Sophisticated Marketing, Oil Companies and Indigenous Rights in Canada

With the Canadian government’s announcement that it intends to fully implement the provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), alongside a 2014 Canadian Supreme Court decision that interprets the principle of  free prior and informed consent (FPIC) as requiring the permission of indigenous groups in most instances, and not simply an exercise in consultation, amidstproposals to extend pipelines,  there is a potent stew of issues that will play out in real life situations. What all of this means for indigenous rights is yet to be seen.

Yet, alongside these developments that are supportive of indigenous rights, oil companies have engaged in increasingly complex marketing and advertising approaches, according to research that was presented by AdamHarmes at the 2016 Congress of Humanities and Social Sciences. For instance: “Oil sector marketing initiatives found employees are more trustedspokespeople than CEOs. Their testimonials spoken before a backdrop of lush,forested areas are effective sales tools.”

As the push continues for permission to expand for instance, the Trans Mountain pipeline, the intersection of indigenous rights developments with oil company campaigns for support will play out in ways that test the strength of what the Canadian government intends in its announcement to fully implement the UNDRIP and the position the Canadian Supreme Court has taken on the meaning of FPIC.

Further information on Professor Harmes' research can be found at this link. 

More Pipelines in the News: Dakota Access Pipeline

The issue of pipelines has not gone away, entirely, it would seem. And this is to do with a pipeline other than the controversial Keystone XL project. Now in the news is the proposed Dakota Access pipeline, which would run "through North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois." 

This proposed pipeline is being opposed by members of the Standing Rock Reservation. 
Tribal members cite concerns about the environmental hazards posed by the proposed pipeline  by putting water supplies at risk, as well as alleging that the  "company bypassed federal laws requiring direct discussion with the tribes." 

Approval for construction of the pipeline was secured in Iowa on March 11, 2016.  This is despite objections raised by Iowa land owners who would be affected by the pipeline construction. 

While the threat from the Keystone XL pipeline may have abated, the appetite for pipeline building does not seem to have been curbed, even with the current very depressed prices for oil and gas. 

Debate on Construction of Keystone XP Pipeline Continues: Protests by the “Cowboy and Indian Alliance”

The debate about the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline has heated up again in the United States, perhaps ironically at a time when gas prices are at near record lows. The debate about the construction of the pipeline is long-running, and it is not clear if it is going to be resolved at any time soon. US President Barack Obama has pledged to veto any approval of the pipeline construction, despite both Congressional and Senate support for the bill.

Indigenous opposition to the construction of the pipeline remains steadfast, on both the Canadian and American sides of the border (see here, here and here).

The opposition to the construction of the pipeline has been the focus of organised protests in Washington DC, including a combination of ranchers and indigenous peoples who formed the “Cowboy and Indian Alliance”.   The “Cowboy and Indian Alliance” gathered for a 5 day protest in Washington DC in April 2014. 

Whether the latest actions in Washington DC around possible approval or veto of the pipeline will result in further protests by this Alliance remains to be seen. 

Post written by Dr Sarah Sargent.

Just Say No: Obama rejects the permit for the Tar Sands Pipeline and hearing on the Haskell Wetlands

On 19 January, President Obama of the United States rejected a permit that was needed for the construction of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, also known as the tar sands pipeline. Considerable environmental concerns as well as health concerns had been raised in opposition to the creation of the pipeline, and were the subject of some earlier blog postings here. There have been a large number of indigenous groups arguing against the construction of the pipeline, including the Mother Earth Accord (at this link, and calls to support the Mother Earth Accord by such groups as the Indigenous Alliance without Borders (information about their support of the Mother Earth Accord at this link)).

The mainstream press is filled with arguments for and against the Obama decision. Some argue that the Obama decision has destroyed the possibility of jobs and cheaply available energy with this decision; others argue that the claims of jobs and cheaply available energy were mere chimera—without basis in fact.

An article is carried on the website of Indian Country today (here) that has the reactions of politicians and indigenous leaders about the Obama decision. At this link

One of the concerns raised by the Mother Earth Accord was whether appropriate “free, prior and informed consent” had been obtained from those indigenous peoples whose land and lives would be impacted by the construction of the pipeline. The standard of free, prior and informed consent is found in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, at Article 19 and Article 32.

There is another important event today, and that is the oral arguments scheduled in the United States Tenth Court of Appeal on the Haskell Wetlands in Lawrence, Kansas, USA, which have been the subject of prior posts on this blog. (here and here)

The UNDRIP principles are just as important to the Wetlands as they are to the lands under threat by the tar sands pipeline construction,

And Article 27 seems especially applicable to the Wetlands situation:

“ States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous
peoples concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open and
transparent process, giving due recognition to indigenous peoples’
laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems, to recognize and
adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their lands,
territories and resources, including those which were traditionally
owned or otherwise occupied or used. Indigenous peoples shall have
the right to participate in this process.”

The unique history of the Wetlands as adjacent to the Haskell boarding school, now a four year university, certainly fit within the ambit of Article 27—and the occupation and use of these Wetlands must be respected under the spirit and the letter of the UNDRIP.

Some good news today with the Obama rejection of the pipeline, at least for now, and hopes that similar protections and respect can be granted by the Tenth Circuit District Court to the sacred space of the Wetlands.

Written by Sarah Sargent.