Proponent develops its project concept, design and plans without discussions with Aboriginal peoples.

Projects designs and plans are carved in stone by the time Aboriginal peoples learn about them.

Involve Aboriginal peoples at the project design phase to identify major environmental concerns and look at ways to change designs to avoid adverse impacts.

Government and proponent discuss the project Government decides the type of EA and the EA process is agreed upon.

By the time Aboriginal peoples become aware of the project and EA, the proponent and government have already held discussions about the project and decisions have been made about the EA process including the type (i.e. screening, comprehensive study, panel review).

Early discussions promote building relationships and help all parties understand their respective objectives and concerns. If applicable, impact-benefit agreement (IBA) discussions should start at this stage.

Proponents and government are fully knowledgeable about EA legislation and processes.

Often Aboriginal peoples’ first introduction to federal EA and the Act is after the announcement of a proposed project. In general, most Aboriginal communities lack knowledge and expertise in federal EA.

Implementing EA awareness and training programs in Aboriginal communities improves the abilities of Aboriginal peoples to effectively contribute to EA.

Early agreements on communications, consultation, the role of Aboriginal peoples, specific research needs and studies, and schedules and resources improve the EA process for all parties.

Proponents leave Treaty and Aboriginal rights issues to the RA to deal with.

Proponents and RAs do not generally understand scope of Treaty and Aboriginal rights or importance of traditional territory to lifestyle and culture. RAs do not always understand their fiduciary obligations as an arm of the federal government.

Early workshops and discussions improve the proponent’s and the RA’s understanding of rights, values and expectations. Aboriginal peoples’ understanding of the proponent’s and RA’s responsibilities, values and expectations are also improved.

Proponents and RA have preconceived notions of what significance means and how it is determined.

The values and methods that underlie significance determination are based upon a Western worldview.

Early discussions about what significance means, and whose interests should be held highest in the EA, as well as agreements that local values will be considered a priority in determining significance should take place.

Proponents and governments have adequate resources to carry out EA activities in a short period of time.

Most Aboriginal communities lack the human and financial resources to participate in EAs.

Arrangements should be made early regarding resources for Aboriginal communities.

Proponent, RAs and environmental organizations clearly understand the process and know how and when to provide input.

Aboriginal peoples do not fully understand the importance of articulating, in the EA process, the environmental components and values of importance to them. They do not fully understand that if they do not supply this information at the scoping stage, their concerns may not be addressed in later stages of the EA.

Training (identified in Schedule 1 under Better Practice) should improve the understanding of Aboriginal peoples about the importance of providing input at the scoping stage.

VEC system used in scoping stage is driven by Western science values of “global to local” and the selection of VECs is highly influenced by government and environmental organizations. Selection of EA study boundaries are also based upon Western science values.

Use of the VEC system is foreign to Aboriginal culture as it implies certain components of environment are more important than others.

The scoping stage should be structured to allow Aboriginal peoples to express their concerns and values within a framework that suits their cultural worldview. This could include naming their values − including the full range of social, cultural, economic and spiritual values − in some context other than VECs.

Government and proponents often rely on “informants” or political leaders to tell them who represents whom.

Proponents and government often make incorrect assumptions about who represents which Aboriginal communities, organizations and/or cultural groups.

Each Aboriginal community and organization should be contacted to learn who may have rights at risk and who may utilize the lands and resources that may be impacted by the project.

At the scoping stage, the project definition is often narrow and does not include all aspects of the project. Information about the project is usually in written reports with technical language.

Project descriptions are too technical and do not include sufficient preliminary predictions about the kinds of impacts expected, making it difficult for Aboriginal peoples to respond about their concerns or make informed statements about what values might be at risk.

The RA, the proponent and Aboriginal peoples need to work together to develop informational materials (e.g. visual and audio presentations in spoken language of community) about the project that are audience appropriate, and include information that will inform and assist community members so that they are able to meaningfully participate in the scoping stage.

Research and data collection decisions are largely made by governments and proponent. Both fully understand the EA process.

Aboriginal peoples generally do not understand the EA process and therefore may not appreciate that they need to articulate their views on the type of research and baseline data that should conducted/ collected.

Training (identified in Schedule 1 under Better Practice) should improve the understanding of Aboriginal peoples about the importance of providing input at the scoping stage.

Typically Aboriginal communities or organizations are funded to do traditional knowledge studies. This work is done in isolation of the proponent’s EA work. In the end the information is either not included at all or it is “taken and interpreted” by the proponent.

All parties have difficulty in understanding the physical mechanics of including traditional knowledge in the EA. Aboriginal communities have difficulty in meeting the schedule of the proponent.

Research and documentation of traditional knowledge needs to be structured to answer key questions and contribute to the overall identification of environmental effects, development of mitigation measures and prediction of impacts. Protocols for how, when and by whom the information is used must be established early on.

Proponents rarely have access to accurate data about Aboriginal people’ subsistence or traditional activities.

There is very little recorded data concerning Aboriginal peoples’ subsistence and traditional activities and therefore the social, cultural and economic value of such activities is either undervalued or ignored.

Research should be established to document the level, intensity, locations and the economic, social and cultural values of subsistence and traditional activities, in both qualitative and quantitative terms.

Proponents rarely have access to accurate data about cultural, spiritual and historic sites and values of importance to Aboriginal peoples.

There is very little recorded data about Aboriginal cultural, historic and spiritual sites.

The EA should include research by Aboriginal people to document the location and attributes of sites. This type of information is highly sensitive and its use in the EA must be treated respectfully.

Proponents typically rely upon “boiler plate” socio-economic descriptions of Aboriginal communities (e.g. census data).

In most cases the socio-economic descriptions of Aboriginal communities are negative. This is because proponents rely upon “government data sources” which generally record indicators that are based in a Western worldview. For example, persons that are engaged exclusively in subsistence harvesting activities are deemed to be unemployed. For example, years of experience in fishing, trapping or hunting are not recorded in educational profiles.

The EA should include research and data collection that accurately describes communities. It should include indicators and values deemed to be appropriate to the communities.

Proponent independently identifies and evaluates environmental effects.

The lack of Aboriginal peoples’ involvement in assessment at the identification of environmental effects stage often leads to proponents making uninformed or inaccurate conclusions about what is considered by Aboriginal peoples to be an environmental effect.

Active and meaningful involvement of Aboriginal peoples at this stage of the EA will ensure that their values and knowledge contribute to understanding and identifying environmental effects.

Proponents are not required under the Act to identify impacts on Treaty and Aboriginal rights.

The Act does not include impacts on Treaty and Aboriginal rights in its definition of environmental effects.

Identifying impacts on Treaty and Aboriginal rights as environmental effects is preferably through an amendment to the Act or alternatively through the issuance of guidelines.

Proponents do not currently consider impacts on Treaty and Aboriginal rights.

Proponents generally do not have a good understanding of what Treaty and Aboriginal rights are, and therefore are not in a position to assess whether the project will impact on such rights.

Active and meaningful involvement of Aboriginal peoples in the identification and assessment of environmental effects will ensure that they can identify project-related impacts on their rights.

Proponents are required to include traditional knowledge in the EA but cannot do so without the participation of Aboriginal peoples.

Traditional knowledge is not effectively being used to enhance understandings of environmental effects. Generally, the two knowledge systems are “collected” in two independent parallel processes and not used in combination to enhance the understanding and identification of environmental effects.

Ongoing involvement of persons knowledgeable about the land and resources will also ensure that traditional knowledge is contributed throughout the EA process. (See comments in Schedule 3.)

Proponents do not include Aboriginal peoples at this stage of the EA.

Aboriginal peoples are not involved in the development of mitigation options; therefore, they generally find the proponent’s proposed means of mitigation, which are based on Western science concepts and assumptions, yield solutions with dubious applications and which lack certainty of outcome.

Active and meaningful involvement of Aboriginal peoples is needed in developing mitigation options. This will ensure a thorough understanding and inclusion of traditional knowledge.

Proponents lack an understanding of how to assess cumulative effects on Aboriginal peoples and their rights.

The assessment of cumulative effects does not adequately take into consideration previous environmental impacts or infringements on Treaty and Aboriginal rights.

Involvement of Aboriginal peoples at this stage of EA will ensure that information about and the importance of cumulative effects are documented.

Government and the proponent have the skills base or access to expertise.

Few Aboriginal peoples have been involved with or received formal training on Western science approaches and methods of determining significance. In general, at the community level, this stage of an EA is not well understood.

Implement training, capacity building and prior agreements concerning values and methods for determining significance (identified in Schedule 1).

Criteria used to guide and rank the relative significance of environmental effects is based upon federal standards, guidelines and objectives, global, national and regional priorities (e.g. endangered species) and general public values.

Determining significance is based upon Western science models and non-Aboriginal society value judgements. From the Aboriginal perspective it seems that EAs rarely find environmental effects to be significant. This results in a wariness and mistrust on the part of Aboriginal peoples of the use of EA to accurately assess project impacts.

A concerted effort at dialogue between government, proponent, and potentially affected Aboriginal to lay out each party’s respective responsibilities, expectations and values will assist in ensuring that the value judgements made on significance will meet everyone’s needs.

Proponent is not required under the Act to consider Treaty and Aboriginal rights.

Infringement on Treaty and Aboriginal rights not considered in determining significance.

Parties should agree at early stage of EA that Treaty and Aboriginal rights will be addressed at this stage of the EA.

An understanding of Aboriginal culture, values and reliance on healthy environment for cultural, social and economic survival is lacking.

Aboriginal peoples feel that their values are minimized and that the exercise of determining significance does not adequately identify the true impacts on their cultures and economies.

Involvement of Aboriginal peoples in previous stages of EA should result in government and the proponent having a better understanding of Aboriginal peoples’ values and responsibilities for environmental protection. Aboriginal peoples should develop criteria and guides that can be used at this stage in the EA to evaluate the significance of effects.

Proponents have not consulted Aboriginal people at this stage in the EA.

Aboriginal peoples have been excluded from the process of assessing the significance of effects.

As with other stages of EA, Aboriginal peoples need to be actively involved in assessing the significance of environmental effects. They also need time and resources to carry out their own internal consultations.

IBA negotiations are external to the EA process.

IBAsare sometimes concluded before fully understanding project impacts.

IBAs should not be signed before the conclusion of this stage of the EA.

The proponent tables the report and the public review period starts. Depending upon the type of EA, participant funding may or may not be available.

Reports are highly technical and difficult for many Aboriginal people to understand. They often have to hire outside experts to review and translate the information. Aboriginal communities do not have independent financial resources to retain expertise.

The RA should ensure that the proponent, or alternatively the RA, develops audio and visual presentations of the report in spoken languages of the Aboriginal communities, and schedules workshops and focus groups to explain the report and answer questions.

The proponent works on scheduling that meets its needs and as required by legislation.

Aboriginal peoples have typically not been involved in all stages of the EA and then are faced with reviewing a voluminous report. For this reason, the time allowed during report review stage is insufficient.

The RA should ensure that the proponent’s schedule reasonably provides Aboriginal peoples the time necessary to participate effectively and meaningfully in the EA. Involvement throughout the EA will mean that the information and findings in the report will generally be known to Aboriginal peoples. In fact, some of the information will be their own contributions. The report will not come as a surprise. Aboriginal peoples may not agree with everything in the report, but they will at least be informed about how the proponent has developed the information and reached its conclusions.

The RA has full and exclusive authority to make recommendations to the Minister.

Recommendations to approve a project are made by RA and/or review panels without proper consultation with Aboriginal peoples and without a legal analysis of whether or not the project will infringe upon Treaty and Aboriginal rights. Decisions by RAs are increasingly being challenged through the courts.

Upon concluding the report review stage and before the RA prepares its recommendations, the RA should consult with potentially affected Aboriginal communities to determine (1) if from their perspective they have been meaningfully consulted, (2) whether Treaty and Aboriginal rights will remain intact if the project proceeds, and (3) if the agreements (e.g. IBA) which may have been reached between the proponent and Aboriginal communities are fair and satisfactory.

IBAs are not mandatory under the Act. Negotiations on IBAs are confidential and are not part of the EA public review process.

RAs have made recommendations for project approval before IBAs are concluded. Once the proponent receives the “go-ahead” for its project, Aboriginal peoples have lost negotiating leverage and often years pass without an IBA being concluded.

IBAs should be signed before the RA makes its recommendations to the Minister.

Government responsibilities for follow up and/or monitoring are generally subject to normal program funding.

Financial arrangements for Aboriginal peoples to participate in follow-up and monitoring activities identified in the EA as being the responsibility of government are not made. After project approval, Aboriginal peoples do not have proper resources to effectively participate in project monitoring.

Government and Aboriginal peoples should develop implementation plans for follow-up and monitoring activities, including training. Commitments concerning the source and level of funding to implement the plans should be agreed upon.

Last Updated: 2004-02-26

Important Notices