First Nations Approach to Natural Resource Management - Assignment Example

Question Both the “New Relationship” and fall of the proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Act are important to the consideration of aboriginal approaches to lands and natural resources in British Columbia. These were part of the negotiation process initiated after the Supreme Court verdict came out endorsing aborigines’ rights to land and natural resources. During the course of discussions, even the Premier of British Columbia admitted “the growing level of conflict and uncertainty” in the Province and “acknowledged that the Province must make a bold shift in how the Provincial Crown conducts business” (First Nations Chiefs 2005). A recognition and reconciliation act was the proposed outcome of these negotiations but later on such legislation was dismissed as dead by the First Nations summit in August 2009. (All Chiefs Assembly 2009) Though the act in its proposed form was not acceptable to the majority of indigenous people, all these new debates have an importance of their own as stepping stones towards evolving consensus. The whole thing failed only because of the ambivalent acts of the Province as on one side the authorities said they were implementing the New Relationship while on the other, the court cases against the indigenous communities and conflicts lingered as usual. (All Chiefs Assembly 2009). But this debate provided a platform for the aboriginals to demand that “enforcement of (the) indigenous titles and rights as called for by the United Nations’ Declaration on the rights of indigenous people” is the only viable solution. Christian paper, 2009, para.3). Thus a tilt in public discourse is evident which in turn will put weight on the arguments of the First Nations people. So the negotiations have to continue and any new legislation must be based on deep consultation. Question 2-The authors of the Christian paper see their titles and rights as “inherited from (their) ancestral origins as indigenous people (Christian paper, 2009, para 4). This includes sovereign rights to the land they have inhabited in British Columbia for centuries. This also includes rights on the natural resources of that land. The Christian paper also declares without doubt that the Province had no jurisdiction over the indigenous titles and rights of the aborigines (Christian paper, 2009, para 2). The paper clearly states that the indigenous people would accept nothing less than an endorsement of the United Nations’ Declaration on the rights of Indigenous people (Christian paper, 2009, para 3). The fact that these rights are “constitutionally recognized and judicially reaffirmed” is stressed in the Christian paper. (Christian paper, 2009, para.4). One reason that the authors cite for opposing the proposed legislation is the widely held apprehensions of the indigenous people that the legislation will affect the indigenous title and rights of the aborigines. (Christian paper, 2009, para 2). The First Nations leaders had received this feedback when they traveled through the province and participated in religional meeting and community meetings (Christian paper, 2009, para 2). The Christian paper (2009, para 2) further has stated that they were not in a position to judge the Province authorities by their words alone. This position is then justified by them by saying that the Province is continuing its actions that “infringe on their territories and resources” (Christian paper, 2009, para 2). Another reason for their opposition to the new legislation is stated in the paper which accuses that “ the Premier and his government have not acted honorably through the course of the so-called ‘New Relationship’” (Chritian paper, 2009, para.3). They further dismiss the words of the Province as “empty platitudes” (Christian paper, 2009, para.3). The paper blames the “outdated legal barriers and archaic colonial attitudes” of the Province (Christian paper, 2009, para.3). They also tries to present evidence to this statement by noting that many indigenous still were “facing deliberately constructed and illegal denial strategies of their title and rights in courts and in their negotiations” (Christian paper, 2009, para.3). The Christian paper warns that all these must stop (Christian paper, 2009, para.3). Question-3. The authors of Christian paper propose to have sovereign rights over the land they inhabit and the natural resources of that land (Christian paper, 2009). They want the complete endorsement of United Nations’ Declaration on the rights of Indigenous people (Christian paper, 2009, para.3). Article 4 of the declaration has stated that, “indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions” (UN Declaration, 2007). The declaration also instructs States to provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities and any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources in Article 8 (UN Declaration, 2007). Another crucial instruction that the declaration gives in Article 32 to the States is that “indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources (UN Declaration, 2007). There is also an adjoining directive in article 32 itself saying that “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.” (UN Declaration, 2007). What the Christian paper demands is nothing more that an implementation of these directives physically and in spirit. Hence, any person who believes in universal democracy and equality shall have to theoretically agree with the content of the Christian paper. To think that the indigenous people do not have the discretionary powers to protect the natural resources is yet another folly of our modern civilization. The section 35 of the constitution of Caneda has also asserted the “inherent right for the community to make decisions as to the use of the land and the right to have a political structure for making those decisions (New Relationship Document, 2005, p.1). All the same, an impartial onlooker has to take into account the practical situation in British Columbia. A reversal of attitudes is the need of the hour. The question, who needs to be reconciled, has to be asked in a fresh milieu. An impartial approach demands assertion of the sovereignty of the aborigines and reconciliation of the non-indigenous people into this new system. I will surely support the implementation of these approaches through negotiations. Province government should take a proactive stand to win back the trust of the first Nations people and try to and conflicts and rivalries. As admitted by the New Relationship document (2005), “the historical aboriginalcrown relationship has given rise to the present socio-economic disparity between First Nations and the British Columbians”. To revert this situation, the British Columbians must sacrifice some of their untitled privileges and impart them to the rightful indigenous community. Question 4. The so-called “broader social, political and economic community” in British Columbia has to realize that being citizens of a developed country. They have a higher responsibility to show the world that they respect the rights of the indigenous people and the spirit of the UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous people. If this reality is absorbed by the British Columbian community, then the proposals and interests contained in the Christian paper can advance the process of reconciliation. But in the present situation, the Christian paper will raise many a conventional eye-brows. This is because, there is still lot of conflicts of interests happening around in British Columbia. All over the world, the majority community always believes they are more equal than equals. The non-indigenous people in British Columbia are also not much different in this regard. The economic disparities that exist between the two groups is an acknowledged factor even by the Province (The New Relationship document, 2005). The document sets one of its goals as to “eliminate the gap in standards of living (of indigenous people) with other British Columbians (The New Relationship document, 2005). The New Relationship document and Christian paper are two important documents to proceed with. A fresh reading of New Relationship document along with the Christian paper and reconciling the approaches should be the next step in this regard. Antagonistic actions like framing of charges against indigenous communities must be stopped at least for a declared period. The history of court cases itself stands proof to the discriminatory nature of government action. For example, the declaration of aboriginal lands as marine protected areas without their consultation was severely criticized by observers. (HG.org, 2006). The website, AdmiraltyLaw.com (2009), has listed more than fifty cases that have been filed in courts in violation of aborigine fishing rights. The court order that asserted the rights of the aboriginal people, ensued with an atmosphere conducive for better relations between British Columbians and aborigines, is a landmark regarding multi-cultural relations in Canada. It was on November 18, 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decisions in the cases, Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) and Weyerhaeuser, 2004 and Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), 2004. The Haida verdict was concerned with the commercial felling of trees including very old cedars of which the aborigines held mythological associations. This issue had an ecological importance as well. So, in this case, the court restricted the cutting of trees by aboriginals but strongly asserted their rights to be a part of deep consultation. (Barr and Schnuerer 2005) Similarly in the Taku river Tlinget case, sovereignty of the indigenous people in handling the land and resources closely linked to their ancestry and livelihood was in question and the court took the side of the aboriginals completely. (Barr and Schnuerer 2005). Both the verdicts took the issue of aboriginal rights beyond legal parameters and clearly asked the Provincial government to consult and accommodate the interests of indigenous people even if there was no legal obligations. (Bluemink 2004) All these show that the reconciliation attempt has been given the strong nod by the judiciary. The making of “mutually acceptable arrangements for sharing benefits, including resource revenue sharing” and “ dispute resolution processes which are mutually determined for resolving conflicts” are the immediate need of the nation. (New Relationship Document, 2005). This can be implemented even before a comprehensive legislation is brought in. Such short term measures can help build lot of good will. Culture-sharing platforms have to be deliberately organized by the Province if they really want to bring about an amicable and final settlement in the future. If the people can agree to share the resources respecting each other, that will be the most ideal solution ever. References Barr, Myron.N. and Schnuerer, Jeffrey.L, 2005, First Nations forestry: strategic directions and business structures, Vancouver, http://www.mcdonaldandco.com/pub/forestry_conference_recent_cases.pdf (accessed October 31, 2009) Bluemink, Elizabeth, 2004, Court rebuffs Tlingits on mine: judge says British Columbia regulators didnt ignore concerns about Tulsequah Chief, http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/111904/sta_20041119003.shtml (accessed October 31, 2009) First Nations Chiefs in British Columbia, 2005, Resolution of the special joint assembly of First Nations Chiefs in British Columbia, p.1, http://www.fns.bc.ca/pdf/jointres_NRMay20.pdf (accessed on November 1, 2009) Christian paper, 2009, All Chiefs Assembly united in rejection of proposed legislation: the recognition and reconciliation legislation is dead, Vancouver, http://www.fns.bc.ca/pdf/AllChiefsAssembly_MediaStatement.pdf, (accessed on November 1, 2009) United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007, http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html, (accessed on October 30, 2009) The New Relationship Document, 2005, The New Relationship, http://www.fns.bc.ca/pdf/New_Relationship.pdf (accessed on October 30, 2009). HG.org, 2006, Implications of the Recent Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard,   Published May 19, 2006 - British Columbia, Canada, http://www.hg.org/articles/article_1271.html, (accessed on October 30, 2009) Admiralitylaw.com, 2009, Fisheries law: aboriginal rights and defenses, http://www.admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/aboriginal.htm, (accessed on October 30, 2009). Read More