FNA MONTHLY BRIEF - February

Note from the Founder

Across government, corporate, and finance sectors, the language of partnership has become standard. Co-design, shared value, inclusion. The terminology signals alignment with contemporary expectations.

But language is not structure, and the distance between them is most visible in decision-making.

Whether First Nations groups are present in processes or whether they hold authority within them shapes different outcomes. Often, First Nations are positioned to observe and validate decisions made elsewhere.

At FNA, we distinguish between participation and authority. Participation can be designed into a consultation schedule. Authority must be built into governance architecture through board composition, consent thresholds, veto rights, and the location of final approval.

When decision-making authority is unclear or absent, risk accumulates. Projects proceed without legitimacy. Partnerships fracture under unresolved assumptions. And organisations learn too late that inclusion without authority is not partnership. It’s superficial exposure.

This month's brief focuses on decision-making as the critical, and often overlooked, element of governance in First Nations affairs.

~ Bec Blurton

Governance Reflections

Decision-making in relation to First Nations rights and interests is rarely a single event. It is distributed across time, actors, and institutional settings. The governance question circles whether that distribution is deliberate or accidental.

In many organisations, fragmentation is the default. Cultural heritage decisions sit separately from commercial negotiations. Consent processes are managed independently of equity structuring. By the time an issue reaches board level, it has been filtered through multiple layers, each removing degrees of discretion.

This produces predictable effects:

• Consent reduces to consultation when authority is not clearly located.

• Risk is displaced when activity is scattered across functions.

• Cultural authority separates from commercial authority when those with standing to speak for Country are absent from rooms where project economics are determined.

These are structural failures and can’t be resolved by better communication or stronger relationships. They are resolved by design: mapping where decisions are made, identifying who holds the right authority to make them, and ensuring alignment.

For any organisation engaged with First Nations rights and interests, the first governance question is not what are we doing? It is who decides?

FNA Resource of the Month

First Nations Governance Diagnostic

If decision-making is the location of accountability, then understanding the current state is the precondition for improvement.

Our Governance Diagnostic maps where decisions about First Nations outcomes are actually made, not where they are assumed to be made. We examine board composition, consent thresholds, delegation arrangements, and the structural separation of cultural and commercial authority.

The output is an evidence-based picture of where decision-making authority sits, where it is fragmented, and what is required to embed accountability at the right level for meaningful and sustained outcomes.

For organisations navigating complex project environments, equity partnerships, or long-term agreements with First Nations groups, this work provides the foundation for governance that can carry weight over time.

Climate, Finance, & Policy

Sharma and Loginova's 2025 paper, 'How are Indigenous groups participating in large renewable energy project co-ownership?', based on projects across CANZUS jurisdictions, offers a useful lens (read our post here).

The authors document 61 projects where Indigenous groups hold equity. On the surface, this signals progress. But two findings cut against the prevailing narrative.

First, minority ownership is the norm, particularly in large projects. Indigenous groups are included as financial participants, but not as decision-makers. Control over siting, governance, and long-term planning remains with non-Indigenous partners.

Second, governance transparency is weak. Public information rarely discloses board composition, consent thresholds, or the specific rights attached to equity. It is impossible to assess whether a stake carries authority or simply exposure.

The energy transition will require extensive new infrastructure on Indigenous lands. If the default model is minority ownership without decision-making authority, then historical patterns – risk without control – are reproduced under new labels.

The paper warrants the question: does equity translate into authority, or is it simply financial inclusion for inclusion's sake?

First Nations Affairs