1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
The foundations, advantages and challenges of the issue-based approach in environmental and social impact assessment were presented following the work carried out as part of the AQÉI's Better Communicating Environmental Assessments Project. Its potential to improve transparency, public understanding and government decision-making was highlighted.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
The issue-based approach is clearly a way to go, as well as the integration of new digital tools to make environmental assessment reports more accessible to the public and useful to decision-makers.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
There is a strong tendency on the part of several government authorities to shorten impact studies, or even to circumvent them. Practitioners respond by introducing innovations that always maintain scientific rigor more effectively while making impact study reports more accessible to stakeholders and more useful to decision-makers. In doing so, it helps to fight against misinformation and to establish a bond of trust with the actors in the field.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
It is not only a question of presenting the issues in the report, but they must be considered in the design of the project that is the subject of the report. Projects are complexes. Information is abundant. The issues to consider are those that inform decision-making, otherwise we drown out the essential.
The description of natural and human environments must be related to the issues at stake.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
The issues must be identified, analysed and presented. The proponent must identify potential issues at the beginning of the project, eliminate unconfirmed issues, and retain project issues. Some of these issues will be addressed through avoidance and mitigation. Among the residual issues, some will be decision-making issues.
A good environmental assessment is not about telling everything... but to say what really matters. The issue-based approach is a way of bringing order to the complexity of a case.Moving from a logic of accumulation... to a logic of discernment. We no longer try to cover everything; we identify what is decisive. We no longer treat everything in the same way, we prioritize information. We don't just aim to document; we aim to inform the decision.
It is possible to clearly present with the help of tables the links between the valued components of the environment, the issues and the principles of sustainable development.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
It is recommended that decision-makers focus on the improvements made to the practice of conducting impact studies and environmental regulations to speed up and streamline the authorization process rather than trying to circumvent the regular regulations through specific processes that are too expeditious for projects said to be of national interest or urgency.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Misinformation is itself a major source of impacts that people experience, heightening distrust and anxiety.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Be in person with communities and potentially affected people. Build trust.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
The workshop session could have been longer. We ran out of time to debrief fully on participants' analysis of how to attack vignettes/scenarios that we presented groups with. That suggests a need for covering this topic across two sessions or in a professional development workshop (which will be proposed for 2027). Ties of PSIA to assessing cumulative impacts - a topic of enduring interest in IAIA - are becoming more evident. Making those ties more explicit could be a draw card for future PSIA sessions.
Within the audience, there seemed to be those who would want to undertake PSIA, those who see evidence of psycho-social impacts in their social impact assessment, and those who would want to commission PSIA or who need to respond to psycho-social impacts.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
More practitioners and assessors are recognizing the importance of many of these psycho-social impacts
within broader IA practice. They are identifying evidence of psycho-social impacts, and progress toward
consistent reporting - which this session was aimed at supporting - would help to educate government and
industry about the nature and legitimacy of such concerns.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Think beyond your specialty (or silo) about how impacts can interact and affect people's wellbeing.
Consider a range of ways to justify putting resources to assessing psycho-social impacts & to highlight findings of psycho-social impacts. A challenge there is that such findings tend to be presented in qualitative forms, e.g., stories, which need to sit alongside the quantitative reports from environmental impact assessment. So, more forms of reporting that draw on some quantitative data (e.g., crime rates or fluctuations in the cost of housing) could be worth using.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Talking directly to potentially affected people is key to good assessment of these impacts.
Justifying PSIA and legitimising its findings are challenging, albeit worthwhile challenges.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
• Trust, misinformation and communicating complex science are key challenges.
• A common ESIA failure point is misalignment between what is studied and what is required for approval. Current implementation practices do not address this failure.
• Policy and legislation actions to address global and national urgency to meet climate goals, energy security and economic competitiveness have focused on
 Faster timelines
 Streamlining initiatives
 Rights retained
but delays persist and systems still struggle with speed and coordination.
• Projects are not static, they evolve and change. Managing change from what was communicated during the IA process compared to what is to be permitted can be difficult and garners distrust. Clear communication of the why and how a change occurred requires rapid, easy access to the relevant information.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
• Early engagement during screening, scoping, and study design — not just during disclosure -- should include structured dialogue with regulators and stakeholders to define:
• what impacts matter,
• what evidence is required, and
• what success looks like.
In order to focus impact assessment on key issues, and align analysis that is sufficient for both regulatory and stakeholder decision making and acceptance through technical and scientific validity.
• Strategies for Jurisdictional overlap: The One Project, One Review approach adopted in both Canada and the U.S. is a means to address jurisdictional overlap promotes reliance on the lead regulator’s process while retaining decision making authority
 cooperation agreements between entities need to provide
• clear direction and accountability to each other
• needs to be appropriately resourced so the responsible authority can access the expertise needed to lead efficiently
 reliance on prior planning and assessment and scoping projects accordingly
 key is not removing oversight, but avoiding duplication.
• Strategies for Fragmented Coordination: Creates one coordinated process across authorities, joint workplans and integrated information requests and shared accountabiity and timelines.
 alignment on decision-making timelines and processes avoids duplication from sequential assessments which reconsider issues from the preceeding IA and/or yield conflicting outcomes reflecting different risk tolerances. Projects move more efficiently when:
• permitting needs are anticipated during assessment,
• the IA and its conclusions are relied upon,
• timelines for multiple required decisions are coordinated and sequenced logically.
Canadian reforms seek to align impact assessments and permit reviews concurrently including imposing timelines for review and decision making (1 year!) and by having one decision document for certain projects. NOTED: Proponent readiness will be a key ingredient to make this initiative effective.
• Strategies for fragmented consultation:
 A coordinated consultation model, where one public authority leads consultation on behalf of others and maintains a shared record, reduces burden and improves trust
 Canada’s proposed Crown Consultation Hub within IAAC to ensure one clear and coordinated consultation process for each project should consider havig.
• deep consultation experience and expertise,
• be appropriately resourced to lead consultation for multiple agencies
• have the tools to resolve issues, mitigate and support accommodation of issues early
• significant culture change to successfully implement smoothly while meeting consultation obligations, and addressing Indigenous interests in a timely manner
• Strategies for regional impacts Regional initiatives and strategic assessments play a critical role. Individual projects cannot resolve regional problems like transportation or landscape level ecosystem trends or effects and cumulative effects are one of the issues that can bog down IAs. Regional initiatives can be voluntary, non-regulatory, multi stakeholder initiatives, with provincial, federal and Indigenous leadership, proven effective at addressing regional scale CE and help to keep project level IA focused if prioritized in areas of strategic resource and economic importance; and relied upon in IA through legislative and policy changes.
Note: Canada is proposing economic zones for regional impact assessments such as transportation corridors, energy production and transmission and industrial regions.
• Strategies for rigid change rules: All major projects evolve require proportionate review to proportionate change and avoid treating small design refinements as if they were new projects triggering lengthy reassessments that don’t meaningfully change environmental outcomes and are a burden for all participating. Reforms that avoid wherever possible having an assessment redone, rather the original assessment is relied upon, include:
 applying materiality thresholds, relying on original assessments, focusing regulatory effort only where changes actually alter impacts.
 design approval documents to allow for normal project design evolution without requiring amendments.
• Strategies to ensure reforms address both efficiency and effectiveness include evaluating the current system before implementing streamlining measures and to examine both procedural efficiency and substative results. One presenter developed am academic model using 83 criteria and 15 categories tested in the field focused on system-level performance — the broader legal, institutional and governance conditions that enable the EIA system to function effectively and --the procedural stages of EIA itself, from screening through to follow-up.
One of the key contributions of the framework is the incorporation of adaptive governance principles. This recognises that EIA systems increasingly operate under conditions of uncertainty, complexity and rapid environmental, technological and political change.
Therefore, effective EIA systems require not only procedural consistency, but also flexibility, learning capacity and the ability to adapt over time.
• Digital technologies (including GIS and AI) to support all the above, to improve communication, coordination and tracking including tracking of project evolution and potential impacts, alignment of institutions, permitting, impact assessment.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
• Pursuit of efficiency without effectiveness will not make the process work faster or better and require fundamental changes in governance systems and digital technology support.
• Systemic problems, not project specific failures, require systemic solutions.
These include: six recurring bottlenecks from major infrastructure approvals and reforms to address them
• overlapping jurisdiction—more than one authority assessing the same effects.
• poor coordination—agencies working sequentially or in silos
• decision misalignment—long lag times between assessments and issuance of permits and re-evaluation of issues.
• fragmented consultation approaches – multiple agencies consulting again in silos
• regional cumulative effects that projects assessments are challenged to solve
• rigid approaches to project change, where minor refinements trigger major re reviews.
• Poor coordination often occurs between impact assessment and permitting and the focus of many streamling efforts, largely because
• The information and data used typically overlap
• Initial focus of permitting may be on the outcome of an IA
• Use of IA content and experience to support subsequent work varies
• Large amounts of information are communicated
• Inconsistencies when presenting/sharing information adds complexity
• Permits are often relied upon to provide accountability for IA commitments
• It is the final step in project approval which is presumed to have already occurred during IA review.
• Project evolution and change during and following the impact assessment process and permitting as well as during operation can contribute to delays and inefficiencies, burden the system when they require redoing impact assessment and/or contribute to a lack of trust.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of EsIA systems before streamlining processes further, to help ensure that good governance and socio-environmental protection are not compromised. Consider both the procedural and the substantive effectiveness.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
• Success depends on both technical validity and stakeholder acceptance.
• Early engagement is central to making ESIA more defensible, efficient, and trusted. It is not separate from ESIA it is integral to its success if done properly.
• Early engagement is key to building the trust and accurate information needed for better outcomes in Impact Assessment. Early engagement
 Should happen during screening, scoping, and study design — not just during disclosure.
 Must involve structured dialogue with regulators and stakeholders to define:
• what impacts matter,
• what evidence is required, and
• what success looks like.
 Must align what is studied and what is required for approval to ensure scientific and technical validity which are key to future acceptance.
• Focus of impact assessment should be on high risk EsIA components critical to acceptance by both regulators and stakeholders.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
• Define the analysis protocols and approach required to respond to both regulators and stakeholders for acceptance as early as possible and sufficient to address to key issues identified during screening and scoping.
• Focus on high risk EsIA components critical to acceptance by both regulators and stakeholders.
• Consider changing the paradigm from a conventional ESIA where:
 studies are completed
 submitted
 and gaps are identified during review
to a paradigm with early ESIA engagement:
 regulators contribute to scoping
 evidence requirements are clarified early
 study design aligns with decision criteria
The result is a more defensible ESIA, with fewer requests for information and fewer late-stage conflicts.
• Employ new digital technologies and AI to better coordinate and inform stakeholders and garner more trust and transparency in the process.
• Reforms for efficiency and effectiveness require attention to the need to preserve essential expertise and secure sufficient resources to implement system changes including investments in personnel and digital support.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
• Reform and streamlining efforts for EsIA and permitting should include a review of existing processes, systems, access to expertise, digital technology and resources.
• Consider process changes and resources to support
 early engagement,
 effective early identification of key issues,
 involvement of regulators and permit issuers in impact assessment process,
 alignment of analysis to support decisions on key issues with technical and scientific integrity.
• Consider systems and institutional adjustments to address:
 overlapping jurisdiction
 poor coordination
 decision misalignment between impact assessments and permitting
 fragmented consultation approaches
 regional cumulative effects
 handling of project change
• Consider how best to preserve and resource expertise across institutions
 Identify investments needed to support improved cooperation and coordination and communication

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
- Misinformation and disinformation are not treated as isolated issues — they emerge as systemic symptoms of deeper structural failures across the renewable energy value chain.
- Misinformation is not simply a communication failure — it is a symptom of deeper injustices embedded in how the energy transition is being designed and implemented.
- A subtler but equally serious challenge emerged from the discussion: the gap between what companies report and what communities actually experience. Technically compliant environmental and social assessments can obscure lived realities, producing a kind of institutional disinformation — one that is harder to name, and harder to challenge.
- Across all five cases, the session converged on a shared response: access to clear, reliable, and culturally appropriate information must be treated as a human right, not a courtesy. Human Rights Due Diligence, impact assessments, and genuine participation processes are not bureaucratic tools — they are the mechanisms through which information injustice can begin to be addressed. As the session's closing put it plainly: where participation is tokenistic and communities are excluded, misinformation fills the gap.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
- Embed human rights principles (access to information, participation, inclusion, and remedy) throughout the IA process, not only in final results. This also includes protecting personal data and avoiding disclosure where it may increase risks or exposure for affected individuals or groups.
- Ensure continuous, culturally appropriate dialogue (not one-off consultations), including FPIC and intercultural engagement. This requires recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ participatory mechanisms and identifyingleg itimate traditional authorities.
- Address barriers to participation (language, gender, ethnicity, accessibility), integrating gender-responsive and intersectional approaches to effectively include marginalized groups.
- Communicate transparently about decisions, benefits, and risks to prevent misinformation and conflict. This includes building evidence-based narratives, particularly in constrained political contexts where resource use and trade-offs must be clearly justified.
- Use context-specific, locally grounded knowledge and move beyond “desktop” assessments by engaging directly with affected communities and realities.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
- Benefit sharing can either reduce or exacerbate conflict, depending on inclusion, transparency, and control over access.
- It should be treated as an impact pathway in HRIA/ESIA, affecting rights such as livelihoods, participation, and non-discrimination.
- Conflict-sensitive approaches require fair access to opportunities, attention to elite capture risks, and socially inclusive investment.
- Gaps in governance and alignment (e.g., between environmental licensing and HRDD, or across value chains) limit effective outcomes.
- Contextual challenges—including shrinking civic space, weak institutions, and implementation gaps—undermine meaningful participation and accountability.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
- Human rights integration is essential—compliance alone (e.g., environmental licensing) is not sufficient.
- Participation is a right, not a formality, and must respect local governance systems and cultural contexts.
- Inequality and exclusion are central impact drivers and must be explicitly assessed and addressed.
- A just transition requires alignment of social and environmental objectives, including across finance systems and value chains.
- Trust and legitimacy depend on inclusive, transparent, and conflict-sensitive processes, not only on technical rigor.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
The session made one point unmistakable: justice is the backbone of a legitimate energy transition. For risk‑assessment professionals, this means looking beyond technical checklists and reading the social and political realities that shape each territory.
Professionals should:
- Understand the context before the project, recognizing historical gaps in participation and trust.
- Treat participation as an ongoing relationship, not a procedural step.
- Identify who benefits and who is excluded, since inequity is a core risk factor.
- Assess entire value chains, especially in minerals and e‑mobility, where impacts accumulate across regions.
- Verify field realities, not just documents, to avoid blind spots.
- Apply conflict‑sensitive, gender, and intersectional lenses to capture differentiated risks.
- Align with financial sector standards, which increasingly demand rights‑based approaches.
- Ensure accessible remedy mechanisms, essential for preventing escalation.
In short, risk assessments must center people, power, and justice to support a transition that is not only technically sound but socially legitimate

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
No stakeholder‑specific recommendations emerged. Nevertheless, some general ideas for policymakers are:
- Integrate justice as a guiding principle of the energy transition.
- Require context‑specific analysis before approving projects to understand territorial dynamics.
- Ensure early, meaningful, and culturally appropriate participation of all stakeholders.
- Design policies that secure real and equitable territorial development benefits.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
A recurring theme across the session was that where governance gaps exist, misinformation and disinformation often fill the space. Strengthening institutional coordination, early engagement, transparency, and inclusive participation processes can significantly reduce shared uncertainty and improve environmental and social outcomes.

a. Misinformation and disinformation often emerge where governance systems are fragmented, institutional roles are unclear, or participation processes occur too late.

b. Several presentations highlighted that information gaps surrounding Indigenous consultation, stakeholder engagement, and project decision-making can contribute to distrust, polarization, and social conflict.

c. Early stakeholder engagement, transparent communication, and continuous dialogue were identified as critical tools for reducing misinformation and strengthening project legitimacy.

d. A recurring theme across the session was that Environmental and Social Impact Assessment can play an increasingly important role in preventing misinformation through early engagement, trust-building, and improved governance integration.

Overall observation: Where governance gaps exist, misinformation often fills the space, increasing uncertainty for communities, institutions, and investments alike.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
1. Engage stakeholders early and continuously throughout the project lifecycle rather than limiting communication to formal consultation requirements.
2. Use transparent, accessible, and culturally appropriate communication methods tailored to local contexts and audiences.
3. Integrate stakeholder mapping, territorial understanding, and Indigenous engagement into the earliest stages of impact assessment and project planning.
4. Establish trusted channels for information sharing and dialogue to reduce misinformation and build long-term relationships.
5. Treat communication as a two-way process focused on listening, trust-building, and meaningful participation rather than solely on information disclosure.
6. Several presentations highlighted the opportunity to reposition Environmental and Social Impact Assessment as a platform for early governance integration, where communication serves not only to disclose information, but also to identify concerns, align expectations, prevent conflict, and strengthen institutional legitimacy before projects reach critical decision points.

Overall observation: Effective communication is increasingly evolving from a project outreach function into a strategic governance tool that can strengthen trust, legitimacy, and long-term sustainability outcomes.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
A recurring observation expressed by both presenters and participants, not only in this session but also in several sessions focused on Latin American topics, was the challenge posed by language barriers to deeper discussion and audience engagement.
Given the strong regional focus of these sessions and the predominance of Spanish-speaking presenters and attendees, many participants noted that opportunities for discussion in Spanish, or the availability of simultaneous translation services could significantly enhance knowledge exchange, audience participation, and the quality of technical dialogue.
While English serves as IAIA’s common language, region-specific sessions often address complex social, cultural, governance, and environmental issues that can be discussed more effectively in the language most familiar to participants. Facilitating multilingual participation would strengthen inclusivity, regional representation, and the exchange of practical experience across IAIA’s increasingly diverse global community.
Additionally, greater linguistic inclusion could contribute to expanding IAIA’s visibility, participation, and membership growth across Latin America by making the Association’s activities and professional networks more accessible to a broader segment of regional practitioners, government officials, NGO´s, etc.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
1. A recurring lesson across the session was that many environmental and social conflicts surrounding infrastructure projects in Latin America are no longer primarily caused by the absence of impact assessment processes, but by governance gaps between formal project approval systems and the social expectations, territorial realities, and participation demands of affected communities.
2. Technical robustness alone is no longer sufficient to guarantee project legitimacy. Effective impact assessment increasingly requires transparency, early engagement, culturally appropriate participation, accessible information, and meaningful stakeholder involvement throughout the project lifecycle.
3. Several presentations highlighted that Environmental and Social Impact Assessment should evolve beyond a regulatory compliance function into a governance platform for dialogue, trust-building, conflict prevention, and long-term territorial sustainability.
4. The session reinforced the importance of integrating Indigenous engagement, territorial understanding, stakeholder mapping, and governance considerations into the earliest stages of impact assessment and project planning.
5. A common finding across the cases presented was that when participation and consultation processes occur too late—or remain disconnected from decision-making—uncertainty, conflict, mistrust, and judicialization tend to fill the governance gap.

Overall Message: The session highlighted that many environmental and social conflicts surrounding infrastructure projects in Latin America are no longer primarily caused by the absence of impact assessment processes, but by governance gaps between formal project approval systems and the social expectations, territorial realities, and participation demands of affected communities.
As a result, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment should increasingly evolve beyond a regulatory compliance function into a governance platform for dialogue, trust-building, conflict prevention, and long-term territorial sustainability. The future of impact assessment in the region will depend not only on improving methodologies for predicting impacts, but also on strengthening its capacity to integrate governance, participation, and informed decision-making in increasingly complex development contexts.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
1. Move beyond viewing impact assessment as a compliance requirement and embrace its broader role as a platform for dialogue, trust-building, and conflict prevention.
2. Invest in stakeholder engagement early in the project lifecycle, particularly during screening, scoping, and area of influence definition, when opportunities to identify concerns and build relationships are greatest.
3. Integrate territorial understanding, Indigenous engagement, and governance considerations into impact assessment processes rather than treating them as separate or parallel activities.
4. Prioritize transparent, accessible, and culturally appropriate communication strategies that support informed participation and help reduce misinformation and mistrust.
5. Recognize that technical excellence alone may not guarantee project legitimacy. Social legitimacy increasingly depends on meaningful participation, transparency, and responsiveness to stakeholder concerns.
6. Strengthen interdisciplinary approaches that combine technical assessment with social, cultural, governance, and conflict-prevention perspectives.
7. Consider impact assessment as a continuous process throughout the project lifecycle, supporting long-term relationships, adaptive management, and sustainable development outcomes.
Key takeaway: Practitioners should increasingly position impact assessment as a governance tool that helps bridge infrastructure, communities, institutions, and sustainable development objectives, at very early stage of projects.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
For Policymakers and Regulatory Authorities
1. Close regulatory and governance gaps by promoting greater integration among environmental assessment, Indigenous participation, and sectoral decision-making frameworks. Fragmented or parallel systems often create uncertainty regarding procedures, responsibilities, and stakeholder expectations, increasing the risk of misinformation, conflict, judicialization, and project delays.
2. Strengthen institutional coordination and regulatory coherence to provide greater legal certainty for communities, governments, investors, and project developers while maintaining strong environmental and social safeguards.
3. Promote earlier integration of participation and consultation-related processes within project planning and impact assessment frameworks to reduce governance gaps before they escalate into conflict.
4. Recognize that governance is a critical enabler of sustainable development. Weakly integrated governance systems can delay investments, infrastructure delivery, energy transition goals, environmental protection objectives, and community development opportunities. Conversely, effective governance frameworks can help align environmental protection, social inclusion, economic development, and long-term sustainability outcomes.
For Communities and Civil Society Organizations
1. Promote constructive and informed participation processes that strengthen dialogue and collaborative problem-solving.
2. Support transparent information-sharing mechanisms that improve understanding of project risks, opportunities, and trade-offs.
3. Encourage long-term engagement and monitoring processes that extend beyond project approval stages.
For Project Developers
1. Move beyond viewing Environmental and Social Impact Assessment as a regulatory requirement and recognize it as a strategic planning and decision-making tool that can improve project design, reduce risks, strengthen stakeholder relationships, and support long-term sustainability objectives.
2. Integrate environmental, social, cultural, and territorial considerations into project planning from the earliest stages rather than addressing them as separate compliance requirements later in the project lifecycle.
3. Invest in early, continuous, and culturally appropriate engagement processes that build trust, strengthen social integration, and improve understanding of community expectations and territorial realities.
4. Use impact assessment as a mechanism for identifying opportunities, managing uncertainty, preventing conflict, and fostering social legitimacy, rather than solely as a tool for obtaining project approvals.
5. Recognize that successful projects increasingly depend not only on technical, financial, and regulatory feasibility, but also on their ability to build trust, legitimacy, and shared value with affected communities.
For Multilateral Development Banks and Financial Institutions
1. Continue promoting environmental and social standards that encourage early engagement, transparency, conflict prevention, and meaningful participation throughout the project lifecycle.
2. Support capacity building for governments, practitioners, and project developers to strengthen governance integration and stakeholder engagement practices.
3. Encourage investment decisions that consider not only environmental and social risks, but also governance risks associated with institutional fragmentation, regulatory gaps, and weak participation processes.
4. Foster knowledge-sharing and regional learning platforms that disseminate lessons learned and innovative approaches for strengthening impact assessment and sustainable development outcomes.
Overall Recommendation
A common message emerging from the session was that sustainable development outcomes are more likely when governments, communities, practitioners, financial institutions, and project developers work within integrated governance frameworks that promote trust, transparency, early engagement, territorial understanding, and meaningful participation.
Key Message: Governance gaps do not only create uncertainty for projects and communities; they can ultimately undermine progress toward sustainable development by delaying investments, infrastructure, environmental improvements, energy transition objectives, and the social benefits that development is intended to deliver.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Discussions highlighted that stakeholder engagement challenges are closely linked to lack of trust, limited access to clear and reliable information, and barriers created by technical language, power imbalances, and underrepresentation of affected groups. Participants reflected on how these challenges are frequently observed in the work of Independent Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs), where gaps in engagement and communication contribute to misunderstandings and, at times, the spread of misinformation in project contexts

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
To address this, the session emphasized not only accessible and transparent communication and early, continuous engagement, but also the use of structured approaches such as stakeholder mapping and influence strategies to better understand stakeholder roles, power dynamics, and pathways for engagement. The use of participatory and facilitated approaches was also highlighted as critical to improving understanding, inclusion, and meaningful stakeholder participation.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
N/A

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
The session showed that effective stakeholder engagement is not only about sharing information but about building trust and enabling participation in decision-making processes. The discussion reinforced that impactful stakeholder engagement depends not only on sound analysis but on the use of effective tools. For example, Advisory tools—such as stakeholder mapping and influence strategies, Compliance tools like multi‑stakeholder meetings, site visits to improve accessibility and representation, transparency on who is being consulted, and regular progress updates, and Dispute Resolution tools such as sequencing and pacing of engagement, joint sessions with structured facilitation, shuttle diplomacy, active listening, and clarification/simplification of information. All of these are essential to strengthen engagement, improve information uptake, and support more effective and credible outcomes.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Practitioners should prioritize clear and accessible communication, ensure that stakeholder engagement processes are inclusive, and use participatory formats that allow for dialogue and joint problem-solving. Stakeholder engagement should be designed to address barriers such as technical complexity and unequal access to information, while also applying structured approaches such as stakeholder mapping and influence strategies to identify key actors, understand power dynamics, and tailor engagement efforts to improve effectiveness and uptake.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Policymakers and institutions should strengthen transparency, improve access to information, and support more inclusive engagement processes that allow stakeholders to participate meaningfully in decisions that affect them. Addressing trust and credibility gaps is essential for improving outcomes.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Negativity bias as a structural amplifier
Misinformation spreads rapidly in resettlement contexts because human beings are cognitively predisposed to believe negative information more readily than positive (negativity bias). In the age of social media, this predisposition accelerates the circulation of rumour before project proponents are able to respond. The session identified this not merely as a communication problem but as a structural vulnerability that is exacerbated when consultation processes lack inclusivity and grievance mechanisms are inaccessible to marginalized groups.

The information calibration problem in government-led projects
Across case studies from Africa and the Middle East, a recurring pattern emerged: government agencies responsible for resettlement communication tend to err toward one of three failure modes — too much information (overwhelming communities without clarity), too little information (creating vacuums that rumour fills), or wrong information (inaccurate content disseminated through official channels). The session identified that the default response of "more communication" consistently misdiagnoses the problem; what is required is calibrated communication tailored to the stakeholder, the project phase, and the specific concern.

Narrative capture by political actors
In multiple government-led project contexts, political leaders outside the project team — including ministers and heads of state — made unilateral public statements that contradicted agreed project commitments, destabilizing trust that had been painstakingly built at the community level. This represents a distinct and underappreciated vector of disinformation: not external rumour, but internally generated inconsistency from within the project's own institutional ecosystem.

The trust deficit as a delayed-onset risk
The Darul Hana case (Sarawak, Malaysia) demonstrated that early-stage misinformation about forced relocation and unfair compensation, if left unaddressed, can solidify into structural opposition. In 2010, 60% of affected residents opposed the project and only 10% expressed support. Without sustained, transparent, and empathetic engagement over the subsequent decade, this opposition would have been irreversible. The session underscored that trust deficits, unlike technical project risks, compound over time rather than self-correcting.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Reframe negativity bias as a diagnostic signal, not a communication failure
When communities respond negatively to project information, practitioners should resist the instinct to redouble messaging efforts. Instead, negative responses should be read as indicators of specific deficits: insufficient consultation inclusivity, inadequate transparency, or inaccessible grievance channels. Identifying which deficit is driving the response enables targeted, rather than generic, corrective action.

Integrate communication within the SIA lifecycle, not alongside it
The Darul Hana project embedded its communication strategy within the Social Impact Assessment process from the earliest planning stage, treating SIA not as a technical approval tool but as a platform for trust-building, risk management, and sustained dialogue. Communication did not conclude with SIA sign-off; it continued across the full 12-year project lifecycle. The session noted that the quality of this integration — particularly whether community feedback materially influences project decisions — matters more than formal compliance with SEP requirements.

Tailor communication by stakeholder, role, and project phase
Effective communication requires differentiation across audiences (community members, contractors, government agencies, lenders) and across project stages (planning, construction, monitoring). A single information channel or message format consistently underserves at least some stakeholder groups. In practice, this means developing distinct communication protocols for each phase and each category of affected person, rather than applying a uniform approach.

Align roles and responsibilities at the highest institutional level before implementation begins
The session identified early alignment among government ministries, contractors, and lenders on who is responsible for what compensation, delivered by which agency, at which phase, as a critical precondition for consistent community communication. Where this alignment is absent, contradictory messages from different institutional actors reliably erode community trust. In one case study, a ministerial-level agreement was required to create a reimbursement mechanism that closed a contractual gap — an agreement that should have been in place before implementation commenced.

Establish integrated, not parallel, grievance mechanisms
Where consultants, contractors, and government agencies operate separate grievance channels, affected communities receive inconsistent responses, complaints fall between institutional gaps, and the aggregate picture of community concerns is invisible to any single actor. The session highlighted a successful integrated grievance model from a Ghanaian railway project in which channels were unified across implementing parties, producing a coherent, responsive system.

Stage information disclosure to match physical project progress
Communities are more receptive to project information when they can see tangible evidence of what is being described. The Darul Hana experience demonstrated that community acceptance rose dramatically — from 10% to over 95% — as housing construction became visible. Information released ahead of observable progress is more likely to be met with scepticism; information that corresponds to visible reality is more likely to be trusted.

Conduct granular stakeholder mapping, not demographic categorization
Standard stakeholder mapping by gender, age, or displacement type consistently misses intra-community power dynamics and informal economic relationships. The session cited a case from Sierra Leone in which women's customary use of tidal swamps — economically significant but invisible to project surveys focused on registered landowners — was only identified through disaggregated mapping of community sub-groups including savings groups and tenant farmers. Compensation structures built on inadequate mapping reliably reproduce exclusion.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
Psychological harm as an unquantified resettlement impact
The session received a significant question on the mental health and psychological impacts of displacement — including documented increases in suicide rates, gender-based violence, and substance abuse in affected communities in South Africa and Nigeria. Current resettlement planning frameworks address these impacts inadequately, typically subsuming them within vulnerability support or livelihood restoration categories without specific measurement, monitoring, or response protocols. The session noted that Indonesia has developed a legal framework providing compensation premiums based on emotional attachment and years of residence — a model that merits broader consideration.

The distinction between formal grievance access and effective grievance uptake
Grievance mechanisms, while standard in resettlement frameworks, are systematically underused by the populations they are designed to serve. Barriers include fear of retaliation, low confidence in outcomes, physical inaccessibility, and cultural inhibitions. The session identified this as a structural gap: the existence of a grievance mechanism does not constitute meaningful access, and practitioners should treat uptake rates — particularly among vulnerable groups — as a key performance indicator rather than an afterthought.

Compensation for loss of recognition and dignity, not only material assets
The session heard that a significant proportion of community members who raise complaints or resist resettlement are motivated not primarily by dissatisfaction with financial compensation, but by a sense that their presence, history, and identity in a place has not been acknowledged. Treating such individuals as spoilers or outliers, rather than as signals of a dignity deficit in the engagement process, consistently escalates rather than resolves conflict.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Technical competence is necessary but not sufficient
The session consistently returned to the observation that technically sound resettlement plans fail when the human infrastructure — trust, accessible information, responsive grievance channels, and empathetic engagement — is not equally well-constructed. The chair's closing remarks framed this as the central lesson: in resettlement, the social architecture is as load-bearing as the physical one.

Adaptive management must be built into resettlement design from the outset.
The Darul Hana master plan was revised three times over 12 years in response to community input. This flexibility, institutionalized rather than ad hoc, was identified as a key factor in sustaining community confidence through a long and complex process. Resettlement plans designed for rigidity rather than responsiveness are more likely to generate conflict as conditions change.

The resettlement communication problem is not solvable by communication alone.
Where compensation structures are inadequate, where vulnerable groups are excluded from entitlements, or where institutional roles are misaligned, improved messaging will not close the trust gap. Communication strategy must be accompanied by — and in some cases preceded by — substantive improvements in process fairness and institutional accountability.

Impact assessment should capture what people stand to lose beyond the measurable.
Cultural identity, community networks, proximity to kin, and sense of place are displacement impacts that standard asset inventories do not capture. SIA practitioners have a responsibility to develop methods for identifying, documenting, and where possible compensating these losses — not only because international standards increasingly require it, but because failing to do so reliably produces the distrust and resistance that derail projects.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
- Treat community skepticism and resistance as diagnostic data rather than obstacles to manage. Ask which specific deficit — in consultation, transparency, or grievance access — is generating the response, and address that deficit directly.

- Integrate the Stakeholder Engagement Plan and SIA as a single, iterative process rather than parallel work streams. Ensure that community feedback collected during SIA materially influences project decisions and is communicated back to communities as evidence of responsiveness.

- Conduct stakeholder mapping at the sub-group level, disaggregating beyond standard demographic categories to identify informal economic relationships, customary land use patterns, and intra-community power dynamics that shape who benefits from and who is harmed by resettlement.

- Include psychological impact assessment as a standard component of social baseline studies, with explicit indicators, monitoring protocols, and response mechanisms — not as a subcategory of vulnerability support but as a standalone dimension of harm.

- Design grievance mechanisms with uptake, not merely existence, as the performance standard. Audit who is and is not using the mechanism, identify barriers for underrepresented groups, and create supplementary channels — including informal and community-intermediated options — to reach those the formal system does not.

- Build adaptive management provisions explicitly into Resettlement Action Plans, including defined triggers for plan revision, clear decision-making authority, and communication protocols for informing communities when changes are made and why.

- Test the "how" of implementation with government and contractor counterparts before project commencement, not after. Verbal commitment to a role or responsibility at a planning meeting is not a reliable indicator of operational capacity; structured pre-implementation exercises that expose gaps are more effective than post-hoc remediation.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
National governments and line ministries (responsible for land acquisition and resettlement)
- Establish clear legal frameworks for inter-ministerial coordination on resettlement, with designated lead agencies, defined compensation responsibilities, and escalation protocols for disputes. Ambiguity about which ministry owns which obligation is among the most consistent drivers of communication breakdown at the community level.
- Develop compensation frameworks that explicitly recognize non-material losses — including emotional attachment, years of residence, and cultural significance — alongside physical asset replacement. Indonesia's existing model of compensation premiums based on residency duration offers a replicable precedent.
- Invest in the institutional continuity of resettlement teams. Staff rotation during implementation is a primary cause of trust collapse in government-led projects; policies that incentivize or require personnel continuity across project phases would materially reduce this risk.

Project lenders and development finance institutions (commercial banks, export credit agencies, MDBs)
- Make early stakeholder alignment — including documented agreement on roles, responsibilities, and communication protocols across all implementing parties — a condition of loan effectiveness, not a covenant to be satisfied during implementation.
- Require integrated grievance mechanisms as a financing condition, with unified reporting across contractors, government, and consultants, and with uptake rates among vulnerable groups as a monitored indicator.
- Scrutinize resettlement Action Plans for realistic timelines and budgets before signing. The session identified that financing pressure to close transactions quickly leads counterparts to sign commitments they do not have the capacity to fulfil, creating the conditions for later breakdown.

Local governments and community representatives
- Participate actively in the early alignment process, including documented agreement on which agency will deliver which component of resettlement support. Communities and local governments that wait for implementation to begin before raising role ambiguities consistently find that no actor has operational ownership of their concern.
- Engage with project grievance mechanisms at the earliest stage, and advocate for integrated channels that consolidate contractor, consultant, and government-level complaints into a single, visible system.

Civil society organizations and NGOs
- Position as trusted intermediaries for grievance access, particularly for vulnerable and marginalized groups who face barriers to formal channels. The session identified community-embedded NGOs as among the most effective supplements to project grievance mechanisms in contexts where formal uptake is low.
- Support communities in documenting non-material assets — cultural sites, traditional land use, social networks — before displacement, to ensure these are captured in SIA baselines and can be referenced in compensation negotiations.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
All speakers talked about malinformation (we liked this term), disinformation and misinformation - this comes from all sides - from the proponent, from civil society and from government. Same information comes from all sides but different messages are crafted with different intents. We also talked about that the right message is not being communicated to communities around hydroelectric projects. Communities dont care about the ESIA, the engineering models and the baseline data coming from proponents. They have simpler messages such as am I going to be moved, will I have a job, are my girls safe and will I have food. Disinformation on projects other creates myths which become realities in the perception of communities.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
We stated that we need to improve the communication of messages to communities around hydropower projects - maybe we should get back to basics:
- Better location and siting of projects early on
- Improved analysis of alternatives that do not justify the project
- Early scoping of E&S risks with affected stakeholders
- Better and more relevant baseline
- Use of strategic environmental assessment
- Better management of cumulative impacts
- Improved benefit sharing with communities

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
N/A

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Proponents in hydropower seem to be doing the right thing (good EIA, certification, models, scientific data, management plans, endless public consultation and oversight, panel of experts and supervision. But with all these good techniques and approaches, they are losing the battle in communicating the benefits of hydropower. Why is this the case? Hydropower proponents are doing things right but we still cannot wind.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
- Better communication of benefits of hydropower
- Ensure that meaningful benefits occur - not just token ones - should be discussed in detail with stakeholders
- Improved coordination between government, proponents and civil society - look for win win benefits
- Ensure mitigation follows the mitigation hierarchy - and that avoidance is done first
- Offsets should be a last resort
- Alternative assesment need to be improved

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
The need for strategic assessment of hydropower early on before project decisions are made.
Take a watershed approach to hydropower development.
Improved communication strategies - through multiparticipant forums.
The need for government to become a champion in leading out stakeholder forums.
Better coordination of benefits between government and the proponent.
The need for transparency and credibility in messaging - continue to do the right thing in applying good impact assessment
The need for follow up beyond construction into operations and through the project lifecycle.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Key trend is the amount of effort being expended to conduct meaningful engagement. All projects even the most technical included strategies to engage with stakeholders.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Use of digital tools such as story books, GIS and online data access were effectively used to reach a variety of stakeholders.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
It is not just project proponents that use digital tools. Regulators have a role in disseminating information and are using digital tools to communicate or make IA data available.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
IA practitioners are getting creative using a variety of technologies (AI, GIS, online data access) to solve/explain specific IA challenges like disparate/complex stakeholder issues and/or highly technical topics.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
They need to be knowledgeable of the various digital tools that are available as they can make a significant contribution to the success of an IA.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Transparency of data used in IAs to stakeholders and first nations groups is very important.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
- Cumulative impacts: Difficulties in acknowledging and communicating cumulative and induced impacts, and in ensuring that project-affected communities understand how these differ from direct project impacts.
- Cultural heritage: Gaps in information and understanding regarding what communities recognize as cultural property versus what qualifies as cultural heritage under safeguard standards.
- Subsidiary Projects: Insufficient clarity and transparency regarding the scope, risks, and downstream impacts of subsidiary or associated activities, contributing to misunderstandings and incomplete risk perception.
- Gender-based violence (GBV and SEA/SH): Less an issue of misinformation or disinformation, and more one of missing or inadequate information, which tends to be misleading and presented selectively. Risks are often not sufficiently disclosed or communicated, limiting their integration into project design and mitigation measures.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
- Cumulative impacts and cultural heritage: Early and inclusive engagement with project-affected persons/communities, combined with stakeholder identification/mapping to better understand the power dynamics amongst and between them.
- Subsidiary Projects: Establish clear criteria for selecting projects to be included as subsidiary projects based on their impacts, contribution to cumulative impacts. Proper framing is required and dealing with subsidiary projects is achievable. Clear quantification of the impacts is also required. The issue of inclusion of subsidiary projects is indeed possible to be fully addressed.
- GBV and SEA/SH: Better communication of project impacts and risks rather than focusing on project benefits. Invest in early and proactive communication, rather than relying on complaints.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
N/A

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
- Unanticipated project changes (e.g., alignment modifications) can have significant implications for the identification and inclusion of subsidiary projects. These impacts are often overlooked and should be more systematically anticipated and assessed.
- Accountability mechanisms provide an additional venue and safe space to seek redress.
- Lessons learned from accountability mechanisms (AMs) are not sufficiently integrated into the design and implementation of future projects. This gap should be addressed by strengthening AMs’ role, including a clearer mandate to provide recommendations that inform and improve MDB performance.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
- Prioritize early, targeted, culturally appropriate, and inclusive communication with affected communities.
- Desk work only is not sufficient, must go to the ground and ask the right questions.
- Treat safeguard standards as baseline guidance rather than best practice, and ensure the need for qualified expertise to meet high-quality impact assessment standards.
- Allocate sufficient time and resources for robust impact assessments, recognizing that “silent” risks (e.g., GBV and SEA/SH) require proactive and continuous identification and mitigation—absence of evidence does not imply absence of risk.
- Strengthen quality control and assurance processes within MDBs and bilateral institutions to proactively address gaps and slippages.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
- Ensure early, targeted, inclusive, and continuous engagement with project-affected communities to capture concerns and integrate local knowledge into project design and implementation.
- Rely on qualified professionals and subject-matter experts to conduct and review impact assessments, ensuring adequate technical quality.
- Recognize that chance find procedures are not a substitute for prior impact assessment, particularly in relation to physical cultural heritage, and should only complement robust upfront analysis.
- When considering GBV and SEA/SH, adopt an integrated, context-specific approach that engages local service providers (e.g., health and social services) to better understand on-the-ground realities and identify cases that would otherwise remain overlooked or unreported.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Presentations and discussions focused on the challenges of:
- implementation of the information-centred principles and access rights of the Agreement
- communication of its provisions
- practical barriers to transparency for project proponents

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
One of the presentations and much of the discussion was focused on strategies and tips for impact assessment practitioners in implementing the Escazu principles in our work. This included formats for knowledge-sharing, how to get proponents on board with the transparency requirements and how to weave Escazu principles throughout the impact assessment process.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
Both learnings from the Aarhus Convention and the implications of Escazu for environmental rights processes underway in Africa and SE Asia were discussed in some depth.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
The access rights of Escazu - access to information, public participation in decision-making and prevention and remediation of environmental harm should be explicitly incorporated into the IA process. The underlying principles: Right to a healthy environment, Mitigation hierarchy, Continuous improvement, Transparency and accountability, Non-discrimination and Intergenerational equity are a useful framework for ethical IA.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Consider how impact assessment can both help guarantee the access rights and principles of Escazu at the same time as building awareness and understanding of the treaty's existence and provisions.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
The need for ongoing multistakeholder engagement to translate the treaty's principles into effective outcomes on the ground. The need to increase ratifications across the region. The need for more business buy-in and awareness-raising.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
not really part of this session

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
The focus of the session was on how we can better use data that are collected during EIA to help financial and other decision making such as for monitoring.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
The quality of data collected is important. There are heaps of data collected that often sit and are not used after the initial EIA but still hold lots of value for other purposes.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Check data sources like GBIF to potentially inform funding decisions

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Particularly for policy makers in the species conservation space as well as land management there are so many data sources that can add to the decisions around project development.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
The need for both technical evidence and social/cultural evidence to counter misinformation.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Robust methods for representing climate change risks.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
None.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Because most of the presentations in the session dealt with the collection and analysis of spatial and environmental data, the discussions were closely connected to the conference theme. A key point that emerged was that misinformation can originate at two distinct stages. First, it arises from limitations in the data collection stage itself—incomplete, outdated, or low-quality source data can propagate errors throughout the analysis. Second, and increasingly relevant, misinformation can result from the improper use of analytical tools such as AI: even when the underlying data is sound, the misuse of these tools or the misinterpretation of their outputs can lead to misleading conclusions. The session highlighted that as planning support systems and AI-based analysis become more powerful and widely adopted, ensuring both reliable input data and the correct interpretation of results is an emerging challenge for credible impact assessment.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
One concrete strategy discussed in the session was the provision of a public-facing information channel through the Carbon Spatial Map system. Rather than confining analytical results to experts and decision-makers, the system makes spatial and environmental information directly accessible to citizens, allowing them to verify the information for themselves. This open, self-verifiable access was highlighted as an effective way to build credibility and trust: when citizens can independently check the underlying data and results, communication becomes more transparent and less vulnerable to misunderstanding or distortion. The session suggested that such direct public access mechanisms are a practical and increasingly important tool for credible communication in impact assessment.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
A recurring theme across most of the presentations was the growing importance of AI. This reflects a continuation of the discussions from IAIA25, indicating that the role of AI in impact assessment remains a central and persistent topic rather than a passing trend. The session reinforced the need for deeper and more deliberate consideration of how AI should be applied in environmental impact assessment—not only to harness its analytical potential, but also to address the risks of misinterpretation and misinformation that can accompany its use. This suggests that the impact assessment community should continue to develop shared understanding, guidance, and good practices around the responsible use of AI.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
A key lesson from the session is that while there are many cases of building platforms and planning support systems, there are relatively few cases of successfully using them in practice. Much of the current effort remains concentrated on the development stage, while strategies for the subsequent utilization and operation of these systems are largely absent. The session suggested that the impact assessment community should shift greater attention beyond system development toward how these platforms are actually applied, operated, and sustained over time. Without a clear utilization and operational strategy, even well-designed systems risk being underused and failing to deliver their intended value for environmental assessment and decision-making.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Practitioners should keep pace with technological trends such as AI and actively incorporate them into their work. At the same time, the session emphasized that applying these technologies in practice requires careful review and thorough discussion before adoption. Rather than embracing new tools uncritically, practitioners should evaluate their appropriateness, limitations, and potential for misinterpretation in the specific context of impact assessment. Balancing openness to technological innovation with rigorous scrutiny will be essential to ensure that these tools genuinely improve the quality and credibility of impact assessment rather than introducing new sources of error.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
A central issue identified in the session was the accessibility of information for policymakers and stakeholders. The discussion pointed out that transparent disclosure of information is only meaningful if the process of generating that information is itself transparent. In other words, for policymakers (e.g., central and local government decision-makers) and other stakeholders to genuinely trust and rely on the outputs of planning support systems, the underlying data collection and analysis processes must be open and traceable, not just the final results. The session therefore recommended that policymakers and system operators ensure transparency throughout the entire information lifecycle—from data generation and analysis to public disclosure—so that stakeholders can access, understand, and have confidence in the information that informs environmental and urban decision-making.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
The session highlighted that misinformation and disinformation in impact assessment are not only caused by deliberately false statements. They can also arise from silence, fear, and incomplete participation. When project-affected people, workers, communities, or CSOs fear retaliation, they may attend consultations but not speak candidly, or they may avoid engagement altogether. The resulting consultation record may appear complete but may not accurately reflect actual concerns.
Panelists noted that retaliation risk can create major blind spots in stakeholder engagement and environmental and social impact assessment. For example, consultations may be attended mainly by “safe” stakeholders, such as local elites or officials, while more vulnerable or dissenting groups are absent or silent. A project may report few or no grievances, but this may indicate fear or lack of trust rather than absence of harm. Later in implementation, previously unidentified impacts may emerge because affected people did not feel safe to raise them earlier.
The session also identified shrinking civic space as an important emerging trend. In some contexts, being seen with an accountability mechanism, CSO, or complaints process can itself create risk. This affects the willingness of CSOs and community representatives to attend outreach activities or participate visibly in consultations.
A further challenge discussed was that AI or desk review alone may not detect this problem. AI can summarize consultation records, count meetings, and extract issues formally documented. But if fear prevented people from speaking, the missing information will not appear in the record. The consultation process may be completed on paper, while the information base remains incomplete or inaccurate.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
The session emphasized that practitioners should move beyond the question, “Did consultation happen?” and ask, “Could people speak without consequences?” Other useful questions include: Who is not in the room? Who is silent? Who may be afraid to speak? What issues might not have been raised? Are certain groups overrepresented while others are absent?
Practical strategies included integrating retaliation risk into project due diligence, stakeholder engagement planning, grievance mechanism design, assumptions, limitations, and confidence levels of impact assessment findings. Panelists also stressed the need to consider country and regional factors, civic space, the track record of government agencies, tensions between authorities and project-affected people, intra-community divisions, and risks linked to contractors, suppliers, consultants, or other project actors.
Specific good practices discussed included allowing confidential engagement, avoiding unnecessary disclosure of identities, designing grievance mechanisms that do not expose complainants, using separate or smaller group discussions, working with trusted intermediaries, involving independent monitors or social specialists where appropriate, and ensuring that project teams and clients are trained on non-retaliation.
The session also emphasized that communication must be risk-sensitive. Attendance lists, photographs, travel arrangements, meeting venues, email circulation, and public association with a complaints mechanism can all create exposure for affected people or CSOs.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
A related issue is that retaliation risk should be treated not only as a social or safeguards issue, but also as a methodology issue for impact assessment. It affects whether the evidence base is credible.
Another issue is the limitation of independent accountability mechanisms once retaliation occurs. IAMs can identify risks, work with affected people on preventive measures, and report incidents with consent, but lenders and financiers often have greater leverage to demand non-retaliation from borrowers or clients.
The session also raised the need for more granular data on retaliation risks, including whether there are repeat patterns or repeat actors, so that lenders can raise concerns earlier in the project cycle.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
The central lesson is that impact assessment depends on whether affected people can speak freely and safely. If stakeholders fear retaliation, the information gathered may be incomplete, distorted, or misleading.
Silence should not be treated as consent. Low participation should not automatically be treated as lack of interest. A grievance mechanism with zero complaints may be a warning sign rather than evidence that there are no problems.
The session also reinforced that retaliation risk affects every stage of the project cycle: design, due diligence, consultation, impact assessment, grievance redress, implementation, monitoring, and accountability. From a project design perspective, retaliation risk should be assessed through country and regional context, civic space, government agency track record, local tensions, community divisions, stakeholder engagement design, and grievance mechanism design. From an IAM perspective, retaliation risk undermines development effectiveness because it prevents affected communities from using mechanisms intended to resolve project-related harm.
A further lesson is that credible impact assessment requires trust-building, not only data collection. Practitioners should assess whether the conditions for honest participation exist before relying on the consultation record.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Impact assessment practitioners should explicitly assess retaliation risk as part of stakeholder engagement and ESIA methodology. They should examine civic space, local power dynamics, the relationship between authorities and project-affected people, intra-community tensions, the track record of agencies and contractors, and whether the grievance mechanism allows safe and confidential complaints.
Practitioners should triangulate information and avoid relying only on formal consultation records. They should look for warning signs such as very few complaints in a high-risk context, sudden withdrawal of participants, absence of key groups, overrepresentation of safe stakeholders, lack of dissenting views, or baseline studies that miss sensitive impacts later discovered during implementation.
Practitioners should design engagement methods that allow people to speak safely. This may include confidential interviews, separate group meetings, safe venues, trusted intermediaries, independent observers, careful handling of attendance lists and photographs, and grievance channels that do not expose complainants.
Practitioners should also disclose the limitations of their assessment. Where retaliation risk may have affected participation, ESIA reports should state this as a limitation and reflect lower confidence in findings that depend heavily on stakeholder input.
Finally, practitioners should recognize the limits of AI and document review. These tools can identify what is in the record, but not what fear kept out of the record.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
For governments and borrowers: Create an enabling environment where project-affected people, workers, CSOs, and community representatives can raise concerns without intimidation, coercion, or retaliation. Security forces and local authorities involved in project areas should receive training on non-retaliation and safe engagement.
For MDBs and other lenders: Retaliation risk should be integrated into due diligence, safeguard supervision, stakeholder engagement, grievance mechanism review, and project monitoring. Where mitigation measures are not implemented, lenders should consider stronger measures, including requiring corrective action, limiting disbursements to risk mitigation, pausing high-risk activities, or stopping disbursements where necessary.
For project teams and implementing agencies: Design stakeholder engagement plans and grievance mechanisms so that complainants and participants are not exposed. Do not require unnecessary disclosure of identities. Ensure clients, contractors, and consultants understand zero tolerance for intimidation and retaliation.
For independent accountability mechanisms: Continue using early risk identification, participatory design of preventive measures, informed consent, and confidential handling of complainant information. IAMs should also continue developing training materials for project implementation units and improve data collection on retaliation patterns.
For IAIA and impact assessment standard-setters: Guidance should more explicitly recognize retaliation risk, civic space, and stakeholder safety as factors affecting information integrity and the reliability of impact assessment findings.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Talking about risk and technical details of assessment can be overwhelming and/or inaccessible to many people, which can lead to the spread of misinformation through misunderstanding. Broader contextual factors (such as sociopolitical history of mistrust in government / authorities) can also influence trust in messaging about risks and impacts.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Use visual aides (including dynamic visualizations) and plain language materials to support clear and defensible communication.
Acknowledge and respect that stakeholders may share strong emotion and/or anxiety about a project.
Early warning systems can provide certainty and peace of mind to downstream stakeholders (hydropower/watershed example).

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
Emerging practice of addressing mental health and/or anxiety-related issues as a potential impact in an ESIA (not in terms of the unplanned event itself, but the day-to-day operations and knowing that the risk exists).

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Emerging practice of addressing mental health and/or anxiety-related issues as a potential impact in an ESIA (not in terms of the unplanned event itself, but the day-to-day operations and knowing that the risk exists).

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
-

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
-

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
The session provided insight into different facets of IA teaching, research and the nexus between them in terms of how research informs teaching and vice versa. Some of the challenges discussed were the following: challenges in identifying and filtering out fabricated inputs in digital surveys effectively compromising the validity of survey conclusions; gaps between IA research and IA teachings that compromise relevance of IA courses and their ability to convey best-practice cases; and the risk of disrupting communication between IA reports and corresponding levels of planning.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Some of the strategies proposed in the session were misinformation safeguards to ensure valid and reliable responses when conducting digital surveys, effectively avoiding false interpretation of survey results. Also, ensuring that research is promptly published and that IA instructors have access to resources relaying novel findings, as well as inviting practitioners/IA researchers as guest lecturers in IA lectures can ensure that teachings are rooted in novel and state-of-the-art practices. Lastly, careful attention to proper communication between IA levels of planning and their corresponding IA reports through tiering ensures that the right content/questions are addressed at the appropriate level of planning.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
None

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
It is crucial for IA teaching to remain up-to-date with novel research findings and that these findings are accessible to instructors. This requires that research is published and made available to instructors. It is also important to be aware of and actively address misinformation when relying on digital means for empirical data collection. Lastly, practitioners and researchers should be attentive to successful and transparent transfer of content and decisions between IA reports and planning levels.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Practitioners should ensure strong and transparent tiering between IA reports in order to support cohesive planning embedded within coherent planning decisions.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Instructors must ensure that IA teaching that draws upon newest research findings and actively engage undergraduate and graduate levels in courses and lectures applying impact assessment. Researchers and instructors have a responsibility for ensuring that research results maintain research integrity and avoid misinformation through sound methodological rigor.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
—

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
—

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
—

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
—

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
—

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
The panel identified several challenges related to misinformation and disinformation, including a lack of collaboration and coordination of effort related to cumulative effects assessment and management, a limited understanding of how to work with Indigenous Nations by the Crown and project proponents, a lack of understanding of the limitations of project-based assessment in the management of cumulative effects, and the over-use of the precautionary principle.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
It takes time to build trust. Collaborative efforts between government, Indigenous groups, and proponents are essential to the successful management of cumulative effects.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Panelists emphasized that regional assessments need stronger coordination, sustained resourcing, and broader data sharing. The Crown is best positioned to lead regional land-use planning and define environmental thresholds in collaboration with Indigenous communities. To facilitate the implementation of Regional Assessments in more areas, they could be developed in to be more fit for purpose and focus on the appropriate values and scale, rather than trying to make them too broad which could delay their implementation and leave management decisions to a project-by-project basis. They noted that governments often lack the capacity to lead this work alone, so collaboration among regulators, Indigenous Nations, industry, and third parties is essential. Examples such as long-term species planning showed that regional approaches can take years and require focused effort, but they may help streamline project-level cumulative effects assessments over time.
Panelists noted that current processes align with Indigenous-led assessments where Indigenous frameworks, treaty objectives, and established northern review systems are recognized and integrated. However, they also highlighted ongoing misalignments, including limited understanding of how to work with Indigenous Nations, persistent power imbalances, and insufficient financial and institutional support for Indigenous self-determination in assessment processes. Overall, they emphasized that stronger capacity funding, education, and evidence-based approaches are needed to better support Indigenous-led assessment across regions.
Panelists described academia as playing both supportive and critical roles in cumulative effects assessment. They noted that academic research can contribute evidence, advance approaches such as two-eyed seeing, and support partnerships, capacity building, and relationship development. At the same time, they observed that academia often critiques assessment systems, while practical project monitoring data can be more difficult to publish, particularly when findings are inconclusive. Overall, the discussion suggested that academia can strengthen CEA by contributing knowledge, fostering collaboration, providing capacity support to Indigenous Nations and Government agencies, and helping connect assessment work to broader treaty and relational responsibilities.
Panelists identified several urgent gaps in cumulative effects assessment, including unplanned development, weak decision-making, and the misuse of fear or the precautionary principle to avoid action. They also highlighted the loss of Indigenous knowledge and cultural foundations as resources decline and knowledge translation weakens. Overall, the discussion pointed to the need for clearer collective goals, more decisive leadership, and sustained trust-building to support effective CEA.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
It takes time to build trust. Collaborative efforts between government, Indigenous groups, and proponents are essential to the successful management of cumulative effects.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
The panel identified several recommendations for policymakers and key stakeholders. The Crown needs to contribute funding (preferably to First Nations-led organizations) to help address cumulative effects. Decision making needs to be an embedded consideration when undertaking regional assessments so that the assessment doesn't just become another research study. Governments can help standardize cumulative effects approaches to provide consistency between individual project proponents. Proponents need to listen to First Nations' concerns about cumulative effects. Academics need to make sure their work is grounded in an understanding of the land uses and people who live in the areas they are working in. We continue to develop in an unplanned manner, and there are concerns that political leaders won 't be tough enough to make the hard decisions, especially when there is a conflict of mandates.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Our panel focused on streamlining opportunities for environmental assessment in Canada. There is some misinformation, or misunderstanding on what is streamlining - so at the start of the session we defined what we considered streamlining (i.e., focus the assessment on the issue). One of the audience members also clearly and correctly identified that environmental assessment does not include all the pre-application work (and consultation) and all of the post-assessment licensing - so in fact it is only a small portion of an EA process that is streamlined.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
In Canada we have public registries for posting of applications and comments from registered interveners in a file and any individual that would like to submit comments. Companies can also post links to these registries to be transparent in the impact assessment process for their application, and can also schedule open house sessions before, during and after an IA process.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Clearly define what is streamlining, and that IA is only a small portion of the work and years of review required before all licenses and permits for a project application are received.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Focus the IA on the issues that matter; use and consider standard mitigations where it makes sense; use many types of visuals/tools to explain the project to a large and diverse audience of registered interveners and the general public; explain how the project has been adapted or modified based on feedback; explain or put the project into context of legislation and recent announcements by local and federal governments; explain how monitoring is and will be used in a feedback loop once the project is approved and operating

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
—

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
The session highlighted that AI is increasingly becoming embedded within the infrastructures through which environmental knowledge is accessed, interpreted, coordinated, and communicated. This creates important opportunities for improving accessibility, synthesis, and efficiency in impact assessment (IA), but also raises concerns regarding misinformation, transparency, trust, and interpretive bias.
Several emerging challenges were identified:
• The increasing use of generative AI raises risks of hallucinations, misinformation, oversimplification, and false authority if outputs are not grounded in verified and traceable sources.
• AI systems may unintentionally standardize interpretation and reduce contextual nuance in IA processes.
• Growing pressure for accelerated permitting and decision-making may increase reliance on AI-supported communication and screening systems without sufficient transparency regarding assumptions and limitations.
• Data quality, interoperability, and governance of underlying datasets remain critical challenges for trustworthy AI-supported IA.
• The session highlighted that communication in IA is increasingly shaped by digital infrastructures and AI-supported systems, which may influence visibility, comparability, and trust.
• Concerns were raised regarding the need to preserve democratic legitimacy, procedural fairness, and human judgement within increasingly digitalized IA processes.
At the same time, several presentations emphasized that curated, traceable, and domain-specific AI systems grounded in verified IA documents and institutional knowledge may help reduce misinformation risks compared to open-ended generative AI systems.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
The session identified several practical approaches for strengthening credible and effective communication through AI and digitalisation in IA:
• Ground AI systems in verified, traceable, and curated datasets such as environmental assessment reports, legal decisions, and validated GIS datasets.
• Maintain transparency regarding sources, assumptions, limitations, and uncertainty in AI-supported outputs.
• Use AI as a support tool for synthesis, navigation, comparison, and accessibility rather than as a replacement for professional judgement.
• Combine AI-supported workflows with human oversight, review, and accountability.
• Develop shared digital infrastructures that support interoperability, standardisation, and cross-institutional learning.
• Use AI to improve accessibility to complex environmental information for practitioners, authorities, and the public.
• Support structured communication through templates, searchable repositories, screening systems, and standardized data structures.
• Ensure that AI tools remain context-aware and adaptable to local environmental, social, and governance conditions.
• Strengthen organizational AI governance and build institutional competence regarding responsible AI use in IA.
Several presentations emphasized that trustworthy communication depends not only on AI tools themselves, but on the quality and governance of the broader communicative infrastructures surrounding them.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
The session highlighted broader governance implications of AI and digitalisation in IA that extend beyond communication alone.
Several presentations suggested that AI is contributing to a transition from isolated digital tools toward interconnected governance infrastructures for environmental assessment. These infrastructures increasingly support communication, coordination, screening, monitoring, learning, and institutional interoperability across sectors and governance levels.
The session also highlighted:
• The growing importance of cross-ministry and cross-sector collaboration around digitalisation and AI.
• The need to balance acceleration agendas with environmental protection and democratic legitimacy.
• The importance of maintaining contextual understanding and professional responsibility within increasingly automated systems.
• The emergence of AI-supported environmental intelligence systems for continuous monitoring, synthesis, and regulatory awareness.
• The need for further reflection on epistemic risks, including how AI-generated outputs may influence perceptions of truth, authority, and legitimacy in IA.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
A key lesson was that AI is increasingly becoming embedded within the infrastructures through which environmental knowledge is produced, accessed, interpreted, coordinated, and trusted.
The presentations collectively suggested that:
• AI can significantly improve accessibility, synthesis, coordination, and learning across IA processes.
• Shared digital infrastructures and interoperable systems may strengthen comparability, institutional learning, and communication across actors.
• Human judgement, contextual understanding, transparency, and accountability remain essential.
• Trustworthy AI in IA depends heavily on traceable data sources, curated information environments, and institutional governance.
• The future challenge is not simply whether AI should be used in IA, but how trustworthy communicative infrastructures can be designed around AI systems.

Overall, the session highlighted that AI is reshaping not only technical workflows, but also communication practices, governance structures, and knowledge infrastructures within impact assessment.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
The session generated the following recommendations for IA practitioners:
• Use AI as a support tool rather than a substitute for professional expertise and judgement.
• Verify AI-generated outputs against trusted and traceable sources.
• Maintain transparency regarding assumptions, uncertainty, and limitations in AI-supported analyses.
• Develop organizational competence regarding responsible AI use and governance.
• Prioritize data quality, interoperability, and documentation practices.
• Use AI to improve accessibility, communication, and synthesis of complex information.
• Combine AI-supported efficiency gains with continued attention to contextual understanding and stakeholder engagement.
• Ensure that AI-supported communication remains understandable, explainable, and accountable.
• Engage proactively with emerging digital infrastructures and standards within IA practice.
Practitioners were encouraged to view AI not only as an isolated tool, but as part of broader communicative and governance infrastructures that shape how environmental information is produced and interpreted.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
developers of AI systems, and infrastructure providers:
• Invest in trustworthy and interoperable digital infrastructures for environmental assessment.
• Support the development of curated and traceable environmental data ecosystems.
• Develop governance frameworks for responsible AI use in IA.
• Ensure transparency, explainability, accountability, and public trust in AI-supported systems.
• Balance acceleration agendas with safeguards for environmental protection and democratic legitimacy.
• Promote cross-sector and cross-ministry collaboration around digitalisation and AI.
• Support standardisation while preserving contextual flexibility and professional discretion.
• Encourage open and accessible communication infrastructures that strengthen institutional learning and public participation.
• Build long-term institutional capacity for AI governance within environmental assessment systems.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Keeping, improving or restoring public trust in IA systems in the age of misinformation and disinformation is a challenge that requires the engagement of the whole IA community of practice.
Both at the provincial and federal level, Canada is experience a visible process of project approval streamlining that risk reducing effective public participation.
In this context, ensuring that IA information is well managed and shared is a real challenge, as we need to deal with huge amounts of information that need to be interpreted to a variety of stakeholder groups, with different perspectives and needs.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Early stakeholder engagement is key to mitigate risks, especially in a context of change in policies and regulations.
Promoting use of AI to organize, compile and interpret information, operating within a "human-in-the-loop" model.
Communication and engagement strategies must take into account the variety and complexity of different stakeholder groups.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
IA effective implementation and communication should be based on critical thinking and thought leadership of IA practitioners, as they try to interpret the dynamic and complex regulatory and social contexts where projects are developed.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Access to information is key for stakeholder and shareholder participation in IA and approval processes.
AI use in IA can improve efficiency, consistency and defensibility, but algorithmic opacity can reduce transparency and trust ("black box" decisions).
Stakeholder engagement is a cornerstone for the implementation of both SEA and IA frameworks, including mandatory public participation at all stages, ensuring transparency and inclusivity, and feedback mechanisms to capture community concerns and influence project outcomes.
Narratives related to public trust on IA systems based only on one or a few stakeholder groups may fail to accurately represent the complexity involved in the project approval decision making process.
Restoring trust in IA systems eroded by sudden changes in policy and regulations requires transparent governance, evidence-based decisions, and early stakeholder engagement.
EIA systems and sustainability reporting frameworks both rely on credible environmental and social information to support transparency, informed decision-making, and public trust

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
IA practitioners should engage not only in the public participation process related to project approvals within the IA system, but also in the public participation process related to changes in policies and regulations that affect IA systems.
AI can support analysis, but does not replace expert judgment or decision-making.
Technology should be combined with expertise and transparency to maintain legitimacy.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
For policymakers: the example of the changes in policies and regulations demonstrates that early stakeholder engagement is key to avoid trust erosion in IA systems. And streamlining approval processes cannot be done at the cost of effective public engagement and participation.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Need for trust of EA practitioners as professionals with integrity to do EA in a non-biased way

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Maintain open lines of communication.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
The dominant cohort of IAIA membership, academics, do not all understand real-world EA which for some leads them to view, some quite strongly, that consulting EA practitioners are compromised regarding ethics and role. IAIA needs to address this issue (as my session attempted to do).

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Consulting EA practitioners are part of the solution and not the problem in addressing challenging environmental issues in EA.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Maintain trust and dialogue.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Improved understanding of EA by others would benefit the overall practice.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
It is challenging to differentiate between misinformation and disinformation.
For example, survey results for biodiversity in daytime only led to inappropriate mitigation. It is due to an unintentional or intentional cause?

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Practical case of training for mindset change from EIA to SEA in GCC countries.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
Specific results of cumulative effects by multiple renewable wind farms and a planning-based approach to promote coexistence with local communities.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
The lack of a verifiable scientific baseline and hindrance to legitimate governance and transparent dialogue would lead to a severe crisis of public trust due to prolonged policy drift and degradation of environmental conditions.
Importance of approaches for multiple purposes, such as Biodiversity and Carbon-Neutrality.
Scientific approaches with specific data and/or tools, such as eDNA or machine learning.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
For the scientific baselines, it is essential to clearly define the boundaries of surveys and the limitations of the results. Also, it would be important to facilitate transparent dialogues with suitable stakeholders.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
According to the stages of the planning process, it is important to clarify the evidence supporting decisions and maintain a transparent decision-making process with stakeholders such as the general public and NGOs.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
In Canada, the mitigation hierarchy is expressed in six different statutes and policies with no unifying themes of terminology. Mitigation options are usually not considered early enough in regulatory processes for best options to be selected. Expectations are not standardized across the government. This is a source of confusion and irritation for both stakeholders and officials. There is also an absence of assigned responsibility for the application of the hierarchy.
Critical minerals are being framed as essential to the energy transition, economic resilience, supply-chain security, and increasingly defence. That framing creates urgency. And urgency is now being translated into pressure to accelerate review, reduce regulatory friction, and move more mining-related projects through approval systems faster. The question is how to align this with Nature Positive goals.
The dominant policy response in Canada is focused heavily on speed. Governments are trying to shorten timelines, coordinate permits, streamline reviews, and reduce what are described as barriers to development. Some of that coordination may be useful. Nobody benefits from chaotic, duplicative, or unclear processes.
Credible nature-positive claims is extremely demanding. It requires robust metrics, transparency, independent scrutiny, and long-term outcomes that can actually be demonstrated.
The establishment of conservation agreements -formal partnerships between mining
operators, local communities, and authorities to ensure long-term stewardship of offset sites - requires clear expectations and understanding between mining companies, regulators, and communities.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Faster review of poorly sited or poorly sequenced projects is not real efficiency. It simply moves ecological risk, conflict, and uncertainty downstream. Projects tend to run into trouble not because of regulatory requirements, but because they are poorly conceived, subject to serious doubts about their economic and technical viability, raise major safety, health and environmental concerns, or are seen to disregard the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples. The real efficiency gain comes from better front-end choices. If regional assessment and spatial tools identify high-risk areas early, governments, Indigenous Nations, proponents, and communities can avoid spending years fighting over projects that should not have entered the approval pipeline in the first place. If lower-risk areas and shared infrastructure options are identified early, project review can be more focused and more credible. And if cumulative effects are governed regionally, individual assessments do not have to pretend they can solve system-level problems one project at a time. So the test for Canada’s critical minerals agenda is not whether it can approve more mines while using Nature Positive language. The test is whether ecological risk, Indigenous governance, and spatial limits actually shape where development happens, where it does not happen, and what pathways are rejected before they become inevitable. If Nature Positive enters only at the project mitigation stage, it arrives too late.

The mitigation hierarchy concept needs to be properly defined and mainstreamed in Canada. The term and definition needs to be standardized to allow for proper implementation.

For critical minerals to align with Nature Positive goals, the mitigation hierarchy has to operate before projects harden. That means regional assessment, strategic assessment, spatial prioritization, Indigenous-led land use planning, and early ecological risk screening. Avoidance has to shape what enters the project pipeline, not merely soften what comes out of it.

Nature positive in the mining sector is not simply about improving mitigation at individual project sites. It is about rethinking how mining interacts with landscapes, ecosystems, communities, and development pathways at broader scales. The transition ahead will require difficult decisions, stronger governance, better science, more transparency, and much deeper collaboration across sectors. But it also creates an opportunity. An opportunity to align mineral development, climate action, biodiversity conservation, and human well-being more effectively than we have in the past.

NGOs, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, civil society, and researchers all need to work together around shared objectives and shared action plans to fight against current backlash in reducing or even removing environmental requirements.

The use of strategic simulation games supports the negotiation and co-design of conservation agreements. By transforming ecological and socio-economic data into interactive scenarios, the tool enables stakeholders to visualize trade-offs, test management options, and explore alternative offset measures in a transparent and collaborative setting. Field experience in Guinea demonstrates how this method strengthens the legitimacy and feasibility of conservation agreements by integrating community perspectives into offset planning. Embedding such participatory negotiation tools within governance systems can enhance transparency, inclusiveness, and accountability—helping the mining sector move from compliance-driven mitigation to
genuinely Nature Positive outcomes by 2030 and beyond.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
N/A

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
- Nature Positive is underpinned by the Mitigation Hierarchy. No claims on Nature Positive can be made without the correct application of the Mitigation Hierarchy.
- In Canada, the definition of Mitigation Hierarchy needs to be standardized and mainstreamed across institutions.
- Earlier planning and avoidance is required more than ever due to the current pressure on reducing or eliminating environmental requirements.
- Engaging properly with communities requires innovative approaches such as strategic games.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Practitioners need to continue using good practice approaches and avoid downgrading the quality work that they have been conducting. It is important to maintain strict adherence to their code of conduct and fight the current backlash on reducing EIA quality or even eliminating it.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
For practitioners, what has been stated above.
For policy makers, Governments play a key role in ensuring the Mitigation Hierarchy is adequately applied. Regulated systems are much more valuable than solely voluntary and lender-driven systems. Without the adequate application of the Mitigation Hierarchy, aiming at and claiming Nature Positive goals. Governments are central to creating clear, credible, and predictable biodiversity requirements leveling the playing field for companies while providing certainty for investment, ensuring that safeguards are strengthened rather than weakened.
The Canadian Federal Government should standardize the Mitigation Hierarchy definition and mainstream it across the different institutions.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Social impact assessment is focused on people and communities so it is particularly susceptible to mis/dis information. Extra care needs to be taken in this space.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Transparency, inclusion, validation, scanning, and community-centered dialogue.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Much of the focus in impact assessment is on analysis, so some additional effort should be made on mitigation and monitoring. Don’t overlook this important part.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
With so many challenges, don’t forget to strengthen your own capacity. Devote time to continuous learning.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Regulators need to approach social monitoring equally robust and serious as environmental monitoring. Carry out compliance and verification activities. Don’t hesitate to take enforcement actions when necessary.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
The Session had a mix of presentation style; technical, story telling, and a combination of both. The session identified several key challenges and emerging trends related to misinformation, disinformation, communication, and impact assessment. A major concern was the increasing spread of misleading or polarised information through the lack of depth in the understanding of context of practice especially with Congo and Peru, and the volume of reporting which does not point readers to key information, so issues of accessibility of information also mirrors a system of disinformation, he use of platforms that are institutionalized but unknown to the community groups, particularly around climate change, energy transition, infrastructure, and extractive projects. There is also the use of an economic valuation model to help funding agencies and investment organisations understand the nature of biodiversity vulnerability and how to direct investment, in this regards the session showcased a method of communication to counter any misinformation in investment with regards to biodiversity.

Participants highlighted growing public distrust in institutions and expert knowledge, alongside difficulties in communicating scientific uncertainty within impact assessment processes. The misuse or oversimplification of environmental data and visualizations was also noted as an emerging challenge, especially where complex ecological or cumulative impacts are reduced to simplified narratives. The case of estimation of biodiversity and the misleading dimensions, nature cannot be treated as an asset from the utilitarian point of view alone, in its own rights, nature is preserved in her own entity with the rights to existence.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
The discussion further emphasised the need for more transparent, inclusive, and culturally sensitive communication approaches, particularly in recognising Indigenous and local knowledge systems within assessment and decision-making processes. Overall, the session reinforced that misinformation and disinformation are becoming significant governance and credibility challenges for contemporary impact assessment practice.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
The need to understand the limitations of human capacity to correctly understand nature niches should be accounted for, as humanity continues to discover new ecosystems and life forms, it is important that the limit of science and technical information is adequately accounted for in IA

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
The key lesson in the session bothers on using technical information to engage communities in a way that results and outcomes of impact (positive and negative alike) are showcased in communication. This was clearly showcased with the Oyster study from Hong Kong and the wind farm project.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Impact assessment practitioners should prioritize transparent, accessible, and evidence-based communication, particularly when explaining scientific uncertainty and complex environmental impacts. The session emphasized the importance of early and meaningful stakeholder engagement, including the integration of Indigenous and local knowledge systems to strengthen trust and legitimacy. And the limitations of technical details should be acknowledged.
Practitioners were also encouraged to improve communication skills in areas such as digital engagement, data visualisation, and media literacy to better respond to the growing influence of misinformation and disinformation on environmental decision-making.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
The session recommended that investment in Biodiversity can be well informed with outcomes of research, combination of technical and story telling approaches to help inform policymakers strengthen regulatory requirements for transparency, public participation, and accessible communication within impact assessment processes and specifically with biodiversity preservation, restoration, and conservation. Governments and regulatory agencies were encouraged to support evidence-based environmental communication and develop mechanisms to address the spread of misinformation in public consultation processes.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Addressing public 'distrust' of the current public involvement/engagement/consultation process due to disinformation, fear of engagement (due to the potential release of personal identification), consultation fatigue, feelings that consultation input goes unheard/unaddressed

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Early engagement, commitment to full life-cycle of engagement, continued communication through consultation process

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
With the attention of the audience, this is clearly an important issue facing IA now and going forward

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
—

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
—

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
—

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
A recurring theme was the trust deficit surrounding mining projects. In terrestrial mining, public participation is often a compliance exercise, creating a gap between regulatory requirements and local realities that fosters mistrust and distorted narratives. Deep-sea mining is highly technical and remote, with limited empirical data and weak understanding of its impacts, which creates conditions for misinformation and disinformation. This uncertainty produces a data vacuum that is often filled by speculative narratives. In mine closures, delayed engagement fosters rumors and disinformation about the long-term viability and safety of post-mining landscapes. Communities are also typically less engaged during closure planning, despite closure carrying some of the most significant social consequences.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Effective communication must begin early and continue throughout the project lifecycle. The discussions emphasised the need to use language that communities can understand, invest in long-term relationships rather than short consultation processes, and address closure planning early. In deep-sea mining, a further requirement is to clearly distinguish between what is empirically observed, what is inferred, and what remains unknown due to missing baseline data.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
Assessments may meet regulatory requirements yet still generate conflict, distrust, or social dissatisfaction. The session also highlighted a governance gap between formal large-scale mining and artisanal or small-scale mining. Small-scale mining often bypasses formal ESIA processes and lacks a social licence to operate, underscoring the need for more localized, scaled impact assessment methodologies appropriate to these contexts.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Social impacts are becoming increasingly important. Impact assessment frameworks developed for terrestrial projects may not be readily transferable to deep-sea mining contexts, where affected communities, impact pathways, temporal scales, and scientific uncertainties differ from conventional mining. Impact assessment must also improve its treatment of closure, transition, and long-term social resilience, as too much attention still focuses on project approval rather than full lifecycle governance. The session reinforced that social licence is dynamic and can deteriorate over time if relationships are not maintained.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Practitioners should ensure that social impacts receive the same level of attention as environmental impacts.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
There is a need to strengthen standards related to social impacts, and long-term social transition. Projects involving high scientific uncertainty should apply precautionary approaches more consistently.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
The session did not engage the misinformation framing directly. It engaged the conditions that produce it: trust deficits, information asymmetry, and unresolved legacy. Four challenges dominated.
• Trust deficits from late engagement and unresolved historical grievances. Once present, they degrade the credibility of subsequent technical communication regardless of its accuracy.
• Information asymmetry between proponents, regulators and communities — particularly on tailings, water quality and downstream effects. Absent timely disclosure, informal narratives fill the vacuum.
• Contested legitimacy of representation: who speaks for the community, and on what authority. Unresolved, this destabilises every downstream communication.
• Mismatch between technical reporting categories and the questions communities actually ask — food, water, health, livelihoods, future generations, closure.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
• Engage early, before design is locked. Where prior engagement has been thin, name the gap rather than paper over it.
• Organise communication around community-facing questions, not regulatory categories.
• Treat disclosure as continuous, not episodic: community-monitored management plans, standing advisory bodies, joint monitoring.
• Make decision-making rules explicit — including how Indigenous Knowledge is weighted — so participation is not read as performative.
• Lead with acknowledgement and remediation where legacy harm exists. Communication built on top of unaddressed grievance does not hold.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
Participants noted that communication credibility cannot be separated from substantive design choices. Putting tailings back into the pit, integrating climate change into design assumptions, local procurement and hiring, equity sharing, and closure bonding were all raised not as "communication tactics" but as the underlying conditions that make communication believable. In other words, the session's implicit message was that you cannot communicate your way out of a legitimacy problem that is really a design or governance problem.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
The central message from the session is that legitimacy, engineering and regulation are not three parallel tracks but a single integrated system — and impact assessment is the place where they either reinforce one another or pull the project apart. Specifically:
• Technical rigour without legitimacy produces gridlock; legitimacy without technical rigour produces decisions that do not hold. Both are needed and they need to be developed together, not sequenced.
• The questions communities ask (food, water, health, livelihoods, future generations, closure) are the right organising frame for IA. When assessments are organised around regulatory categories instead, they generate documents that are technically compliant but communicatively inert.
• Free, Prior and Informed Consent and UNDRIP were treated by participants not as add-ons but as preconditions for a defensible process. How "prior" is operationalised, how Indigenous Knowledge is weighted in decisions, and who speaks for whom remain unresolved across many jurisdictions.
• Trust is built (or lost) over the full project lifecycle. Engagement legacy, grievance handling, closure planning and financial assurance were raised as live concerns long before construction — they belong inside IA, not after it.
• Climate change must be integrated into design assumptions and into the longevity of disclosures; static assessments age badly and lose credibility.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
• Reframe assessments around community-facing questions and let those drive the technical scope.
• Make the decision process visible: who decides, on what basis, how community input changes outcomes. Ambiguity is read — correctly — as theatre.
• Treat engagement as longitudinal: standing advisory bodies, community-monitored plans, joint monitoring, properly resourced.
• Bring closure planning, financial assurance and end-land-use into the assessment from the start, and disclose them.
• Name engagement legacy honestly. Where prior engagement was thin or harmful, acknowledge it and offer a remediation pathway.
• Integrate climate change into design and into the disclosure cycle.
• Default to disclosure of monitoring data — water, tailings, environmental management — in formats and timeframes communities can act on.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Regulators and governments
• Operationalise FPIC and UNDRIP in regulation: define "prior," recognise Indigenous-led decision-making, set standards for weighting Indigenous Knowledge.
• Make closure financial assurance, reclamation bonding and end-land-use binding elements of the IA decision.
• Require climate integration in both design assumptions and ongoing disclosure.
• Resource independent monitoring and accessible grievance and redress mechanisms.
Project proponents
• Publish Indigenous hiring, procurement and local content commitments — and report against them.
• Co-design IBAs with affected communities and disclose key terms.
• Acknowledge legacy harm and offer remediation before reaching for communication strategy.
• Fund community-monitored environmental management as a core project cost.
Funders, IAIA and the wider community
• Treat capacity support for community participation — technical advisors, independent review, time — as a core cost of a defensible process, not a contingency.
• Continue advancing best-practice principles on Indigenous engagement, FPIC operationalisation and tailings disclosure etc.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
1. Most people pass along information impulsively and based on "feelings" rather than on logic, analysis or having verified the facts.
2. If there is a communication gap/desert, someone will fill it and fill it quickly, allowing mis/disinformation to proliferate.
3. Artificial intelligence and digital communication algorithms have accelerated the speed and extent to which information can mutate and disseminate.
4. There are lots of pressures on communities and regulators to move fast/decide quickly, but everyone is challenged by underfunding, gaps in knowledge, mix of new technologies (e.g. Hydrogen, off-shore wind) and new contexts (geopolitical, social, economic, ecological).

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
1. It's critical to involve science communications experts early in the assessment, and to determine who is the audience, who is best placed to communicate, how to do the engagement/communication, how tailor the message (the answer won’t be the same for all projects).
2. Storytelling is an instinctive way for humans to understand/convey information, so the most effective communication employs storytelling techniques (e.g. videos, storymaps, graphic recordings, analogies to make technical information relatable, etc.).

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
1. More standardization, more FAIR principles, needed in data reporting, especially early in assessment process to help regulators tailor information requests for more efficient assessment processes.
2. Who is best placed to communicate science and technical information to specific groups, e.g. Indigenous communities (e.g. science experts, expert science communicators and/or trusted members of the community)?
3. How engage younger demographic, who will be the most impacted? Is there an opportunity to partner with schools/education system?
4. Obtaining/maintaining social licence seems to be an increasing challenge for governments, while sometimes surprisingly less of a challenge for proponents.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
1. Communicate early and often. Proactive, consistent messaging will help avoid communication gaps which can allow mis/dis information to proliferate.
2. There is an increasingly important role for science communication experts in impact assessment.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
1. It's critical to involve science communications experts early in the assessment, or better yet in pre-assessment, to help determine who is the audience, who is best placed to communicate, how to do the engagement/communication, how tailor the message (this won’t be the same for all projects).
2. Raising awareness may not make behaviour change/acceptance easier/smoother, but demos & communications increase transparency (real and perceived) and demonstrate competence – both of which build trust.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
For regulators:
1. In monitoring programs, science communication is part of regulatory oversight, so important to embed science communications into monitoring design.
2. If a project is not in the public interest, governments cannot and should not expect public acceptance and must be open to the possibility that acceptance will not happen.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
—

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
—

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Our session shared progress on updating the Best Practice Principles for Indigenous Peoples and impact assessment. The discussion on the draft principles confirmed the value and urgency of the update, but also the challenges of developing principles that apply globally. Best Practice Principles are clearly so important, as is the need to get them right - to improve impact assessment processes and outcomes for Indigenous Peoples and overall.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
—

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
—

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Social impact assessment is focused on people and communities so it is particularly susceptible to mis/dis information. Extra care needs to be taken in this space.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Transparency, inclusion, validation, scanning, and community-centered dialogue.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Much of the focus in impact assessment is on analysis, so some additional effort should be made on mitigation and monitoring. Don’t overlook this important part.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
With so many challenges, don’t forget to strengthen your own capacity. Devote time to continuous learning.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Regulators need to approach social monitoring equally robust and serious as environmental monitoring. Carry out compliance and verification activities. Don’t hesitate to take enforcement actions when necessary.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
That people do not have access to reliable source of unbiased media or institution for trusted information.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
More story telling; Translation of highly technical documents into light and or creative reads

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
Folks are desperately in need of how to meaningfully connect with pairs but are stuck.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
—

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
—

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
For Policy makers: how can they help to drive down the real and artificial project and program related costs?
For Key stakeholders: NILL

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Key challenges include:
1 - Communicating uncertainty without losing credibility: IA relies on prediction, incomplete data, and evolving project design, which creates openings for misinformation when uncertainty is misunderstood, overstated, or selectively used to question the legitimacy of findings.
2 - Expedited timelines increase vulnerability to misleading narratives and an erosion of trust: IAAC's two-year model, fast-tracked ESIAs, and progressive design-build approaches all point to faster decision cycles; however, an expedited assessment leads to the perceived absence of a rigorous review process and a reduced ability to explain evidence clearly, correct false claims, and build shared understanding.
3 - Paradox between technical rigor and accessibility: Impact assessment participants often expect assessments to be both scientifically rigorous and easily understandable. This creates tension when complex, data-driven analysis is distilled into accessible, non-technical conclusions. While participants may call for more underlying data and analysis, they may also overlook or distrust the analyzed findings already presented in impact statements if those results are not easy to locate, interpret, or connect back to the supporting evidence.
4 - Uncertainty around mitigation effectiveness: Impact assessment often relies on mitigation measures whose real-world effectiveness is not always well evidenced, particularly for socio-economic impacts. When there is limited follow-up data showing what actually works, gaps in evidence can create space for misinformation, unsupported claims, and competing narratives about likely harms or benefits.
Emerging trends include:
1 - Expectation of earlier and more iterative engagement: A strong trend is toward engaging earlier, validating key issues sooner, and resolving disputes upfront. This can help reduce the conditions in which misinformation spreads and reduce delays later in the process.
2 - Uncertainty created by front-loading to reduce uncertainty: There is a push to advance baseline studies, project design, and consultation earlier in the process to reduce uncertainty and accelerate decision-making. In practice, however, this creates a different form of uncertainty for proponents when substantial work is undertaken before expectations, scope, or information requirements are clearly defined by regulators.
3 - Greater emphasis on transparency and explainability: There is a move towards clearer communication of key issues, assumptions, and evidence. However, there is also a trend towards asking for more data and analysis, which can muddy communication of key messages.
4 - Integration of scientific rigor with faster delivery: Rather than simply speeding up, the trend is toward smart scoping, focused analysis, and science-based prioritization to help ensure that any streamlined processes are defensible.
5 - Shift from impact assessment as a planning tool to a permitting tool: As more information is required upfront to support decision-making, impact assessment risks becoming more of a permitting exercise than a planning tool, weakening the iterative, adaptive role it has developed over the past 50 years as a valuable means of informing project design and decision-making.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
• Communicate uncertainty clearly, not defensively
The session framing suggests that uncertainty should be acknowledged as an inherent part of impact assessment rather than hidden. Credibility comes from explaining what is known, what is uncertain, and how uncertainty will be managed through monitoring, follow-up, and adaptive measures.
• Focus communication on key issues through smart scoping
Several entries point to the value of narrowing attention to the most material issues rather than overwhelming participants with everything at once. Strategic scoping down to key issues helps people understand what matters most and why, and to
• Engage early and iteratively: The IAAC two-year model emphasizes early engagement, iterative engagement, and early validation of key issues.
• Resolve major issues as early as possible: Early issue resolution improves both efficiency and trust, where assessments are viewed as being more credible when participants can see that concerns are being identified, discussed, and addressed.
• Make evidence easy to trace from conclusion back to supporting data:
Conclusions should be easy to locate, but also clearly linked to the analysis and evidence behind them so participants do not feel that results are unsupported.
• Use evidence from existing projects to support claims: Understanding the effectiveness of mitigation measures that have been implemented in the past is important to show what works and what does not.
• Strengthen Indigenous capacity support:. Communication is more effective when communities have the time, resources, and support needed to engage with technical material on fair terms.
• Use iterative design and consultation updates when projects evolve: In progressive design-build contexts, design changes can alter effects and mitigation needs. By overlapping contracts, the designers can benefit from the input of contractors to inform project activities, improving the reliability of predictions and reducing potential project changes.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
1 - Uncertainty is unavoidable. Progress comes from managing it and making it usable for decision-making
2 - Early proactive approaches are key, but require coordination and early scoping to provide clarity and to achieve efficiency
3 - Efficiency is not about frontloading more work, it is about smarter scoping to focus on key issues. Strategic scoping is a tool for managing uncertainty while expediting the process
4 - There is an inherent tension between speed and confidence, where expedited processes / assessments are interpreted as less rigorous
5 - Transparency is important to build trust

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Impact assessment practitioners should focus on managing uncertainty transparently, using strategic scoping to concentrate on key issues, linking conclusions clearly to evidence, and communicating technical findings in accessible ways. They should support mitigation claims with empirical evidence, build adaptive approaches for evolving project designs, engage early and iteratively, clarify expectations upfront, and preserve impact assessment’s role as a planning tool rather than allowing it to become only a permitting exercise.
More specifically:
1 - Treat uncertainty as something to explain and manage, not conceal: Practitioners should communicate uncertainty openly, clearly, and consistently, showing how it has been considered in predictions, mitigation, monitoring, and follow-up. Credibility is strengthened when uncertainty is framed as a normal part of impact assessment rather than a weakness.
2 - Prioritize strategic scoping over simply front-loading more work: Efficiency should come from focusing early on the issues that matter most, not from requiring all possible information at the outset. Practitioners should help define what is material, what can be assessed later, and what level of detail is actually needed to support decisions.
3 - Link conclusions clearly to evidence: Assessment findings should be easy to trace from non-technical conclusions back to the supporting analysis, assumptions, and data. Practitioners should make it easier for participants to see how conclusions were reached, which can reduce misunderstanding and distrust.
4 - Use plain language without sacrificing technical integrity: Practitioners should present technically rigorous analysis in formats that are accessible to non-specialist audiences. Clear summaries, plain-language explanations, and transparent presentation of evidence can help bridge the gap between scientific rigor and public understanding.
5 - Support claims about mitigation with evidence from practice: Where possible, practitioners should draw on follow-up results, comparable projects, and empirical evidence to show what mitigation measures have achieved in real-world settings. This is especially important for socio-economic effects, where evidence is often weaker.
6 - Build adaptive assessment approaches for projects with evolving designs: For progressive design-build and other iterative project models, practitioners should design assessments that can accommodate change while remaining clear, robust, and decision-useful. This includes establishing update points, documenting design evolution, and explaining how changes affect impact predictions.
7 - Engage early, iteratively, and meaningfully: Early engagement should be used to identify key issues, clarify expectations, and reduce avoidable conflict later in the process. Practitioners should treat engagement as an ongoing process of dialogue and refinement, not as a one-time consultation step.
8 - Strengthen trust through transparency and responsiveness: In faster-paced processes, trust becomes even more important. Practitioners should be explicit about assumptions, limitations, trade-offs, and unresolved issues, and should demonstrate how concerns raised by participants have influenced the assessment.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
1 - Agencies need to be transparent about process expectations and information needs: Where assessments are being expedited or front-loaded, practitioners and agencies should work to clarify scope, information requirements, and decision expectations as early as possible to reduce the uncertainty created when proponents are asked to do substantial work before requirements are well defined.
2 - Prioritize strategic scoping over simply front-loading more work: Efficiency should come from focusing early on the issues that matter most, not from requiring all possible information at the outset. Regulators should define what is material, what can be assessed later, and what level of detail is actually needed to support decisions.
3 - Preserve the planning function of impact assessment: Decision-makers / regulators should resist allowing IA to become only a permitting exercise driven by complete upfront documentation. Good practice should retain the IA process’s iterative role in shaping project design, testing alternatives, and improving decisions over time.
4 - Facilitate adaptive assessment approaches for projects with evolving designs: Agencies should accommodate evolving project design to allow for project changes while maintaining a clear understanding of potential effects and mitigation to avoid undue delays.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
- Not centering the lived experiences of the persons on the ground, thus resulting in a lost of traditional practices and lands
- Regulatory safe is does not equal to safe for indigenous use
- Persons dislike hearing things that challenge their world view
- Development (for example, via economic value earned via tourism and infrastructural development) is often conducted without focusing on the intangible value of culture, eg. Things that aren’t built infrastructure
- Practitioners do not cater for the nuances in the communities they engage with resulting in distrust and incorrect information being provided to both the consultant and the community’s misrepresenting the project to themselves
- Knowledge is not returned to communities, they simply stay in the reports that are produced.
- Seeing stakeholders as a blank slate that needs to be filled with information and not as unique persons with a variety of knowledge and local context

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
- The need for intersectionality of the difference aspects of culture, such as gender, the role of spirituality and religion, as well as the importance of the indigenous persons having hands on involvement in projects. Th
- Discussed and provided case studies of successive inclusion and development of projects with Indigenous communities. Showing that it is possible for practitioners of IA and the indigenous communities (or as one speaker stated, the land owners) to collaborate and produce a product that matches both of their needs. Case studies described direct interactions with the community and centring the unique lived experiences.
- Communicators themselves need to review how they interact with stakeholders and how they may be neglecting certain angles based on their own biases

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
- Good communication includes returning the knowledge to your stakeholder after the engagement period. And one key factor is that this knowledge must be returned in the most culturally appropriate manner.

- People are dynamic creatures, when developing the communication plan, it must be adaptable to the nuances of the stakeholders and flexible enough to be adjusted as the team learns more about the communities being engaged with.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Actually, centering the community voices and concerns includes developing a project that was built with them. It means they need to be represented on the decision-making boards and their insight included in the development of the assessment.

The best Assessment methodology is one that is catered to match the cultural nuances and niche aspects of the area being assessed. This means that theory may not be the best fit for the project, work with stakeholders to develop something that captures the true reality on the ground

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
The importance of including in intangible aspects of culture cannot be understated. Tradition and Culture cannot simply be summarized to resources. The Policy developed must be improved.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Managing continual onslaught of mis/dis information.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
The Truth Sandwich: "Begin with correct information - Present factual, accurate information
Place false information in the middle - Briefly mention the misinformation or false claim only when necessary, without unnecessary repetition or linking. End with correct information - Conclude by reinforcing the accurate facts and credible sources"

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
Diversity of ways that disasters and crisis interact. The two sessions had 8 presentations, of which two involved rail lines and two conflict, one misinformation during conflict and two on disaster-related impact assessment. Makes it hard to come up with ensemble results except that disasters and conflict as a problem and impact assessment can reduce the scope of these problems.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Make impact assessment relevant to the context of disaster and conflict.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Consider disasters and conflict as part of the assessment process.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
See above.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
- Differing, culturally and geographically-specific definitions of health and criteria for measuring health impacts
- Risk communication by proponents
- Communities not being adequately informed about FPIC and their right to ask for a health impact assessment from practitioners/proponents

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
- Relationship-building between communities, governments, practitioners, and proponents
- Plain language, culturally-specific, translated risk communication materials

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
N/A

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
- Need for Indigenous community-led IA
- Need for EIS terms of reference and scope to specifically include HIA and Indigenous community-identified health priorities and impacts
- Lack of available resources/tools/guidance on Indigenous-specific HIA for communities, practitioners and government.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
- Importance of relationship building with Indigenous communities
- Need to be aware of blindspots when doing "business as usual"
- Inconsistent approaches and reporting to communities after HIA (data sharing, etc.)
- Need to continue engagement and relationships with communities post-HIA/IA

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
- Need specific policy and regulations on when to screen/conduct HIA as part of IA process.
- Policymakers need to support Indigenous-led HIA processes where Indigenous communities/governments/nations define what is well-being and what are the criteria appropriate to estimate health impacts.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
None

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
None

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
None

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Involve the health system and especially Public Health

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Involve the health system and especially Public Health

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Involve the health system and especially Public Health

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Across the session, the most explicit challenges came from the Myanmar case:
Distorted stakeholder perceptions due to inaccurate media narratives.
Political instability amplifying misinformation risks, making it harder for EIAs to be trusted.
Difficulty maintaining transparency when narratives are contested or manipulated.
Weak institutional capacity creates fertile ground for misinformation, especially where communities lack access to reliable information.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Use participatory and co‑designed processes to validate information and reduce gaps between technical and community knowledge.
Translate complex technical data into accessible formats so local authorities and communities can understand and act on it.
Maintain transparency through ongoing engagement rather than one‑off consultations.
Integrate Indigenous knowledge to improve credibility, relevance, and predictive accuracy.
Apply early risk screening and clear communication of standards to build trust and avoid confusion.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
Institutional capacity gaps repeatedly emerged as a root cause of communication challenges.
Trust deficits, especially in politically fragile or historically marginalised contexts, influence how information is received.
Linear infrastructure projects must address key social impacts such as severance early in the development process.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Well designed impact assessment is fundamentally a social process, that must be rooted in carefully considered stakeholder engagement.
Context determines credibility — methods must adapt to political, cultural, and institutional realities.
Inclusive approaches improve predictive accuracy, legitimacy, and long‑term governance.
International standards gain legitimacy when interpreted locally rather than applied mechanically.
Participatory monitoring and Indigenous knowledge strengthen accountability and fill gaps in conventional EIA.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Adapt assessment methods to the political and cultural context.
Invest early in participatory approaches to build trust and reduce misinformation.
Integrate Indigenous and local knowledge as core evidence.
Communicate proactively and clearly, especially when technical data may be misunderstood.
Build institutional capacity rather than focusing solely on project‑level compliance.
Plan for long‑term social impacts that require multi‑phase management, such as severance
Use engagement to build relationships, not just to disclose information.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Local governments:
Strengthen understanding of international E&S standards.
Invest in institutional capacity so good practices persist beyond individual projects.
National authorities:
Support transparent communication channels to counter misinformation.
Enable participatory governance frameworks that give communities meaningful roles.
Project developers and financiers
Embed participatory monitoring mechanisms that include community‑generated data.
Conduct early risk screening to avoid downstream conflict and confusion.
Civil society and community organisations
Use Indigenous and local knowledge to validate and challenge technical assessments.
Act as intermediaries to translate technical findings into community‑relevant narratives

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Disinformation is recognised by major institutions, including the UN Global Risk Report and the World Economic Forum, as the leading global risk. "Information integrity is the mother of all battles. Win this, and we can win the rest. Lose this, and we lose everything." ~Nobel Peace Laureate Maria Ressa. United Nations General Assembly, September 2025

Disinformation and misinformation need to be better understood to support more effective prevention/rapid mitigation and ensure a shared understanding necessary to response.

Disinformation has malicious intent and is an 'attack on the integrity of knowledge'.

Misinformation is inaccurate information unintentionally held and/or shared.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
1) Understand the common societal faultlines on which disinformation centres:
Health and wellbeing (e.g., vaccines)
Gender and sexuality (e.g., anti-trans movements and targeting female leaders)
Climate and sustainability (e.g., renewable energy)
First Nations, migrants, culture and religion
Urban planning (e.g., 15-minute cities, smart cities, infrastructure)

2) Know the common 'lightning rods' for disinformation:
Elections
Policymaking
Current events - global and local
Disasters and crises, including natural disasters
Major events, including major public sporting events
Transitions

3) There are three key phases for disinformation response:
Anticipatory: Identify whether and how your project/policy/initiative relates to any of the above faultlines. What narratives might be created? What activities or events might trigger disinformation around these faultlines? Who are the key stakeholders in your network who will be trusted sources of correct information when disinformation circulates? What can you do right now to work with those stakeholders to establish true, clear, shared narratives that you can present as a collective to stave off disinformation or respond to it more rapidly?

Active: A disinformation event is in progress - Verify information - both what is being spread and what correct information needs to be shared; Identify mal-actors wherever possible; Engage, inform and support communities - Do this through trusted networks, those who community members will listen to; Prevent the spread

Recovery: Rebuild trust: Respond to information and grievances; Collaborate with trusted networks to rebuild trust, clarify information and protect communities/projects/initiatives and learn lessons to feedback into your Anticipatory work; Support community recovery and resilience - Disinformation harms trust and social cohesion. When the disinformation event is over, there is still work to be done to rebuild trust.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
For more information, see:
https://infrastructure.anu.edu.au/disinformation-2024-was-rife-and-its-likely-bring-more-risks-2025

One key way to reduce the drivers for disinformation is to advocate for 'opt-in algorithms' - Users should have the right to choose whether platforms apply mediating algorithms to their use/accounts.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Disinformation is a major risk and it's affecting the projects, policies and initiatives that are the subjects of impact assessments. By encouraging a better understanding of misinformation and disinformation within our profession, we can play an important role in anticipating, responding and aiding recovery from disinformation events.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Take time to understand disinformation and build your and your teams' capacities to identify and respond to it.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
-Understand and work with stakeholder networks early - anticipate potential sites for disinformation and develop shared narratives and response plans
-Opt-in algorithm legislation could reduce disinformation and advance digital rights and justice.
-Look out for any societal faultlines or disinformation 'lightning rods' that may relate to or occur alongside your project/policy/initiative

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
The session highlighted how local knowledge is often delegitimized in environmental governance processes, reinforcing power asymmetries between corporations, governments, and affected communities. Discussions also addressed contested narratives regarding social safeguards in industrial development projects.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Presenters emphasized the need for transparent, culturally sensitive, and participatory communication practices. Strategies discussed included recognizing communities as legitimate knowledge holders, strengthening participatory governance, rights of nature initiatives, and incorporating local knowledge into impact assessment.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
The session reinforced that environmental conflicts are also territorial, political, and epistemic conflicts. Discussions highlighted the importance of addressing cumulative impacts, territorial rights, and biocultural dimensions within environmental governance and impact assessment.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Impact assessment processes need to move beyond technical approaches and better incorporate social justice, territorial security, and meaningful participation. The session emphasized that environmental sustainability cannot be separated from territorial and community rights.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Practitioners should adopt more participatory and territorially grounded approaches, improve cumulative impact assessment, and recognize traditional and community knowledge as valuable contributions to environmental governance. Long-term trust-building and transparent communication were also identified as essential.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Governments and regulatory agencies should strengthen participatory governance mechanisms and territorial rights protections. Industry actors should prioritize transparent communication, accountability, and culturally sensitive engagement with affected communities.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
A key challenge identified was related to synthesizing various sources of information into a comprehensive but manageable impact assessment. An emerging trend is Indigenous-led assessments where First Nation communities lead assessments for cumulative effects, drawing in western science and community knowledge to develop comprehensive assessments to inform regional planning.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Speakers presented case studies and/or suggested methodological approaches related to holistic impact assessment. In many cases presentations mentioned the value of synthesizing data into a summary which was easier for communities to digest. Speakers presented on the use of GIS mapping to help communicate cumulative effects assessment. Several speakers acknowledged the importance of inclusive and ongoing engagement with communities (beyond the IA). Health impact assessment was the topic of two presentations, with one speaker acknowledging how referring to social determinants of health results in a broader consideration of community effects and another speaker suggesting adopting a One Health framework as a means to meld human health and ecological health effects in a more holistic assessment.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Key learnings from our session include: moving beyond conventional impact assessment conducted by technical experts working in silos; acknowledging the interrelationships among environmental, economic and social valued components; and acknowledging that while positive effects should be acknowledged in impact assessment, these positive effects do not necessarily cancel adverse effects.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Look for opportunities to incorporate different perspectives in impact assessment and move beyond siloed assessments entrenched in western science. Encourage proponents to work collaboratively with communities to understand real impacts and concerns.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Regulators preparing impact statement guidelines should consider recommending broader frameworks that encourage consideration of interrelationships between biophysical, social and economic aspects of the environment.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
we dealt with the session title, which are general tools for clear thinking and communication. They are useful tools, but not at all sufficient, to address mis and dis.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
This was a workshop in which we presented four specific tools for creating clear arguments, which apply to all topics, including controversial ones.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Be careful and thoughtful about building strong arguments, and sharing all the logical steps, so you have something clear and worthwhile to say, and can then present it to the audience.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
same as above

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Use these tools.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Misinformation often emerges when complex issues are communicated through overly narrow or simplified perspectives. Participants discussed how partial truths and scale mismatches can contribute to misunderstanding within communities.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Our session introduced practical systems thinking concepts, including reinforcing patterns and balancing effects, and participants applied these concepts through a collaborative mapping exercise. The activity demonstrated how systems mapping can help practitioners identify relationships, trade-offs, and cumulative effects that may otherwise be overlooked, supporting clearer and more credible communication in impact assessment.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
Our session used a fictionalized coastal transition case study in Türkiye involving energy transition, industrial development, tourism, fisheries, wetlands, and cultural heritage. Participants explored how systems thinking approaches can help practitioners address oversimplified narratives and communicate complex interactions more effectively. Many participants expressed an interest in having a full systems thinking training course in the future.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Systems thinking tools and methods can strengthen impact assessment by helping practitioners better understand cumulative effects, interactions across sectors, and long-term implications of development decisions. Participants highlighted the importance of moving beyond siloed project-by-project analysis toward more integrated approaches that better reflect real-world complexity.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Impact assessment practitioners should incorporate systems thinking approaches earlier in assessment and planning processes to better identify interactions, trade-offs, and cumulative effects. Practitioners should also use clearer and more transparent communication tools, such as systems mapping, to help communities and decision-makers understand complex relationships and avoid oversimplified interpretations of development outcomes.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
For policymakers and planning authorities, participants emphasized the importance of supporting more integrated and cross-sectoral approaches to environmental assessment and regional planning. For project developers and infrastructure planners, the session highlighted the value of considering long-term system interactions and community concerns early in project design. For communities and stakeholders, the discussion reinforced the importance of engaging with development issues through a broader systems perspective rather than focusing on single impacts in isolation.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Innovations at multiple levels are needed to improve public engagement and, as a result, facilitate access to high-quality information.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
A public-focused strategy, such as a comic book, a hotline, or a practical guide. Developing innovative methodologies early on also makes it possible to implement solutions for conveying more targeted information in impact assessments.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
A multi-level, multi-stakeholder approach is needed to improve the quality and dissemination of information related to impact analysis

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Getting closer to population

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
To be open to innovation and innovative ideas

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Three key challenges emerged across the four presentations:

1. Information asymmetry in environmental licensing: Gino Araya's analysis of 2,063 mining projects in Chile revealed that 95% were evaluated without formal citizen participation. Even when environmental information exists, it is dispersed across fragmented portals, lacks shared project IDs for traceability, and is not presented in accessible language — effectively creating an information gap that mirrors misinformation through omission.

2. Misinformation through curricular gaps: Kay Bergamini's mapping of 81 EIA courses across 40 Chilean institutions showed that legal frameworks dominate teaching (79% coverage), while communication with communities scored the largest training gap (1.64 points). This means professionals enter the field without skills to communicate credibly with affected populations, inadvertently fueling misunderstanding and conflict.

3. Disconnected data in vulnerable territories: Fernando Braga Castro demonstrated through Bayesian network analysis in a Brazilian favela that environmental and social vulnerabilities (sanitation, health, energy poverty, housing) are deeply interconnected, yet data is collected and presented in silos. This fragmentation prevents communities and decision-makers from seeing the full picture, leading to misinformed policy responses.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Several practical strategies were discussed:

1. AI-enabled transparency tools: Araya & Bergamini proposed three concrete AI applications for Chile's EIA system — automated traceability across permitting and enforcement portals, semantic search of thousands of environmental resolutions in plain language, and proactive geo-referenced alerts to notify citizens when projects enter the system. These require no new legislation, only applying existing technology to existing public data.

2. Competency-based curriculum reform: Bergamini's research provided evidence that real SEIA cases were identified as the most useful training strategy by 56% of professionals, yet only 22% of programs use them. The session recommended shifting from lecture-dominated pedagogy to experiential methods including simulated EIA exercises, interdisciplinary projects, and explicit communication competencies (community engagement, strategic messaging, conflict management).

3. Cross-professional environmental literacy: Giberti demonstrated at Argentina's Pilar National University how robotics and automation students can be trained to connect technical skills with environmental reasoning through competency-based frameworks, creating professionals who can communicate across disciplines using shared environmental language.

4. Integrated vulnerability mapping: Braga Castro showed how correlating SDG indicators through network analysis can make invisible connections visible, providing communities and practitioners with tools to communicate complex socio-environmental realities more effectively.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
The Q&A discussion raised several important cross-cutting issues:

- The medical internship model for EIA training: A participant (Joanne Henco, with experience in Canada and Bolivia) argued strongly that EIA education should adopt a medical-profession model where students learn fundamentals in the classroom and then practice in the field under supervision. The gap between textbook knowledge and field reality was identified as a persistent global challenge.

- Political restrictions on environmental terminology: A doctoral researcher from the University of Texas raised the challenge of incorporating environmental concepts in contexts where terms like "climate change" or "environmental justice" face political restrictions. Giberti responded that concepts can be taught under different terminology as long as the substantive content and reasoning are preserved.

- Global South epistemologies: The same participant questioned how Latin American countries can develop environmental assessment approaches that reflect local realities rather than simply adopting frameworks from the Global North. The chairs noted that while EIA originated in the US (NEPA), Latin America has shaped its own methodologies over decades, with Colombia practicing EIA for 55 years and regional networks (SEIA, FICA) actively developing context-appropriate approaches.

- Information access challenges across Latin America: Brazilian participants confirmed that the information access gaps documented in Chile also exist in Brazil, even at the federal level, suggesting a systemic regional challenge rather than a country-specific one.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
The session delivered four converging messages for impact assessment:

1. Education is the upstream determinant of EIA quality. Bergamini's triangulated study (curricula, faculty, professionals) demonstrated that how we train practitioners directly shapes the quality of environmental predictions, community relations, and overall EIA rigor. The systemic communication deficit — equal across STEM and social science disciplines, persistent over 15+ years — means the problem is structural, not individual.

2. Legal rights do not equal effective access. Araya's 30-year analysis of mining projects showed that procedural reforms create rights on paper, but structural gaps in traceability, accessibility, and proactivity prevent those rights from being exercised. The Escazu Agreement represents the largest discontinuity in transparency, yet 95% of mining projects still proceed without citizen participation.

3. Vulnerability analysis must be integrated, not siloed. Braga Castro's Bayesian network approach revealed that sanitation, health, energy, and housing vulnerabilities form feedback loops in informal settlements. EIA that evaluates projects in isolation misses these interconnections and produces incomplete assessments.

4. Environmental literacy must start early and span all professions. Giberti's work at a new Argentine university showed that environmental competencies need to be embedded transversally across technical degrees — not as optional add-ons, but as foundational skills that enable better project design and ultimately fewer negative impacts requiring assessment.

The overarching lesson: the gap between knowing and connecting — connecting disciplines, connecting data with communities, and connecting classroom learning with field practice — is Latin America's central EIA challenge.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Based on the session discussions, we offer these recommendations to EIA practitioners:

1. Invest in communication competencies as core professional skills. The evidence from Chile shows that communication with communities and strategic communication are the largest training gaps across all disciplines. Practitioners should actively develop these skills through professional development, not treat them as secondary to technical expertise.

2. Use real cases and interdisciplinary collaboration in practice and training. Only 22% of Chilean EIA programs use real SEIA cases despite 56% of professionals identifying them as the most valuable training method. Practitioners involved in teaching or mentoring should prioritize case-based, hands-on approaches.

3. Leverage AI tools for transparency, not as replacement for participation. The session presented a clear three-step sequence: first establish open data foundations (unique project IDs, structured metadata), then integrate AI tools (semantic search, geographic alerts), and finally build institutional capacity. Practitioners should advocate for and adopt these tools to make environmental information genuinely accessible.

4. Adopt integrated vulnerability frameworks. When assessing impacts on communities, practitioners should move beyond single-variable analysis and use tools like SDG correlation mapping to understand how impacts cascade through interconnected social, environmental, and economic systems.

5. Bridge classroom and field practice. Following the medical internship model discussed in the Q&A, practitioners should create structured mentorship and internship opportunities that connect academic preparation with professional reality.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Recommendations emerged for several types of stakeholders:

For higher education policymakers and university administrators:
- Reform EIA curricula to rebalance the current overemphasis on legal frameworks with practical competencies in baseline studies, impact assessment methodology, and community communication. The evidence shows these are the areas with the largest gaps between what is taught and what professionals need.
- Create interdisciplinary EIA courses that bring together students from engineering, social sciences, law, and environmental science in the same classroom, rather than maintaining discipline-specific silos.
- Establish formal internship requirements in EIA programs, following the medical profession model, to bridge the documented gap between academic preparation and professional practice.

For environmental agencies and regulators (e.g., Chile's SEA, Brazil's IBAMA):
- Implement unique project identification systems that link environmental assessment, permitting, and enforcement databases, enabling traceability across the full project lifecycle.
- Deploy AI-powered tools on existing public data platforms to enable semantic search, plain-language summaries, and proactive territorial alerts — none of which require new legislation.
- Strengthen programs like Chile's "Academia SEA" that serve as bridges between formal education and regulatory practice.

For international development organizations and treaty bodies:
- Support the development of Latin American EIA methodologies that reflect regional realities, rather than solely adopting frameworks designed in the Global North.
- Monitor Escazu Agreement implementation through measurable indicators across the five dimensions identified in this session: availability, timeliness, accessibility, traceability, and proactivity.

For community organizations:
- Advocate for AI-enabled access tools that reduce information asymmetry, particularly in simplified environmental assessment pathways (like Chile's DIA) where participation is not mandatory.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Regulators and federal governments continue to resist meaningfully addressing Indigenous Rights and Title within engagement and assessment processes, while at times relying on misinformation to advance politically driven economic agendas. Access to data, and the ability for Nations to control how their data is used, interpreted, and shared, remains highly complex and rooted in systemic barriers that require coordinated and multifaceted solutions

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Open data with strong security measures, meaningful listening to impacted communities regarding how they wish to be respectfully engaged, and the provision of capacity building support and funding were identified as critical components of effective impact assessment processes. These approaches are often practical, cost effective, and achievable, yet remain underutilized by proponents and governments.

Participants emphasized that project timelines must be adapted to reflect the needs and capacities of Nations and communities. Efforts to “fast-track” projects without appropriate communication and engagement strategies are likely to result in legal challenges, uncertainty, delays, and long-term erosion of trust. Impacts to trust may also extend beyond individual projects and constrain broader regional and sectoral development aspirations.

The discussion also highlighted that the failure of proponents and regulators to credibly assess and address cumulative effects, particularly in major development regions such as the Oil Sands in Alberta and the Northwest Coast of British Columbia, leaves communities and Rights and Title holders with limited options other than pursuing litigation and court action.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
Health impact assessment and access to data were particularly sensitive and complex to capture. The need to incorporate trauma-informed practices in IA considering the impact of past and ongoing colonial-led trauma limits the ability and capacity of Nation to meaningfully participate to processes, which are often led by very restricted timelines that are not compatible with reconciliation objectives, and meeting existing Treaty commitments.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Indigenous government, community members and right and title holders are not all "anti-project/development". Regulators and proponents would benefit to invest more time, energy and resources in meaningfully engaging community leaders and Nations with this in mind. Ensuring rights & title holders are engaged in a way that a culturally appropriate, meaningful and, over the long-term, will enhance certainty of project and complex/sensitive development plan in key regions in Canada (e.g. Oil Sands, Northwest Pacific corridor). Ignoring systemic issues in IA including: selection data bias, data access barrier, shifting baseline, and using misinformation to maintain a "status quo" approach, will only lead to the break down of public trust. Addressing those issues within projects and regulatory frameworks is critical to advance a more equitable, predictable, and transparent process.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Invest time in trauma-inform training. Revisit project timelines based on community readiness and realistic community engagement objectives that align with community-led priorities and cultural needs. If they cannot be met; then practitioners must uphold strong ethical standard and refuse to advance on a scope of work that enables harm into impacted community. Better mechanism to report such action, is also needed to ensure accountability.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Policy makers/decision makers must realign (top down) expectations based on community needs so progress can be made in a good way. Community engagement and communication need reciprocal approaches for trust to be built/maintain over the long-term. Current practices, and using misinformation to promote status quo or control mechanism will only lead to further legal challenges, create uncertainty for proponents/development plans, and delays realistic development opportunities.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Multiple sectoral interpretations of health were discussed

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Professional accreditation; relationship building to enhance trust among partners

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
na

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Incorporate climate into HIAs

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
incorporate climate into HIAs

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
CCHVAA assessments are necessary

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Ensure public trust

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Sharing the process with the public is important. Current reports tend to focus on the results, but for regional studies, it's crucial to be transparent about the process (e.g., explaining what wasn't included and why).

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
None

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Ensuring better communication. Building trust with communities takes time, which presents a challenge to maintaining the timeline

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Being more transparent in the process. Include the process in an appendix to avoid overloading the reports. Encourage proponents to submit their regional projects. In Canada, there is a trend towards the government taking charge of regional studies. This change (proponent project) must occur in the coming years.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Integrate strategic and regional assessments early into the broader planning process.Establish transparent processes to manage cumulative effects across multiple sectors.Secure adequate multi-year funding, staffing, and resources to conduct rigorous assessments and continuous monitoring

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Communicating EIA findings using film offers opportunities to widen engagement with IA processes. However there a range of practical, technical and ethical challenges concerning the use of film.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Overall there was enthusiasm for the use of film as a supporting tool for IA. We discussed the development of fast tips on the use of film in IA and crowd sourced some draft principles.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
The tech support was poor. The laptop battery died mid presentation as the power cable was not connected. Furthermore, the audio became bad and in the end I had to abandon the presentation due to lack of IT support. Despite me calling in the IT three times, and setting it up in advance 30 minutes before.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
There is wide appetite for greater exploration of this topic, i.e. the use of film in IA

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Consider using film to support you Impact Assessment to enhance communication, engagement and public participation.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
What rules and governance do we need to put in place to facilitate the use of film whilst providing some guard rails to the mis-use of film.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Persistent public concerns about EMFs despite strong scientific consensus, fueled by misinformation linked to broader exposure to technologies (5G, Wi‑Fi, etc.). Early-stage consultations show that misinformation can emerge very early in a project lifecycle and shape initial perceptions. Increasing expectation from communities for independent validation and transparency, rather than relying solely on proponent information. Complex technical topics create a gap where misinformation can spread easily when explanations are not accessible or trusted.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Engage early and continuously (before positions harden), including during project notice stage.
Set up structured, local dialogue mechanisms (e.g., working committees with residents, municipalities).
Integrate credible third parties (academics, health experts, independent facilitator) to build trust.
Invest in plain language materials and transparency (e.g., additional simulations, accessible documents).
Combine technical expertise with empathy: ability to explain complex issues clearly and respectfully.
Ensure follow-through on commitments (data, studies, meetings) to reinforce credibility over time.
Prioritize in-person / real human interactions rather than only written communications.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
Importance of co-construction of knowledge (e.g., working committees reviewing studies together).
Role of municipalities as intermediaries between project proponents and citizens.
Demonstrated value of time investment (multi-year engagement) to resolve complex concerns.
Social acceptability improves when stakeholders feel heard, involved, and able to influence solutions.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Impact assessment must integrate communication and participation as core components, not as add-ons.
Addressing misinformation requires moving from a “transmit information” approach to a “build understanding and trust” approach. Early and structured engagement can prevent issues (like EMF concerns) from escalating later in the process. Credibility is strengthened when assessment processes include independent expertise, transparency, and iterative dialogue.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Plan for early engagement on sensitive or technical issues, even before formal consultation phases.
Create dedicated forums (committees, working groups) that allow sustained dialogue with stakeholders.
Use plain language systematically, supported by visual tools and concrete examples.
Incorporate independent experts or third-party validation into the engagement process.
Train teams in empathetic communication, not only technical expertise.
Allocate sufficient time and resources for engagement, not just minimum regulatory requirements.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
For policymakers / regulators:

Encourage or require early-stage engagement mechanisms, not only formal hearings.
Promote frameworks that recognize the value of ongoing dialogue (e.g., working committees).
Support integration of independent expertise in project assessments.

For project proponents / utilities:

Invest in long-term relationship-building with communities.
Ensure consistency between commitments and actions to maintain trust.

For municipalities:

Act as active partners and intermediaries, helping align community concerns with project development.
Participate in structured mechanisms to ensure local realities are integrated early.

For experts / academia:

Engage in public processes to provide credible, trusted perspectives.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
—

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
—

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
—

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
—

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
—

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
—

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
b. : Importance of asking the communities concerned how they want to be informed and involved. Need to be present on the ground to understand the local dynamics and customary tenure. Need to use local "expert council" for advise. Set up Committee with the communities to exchange information.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Land Use Survey can provide reliable information for better project descision making if they are done in close collaboration with
concerned communities and methodology is in accordance with their culture and specific needs of information

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
—

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
—

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Key information challenges in public participation :

Emotional bias; perceptions, NIMBY syndrome
Over simplification of complex issues
Information gaps
Shortcuts by media
Poor science communication
Preexisting lack of trust in authorities and proponents
Opposition from stakeholders and influence groups from outside the community
Stategic communication of proponents (withheld information for strategic reasons)
Language and cultural barriers
Clashing visions of development

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Proposed solutions to improve the efficiency of public information

Communication stratégique des promoteurs
- Partage des infos le plus en amont (projet et vision)
- Autorégulation / bonnes pratiques internes
- Régulation des communications stratégiques par les autorités (obligations dans cahier des charges)

Syndrome « Pas dans la cour »
- Expliquer les enjeux du projet, donner l’heure juste; prévisibilité de ce qui va arriver
- Mesures d’atténuation adaptables
- Participation active du milieu
- Programme de suivi et communiquer les prochaines étapes
- Système de gestion des plaintes dès le début

Bris de confiance
- Comprendre l’origine du bris de confiance
- Communiquer le plus possible en amont
- Coordination des messages politiques et du promoteur
- Dialogue avec la communauté; créer des liens durables (mécanismes de communication à long terme)

Vulgarisation scientifique
- Varier les formats (supports, types de rencontres/activités)
- Contextualiser les informations et les lier aux enjeux
- Rendre accessible le contenu des études d’impacts par un vulgarisateur / faire valider le langage pour qu’il soit compris par le public

Raccourcis médiatiques
- Prendre la place pour véhiculer le bon message
- Rectifier les faits
- Éviter le fractionnement des projets
- Être transparent
- Établir des relations de confiance

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
n/a

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
see question b)

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
see question b)

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
see question b)

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Having Indigenous partners at the table and in the field with regulators, engaging directly on matters of importance, creates a place to 'clear up' and avoid any misinformation and disinformation, and helps improve communication between rights holders and regulators.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Takes time. Builds trust. Tables with multiple rightsholders enables sharing of information and perspectives, and avoids silo-ing of knowledge.
Potential evolution towards Indigenous Peoples taking the lead in creating, interpreting data and providing indigenous perspectives towards safety from an indigenous risk model.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
• Impact assessment must extend beyond decisions to lifecycle, relationship-based oversight — sustained Indigenous participation, monitoring, and accountability over the full project lifecycle are now core to credible and effective practice. Direct experiential learning from indigenous oversight of a project leads to alignment of information and data.
• Trust and legitimacy are central outcomes, not byproducts — integrating Indigenous rights, knowledge, and governance through co-developed, transparent structures strengthens decision quality, social acceptance, and long-term project viability. Clear distinctions between economic benefit versus safety of environment become known clearing a path for trust.
• The field is shifting from consultation to partnership and shared governance — effective impact assessment increasingly relies on embedded Indigenous roles, capacity, and co-management approaches that combine technical expertise with Indigenous knowledge to improve outcomes on the ground. Regulatory involvement leads to greater certainty when the information loop and oversight loop directly involves indigenous people’s. The Role and responsibility of consultation still reside with rights holders.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
• Design for lifecycle involvement, not one-time assessment
Embed Indigenous participation, monitoring, and follow-up into all phases of projects—moving beyond front-end consultation to sustained oversight and adaptive management over time.
• Build trust through structured, rights-based partnership models
Shift from engagement to co-developed governance—ensuring Indigenous rights, knowledge, and advice are embedded in decision-making processes, with clear feedback loops showing how input influences outcomes.
• Invest in capacity, collaboration, and integration of knowledge systems
Enable meaningful participation by supporting Indigenous capacity, strengthening collaboration between monitors and regulators, and systematically integrating Indigenous knowledge alongside technical expertise in assessment and oversight practices.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
• For federal policymakers and regulators:
Institutionalize Indigenous partnership in regulatory systems (not projects alone) — advance mechanisms like APM 34 to embed Indigenous participation, co-governance, and potential jurisdiction within legislation, regulatory frameworks, and national oversight models, moving from pilots to systemic change.
• For central agencies and funding bodies (e.g., NRCan, Treasury Board):
Provide sustained, long-term capacity funding and enabling frameworks — ensure stable resourcing, training, and program continuity to support Indigenous participation across the full lifecycle of projects, rather than short-term or project-specific funding models.
• For project proponents, multi-department partners, and regulators:
Strengthen coordination, transparency, and accountability across actors — improve information-sharing, clarify roles, standardize monitoring and data practices, and demonstrate how Indigenous input influences decisions to reinforce trust and effectiveness across complex governance systems.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
- CE concepts and strategies in impact assessment are still underexplored, resulting in a lack of understanding and consequent communication and reporting challenges.
- DNSH (“Do No Significant Harm”), including its six environmental objectives and links with circular economy approaches, as well as with EIA and SEA, remains a largely unknown instrument within the IA community. This creates methodological, communication, and implementation challenges, particularly regarding its articulation and practical integration with IA tools and approaches.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
More debate and practical/research studies on the circular economy in IA, as well as on DNSH as a potential driver of this process, involving different actors and stakeholders, are needed. IAIA events represent a fundamental forum to support these discussions and advance knowledge exchange.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
- Explore synergies between impact assessment (IA) and circular economy (CE).
- IA tools (e.g., EIA, SEA) can assess CE initiatives, while CE Integration in IA can help reduce the environmental effects of policies/plans/projects.
- Integrating both supports cross-sectoral decision-making and overcomes silo thinking in sustainability planning and assessment
- DNSH can be a fundamental instrument/framework to include in this discussion, since one of its six main environmental objectives/pillars is the circular economy.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Impact assessment practitioners should strengthen the integration of circular economy concepts and DNSH (“Do No Significant Harm”) principles into IA practice, including EIA and SEA. Greater methodological clarity, communication, and reporting guidance are needed, as these topics are still relatively underexplored within the IA community.

More practical case studies, collaborative research, and stakeholder involvement are also needed to support implementation and learning. IAIA events remain an important forum for advancing discussion, knowledge exchange, and good practices in this area.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Policymakers, regulatory agencies, consultants, and researchers should strengthen the integration of circular economy principles into IA practice, including EIA and SEA, with DNSH serving as a potential supporting framework. Greater support is needed for methodological guidance, capacity building, and practical case studies to improve implementation, communication, and reporting related to circular economy assessment in IA.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Challenges in ensuring appropriate recognition and protection of IP provided during impact assessment, especially indigenous peoples' knowledge.
Challenges in ensuring world heritage values are protected over generations after listing.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Practical strategies included developing simple clear messages, and sharing them widely, holding a single narrative over many years, & developing indigenous specific tools and guides.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
There is great potential for impact assessment activities to have impact beyond the immediate project. Portugal's cultural landscape and considerations related to energy infrastructure and the Great Barrier Reef SEA provide great examples.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Think beyond your current project so the impact of your work flows across systems.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Governments should look at impact assessments for their potential systemic benefit, and not simply as compliance documents enabling development

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Our session did not really touch on this.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
There was discussion about information out - including notice as part of public participation programs and the need for this to be early and clearly stated.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Public participation is foundational to impact assessment - it cannot be sacrificed in the face of streamlining for efficiency. Efficiencies can be found in other parts of the process. Further, projects in many jurisdictions will not proceed without the FPIC with Indigenous Nations.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
We hope to develop a Fastips from the input provided during the session. Our scrawl on the wall provided many recommendations for trying to ensure meaningful participation in the face of streamlining for efficiency. These covered many topics - a small sample - "focus on upstream systemic issues to build capacity in communities and regions well before proposals for projects emerge"; "provide participant assistance in many forms with a view to front loading conversations/dialogue as early as possible"; "initiate a restorative justice approach to dispute resolution"; "action court challenges to legitimize public participation in IA"; "engage university students who are learning about IA, they may have great ideas for meaningful public participation"; "open houses need to actively engage communities - not just inform"; "meaningful participation takes time".

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Stakeholders, the public and Indigenous groups will have their voice heard either inside or outside of IA processes through protests and court cases. The most constructive approach is to capture and work with those voices within the IA process. Public participation will not be streamlined away. As a participant noted "civic engagement is a nation-building project in itself.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Questions around meaningful engagement and relaying complex information in an understandable way what works.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
—

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Simplifying jargon to make assessment more understandable and relatable to regulators and local community stakeholders communities.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
To think about how you convey information. Think about your audience and adjust appropriately. To view yourself not as an impact assessor but as a communicator of complex information. EIA is not just about the science but whether you can make people genuinely believe in the decisions it leads to for development.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Large complex documents don't necessarily mean they contain what people want to know. Tailor to your audience!
Our key takeaways are: to focus on not just using EIA for compliance but to influence positive design
engaging at the right time to avoid fear mongering and be honest and transparent with stakeholders.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
From a systems perspective and the ability of IA/CIA to entrench value, we covered numerous examples of misinformation/disinformation hindering the ability for IA/CIA benefits to materialize for actual, on the ground, implementation. This was 4 sessions of 15 panelists - some of the highlights include:

Cumulative impact assessments being conducted by Indigenous groups that never make it into the public sphere or form part of implementation measures by government. The work is done, exists, but it is kept silent.

Human rights impact assessment - examples of internal mining company processes that get dismantled, silenced or manipulated and prevented from being implemented and actualized. There is a lack of regulator governance and the impacts are silenced.

There were examples of how adaptive collaboration and communication through management systems on projects can reduce risks f impacts - how effective engagement reduces misinformation.

Fantastic examples of Indigenous groups taking on the challenges of impact assessment and creating their own baseline and their own innovative systems of quantitative analysis - Ft. McKay and the odour issues. They have effectively moved qualitative impacts and risks to quantitative analysis that can benefit their circumstances but it is also an example that informs andserves to build baseline science for applications elsewhere. This breaks down silencing measures and raises question about governance at the regulator level.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Despite the challenges, all 15 panelists gave examples of credible/effective communication/engagement approaches from the respective perspectives. This was a system session, so the presenters ended up focusing on the 'how' to make IA/CIA effective. One example was the BAPE/Asbestos presentation that spoke to the misinformation of both government/industry and how public hearings and engagement are changing this narrative for the better.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
System thinking brings IA/CIA into focus in terms of entrenching its value. I recommend continued analysis and sharing on this basis to ground real change to ensure that IA/CIA is actually implemented.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Consider the system as a whole and consider the weak spots that directly diminish the role of Impact Assessment and persist with raising the issues, sharing the concerns. This means identifying the real risks, determining the right questions and issues and collaborating with champions and experts that can move for change. Small shifts can make big ripples...

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
This could be a paper in and of itself- maybe it needs to be. Again, system thinking is critical and these panelists brought forward real world examples and methods to improve governance and create successful outcomes. It was an effective gathering and it would be great to continue teasing out the lessons learned and transpose this information for recommendations for policy makers. Alternatively or in parallel, perhaps continued think tank discussions to influence change at various system levels especially if policy makers are resistant to listening....

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Our panel has allowed us to review the issue of information management, and more broadly, communication and stakeholder engagement. Ultimately, if information is incomplete, the frameworks for consultation are necessarily flawed. Margot showed us the cost of this opacity in the Middle East. Ginette demonstrated how engagement with authorities is decisive for the success of infrastructure projects in sub-Saharan Africa. And Guillén provided a constructive resolution path regarding the methods for sharing project and environmental data.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Transparency alone is not enough. The real shift lies in how data is generated, shared, and appropriated by the various actors of a territory.
Multistakeholder's platform is also a effective tool for spreading informations and engaging stakeholders.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
It is clear that processes promoting transparency serve the interests of all stakeholders, including the project and its developer. Indeed, three main levers drive private or public developers to respect international standards for stakeholder engagement:
1. The Financial Lever: to access loans, one must comply with international environmental and social normative frameworks.
2. The Legal Lever: more and more legislations are aligning with these international standards, and developers must respect stakeholder engagement processes to obtain project permits.
3. The Strategic Lever: more and more developers understand that these processes contribute to the smooth running and profitability of a project. When we consider that a single day of delay in construction or operation can cost hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars, the value of integrating a project into its social environment and territory becomes obvious. Stakeholder engagement plans are decisive in these processes. Sustainability is necessarily built through transparency and accessibility to information and data.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
The fear of opening communication Pandora's box is precisely what causes it to open, but without a facilitator to manage its contents. By withholding information to try and limit the risk of opposition, a vacuum is created that is eventually filled by rumors, mistrust, and actors who profit from the confusion. We understand then that the behavior meant to prevent conflict is exactly what generates it.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Thus, more generally, if one holds positive assumptions regarding local stakeholders—in other words, if one trusts the social environment—the self-fulfilling prophecy mechanism ensures that stakeholder participation can only be positive and allow for the building of true sustainability.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Developers think to maintain control over information by not communicating, when in fact, the exact opposite happens: promoting transparency is profitable for the project and do not let any place to rumors.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Yes. Panellist discussion in the second sitting of the panel focused on misinformation and disinformation across a number of case studies and countries.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
The focus was less on communication and more around practical action to undertake impact assessment in settings where time and pressures required particular strategies.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
The first set of papers focused on the adaptation practitioners have deployed to manage the dynamic operating environment. This includes new ways or working, engagement and strategic decision making and recognition of the professional challenges in working at pace and under pressure.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
There are diverse ways in which practitioners are responding to different pressures and challenges. A code of conduct and a professional code of ethics would help guide practitioners through some of these challenges.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
We work in a dynamic and challenging space with multiple competing interests and priorities. This requires an anchor to solid foundations of ethics, integrity and critical thinking. The panel displayed the diversity of our practices and profession but linking these was a need for clear requirements for clear professional standards and competencies.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
No specific stakeholders.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
—

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
—

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
Ethical considerations for IA practitioners when engaging with Indigenous communities balancing obligations to clients and the constraints of time & budget with obligations to best practice standards and principles. Important to bring both client and affected community along for the journey; openly admit uncertainties, but male clear recommendations regarding 'solutions' and who is responsible.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Ethical dilemmas are common, and not always covered by policies and principles ... ethical decision-making requires training, regular conversations and openness.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Early respectful consultation regarding all aspects of the project impacts on community, including long term effects

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
IAIA members would benefit from opportunities at conference to discuss ethical issues face-to-face; and World Cafe appears to be a suitable format

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
—

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
—

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
CEA largely regarded by participants as ineffective. Approaches, knowledge and definitions, regulatory framework and more differ largely in different countries.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
there was a large consensus that CEA currently does not make a difference to the IA process, the project design, mitigation or monitoring.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
We need to start thinking in new ways. One identified source of inefficiency is the project centric perspective. Relating to the key note by Garry, also here voices asked for a systems perspective and the use of related methodology.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
CEA should not be driven by the proponent.
Regional/National data should be centralised.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
the lack of regulation for FPIC affects countries worldwide

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
maintaining dialogue and "FPIC" as best practices even without regulation

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
in theory, FPIC should be implemented as soon as possible. In practice, there are difficulties in identifying the affectes communities and maintain the dialogue and align interests

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
We're all in the same boat, trying to do our best, let's continue sharing experiences

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
without clear guidelines on how to apply FPIC to the realities of each country, it generates insecurity and frustration

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
N/A

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
N/A

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
N/A

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Impact assessment should evolve from project level, fragmented practice to integrated, multi scale, and forward looking systems.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Impact assessment practitioners should adopt integrated, multi scale, and collaborative approaches

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Policymakers should lead coordinated, long term climate transition strategies. Actions must be taken without delay with clear objectives of mitigation and adaptation to fit for future climate conditions.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Transparency is essential for public trust, but transparency can be derailed by several factors, including lack of access to information/data, mis/disinterpretation and/or mis/discommunication.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Digital online open science and data platforms, interactive map-based vizualization of geospatial data, curated content collections, storymapping, storytelling, graphic recordings, video storytelling,

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
For effective communication of complex science and data, or any message at all, you need to tailor the message to each audience.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Get to know your audiences so that you can best tailor messaging for effective communication.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
For all stakeholders - There is no shortage of data, the challenge is making sense of it all and finding the data and information that is relevant to your question/situation. For this, there are many tools, including digital innovations that leverage AI to sort/sift/summarize/interpret/visualize.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
One of the key challenges identified during the session was the growing spread of misinformation and disinformation related to environmental and social impacts of projects. In many cases, technical information is difficult for communities to understand, creating opportunities for inaccurate or misleading information to circulate through social media, informal networks, or political actors.

Another important challenge discussed was the lack of trust in institutions, project proponents, and authorities, which can increase skepticism and make communities more vulnerable to misinformation.

An emerging trend identified in the session is the increasing need for communication strategies that are clear, accessible, culturally appropriate, and adapted to local languages and contexts. The session also highlighted the importance of proactive stakeholder engagement, transparency, and the use of simpler communication tools to improve understanding and reduce conflicts during impact assessment processes.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
The session highlighted several practical strategies to improve credible and effective communication in impact assessments. One of the main recommendations was the use of clear, simple, and non-technical language to ensure that stakeholders can better understand project information, potential impacts, and mitigation measures.

Speakers also emphasized the importance of adapting communication methods to local cultural and social contexts, including the use of local languages, visual materials, community meetings, and participatory approaches.

Another key strategy discussed was the importance of early and continuous stakeholder engagement, allowing communities and affected groups to participate throughout the assessment process rather than only during regulatory consultation stages.

The session also highlighted that transparency, active listening, and building trust through consistent communication are essential to reduce misinformation, strengthen social legitimacy, and support informed decision-making.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
No issues

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
One of the main lessons from the session is that effective communication should not be considered only as a regulatory requirement, but as a fundamental component of impact assessment processes. Clear, transparent, and culturally appropriate communication helps stakeholders better understand projects, potential impacts, and mitigation measures, supporting more informed participation and decision-making.

The session also highlighted that technical studies alone are not enough to build trust or social legitimacy. Impact assessment processes must include accessible communication strategies, active listening, and meaningful stakeholder engagement throughout the project lifecycle.

Another important message was that poor communication can contribute to misinformation, mistrust, social conflict, and delays in project development. In contrast, effective communication can strengthen relationships between communities, proponents, and authorities, improving the overall quality and credibility of impact assessments.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Based on the discussions during the session, one key recommendation for impact assessment practitioners is to prioritize communication as a strategic and continuous process throughout the project lifecycle, rather than treating it only as a compliance requirement.

Practitioners should use clear, simple, and accessible language, avoiding overly technical terminology that may limit stakeholder understanding. Communication methods should also be adapted to local cultural, social, and linguistic contexts to ensure more inclusive participation.

Another important recommendation is to strengthen early and meaningful stakeholder engagement, creating opportunities for dialogue, active listening, and feedback before decisions are made. Building trust requires transparency, consistency, and timely disclosure of information.

The session also emphasized the importance of using multiple communication tools and formats, including visual materials, community meetings, and digital platforms, to improve accessibility and reduce the risk of misinformation and disinformation.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
One of the main recommendations emerging from the session for policymakers and regulatory authorities is that citizen participation and stakeholder engagement processes should be formally regulated in a way that ensures they are effective, inclusive, and adapted to each stakeholder group and local context.

The session highlighted that participation processes should go beyond minimum legal disclosure requirements and include communication strategies tailored to different cultural, linguistic, and educational realities, particularly when working with Indigenous Peoples and rural communities.

For project proponents and consultants, the recommendation was to strengthen proactive engagement, transparency, and the use of accessible communication tools throughout the impact assessment process.

The session also suggested that policymakers review successful international experiences and regulatory frameworks from countries such as Peru, Colombia, and Chile, where environmental participation procedures include more structured mechanisms for stakeholder engagement, public access to information, and culturally appropriate consultation processes.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
—

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
—

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
Our session dealt with issues arising post-resettlement, both in Nigeria and in Bangladesh, and also touched on future planning in resettlement projects, whether it is looking at the project's impact, or writing and implementing a resettlement action plan (RAP), to accommodate for climate change. Whilst effective communication is of course crucial, budgeting sufficient funds for the implementation and monitoring for the implementation and ongoing monitoring is just as crucial. Further, it was also highlighted that people's sense of place and the psychological effects of resettlement should form part of RAPs.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Even excellent ESIAs and RAPs disregard psychosocial impacts.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
—

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
1) Funds (especially for government resettlement projects) need to be placed in an escrow account to ensure that the funds are used for resettlement purposes
2) Include psychosocial impacts in RAPs
3) Vulnerable groups are often more than those we recognize as vulnerable (i.e. women, aged, youth, etc) but should include persons who also suffer from discrimination and exclusion due to language, religion, etc.
4) Plan for 2050 (in terms of climate impacts on resettled people and their livelihoods)
5) Governments (especially local governments) should invest in long-term spatial development planning
6) IFC PS5 2025-2028 revision should include climate change
7) Climate change should be more prominent in ESIAs

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
—

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Go to impacted communities. Talk directly with youth, elders, and other targeted demographics. Create an advisory board to ensure repeated engagement. Information gathering for community by community. Building trust takes time. Compensate knowledge providers - participating in engagement is work. Incorporate ceremonial practices to keep everyone grounded.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
Fundamental tension between getting projects started quickly and the slow process of building trust and supporting capacity in Indigenous communities.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Indigenous led and co-led approaches to regional assessment are an important strategy for achieving mutually beneficial outcomes.
Maintaining present day baseline conditions is insufficient in regions that have already experienced significant impacts from past activities that did not include Indigenous consultation or the environment.
New tools to support data management, mapping, and real-time activity and wildlife tracking will support decision-making by reducing uncertainty, optimizing compensation, and supporting Indigenous communities ability to identify relevant and impactful accommodation measures.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Involve Indigenous communities directly in the work.
Continued engagement is required to build trust, ideally by the same group of individuals.
Offer flexibility to adopt different approaches to gathering information.
Review and learn from other innovative processes that are already taking place across Canada.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Supporting and advancing regional assessments co-led or led by Indigenous communities will ultimately support the advancement of projects. It will also identify areas that are not suitable for development, optimize mitigation, compensation, and accommodation measures, and build trust with Indigenous communities that have led processes and can evaluate beneficial outcomes on the land.
Upfront time and cost will pay off (and are preferred to lengthy legal battles).

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
From the solution tables this emerge as a way to address the challenge of disengagement and luck of trust, leading to misinformation: Early and genuine engagement with communities, as early as possible in the project development process, is fundamental to build trust, prevent avoidable impacts and conflict and misinformation.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Invest in thorough stakeholder mapping and understanding of the local context, including power dynamics and discrimination. Communication strategies and its effectiveness need to be regularly review, reflected and updated. Designated community liaison can help making more accessible information, channeling grievances and addressing unrealistic expectations and misunderstanding.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
It is important to diversify channels for communicating between different stakeholders to ensure access to information and problem resolution of harm created by the project activities and the process.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Building and maintaining trust with communities should be at the core of any management plan, including effective grievance mechanism.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Early and genuine engagement with communities, as early as possible in the project development process, is fundamental to build trust, prevent avoidable impacts and conflict and misinformation.
No standardize approach: Invest in thorough stakeholder mapping and understanding of the local context, including power dynamics and discrimination. Communication strategies and its effectiveness need to be regularly review, reflected and updated.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Including a requirement for all borrowers from international financial institutions to provide a project level grievance mechanism.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
1) Over-reliance on carbon metrics as a proxy for project integrity. Carbon accounting can create a perception of credibility, while social, human rights, and ecological risks remain under-assessed or under-communicated.
2) Gaps between formal frameworks and real-world implementation. Presentations highlighted that existing standards and safeguards may be present on paper but not fully integrated, operationalized, or enforced in practice, contributing to misleading claims of project performance.
3) Simplification of complex socio-ecological systems. Nature-based solutions are often communicated as bounded, technically controlled projects, when in reality they operate within dynamic landscapes involving livelihoods, tenure, governance, and cumulative pressures.
4) Limited transparency on trade-offs and risks. Upfront costs, design trade-offs, and potential negative impacts are often under-communicated, which can contribute to unrealistic expectations and reputational risks.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Practical strategies emphasized the importance of communicating decision pathways, risks, and uncertainties in NbS projects, rather than focusing only on final outcomes. This includes clearly explaining the assumptions underlying project design, the alternatives considered, and how key decisions were made and adjusted over time. In the context of nature‑based solutions, where outcomes depend on evolving socio‑ecological systems, such transparency helps stakeholders understand not just what results are reported, but how and why those results were achieved, which is critical for credibility.

Effective communication should also be explicitly linked to impact pathways and monitoring systems in NbS, ensuring consistency between predicted impacts, mitigation measures, and reported outcomes across climate, biodiversity, and community objectives. This strengthens accountability and reduces the risk of disconnects between project documentation and real-world performance.

The session further emphasized the need to treat stakeholder engagement and FPIC in NbS as ongoing communication processes, rather than one‑time compliance activities. Continuous engagement, supported by participatory monitoring and accessible grievance mechanisms, enables projects to respond to changing ecological and social conditions, while maintaining trust with affected communities over the life of the project.

More broadly, the session highlighted the importance of contextualizing carbon claims within wider socio‑ecological systems in NbS, including livelihoods, land tenure, governance, and cumulative environmental pressures. In nature‑based solutions, outcomes are shaped by dynamic interactions between ecosystems and communities over time, and presenting carbon results in isolation can misrepresent overall performance. Integrating this broader context, through IA, provides a more accurate and meaningful picture of impact, and helps assess whether outcomes are durable, equitable, and socially and environmentally acceptable in practice.

Finally, participants stressed the need to proactively address misinformation and disinformation, particularly in relation to digital and social media channels where simplified or decontextualized claims about NbS projects can spread rapidly. This includes providing clear, accessible explanations of how projects are designed, how impacts are assessed and managed, and how outcomes are monitored over time. Ensuring consistency between technical documentation and public messaging, and grounding communications in evidence derived from impact assessment processes, is critical. In NbS contexts, where credibility depends on long‑term social and ecological performance, these approaches support more transparent, trustworthy, and resilient communication.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
1) Need to distinguish clearly between carbon integrity and impact integrity. The session highlighted that credible carbon accounting does not necessarily ensure positive or acceptable social and ecological outcomes, pointing to the need for broader definitions of project integrity.
2) Importance of aligning project boundaries with real-world systems. A recurring issue is that carbon project boundaries often do not reflect the wider socio‑ecological systems in which NbS operate, including livelihoods, tenure systems, and ecosystem dynamics.
3) Risk of over-reliance on certification frameworks. While standards and safeguards are essential, there is a tendency to assume that their presence ensures good outcomes, when in reality implementation, integration, and ongoing governance are equally critical.
4) Role of social media in shaping perceptions of NbS performance. The session noted that simplified or selective information shared through digital and social media platforms can amplify both positive claims and criticisms of carbon projects, sometimes without sufficient context. This highlights the need for clear, evidence-based communication grounded in impact assessment.
5) Need for stronger emphasis on adaptive governance. NbS projects operate in dynamic and changing environments, requiring continuous monitoring, feedback, and adjustment rather than static, one-time assessments.
6) Capacity and resource constraints in NbS implementation. Many project developers lack the resources or expertise to apply comprehensive assessment approaches, reinforcing the need for proportionate, targeted IA tools.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
1) Impact assessment should be used to strengthen decisions, not just document compliance.
Across all stakeholders, the session highlighted that:
- Carbon integrity alone is insufficient;
- Impact integrity, i.e., social, ecological, and governance performance, is essential for long-term credibility;
- A risk-based, integrated, and adaptive approach to impact assessment is needed to ensure NbS projects deliver durable outcomes over time.

2) NbS projects operate under complex and demanding expectations, requiring a balanced perspective.
The session also recognized that NbS are often expected to deliver multiple outcomes, i.e., climate mitigation, biodiversity protection, and community benefits, within complex socio‑ecological systems and over long timeframes. This creates inherent challenges, as projects are asked to manage competing objectives under conditions of uncertainty. Participants noted the importance of adopting a balanced perspective, recognizing both the limitations and the positive contributions of NbS. Strengthening IA should therefore be seen not as criticism, but as a way to:
- support more realistic expectations,
- improve project design and decision-making, and
- enhance long-term outcomes and credibility.

3) Strengthening NbS integrity requires leadership, collaboration, and practical implementation across stakeholders.
The session highlighted several priority actions:
Project proponents and governments:
- Demonstrate leadership in integrating impact assessment early in project design
- Strengthen understanding of socio‑ecological risks and long-term governance needs
Standards bodies and regulators:
- Strengthen standards and guidance by integrating social impact assessment and human rights due diligence
- Provide more practical, implementable guidance for NbS contexts
- Encourage risk-based application of IA tools
Project developers:
- Engage communities and technical experts early in project design
- Build stronger socio-economic and ecological baselines
Auditors, rating agencies, and assurance providers:
- Strengthen independent review of social impacts and human rights performance
- Prioritize these factors in project evaluation and rating systems
Across all stakeholders:
- Learn from other sectors where impact assessment is more established
- Promote collaboration between standards bodies and practitioners
- Improve transparency and knowledge-sharing across projects, including lessons learned from both successes and challenges

Ultimately, IA provides a practical framework for aligning ambitious NbS objectives with real-world conditions.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Impact Assessment Practitioners should:
1) Adapt IA approaches to NbS contexts. Focus on:
- targeted, decision-relevant tools
- proportional effort
- practical outputs (not just reports)
2) Prioritize decision-relevant evidence. The goal is not comprehensive data collection, but:
- identifying material risks
- improving design and mitigation
3) Support adaptive governance frameworks. Ensure IA outputs feed into:
- monitoring systems
- feedback loops
- ongoing decision-making

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
1) Policymakers and Regulators
a) Clarify when impact assessment is expected in NbS and carbon projects. Develop guidance on when targeted IA tools or full assessment approaches are appropriate, particularly in contexts involving:
- Indigenous rights
- tenure complexity
- livelihood dependence
b) Strengthen integration of human rights and social impact assessment. Ensure that human rights due diligence and SIA are not treated as safeguards alone, but are:
- embedded in project design
- linked to decision-making and monitoring
- revisited throughout project lifecycles
c) Promote risk-based, proportional assessment frameworks. Encourage approaches that:
- scale IA effort to risk and context, not just project size
- avoid overburdening low-risk projects while strengthening high-risk ones

2) Carbon Standard Bodies and Assurance Providers
a) Improve integration and operationalization of social and human rights requirements. Existing safeguards are often present, but need to be:
- better integrated into design and implementation processes
- more clearly linked to impact pathways and mitigation measures
b) Provide clearer guidance on when IA tools should be applied. For example:
- livelihood baselines
- cumulative effects assessment (CEA)
- Indigenous Peoples plans (IPP)
c) Strengthen evidence requirements beyond documentation. Encourage:
- decision-relevant baselines
- demonstration of alternatives considered
- links between risks, mitigation, and outcomes

3) Project Developers and Implementers
a) Apply impact assessment early in project design. The greatest value comes:
- before boundaries, interventions, and benefit-sharing systems are fixed
- when alternatives can still be considered
b) Strengthen socio-economic and ecological baselines. Invest in:
- livelihood dependency analysis
- land-use mapping
- local governance capacity assessment
c) The session highlighted that impact assessment is integral to effective FPIC, providing the evidence base for understanding impacts, evaluating alternatives, and supporting ongoing, informed consent over the life of NbS projects. Treat FPIC and stakeholder engagement as ongoing processes, i.e. not a one-off for certification purposes. Move from:
- one-time compliance to continuous governance
- be linked to impacts, design changes, and monitoring results

4) Investors and Credit Buyers
a) Expand due diligence beyond carbon metrics. Evaluate:
- land tenure risks
- livelihood impacts
- governance capacity
- social and human rights considerations
b) Recognize the value of impact assessment in reducing long-term risk. IA can:
- reduce disputes and project failure risks
- improve credibility and market confidence
- support more durable carbon outcomes
c) Link investment decisions to “impact integrity”. Prioritize projects that demonstrate:
- strong baselines
- participatory processes
- adaptive management systems

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
- Identified an opportunity for IAers to publish occurrence data on GBIF to improve globally ability to communicate effectively about state of nature
- But data to build communications are often not structured enough or are very poorly organised
- Use of simulations and scenario analysis to communicate about the future
- The contextual nature of misinformation: data appropriate at one scale or for one question would be highly misleading if used at a different scale or for another question.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Develop agreements with clients for publication of biodiversity data and work towards structuring data such that effective conclusions can be made and communicated effectively. Crucially, to ensure credibility and effectiveness in communications about biodiversity, select data that is relevant for the question you want to talk about.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
Impact assessment is parallel to the field of impact monitoring, which faces a problem of comparability influenced by different metrics and data. Many of the data that is collected during the IA process would improve the effectiveness of the models used in impact monitoring. But these data are not easily shared. The fields do not communicate enough.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Choose the data appropriate to the question you are asking. Do not try and force an answer out of inappropriate data.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
- Publish species occurrence data and other biodiversity features for public use, with agreements from clients.
- Use data at the right scale and granularity for the questions being asked

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
- Ability to share data from IAs is a function of client agreement. Function of sharing data is time-intensive and complex and may be done better by experienced practitioners, such as those in universities. Policy-makers can provide a push for this process (e.g. France, Colombia, and Norway).
- Using global biodiversity data to make future predictions can provide opportunities for countries and proponents to implement the mitigation hierarchy earlier and plan for avoidance of adverse biodiversity outcomes.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Strong emphasis was placed on the need for effective communication and the use of local language.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
The entire SEAS2050 initiative is based on communication with the youth of each pilot country. 826 responses were received in 3 months from social media surveys in Sierra leone. The overall responses were highly supportive but many detailed comments were received and acted on. This included the need to organise face to face conferences in rural areas to avoid digital bias towards higher smart phone use in urban centres

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
Our session forms part of the ovrall communication strategy for SEAS2050. The meeting was recorded on video and the results are being communicated by social media to all followers in Sierra Leone and Kenya.
A formal record of participants perspectives, questions and response to the overall initiative was taken, based on a score of 1-10. Replies ranged from 4 (many challenges) to 10 (excellent initiative) with the average of 24 replies being a score of 7 (the initiative deserves greater support).

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
It is important to keep challenging existing perceptions and to think outside the box in making SEA more effective as a process.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
The more ideas are open to challenge and constructive criticism the greater the credibility of the end product.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
SEA is probably the most effective way of assessing the strengths and weaknesses of any policy, plan or programme.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
--

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
--

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) and Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) are two similar approaches that gather relevant data for the IA process within a community. Reaching out to groups, organisations and the public to encourage their participation in the IA process is a communication strategy that can also foster trust in the overall IA process.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
As approaches focused on inclusivity, EqIA and GBA Plus improve the IA process by highlighting new evidence, deeper insights and different perspectives on the project.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
- Stakeholder engagement complements inclusivity approaches such as EqIA and GBA Plus. The two processes inform and feed into each other, creating a feedback loop that improves both processes through iteration. There are many advantages to undertaking them together.
- Treat engagement outputs as evidence, not anecdote.
- Seek out and involve community groups in consultations and data gathering to ensure the views of hard-to-reach people and groups are represented.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Conducting an EqIA or a GBA Plus process is not an administrative burden. Rather, it is an investment in the quality and legitimacy of the assessment. These methods produce findings that conventional approaches may overlook and help to build trust with communities.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
1. The additional cost incurred by adopting AI and IoT tools.
2. How accurate is the AI

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Use of social media to engage public reduced the costs
AI will not totally replace IA professionals

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
Nil

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Adopting of smart tools and AI can definitely improve data analysis but could not totally replace professionals.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Start with simple tools to engage public reduced potential distrust.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Be open minded when using smart tools and AI applications.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Privacy controls reduce available information, which forces practitioners to rely on public data, which is not representative. Then reduces trust for TK studies and assessments.
Concern about how to engage with untouched tribes in Brazil. Very sensitive and vulnerable but also concern about documentation make then more sensitive.
AI running ahead of governance.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Librarians in communities
Leave untouched tribes alone
Require disclosure of any AI use.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
None

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
AI still pretty misunderstood and not governed. A lot of pressure on communities to govern and opportunity for requirements for practitioners.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
None

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Librarians in the communities

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
The session identified a spectrum running from verified data through narrative, misinformation, disinformation, and consequences, and demonstrated how a single piece of peer-reviewed science can mutate as it moves along that spectrum. Key trends discussed included the dominance of social media as a primary news source, the collapse of public trust in government leaders, and the well-documented funding networks behind coordinated disinformation campaigns against renewable energy. A specific case study traced the offshore-wind-kills-whales narrative from NOAA's verified position to a politician-led moratorium call, with 54 Fox News segments in 2023 and zero peer-reviewed studies supporting the claim. The session also flagged AI-generated misinformation as an emerging concern, with 47% of scientific references generated by AI LLMs found to be fabricated.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Narrative built on verified data was framed as the most powerful communication tool available to practitioners, with the caveat that the same mechanism can be weaponized. The session offered a structured story categorization (Verified, Misinformation, Disinformation, Consequences) as a shared framework for practitioners and audiences. For technology adoption, the session introduced three principles for trusted digital tools: Transparency (clear data lineage and honest limitations), Verification (peer-reviewed validation and known failure modes), and Partnership (humans working with tech not replacement, also multiple sectors checking each other's work). Specific guidance was offered for evaluating AI imagery detection, passive acoustic monitoring software, and large language models in regulatory contexts, with the strong recommendation that LLMs not be used to generate scientific content for regulatory documents, rather to assist with brainstorming, or editing a human written report.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
The session highlighted a significant gap between the data generation capacity of modern environmental monitoring technologies (real-time satellite, drone, and AI-enabled detection) and the static, PDF-based regulatory frameworks they feed into. Closing this gap is itself a misinformation-resilience issue, because slow, opaque processes leave space for narratives to fill the vacuum. The audience field report segment surfaced widespread frustration across multiple countries with regulators making decisions based on inaccurate information, fabricated data being submitted by well-resourced actors, and accurate data being ignored when a better story was more compelling. Engagement crossed regional lines, with audience contributions from multiple continents was very informative and inspiring.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Impact assessment is operating in a media and information environment that has fundamentally shifted, and the profession has not kept pace. Verified data alone does not move people, regulators, or policy. Practitioners who refuse to engage with narrative cede the field to those who will. At the same time, narrative without a verified foundation is the mutation pathway that leads to bad policy and real-world consequences for species, communities, and industries. The discipline needs both rigorous science and effective communication that varies depending on intended audience, treated as equally important professional skills. The format of the session itself, structured as a live morning show, demonstrated that complex technical content can be delivered with energy and humor without sacrificing rigor, and that this approach drives substantially higher audience engagement than conventional panel formats.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Adopt a shared vocabulary for distinguishing verified data, misinformation, disinformation, their intended (or unintended consequences). Build narrative deliberately on top of verified science rather than treating storytelling as separate from technical work. When evaluating new digital tools, apply the Transparency, Verification, and Partnership test before deploying them in regulatory contexts. Be cautious with generative AI tools for any work that produces facts or citations, and reserve them for drafting, restructuring, and summarizing work the expert human practitioner has already verified. Follow the money when assessing the credibility of contrarian science, particularly in contested industrial and government contexts. Invest in plain-language communication as a core professional competency, not an optional add-on.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
For regulators and government agencies: modernize impact assessment frameworks to accept continuous, machine-readable, and remotely sensed data, and to publish decisions in formats the public can actually access and interpret. The current reliance on static PDF reports is itself a misinformation risk because almost no one reads them, leaving public understanding to be shaped by whoever fills the gap. For policymakers: recognize that coordinated disinformation campaigns against environmental policy and renewable energy projects are well-funded, well-organized, and traceable, and treat their outputs accordingly when assessing regulatory inputs. For industry: invest in transparent, peer-reviewed validation of proprietary monitoring tools, and resist the temptation to use AI as a black box to bypass scrutiny. For media and communications professionals working with technical institutions: lead with story, anchor in verified data, and disclose limitations openly. For funders and accountability bodies: support open-source validation datasets and independent benchmarking of the AI tools increasingly used in environmental assessment.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
n contested project settings, competing expert reports are frequently seen as biased or selectively framed, leading to an erosion of credibility even where the underlying technical analysis is robust.
A key challenge identified is the persistence of “expert battles”, in which opposing parties rely on separate studies that reinforce pre-existing positions rather than converge on shared understanding. This dynamic contributes to confusion, polarisation, and the proliferation of competing narratives about project impacts.
An emerging trend is the recognition that credibility alone is insufficient: technical quality must be complemented by process legitimacy, including transparency, inclusiveness, and stakeholder participation in knowledge generation.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
A central strategy discussed was the use of collaborative processes—particularly joint fact-finding (JFF)—to co-produce knowledge that is both technically sound and socially accepted.
Key practical takeaways included:

Engaging stakeholders early in defining research questions, scope, and methodologies
Joint selection of experts and agreement on terms of reference
Involving stakeholders in data collection, validation, and interpretation, including participatory monitoring and fieldwork
Communicating findings in accessible formats, including translation into non-technical language

Participants emphasised that using collaborative approaches at different scales—from community-based monitoring to large expert panels—can help build shared ownership of information and reduce mistrust.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
The session emphasised that expert reports may be technically robust yet lack legitimacy if they are not developed through inclusive and participatory processes.
A key insight was that process design is central: how knowledge is produced shapes whether it is trusted, understood, and used. Even high-quality evidence may be dismissed if stakeholders feel excluded from the process.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Impact assessment is not only about generating accurate information, but about building a shared understanding of facts among stakeholders
Adversarial expert dynamics undermine effective decision-making, even when supported by strong technical evidence
Collaborative approaches such as joint fact-finding can transform technical analysis from a source of conflict into a tool for dialogue and agreement
The timing of engagement matters: applying such approaches earlier in the project cycle can help prevent escalation and conflict
Effective impact assessment requires integrating technical rigour with participatory and communicative processes

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Move beyond commissioning standalone expert studies towards designing inclusive knowledge-generation processes
- Invest in process design: clearly define scope, roles, expectations, and limitations from the outset
- Ensure joint ownership of key decisions, including expert selection and methodology
- Build capacity for participation by supporting less technically experienced stakeholders
- Prioritise clarity and accessibility of findings, including the use of plain language and visual tools
- Recognise that joint processes are not a “quick fix” and require time, facilitation, and trust-building

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Policymakers and regulators:
- Create incentives and frameworks for participatory and collaborative approaches in impact assessment
- Encourage or require early stakeholder engagement in knowledge generation, not only consultation on final reports
- Provide guidance on minimum standards for transparency and inclusiveness in expert processes

Development finance institutions:
- Promote the use of joint fact-finding in dispute resolution and project preparation
- Allocate resources for facilitation, stakeholder participation, and capacity-building

Project developers and operators:
- Engage proactively in collaborative processes to build trust and reduce the risk of conflict
- Recognise that legitimacy of studies is as important as technical quality

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
We raised the following points: The important role played by the clear, transparent and informative engagement of the traditional communities; misinformation can be a powerful tool to manipulate EIA process and harm cumulative impact assessment process and monitoring.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
We need to provide a clear understanding of cumulative impacts; define clear roles and responsabilities; engage the communities early and over all project life cycle.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Show lessons learned in the Global South revealed that: (i) we are evolving and learning in implementing CEA in the Global South; (ii) serious matters of institutional fragmentation arises; (iii) the importance of legal recognition of community-led impact and monitoring assessments.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Provide guidance and lessons learned even in a emerging context practice is highly valuable to reflect next steps and improvements.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Elaborate legislations and enforcements that consider a proper cumulative impact assessment definition and enforcements mechanisms

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
—

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
—

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Litigation is an important part of the EIA process.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
—

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
—

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Communication challenges and strong narratives around nuclear that are not founded in facts but in feelings.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
1- early engagement and capacity building
2- listen first and don’t lead conversations with facts but connect on connection and feelings
3- be open and bring accessible information

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
None

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Integrated approach between licensing and impact assessment.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Misinformation spreading based on fear cannot be addressed through facts and information. Connection and relationship helps to compat misinformation.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
N/a

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Need for clear, informed governance systems for the benefit of IA and CEA that affected people can trust.
Observation of regulatory fear of transparent public engagement.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Restructure governance systems and public engagement approaches to build trust in decision making processes. Create value-centric regulatory instruments where CEA can be accountably conducted.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
—

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Trust in IA governance is failing in many jurisdictions. IA without trust is ineffective and needs to be addressed with priority.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
More focus needed on developing and promoting governance systems that can be effective in addressing current and future issues. Building trust in governance is critical.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Restructure governance systems with IA and CEAM as primary function.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
The session focused on challenges and recommendations for spreading the deliberative approach to impact assessment and decision-making. The key identified challenges are:
- CHECK-APPROACH: proponents often approach stakeholder engagement as a checkbox to be ticked, without extra efforts to make it deliberative.
- LEGISLATION: if deliberation is not recognised by the law, its implementation is more difficult and it adds onto the LACK of WILLINGNESS of proponents and regulators, which often forget the risk (and financial risk) of not doing proper stakeholder engagement.
- TIME AND BUDGET: deliberative processes (and stakeholder engagement in general) sometimes require a long time, especially when engaging certain communities (e.g. indigenous peoples, fishermen etc.).
- CULTURAL and LANGUAGE BARRIERS: in some contexts, there may be barriers due to religion, gender etc. or due to linguistical barriers.
- FATIGUE: many people do not have time for long conversations, and for getting informed on technical content. The process may be overwhelming for them. They do if they're interested, and this is linked to proper stakeholder mapping.
- DISTRUST: people can refuse to engage, due to communication and trust issues and have a negative attitude towards IA and deliberative approaches. The fact that they are never going to be 100% happy is discouraging.
- FRAGMENTATION of approaches and LACK OF CAPACITY of IA practictioners, in addition to lack of defined criteria for when to use deliberative approaches.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
/

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
/

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
/

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
PROCESS DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT
- Plan more deliberative forums, allocate dedicated time for them, and ensure multistakeholder engagement (not just ad hoc private meetings)
- Do proper stakeholder mapping to ensure the deliberative forum is engaging the correct people and do groundwork on stakeholders
- Design a clear pathway to achievable solutions
- Ensure early and continuous engagement through the process. It must start before design and be mandated by regulators and lenders, like for SEA.
- Work to reach binding, joint agreements among all stakeholders (not just the community)
- Monitor and adapt the management of deliberative processes to integrate useful revisions based on upcoming needs
COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES
- Use embassadors of positive case studies to increase trust
- Identify innovative approaches for communicating project design and IA findings
- Step-down technical gibberish to reach relatable language
SELECTING STAKEHOLDERS WITHIN THE SE PROCESS
- Coordinate with governments
- Identify non-partisan facilitators
- Consult the community in the identification of the experts that will be involved in the deliberative process / IA

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
- Develop a guidance on deliberation in impact assessment (recommendation for lenders/ regulators, involving experts on deliberation in IA).
- Offer capacity development on deliberative approaches for IA practictioners (recommendation for lenders/ regulators/ public authoritis / professional associations)

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Misinformation can come from anyone - no-one is inherently more trustworthy than someone else just by virtue of their role or stake holding.

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Fun and humour are engaging.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
Positive feedback from participants on session concept and format.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Question everything. Maintain healthy scepticism always.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
See above.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
See above.

1) If presentations or discussion in your session touched on the conference theme, key messages on "Misinformation, Disinformation, Communication, & Impact Assessment":

a. Key challenges or emerging trends related to misinformation and disinformation identified in your session*:
Project timeline uncertainty.
Lack of time to engage appropriately and IA too late in the process.
Historical distrust.
Regulatory environments allow for fragmented development applications so communities are having to engage on multiple but unrelated projects leading to fatigue and disengagement.
Inclusion of end-of-project-life considerations at the start of a project (helpful in the long run), like land-use planning.
IA needs to be tailored to each circumstance (self-evident but traditional methods may not get the best outcomes).

b. Practical strategies or tips discussed for credible and effective communication in impact assessment*:
Change up the way engagement is undertaken (particularly to avoid stakeholder fatigue and for stop-start projects which evolve over time).
Due diligence early to understand context like historical mistrust and key information brokers in local communities
Frank and fearless advice to clients about the information they communicate being honest and transparent, tempering client expectations.
Allow communities to engage on their own terms (e.g. through digital tools).
Work with local governments to sync stories from prominent institutions and local partners who know the area.
Earlier information sharing can shape intensity downstream.

c. Please state any related issues you want to capture not covered by the above questions*:
Misinformation is a material impact pathway for projects.

2) Messages/lessons from your session for impact assessment overall?*
Issues are similar across the board - misinformation once spread (however it is spread) - heightens distrust.
Genuine attempts to communicate and engage with communities by IA practitioners are getting hijacked by misinformation.
If you can, allow time - slow down to speed up. Assists later in the project cycle.
Give communities more choice in how they engage. Be sensitive to striking a balance in quantity versus quality of engagement.

3) What recommendations would you offer to impact assessment practitioners based on the discussions in your session?*
Change up the way engagement is undertaken (particularly to avoid stakeholder fatigue and for stop-start projects which evolve over time).
Due diligence early to understand context like historical mistrust and key information brokers in local communities and enable tailored/varied engagement.
Frank and fearless advice to clients about the information they communicate being honest and transparent, tempering client expectations.
Allow communities to engage on their own terms (e.g. through digital tools).
Work with local governments to sync stories from prominent institutions.
Earlier information sharing can shape intensity downstream.

4) What recommendations emerged from your session for policymakers and other key stakeholders? (Please specify the type of stakeholder, where possible.)*
Advocate to regulators/authorities/policymakers that IA comes much earlier in the development process.
Better articulate the benefits of IA to policymakers and proponents so it is not just a tick box exercise and has real value.