Cultural Investments Responding to Industrial Impacts
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CULTURAL INVESTMENTS RESPONDING TO INDUSTRIAL IMPACTS December 2019 Ginger Gibson MacDonald Submitted to: and Firelight Research Inc. Cultural Investments: Responding to Industrial Impacts December 2019 Prepared and authored by: Ginger Gibson MacDonald and Firelight Research Inc. Submitted to: Mikisew Cree First Nation Acknowledgements: Firelight acknowledges the elders and knowledge holders in the communities — they have been the primary drivers to this report. We also acknowledge the direction and engagement of the MCFN Government and Industry Relations (GIR) staff, including Melody Lepine, Melanie Dene, Carl Braun, Dan Stuckless, Jenny Gerbrandt and Carmen Wells, as well as JFK Legal support — Mark Gustafson. Staff from Firelight who supported this work include Sandra Gosling and Tania Salerno. Firelight acknowledges funding from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) Disclaimer and Limits on Use: The information contained in this report is based on research conducted by Firelight Research Inc., as well as published works and archival research. It reflects the understandings of the author and is not intended to be a complete depiction of cultural mitigations for all industrial projects, or for all Indigenous cultures. Graphic design: Nadene Rehnby, Hands on Publications Cover photo: Photo: Athabasca Canoe Trip/MCFN Mikisew Cree First Nation Government & Industry Relations 206 – 9401 Franklin Avenue Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada T9H 327 T: 780-714-6500 / F: 780-715-4098 mcfngir.ca Contents PHOTO: ATHABASCA CANOE TRIP/MCFN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 4 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 6 TERMS AND CONCEPTS ............................................................................................. 10 OUTCOMES OF CULTURAL PROGRAMS AND CULTURAL INFRASTRUCTURE ... 13 THE DIVERSE WORLD OF CULTURE PROGRAMS ................................................... 15 Language and Land-Based Programs ...................................................................... 15 Language Programs ................................................................................................. 16 Camp and Land-based Programs ............................................................................ 18 Harvester Support Programs .................................................................................... 19 Guardian Programs .................................................................................................. 21 Youth Programs ........................................................................................................ 22 Ceremonial and Spiritual Programs ........................................................................... 23 Population-Based and Gendered Programs ............................................................. 24 Well-being Programs ................................................................................................ 24 “Grown in the Community” Programs ....................................................................... 26 Synthesis — Commonalities Across Cultural Programs .............................................. 27 LINKING CULTURAL PROGRAMS AND PROJECT-SPECIFIC CULTURAL EFFECTS PATHWAYS ............................................................................... 28 PUTTING IT INTO PRACTICE ...................................................................................... 31 CASE STUDY: THE MIKISEW NIKACHINAHONAN FRAMEWORK ........................... 36 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 41 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 42 APPENDIX A: CULTURAL PROGRAM EXAMPLES .................................................... 44 Executive Summary PHOTO: SANDRA GOSLING/FIRELIGHT For governments IN RECENT YEARS, a growing number environmental assessment (EA) and Crown consulta- and Indigenous tion processes have concluded that industrial projects will impact Indigenous cultures. This communities that are has raised the question: are there appropriate and acceptable tools that governments and interested in exploring Indigenous groups can utilize to assist with mitigating or accommodating project effects on cultural programs and Indigenous cultures if a project is approved. investments in response This report examines this pressing issue through the lens of community-defined cultural to identified project programs and strategic investments in cultural resilience. effects on culture, our study reveals key lessons We describe the outcomes that community-defined cultural programs and strategic invest- on the design of culture ments in culture can have for individuals and Indigenous communities. We also describe key resilience programs. features of many of the community-defined cultural programs and strategic investments that exist around Canada, concluding that strategic investments in culture and cultural programs can have concrete individual, family, community and environmental benefits in the context of industrial development projects. For governments and Indigenous communities that are interested in exploring cultural programs and investments in response to identified project effects on culture, our study reveals key lessons on the design of culture resilience programs: • Program developers must account for the community context and identify the barriers in program design and costing. A well-developed cultural program starts from a clear understanding of the pathways of effects and seriousness of these effects as they relate to culture. Barriers to cultural programs can take many forms, from governmental constraints to the finite energy of number of elders and knowledge holders. • Community-designed programs need to involve as many members and experiences as possible, drawing on a wide range of teachers and expertise. People are ideally engaged through many different venues, some in planning and others in program delivery, and still others through activity with youth on the land. Committees for planning and direction locally are a common feature of successful efforts. 4 Cultural Investments: Responding to Industrial Impacts • Long-term investments in human capacity, services and infrastructure are needed to ensure the future of a program. Long-term success is attributable to significant investments in infrastructure and long-term staff who are encouraged to plan, build and live their culture. • Cultural programs must invest in the maintenance and protection of places and spaces for language to be shared, learned and practiced. Culture is nothing if there is nowhere to experience it. We present these findings with a word of caution. Our findings are not meant to suggest that all effects on Indigenous cultures can be mitigated by cultural programs or that any particular program will always be effective or sufficient for mitigating project effects on one or more parts of a community’s cultural fabric. The path to determining what measures, if any, are appropriate for dealing with potential cultural impacts of a project must be guided by Indigenous communities themselves. Our findings are not meant to suggest that all effects on Indigenous cultures can be mitigated by cultural programs or that any particular program will always be effective or sufficient for mitigating project effects on one or more parts of a community’s cultural fabric. The path to determining what measures, if any, are appropriate for dealing with potential cultural impacts of a project must be guided by Indigenous communities themselves. PHOTO: ATHABASCA CANOE TRIP/MCFN Cultural Investments: Responding to Industrial Impacts 5 PART 1 Introduction PHOTO: SANDRA GOSLING/FIRELIGHT “Lands are not only used History of Mikisew Culture and Relationship to the Land for resources, they are our teaching, it is our THE MIKISEW WAY OF LIFE is grounded in the lands and waters of Mikisew traditional trunk of teaching tools territory since time immemorial. They have experienced loss of access to lands and culture as that we have out in our a result of state-led assimilative actions (Candler 2012). Prior to 1899, when Mikisew signed land to be able to pass Treaty 8, members lived within bush settlements with access to an abundance of water, down to our generation.” wildlife, and vegetation (M31, personal communication August 29, 2019). Families relied on (M01, October 17, 2018) the land for everything from food to medicine and clothing. The land and its offerings provided critical teachings to the younger generation that contributed to their well-being and survival. State decisions to assimilate and disconnect Mikisew people from their culture have had a lasting impact. Residential schools were implemented in Fort Chipewyan from 1874 to 1974, threatening Mikisew individual and family ties to their traditional knowledge and cultural identity. Industrial impacts such as the construction of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam in the 1960’s, on the upper Peace River impacted water levels in the Peace-Athabasca Delta leading to a rapid decline in muskrat and other aquatic furbearers. The cumulation of environmental changes that threatened Mikisew economic security and Canada’s assimilative education policies influenced MCFN’s transition from the bush to MCFN reserved Crown land in