Category: Articles and Reports

Multiple ontologies of water: Politics, conflict and implications for governance.

By Julian Yates, Leila Harris, and Nicole Wilson

Abstract:

We ask what it would mean to take seriously the possibility of multiple water ontologies, and what the implications of this would be for water governance in theory and practice. We contribute to a growing body of literature that is reformulating understanding of human–water relations and refocusing on the fundamental question of what water ‘is’. Interrogating the political–ontological ‘problem space’ of water governance, we explore a series of ontological disjunctures that persist. Rather than seeking to characterize any individual ontology, we focus on the limitations of silencing diverse ontologies, and on the potential of embracing ontological plurality in water governance. Exploring these ideas in relation to examples from the Canadian province of British Columbia, we develop the notion of ontological conjunctures, which is based on networked dialogue among multiple water ontologies and which points to forms of water governance that begin to embrace such a dialogue. We highlight water as siwlkw and the processual concept of En’owkin as examples of this approach, emphasizing the significance of cross-pollinating scholarship across debates on water and multiple ontologies.

Click here to access full text online

De-colonizing water. Dispossession, water insecurity, and Indigenous claims for resources, authority, and territory.

By Juan Pablo Higaldo, Rutgerd Boelens, and Jeroen Vos

Abstract:

Set against the background of struggles for territory, livelihood, and dignified existence in Latin America’s neoliberal conjuncture, this paper examines contemporary Andean Indigenous claims for water access and control rights based on historical arguments. In the case of the Acequia Tabacundo irrigation system in the north-Ecuadorian Highlands, the rights claims deployed in peasant-Indigenous struggles are cultural and social hybrids. They are rooted in Indigenous history, but also spawned by centuries of interaction with and defense against colonial and post-colonial frames imposed by the Spanish Empire, modern Ecuadorian State structures and influences of transnational capital. Through these conflicts over Indigenous water rights, authority, and identity, this article illustrates and examines the role of Indigenous accounts of their water histories, striving to reclaim, and govern their water territories in times of booming export-flower water extraction.

Click here for full text online

 

Navigating the tensions in collaborative watershed governance: Water governance and Indigenous communities in British Columbia, Canada

By Rosie Simms, Leila Harris, Nadia Joe, and Karen Bakker

Abstract:

First Nations in British Columbia (BC), Canada, have historically been—and largely continue to be—excluded from colonial governments’ decision-making and management frameworks for fresh water. However, in light of recent legal and legislative changes, and also changes in water governance and policy, there is growing emphasis in scholarship and among legal, policy and advocacy communities on shifting water governance away from a centralized single authority towards an approach that is watershed-based, collaborative, and involves First Nations as central to decisionmaking processes. Drawing on community-based research, interviews with First Nations natural resource staff and community members, and document review, the paper analyzes the tensions in collaborative water governance, by identifying First Nations’ concerns within the current water governance system and exploring how a move towards collaborative watershed governance may serve to either address, or further entrench, these concerns. This paper concludes with recommendations for collaborative water governance frameworks which are specifically focused on British Columbia, but which have relevance to broader debates over Indigenous water governance. Keywords: collaborative water governance, First Nations, British Columbia, watersheds

Click here for full text online

 

Articles in Popular Media

1.) Wong, R., & Goto, H. (2017, November 30). Opinion: A letter from the future on Site C. Vancouver Observer. Retrieved from https://www.vancouverobserver.com/opinion/opinion-letter-future-site-c

2.) Hendriks, R., Raphals, P., Bakker, K., & Christie, G. (2017, November 21). First Nations and Hydropower: The Case of British Columbia’s Site C Dam Project.” Items: Insights from the Social Sciences. Retrieved from https://items.ssrc.org/first-nations-and-hydropower-the-case-of-british-columbias-site-c-dam-project/

3.) Askew, H. (2017, October 31). UNDRIP has Implications for Fresh Water Governance in Canada. The Lawyer’s Daily. Retrieved from https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/5007/undrip-has-implications-for-fresh-water-governance-in-canada-hannah-askew

4.) Bakker, K., Hendriks, R., & Raphals, P. (2017, May 12). UBC Professor rebuts criticism of Site C dam Economics Study. Business Vancouver. Retrieved from https://biv.com/article/2017/05/ubc-professor-rebuts-criticism-site-c-dam-economic

5.) Christie, G., Hendriks, R., Raphals, P., & Bakker, K. (2017, April 19). Site C: it’s not too late to hit pause. Policy Options. Retrieved from http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/april-2017/site-c-its-not-too-late-to-hit-pause/

6.) Terbasket, K. (2017, April 19). Learning On the Land: IndigenEYEZ Visits Dechinta Centre for Research and Learning. IndigenEYEZ. Retrieved from https://indigeneyez.com/dreaming_the_future/

7.) Craft, A. (2017 March/April). Nibi onje biimaadiiziiwin. Water Canada. Retrieved from https://gallery.mailchimp.com/3a7abd98aab99ad64d6966108/files/7d5ed33c-6b33-4621-b4a9-e74d8028029c/Water_Canada_artilce_20170301_full.pdf

Reciprocal Research and Learning with Indigenous Communities

By Rachel Arsenault, Deborah McGregor, Sibyl Diver, Aaron Witham, and Carrie Bourassa

Abstract:  Within Indigenous communities, concerns regarding water quality from inadequate infrastructure and upstream industrial development, as well as ecosystem and human health effects from toxin release into the environment have increased significantly (Grinde 1995). This has led to a commonly encountered issue that many of the standards in place do not adequately account for or include a holistic approach for assessing the social, cultural, and spiritual values, beliefs, and practices that link First Nations peoples to their environment (Wolfley 1998). Many communities are now taking it upon themselves to identify environmental contamination problems and their sources, establish and enforce environmental regulations that include traditional ecological benchmarks, and develop sustainable, long term environmental protection objectives (O’Brien 2000).

Full text: Reciprocal Research and Learning

Native Water Protection Flows Through Self- Determination: Understanding Tribal Water Quality Standards and “Treatment as a State”

By Sibyl Diver

Abstract: For Indigenous communities, protecting traditional lands and waters is of the utmost importance. In the U.S. context, scholars have documented an unfortunate neglect of water quality on tribal lands. Treatment as a State (TAS) provisions, adopted in the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act, and tribal Water Quality Standards (WQSs) programs are intended to address such problems. Importantly, tribal WQSs may be more stringent than neighboring state standards, and can be used to influence pollution levels coming from upstream, off-reservation users. Tribes can also develop WQSs that support unique tribal values, including ceremonial and cultural uses of native waters. Yet scholarly debates question whether tribal environmental self-determination strategies can fully succeed within dominant regulatory structures. Based on a synthesis of the published literature, this article examines tribal WQSs as a case of tribal environmental self-determination. The author discusses how U.S. tribes pursue WQSs under TAS, program outcomes, and why so few tribes have established WQSs to date. Because most scholarship was found within the legal literature, the author focuses on the legal and political outcomes that arise from tribal WQSs, and analyzes specific opportunities and constraints for program participants. The author also considers how some tribes use WQSs as a “third space” strategy—simultaneously working inside and outside of dominant government structures to advance tribal sovereignty (Bruyneel 2007). Additional research is needed to understand the diversity of tribal environmental self-determination strategies that occur through federal regulatory frameworks and under tribal law.

Full text: Here

La Protection des Eaux Autochtones découle de l’auto-détermination: comprendre les “Standards Tribaux sur la Qualité de l’Eau” et le “Traitement Étatique”

Par Sibyl Diver

Abrégé:  Pour les communautés autochtones, la protection des terres et eaux traditionnelles est d’une importance absolue. Aux États-Unis, des chercheurs ont documenté le délaissement malheureux de la qualité de l’eau sur les terres tribales. Les réglementations “Traitement Étatique” (plus connu sous l’acronyme TSA « Treatment as a State ») adoptées à travers les amendements de 1987 du Clean Water Act, ainsi que les programmes de “Standards Tribaux sur la Qualité de l’Eau” (plus connu sous l’acronyme WQS « Tribal Water Quality Standards » ) sont supposés répondre à ces problèmes. Il est important de noter que les WQS au niveau tribal sont parfois plus exigeants que les standards des États voisins et peuvent avoir une réelle influence sur les niveaux de pollution en amont en provenance d’utilisateurs en dehors de la réserve. Les tribus peuvent aussi développées des WQS qui supportent leurs propres valeurs tribales, y compris les usages cérémonieux et culturels des eaux autochtones. Cependant le potentiel de réussite des stratégies tribales d’auto-détermination environnementale face aux systèmes réglementaires prépondérants donne lieu à un débat académique. Sur la base d’une synthèse de la littérature actuelle, cet article examine les WQS tribaux comme exemple d’autodétermination environnementale au niveau tribal. L’auteur discute comme les tribus aux États Unis ont insisté pour des standards WQS sous les réglementations TAS, les résultats des programmes, et pourquoi à l’heure actuelle aussi peu de tribus ont établis des WQS. Parce-que la majorité de la littérature sur le sujet est de nature légale, l’auteur se concentre sur les impacts politiques et légaux des WQS et analyse les opportunités et contraintes spécifiques pour les participants au programme. L’auteur considère également comment certaines tribus utilisent les WQS stratégiquement dans le but de construire un « troisième espace » qui consiste à travailler simultanément à l’intérieur et à l’extérieur des structures gouvernementales dominantes afin de faire avancer la souveraineté tribale (Bruyneel 2007). A ce stade, davantage de recherche est nécessaire afin de comprendre la diversité des stratégies tribales d’auto-détermination environnementale qui se développent à la fois à travers les cadres réglementaires fédéraux et le droit tribal.

Texte complet: Ici

Shifting the Framework of Canadian Water Governance through Indigenous Research Methods

Shifting the Framework of Canadian Water Governance through Indigenous Research Methods: Acknowledging the Past with an Eye on the Future.

by Rachel Arsenault, Sibyl Diver, Deborah McGregor, Aaron Witham and Carrie Bourassa

Journal: Water

Published January 10, 2018

Full Text: Here

Abstract: First Nations communities in Canada are disproportionately affected by poor water quality. As one example, many communities have been living under boil water advisories for decades, but government interventions to date have had limited impact. This paper examines the importance of using Indigenous research methodologies to address current water issues affecting First Nations. The work is part of larger project applying decolonizing methodologies to Indigenous water governance. Because Indigenous epistemologies are a central component of Indigenous research methods, our analysis begins with presenting a theoretical framework for understanding Indigenous water relations. We then consider three cases of innovative Indigenous research initiatives that demonstrate how water research and policy initiatives can adopt a more Indigenous-centered approach in practice. Cases include (1) an Indigenous Community-Based Health Research Lab that follows a two-eyed seeing philosophy (Saskatchewan); (2) water policy research that uses collective knowledge sharing frameworks to facilitate respectful, non-extractive conversations among Elders and traditional knowledge holders (Ontario); and (3) a long-term community-based research initiative on decolonizing water that is practicing reciprocal learning methodologies (British Columbia, Alberta).

By establishing new water governance frameworks informed by Indigenous research methods, the authors hope to promote innovative, adaptable solutions, rooted in Indigenous epistemologies.

Keywords: Indigenous research methods; water governance; Indigenous knowledge systems; Indigenous water relations; community-based research; reciprocal learning; environmental justice; boil water advisories; First Nations; Canada

Changer le Cadre de Gouvernance Canadienne dans le secteur de l’Eau à travers des Méthodes de Recherches Autochtones : Reconnaître le Passé avec un Regard vers le Futur.

Changer le Cadre de Gouvernance Canadienne dans le secteur de l’Eau à travers des Méthodes de Recherches Autochtones : Reconnaître le Passé avec un Regard vers le Futur.

Par Rachel Arsenault, Sibyl Diver, Deborah McGregor, Aaron Witham and Carrie Bourassa

Journal: Water

Publié le 10 Janvier 2018

Texte complet: Ici

Abrégé : Les communautés Autochtones au Canada sont affectées de manière disproportionnée par la mauvaise qualité de l’eau. Par exemple, de nombreuses communautés vivent depuis plusieurs décennies sous un ordre de faire bouillir et les interventions et initiatives publiques à ce jour ont eu un impact limité. Cet article examine l’importance d’utiliser des méthodologies de recherches autochtones afin de répondre aux problèmes de qualité de l’eau affectant les Premières Nations. Ce travail fait partie intégrante d’un projet plus large qui applique des méthodologies décoloniales à la gouvernance autochtone dans le secteur de l’eau. Parce-que les épistémologies autochtones sont au cœur des méthodes de recherches autochtones, notre analyse commence par présenter le cadre théorique qui informe les relations autochtones à l’eau. Nous considérons ensuite trois études de cas d’initiatives innovantes de recherche Autochtone qui démontre la façon dont la recherche sur l’eau et les initiatives publiques peuvent adopter une approche plus autochtone en pratique. Ces études de cas comprennent (1) un laboratoire Autochtone et communautaire de recherche sur la santé qui poursuit une philosophie à double regard (Saskatchewan) ; (2) une recherche de politique publique sur l’eau qui utilise des cadres de partage de connaissance collective afin de faciliter des conversations respectueuses et non-extractives avec les Anciens et ceux qui portent le savoir traditionnel (Ontario) ; et (3) une initiative de recherche communautaire de long terme pour la décolonisation de l’eau qui pratique des méthodologies d’apprentissage mutuel (Colombie Britannique, Alberta).

En établissant de nouveaux cadres de gouvernance dans le secteur de l’eau, informés par des méthodes de recherches Autochtones, les auteurs espèrent promouvoir des solutions innovantes et flexibles, ancrées dans des épistémologies Autochtones.

Mots clés : méthodologies de recherche Autochtones, gouvernance dans le secteur de l’eau, systèmes de savoir Autochtone, relations Autochtones à l’eau, recherche communautaire, apprentissage mutuel, justice environnementale, ordre de faire bouillir l’eau, Premières Nations, Canada.