Historical and cumulative effects must be understood in order for the "One Project, One Review" policy to be effective in relation to indigenous jurisdiction in IA.
In Canada, the principle of “one project, one review” is intended to reduce duplication and encourage cooperation between federal, provincial, and Indigenous jurisdictions in impact assessment, but shared jurisdiction does not necessarily mean a shared understanding of impact. A major pitfall is that assessments can focus on immediate and measurable project effects while overlooking the historical, cumulative, socioeconomic, cultural, and health impacts experienced by Indigenous communities.
Legislated assessment timelines demands that reviews move quickly toward decisions, yet these timelines can be fundamentally incongruous with Indigenous approaches to decision-making. Meaningful engagement may require time for communities to discuss issues internally, seek guidance from Elders and knowledge holders, build consensus, and fully understand the potential consequences of a project. Compressing IA into predetermined regulatory timelines turns consultation into a procedural requirement rather than meaningful participation.
“One project, one review” must therefore not become “one project, one isolated assessment” conducted on a predetermined schedule. Effective jurisdictional sharing requires Indigenous knowledge, community history, cumulative effects, a sound understanding of previous impacts, and Indigenous definitions of impact to meaningfully shape the assessment. True sharing should extend beyond responsibility for conducting the review to include the authority to define what constitutes an impact, what evidence matters, and what constitutes an acceptable outcome.
David Easton - Community Resource Development Coordinator with the Lands and Resources department of Mushkegowuk Council, the tribal council serving 7 first nations along the Hudson's and James Bay Co