Making community consultation count – from gathering input to reporting back

27 October 2026

For a Standard that addresses the impacts of activities such as bauxite mining, ensuring that people living in affected communities can contribute to its development is particularly important. But meaningful participation also depends on how people are invited to take part: the questions asked, the language used, how information is shared and whether the consultation process reflects the circumstances of the people it is seeking to reach.

ASI’s Indigenous Peoples Advisory Forum (IPAF) provides an established and ongoing connection between the Standards development process and Indigenous Peoples and affected communities in bauxite regions around the world. Through regular engagement and continued dialogue, IPAF brings perspectives and experience from affected communities into ASI’s work over time, rather than only at specific points of consultation. IPAF representatives also participate directly in ASI governance, including the Standards Committee and its Working Groups.

During the first public consultation on the revised ASI Standards, that structure helped ASI take a different approach to community participation. IPAF Standards Committee members worked with the ASI Secretariat to identify issues on which community perspectives were particularly important and to develop a short questionnaire that could support community-level engagement. IPAF representatives then took the consultation directly to communities in Guinea, India, Ghana, Suriname and Australia.

Closing the consultation loop

The same consideration given to how communities could participate also applies to how the results are reported back.

The people who contributed should be able to see what came out of the consultation in a form that is accessible and relevant to them. The new Community Questionnaire Results has therefore been developed using clear, accessible language, infographics and illustrations to present the findings. Results are generally presented visually as the number of people out of ten who gave a particular response, making the findings easy to navigate and understand.

Importantly, the publication does more than report the responses. Alongside the findings, short explanatory boxes set out proposed changes to the Standard that relate to the issues communities were asked about. The publication also provides summaries of perspectives raised by companies during the wider public consultation, including areas of support as well as questions and concerns. Together, these elements allow community participants to see their collective responses in the context of the wider consultation and the proposals now being considered.

What communities told us

In total, 555 people participated in the community consultation across the five countries. The results show strong levels of agreement on several of the issues covered by the questionnaire.

All respondents said it was important for communities to be involved in identifying impacts, and all said community members should be involved in monitoring company impacts on people and the environment. Nine in ten expressed interest in training that would enable their communities to participate in monitoring.

Respondents also shared their experiences of information and complaints processes. All said it was important for companies to provide clear information about how their activities affect communities, while seven in ten said companies do not always share information in a way everyone in their community can understand. Similarly, all respondents said the proposed rules on how companies handle complaints were important, while six in ten said they do not always feel, or would not always feel, safe making a complaint to a company.

Past harm from mining was another issue raised through the questionnaire. Nine in ten respondents said people in their communities had experienced harm from mining that happened in the past, and all said it was important for the ASI Standard to address past harm. Respondents also expressed strong support for retaining FPIC in mine closure planning, involving people who are often left out in decisions about community benefits, and formal agreements between companies and affected communities.

What happens next

The community consultation formed one part of the first public consultation on the revised ASI Standards. Its findings are being considered alongside feedback received through the wider consultation as the Standards Committee and thematic Working Groups continue to develop the next drafts.

The publication explains that community responses have already helped shape proposed requirements, with relevant proposals highlighted alongside the findings throughout the document. The draft remains under development and is being considered by the Standards Committee.

A second public consultation is planned for the beginning of 2027. The approach to community participation in this next stage is still being considered and discussed with IPAF. One option under consideration is the use of focus groups in participating countries, which could enable discussion of priorities at local, regional or national level. Further details will be revealed as preparations for the second consultation progress.

Download the Community Questionnaire Results pdf

SHARE THIS ARTICLE