mi’kmaw communities. The principles include that all research activities must be handled as a negotiated partnership that considers all interests of those who live in the community(ies). This requires that participants be treated as equals rather than “informants” or “subjects” and that all scholars assume the responsibility of learning local protocols, cultural practices, and challenges. The First Nations Principles of ownership, control, access, and possession of information (OCAP is a resource that is informed by First Nations’ contributions. OCAP asserts that First Nations populations should maintain control over their data collection processes and dictate how the information is used. 

Example of practicing and building cultural competency

In an article titled “Building cultural competence in environmental studies and natural resource studies”, Quigley (2016) describes her experience of practicing cultural competency during an impact assessment. Quigley’s (2016) IA process was led by the input from participating Native American and African American community-based partners who instructed her to make her training modules more culturally appropriate to the local community by integrating practices associated with oral history. Instead of creating handouts with graphs detailing numeric data, the community partners suggested adding photos and other visuals of the local landscape and local people impacted by the contamination risks. These visuals were further complemented by textual facts about the effects. The partners also recommended conducting field trips to the landscapes to complement the training modules (Quigley, 2016, p. 727).

In another example identified by Quigley (2016), a collective of non-Indigenous researchers traveled to the St. Lawerence River to conduct a study in New York, after identifying that it was contaminated by polychlorinated biphenyls. Due to researchers’ oversight, the Mohawk community who was physically impacted by the water contamination in the St. Lawerence River was overlooked and not addressed in the IA. As a result, the local community implemented a “tribal research board”, which identified Mohawk researchers to further the non-Indigenous researchers’ work. Through their collaboration and communication with the local Mohawk residents, they found that eating the contaminated fish from the local lake was affecting breast milk of Mohawk mothers and leading to negative health impacts on their infants. 

Example of conducting an ethnographic field study during an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

In the aftermath of the development of the Lajaedo Hydroelectric Dam in Tocantins, central-north Brazil, a group of proponents conducted a two-week ethnographic field study to evaluate the locals’ experiences with the Dam (Hanna et. al., 2016). They held structured interviews and collaborated with representatives from local community associations, Indigenous Elders, staff from the local governmental environment agency and NGO staff (Hanna et. al., 2016). Through the interviews, participants expressed that the proponents greatly overlooked the presence of political parties/groups and gendered roles in politics during the original EIA process in 2001. This sociopolitical oversight that was not documented in the EIA contributed to the cultivation of unanticipated negative effects from developing the dam. In their findings, Hanna et al. (2016) note that the existence of clan groups and a tendency for local political divisions among the Jê peoples were overlooked, which contributed to group clashes over the control of natural resources. In addition, due to the non-recognition of gendered structures of political participation, the proponent’s original EIA from 2001 did not integrate strategies to include women in decision-making processes. Through their ethnography, the proponents identified the importance of learning about gendered, cultural, political and social dynamics and how they can create different types of impacts on communities during natural resource extraction.

Example: Nunavut Strategic Environmental Assessment

The Nunavut Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for offshore oil exploration, which was conducted by the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB), involved several promising practices related to collecting and incorporating Inuit knowledge. First, it had the Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA) do a separate knowledge gathering initiative that was then used by the Nunavut Impact Review Board in its report and recommendations. This meant that knowledge was gathered independently and in ways that were culturally appropriate for the community and by people who know the community. This separate report was also “compiled and edited in such a way that the flow and tone is recognizable to community members, and easy to read” (Qikiqtani Inuit Association, p. 23). The QIA also worked with NIRB to make sure that Inuit knowledge was used appropriately in the SEA process. The SEA final report written by NIRB includes detailed summaries of the “views of interested parties”, which includes information from all the engagement strategies as well as QIA’s reports. NIRB also includes a “views of the board” section where it reflects on what it heard through engagements throughout the process and provides justification for the recommendations it provides. Thus, it provides some level of transparency as to how it reached its conclusions and recommendations. The SEA final report states that Inuit knowledge formed the foundation for 25 of its 80 recommendations. 

Example: Cedar LNG

In 2022, the BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) 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 was a federal IA conducted under the Impact Assessment Act and substituted to the province of British Columbia. The Government of British Columbia has a constitutional duty to consult and, when necessary, accommodate Indigenous Nations whose Section 35 Rights may be affected by provincial decisions. For the Cedar LNG project, the environmental assessment went beyond Section 35 Rights to address broader Indigenous interests, including environmental, social, and economic impacts. As part of this process, the BCO consulted “deeply” with seven First Nations in the region on whose territory the project would take place. On December 13, 2019, the EAO issued a Section 11 Order defining the scope and procedures for the environmental assessment of the Cedar LNG project. This order outlined the engagement activities to be undertaken with potentially affected Indigenous Nations. Nations listed in Schedule B, including the Gitga’at First Nation, Haisla Nation, and Kitselas First Nation, were engaged more extensively, reflecting their closer involvement with the project. The Haida Nation, listed in Schedule C, was consulted specifically on marine shipping aspects, while the Métis Nation British Columbia was engaged at a lower level. The effects assessment section of the report includes a section on the consideration of Indigenous Knowledge for each valued component and explains how they used Indigenous Knowledge in the assessment, including if it was used to inform specific recommendations. For instance, for the acoustics valued component, there was concern about Indigenous land use impacts from marine shipping noise, particularly when seasonal activities may mean people sleep outside. The concerns expressed and knowledge shared by Indigenous Peoples were considered in the assessment of acoustics that included recommending a community feedback process through which Indigenous Nations could bring forth their concerns about noise. Indigenous Nations were engaged collaboratively, with opportunities to conduct their own assessments, which were incorporated into the final report. The process aligned with the Impact Assessment Act, ensuring Indigenous perspectives and mitigation measures were integrated into provincial and federal decision-making.

Example: Trans Mountain Pipeline and Tanker Expansion

Incorporating Indigenous Knowledge may also mean redefining some aspects of assessments. For instance, how baselines are defined will have important implications for how effects are assessed and thus what mitigation approaches are needed. Western approaches to IA typically choose baselines from before the project so that project activity effects can be measured and monitored from that point on. Indigenous approaches, however, may be different. For instance, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation’s assessment of the Trans Mountain Pipeline and Tanker Expansion Proposal states that “our stories, traditions, and knowledge describe environmental, cultural, spiritual, and economic conditions that persisted in our territory for thousands of years prior to contact. These conditions provide a standard or baseline from which cumulative effects on our title, rights, and interests over time can be assessed and measured” (The Tsleil-Waututh Nation p. 57). This baseline would lead to a much different assessment of effects, mitigation strategies, and conclusions than an assessment using only recent information for baselines. In fact, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation’s assessment concluded that they should not support the project. It was approved, however, and the Nation continues to assert its rights/title in relation to the project. 

Citations and useful resources

See All Frequently Asked Questions