AUGUST 20, 2026
By Giuseppe Amatulli, Assistant Professor in Indigenous Governance, University of Quebec, ENAP (École Nationale d’Administration Publique)
The shift to a low-carbon economy, intertwined with the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, has posed new emphasis on meaningfully engaging affected groups when undertaking natural resource exploitation projects. This is particularly true when it comes to Indigenous peoples, who are disproportionately affected by climate change and resource exploitation on their lands and territories. Including Indigenous peoples in conversations regarding the exploitation of their traditional lands, where natural resources are found, signal a change in how business is done, also following the adoption of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. It also highlights an important shift in national economic and political forums after decades of significant developments in international law (and in national jurisprudence), culminating with the adoption (and early implementation) of UNDRIP, as in the case of Canada.
Historically, engagement has been used to bridge a divide between the public’s expectations and the operational reality facing decision-makers, with the success of one engagement and the failure of another often being framed by public perception. But what does it mean to meaningfully engage Indigenous peoples in resource exploitation (or project development) in Canada? For some, meaningful engagement is about sharing risk and opportunities, with equity partnerships now becoming the new standard when it comes to working with Indigenous Nations, as demonstrated by three recently approved wind farm projects in central and Northern British Columbia. For others, meaningful engagement is about fostering economic reconciliation; thus, having Indigenous-led development projects proposed, owned and built by Indigenous Nations. Such is the case for the Cedar LNG Project, the KSI Lisims LNG Project (that will provide LNG to Germany, according to the agreement signed in May 2026), and the First Nations Natural Gas Alliance, among others. As pointed out by Karen Ogen, CEO of the Alliance: “There are very many views of what reconciliation means. Here at the Alliance, we tend to focus on the economic aspects – but many reconciliation outcomes are connected. In fact, I think reconciliation goals such as individual and community sustainability and wellness are linked to economic development and governance.”
No matter how meaningful engagement is defined; in the last decade, it has been established that engagement with Indigenous peoples cannot be meaningful if it is done without the objective of building trust and relationships. Engagement and consultation have different features and may serve different objectives. Whereas the former doesn’t always require consent to be given at the end of a certain process, being based on open dialogue and ongoing relationships; the latter, highlights the obtainment of consent as the best possible outcome of any consultation processes. As enshrined in part 3 (7) of the 2018 BC Environmental Assessment Act, “[…] a reviewable project may not, without the consent of an Indigenous nation, proceed (a) on treaty lands if the final agreement with the Indigenous nation requires this consent, or (b) in an area that is the subject of an agreement, between an Indigenous nation and the government, that (i) requires this consent, and (ii) is prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.” It is also important to highlight that some Indigenous groups might not want to give their consent to a project too early in the process; while meaningful engagement needs to take place as earliest as possible and, ideally, before talking about any specific project.
The possibility that Indigenous people give or withhold their Consent (as established in UNDRIP through FPIC) then is key to have well-defined consultation processes while promoting meaningful engagement by developing new engagement models that are “inclusive of Indigenous worldviews that may well move beyond First Nations as stakeholders needing to be empowered, to models framed in terms of self-determination or nationhood.” A key component of consent lies in the recognition of Indigenous self-determination, which needs to be done by the government (at the federal and provincial level in the case of Canada), before any discussion of a project begins. As enshrined in articles 3 and 4 of UNDRIP, Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. In the preamble of the UN Declaration Act (UNDA), passed by the Canadian Parliament on June 21, 2021, with the objective of implementing UNDRIP within the Federal legal framework, it is recognised that “all relations with Indigenous peoples must be based on the recognition and implementation of the inherent right to self-determination, including the right of self-government”. In theory, by recognising the inherent right to self-determination, the Government should also recognise that Indigenous peoples in Canada can give or withhold their consent to a project. In practice, the full implementation of Consent is more problematic.
Another key component of meaningful engagement is pre-engagement, which means developing early relationships while gaining the trust of the Indigenous people involved in a specific project. For Doig River First Nation (DRFN) in Northeastern British Columbia, for example, being pre-engaged is the ideal way of initiating any meaningful relationship with potential proponents. Pre-engagement helps to prepare rights-holders, as affected stakeholders, to participate in a decision-making process through formal and meaningful consultations processes. As highlighted during an interview with a DRFN member, who said “I think if companies would come out here and talk to the people, having no agenda, just showing up and hanging out and having a conversation, that would be appreciated. Like, it doesn’t always have to be real business. I think just like, showing up and being like, ‘hey, I brought coffee to spend time together’, that is probably part of building trust and relationships.” This is an important step for proponents, not only to pre-engage and build the relationship with First Nations, but also to understand the impact a project might have on members’ lifestyles and the Nation’s goals for the future.
In several cases though, proponents and government staff may not have the cultural capacity to hear the voices of community members. There is still an attitude by some companies and government agencies to visit the community and expect to receive consent to a project after a few visits; thus, reducing the engagement process to uncomfortable visits that do not produce any meaningful results. As explained to Amatulli and Nelson, “Engagement is not just coming in, sitting in a boardroom with the Lands office and that’s it. Engaging with members is much more complex. Industry needs to come out and take the time to connect with people. And that’s important for us as well, as we take the time to learn about, you know, where do people traditionally hunt? Where does each family spend their time? What areas are more important?”
To engage meaningfully, it is important to shift from a transactional approach to a relational approach, as demonstrated by the recent relationship agreement signed between DRFN and Tourmaline Oil Corp. The partnership reflects a commitment to respectful, long-term relationships that ensure that Indigenous voices are meaningfully included in resource development and decision-making. As DRFN values partnerships that align with the Nation’s cultural values, stewardship of the land, and priorities as a Nation; Tourmaline’s support of DRFN K–12 education initiatives directly strengthens the community, as education for Doig children and youth remains a top priority and a foundation for future generations. Likewise, the project “The forest holds the knowledge of our ancestors“, developed in partnership between Shell Canada and DRFN, aims to restore 54 hectares of forest around 100 kilometres north of Shell’s Groundbirch natural gas operations.
Whereas proponents and governments tend to prioritize efficiency and predictability, leading them toward standardized, procedural approaches to consultation; First Nations assert engagement as a relational and governance-based process that reflects their values, priorities, and responsibilities to the land. A relational approach to engagement is then central to meaningful consultation and engagement of Indigenous peoples in decision-making. In such a context, the possibility for a Nation to give or withhold consent to a project is the way forward for a true meaningful engagement. Consent should not be intended as something that ought to be obtained from Indigenous peoples; rather, as something that Indigenous peoples “co-create”, together with other actors and citizens who meaningfully engage with them (which is also known as co-creation, in scholarly circles). This is the important shift that needs to happen to have Indigenous people in leading roles. Without it, engagement and consultation are reduced to a transactional “box-ticking” exercise.
Contact:
Giuseppe Amatulli – Giuseppe.Amatulli@enap.ca
Contribution from BhA editorial team: Simon Batterbury (Uni Melbourne), Emma Wilson (ECW Ltd), Gertrude Saxinger (Uni Graz & Austrian Polar Research Institute APRI), Marlene Auer (Uni Vienna & Graz)
For more on this topic watch the recording of BhA Webinar #5 – “Meaningful stakeholder engagement in resource extraction”, which features Giuseppe Amatulli as a speaker.
