IAP2 International has released the Spectrum Evolution 2026 – Phase 2: What We Learned and Recommendations reports, bringing together feedback from the latest stage of international engagement on the proposed evolution of the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation.

The reports recommend substantial changes to the language, structure and presentation of one of the world’s most recognised engagement frameworks. However, an important qualification comes first: the recommendations are being provided to the IAP2 International Board for consideration, and no final decision has yet been made.

For Australian councils, government agencies, proponents, consultants and community organisations, the reports are nevertheless an important signal of where engagement practice may be heading. They place greater emphasis on public influence, decision-maker accountability, transparent commitments and the distinction between communicating with people and genuinely enabling them to shape an outcome.

Key Takeaway for Practitioners

IAP2 International has released Phase 2 recommendations proposing to update its framework by shifting from 5 “levels of participation” to 5 “degrees of influence”. Importantly, sharing information is proposed to become a foundation across all engagement rather than a standalone level of influence. While no final decision has been made by the Board, these recommendations signal key shifts for future Australian community and stakeholder engagement strategies.

Why is the Spectrum being reconsidered?

The current IAP2 Spectrum was adopted in 1999. Its five familiar levels – Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower – have since become embedded in engagement strategies, government policies, procurement documents, project plans and professional training across Australia and internationally.

Its enduring strength is its simplicity. It gives decision-makers and communities a common language for discussing how much influence people will have in a process.

That same simplicity has also contributed to inconsistent use. The Spectrum is sometimes treated as:

• a hierarchy in which moving further to the right is always better;
• a sequence through which every project must progress;
• a list of engagement methods;
• a complete framework for engagement planning; or
• evidence that engagement has occurred when an organisation has only distributed information.

The 2026 evolution process seeks to clarify the Spectrum’s narrower purpose: communicating how much influence decision-makers intend to share with people, and what decision-makers commit to do with that influence.

What is proposed to change?

The recommendations retain five points across a continuum of influence, but propose new labels and a different underlying structure. The proposed categories are not intended as direct one-for-one replacements for the current levels.

The most important proposed changes are outlined below.

1. From “levels” to “degrees” of influence

The recommendations propose replacing the word levels with degrees.

This is intended to counter the assumption that the Spectrum is a ladder, or that greater influence is automatically better engagement. The appropriate degree of influence depends on the decision, the project context, legal and governance constraints, the needs of affected people, and the commitment the decision-maker can genuinely uphold.

A single project may also contain different degrees of influence. For example, a community may be invited to provide input on matters governed by legislation, while working more closely with the project team to shape local mitigation measures, access arrangements, public-domain outcomes or benefit-sharing initiatives.

2. Sharing information would become foundational – but would not, by itself, be engagement

Perhaps the most consequential recommendation is to move Inform, reframed as Sharing information, outside the five degrees of influence.

Clear, accurate, timely and accessible information would remain essential before, during and after engagement. However, information alone does not give people an opportunity to influence a decision. Under the proposed model, publishing a fact sheet, issuing a notification letter, updating a website or holding an information session would not be sufficient to claim that engagement had occurred unless people were also offered a meaningful opportunity to influence something.

This distinction is highly relevant to Australian planning and development processes. Statutory notification and public exhibition remain important, but communication about a proposal should not automatically be described as engagement if the only available action is to receive information.

3. New language for the five degrees of influence

The final recommendations propose the following five labels:

1. Inviting input – people provide perspectives, concerns, preferences and feedback for consideration before a decision is determined or finalised.
2. Exploring together – people and decision-makers develop a shared understanding of the topic, choices, trade-offs and context.
3. Shaping together – people work with decision-makers to develop or refine criteria, alternatives or solutions.
4. Deciding together – people and decision-makers share responsibility for making or recommending the decision within an agreed scope.
5. Public decides – the public holds decision-making authority within defined parameters.

These labels differ slightly from those tested during Phase 2. For example, Providing input became Inviting input, Designing together became Shaping together, and Delegating authority became Public decides. The refinements demonstrate that feedback received during the process materially informed the recommendations.

4. “Influence” and “commitment” would replace “goal” and “promise”

The existing Spectrum identifies a public participation goal and a promise to the public at each level. The proposed model instead pairs:

• the influence people can expect to have; and
• the corresponding commitment made by the decision-maker.

This is more than a wording change. It asks organisations to state clearly both sides of the engagement relationship: what people can shape, and what the organisation will do in response.

The broader engagement goal would be established separately through IAP2’s Goal-driven Foundation and explained in a new User Guide. This reinforces that the Spectrum is not a complete engagement plan and should be used alongside IAP2’s Core Values, Code of Ethics and broader practice frameworks.

5. A new User Guide would support more consistent application

The proposed User Guide is intended to reduce misunderstanding and tokenistic application of the Spectrum. It defines key terms, connects the Spectrum with IAP2’s other frameworks and provides practical guidance for selecting an appropriate degree of influence.

Several principles in the draft guide are particularly valuable:

• understand the project context and the expectations of decision-makers and affected people before selecting a degree of influence;
• recognise that people outside the formal decision-making structure may have different views about what meaningful engagement requires;
• treat the Spectrum as a menu of context-dependent choices, not a hierarchy;
• do not move to the furthest degree of influence unless the decision-maker can uphold that commitment;
• recognise that Indigenous Peoples may hold particular rights and may require a different process or degree of influence; and
• choose engagement methods only after the context and intended influence have been established.

6. Two visual formats are recommended

Phase 2 tested two visual approaches: an abstract “dots and connectors” model and a set of icons. The visual elements attracted the least settled feedback, with no clear preference emerging.

The Recommendations report proposes making both formats available so users can select the version most appropriate to their audience, language, accessibility needs and context. In both, the framework retains a progression from less to more influence without suggesting that every process must move in that direction.

What did the engagement process reveal?

The Phase 2 process included three international workshops, a survey completed by 297 respondents, independently hosted discussions, written submissions, individual conversations and emails.

There was broad support for retaining a single global Spectrum, shifting from levels to degrees, maintaining five principal categories and strengthening the relationship between public influence and decision-maker commitment.

However, the reports also document significant areas of tension. These included:

• whether moving Inform outside the degrees could weaken expectations for transparency;
• whether the proposed labels are as intuitive and memorable as the existing terms;
• how the middle degrees can be clearly distinguished;
• how concepts such as delegated authority apply where authority is inherent, shared by law, held by Indigenous Peoples or generated through community-led processes;
• the cost of changing a framework already embedded in policies, contracts, training and governance systems; and
• whether the proposed visuals are sufficiently clear, accessible and culturally neutral.

The report notes that the survey was self-selected and was not designed as a statistically representative measure of global opinion. It also records that responses from Australasia were generally more critical than those from other regions. These limitations matter: the recommendations reflect a substantial international engagement process, but they should not be read as evidence of universal agreement.

What could this mean for engagement practice in Australia?

The proposed changes do not amend Australian legislation, statutory exhibition requirements or councils’ adopted community participation plans. The IAP2 Spectrum is a professional framework; it does not replace the legal and policy requirements applying to a particular project or decision.

If adopted, however, the evolved Spectrum is likely to influence how Australian organisations design, commission, describe and evaluate engagement.

Engagement strategies will need to define the available influence more precisely

Engagement plans should identify the actual matters that remain open to influence, the matters that are constrained or already determined, and the commitment attached to each engagement activity. A broad label applied to an entire project may no longer be sufficient.

For complex town planning and infrastructure projects, it may be more accurate to map different degrees of influence across project stages, stakeholder or community groups, and decision topics.

Statutory notification should not be confused with meaningful engagement

Public exhibition, letters, advertisements, fact sheets and project websites are important channels for transparency. They do not automatically create influence.

Where a project claims to have undertaken engagement, the record should show what people could influence, how their input was considered and how the decision or project response changed – or why it did not change.

Engagement methods should follow purpose, not lead it

A survey, workshop, drop-in session or online platform is a method, not a degree of influence. The project team should first understand the social and decision-making context, define the engagement goal, identify the available degree of influence and make a realistic commitment. Methods can then be selected to deliver that purpose inclusively and effectively.

First Nations engagement requires distinct consideration

The proposed User Guide expressly recognises that Indigenous Peoples may hold specific rights and freedoms and may require a different engagement process or degree of influence.

In Australia, this reinforces the importance of designing First Nations engagement with relevant Traditional Owners, Aboriginal organisations and knowledge holders rather than treating it as one stream within general community consultation. The appropriate approach should reflect Country, cultural authority, project impacts, statutory requirements and the preferences of those being engaged.

Accountability and the feedback loop will become even more important

The proposed emphasis on commitment requires stronger documentation and follow-through. Engagement reporting should explain:

• who was engaged and who may have been missed;
• what people were able to influence;
• what was heard;
• how input affected the decision, design or mitigation response;
• what could not be changed and why; and
• what will happen next.

For social impact assessment, this strengthens the connection between engagement evidence, impact identification, project design, mitigation, management commitments and ongoing monitoring.

What should organisations do now?

Because no final decision has been made, Australian organisations should not immediately replace the current Spectrum in adopted policies, templates or project commitments.

They can, however, begin future-proofing their practice by:

1. auditing where and how the current Spectrum is used;
2. separating one-way communication from activities that provide a genuine opportunity for influence;
3. defining the scope of influence before selecting engagement methods;
4. documenting the commitment made by the decision-maker at each project stage;
5. testing whether existing feedback loops show participants how their input affected outcomes;
6. reviewing accessibility, inclusion and First Nations engagement arrangements; and
7. monitoring IAP2 International’s final decision and any Australian regional guidance.

The Recommendations report proposes a three-year implementation and review period if the evolved Spectrum is adopted. This would give practitioners, organisations, trainers and governments time to update systems and test the framework in practice before a further review.

Towards clearer and more accountable engagement

The strongest message from the Spectrum Evolution process is not simply that five labels may change. It is that meaningful engagement must be honest about influence.

Good engagement does not require the greatest possible degree of influence in every situation. It requires a degree of influence that is appropriate to the context, communicated clearly and supported by a commitment that the decision-maker is willing and able to honour.

For Australian planning, development, policy and social impact practice, that is a valuable direction. It moves the focus from how many engagement activities were delivered to whether people understood the process, had a genuine opportunity to influence relevant matters and could see how their participation informed the outcome.

Meliora Projects will continue to monitor IAP2 International’s consideration of the recommendations and their implications for engagement practice in Australia.

Need support with an engagement strategy, social impact assessment or stakeholder and community engagement process? Contact Meliora Projects to discuss an approach that is proportionate, transparent and aligned with the decision-making context.

Sources and further reading

• IAP2 Spectrum Evolution 2026 process
• IAP2 Spectrum Evolution – Questions and Clarifications
• IAP2 Spectrum Evolution 2026 – Phase 2: What We Learned (IAP2 International, July 2026)
• IAP2 Spectrum Evolution 2026 – Recommendations (IAP2 International, July 2026)
• Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) – current version

This article provides a general professional overview of the proposed IAP2 Spectrum evolution. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for project-specific statutory, policy or engagement advice.