Every resource decision reflects competing visions of what land is for. Extractors see deposits to develop. Conservationists see ecosystems to protect. Indigenous peoples see territories with relationships predating either perspective. Local communities see homes, livelihoods, and futures. Whose vision prevails—and by what process—determines what happens to lands and waters. The question of who decides is as important as what is decided.
Current Decision Processes
Environmental assessment processes structure major resource decisions. Proponents submit applications; regulators evaluate impacts; decisions are made. Public participation occurs through comment periods and hearings. These processes aim to balance development with environmental protection through technical analysis and formal procedure.
In practice, power imbalances pervade these processes. Well-resourced proponents can marshal expertise that communities can't match. Regulators may be captured by industries they regulate. Timelines and formats favor those with institutional capacity. The formal equality of participation masks substantial inequalities.
Government authority determines outcomes. Ministers make final decisions; cabinets approve or reject projects. Electoral politics and economic interests shape these decisions. Communities and ecosystems affected may have little actual influence over outcomes affecting them most directly.
Whose Interests Count
Benefit and cost distribution is uneven. Resource projects generate profits that flow to shareholders, often distant. Employment benefits local workers but may not compensate for other losses. Environmental costs fall on ecosystems and communities that host projects. This distribution raises justice questions that processes often don't address.
Future generations have no representation. Decisions about long-lived resources and permanent environmental changes affect people not yet born. Current decision processes discount the future; those who will live with consequences don't vote on decisions creating them. Intergenerational equity is acknowledged in principle but rarely operationalized.
Non-human interests are barely considered. Ecosystems and other species are affected by resource decisions but have no standing in decision processes. Environmental protection laws offer some proxy representation, but the standing of nature itself remains contested and minimal.
Indigenous Rights and Title
Indigenous rights add complexity that standard processes inadequately address. The duty to consult requires governments to engage Indigenous peoples before decisions affecting their rights. But consultation isn't consent; projects can proceed over Indigenous objection. The gap between consultation and meaningful Indigenous authority remains contentious.
Free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) offers a higher standard. FPIC would require Indigenous agreement before projects proceed on their territories. Canada has endorsed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which includes FPIC, but implementation remains unclear. What FPIC means in practice is still being contested.
Indigenous law provides its own decision frameworks. These may differ fundamentally from colonial law—emphasizing relationships, responsibilities, and long-term thinking that short-term economic analysis doesn't capture. Recognizing Indigenous law would transform resource decision-making, which is precisely why recognition is resisted.
Alternative Approaches
Social license to operate goes beyond legal permits. A project may be legally approved but face community opposition that makes it difficult or impossible to proceed. Protests, blockades, and sustained resistance can effectively veto projects that formal processes approved. Social license acknowledges that legitimacy extends beyond legal authority.
Consent-based decision-making would shift authority to affected parties. Rather than government deciding over community objection, communities would have veto power. This approach is advocated particularly for Indigenous territories and frontline communities. Opponents argue it gives minorities disproportionate power over broader interests.
Rights of nature frameworks give ecosystems legal standing. Rivers, forests, or regions could hold rights that courts would enforce. This approach has been implemented in some jurisdictions internationally. Applying it in Canada would fundamentally change how resource decisions are made.
Sustainability Transitions
The tension between sustainable and extractive approaches may be sharpening. Climate change imperatives conflict with fossil fuel development. Biodiversity crises conflict with land conversion. What was once framed as balance may increasingly become choice. If extraction and sustainability can't be reconciled, which prevails?
Economic transitions complicate decisions. Communities dependent on extraction fear transition costs. Workers with extraction skills may not transfer easily to alternatives. Just transition frameworks attempt to address these concerns, but their adequacy is contested. The human dimensions of resource decisions extend beyond environmental assessment.
Different futures are possible. Continued extraction under current frameworks extends present patterns. Transformed decision processes could produce different outcomes. The question of who decides is ultimately about what future we're deciding toward.
Questions for Consideration
Should affected communities have veto power over resource projects, or should broader interests prevail?
How should Indigenous rights and title be operationalized in resource decision-making?
What role should future generations have in decisions affecting them?
Should ecosystems have legal standing in resource decisions?
How can decision processes better balance competing interests and values?