Indigenous Water GovernancePanel

Claire Johnson, Nicole Lee-Kauer, Ramon Melser, Charlotte Michaels, Sara Phillips, Christine Popovich, Jonah Ruocco Erickson, Emily Valente.

Differing Perceptions of Water & Ecosystem Services - Claire

http://www.globalwaterfund.com/business-services/

Ontological Pluralism:

We need to recognize that different realities have implications for water governance.

Outline:

1. Western Values & Impacts

2. Indigenous Values & Impacts

3. Ecosystem Services4. Future?

But first… 2 questions

Why the attention to ontologies?

Politics reflect certain realities and preferences to worldviews.

Why the distinction between Western and Indigenous?

“[M]ultiple worlds intersect, with diverse political consequences.” - Yates et al., 2017

http://worldviewsinreview.blogspot.com/2014/05/adding-worldview-teaching-to-teen-co-ops.html

Values that inform Western water governance:

- Provision- Modernism- Abiotic & Utilitarian

logic

Impacts:Compromised (human and nonhuman) health

Security of resources

Prioritization of drinking water over Indigenous values

Values that inform Indigenous water governance

- Sentience and animacy- Lifeblood → Mother Earth- Purity

‘L f

f ’ - K

Impacts:Recognizing social, cultural, spiritual needs

Not what is ‘conventional’ but what is most ‘appropriate’

Viability?

Ecosystem Services

1. Provisioning → 2. Regulating → 3. Habitat → 4. Cultural →

Outputs (food, water)Climate, Carbon, Home to many species!Recreation, spirituality

Future?

Reciprocity & Respect

Diversity in governance

In the absence of explicit acknowledgement of different sociocultural connections to water, Western perspectives and management systems remain dominant

https://hyperhidrosisnetwork.com/job-interview-with-sweaty-hands/

References

Armstrong, J. (2009). En’owkin: what it means to be a sustainable community. Centre for Ecoliteracy. Retrieved from: https://www.ecoliteracy.org/article/enowkin-what-it-means-sustainable-community#

Grizzetti, B., Lanzanova, D., Liquete, C., Reynaud, A. & Cardoso, A. C. (2016). Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management. Environmental Science & Policy 61, 194-203.

Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions.

Jackson, S. & Barber, M. (2013). Recognition of indigenous water values in Australia’s Northern Territory: current progress and ongoing challenges for social justice in water planning. Planning Theory & Practice 14(4), 435-454.

Sanderson, C. (2008). Nipiy wasekimew/clear water: The meaning of water, from the words of the elders: The interconnections of health, education, law, and the environment, (Doctoral dissertation). Simon Fraser University. Retrieved from: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/thesescanada/vol2/002/NR58519.PDF

Sangha, K. K., Le Brocque, A., Costanza, R. & Cadet-James, Y. (2015). Ecosystems and indigenous well-being: An integrated framework. Global Ecology and Conservation 4, 197-206.

The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity (n.d.). Ecosystem Services. Retrieved from: http://www.teebweb.org/resources/ecosystem-services/

Vowel, C. (2016). Indigenous Writes: A Guide to First Nations, Metis & Inuit Issues in Canada. Winnipeg, MB: Highwater Press.

Wilson, N. J. (2014). Indigenous water governance: Insights from the hydrosocial relations of the Koyukon Athabascan village of Ruby, Alaska. Geoforum 57, 1-11.

Yates, J. S., Harris, L. M. & Wilson N. J. (2017). Multiple ontologies of water: Politics, conflict, and implications for governance. Environment & Planning D: Society & Space 35(5), 797-815.

Historical Context of Indigenous Land Dispossession and Treaties in Canada- Ramon

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/numbered-treaties

Indigenous Water Governance:entails the decolonization of water and the restoration of Indigenous rights, agency, and stewardship over water.

Summary: I will give some insight into the Canadian historical context of Colonization, Indigenous land dispossession, treaty making, and the apparent lack of water as a resource included in these narratives. In short: how did we get here?

Stage 1: Early Treaties/Indigenous Treaty Making

Stage 2: The Creation of the Settler Colony

Stage 3: Water, what water?

Stage 4: The Constitution Acts

Synthesis and Conclusion

References

Early Treaties and Indigenous Treaty Making.

● Indigenous people were experienced treaty makers.

● The Great Law of Peace - unification of the Iroquois Confederacy.

● Deterioration and Renewal - important cycles of treaty maintenance and adjustment.

● Relationship Analogy

http://archaeologymuseum.ca/wampum/

The Creation of the Settler Colony

● Oregon Treaty of 1846 - large-scale tensions about American annexation.

● Vancouver Island becomes a Colony in 1849 under the proprietorship of the HBC.

● Shifted relations of trade to ones of land - dispossession.

● Governor James Douglas - The Douglas Treaties: 14 “purchases”, mostly around Victoria, between 1850-1854.

https://www.timescolonist.com/islander/lost-in-translation-the-douglas-treaties-1.10099656

Water, what water?Indigenous custom did not create private water rights.

● Lack of water and other natural resources as a negotiated asset in Treaties.

● Lack of re-negotiation/renewal of treaties - outdated legal frameworks.

Douglas Treaty Treaty No. 8

“The conditions of our understanding of this

sale is this, that our village sites and

enclosed fields are to be kept for our own

use, for the use of our children, and for those

who may follow afer us and the land shall be

properly surveyed hereafter. It is

understood, however, that the land itself,

with these small exceptions, becomes the

entire property of the white people for ever;

it is also understood that we are at liberty to

hunt over the unoccupied lands, and to carry

on our fisheries as formerly.”

“And Her Majesty the Queen HEREBY AGREES

with the said Indians that they shall have right

to pursue their usual vocations of hunting,

trapping and fishing throughout the tract

surrendered as heretofore described, subject to

such regulations as may from time to time be

made by the Government of the country, acting

under the authority of Her Majesty, and saving

and excepting such tracts as may be required or

taken up from time to time for settlement,

mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes.”

The Constitution Acts

● Provincial ownership of resources - Legislative rights - Constitution Act of 1867.

● The Constitution Act of 1982: “the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”

● Federal authority over water management is indirectly implicated through its authority on agriculture, trade, commerce, taxation, and criminal law.

● Canadian courts interpret Federal interests in water management narrowly, ensuring it is directly related and restricted to the power being invoked.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/British_North_America_Act,_1867.jpg

Synthesis and Conclusion.Where does this leave us?

● Settler Colonialism - Land Dispossession.● Different perspectives on ownership over

natural resources - fundamentally flawed system of negotiation.

● Treaty making - a conversation over time?● Provincial Water Ownership VS. Federal

Policy.● Recognition of Aboriginal Rights and

Aboriginal Treaty Rights.● Historic treaties can be interpreted

cleverly, drawing in impedance on hunting and fishing productivity for example. (Claxton v. Saanichton Marina Ltd. 1989)

ReferencesBakker, K. J. (2007). Eau canada: The future of canada's water. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Government of Canada. (1966). Treaty Texts - Treaty No. 8. Retrieved from: https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028813/1100100028853

Government of Canada. (1875). Treaty Texts - Douglas Treaties. Retrieved from: https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100029052/1100100029053

Harris, C. (2008). The reluctant land: Society, space, and environment in canada before confederation. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Vowel, C. (2016). Indigenous writes: A guide to first nations, Metis & inuit issues in canada. Winnipeg, MB: HighWater Press.

Cover Image: https://www.google.ca/search?q=indigenous+water+governance&rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA781CA781&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgpdDn8t7eAhXuHjQIHYQ-DdUQ_AUIDygC&biw=1280&bih=579#imgrc=MLpQTnShlr2D6M:

Section 1.1Stakeholders

Water Rights RegimeIn Canada

Section 1.2Conflict

Section 1.3Resolution

Christine Popovich

Section 1.1: Stakeholders

Of B.C.’s population

was made up of

Aboriginals when it

entered Confederation.

(Nowlan, 2004)

Interactive Community-Based Representation of Aboriginal Territory

Source: https://native-land.ca/

Disclaimer:

‘This map does not represent or intend to represent official or legal boundaries of any Indigenous nations. To learn about definitive boundaries, contact the nations in question.This map is not perfect -- it is a work in progress with tons of contributions from the community.”

Water Rights Regime: Timeline

1894: North-West Irrigation Act Prevailing common law: Riparian Rights: a riparian owner is a person whose land acts the shore of a natural water course

Pre1800:

1930: Federal transfer of natural resources to Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan.

1909: BC creates it own Water Act

1877Joint commission recognizes rights of Aboriginals

1877: B.C. immediately disclaims the commission and grants hundreds of licences to settlers

1908:Winters’ Doctrine

Water Modernization Legislation to reform Water Act of 1909

Post2000

Delgamuukw v. B.C.

1997

Section 1.2: Conflict 1.) Indigenous knowledge and values are continually distilled from its context.

2.) Capacity limitations historically placed on First Nations mean that resource development is already on unequal footing and the onus of responsibility ought to be on the Provincial government if equal participation is to be realized.

3.) Local processes need to be taken into account for everyone’s benefit.

4.) The Water Sustainability Act is yet to acknowledge Aboriginal Water Rights.

“Canadian resource

management is embedded

into a colonial framework

set forth by the British

Crown which continues to

be reinforced by social,

legal, and political

institutions in Canadian

society”

Section 1.3: Resolutions

❖ Future: Sustainable water practices for a

population with high levels of

consumption .

❖ Present: Continuous negotiation (or

lack thereof) of land title.

❖ Past: Imbalances of power and assimilationist policies like the Indian

Act forced First Nations to accept policies that actively excluded them.

Past Present

Future

How do we better plan for this Interaction?

References

Images:“Sustainable” by yurr from the Noun Project

“Stakeholder” by Yu luck from the Noun Project

Temprano, Victor “Building Native Land” https://native-land.ca/

Kwasniak, A. J. (2010). Water scarcity and aquatic sustainability: Moving beyond policy limitations. University of Denver Water Law Review, 13(2), 321.

Nowlan, L. (2004). Customary water laws and practices in Canada. This paper was commissioned by FAO under a joint FAO/IUCN research project investigating the interface of customary and statutory water rights, in progress

Sam, M., & Armstrong, J. (2013). Indigenous water governance and resistance: A syilx perspective. (1st ed., pp. 239) Berghahn Books.

Simms, R. et al. (2016). Navigating the tensions in collaborative watershed governance: Water governance and Indigenous communities in British Columbia, Canada. Geoforum 73: 6-16.

Walkem, A. “The land is dry: Indigenous peoples, water, and environmental justice.” In Bakker, K. (ed) Eau Canada: the future of Canada’s water***, 311-329. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Legal Context in Canada Charlotte Michaels

1) 3 Pillars of Canadian Law 2) Aboriginal vs Indigenous

Law3) Responsibility of water in

Canada through current legal systems

Outline

“While most Canadian citizens have access to safe drinking water, many First Nations communities are

forced to treat water sources, or are altogether lacking clean water access. Although non-Indigenous

rural communities are also impacted, studies have demonstrated that First Nations in Canada are

disproportionately affected by poor water quality.”

(Arsenault et al, 2018).

3 Pillars of Canadian LawCIVIL LAW

The civil law is comprised of civil codes that have a comprehensive statement of rules which are broad, general principles to deal with any disputes that may arise.

COMMON LAW

The Common law is a system of rules which has evolved from past decisions. It adapts to changing circumstances because new legal doctrines can be implemented to make changes.

INDIGENOUS LAW

Originates in the political, economic, spiritual and social values expressed through the teachings and behaviour of knowledge and respected individuals, predates common law.

https://thenounproject.com/search/?q=law&i=1692295https://thenounproject.com/search/?q=law&i=2025795https://blogs.ubc.ca/orientation2016/indigenous-law-students-association/

Aboriginal Law vs Indigenous Law

Aboriginal law: the body of law that pertains to the unique constitutional rights of Aboriginal peoples in Canada.

Indigenous Law: is the system of laws which guides Indigenous Culture.

Beaumont, H., & Troian, M. (2017, September 05). Water Week: A look at Canada's Indigenous water crisis. Retrieved November 13, 2018, from https://news.vice.com/en_ca/article/vbzq4b/water-week-a-look-at-canadas-indigenous-water-crisis

So what does this mean for water?

Responsibility of water in Canada

Management of water: by provincial and territorial governments.

Indigenous reserves: are claimed to be a Federal responsibility, and therefore fall in a gap of accountability between federal and provincial governance.

There are no federal or provincial laws or regulations to ensure safe drinking water for first nations individuals living on reserves.

Government of Canada. (2012). Welcome to the First Nation Profiles Interactive Map. Retrieved November 16, 2018, from http://fnpim-cippn.aandc-aadnc.gc.ca/index-eng.html

Conclusion

Constitutional transgressions stem from federal government’s failure to: provide adequate resources for drinking water infrastructure; prioritize the needs of communities in the most dire and dangerous circumstances; and enact and enforce a regulatory framework to ensure safe drinking water for First Nations communities.

These issues have transgressed many years and under the current system the federal government evades responsibility and cannot be held accountable except through litigation. The accountability is absent.

References● Arsenault, R., Diver, S., McGregor, D., Witham, A., & Bourassa, C. (2018). Shifting the framework of

Canadian water governance through indigenous research methods: Acknowledging the past with an eye on the future. Water, 10(1)

● Bauman, R. W. & Kahana, T. (2006). The Least Examined Branch: The Role of Legislatures in the Constitutional State. Cambridge University Press. p. 159. ISBN978-1-139-46040-8.

● Borrows, J. (1997). Living between water and rocks: First nations, environmental planning and democracy.The University of Toronto Law Journal, 47(4), 417-468

● Boyd, D. R. (2011). No taps, no toilets: First nations and the constitutional right to water in canada.McGill Law Journal, 57(1), 81-134.

● Government of Canada. (2012). Welcome to the First Nation Profiles Interactive Map. Retrieved November 16, 2018, from http://fnpim-cippn.aandc-aadnc.gc.ca/index-eng.html

● Leuprecht, C. & Russell, P. H. (2011). Essential Readings in Canadian Constitutional Politics. University of Toronto Press. p. 477. ISBN978-1-4426-0368-4.

● Smith, L. T., & Ebooks Corporation. (2012;2013;2016;). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples(Second ed.). London: Zed Books.

● Vowel, C. (2016). Indigenous Writes: A Guide to First Nations, Metis & Inuit Issues in Canada. Winnipeg, MB: Highwater

Water Governance Reform in Canada-Sara

Outline

● Troubled Water● Drinking Water Advisories● Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act● SDWFNA and First Nations● Closing the Resource Gap● B.C. Water Sustainability Act● The Path Forward

Troubled Water

Despite Canada having a relatively high amount of freshwater available per-capita, the water many Indigenous communities depend on is contaminated, difficult to access, or at risk to faulty treatment systems

Drinking Water Advisories

There are currently 103 Drinking Water Advisories in effect across Canada

http://ciphi2017.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2017-11-20-EYKELBOSH-Angela-First-Nations-Water-Panel-Nov.-5-2017.pdf

Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act (2013)

As it stands now, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act purports to enable the Government of Canada to develop enforceable federal regulations to ensure First Nation communities have access to safe and effective water and wastewater systems on First Nation lands

Key Concerns:

● No consent in development

● Fails to protect Aboriginal rights

● Resource Gap

SDWFNA and First Nations

● Repeal: The Assembly of First Nations has called for the repeal of SDWFNA

● Response: The newly formed Indigenous Services office proposed a path forward on the SDWFNA through “First Nations-led engagements on the Act”

● Result: Passed the 2017 SCA Resolution 15 “First Nations-led Engagement Process for Safe Drinking Water Legislation”

Closing the Resource Gap

The Trudeau administration responded with the 2016 Budget which aims to

address:

● Health and safety needs ● Ensure proper facility operation

and maintenance ● End long-term Boil Water

Advisories on reserves by 2021

Tracking the Success

The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated in the December 2017 Report that the money the federal government is spending to clean up First Nations’ communities water systems will not be sufficient

B.C. Water Sustainability Act (2016)

The B.C. Water Sustainability Act modernizes the B.C. Water Act of 1909 and reassures the sustainable supply of fresh, clean water that meets the needs of B.C. residents today and in the future

Key Concerns:

● Source water protection● First Nations’

jurisdiction and authority● Lack of direct

consultation with First Nations

The Path Forward

There must be more meaningful and direct engagement with First Nations throughout all stages of the decision-making process for the development of water management practices. Failure to recognize Indigenous sovereignty and Indigenous law will continue to impede meaningful collaboration. Consequently, impeding the implementation of water legislation continuously affects First Nations with regards to inequality and dispossession.

References

● Assembly of First Nations. (2017). NATIONAL CHIEF BULLETIN - June 2017 - Update on Engagement Sessions on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. Retrieved November, 2018, from https://www.afn.ca/2017/07/16/national-chief-bulletin-june-2017-update-engagement-sessions-safe-drinking-water-first-nations-act/

● First Nations Health Authority. (2018). Drinking Water Advisories. Retrieved from http://www.fnha.ca/what-we-do/environmental-health/drinking-water-advisories

● Leblanc, I. (2018, January 18). Relationship Reset: Safe Water for All First Nations. Retrieved from https://www.watercanada.net/feature/ensuring-safe-water-for-all-first-nations/

● Northern Affairs Canada. (2011, August 19). Fact Sheet - The Results of the National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems. Retrieved from https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1313762701121/1313762778061

● Northern Affairs Canada. (2017, June 23). Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. Retrieved November 14, 2018, from https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1330528512623/1330528554327

● Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. (2017). Budget Sufficiency for First Nation Water and Wastewater Infrastructure. Ottawa, Canada. Retrieved from pbo-dpb.gc.ca

● Program on Water Governance. (2018). First Nations Reserve Drinking Water Issues in Canada: A Governance Primer. Retrieved from watergovernance.ca

● Westcott, T. (2018, November 01). Indigenous Services Canada's October Update on Long-Term DWAs. Retrieved from https://www.watercanada.net/indigenous-services-canadas-october-update-on-long-term-dwas/

Aboriginal Title Cases and Water Governance Emily Valente

http://www.tsilhqotin.ca/About/Governance

What is Aboriginal Title?

“Aboriginal title recognizes the relationship between indigenous peoples and their territorial homelands (a far broader area than that allotted to reserve lands)...” (Walkem, 2007)

The prior occupation of Canada by Aboriginal people demonstrated by both:

i) physical occupation as proof of possession recognized by common law

in relation to…

ii) the pre-existing systems of aboriginal law

the right to exclusive use, occupation and possession of the lands entitles making use of the land for a wide variety of purposes

http://www.gitxsan.com/territory

Delgamuukw v. British Columbia

Brought to court in the mid-90s by the hereditary chiefs of the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en Nations claiming Aboriginal title for 58,000 square kilometres of land in Northern BC.

1. How title can be proved2. Described the scope of protection3. Described justifications for infringement

http://www.gitxsan.com/ http://www.wetsuweten.com/ http://springtimeofnations.blogspot.com/2014/07/gitxsan-chiefs-in-british-columbia.html

Tsilhqot’in v. British Columbia

Title to 1700 square kilometres of land, which under the Nenqay Deni Accord, is being transitioned to Tsilhqot'in full management, benefit and control.

1. Terra nullius has never applied in Canada

2. Inter-jurisdiction between the province and the Tsilhqot’in Nation (not the province and the Crown)

3. Restrictions on land use also apply to the Crown and third party interests

http://www.tsilhqotin.ca/ https://thewalrus.ca/title-fight/

Why is title important for indigenous water governance?

English Common Law: water is held to be a form of land

Pre-existing Aboriginal Law: title does not distinguishing between land and water. Title over water means governance power and stewardship over the resource rather than the idea of exclusive ownership.

Land existing submerged under bodies of water

https://www.groundwater.org/kids/getinvolved/so/diagrams.html

What title means for indigenous water governance

Water governance as both traditional and modern in practice.

● Can therefore take the form of hydro-electricity, large-scale irrigation, and other commercial management.

● Crucial economic dimension of title

Prospects for governance are broadened beyond Aboriginal rights to practices and site specific activities to governance of the lands itself.

The potential to transition to a fully self-determined governance system in the future.

http://www.tsilhqotin.ca/Lands-Resources/Fisheries

“If you take a bucket of water out of the Skeena River, the Skeena keeps on flowing. Our rights still flow and they will flow forever.”- Hereditary chief Delgamuukw of the Gitxsan Nation

References

● Arsenault, R., Diver, S., McGregor, D., Witham, A., & Bourassa, C. (2018). Shifting the framework of canadian water governance through indigenous research methods: Acknowledging the past with an eye on the future. Water, 10(1), 49. doi:10.3390/w10010049

● Blake, Cassels & Graydon. (1998). Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (SCC) - Summary of the Reasons for Judgment of Chief Justice Lamer. The Aboriginal Mapping Network.

● Gitxsan Nation. (2005). http://www.gitxsan.com/● Mandell Pinder LLP. (2014). Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia 2014 SCC 44 – Case Summary.● Passelac-Ross, M. M., & desLibris - Documents. (2010). Defining aboriginal rights to water in alberta: Do they still "exist"?

how extensive are they? Canadian Institute of Resources Law, University of Calgary.● Simms, R., Harris, L., Joe, N., & Bakker, K. (2016). Navigating the tensions in collaborative watershed governance: Water

governance and indigenous communities in british columbia, canada. Geoforum, 73, 6-16. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.04.005● Tsilhqot'in National Government. (2018). http://www.tsilhqotin.ca/● Walkem, Ardith. (2007). The Land Is Dry: Indigenous Peoples, Water, and Environmental Justice. Eau canada:

The future of Canada's water. Vancouver: UBC Press.● Wet’suwet’en Nation. (2018). Office of the Wet’suwet’en. http://www.wetsuweten.com/

Indigenous Water Governance in the Global South - Nicole

Outline 1. Bolivia - Indigenous

governmentalist leadership

2. Ecuador - National Populist

leadership

3. Differences from

Indigenous water

governance in the Global

North

Cochabamba Water Wars● Third largest city

● Urban poverty particularly in El

Alto-La Paz and the Zona Sur

● Southern zone not integrated into the

water network

● Comprised of half of the city’s

population

● A series of protests between 1999 to

2000

● ousted Bechtel from control over the

working class’ water supply in

Cochabamba valley

https://ecology.iww.org/node/1315

Outcome

● A series of protests followed

● Ejected two presidents in two years

● First Indigenous president elected

after Water Wars

● President Morales

● Beginning of an Indigenist

governmentalist leadership in Bolivia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales

Right to Water for Life“the human right to water and the need to protect water sources and supplies against contamination as well as prohibiting the privatization of water services.”

- The Plurinational Constitution

Reconstituted Neoliberalism

● Policies such as “The great industrial leap” focuses on

industrialization and extraction industries

● Continues to contaminate water sources

● Failure to invest sufficiently into the public sector

● Purge against privatization and community based

approach has led to more dissonance of water rights

Roots against Privatization● “New working class” emerged due to neoliberal economic

restructuring

● Informal economy

● Unable to join worker unions due to their work

● Believes transfer of state property to private companies to be

“unconstitutional”

● Historically, indigenous communities and private

companies had a bad relationship due to the imbalance

of power

Indigenous Water Rights in Ecuador● “Wet constitution”● NGO sector participation● Neoliberal economy● anti-privatization

https://www.samaritanspurse.org/article/clean-water-for-ecuador/

“Wet” Constitution

“This constitution is made of water” - Fernando

Cordero proclaimed this in the National

Constituent Assembly of Ecuador in 2008.

Similarly to Bolivia, they recognize water as

a human right, and prohibits water

privatization. They also emphasized on

“nature’s rights” to water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Cordero_Cueva

“Wet” Constitution

“The human right to water is fundamental and

un-renounceable. Water is a strategic national asset for the

public use, inalienable, irrevocable, un-appropriable and

essential for life”

Translation by Julia Apland Hitz

NGOs participation

● support from international, community, and grassroots organizations

● was vital in shaping the democratic methods of water governance in Ecuador

● the historical context was favourable for international third sector participation

● strengthened political participation

Lack of national water policy

“The Estate will be directly responsible for the planning and management of water resources….”

- National Development Plan 2008

● Gives the National Secretariat for Water Provision (SENAGUA) power to manage water resources

● Policies and responsibilities overlap

● Fragmented environmental management

- Fernandez and Cisneros

Global Environmental Justice vs. Human rights to water

● Western idea of human rights is individualistic

● By treating water as a common good, it fails to address the needs of peri-urban community

● Environmental justice in the global south is different from struggles in US and Europe

Water cultural identitiesThe collective approach of water management in both cases has fostered a strong “sense of belonging” and “mutual bonds of rights and obligations”. To manage water successfully on a national level, the state must be careful not to impose a “blue-print”, but understand the unique identity that comes with each community managed water community.

ReferencesFernández, Nora, and Ricardo Buitrón Cisneros. “The Right to Water and Sanitation in Ecuador: Progress, Limitations, and Challenges.” Environmental

Justice, vol. 5, no. 2, 2012, pp. 77–81., doi:10.1089/env.2011.0021.Hoogesteger, Jaime. “NGOs and the Democratization of Ecuadorian Water Governance: Insights from the Multi-Stakeholder Platform El Foro De Los

Recursos Hídricos.” VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, vol. 27, no. 1, Nov. 2015, pp. 166–186., doi:10.1007/s11266-015-9559-1.

Hoogesteger, Jaime, et al. “Scalar Politics in Sectoral Reforms: Negotiating the Implementation Of Water Policies in Ecuador (1990–2008).” World Development, vol. 98, 2017, pp. 300–309., doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.04.036.

Mehta, Lyla, et al. “Global Environmental Justice and the Right to Water: The Case of Peri-Urban Cochabamba and Delhi.” Geoforum, vol. 54, 2014, pp. 158–166., doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.05.014.

Spronk, Susan. “2 Roots of Resistance to Urban Water Privatisation in Bolivia: The ‘New Working Class’, the Crisis of Neoliberalism, and Public Services.” Crisis and Contradiction, pp. 27–51., doi:10.1163/9789004271074_003.

“The Water Conflict in Ecuador.” State of the Planet, 14 May 2010, blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2010/05/14/the-water-conflict-in-ecuador/.“Water Governance in Ecuador.” Sustainable Development Goals Fund, 8 May 2018, www.sdgfund.org/case-study/water-governance-ecuador.

Whanganui River Case Study New Zealand

Outline

1. Rights of Nature Movement

2. Case Study: Whanganui River New Zealand

3. Decolonizing resource management

https://www.visitwhanganui.nz/whanganui-river-will-become-legal-entity/

Rights of Nature Movement

● Rights of Nature Movement: The recognition and honoring that the environment has equal rights to that of human beings

● Recognition to holistic and interwinned perspective of our environment in relation to the Whanganui River Case study?

http://www.movementrights.org/rights-of-nature-report-released-for-paris-climate-talks/

● This perspective challenges us to change the way we view human-nature relationships, moving us away from the anthropogenic and hierarchical framework of nature as property, to nature as one with us.

Whanganui River Case Study

Who are the Maori?

● The Indigenous inhabitants of New Zealand who were believed to have arrived in the 13th century of Polynesian decedent.

● Maori means “natural” in traditional language

Whanganui River

● Whanganui River known as “ Te Awa Tupua” is viewed as a sacred ancestor

● The health and well being of the river is intrinsically interconnected to the health and well being of the Maori

● The Maori have fought for over a century to reclaim the river as their own

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waka_(canoe)

Waitangi Treaty of 1840

http://morganfoundation.org.nz/limits-to-the-treaty-of-waitangi-partnership/

Timeline

● Prior to British arrival the Maori practiced customary system of values, practices and laws known as “Tikanga” which was deeply embedded in the social context.

● Upon arrival British Colonizers coerced the Maori to sign the Waitangi Treaty of 1840

● The Maori believed that their rights and sovereignty would remain

● Two versions of the the Treaty were signed and the Maori lost sovereignty and self determination over their land

Waitangi Tribunal Act 1975

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waitangi_Tribunal

Timeline

● The Waitangi Tribunal Act of 1975 created the Waitangi Tribunal

● While the Tribunal could only report its findings and propose recommendations it guided many future settlement negotiations between the Whanganui and the Crown.

● The Tribunal outlined specific Crown laws and policies that violated the Waitangi Treaty and its principles.

● The Tribunal suggested that the Waitangi river be granted back to the Maori people.

WAI Treaty 167

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/captain-cooks-maori-paddles-an-artefact-of-encounter

Timeline

● Resulting from the Waitangi Tribunal of 1975 the Wai Treaty 167 was developed

● This Treaty produced an extensive report detailing Maori interest in their authority over the whole river

● Finally, in 1999 titel over the River was restored to the Maori title over the river in

The Te Awa Tupua Act 2017

Timelinehttps://www.visitwhanganui.nz/whanganui-river-will-become-legal-entity/

● The Te Awa Tupua Act was passed on March 20th 2017 pronouncing the legal personhood of the Whanganui River.

● The river was provided with two trustees, one from the Maori and one from the Crown

● These trustees are responsible for upholding the ancestral status and protecting and promoting the health and well being the river

● Legal responsibilities and implications?

Decolonization ● Decolonization can be understood as the

process of handing over the instruments of governance to indigenous inhabitants of a colony including the bureaucratic, cultural, linguistic and psychological divesting of colonial power.

● This case study demonstrates that environment management may be better situated amongst relational ontologies with less anthropocentric visions than the dominant Western model.

● Legal pluralism exemplified in the Whanganui River Case Study provides an alternative to water governance through decolonizing the resource management system.https://teara.govt.nz/en/map/37080/distribution-of-pa-in-new-zealand

References

Charpleix, L. (2018). The whanganui river as te awa tupua: Place‐based law in a legally pluralistic society. The Geographical Journal, 184(1), 19-30. doi:10.1111/geoj.12238

Hsiao, E. C. (2012). New zealand: Whanganui river agreement - indigenous rights and rights of nature. Environmental Policy and Law, 42(6), 371.

Rodgers, C. (2017). A new approach to protecting ecosystems: The te awa tupua (whanganui river claims settlement) act 2017. Environmental Law Review, 19(4), 266-279. doi:10.1177/1461452917744909

Smith, L. T., & Ebooks Corporation. (2012;2013;2016;). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples(Second ed.). London: Zed Books.

Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017. No. 7. (New Zealand)

Thank you!