B.C. hasn’t been particularly good at including Indigenous populations in the decision-making process. First Nations are often brought to the table after high-level political decisions have already been made — leading to significant social and legal conflict over consultation, consent and the management of natural resources.

Legal challenges of Site C, the cumulative impacts of B.C.’s sprawling oil and gas operations and the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline are all current examples of what these conflicts look like.

But it doesn’t have to be so, say a team of researchers from by the University of Victoria’s POLIS Water Sustainability Project and the Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources in a new report, which proposes B.C. manage water resources via a co-governance model based on a principle of collaborative consent.

“Imagine Indigenous people being involved at the highest level of policy-making and reaching an agreement that is good for everyone,” said Merrell-Ann Phare, founding executive director of the Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources and lead author of the report.

Water is a good issue for the collaborative consent approach as it concerns everyone in a community, Phare said.

Disputes between government and Indigenous communities are often clouded by a perceived need for legal clarity on rights, but there are many areas where, even without legal clarity, different levels of government are able to work out solutions, she added.

“We need to pull up the chairs to those tables for Indigenous governments and we need the federal and provincial governments to recognize that,” she said.

“Indigenous governments have a right to be there.”

Collaborative consent would not mean an end to legal challenges, but it would help find solutions to some of the battles that continue for generations, said Phare, adding that B.C. would not be breaking new ground as territorial and Indigenous governments in the Northwest Territories already use a collaborative consent approach.

Cowichan Watershed Revitalization a Collaborative Consent Success Story

A little more than a decade ago, the Cowichan watershed was a mess.

Clearcuts on surrounding slopes intensified run-off during winter storms. A 2003 drought resulted in critically low water levels that made it impossible for Chinook salmon to reach spawning grounds. Future droughts were on the horizon and water quality was threatened by sewage, fertilizer and a rapidly expanding population.

Catalyst Paper — the largest employer in the area — was on the verge of shutting down because of a water shortage.

“The management situation of the day was not working and the risks to the river and its communities were great,” says a 2014 case study of the evolution of the Cowichan Watershed Board by the University of Victoria’s POLIS Water Sustainability Project.

Management of the watershed was spread among a patchwork of federal, provincial, Indigenous and local governments, while waterfront home owners and local businesses wanted input on how to deal with ongoing droughts and the shrinking salmon runs.

There was general acknowledgement that action was needed to save Cowichan Lake and the iconic Cowichan River, but with the jigsaw of federal and provincial acts and the need for Cowichan Tribes to protect their interests, little was accomplished.

A 2007 plan set out a proactive approach to water management, but, two years later, implementation was minimal, largely because of lack of leadership and scattered responsibilities.

It was clear that a different type of management was needed, with local leadership, so, the Cowichan Watershed Board was formed with the chair of the Cowichan Valley Regional District and chief of Cowichan Tribes as joint chairs, while other agencies were encouraged follow board decisions.

That style of management typifies collaborative consent, which should be the model used in B.C. to defuse conflict around water and land use, the new report recommends.

Resolution for System of Delays, Court Cases with Water Co-Governance

Conflicts could be avoided if Indigenous governments were given an equal seat at the table at the start of a process, instead of being brought in after decisions are made, says the report.

Delays, court cases and disagreements are common as Indigenous communities battle to protect traditional territories, while other levels of government and, in some cases, major corporations, write legislation or set the rules, only to have them challenged by First Nations, who frequently claim inadequate consultation.

Collaborative consent, with all parties committed to working together as equals, takes the heat out of issues as everyone works towards decisions they can live with, says the report, which suggests that the method should be used to come up with regulations for B.C.’s new Water Sustainability Act.

Rosie Simms, co-author of the report and POLIS water law and policy researcher, said collaborative consent offers a way for B.C. to govern according to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people, as promised by Premier John Horgan.

Water is a compelling issue because jurisdictional overlaps and gaps pave the way for creative forms of co-governance, Simms said.

Indigenous History, Lessons Benefit Local Government

Back in the Cowichan Valley, the collaboration has helped people understand the extent of Cowichan Tribes’ history in the area and traditional knowledge is now used to help inform decisions, said Chief William Seymour.

“We all have the same concerns about our watershed. The logging that went on and what happened to our streams, what happened to our water levels and the water temperature, all the issues of contamination with sewage and fertilizer going into the river — everyone in the valley has those concerns,” Seymour said.

With everyone working towards the same goals, protection of the watershed is improving, he said.

Jon Lefebure, Cowichan Valley Regional District chair, said an excellent relationship has developed between Cowichan Tribes and the district because of the equal partnership on the Watershed Board.

“It has flowed into many other things we do around land use and the opioid crisis — which has an impact on all parts of our community,” he said.

The relationship has also brought local government a new awareness of First Nations culture and the advantages offered by their history and perceptions, Lefebure said.

For example, there is an emphasis on taking only what you need and leaving the rest for future generations, as opposed to the culture of taking all you can and damn the consequences, he said.

Priorities for the watershed are based on looking at the whole system, rather than individual pieces and are guided by a traditional Cowichan Tribes lesson that “everything on this earth is what sustains us, everything on this earth is connected together,” says the POLIS case study.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

By Grand Chief Stewart Phillip and Ben Parfitt

One of the most important things that all Green and New Democratic Party MLAs agreed to in reaching their historic agreement to cooperate in governing together is their  “foundational” support of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Declaration is absolutely unambiguous in stating the “urgent need” for governments to respect and promote the inherent rights of Indigenous Peoples to their lands, territories and resources.

Enter the $8.8 billion Site C hydroelectric dam, a project that former premier Christy Clark vowed to push past the point of no return, but that remains years away from construction.

If ever there was a project that impacts First Nation lands and resources and deserves to be a litmus test of the incoming government’s commitment to the Declaration, Site C is it. The dam would flood more than 100 kilometres of the Peace River valley and tributaries — resulting in irreversible losses for First Nations who have used and occupied those lands for thousands of years.

The West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations have been before the courts for years in a time-consuming battle to stop the project. But just last week, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected their final appeal. The Nations argued the governments failed to properly consult them about the project and that the dam’s continued construction would irreparably harm their rights to hunt, fish and trap on their territories as covered by Treaty 8.

These realities are well known to all elected MLAs, many of whom know that today marks the 12th year in a row that hundreds of people will canoe down the Peace River to protest the dam and the devastating consequences it will have on local First Nations, farming families and others. Some of those same MLAs have joined the protest paddle in years past.

The NDP and Greens say that the project will be referred to the B.C. Utilities Commission for a review that focuses on the economic implications of the project. But will the incoming government also consider Site C’s obvious impacts on First Nations of Treaty 8?

And will the government look more broadly at the pace of all industrial developments in the region and their impacts on Indigenous Peoples? Because as anyone who knows this corner of the province will tell you, it looks more and more like one giant industrial sacrifice zone.

Layer upon layer of environmentally devastating developments occur here. Nowhere else in B.C. do you see major hydroelectric, logging, mining and natural gas industry activities all happening simultaneously.

Water Usage in BC’s Northeast Requires Indigenous Consent #bcpoli #UNDRIP #IndigenousRights https://t.co/uLPj27gXwB

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 6, 2017

The “cumulative” impact of all this industrialization is jaw dropping.  

On the traditional lands of the Blueberry River First Nation, so many natural gas wells, roads, seismic lines, pipelines, water pits, clear-cut logging blocks and other government-sanctioned industrial developments are located that on three quarters of the Nation’s territory you are never further away than 250 metres from the nearest industrial development. Local populations of moose, which BRFN members are supposed to enjoy treaty-protected rights to hunt, are decimated.

If there is any good news, it’s that the BRFN has said enough is enough. With each passing day, it inches closer to a date in court where it is seeking damages from the province for the “cumulative” degradation to its lands and waters from decades of government-sanctioned industrial developments. If successful, the civil suit will send an important signal that governments will be held to account for their consistent failure to respect First Nations’ rights.

The BRFN’s actions underscore the need to do things differently. We believe that one place to start is by granting First Nations sufficient powers to shape if, where, when and how resource developments of all stripes occur on their traditional lands. Co-management, if you will.

The time is long past due to scrap a broken system where First Nations are relegated to the subservient role of simply being told to respond in a timely way to one development application after another. This fundamental reform would mark a significant turning point in how the provincial government works with First Nations in the region, and would inch it closer to living up to its commitment to support the UN Declaration.

If this year’s “Paddle for the Peace” helps in some small way to set the stage for such reforms, the region and all its residents will be the better for it.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip is an Okanagan Indigenous leader and has been president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs since 1998. Ben Parfitt is a resource policy analyst with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and recent author of Fracking, First Nations and Water: Respecting Indigenous rights and better protecting our shared resources.

Image Credit: Fracking water storage near Hudson's Hope in B.C. Image from the CCPA report: Fracking Up B.C.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

By Discourse Media with additional reporting from Carol Linnitt.

Members of the Lax Kw’alaams First Nation in northwest B.C. were given an extremely short amount of time to respond to an opinion poll that asked if they support energy development in their territory.

The polling followed a series of four information sessions held by the band council in June, focused on plans for liquified natural gas (LNG) development. At the information sessions, band members were presented with a proposed package of benefits that hinge on them voicing their support for the contentious Pacific NorthWest LNG (PNW LNG) project at the mouth of the Skeena River.

Community members are concerned because the polling question did not explicitly reference the PNW LNG proposal, which includes plans to develop the company’s LNG terminal on Lelu Island, near Prince Rupert. Other concerns about the poll that have been flagged by band members include missing forms in packages mailed to them and misinformation included in the proposed agreements package.

Biased Process

The poll question was framed and composed in a way that was likely to push respondents toward answering a particular way, says David Moscrop, a political scientist and PhD candidate at the University of British Columbia. “The implication is, ‘Don’t worry about the environmental impact; assume it will be fine . . . Are you okay with [development]?”

Moscrop says the structure of the question makes him suspicious of the intent behind the poll. “If you’re not going to do it properly, why are you doing it? Is it because you want to legitimize something you intend to do either way?” he asks.

The question itself, the timeline of the poll and location of the polling stations were all decided by the band council, according to Lawrence Lewis, an independent electoral officer hired by the Lax Kw’alaams band to oversee the process.

Ballots were mailed to all community members both within Lax Kw’alaams and living outside of the village, says Lewis. Members also had the chance to vote in person at polling stations in Lax Kw’alaams and Prince Rupert.

On August 25, The Lax Kw’alaams band council said they received 812 responses (1 spoiled) with 65.5 per cent (or 532 people) voting YES and 279 voting NO.

The mayor of Lax Kw’alaams, John Helin, wrote a message that said: “This is just another step in a process that could lead to the proposed Petronas project becoming a reality. We will have meetings with the appropriate parties (Petronas, Province, Federal Government) to see what the next steps are for this proposed project.”

Helin’s comments have led some to wonder if the poll, which didn’t mention PNW LNG by name, may be used as a de facto referendum for the project despite not being presented to the community as a binding vote.

Which may be how the B.C. government views the poll’s results.

The province released a statement thanking the community for the “positive vote” and Rich Coleman, B.C.’s Minister of Natural Gas Development, congratulated the community for voting to continue talks with government.  

Lax Kw’alaams Pacific Northwest #LNG Poll Raises Questions About #FirstNations Consultation https://t.co/Io16H27zAT #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 1, 2016

Misleading Information

Discourse Media obtained the proposed benefits package that was presented at four community information sessions in June. It includes misinformation about the nature of an infrastructure project granted to the community last year, as previously reported.

The $22-million paving of Tuck Inlet Road, the only road into Lax Kw’alaams, is presented as an incentive for the community to support LNG on Lelu Island. But the project was negotiated by the band’s previous mayor, Garry Reece, who says paving Tuck Inlet Road was never tied to any LNG proposal. In the proposed benefits package it is referred to as “work started by Provincial Government as an inducement for good faith negotiations on LNG.”

While Moscrop calls into question the intent of the poll, community member and activist Christine Smith-Martin says the question is too vague and should simply ask members to say yes or no to development on Lelu Island. “It’s like writing a blank cheque. They want us to sign a blank cheque that allows them to do whatever it is they want to do,” she said.

Smith-Martin also raised concerns about the execution of the poll. She said members of her family received their ballots without the necessary First Nation Declaration Form.

In order for a ballot to be counted, they had to be  returned with a signed First Nation Declaration Form which stated: “I solemnly affirm that I am an eligible Elector of the Lax Kw’alaams Nation at the address listed below and that I am at least 18 years of age.”

Lewis acknowledges the initial mistake but says all members have now received the declaration form. When asked about concerns regarding the short timeframe of the poll, the framing of the question and the lack of polling stations in Vancouver or Terrace — where many Lax Kw’alaams members reside — Lewis deferred to the band council, saying he could only speak to the process, not how these decisions were made by the Lax Kw’alaams band.

Community Left Feeling Confused, Angry

Other concerns include the information sessions that preceded the polling. The main point of contention relayed by people who attended those meetings was the highly technical nature of the presentation, which many saw as one-sided and biased in favour of supporting Pacific Northwest LNG.

Community member Sandra Dudoward says the current poll was not handled as well as a previous canvassing of community views about the project. Dudoward was referring to a series of votes that drew international headlines in May 2015. Lax Kw’alaams voted against supporting PNW LNG in exchange for a $1.2-billion benefits agreement offered by Petronas, the Malaysian-based energy company behind the project.

Dudoward says she was given a month’s notice to prepare for that vote. This time around, she was given about a week. She found out about the vote on Aug. 16, and had to call to request an emailed ballot. The poll required that all ballots be received by mail before Aug. 24 or delivered in person at one of the polling stations in Lax Kw’alaams or Prince Rupert.

Dudoward worries that the timeframe of the poll was too short and might have affected voter turnout. She also wondered why the band hired an electoral officer to oversee the process given that the polling seemed informal and the question vague.

Despite the question not being explicitly about PNW LNG, the local Prince Rupert newspaper, The Northern View,  seemed to confirm suspicions that the poll be seen as just that. “Lax Kw'alaams members vote 'Yes' to ongoing talks with PNW LNG,” said The Northern View’s August 25 on-line headline.

Against Autonomy

For political scientist David Moscrop, the issue is bigger than just the poll and its outcome. He sees it as a larger affront to the democratic process that works against the movement towards Indigenous autonomy.

“If we’re saying that there is a legacy of colonialism and exploitation and stripping people of their power and their right to self-determination, then we should be even more sensitive that there are groups that might be doing that again,” he said.

Image: Ash Kelly

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.