There is much discussion about potential ownership stakes in
major pipeline projects like Transmountain. As a First Nations pipeline and oil
and gas engineer and technologist, I am often asked for my perspective on it.
While I do not speak for all First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples, or the
incredibly diverse perspectives we all have on the matter of pipelines, I would
like to share some of my thoughts. I do think that greater ownership of
projects by Indigenous businesses, leaders and individuals will enhance the
industry as well as provide a greater balance to projects. Indigenous peoples
would be more empowered to bring a deep knowledge and understanding of the
lands to projects, and deeper project understanding to their Nations, if we
have a more meaningful seat at project tables.
In the energy sector, when Indigenous inclusion and
engagement is discussed, many people focus on consultation and non-objection or
opposition to projects. In the media, and in conversations, Indigenous peoples
are often illustrated as a homogeneous voice against development. Thus, the
conversation in industry is often, “How do we get past this? How do we get
Indigenous peoples on board?”. It can further become a conversation around
meaningful engagement and “free prior and informed consent” as referenced in
the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. What is not
consistent is the industry’s definition of “meaningful engagement” or “free
prior and informed consent”. And often, instead of exploring the reasons behind
opposition, we focus on those who are not opposed to prove it is not one-sided.
Fundamentally, we often miss the deepest root opportunities to explore an
extremely complex issue in our society. This comes down to history, power
dynamics and society’s recognition of expertise, knowledge and power.
Indigenous voices in opposition are highlighted because they
stand in the way of the status quo, in direct opposition to the way we have
always done things. It must be recognized that Indigenous voices in opposition
are just as varied in the reasons for opposition as Indigenous peoples are
diverse. It also should be acknowledged that the way we have always done things
will not meet our needs in the future. Rather than focusing on opposed vs. in
favour of pipelines, could we be asking how we can listen and respond to the
opposition in a meaningful way? Most of the perspectives I have heard around
Indigenous ownership stake in major pipeline projects is focused on the
economic benefit and self-determination. If a pipeline project is majority
Indigenous owned, the economic benefits would be longer term and go beyond the
Impact Benefit Agreements (IBAs) of today. One might argue that an
Indigenous-led pipeline project would provide Indigenous peoples with more
influence on how the project is executed.
This could lead to a greater conversation on sustainability. Dr. Kepa
Morgan, a Maori engineer in New Zealand, led the development of an engineering-focused
model of evaluating the sustainability of a project he calls the Mauri (Life
Force) Model. He worked with Maori knowledge keepers to incorporate cultural
values in addition to economic, environmental and social outcomes of a project.
His model meaningfully seeks to engage each community in which the project is
taking place to capture and create meaningful KPIs (key performance indicators)
around the cultural perspectives of that community to evaluate whether the
project is having a positive or a negative impact. Is this a model that could
be explored in major pipeline projects in Canada?
Not all Indigenous peoples are against pipelines. Those
working in this space acknowledge that many Nations have had a long-standing
relationship with the energy industry, leading to Indigenous-owned service
companies and consultants. That said, the power dynamic is imbalanced. Although
many Indigenous communities and people have successfully entered energy
industry and seen much success, one might suggest that they are not always at
the forefront of decision making within the industry. For example, I am curious
how many, if any, of the major pipeline companies have Indigenous peoples in
their C-suite or upper management team beyond Indigenous relations, Corporate
Social Responsibility, or External Communications roles. In addition, many major
projects are engineering focused and led. There is currently a large gap in
many organizations between the teams responsible for Indigenous inclusion and
engagement and those at the project design table. Of the over 70 000 members of
the Association of Petroleum Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA),
just over 300 have self-identified as Indigenous. This means that most people
making major decisions on pipeline routes, design and construction are
non-Indigenous, and most of the Indigenous peoples involved are not in power.
How do we ensure that we acknowledge and address this power dynamic to avoid
tokenism or the “paper JV” that can sometimes occur when the importance is
focused on ownership (>50%) as opposed to influence. In addition, how can we
influence those in power to see the value in Indigenous perspectives, input and
expertise? Especially since most engineering focused post-secondary curricula
does not teach Indigenous engagement, inclusion, history or the rights of
Indigenous peoples.
These are only some of the many questions I ask myself as I
move forward in the work that I do focused on amplifying Indigenous voices and
perspectives in energy and engineering.
Deanna Burgart, Indigeneer™
www.indigeneering.com
Dr. Kepa Morgan TedX Talk -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_PddCFRwhA
https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-what-if-indigenous-canadians-owned-trans-mountain/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-a-first-nations-led-majority-stake-in-trans-mountain-would-be-a-brave/
