LAND LAWS ASSIGNMENT

ON

SIA-SOCIAL
IMPACT
ASSESSMENT

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY

PROF. KEHKESHAN DANIYAL MOHD OVAIS

SEC A 9TH SEM

 Acknowledgment
I am using this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who supported me
throughout the course of this dissertation. I am thankful for their aspiring guidance,
invaluably constructive criticism, and friendly advice during the project work. I am
sincerely grateful to them for sharing their truthful and illuminating views on a number of
issues related to the project.

Firstly, I would like to thank my Clinical Course-IV professor,PROF KEHKESHAN

DANIYAL, for giving me the opportunity to take on this dissertation, imparting valuable
knowledge about the subject, and paving the way towards the completion of the
dissertation.

Secondly, I would like to thank my parents whose constant support helps me through
everything I do and who are there to appreciate what is right and rightfully criticize what
needs to be improved.

Lastly, I would like to thank my friends for helping me sort out any confusion I had
during the course of this assignment.

This assignment would not have been possible without the help and support of the
aforementioned people.
CONTENTS

1. What is social impact assessment ( sia)

2. Why is sia important for indigenous peoples and the extractive industries?
3. Which international instruments require sia?
4. Sia in practice
5. 4 phases
6. What are the main challenges? Scope, timing and integration
7. Building shared understanding of issues and approaches
8. Enabling meaningful community participation
9. Building trust in the assessment process
10.Influencing outcomes
11.Recommendations
WHAT IS SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ( SIA)
Social impact assessment (SIA) is the process of identifying and managing the social impacts of
industrial projects. It can also be applied to policies, plans and programmes. SIA is used to
predict and mitigate negative impacts and identify opportunities to enhance benefits for local
communities and broader society. Central to the principles and practice of SIA is the
involvement of affected communities and other stakeholders in the process. SIA should inform
decision-making by government and companies from the early stages of a project. Equally
important is the role of SIA in the ongoing management of social issues throughout the whole
project cycle until decommissioning and closure. As such, the social management plan that
derives from an SIA is extremely important. SIA is also an essential foundation for community
agreements and in processes of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) conducted with
indigenous communities before the start of industrial development projects. This briefing
explores the core principles of SIA and the SIA requirements of selected international
instruments. It also considers some of the key challenges to implementing SIA in practice and
offers some recommendations for future practice.

Why is SIA important for indigenous peoples and the extractive industries?
SIA is an important tool to assess the social, economic and cultural impacts of industrial
activities on indigenous communities. This is particularly relevant for the extractive industries,
whose activities frequently encroach on the lands and waters that indigenous peoples depend
on for their traditional livelihood activities. An SIA identifies potential impacts on indigenous
titled lands and territories of customary resource use. As such, it helps to avoid potential
negative impacts on critical natural resources, such as water and forests, as well as impacts on
cultural resources, such as sacred sites. An SIA process also helps to identify ways that
indigenous communities could benefit from a proposed development, for example, through
infrastructure development, job creation or support for traditional enterprise, and should
enable residents of that community to shape the way the development moves forward.

SIAs are considered to be international good practice for managing the social impacts of
extractive industry projects, and are required by international financial institutions and
corporate policies, often in the form of an integrated environmental and social impact
assessment or ESIA. These are then translated into management plans for implementation
throughout the life of the project.

The process of giving or withholding free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) and the
negotiation of community agreements require accurate information about potential social
impacts and benefits of a project. An SIA is therefore an essential foundation for these other
processes.
Which international instruments require SIA?
The formal requirement for SIA originally arose out of the US National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) (1969), which required environmental impact statements for projects, policies, plans,
and programmes, incorporating a social element to the studies and requiring public
engagement (Burge and Robertson, 1990). The practices of environmental impact assessment
(EIA) and SIA have both evolved over the years and have been adopted globally.

EIA has since become a legal requirement in many countries, incorporating elements of SIA to a
greater or lesser extent (McCullough, 2016). In Canada, for instance, social issues are generally
incorporated into an EIA rather than carrying out a distinct SIA (Papillon and Rodon, 2017). In
Norway, SIA is not a mandatory requirement, but is sometimes carried out alongside an EIA,
particularly in cases where indigenous peoples’ issues are especially prominent (Ibenholt et al.,
2016). In Greenland, SIAs are a legal requirement of oil or mining companies in the planning
and exploration phases of development (Hansen et al., 2016). In Russia, a distinct form of
ethno-cultural impact assessment has been developed specifically for assessing the impacts of
industrial projects on indigenous communities – the anthropological expert review
(etnologicheskaya ekspertiza). This is written into national and regional legislation, but is only a
legal obligation in one region of the Russian Federation – the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia)
(Novikova and Wilson, 2017).

National legislation is not only inconsistent between countries; it also frequently fails to provide
detailed guidance on the requirements for SIA. In response to this and to the particular
requirements of certain constituencies, and in the light of industrial development trends,
international standards have evolved to provide protection especially for vulnerable
ecosystems and communities. Table 1 summarises the SIA requirements in seven selected
international instruments that influence extractive industry practice in relation to indigenous
peoples. The OECD Declaration on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises
(1976, last reviewed in 2011) is a policy commitment by all 35 OECD countries and 11 non-OECD
countries that have subscribed to the Declaration. A cornerstone of the Declaration is the
commitment to promote adherence to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
(1976, last revised in 2011), which include guidance relating to due diligence and environmental
impact assessment, focusing on environment, health and safety. The latest (2011) version of
the Guidelines incorporates a section on human rights, and states that enterprises should ‘carry
out human rights due diligence as appropriate to their size, the nature and context of
operations, and the severity of the risks of adverse human rights impacts’ (Chapter IV,
recommendation 5). The OECD has also produced detailed guidance on meaningful stakeholder
consultation (OECD, 2016).
The International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples
(1989) places the obligation on its 22 signatory governments to ‘ensure that, whenever
appropriate, studies are carried out, in co-operation with the peoples concerned, to assess the
social, spiritual, cultural and environmental impact on them of planned development activities’
(Article 7(3). These studies are expected to provide the foundation for the way that the project
is subsequently developed.

Article 14 (1a) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (1992) has a requirement for
each contracting party (i.e. the 149 states that have ratified the CBD) to:

Introduce appropriate procedures requiring environmental impact assessment of its proposed

projects that are likely to have significant adverse effects on biological diversity, with a view to
avoiding or minimising such effects and, where appropriate, allow for public participation in
such procedures.

The Akwé: Kon Guidelines (2004)2 were developed by the Secretariat of the CBD in order to
provide guidance for proponents of developments that are likely to affect sacred sites, land and
water bodies that are traditionally used or occupied by indigenous and local communities. The
Guidelines provide detailed guidance on conducting environmental, social and cultural
assessments.

The World Bank Group (including its private sector lending arm, the International Finance
Corporation or IFC) has been developing social safeguard policies since the 1980s, in response
to controversial lending issues such as dam construction that resulted in displacement of
communities. The IFC’s Environmental and Social Performance Standards (last updated in 2012)
require its clients (companies receiving finance from the IFC) to carry out an SIA as part of an
integrated environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) and as the basis for
environmental and social management plans for the life of the project (Performance Standard
1). This requirement applies to ‘all projects that have environmental and social risks and
impacts’ (Performance Standard 1, clause 4). In addition to these SIA requirements, IFC’s
Performance Standard 7 (Indigenous Peoples) requires the client to complete an indigenous
peoples’ development plan and to obtain the FPIC of affected indigenous communities if a
project is likely to have negative impacts on their livelihoods or territories. Required steps in
implementing an FPIC process (clause 14) include the documentation of efforts to avoid and
minimise impacts on indigenous land use and natural areas of importance to indigenous
peoples, and provision of appropriate compensation and benefit-sharing arrangements.

Other international financial institutions, such as the Asia Development Bank (ADB) and the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), also require SIAs for all projects
with social risks and impacts, and additional specific requirements for operations likely to affect
indigenous communities. The Equator Principles were launched in 2003 as a set of voluntary
principles for the private finance industry and include a commitment to follow the IFC
Performance Standards. The World Bank updated its Environmental and Social Framework in
2016, for the first time incorporating a commitment to FPIC.

The adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (2007) and
the growing international attention paid to indigenous rights and FPIC have further increased
the need to consider indigenous rights in SIA practice. According to Article 8(2), ‘States shall
provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for … [a]ny action which has the
aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources.’ The requirement
for impact assessment and further due diligence actions is also implicit in the requirement for
governments to seek the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples prior to the
approval of any project affecting their lands, territories and resources (Article 32(2)). The
former UN Special Rapporteur on theRights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya (2013, p.21)
has also emphasised that the state has due diligence obligations whether or not FPIC is a strict
requirement in a particular case:

[T]he State remains bound to respect and protect the rights of indigenous peoples and must
ensure that other applicable safeguards are implemented as well, in particular steps to
minimise or offset any limitation on the rights through impact assessments, measures of
mitigation, compensation and benefit sharing. … Companies should conduct due diligence to
ensure that their actions will not violate or be complicit in violating indigenous peoples’ rights,
identifying and assessing any actual or potential adverse human rights impacts of a resource
extraction project.

UNDRIP confirms indigenous peoples’ rights to ‘determine priorities and strategies for the
development or use of their lands and territories’ (Article 32(1)). The relevance of this clause to
SIA lies in the extent to which indigenous communities might determine the nature of the SIA
process and wider decision-making processes related to an industrial development, as
discussed below.

The adoption of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011) has brought
human rights due diligence to the centre of SIA practice, as well as the evolution of human
rights impact assessments (HRIA) as a distinct form of impact assessment (IFC, 2009; Abrahams
and Wyss, 2010; Natour and Davis Pluess, 2013; Felner, 2013; Götzmann et al., 2016; IPIECA,
2016). Principle 3 of the UN Guiding Principles requires governments to have in place
appropriate legislation and regulation to ensure business respect for human rights, and to
provide guidance, including on due diligence practices, as stated explicitly in the commentary.
Principle 15 states that companies should have in place a ‘human rights due diligence process
to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their impacts on human rights’.
This includes assessing impacts, acting upon the findings and communicating how impacts are
addressed. Principle 18 states that the impact assessment process should ‘[i]nvolve meaningful
consultation with potentially affected groups and other relevant stakeholders’. Principle 19
requires companies to ‘integrate the findings from their impact assessments across relevant
internal functions and processes, and take appropriate action’. Although the UN Guiding
Principles do not explicitly refer to indigenous peoples, the commentary to Principle 12 states
clearly that companies need to take into account other UN instruments that do relate to
indigenous peoples.

Industry associations and initiatives have also developed guidance on SIA and in some cases
specific requirements that are binding on their members. The International Council on Mining
and Metals (ICMM)’s Position Statement on Indigenous Peoples and Mining (2013) states that
its member companies commit to undertaking ‘social and environmental impact assessments or
other social baseline analyses’ to identify potential impacts on indigenous peoples and other
affected communities. The Position Statement emphasises the participatory and inclusive
nature of impact assessments and the importance of ‘building cross-cultural understanding
between companies and communities’. The UN Global Compact requires its member
companies to abide by ten principles, the first of which is to ‘support and respect the protection
of internationally proclaimed human rights’. The UN Global Compact’s Business Reference
Guide to UNDRIP (2013) references ILO 169 Article 7(3) in emphasising the importance of
implementing social, environmental, spiritual and cultural impact assessments as part of the
process of project-related due diligence.

SIA in practice
To provide guidance for implementing NEPA in the US, the Inter-Organisational Committee on
Guidelines and Principles for SIA developed the Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact
Assessment (1994), which were updated in 2003 (Esteves et al., 2012). The guidelines comprise
six principles focusing on: understanding local and regional settings; dealing with the key
elements of the human environment; using appropriate methods and assumptions; providing
quality information for decision making; ensuring that environmental justice issues are
addressed; and establishing mechanisms for evaluation, monitoring and mitigation. They
emphasise the value of incorporating local knowledge into decision making on projects,
policies, plans and programmes.

The International Principles for Social Impact Assessment (Vanclay, 2003) were subsequently
produced in broad consultation with practitioners and other experts. These were presented in a
discussion paper commissioned by the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA),
including a statement of the core values of the SIA community. The principles are meant to
provide a basis for participatory development of sector and national guidelines. They highlight
the goals of sustainability, equity, community development and empowerment, and the core
values of justice and human rights protection. They underscore theright of people to be
involved in decision-making on matters that affect their lives, and emphasise that the objective
of SIA is to contribute to positive change: ‘The focus of concern of SIA is a proactive stance to
development and better development outcomes, not just the identification or amelioration of
negative or unintended outcomes’ (ibid., p.6).

In 2015, building on the 2003 International Principles, the IAIA produced a comprehensive
guidance document, Social Impact Assessment: guidance for assessing and managing the social
impacts of projects (Vanclay et al., 2015). This document offers advice on good practice in SIA
for practitioners, project developers, regulators, communities and others. It incorporates a
section specifically focusing on indigenous, traditional, tribal and other land-connected peoples
(pp.16-18). Among other things the guidance emphasises the importance of respecting
indigenous peoples’ ability to say no to a project (whatever the legal requirements); respecting
legal and customary land rights and protecting sacred sites; and incorporating indigenous
values, interests and worldviews when designing baselines and monitoring programmes. The
2015 IAIA guidance identifies four phases of SIA (Vanclay et al., 2015, p.8) (see Box 1).

SIA practice has evolved particularly in the context of international projects in response to the
project finance requirements of the IFC and other international financial institutions. SIA and
EIA are frequently carried out as an integrated environmental and social impact assessment
(ESIA) or incorporating a health impact assessment (ESHIA). SIA has evolved from being a tool
for predicting impacts prior to development and now includes a social management plan and
related plans to monitor, evaluate, report, review and respond to change throughout the
project lifecycle (Franks, 2012). Depending on the nature and severity of project impacts, the
IFC might require a stakeholder engagement plan, a community health and safety plan, a
resettlement action plan, a local procurement plan (creating local jobs and business
opportunities), an indigenous peoples’ development plan, and a company-community
grievance mechanism. These documents need to cover the whole project cycle (including
decommissioning and post-closure) and should feed into a company’s internal management
systems. International good practice is for a company to establish an integrated management
system certified to the International Organisation for Standardisation’s ISO 140001 standard.4
A renewed SIA process is recommended at key project phases, including construction,
operations and closure (Vanclay et al., 2015).
4 phases
Phase 1: Understand the issues

1. Gain a good understanding of the proposed project.

2. Clarify all roles and responsibilities, including relationships to other studies being
undertaken; identify relevant national laws and/or international guidelines.

3. Identify the preliminary ‘social area of influence’ of the project, likely impacted and
beneficiary communities (nearby and distant), and stakeholders

4. Gain a good understanding of the affected communities by preparing a Community Profile

(stakeholders; sociopolitical setting; local needs, interests, values, aspirations; gender analysis;
historical experience; community assets/ weaknesses; optional opinion survey).

5. Fully inform community members about the project; experience from similar projects; how
to be involved in the SIA; procedural rights; access to grievance/feedback mechanisms.

6. Devise inclusive participatory processes and deliberative spaces to help community members
understand and evaluate impacts/benefits; make informed decisions; discuss desired futures;
contribute to mitigation and monitoring plans; and prepare for change.

7. Identify the social/human rights issues that have potential to be of concern.

8. Collate relevant baseline data for key social issues.

Phase 2: Predict, analyse and assess the likely impact pathways

9. Determine the social changes/impacts likely to result from the project and its alternatives.

10. Carefully consider the indirect (or second and higher order) impacts.

11. Consider how the project will contribute to the cumulative impacts on host communities.

12. Determine how the various affected groups and communities will likely respond.

13. Establish the significance of the predicted changes (i.e. prioritise them)

14. Contribute to design and evaluation of project alternatives, including no go and other
options.

Phase 3: Develop and implement strategies

15. Identify ways of addressing potential negative impacts (e.g. avoid, mitigate, compensate).
16. Develop and implement ways of enhancing benefits and project-related opportunities.

17. Develop strategies to support communities in coping with change.

18. Develop and implement appropriate feedback and grievance mechanisms.

19. Develop an Impacts and Benefit Agreement (IBA) between communities and developer.

20. Develop a social impact management plan to implement the IBA.

21. Establish partnerships (government, industry, civil society) for implementation/monitoring.

22. Develop and implement ongoing social performance plans

Phase 4: Design and implement monitoring programmes

23. Develop indicators to monitor change over time.

24. Develop a participatory monitoring plan.

25. Implement adaptive management and a social management system.

26. Undertake evaluation and periodic review (audit).

A key distinguishing feature of SIA is that it focuses not only on mitigating negative impacts, but
also on enhancing the benefits provided by a project. Community agreements, known variously
as benefit-sharing agreements, impact and benefit agreements (IBAs) or community
development agreements (CDAs), are frequently negotiated for extractive industry projects and
incorporate an analysis of impacts as well as an agreed plan for the distribution and
enhancement of benefits (Wilson, 2017). While twenty years ago the linkages between
agreement-making and SIA were first starting to be explored (O’Faircheallaigh, 1996), now a
community agreement is more frequently included into the main objectives of an SIA process
(Hansen et al., 2016; Vanclay et al., 2015).

SIA is seen as an essential foundation for a process of FPIC. For instance, the UN Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) and the UN Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination (CERD) have clarified that obtaining FPIC requires systematic impact
assessments to determine the extent to which indigenous peoples’ rights may be infringed
upon by extractive industry projects (Doyle and Whitmore, 2015). Esteves et al. (2012) believe
that with the rise in calls for FPIC, the purpose of SIA potentially shifts to being the process that
enables FPIC to occur, with the outcome being a negotiated agreement.

In practice, SIAs may differ in their detail from the outline provided in Box 1, but the phases of
the assessment tend to be the same. Increasingly, ESIAs and environmental and social
management plans are being made available online. This helps in understanding how they are
put together, and what kinds of issues emerge as thematic chapters in an impact assessment.
This is particularly useful in considering how a particular context might influence what is
incorporated into an ESIA (see Annex 1 for a list of projects and links to the online
assessments). Box 2 provides an indicative list of thematic sections that might constitute a
typical SIA.

In some SIAs ‘indigenous peoples’ might form a separate chapter, but in many cases it is better
if indigenous issues are addressed throughout, so as to encourage integrated consideration in
related management plans e.g. cultural heritage, as well as comparison of relevant statistics
(e.g. education levels, mortality rates).

In some cases a more targeted cultural impact assessment may be required. The Akwé: Kon
Guidelines (2004) were specifically aimed at protecting indigenous rights and traditional
resource use practices in the face of commercial interventions, including extractive industry
projects, that will have an impact on biodiversity. The guidelines include steps for carrying out
environmental, social and cultural impact assessments, and they advocate an integrated
assessment process incorporating all three of these elements. Clause 24 identifies the issues
that are of particular interest in a cultural impact assessment: Through the cultural impact
assessment process, and particularly during the screening and scoping phases, the issues that
are of particular cultural concern should be identified, such as cultural heritage, religions,
beliefs and sacred teachings, customary practices, forms of social organisation, systems of
natural resource use, including patterns of land use, places of cultural significance, economic
valuation of cultural resources, sacred sites, ceremonies, languages, customary law systems,
and political structures, roles and customs. The possible impacts on all aspects of culture,
including sacred sites, should therefore be taken into consideration while developing cultural
impact assessments

Elements of a cultural impact assessment • Consider possible impacts on continued customary

use of biological resources: The loss of genetic diversity that is maintained and fostered by such
customary use may lead to a loss of associated traditional knowledge, innovations and
practices. • Consider possible impacts on the respect, preservation, protection and
maintenance of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices: Due consideration should be
given to the holders of traditional knowledge and the knowledge itself. Customary laws
governing ownership, access, control, use and dissemination of traditional knowledge,
innovations and practices should be observed. Protocols should be followed regarding
disclosure of secret or sacred knowledge. In the event of such disclosure, prior informed
consent and proper protection measures should be ensured. • Establish protocols to facilitate
proper conduct on sacred sites and traditional lands: These may include behaviour when
visiting communities, particular sites, or when dealing with members of indigenous and local
communities. Protocols should respect regulations already existing under relevant national,
sub-national or community selfgovernment legislation. • Consider possible impact on sacred
sites and associated ritual or ceremonial activities: Project personnel should recognise that
many sacred sites, and areas or places of other cultural significance may have important
functions with respect to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and, by
extension, the maintenance of the natural resources upon which such communities rely for
their well-being. If a sacred site is likely to be affected, the assessment should include selection
of an alternative site for development, in consultation with the site custodians and the affected
community as a whole. Where no law exists to protect the site, the community may wish to
develop protocols regarding the site in the context of the proposed development. • Respect the
need for cultural privacy: Privacy should be respected especially with regard to important
rituals and ceremonies, such as those associated with rite-of-passage and death, and also to
ensure that the activities of companies do not interfere with the daily routines and other
activities of such communities. • Consider possible impacts on the exercise of customary laws:
If the development requires the introduction of an outside work-force, or requires changes in
local customary systems (e.g. regarding land tenure, distribution of resources and benefits),
conflicts may result. It may therefore be necessary to codify certain parts of customary law,
clarify matters of jurisdiction, and negotiate ways to minimise breaches of local laws.

What are the main challenges? Scope, timing and integration

It is well recognised that social impacts (unlike environmental impacts) start long before
project approval is required, even at the stage where the presence of a mineral resource is just
a rumour, or when a project is only anticipated (Vanclay, 2012). Perceptions and expectations
can lead to real consequences such as anxiety and tension (Burge, 2004). Therefore meaningful
community engagement, the gathering of social baseline data, and the management of social
issues need to start as early as possible, and continue throughout the project lifecycle.

The first activities of an extractive industry project to physically affect communities often relate
to exploration, especially if the development is to take place on land. This often means that the
company carrying out the consultation is not a major corporation but a smaller junior company
with less experience and fewer resources (IFC, 2014). Frequently such companies carry out
exploration with a view to selling the project on to a larger company later, and so have less
interest in building a long-term relationship with the community. SIAs are generally required by
law only prior to project construction, with some exceptions such as Greenland, which requires
an SIA for exploration activities (Hansen et al., 2016). Government regulation rarely requires
consultation for exploration activities, despite evidence that this could help to avoid community
tension and conflict (Wilson, 2016).
SIA is generally viewed as a one-off activity for the purpose of securing project approval
(including regulatory approval or FPIC). Yet it may not be possible to identify all project impacts
prior to the construction phase of a project, and some may arise later in project development
(Markussen-Brown and Simms, 2011). As such, SIA should be an ongoing element of
management plans and impact-benefit agreements, with new assessments carried out if there
are changes in project plans or if new issues arise in the course of project implementation
(Vanclay et al., 2015). Social management plans need to be flexible enough to accommodate
the results of additional studies and to modify practice in response.

Social management plans cannot be the sole responsibility of the project operator. During
construction, in particular, it is often the project contractors who are working closest to
communities and need to have heightened awareness and strategies to manage social impacts,
both predicted impacts and those that may arise in the course of the construction. International
good practice requirescontractors to develop their own social management plans to guide their
activities, and this involves good communication with (and accountability to) both the
communities and the project operating company (Wilson and Kuszewski, 2011).

A further challenge is the lack of consideration of the cumulative effects of multiple projects
taking place in the same area (Esteves et al., 2012; MarkussenBrown and Simms, 2011) or the
effects of a number of developments in one place over time bringing significant social and
economic changes and affecting people’s resilience (positively or negatively) (Ross, 1990). Many
SIAs (and ESIAs) cover only a single project, without a thorough analysis of the potential
cumulative impacts. Hansen et al (2016) identify the need for a comprehensive framework and
plan or regulatory strategy to evaluate and manage the cumulative effects of projects from the
earliest stages.

Building shared understanding of issues and approaches

Efforts by Vanclay and others to build shared understanding of terminology and methods have
had some success, notably with the publication of IAIA’s 2015 guidance document (Vanclay et
al., 2015). Further shared understanding has been developed as international financial
institutions have established a standard requirement for an integrated ESIA for projects with
significant environmental and social impacts. SIAs and social assessment guidelines developed
for different contexts tend to incorporate broadly comparable sets of activities. National
legislation is also evolving, including in countries less experienced with resource development.
For example, Greenland has incorporated the 2003 International Principles into law (Hansen et
al., 2016). SIA design and methods have evolved through the implementation of guidelines and
principles in practice. Companies and consultancies learn from and apply their own previous
experience, and increasingly this experience is being made accessible online (see Annex 1),
although this still does not constitute common practice. There is an emerging consensus around
the linkages between SIA, FPIC and community agreements, along with an understanding that
contextual factors will require a certain amount of flexibility in approach. Practices have
evolved further through protest, conflict and court cases (Doyle and Cariño, 2013).

Nevertheless, there is still some disagreement, or lack of understanding, about certain aspects
of SIA terminology and practice. SIA ‘effectiveness’ can be interpreted in different ways by
different people: for example, a company may see ‘project approval’ or a ‘social licence to
operate’ as the target outcome of an. SIA, while an indigenous community may consider
effectiveness in terms of the degree of control they have over the subsequent outcomes (e.g.
impact mitigation and creation of socio-economic opportunities) (O’Faircheallaigh, 2009). This
kind of fundamental mismatch of vision can greatly affect the SIA procedures, the weight given
to different risks identified in the assessment, and the nature of the management plans
established to manage longer-term outcomes. This also has an effect on the ‘social licence’, i.e.
the extent to which the project itself is accepted by the community.

There is also a great deal of variability around the implementation of SIA in practice. Much of
this relates to the influence of contextual factors; some of it relates to different requirements
and ways of working. The nature of an SIA written by a professional consulting company on
behalf of a multinational corporation will be different from one undertaken by a development
agency, or one commissioned independently by a community with much greater local
participation (Vanclay, 2003). The variability also relates to the levels of experience and
competence of the practitioners hired to implement the process, the lack of effective review
processes in many cases, and a tendency throughout the system for social issues management
to be taken less seriously than more technical environmental matters (Wong, 2015;
O’Faircheallaigh, 2009). The quality of social science and the results produced should not be
dependent on who pays the bills. Indeed, consultants generally have sufficient integrity not to
work to achieve the preconceived results of whoever has commissioned the assessments.
Unfortunately, though, this is the perception that many communities have when they are not
consulted or when consultants fail to take into account their needs, concerns and opinions.

Esteves et al. (2012, p.40) observe that ‘[o]ne of the barriers to innovative, positive
development outcomes is the limited understanding and skills of those who commission SIAs.’
There is often a lack of clarity about the purpose of an SIA, and the methods and assumptions
used are often unclear. Social and cultural issues are rarely prioritised adequately and SIA
findings are often poorly integrated with other elements of an ‘integrated’ ESIA.

The ability to source adequate data for the analysis also depends very much on the context. In
some jurisdictions it is difficult to find reliable public statistics or to use participatory methods
to involve the community in the assessment process. A starting point in addressing this
challenge is to work with local decision-makers and industry partners todevelop a common
understanding of the purpose of the ESIA before starting on the work – and seek to overcome
social and cultural barriers to participation from the outset, by explaining the purpose of the
close community engagement required. Yet even where community participation is socially and
culturally feasible, it is still rarely carried out to its full potential (see below).

Enabling meaningful community participation

According to the 2003 International Principles, and international good practice experience, SIA
is meant to be a participatory process. As Vanclay et al. (2015) note, the process of conducting
an SIA and developing associated plans is an iterative one: information from stakeholders is
incorporated into project planning and should influence decisions made. Even more desirable is
for the planning itself to be inclusive or participatory and for affected communities to have
control over the process of impact assessment and its outcomes (O’Faircheallaigh, 1996; Burge,
2004; Vanclay et al., 2015; Doyle and Whitmore, 2015).

It is widely understood that greater participation by local residents generates trust in the SIA
process and leads to better quality information and understanding about the community and
their aspirations and values, as well as potential impacts and development opportunities (Burge
and Robertson, 1990). The impact assessment process itself can be a way of developing
relations and trust directly between community and developer; yet it often fails in this regard
(Papillon and Rodon, 2017; Hanna and Vanclay, 2013). There is a lack of consistency in
standards and expectations of what public participation might entail, ranging from provision of
information and a space for public comment, to the active involvement of stakeholders in
shaping the SIA process and the inclusion of indigenous people in decision-making (Esteves et
al., 2012).

In a 1996 study, O’Faircheallaigh noted that indigenous people had often been excluded from
SIAs of projects or activities which affected them, or they had faced financial and cultural
barriers to effective participation and difficulties in having their values acknowledged and their
perspectives accepted as legitimate (O’Faircheallaigh, 1996). Even when it had taken place,
greater inclusion of indigenous people in SIA processes had failed to enable them to shape the
outcomes of development projects, reflecting a wider failure of decisionmakers to integrate SIA
effectively into decision making (ibid.). This state of affairs has not changed considerably over
the past 20 years (MarkussenBrown and Simms, 2011; Esteves et al., 2012).

ESIA consultations are often poorly adapted to indigenous cultures, because of their very
formal and often adversarial nature, as well as the dominance of formal scientific expertise and
the lack of translation during hearing processes (Rodon and Papillon, 2017). Hansen et al.
(2016) suggest that a consultation process needs to be led by an impartial consultation entity
rather than by the company itself or consultants selected by the company. While this may be
appropriate in some cases, it is also important for the process to encourage direct engagement
between company technical experts (not only their public relations experts) and local people in
order to address particular technical concerns (Wilson, 2012).

There may be reluctance to make the financial resources available or difficulties organising
logistics for the community to gather and hold consultations, especially if members of the
community are dispersed across a wide area practicing different types of livelihood activity
(Doyle and Cariño, 2013). Community consultation can result in ‘consultation fatigue’ among
communities and local governments, especially if there are multiple projects. This can be
addressed to a degree through joint surveys and engagement processes (Franks et al., 2009;
Hansen et al., 2015). Moreover, the institutional and legal arrangements in many countries tend
to favour developers. The rights of industrial companies are often given precedence in
negotiations or regulatory decisions. Indigenous peoples frequently need to bargain from a
position of disempowerment in order for their rights to be respected (Doyle and Cariño, 2013).

Indigenous communities have emphasised the importance of them not only participating in, but
also positively influencing the SIA process, for example by choosing the consultants,
determining the data to be used, the priorities to be set and the scenarios to be considered,
and employing methods that they can identify with (Ross, 1990; O’Faircheallaigh, 1996). Efforts
have been made to tailor consultation processes and research techniques to be culturally
appropriate and to enable maximum participation of the community, sometimes successfully,
for example, in public consultation processes related to the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline in
Canada (Nuttall, 2010; Novikova, 2014).

In some cases SIAs have been commissioned and led by indigenous groups themselves, often in
response to an inadequate impact assessment process, as a submission to a public consultation
(Ross, 1992; Chase, 1990). A framework for community SIA was developed in one aboriginal
community in Australia, which was facing gold mining development. The community, working
with a trusted external expert, chose

storytelling and oral history as a core method for conducting the assessment (Ross, 1990). This
served to identify spiritual ties to place and customary land use practices over time, and
provided a historical sense of the cumulative impacts on the community (ibid.).

There is growing experience of communities drawing up community protocols in advance of

negotiations relating to industrial projects, so as to establish the ground rules for engagement
and communication (Gibson Macdonald and Zezulka, 2015; Doyle and Cariño, 2013; Swiderska
et al., 2012). The process of developing this kind of protocol allows a community to build
consensus around their priorities and favoured consultation and decision-making processes in
advance of project development. For developers, a community protocol provides clarity about
matters such as appropriate procedures and who is to represent community interests.

Yet, even if a local community can take control of the ‘social’ elements of an impact
assessment, their interests may not be recognised adequately in the context of the larger
assessment process, within wider political and institutional structures and policy processes
(Markussen-Brown and Simms, 2011). Indigenous peoples often lack status in wider impact-
assessment and decisionmaking processes, and this status depends on the prevailing corporate
and government policies (O’Faircheallaigh, 1996). However, SIA nonetheless has the potential
to contribute to the realignment of political structures and the balance of power, not least due
to the process of information sharing, which can serve to empower communities (ibid.). The
increased use of social media worldwide also has great potential to influence the processes and
outcomes of SIAs (Bers et al., 2014).

Building trust in the assessment process

Over the past 20 years, despite evolution in SIA techniques and communication practices,
indigenous peoples (and other local communities) continue to express cynicism and a lack of
trust in SIA processes. Sometimes this is because they do not trust the consultants hired by
companies to carry them out, or because they feel that aspects important to them are not
recognised in the scientific approaches taken in the studies, or because they feel isolated from
the process altogether (MarkussenBrown and Simms, 2011). Indigenous communities regularly
challenge the conclusions of impact assessment processes and deny their legitimacy as
participatory decision-making processes (Papillon and Rodon, 2017). People may also lack faith
in the capacities of government to provide a neutral view on a project and to defend the
interests of the local community (Hansen et al., 2016).

Many of these challenges arise due to the lack of expertise among SIA practitioners (and EIA
practitioners responsible for managing the overall process of which SIA is an integral part).
From an indigenous peoples’ perspective, ESIA consultants may not take enough time to
understand and make plans to mitigate the impacts that are most important for indigenous
people themselves, or the significance of impacts may be underestimated by consultants
(Markussen-Brown and Simms, 2011). Even a desire for opportunities, such as job creation, can
be mistakenly assumed. For instance, while many people assume that local people want to
benefit from jobs created by a project, Hansen and Tejsner (2016) found that local
Greenlanders frequently want to continue their traditional way of life rather than taking jobs in
the extractive industries. This does not necessarily mean a local community will oppose a
project, as some people see that the ability of a project to enliven the wider economy, or
targeted support to traditional enterprises, are viable forms of extractive industry support for
traditional economies (Wilson, 2012).
The provision of information itself is often problematic. Companies may fail to provide accurate
or full information about a project and its impacts, while communication problems can arise for
communities when dealing with companies or governments due to language barriers,
differences in speech register, and differences in perspectives and worldviews (Doyle and
Cariño, 2013). It is important that information be provided in the language of the local
community and with respect for local traditions of information sharing (for example, in the case
of predominantly oral societies). However, translation of assessment documentation can be
very cumbersome and it may be better to combine summarised printed information with in-
depth question and answer sessions and focus groups. Communities need time to read, analyse
and understand any documentation provided. In some cases, civil society groups can help
communities to understand impact assessments but this cannot substitute for direct
engagement between community representatives and the experts who have prepared the
material (Wilson et al., 2016).

Influencing outcomes
According to the 2003 International Principles, SIA is meant to help decision-makers understand
the potential social consequences of their decisions before making them, and to enable
indigenous and local communities to participate in shaping project outcomes. Yet these goals
are rarely achieved by an SIA process (Hansen et al., 2016). O’Faircheallaigh (2009) concludes
that SIA can be effective only if its political nature is recognised and appropriate strategies are
developed, and if its findings and recommendations can be adequately translated into action,
not just through project approval, but by influencing project performance on an ongoing basis.

Indigenous commentators are concerned about the risk that the mitigation measures designed
during an ESIA will not be adequately implemented during project construction, operation and
decommissioning (Markussen-Brown and Simms, 2011). To address this risk, international
financial institutions such as the IFC employ a system of regular audits of projects likely to cause
significant environmental and social impacts. The ESIA is translated into a series of actions plans
and progress on developing these is audited several times a year by auditors representing the
interests of the lenders.

In general, an impact assessment alone is not sufficient to create and build a relationship
between indigenous communities and companies, or to provide an adequate foundation to
secure the support (or the consent) of an indigenous community if there is no guarantee that
they will succeed in shaping the actual decision-making process (Vanclay et al., 2015; Papillon
and Rodon, 2017). Increasingly the negotiation of community agreements is therefore seen as
an important step in an SIA process. This enables the community to negotiate the next steps,
and sets a framework for ongoing management and monitoring of impacts and the delivery of
benefits.
There are other forms of influence that indigenous communities can employ to ensure that a
project follows up on the commitments in an SIA, or more broadly the human rights and
indigenous rights commitments established in international instruments. An SIA process,
particularly where it leads to a community agreement, can serve to balance power relations,
but it can also have the opposite effect and limit the power of an indigenous community.
O’Faircheallaigh (2013) observes that if communities are in a weak position or are unable to
exploit opportunities offered through the SIA and community agreement processes, they can
end up being worse off than before, as the signing of an agreement might preclude other
avenues for influencing project outcomes, such as litigation or direct action.

Recommendations
Social impact assessment (SIA) is a participatory process of assessing and mitigating the
negative impacts of a project and identifying and creating positive opportunities. It has been
evolving since the 1970s; good practice is increasingly well understood and is being
incorporated into international standards and national legislation. Where practice falls short is
often in relation to the extent of local community involvement in providing insights, gathering
data and setting priorities for an SIA; in the data analysis and development of conclusions; and
in setting the framework and next steps to influence overall project outcomes in the longer
term. The process is inherently political, as well as technical, and a key challenge is to balance
power relations in the engagement and decision-making processes.

Practical recommendations that arise from this analysis include the following:

• Community engagement and analysis of social issues should start early: Social impacts are
there from the earliest stages of a project, even when the rumours of a possible development
start in a community. It is therefore essential for engagement and analysis of impacts
(including community tension, anxiety, the building of expectations) to be well understood by
those seeking to promote and implement a project. Government legislation should incorporate
a requirement for community consultation at the phase of exploration, something which is
surprisingly rare in regulations. Incorporating social assessment more into strategic planning
processes would be also a good way to ensure that social issues are highlighted in the earliest
stages.

• SIA needs to be integrated effectively into wider assessments and decision-making processes:
An SIA is frequently carried out as part of a wider ESIA or as an additional requirement to an
EIA. The social element needs to be taken as seriously as the environmental element, in the
way it is funded, written and produced, and in its status for policy planning and decisionmaking
on further steps. Cumulative impacts need to be considered at the stage of strategic planning
and project level impact assessment, from a geographical and historical perspective. Elements
of cultural impact assessment should also be incorporated into SIAs in indigenous communities,
or separate (and integrated) cultural impact assessments carried out.

• SIA is most effective as the basis for long-term plans and agreements: Good practice requires
social management plans to be implemented over the life of an oil, gas or mining project,
including decommissioning and post-closure. It is not enough to gather information and assess
impacts on a one-time basis, and there needs to be flexibility in the system for repeated
assessments, as required, and for these to lead if necessary to changes in practice. Increasingly,
SIAs are leading directly to community agreements and are seen as an important foundation for
a process of free prior and informed consent (FPIC).

• There is a need for greater control by indigenous communities over SIA and related decision-
making processes: It is well-understood that participatory processes provide better
information, create trust and reduce risks. Participatory processes require greater involvement
of affected indigenous communities in the setting of priorities, the choice of consultants, in
supporting the data gathering and analysis, and in agreeing solutions and the nature of the
future development. Indigenous communities might also commission their own impact
assessments, implemented through a combination of trained local impact assessment experts,
local resource users, and carefully selected external experts.

• Transparency and accountability are essential elements of an SIA process: The availability of
SIAs online has helped a great deal with learning among the practitioner community, and in
establishing shared standards and practices. For communities, it is often more important to
have information in a more accessible form, in local languages, often with a combination of
written summary documentation and face-to-face meetings to discuss the findings and next
steps. It is important that commitments made in an SIA are transparent, so that affected
communities can later hold companies and governments to account. Negotiated agreements
are one way to ensure a greater degree of commitment, provided communities have been
given enough leeway for genuine negotiation. Independent audit of social management plans
can also serve to ensure delivery of the commitments made.
References
A. Legal documents and standards

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (1992) https://www.cbd.int/convention/text/

Equator Principles http://www.equator-principles.com/

International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples in Independent Countries (ILO 169) (1989)
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_I
D:312314

International Finance Corporation (IFC) Environmental and Social Performance (2012)

Standards http://www.ifc.org/performancestandards

B. Papers and reports

Abrahams, D. and Wyss, Y. (2010) Guide to Human Rights Impact Assessment and
Management. Washington: International Finance Corporation, UN Global Compact and the
International Business Leaders Forum.
http://www.globalgovernancewatch.org/docLib/20140206_hriam-guide-092011.pdf

Anaya, J. (2013) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James
Anaya: Extractive industries and indigenous peoples. UN General Assembly. Report No.
A/HRC/24/41.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session24/Documents/A-HRC-24-
41_en.pdf

Bers, C., Krywkow, J., Bakkes, J., Vinke-de-Kruiif, J., Hordijk, L. and Pahl-Wostl, C. (2014)
Enhancing social impact assessment methods. In TIAS Quarterly, Vol.1 (2014). Osnabruck,
Germany: The Integrated Assessment Society.

Birley, M. (2012) Health Impact Assessment: Principles and Practice. Oxford: Routledge.

Burge, R. and Robertson, R. (1990) ‘Social impact assessment and the public involvement
process.’ In Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol.10, pp.81-90.

Burge, R. (2004) The concepts, process and methods of social impact assessment. Wisconsin,
USA: Social Ecology Press.