U & D

There appears to be a somewhat warm and fuzzy understanding of what drives environmental sovereignty among the Wabanaki and other Nations and tribes. I understand that this vision goes back to the essential balance between the traditional Native community and the environment, a balance necessary for subsistence. However, it pains me that some teachers would think that the spiritual heritage is ALL that drives the Penobscot (for example) to want sovereignty over the environments and environmental changes that impact their lands and lifeways today. This oversimplies the complex and contemporary needs of Native communities.

The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) is a non-profit organization that provides legal assistance and direction in support of battles for treaty and other binding rights. Do you know that one issue-set NARF has taken on is environmental sovereignty. From their blog:

Historically, tribal communities have borne the brunt of negative environmental impacts generated primarily by non-tribal activities, and are recognized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as disproportionately impacted by the effects of global warming.

This is, certainly, an expression of an unequal power relationship.

In combating this unequal relationship, Indian nations and organizations have formed political alliances. An excellent example of this is the current alliance of NARF, the National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC), the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), and the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), who have joined in a call for Federal legislation to address climate change. The specific principles to be addressed include:

1. Indian tribes should be specifically referenced as sovereign partners in addressing the problems of climate change.
   
2. Indian tribes, states and local governments should be treated equally in climate legislation to the degree that each of these jurisdictions should have equal access to the same technical support and financial resources.
3. When referencing national and international efforts to address climate change, Indigenous peoples domestically and throughout the world should be given the status and rights recognized in the United Nation’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (Recognized by Maine but not the Federal government)
   
4. Tribal set-asides should be established for tribes to address the disproportionate climate impacts upon their infrastructures, services, lands and resources, and traditional lifeways, and ensure their participation in green job transition training. (Notice here the awareness of contemporary economic needs and a proactive for change tribal mindset)
5. Tribal efforts to develop their vast renewable energy potential, obtain access to energy infrastructure, and implement energy efficiency programs should be supported through federal programmatic support and removal of barriers to implementation. (A request for fair and open access is a direct request for recognition of economic sovereignty – and a recognition of a the existence of an unequal power relationship)
   
6. Appropriate weight should be given to traditional tribal knowledge of the environment in climate legislation.
   

These statements represent, it seems to me, a blend of “traditional” and “contemporary” approaches to a key issue in sovereignty: who makes decisions about what is best for the land-based resources owned by, territory of, or central to the lifeways of, the Indian nations.

But wait – there is more.

“Every day, our people are impacted by global warming and the changes to our environment,” said Jerry Pardilla, a member of the Penobscot Nation and executive director of the National Tribal Environmental Council (a consortium of 184 tribes). “It is important for tribes to participate in national efforts to mitigate the causes of global warming and to develop adaptation strategies for the anticipated changes in our homelands.”

This is not a demand. It is a recognition of the need for the nations to work with the “larger power,” in this case the EPA, for the benefit of all. This is not a warm and fuzzy statement harking back to the days of subsistence. In recognizing the need for the nations to participate in the upcoming Tribal Summit (fall ‘09) on environmental issues, Pardilla is suggesting a strategy of looking change (man-made but certainly not Native-made) in the face and then proactively problem-solving. For this, the Nations will need economic resources beyond what is available to them now (unequal economic power); an alliance with the Federal government is necessary.

We need also to look at this statement by new EPA head Lisa Jackson:

“What EPA has to do is to work through tribal governments to make policy and those policies need to reflect the full panoply of thinking on both sides of the table, between both our governments. And so the pledge is that we will treat an independent government which is informed by a set of cultural and spiritual beliefs as a government.”

It is clear from her words that the sovereignty of the nations is recognized by the EPA under her leadership. The degree to which that recognition plays out in policy fact will not become clear for a year, and may play out in Alaska and the western states before Maine is affected either way. Take a look, for example, at this informational slide show about the affects of coal mining and toxic refuse on the Four Corners Navajo Dine nation. In the western states, federal and privately owned lands often encompass sacred sites; many tribes are using legal means to protect these sites from waste, degradation, or development. It is not going well. In the words of NARF attorney Steven C. Moore, “It’s all about the rights of the conqueror and the colonized and I don’t know if that’s ever going to change.”

The political and economic power relationship between Indian nations and state/federal/local governments is defined by a complex soup of law, treaties, understandings, histories, and cultural/spiritual assumptions and beliefs. Even here in Maine we see the effects of a historically unequal power relationship played out over and over again. That is why LD 291 is on the books, after all.

Our five nations are “at the table” nationally, but often not within this state itself. Read the news, fellow teachers. Inform yourselves about the issues in the tribal-state relationships. Don’t turn away from the sovereignty issues that your children will have to understand four years from now. These include (but are not limited to):

1. Water quality (especially rivers)
2. Dams
3. LNG terminals, pipelines on tribal lands (e.g. Pleasant Point Reservation)
4. Gaming
5. Wind turbines on Native lands (fee and trust)