CONSULTATION GUIDELINES IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE

1. CONSULTATION GUIDELINES IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE June 2007

2. GUIDELINES DEVELOPMENT AND ROLE OUT • Policy May 2005 • Draft framework for Guidelines released December 2005 • Final Framework and first draft guidelines released May 2006 • Final guidelines released September 2006 • Public information sessions in 4 locations involving 500 participants in September 06

3. GOA IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS • Staff orientation and training August through December 2006 • Staff knowledge survey fall 2006 • Review of staff requirements and submission on additional resources fall 2006 • Documentation requirements clarified • Issues management process established

4. FIRST NATIONS RESPONSE • Varied response across the province by individual FN • Political statement of rejection and request for a model based on a requirement for FN consent prior to development approvals and compensation when development occurs in FN traditional territory • Emergence of “Consultation Fees”

5. FIRST NATIONS PRACTICES • Some FN’s approach consultation as information sharing and opportunity for dialogue with industry • Outcomes sought are mitigation of impacts and opportunity for economic benefits to the FN through direct involvement in the project

6. FIRST NATIONS PRACTICES • Other FN’s are demanding that all development in their traditional territory be subject to their review and approval • Outcomes sought are a model based on consent, FN control of development and compensation paid to the FN by government and industry

7. RESPONSE FROM INDUSTRY • Increased contact by most companies with FN’s • Growing awareness of the requirements of the policy and guidelines on industry • Constant flow of information from industry to government through CAPP and GAG

8. GENERAL INDUSTRY CONCERNS • Consistency of delegation by GOA • Consultation Fees • Role clarity vis-à-vis GOA and EUB • Traditional territories definition and overlap

9. RESPONSE FROM GOA STAFF • Some uncertainty on how to decide when to delegate • Some uncertainty on the, “adequacy of consultation”, decision making process • Uneven levels of knowledge and skill in managing the consultation process

10. GOA STAFF CONCERNS • Work load impact • Legal risk issues • Impact on government’s role as the manager of all public lands in Alberta • Impact on the role of all statutory decision makers

11. Land Management Decision Making Government Responsibility First Nations Responsibility Consultation = Participation in Decision Making Consultation ≠ Control Consultation ≠Co-management

12. FRAMEWORK MEASURES OF SUCCESS • Engagement by all parties in the process • Reduce adverse impacts on rights and traditional uses • Timely review of project specific consultations • Focused review on projects with the highest potential to impact FN’s

13. FRAMEWORK MEASURES OF SUCCESS • Increased access to and use of Traditional Use data in the decision-making process • Information and plain language documents provided to FN’s in a timely manner • Timely response from FN’s • Meaningful engagement of FN’s in planning processes • Impacts are avoided, mitigated or accommodated where appropriate

14. NEXT STEPS • Ongoing issues management • Work with FN’s on “47 Assessments” to clarify when and who to consult • Provide GOA response to the Fees and charges issue • Establish some clear expectations on time lines for the consultation process

15. NEXT STEPS • Modify the guidelines based on the feedback and analysis effective July 1st 2007 • Monitor implementation and review in June 2008 • Review Policy 2009