Stakeholder analysis is the main building block of starting the plan for any project. You’re going to be analyzing everything in this process: identifying and prioritizing rights-holders, communities, interested parties, and anyone who is going to be impacted by the project, particularly when the ‘duty to consult’ is mandated for the project when Indigenous groups are involved.

Ensuring you analyze your stakeholders and rights-holders at the start will save you so much time in the long run.

Understanding relevant stakeholders, rights-holders and opinion-leaders at this point helps to identify the prospects and potential challenges for dialogue and change. You will be able to:

• Understand the issues that matter to the people and communities you’re impacting
• Place all in tiers based on their rights, interest, impact, etc.
• See how the different groupings will actually influence and speak to each other
• See risks and be able to mitigate them before you even begin planning

But what’s the gain?

To some project managers, stakeholder analysis can seem more beneficial to stakeholders instead of the team that’s leading, but in reality the value is very high. Putting your stakeholders in tiers lets you understand that not every stakeholder has the same level of impact by, or interest in, your project – or requires the same level of engagement. 

That way, you won’t be wasting time focusing on stakeholders who don’t want to be as involved, or over-explaining your goals to stakeholders who are already signed on. Stakeholder analysis can also help you figure out what communication methods will work best for the people connected to your project.

You’ll do your analysis to start, but it’s also something that is ongoing for the entirety of the project. To begin, you can pick a specific matrix to plot all your stakeholders. But no matter how you approach it, you’ll likely follow these guidelines:

• Determine who your stakeholders are. Look at the people you are contacting, Indigenous groups, the community members, the public, political motivators, etc.
• Assess: look at their interest levels, how much they know about the project. Are they in, or are they opposed?
• Group them: put stakeholders in similar tiers if they seem like they’re approaching from similar interests and engagement.
• Then figure out your best way to communicate with each. Who are the legitimate community representatives? How will you approach them? This will lead into your further Stakeholder Plan.

Who are your stakeholders?

That first step can be a daunting one, especially when you are dealing with a complex group who are affected by your project. Make sure you have covered all the bases.

If you have a comb through a history of projects, take a look into your databases for the names that you think might be affected and relevant, or projects similar to yours and the indigenous groups, people and communities attached. 

Rely on your people too. Ask members of your team: Who are you liaising with that needs to be part of this list? Where are the gaps in who we’re reaching out to? Who did we forget so far?

Then understand their motivations. Look out for what these stakeholders and rights-holders care about, and just think big. Almost everything could have an influence on the people attached.

Expected outcomes:

• Identifying stakeholders and rights-holders
• Building stakeholder trust
• Gaining credibility required for implementation
• Understanding the context of the project/issue with respect to stakeholders
• Identifying external influencing factors

There are so many things you can take into account with stakeholder analysis. The sky can be the limit. In the end you will have a good understanding of who are the primary and secondary stakeholders, what systems should be in place and how you can impact stakeholder participation.

Contact SustaiNet Software – We would love to hear from you!

Contact us with questions you have about our stakeholder engagement software and services, or if you’d like to have an online demonstration of our software.

According to records from Peru’s National Forestry and Wildlife Service (SERFOPR), until the end of December 2016, illegal miners have deforested 30,000 hectares of the Amazon rainforest in the buffer zone of the Tambopata National Reserve (Madre de Dios region), in Peru. What once was the habitat for a vast array of plants and animals, is now a cemetery of logs and mud.

The degradation of the Peruvian Amazon by illegal miners is quite serious.

This figure increases if we consider illegal activities in the jungle area of Puno, Cusco, San Martin and Amazonas.

Illegal miners have settled in the Tambopata area for 30 years, making deforestation a lucrative business by utilizing sophisticated machinery. They first clear the forest and then dig to extract gold using mercury, which they then sell in Puno, Lima or the neighbouring country of Bolivia. They even legalize the activity by selling their gold to legal miners in Peru. It is estimated that this activity produces 16 tonnes of gold per year.

The illegal mining sector has the necessary means and organization; it doesn’t comply with the law (State controls). This activity is also carried out in the regions of Puno, Arequipa, Ica (Nazca), La Libertad and Piura (where in 2005, the mining company Manhattan Minerals of Canada decided not to work on the Tambogrande mine site due to the opposition by the indigenous people. Today, most of those opponents practice informal artisanal mining extracting gold without following environmental and security standards).

Social and Health Issues

Many illegal miners, despite having the economic means to formalize their activities, decide not to do it, since they would rather avoid paying taxes and don’t comply with the environmental and social controls carried out by the State. Their operations are developed in very remote areas and their activities are mixed with the presence of brothels, bars and delinquency. The recruitment of minors for brothel activities is another great social problem that has to be addressed. It is estimated that there are about 400 teenagers being exploited in the so-called “prostibares”.

Another problem is related to the threat to the health of workers and people living in small villages surrounding mining areas, due to the absorption of mercury, arsenic and lead.

Aerial view showing how deforestation has altered the Amazon.

In addition, waste obtained from these heavy metals is thrown into the rivers, which is very concerning since the Amazonian population bases its diet on fish. Sixty per cent of fish that are consumed in Madre de Dios, have a mercury content above the permissible limits indicated by the World Health Organization.

The Carnegie Institute study also evaluated the residents of the city of Puerto Maldonado, where 78 percent of adults showed mercury levels in their hair three times the permitted limits.

The State does little to repress this illegal activity that is severely damaging one of the lungs of the world, poisoning its soil and generating social issues.

The police destroy the machinery used by illegal miners in the Amazon rainforest of Peru.

The government carries out some actions to combat this activity, but due to the lack of logistical and economic resources, it has not managed to halt it. When illegal mining areas are found, police destroy their machinery and equipment, but almost no one is arrested. However, the names of the “gold czars” that have yearly incomes of millions of dollars are well known, but that money is managed clandestinely, and is not part of the banking system. The economic power they have allows them to finance strikes against the government, opposing formalization.

We call the attention of world organizations to support to combat the deforestation of the Amazon, which is one of the few places in the world that is still home to unique wildlife and flora. It seems as if the lung of the world is doomed to disappear.

By: Víctor Mendoza Pérez

Torata is a small agricultural town in Peru, located only 6 km from the Cuajone minesite. Its people are very friendly and the town is well lit at night. In Torata, you can breathe pure air and enjoy crystalline streams formed from melting snowfall. One can drink the water directly out of these streams and breathe the fresh air that surrounds this beautiful town that seems to have stopped in time and where old customs are still upheld. People are very kind and very welcoming; if they see a stranger, they do their best to treat them well and feel welcome, no matter where the person comes from. Torata is definitely a piece of heaven, where one can enjoy delicious food, feel welcome, and where landscapes seem to have been taken from a science fiction movie.

What makes the existence of a town like Torata special? It is not the attributes mentioned above, nor is it its history or beauty! Torata, compared to the thousands of small towns that exist in Peru, is located only 6 km from a large minesite called Cuajone, as well as its mineral concentrator plant. The Cuajone minesite is mainly engaged in the production of copper and other by-products. The Cuajone minesite is one of the main copper producers in Peru, and has been operating for several decades.

Much is said on how mining and agriculture cannot go hand in hand, but this example of the Cuajone Minesite and Torata prove that wrong. To date, Torata has not registered any cases of pollution or diseases in its population due to a minesite and a concentrator plant situated so close. The relationship between the workers of the Cuajone Minesite and the inhabitants of Torata is excellent, and they have become strategic partners. People from Torata have improved their quality of life by having the opportunity to direct their businesses to the workers of the minesite, as well as their families. It is not uncommon for inhabitants from Torata to visit the mine campsite to offer their products for sale, such as cheese, honey, guinea pigs, wine, etc. It is not only the good relationship between the two parties that should be emphasized, but the fact that the workers of the minesite feel so identified with this small community (Torata) that, out of their own pockets, they support them during difficult times. It is admirable to see how the minesite workers and their families can comfortably walk in the village of Torata without the need for bodyguards or the fear of being attacked or be seen with contempt. It is quite the opposite, where both workers and family members are welcomed with open arms.

It is time to get rid of the myth that mining and agriculture cannot operate in the same area. Torata and the Cuajone minesite have proven coexistence possible. If mining companies operate responsibly and use the latest technology available, there would be no problems with the surrounding communities, and it would be easier to gain their trust. The next step is to definitively to make local communities feel part of the process and show them support. The only way to create a win-win scenario is to have an attitude of cooperation within the mining company towards the community and vice versa. Only then will we generate sustainable development and large investment for the benefit of all.

By: Víctor Mendoza Pérez

Indigenous people participate in topography works, opening roads for mining projects.

As in many countries in the world, creating new jobs in Peru is costly and depends on economic growth. In most mining projects in Peru, it isn’t possible to offer direct employment to all community members in the area-of-influence of a mining site. For this, Indigenous Communal Enterprises are created to provide employment to the majority of a local population.

The Supreme Decree No.004-92 TR of February 20th, 1992, which regulates economics in the general law of indigenous communities, has enabled mining companies and communities to reach agreements for the creation of jobs. These include the provision of goods and services to companies, for which they receive training and support for the operation of communal enterprises.

Since the Agrarian Reform Law was introduced in the 1970s, indigenous people joined indigenous communities to manage agricultural and livestock production. This phenomenon occurred only in areas where farms used to operate.

Most of the mining sites are located at altitudes that exceed 3,000 meters above sea level, where agricultural production is limited and only potatoes, oca, quinoa, etc. are cultivated. There is no large-scale cattle ranching; there are few herds of cows, sheep, alpacas and llamas. Under these difficult circumstances, indigenous people have to look for jobs in order to survive, and the presence of a mining project represents a great opportunity. One of the greatest difficulties is lack of mining training to be able to work in the production process, which is why companies train them – through a communal enterprise- to carry out minor jobs during the learning process. There are communal enterprises that already provide services for civil engineering works (construction of irrigation canals, small dams, transportation of minerals, transportation of personnel, among others).

Over the years, indigenous people have learned to use heavy equipment and now work in the mining site operating dumpers, drills, shovels, etc. Some of them have become experts in tunnel construction; others have been trained in maintenance of heavy machinery, welding, electricity and other activities involved in the production process. Peruvian mining companies recognize the importance of hard-working indigenous people who have contributed to Peru’s mining development for centuries.

Communal enterprises have become job generators for thousands of indigenous people in Peru. In the photo, Minera Milpo provided machinery to the communal enterprise of San Francisco de Asís de Yarusyacán, Pasco.

Due to the fact that there are only few indigenous people working directly for a mining company, communal enterprises have become very important. They serve as a generator of jobs and a source of economic income for thousands of indigenous families. There are areas where indigenous people encourage the presence of mining companies, such as Pasco, Apurimac, Amazonas. In Pasco (located 4,400 meters above sea level), there are mining sites that have been established since the colonial period (from 1600), where several generations of indigenous people have left the fields to work for a mining company.

Indigenous enterprises have become a project for the development of indigenous communities:

“The example of the Rancas Communal Enterprise of Multipurpose Services, which started operating 25 years ago, shows the capacity of community members from all over Peru, who, with their beliefs, customs, religions, etc., were able to agree on the clear idea of community development, invested a working capital and set up a business activity. We represent the communities who stopped protesting in order to formulate a proposal.”

Jhoel Rivera Santiago, President of the National Federation of Communal Enterprises of Peru and General Manager of the Rancas Communal Enterprise of Multipurpose Services (Cerro de Pasco)
in an interview with the Regional Communication Network

Women have also partnered to form small communal enterprises of goods and services. Some of them carry out cleaning tasks in the camps and offices, others provide laundry services and design safety clothing to sell to companies.

There are successful communal enterprises that turn over several million soles a year. Only a few have failed largely due to mismanagement of the enterprise concerned.

Communal enterprises sign contracts with mining companies through certain agreements, that allow them to guarantee permanent contracts and generate jobs for community members, who at the same time are partners of these enterprises. This represents a good example that can be replicated in other extractive, industrial and productive activities.

By: Víctor Mendoza Pérez

This is the second post in a two-part series focused on Indigenous community consultation best practices in the mining sector.

Community support is essential for the success of mining projects. Meaningful involvement of Indigenous Peoples in decision-making relating to project development is necessary to obtain and maintain indigenous community support, and must be based on respect for customary decision-making processes.

In some cases, it may be necessary to support the indigenous community in enhancing its capacity to participate in decision-making – for example, by providing access to independent resources for advice or funding for specific training or capacity-building activities.

It is advisable that companies strive to obtain the ongoing support of indigenous communities and, where applicable, their free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).

In cases where the anticipated impacts of a project are significant (including, for example, adverse impacts on cultural resources or the resettlement of indigenous communities), it is expected that Indigenous Peoples’ FPIC will be obtained prior to any development on their traditional lands.

The identification of significant adverse project effects typically occurs as environmental and social impact assessments (ESIAs) are conducted. In some cases, depending on the area covered by a project’s physical footprint, consent must be sought from more than one indigenous community.

International instruments and Indigenous Peoples’ rights

Indigenous communities have internationally recognized rights, which should be protected by governments and respected by companies.

The key international instruments developed to date are the ILO Convention 169 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). In addition, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard 7 requires companies to obtain the consent of Indigenous Peoples for the development of projects on their lands.

ILO Convention 169 has been ratified by many countries in the Americas (e.g., Brazil, Chile, Peru) and recognizes traditional use and occupancy of lands – rather than registration of ownership – as the basis for Indigenous People’s rights. The Convention requires governments to consult Indigenous Peoples before any exploration or development activities takes place, and stipulates that they should not be displaced from their lands; resettlement, where unavoidable, is only acceptable with the participation and consent of affected Indigenous Peoples.

UNDRIP, while not legally binding, received the vote of 143 countries in 2007 and is resulting in the incorporation of its principles into national laws. In Canada, the Supreme Court has ruled that consultation and accommodation with Aboriginal groups are required before any activities are conducted which may affect their rights or lands.

The role of governments and companies

The role of governments is crucial in the process of engagement with Indigenous Peoples.

Governments, not companies, are parties to UNDRIP and ILO Convention 169 and play an important role in determining whether a community is indigenous and in guiding the process for obtaining FPIC.

It is important to note, however, that Indigenous Peoples’ rights exist irrespective of recognition by the State – which is absent in some countries. It is now widely accepted that mining companies have a responsibility to respect human rights, and FPIC relates to a number of Indigenous People’s rights.

Indigenous perspectives

From the point of view of Indigenous Peoples, FPIC relates to the collective right of self-determination and collective decision-making. It is seen as fundamental to their rights over lands and resources, and involves consultation conducted according to indigenous culture.

FPIC is seen as consistent with customary practices which include asking for permission prior to entering – or having an impact on – Indigenous People’s territory.

It also recognizes indigenous decision-making processes and the right to accept or reject projects which will have effects on Indigenous Peoples. Furthermore, FPIC is seen as part of a set of principles relating to negotiating in good faith – via consultations free of intimidation and coercion and where the outcomes of negotiations are accepted.

ICMM’s position

Amongst the commitments made in the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) position statement of 2013 is the commitment by ICMM member companies to work to obtain the consent of indigenous communities for any new project developments located on lands traditionally owned or under customary use by Indigenous Peoples which may have negative impacts on them.

According to the ICMM Statement, consent processes should not confer veto rights or require unanimous support from project-affected Indigenous Peoples.

ICMM recognizes that FPIC is a process whereby Indigenous Peoples are:

• able to make decisions without intimidation, coercion, or manipulation;
• given sufficient time to be involved in project decision-making before impacts occur; and
• fully informed about the potential impacts (positive and negative) of projects.

The 2013 Position Statement acknowledges that where consent is not given, governments may still decide that a project should proceed under certain conditions. In those circumstances, mining companies must determine whether they are willing move forward with a project.

There are now a number of examples of leading international mining companies publicly stating that they shall not proceed with specific projects unless FPIC is obtained.

This is the first post in a two-part series focused on Indigenous community consultation best practices in the mining sector.

Following the release of its Position Statement on Indigenous Peoples and Mining in 2013, the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) has recently released the second edition of its Good Practice Guide on Indigenous Peoples and Mining. The Guide is an excellent resource and toolkit for mining companies and others interested in developing mutually beneficial relationships between companies and indigenous communities.

This article presents a discussion of some of the aspects highlighted in the guidance as well as reflections based on practitioner experience.

Indigenous community consultation requires sensitivity to cultural practices, governance structures, and to the priorities of indigenous communities and their leadership. It is not uncommon for indigenous community leaders to indicate – openly or tacitly – that they will only engage with mining companies or others “in their own terms”. In practice, this often means that the agenda, location, timing, and format of consultation meetings will not necessarily be determined by the engagement or consultation practitioners working on behalf of a mining company.

This makes it imperative for members of consultation teams to be highly adaptable, and to be prepared for unplanned meeting formats and agendas when engaging with Indigenous Peoples.

Initial engagement

The type of contact established by company representatives in their first interactions with indigenous communities often sets the tone for the community-company relationship throughout the life of a project. It is therefore critical that company personnel and contractors be prepared to engage in a culturally-sensitive, respectful, and open manner with members of the indigenous community from early on.

Companies must not:

• enter community areas without first obtaining permission;
• fail to explain what they are doing in the area (e.g., exploration activities);
• fail to allow sufficient time for the community to consider a request; or
• disregard local customs.

Good engagement practice includes from the outset:

• agreement on how the community is to be engaged;
• understanding and respecting entry protocols before entering specific areas (e.g., traditional lands);
• open and transparent communication;
• conducting risk analysis/impact assessment, and developing appropriate mitigations, prior to entering community areas;
• briefing all company representatives, including contractors, on local customs and the need for cultural sensitivity; and
• monitoring of engagement performance.

Understanding the local context

It is important to gain an understanding of the local context as early as possible in the engagement process (early stages of a project).

Typically this will be achieved through the collection of baseline information, which may include information about: demographics; ethnic composition as well as tribal and clan relationships/identities; land ownership and tenure as well as land claims; location of sacred sites or other sites of cultural significance; local livelihoods, including sources of food as well as degree of participation in formal markets; and reports about the community’s relationship with local/national governments and extractive companies.

Baseline data must include input from indigenous community elders, as their knowledge has legitimacy and they are often in a position to provide historical information regarding indigenous migration, tribal relations, sacred or other culturally relevant sites, and use of natural resources.

Recognizing the leadership

In many indigenous communities, community leaders and elders are regarded as the only members of the community with the authority to engage in discussions about resource development projects with outsiders.

Furthermore, there tends to be an expectation that important discussions or negotiations will be conducted between the indigenous leadership and senior personnel of mining companies – i.e., high-level discussions and negotiations are to take place “from Chief to Chief”. When engaging with indigenous leadership, it is therefore important to involve senior company representatives with decision-making authority – particularly in the negotiation of agreements.

This will be seen as a sign of respect and acknowledgement of the indigenous community leadership. However, it should not be automatically assumed that the community leadership represents all interests in the community.

Involving community members

Appropriate consultation – particularly in the context of a social impact assessment (SIA) – should involve a variety of members of indigenous communities.

Care must be taken to ensure participation by women and vulnerable groups within the community. This should be done in a manner which is respectful of the indigenous community’s leadership and decision-making structures.

Inclusive and non-discriminatory engagement from the early stages is essential. The participation of various groups within the community can be achieved via focus groups, interviews, rapid surveys, and other information-gathering and consultation methods.

Engagement and project planning

Engagement between mining companies and Indigenous Peoples should ensure that companies understand the indigenous communities where they wish to operate, and that Indigenous Peoples understand their rights and are well informed about the range of environmental and social impacts (both positive and negative) of mining operations on their communities.

Companies are expected to address the potentially negative impacts of their activities. To the extent possible, companies must make use of traditional and other indigenous knowledge and take into account Indigenous Peoples aspirations and concerns in project design and in the development of impact mitigation measures.

It is also expected that companies will strive to achieve the ongoing support of indigenous community members and, where applicable, their free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).

Image credit: David Amsler under Creative Commons 2.0

Resource development in the form of oil and gas extraction and mining has the potential to considerably change the lives of people in northern and Indigenous communities.

Exploration activity, drilling for oil, and mining have taken place for decades in the Canadian North as well as in other Indigenous communities, and an important number of major projects have been developed or proposed in recent years.

As large resource development projects move forward, leaders of northern (often Indigenous) communities may regard resource development as key for achieving their communities’ socio-economic development goals.

Increasingly, Indigenous communities are negotiating agreements directly with industry to ensure that local people benefit from resource development.

Environmental agreements negotiated between Indigenous people, governments, and industry can be seen as providing a means to ensure that Indigenous people participate in the environmental management of projects that can affect them.

Impact Benefit Agreements (IBAs) typically contain specific provisions for Indigenous training, employment and contracting opportunities, with companies making commitments in regards to maximizing employment and business opportunities for Indigenous people and typically providing funding to support workforce training activities.

In the context of environmental impact assessment (and, often, as an outcome of the negotiations of IBAs), provisions exist in the form of mitigation measures in order to minimize the effects of development activities on wildlife, fish, and so on, and – by extension – on traditional activities.

Impact Benefit Agreement implementation requires ongoing consultation between mining companies and representatives of indigenous organizations (often, specifically with the indigenous organization’s environment, economic development and/or human resource development departments).

A committee to monitor the fulfillment of commitments made in IBAs will typically be formed to drive forward the implementation; such committees involve representatives from the Indigenous community, the company, and various levels of government.

In some jurisdictions, where required under the terms of the IBA, ongoing consultation with relevant government agencies may be required – for example, in relation to progress made towards achieving specific targets as reported in quarterly, semi-annual, or annual reports.

Impact Benefit Agreement commitments

IBAs contain significant commitments and obligations regarding benefits to Aboriginal communities, and are generally negotiated when projects are ready to move to a development phase.

During exploration, agreements between companies and Indigenous communities tend to include fewer obligations than is typically the case in IBAs.

Typical company-community commitments made in IBAs include provisions for:

• priority in project-related hiring for Indigenous persons;
• development (training) of Indigenous workforce;
• preferential contracting of local/Indigenous firms;
• Aboriginal project employment targets (e.g., as percentage of total project workforce);
• investment in research and development; and
• measures to protect and minimize adverse project effects on wildlife.

Participation in Impact Benefit Agreement implementation

The implementation of IBAs requires the dedicated attention from socio-economic and community relations personnel of companies as well as their counterparts in Indigenous organizations responsible for areas such as economic development and workforce training.

In addition, committees and/or working groups comprising Indigenous community members may be formed to monitor the implementation of commitments made in the IBA, review detailed data relating to economic benefits accrued to the Indigenous community (including, e.g., contracts awarded to Indigenous-owned firms, Indigenous participation in training programs), and to provide recommendations regarding successful implementation.

While participation in IBA negotiations as well as in implementation often involve a relatively limited number of persons, monitoring reports and other information are shared with government and the affected communities.

A key aspect of IBA implementation is commitments follow-up and the extent to which these are fulfilled by the dates specified in the agreements; this is a crucial element for companies achieving success in gaining and maintaining trust and support of members of the affected Indigenous communities.

Image: Steven Petty under Creative Commons 2.0

The political landscape related to Indigenous legal issues in Canada is constantly evolving. These articles provide some great insight into some of the key topics.

Relations with Government

This is an interesting time for the developing field of aboriginal law, and the evolving relationships amongst First Nations, government and business in Canada.

With the recent change in federal government leadership, there has been speculation about the impact the Liberal majority will have on the development of a more collaborative relationship with Canada’s First Nations.

In October’s election there were a record ten aboriginal MPs elected, and a high voter turnout was recorded in First Nations communities.

The appointment of Canada’s first aboriginal federal Justice Minister, Attorney-General Jody Wilson-Raybould is seen as influential in demonstrating a positive  change in relations with First Nations. In this high-profile portfolio, in addition to advising the Prime Minister on legal issues across government, she will have influence over changing Canada’s relationship with First Nations.

Read Working Effectively with Indigenous Peoples’ blog post about how the federal government’s adoption of indigenous peoples terminology (and change in federal leadership) could affect Indigenous relations – and how this could impact resource developers.

Developing Partnerships – Legal Considerations

Another useful resource from Blakes Business Class delves into the key legal considerations in developing partnerships with First Nations.

The article lists key best practices recommended for getting your relationships set up on a strong legal footing and outlines the two main types of legal arrangements related to Indigenous partnerships:

Impact and benefit agreements

The First Nation agrees to support the issuance of government permits necessary for the project…This support provides increased legal certainty that the project will not get held up in court or in the regulatory processes that the project must undergo. In return, the business promises to provide benefits to the First Nation, typically in the form of revenue, contracts for the First Nation’s businesses, jobs for the First Nation’s members and other economic opportunities. While these sorts of arrangements were uncommon 10 years ago, they are now almost standard and increasingly expected by regulators and financiers.

Joint Ventures

The business partner provides experience, expertise and financial backing so the JV can bid on contracts with commercial credibility. The aboriginal partner provides local content legitimacy. Together, the JV can provide an attractive supplier for a project in the First Nation’s territory that needs the particular capability provided by the business partner but also wants to gain the support of the local community.

In order to establish a solid partnership (and before making commitments) it’s recommended that your organization conducts its due diligence and considers strategy and capabilities early on in the relationship building process.

Indigenous Law

The evolving field of aboriginal law advises organizations on impact and benefit agreements and other transactions such as resource revenue-sharing. 

This BC Business article discusses the high demand for Indigenous lawyers in Canada (and especially in BC) following a decade of landmark rulings on native rights.

This ongoing process of bringing clarity to ambiguity is one of the main drivers in the sudden emergence of indigenous law as a legal specialty. Virtually every major legal firm in the country now employs indigenous law consultants

Indeed, even though consultation with First Nations around resource projects is the legal duty of the Crown, it has become quite common for resource companies to negotiate impact and benefit agreements with First Nations.

Resource companies are often handling this work themselves in order to move projects forward, faster. The article details how proponents desire to build good relationships with First Nations and control their own projects

For more information on this subject check out our Best Practices for Documenting Indigenous Consultation E-Book which looks at the unique dynamics and best practices around the process of recording and documenting communications and interactions with Indigenous groups.

Image: Ruth Hartnup under Creative Commons 2.0

Developing strong relationships with First Nation communities is an essential part of any resource development project – and your team needs to work together with First Nations at the earliest stage of developing a plan.

Avoiding common mistakes

There are a number of First Nations consultation resources available to help your organization get off to a good start when planning your engagement with rights-holders.

Bob Joseph, President of Indigenous Corporate Training Inc., wrote a great post on the Working Effectively With Aboriginal Peoples blog about the common mistakes made when consulting with First Nations.

Joseph outlines 12 blunders companies make that can throw the consultation process off the rails, including:

Failure to start engagement at the earliest stage of your project

Introducing your company with a full set of plans is not a good way to initiate a relationship. Contact the community early and maintain a consistent communication system.

Sending the wrong person to represent your company

Don’t send someone who considers First Nation consultation a means to an end. Also, don’t send a junior person to meet with the Chief, especially in the initial meetings.

Having a revolving door of people representing your company

If there is a change in the consultation point person for the project, ensure the replacement person is fully up to speed before they go to the community.

Joseph cautions that there is no one-size-fits-all process for productive and effective consultation. Each project and each Nation has specific needs that must be taken into consideration when planning the consultation process.

Consultation and mining

A well-known resource has been recently updated by the Association for Mineral Exploration of British Columbia (AME BC).

The Aboriginal Engagement Guidebook: A Practical and Principled Approach for Mineral Explorers was updated in May 2015, and is directed towards prospectors and early-stage exploration projects.

The intent is to provide broad-based and pragmatic recommendations for working constructively within an ever-changing area of law, public policy, governance and business practice.

The guidebook includes the following:

• A summary of Indigenous history in B.C. and recent developments in government/Indigenous relations
• An overview of constitutional protection of Indigenous and treaty rights in Canada, and the legal principles of the Crown’s Duty to Consult
• Guidance on aboriginal engagement at different levels of exploration activity
• Recommended practices for carrying out effective Indigenous Engagement including building positive and effective relationships, and approaching engagement as a continuous process.

Contributors to the AME BC resource echo Bob Joseph’s caution that every project is unique and every First Nation that is affected by a project will have different expectations and different experiences. Therefore the book is presented as guide rather than a how-to.

Engaging First Nations is important to the success of an exploration or mining project. To be effective, engagement needs to be done early and often. Even if both parties don’t agree, you can agree to talk through your disagreements. Start early and keep at it and allow your relationship to evolve.

Engagement strategies

An infographic created by our team here at SustaiNet aims to help visualize some of the key elements of a First Nations engagement strategy.

One strategic dynamic that stood out for us while conducting our research was how important it is for organizational engagement teams to be acutely aware of environmental concerns and traditional land uses, which are essential for effective communication with First Nations.

Image: Jonathan Combe under Creative Commons 2.0

In February 2015, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) and the Indigenous Consultation Office (ACO) announced new procedures for First Nations Consultation in Alberta.

The Joint Operating Procedures for First Nations Consultation on Energy Resource Activities outlines new requirements for stakeholder consultation by organizations for oil and gas projects, and the administration and coordination of operations of the ACO and AER relating to any consultation.

The Government of Alberta established the Aboriginal Consultation Office (which reports to the minister of Aboriginal Relations) to manage all aspects of aboriginal consultation – including working with the Alberta Energy Regulator to ensure that all energy applications within their mandate have met all consultation requirements prior to the decision making process.

The operating procedures detail a framework for proponents to consult First Nations in Alberta, with the process being triggered by the type of consultation required by the ACO – no consultation; streamlined consultation; standard consultation; or extensive consultation.

Organizations whose project is identified by the ACO as requiring consultation must submit a First Nations impact and mitigation table along with their application to the AER. The table is intended to document potential adverse impacts, if any, of a proposed energy project on the existing rights of Indigenous peoples.

Is your organization facing challenges with AER/ACO First Nations reporting requirements in Alberta?

StakeTracker helps consultation professionals collect, manage and organize the type of data required to meet the reporting needs of energy regulators and Indigenous Relations government bodies – and simplifies the overall process of managing interactions and communications with Indigenous communities during the consultation process.

Contact us for more information about how StakeTracker can help your organization meet the new AER and ACO reporting procedures for First Nations consultation.

Image source: AER.ca