Frequently Asked Questions

The Canadian federal government defines Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) as:

“an analytical tool used to support the development of responsive and inclusive policies, programs, and other initiatives. GBA Plus is a process for understanding who is impacted by the issue or opportunity being addressed by the initiative; identifying how the initiative could be tailored to meet diverse needs of the people most impacted and anticipating and mitigating any barriers to accessing or benefitting from the initiative. GBA Plus is an intersectional analysis that goes beyond biological (sex) and socio-cultural (gender) differences to consider other factors, such as age, disability, education, ethnicity, economic status, geography (including rurality), language, race, religion, and sexual orientation”.^[1]  

GBA gained prominence in Canada during ‘second-wave feminism’ and focused on issues like reproductive rights and wage equality, mainly prioritizing the experiences of white heterosexual women. It did not capture the lived realities of diverse groups, such as Black, Indigenous, migrant, and refugee women, members of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community, and people with disabilities. Despite progress in women’s equality, significant disparities remained. Through ongoing research and advocacy efforts, GBA evolved to become GBA Plus, which, as the definition above highlights, encourages an intersectional analysis. However, the Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) has highlighted that mainstream GBA Plus frameworks still lack cultural and historical perspectives, treat Indigenous groups as homogenous, and fail to adequately address the role of colonization in ongoing trauma and violence (NWAC, 2020). For NWAC, culturally relevant GBA Plus acknowledges the persistent and harmful effects of colonization and the power structures and oppression that have historically marginalized Indigenous Peoples (NWAC, 2020). Culturally relevant GBA Plus emphasizes the need for policies and programs that recognize and address these distinct historic, current and evolving realities, ensuring that the impacts of colonization and systemic oppression are integrated into both impact assessment (IA) and the development of solutions. In sum, culturally relevant GBA Plus combines an intersectional analysis with specific attention to colonization and the distinct experiences of Indigenous women, girls and Two-Spirit peoples.

[1] Government of Canada, What is Gender-based Analysis Plus? Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/gender-based-analysis-plus/what-gender-based-analysis-plus.html. 

The purpose of culturally relevant GBA Plus is to uncover and address the unequal effects of policies and programs on diverse groups. It combines an intersectional analysis with specific attention to the historic, ongoing, and evolving effects of colonization. This approach is inspired by the key steps graphic from Status of Women Canada (now Women and Gender Equality Canada, WAGE) and adapted to the context of culturally relevant GBA Plus, as well as guidance from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada’s document, Gender-Based Analysis Plus in Impact Assessment. To implement culturally relevant GBA Plus, we propose the following six (6) key steps, ensuring that each incorporates culturally relevant dimensions as outlined in the work of the NWAC. Each step must be conducted through co-creation, engagement and partnership with the impacted communities, centring their voices in the process.

There are many benefits for IA practitioners of applying culturally relevant GBA Plus. To realize these benefits, co-creation, engagement, and partnership with impacted communities are essential. 

1. Meeting legal requirements: Applying culturally relevant GBA Plus allows practitioners to meet the Impact Assessment Act’s requirements when assessing the potential effects of resource extraction and development projects. It also aligns with international obligations related to the rights and interests of historically marginalized groups  (e.g., United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) and reflects Canada’s commitment to implementing these frameworks through its national policies, action plans, and reconciliation efforts.
2. Revealing differential impacts: Applying culturally relevant GBA Plus allows for more rigorous analysis that uncovers the differential effects of resource extraction and development projects on diverse populations, including women, girls, Two-Spirit and gender-diverse peoples, Elders, people with disabilities and others (See Kairos). 
3. Exposing systemic inequities: Applying culturally relevant GBA Plus helps reveal systemic inequities and forms of discrimination rooted in colonization, racism, heterosexism, and other systems of oppression. 
4. Promoting social and ecological justice:  Applying culturally relevant GBA Plus can advance social and ecological justice by respecting the local and Indigenous Knowledge of people in affected communities. Respecting these knowledges can lead to more sustainable resource development practices.
5. Helping develop targeted mitigation measures: Applying culturally relevant GBA Plus ensures that mitigation measures are targeted and are responsive to the realities of affected communities with diverse needs and experiences. 
6. Informing decision-making: Applying culturally relevant GBA Plus involves incorporating diverse viewpoints, which can lead to more robust evidence and better-informed decision-making. Additionally, this approach enables a more complex and nuanced understanding of the context, which informs better project design. By considering alternatives related to project design, culturally relevant GBA Plus also supports a more comprehensive sustainability analysis, ensuring that projects are more adaptive, equitable, and resilient over the long term.
7. Building trust: Applying culturally relevant GBA Plus with attention to its commitments to co-creation, engagement, and partnership helps to build trust with local and Indigenous groups and demonstrates respect for their values, traditions, and knowledges.
8. Enhancing intercultural humility: Applying culturally relevant GBA Plus can build intercultural humility by encouraging a continuous self-reflective approach to understanding and engaging with different cultures. Recognizing personal biases, being open to learning, and valuing diverse perspectives promotes ongoing education, respect, and empathy in cross-cultural interactions.

Actively working toward reconciliation:  Applying culturally relevant GBA Plus facilitates active reconciliation by fostering meaningful partnerships with Indigenous Peoples, respecting their knowledge systems, and addressing historical injustices. This approach aligns with the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Calls for Justice of the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Inquiry (see: National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG) and Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada). Both the Calls to Action and the Calls for Justice reference the effects of major resource projects, emphasizing the importance of engagement, benefit-sharing, and respect for Indigenous rights in resource development.

Canada’s Impact Assessment Act mandates meaningful participation and the inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge throughout the IA process. When applying culturally relevant GBA Plus to engagement with Indigenous groups, IA practitioners must commit to ongoing collaboration and inclusive practices. To ensure a culturally relevant GBA Plus approach as part of the engagement activities of an IA, practitioners can follow these guiding principles:

1. Transparency: Co-create processes with Indigenous rightsholders, emphasizing especially engagement with Indigenous women, girls, and Two-Spirit and gender-diverse peoples, provide clear information, and ensure accessibility, including in Indigenous languages.
2. Relevance: Listen to and address issues affecting diverse members of Indigenous groups, particularly women, girls, and Two-Spirit and gender-diverse peoples, and consider them meaningfully. If issues affecting diverse members of Indigenous groups are not meaningfully listened to and addressed, the potential effects include significant risks to their health and safety.
3. Inclusiveness: Remove participation barriers, respect cultural norms, and adapt methods to meet the needs of distinct Indigenous groups.
4. Accountability: Share insights transparently and demonstrate how community input has influenced decisions.
5. Flexibility: Continuously learn from feedback and adapt engagement strategies to foster collaboration and innovation.

By adhering to these principles, IA practitioners can not only fulfill legal and ethical obligations but also enhance the effectiveness and fairness of the IA process. Integrating culturally relevant GBA Plus into the engagement components of the process strengthens project outcomes, builds trust with Indigenous groups, and contributes to broader goals of social justice and reconciliation.

Self-reflexivity is the practice of critically examining one’s own biases, assumptions, and knowledge gaps, and is especially important in the context of applying culturally relevant GBA Plus. For IA practitioners, it is a crucial practice because it heightens awareness of how personal and systemic biases can influence the assessment process. Without this reflection, there is a risk of unintentionally reinforcing existing power imbalances and perpetuating colonial practices.

By engaging in self-reflection, practitioners can uncover and address gaps that might limit their understanding of the lived experiences of people from diverse identities including women, girls, Two-Spirit and gender-diverse peoples, Elders, people with disabilities and others. This openness to continuous learning and adaptation helps ensure that analysis, decision-making, and engagement strategies are culturally sensitive and responsive to the unique needs of diverse populations. Moreover, self-reflexivity fosters ongoing dialogue and collaboration, enabling practitioners to co-create more inclusive processes that genuinely respect Indigenous and local knowledges and perspectives. Embedding this practice into their work leads to more effective, equitable, and sustainable outcomes.

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.

Disaggregating data is the process of breaking down data into sub-categories, which are grouped together based on shared characteristics. Examples of categories include gender, sex, geographic location, race, ability, Indigenous status, level of education, etc. The collection of data that can be disaggregated according to these and/or relevant categories helps proponents better understand how certain segments of a population might be impacted differently by a resource project and thus provide appropriate mitigations. 

When disaggregated data are not available, proponents can reach out to members of a community, and search for other relevant research, to understand what disaggregated data would likely uncover.  For example, in the case of the Kudz de Keyah project, BMC Minerals referenced the Government of Canada’s MMIWG report and community input from Indigenous women-led organizations to help establish conditions for Indigenous women’s safety due to the unavailability of disaggregated data about Indigenous women. Proponents should make similar efforts to learn about necessary conditions for ensuring the safety and inclusion of other groups, such as people with disabilities, lone mothers, and others.

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.

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.