Indigenous Communities Participation in Environmental Decisions

R.A. Perkins and R.J. Bullock

University of Alaska- Fairbanks

Fairbanks, Alaska, USA

raperkins@alaska.edu

Abstract

Wise planning of oil and other resource extractive development utilizes a public

involvement process. Often this process is also required by law. Oil spill response planning

likewise requires the involvement of people likely to be affected if a release occurs and response

is required. While these processes are fairly well established in developed regions, with well-

informed populations experienced in governmental reviews and public input processes; their

application to remote communities and populations that are not part of the dominant culture can

be more difficult. This paper reviews the laws driving public involvement in the oil spill

planning process, regional differences in laws, and then reports case studies of public

involvement of several indigenous and remote communities in circumpolar nations: Alaskan

natives, Sami people in Norway, and Inuit in Canada.

1 Introduction The Arctic nations (Russia, Canada, Denmark, United States of America, Norway,

Sweden, Iceland and Finland) regard mineral, oil and gas, and other natural resources as strategic

assets. Planning and development of these assets require regulatory controls and policy

development, which define the basis for decision making pertinent to those resources. Within

the Arctic, many of these assets are within, near or have the potential to effect indigenous

populations. These populations have historically had varying degrees of participation in natural

resource decision making. More recently, national laws in the Arctic and elsewhere have

evolved to increase opportunity for public input. This paper discusses a specific mission within

natural resource management – oil spill planning, preparedness and response, and the process

whereby Norwegian, Canadian and Alaskan indigenous populations provided input and

participated in the oil spill planning and management process. We provide some insight into the

differences between the process in developed regions and regions with indigenous populations.

2 Background

Oil and gas production from the Arctic currently is approximately 13 and 30 percent of

the world’s total production respectively. In addition, the United States Geological Survey

(USGS, 2008) estimates that the Arctic contains undiscovered oil and gas reserves of

approximately 22 percent of the technically recoverable resources in the world (Bird et al.,

2008). These estimated reserves total 90 billion barrels of recoverable oil, 1,670 trillion cubic

feet of natural gas and 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids each of which are more than the

combined reserves of the 400 oil and gas fields currently operating in the Arctic. Arctic nations

and industry are currently evaluating the opportunity for increased production through infield

drilling in existing and adjacent fields, as well as new on and offshore lease production. In

addition, with an increase in geographic extent and type of production, increased transportation

and distribution options for oil and gas will also be required to be developed to safely ship or

pipe the oil and gas to its ultimate destination.

2.1 Spill Response

New oil and gas exploration and production in the Arctic comes at a time when data and

observations are documenting environmental and socio-economic changes due to climate

change. Given these changes, the potential for increased oil and gas opportunities and notable

recent oil and gas incidents, there has been a renewed interest in oil spill response planning,

preparedness and implementation. Spill response is inherently challenging in the Arctic due to

remoteness, ice cover, low temperatures, and seasonal darkness. Spills and responses would

occur among indigenous peoples who live in a sensitive environment, have a rich and historic

culture and who have traditionally relied rely on the Arctic’s natural resources for their

livelihood and subsistence.

Spill response planning, preparation and implementation are necessary for both onshore

and offshore operations. Successful response is best served through rapid securement of the oil

at the point of containment failure, and oil recovery at close proximity to the release. The

response must also seek to minimize the potential impact on human health and safety, and

ecological, cultural and historic resources. Onshore spills generally have limited spatial extent

compared to spills at sea. Onshore spills tend to be associated with older product pipelines or

gathering lines which are prone to corrosion and older facility operations where product may

have been stored on gravel pads. These spills generally have affected the active layer of soil

above the permafrost and have the possibility to reach freshwater systems. Onshore oil spills

have readily available and proven containment, response and remediation technologies, which

have been successfully implemented historically within the Arctic.

Offshore marine oil spills in the Arctic are rarer incidents but have the potential to affect

large ocean areas, long coastlines, and ecological resources and can result in longer term

environmental and socioeconomic effects. While much research and field tests have been

conducted over the past 30 years in Arctic marine oil spill response, there continue to be

questions concerning certain technologies and their potential for presumptive use. The

mechanical recovery and containment techniques, which are available for the use in the Arctic,

have been successfully used and/or tested in both Arctic and non-Arctic conditions (USCG,

2008). With the recent Deepwater Horizon tragedy, additional response technologies for well

capping were developed and are now available globally (BSEE, 2014). Whereas chemicals such

as dispersants and enzymes, and mineral aggregates have been used globally in marine oil spill

response, there continue to be some questions remaining as to toxicity, net environmental

benefits and efficacy in ice conditions. In addition, oil spills will have differing levels of

biological effect dependent on many factors, such as: incident time of year; species present;

species activity - migrating, spawning or nesting; length of spill/exposure time; and toxicity and

physical characteristics of the oil. Additional research and field studies continue to be

recommended and/or in progress to further the scientific knowledge of these response techniques

for use in the Arctic (Stein et al., 2010).

In any Arctic spill, on or offshore, there is the potential for effect on the local indigenous

populations, either directly through exposure, historical and cultural loss, and socioeconomic loss

or potential short term economic gain from, or loss indirectly through fear of the unknown. The

extent of any loss or short term gain will greatly coincide with the material characteristics,

location and extent of the spill.

Effects of an oil spill can be mitigated through early planning and preparation for

response, which requires regulation, coordination, collaboration, communication, risk analysis

and decision making. During response operations the primary concern is the health and safety of

all persons involved with the incident (operators, responders, volunteers and local populations).

The goal of the response is to minimize adverse impacts of the spill on the environment –

impacts due to the spill itself and the response action. Included in these impacts are socio-

economic impacts. An important impact for indigenous people is the effects of an oil spill and

its remediation on natural harvests and traditional hunting and fishing activities.

2.2 Arctic Indigenous Populations

The Arctic is the home to a diverse indigenous population which numbers approximately

400,000 (United Nations, 2008). The indigenous populations have inhabited the Arctic for

thousands of years and continue many of their traditional activities today, while also adapting to

the influx of non-indigenous populations, with associated socio-economic effects from tourism,

commercial fishing, military operations and industry. In recent years, political organization of

indigenous peoples has led to greater recognition and clarification of rights to land, natural

resources and historic artifacts. As the Arctic climate changes, the opportunity for new

development and associated effects increases, the people in the Arctic are concerned about

pollution, land use, climate, security, subsistence, and rights to the land and sea.

The effects of an oil spill in the Arctic regions can be severe on the lifestyle of the

indigenous peoples due to their traditional close association with and dependence on natural

resources. Because they comprise the majority of the local population in many areas of the

Arctic, indigenous people may be the first to observe and to respond to oil spills in their areas.

As such, indigenous people have sought out and expanded their role in many communities to be

trained employees and business owners providing expert services to the oil and gas industry, as

well as to national or local authorities. In addition, indigenous peoples’ traditional, ecological

and local knowledge is intended to be regarded as a valuable component of their participation in

the development of preparedness and response plans.

2.3 Oil Spill Regulatory Regimes With Respect to Indigenous Peoples

International programs have been established and ratified for preparedness and response

to oil and hazardous substances in marine environments over the past 40 years. The primary

objectives were to align nations to ensure, on an international basis, the facilitation and mutual

cooperation and assistance for response to marine pollution incidents, and nationally to

encourage States to develop and maintain adequate capability and capacity to deal with such

pollution incidents (IMO, 1969, 2006; Schive, 1997).

In 1996, the Ottawa Declaration (Declaration) established the Arctic Council as an

intergovernmental forum as a means of promoting cooperation among the Arctic States with the

involvement of its indigenous people. The Declaration affirmed, among other things, the desire

to promote sustainable resource development, and protect and monitor the Arctic environment,

including emergency planning and response (Arctic Council, 1996). The Ottawa Declaration

outlined member participation, including those of the Permanent Participants who have the

obligation to represent the Arctic Indigenous People. It also fully accepted the Arctic

Environmental Protection Strategy (Strategy) which had been previously adopted by the Arctic

Nations with assistance of certain indigenous populations and other interested nations. The

Strategy outlined, among other things, a commitment to cooperate on scientific research for fate

and effect of pollution, an international monitoring program, consideration of values of

indigenous peoples on the environment and a framework for cooperative environmental

emergency response (Arctic Nations, 1991).

Subsequently, the United Nations (UN) adopted the Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples in 2007. The Declaration affirms that indigenous people are equal to others,

contribute to the diversity of populations and should be free from discrimination of any kind.

The UN parties as part of the Declaration, as it may relate to oil spills, proclaimed the indigenous

peoples right to participate in the politics and legal and administrative proceedings of the State,

that the State would provide effective participatory mechanisms and that indigenous people have

the right to participate in decision making to prevent any action that has the potential to damage

their lands and associated natural resources (United Nations, 2007).

National governments have the overall responsibility for ensuring or organizing and

maintaining an adequate level of preparedness throughout the country by adopting laws and

regulations, providing guidelines for local authorities and industry and initiating coordinated

response plans at the national and local levels. These laws are generally consistent across Arctic

nations analyzed herein, in their requirements as they relate to oil spill planning, preparedness

and response (Arctic Council, 2014).

National laws require some form of environmental impact analysis to assess potential

environmental impacts on the ecosystem and potential social and economic impact from a

project. The main purpose of the environmental impact analysis process is to integrate

environmental impact considerations into the decision-making process. The analysis for oil and

gas generally includes a discussion of the potential for cumulative effects from the oil and gas

activities along with existing and other known planned activities effects. These laws seldom

provide different processes for developed areas or remote populations. However, the effects

analyzed on indigenous peoples may include, among other things, disturbance to: cultural

heritage, socio-economic systems, landscape fragmentation, subsistence ways of life, human

health and sustainability, that are not prominent in more developed regions.

As to the risks due to oil spills, they are associated with two main elements; the risk that

an event might happen, and the risk that something or someone may be impacted. The risk

analysis includes the probability of the event as well as the potential consequences. To date,

there have been no large oil spills in the Arctic that have significantly affected human

populations, so potential effects on social issues must be estimated based on local knowledge and

expertise, or extrapolated from case histories of large spills in other regions. These potential

effects are then to be evaluated for mitigation as part of the permitting or project planning

process. Here we discuss indigenous participation in planning and permitting processes.

Local authorities are responsible for developing local emergency response law and

additional guidelines as appropriate and necessary, preparation for spill response and industry

oversight through their obligation to protect the public and environment. They also encourage

local participation through meetings and contacts with industry officials and community leaders.

Local authorities may include state, province, district, city, borough or town officials.

Next we review four public participations that involved Arctic indigenous peoples, two in

the United States, one in Canada, and one in Norway. After overviewing the nature of the

participation process, we will present statements from the participants and our opinion how these

might differ from similar processes in non-indigenous areas.

3 Alaska Case Studies, CERA and Kotzebue Workshops

3.1 Area Oil and Gas Assets

Prudhoe Bay Field began production in 1977, after the construction of the 800-mile trans-

Alaska pipeline. “Today, Alaska’s North Slope oil and gas infrastructure includes more than

3400 wells and approximately 90 drilling pads, 260 reserve pits, 13 production centers, 14

support facilities, 6 docks and causeways, 5 air strips, 370 miles (595 km) of roads and over 430

miles (692 km) of trunk pipelines linking up with the 800-mile-long (1,287km) Trans-Alaska

Pipeline System that stretches from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, Alaska” (State of Alaska, 2006).

Release of oil can occur from the current operating fields, from independent exploration and

production operations, fuel oil transport and storage along the Alaska coastline and from offshore

exploration and transportation activities.

3.2 Oil Spill Regulatory Regime

The US Coast Guard has primary coordinating responsibility for oil spill response for the

coastal zone. The US Environmental Protection Agency has primary responsibility for all inland

areas. US Department of Interior is responsible for offshore oil and gas exploration and

operations. The intergovernmental Joint Pipeline Office (JPO) provides comprehensive oversight

of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). The Alaska Department of Environmental

Conservation Division of Spill Prevention and Response is the lead state agency. The National

Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) provides for a coordinated

response to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants.

Local (State of Alaska) Regional and Area Plans contain detailed, localized information

on the oil and gas operating facility(s), nearby environmentally sensitive areas, available

emergency response equipment, trained personnel, and information regarding community

emergency response capability. At the community level, committees develop community (local)

emergency plans and procedures. Alaska Natives participate on the Regional Response teams,

through their local governmental bodies, and as landowners and responders.

In addition, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, requires an environmental

review process for major actions that are proposed, approved, regulated, or funded by federal

agencies.. Federal regulations implementing this law require that an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) be integrated early with the planning for proposed activities (Arctic Council,

2009).

3.3 Indigenous Participation in Planning and Response

3.3.1 Northwest Arctic Alaska, 2011 CERA Workshop

In 2011, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) hosted a Consensus Environmental Risk

Assessment (CERA) workshop to evaluate the relative risk to natural resources from various oil

spill response-options. The workshop consisted of a 3-day session in Anchorage from 18 to 20

October 2011, followed by a 2-day session in Kotzebue on 16 and 17 November 2011. The

report of the workshop did not indicate extensive comments about the process itself, but rather

focused on the technical aspects of the scenarios examined in the workshop (Aurand and Essex,

2012).

Relevant comments from two of the workgroups:

The use of dispersants is a decision that must be made cooperatively and include the

involvement of local people (village, city, borough, corporation, organization, agency) to

be used, pre-acceptance as a method/tool must be in place. Pre-acceptance would include

parameters and conditions when dispersants would be used.

Engage a broader audience and more frequent contact in area planning and exercise.

Two items from the Report regard the public in the process:

Use of dispersants is often unrealistic (e.g. weather, type of oil spilled, logistics) in

Alaska but they remain a potential response option. However, if they are to be used,

better communication with the local stakeholders about the risks and benefits is

necessary.

Through outreach efforts, expand understanding of threats and response options to oil

spills as well as receive input on resource values and distribution based on an exchange

of indigenous and western science, and traditional and western knowledge.

Although the workshop had 53 participants from 17 organizations and 31 of these

participated in the sessions in Kotzebue, it appears almost all of the participants represented

governmental organizations or corporations. NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and

private individuals were not prominent in the workshop.

3.3.2 Kotzebue 2012 Workshop

On May 22-23, 2012, at the request of the Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB), the

Coastal Response Research Center (CRRC) and NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration

(ORR) hosted an oil spill workshop in Kotzebue, Alaska (NOAA, 2012). More than 50

participants from all 11 communities in the NWAB, plus about 20 agency or non-governmental

(NGO) representatives, attended the workshop.

The goals of this meeting were to:

Discuss community involvement in oil spill response, natural resource damage

assessment (NRDA) and restoration/recovery;

Integrate local community and Inupiaq traditional knowledge into the Arctic

Environmental Response Management Application (Arctic ERMA); and

Enhance relationships between local communities and government agencies

regarding planning and preparation for potential oil spill response, NRDA and

restoration/recovery.

The “priority concerns” listed in the report on the workshop included:

Increased disruption to subsistence practices and food security. The subsistence

lifestyle in the NWAB is essential for human health, spirituality, and maintenance

of Inupiaq culture.

Ecological and long term effects of oil on local populations, migratory species

and sensitive habitats (e.g., lagoons, river mouths, hunting areas).

Lack of community inclusion in decision making for response, including use of

local knowledge.

The NRDA process must identify baseline values of resources. While this may be

complicated enough in an area such as shrimp fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico where the value

of catch might be economically determined, in rural Alaska the value may be more complex.

Note these “social and cultural impacts of concern” listed in the report:

Maintaining native language proficiency

Maintaining hunting and fishing practices from generation to generation

Social disruption, domestic violence, and people wanting to leave communities

Cascading effects on inland communities that share coastal natural resources

Impacts on summer fish camps

Impacts to sales of arts and crafts made from subsistence resources

Access to traditional art and clothing materials

Educating young people about traditions

Employment opportunities

Maintenance of celebrations and traditional dances

Protection of water pumping stations (upriver spills from pipelines are also of

concern).

Note how difficult it would have been for an outsider to determine these concerns without

the public involvement process, and how difficult it might be to put an economic value on them.

One of the questions for the workshop breakout groups was: What are best practices for

community involvement in evaluating effects? One of the groups presented a detailed list of

responses as summarized below:

Person to person conversations.

Talk to IRA and city councils to ask if it is okay to come in and ask questions,

then if given permission it is fine.

Need to keep going out and communicating – can’t just ask once. Go to each

village on an ongoing basis, just one meeting is not enough.

People are finally here talking about the impacts, even though the leases have

been signed. More people should be able to listen about what is being discussed.

A continuous line of communication is necessary, before we go to court.

Don’t appreciate effort to put a value on resources.

How do you put preemptive value or potential damage on our life?

Who is giving the permission to the leases? Why aren’t they getting permission

from the people who live here? Who live in the areas that will be impacted by the

oil?

Money won’t help find more seals or fix what got damaged – not everything will

be fixed.

It would be good if people came and trained every so often, to all the villages, to

train them and keep them in the loop and prepare them for what may happen.

We’re in a cash economy – who will put up the money for the training costs? For

anticipating a response? In a perfect world that would be happening right now, in

the reality, if a local is out there and sees a spill, they will and want to respond.

What about the unintended consequences.

Depends on which village you are in whether it is better to talk to individuals or

the city or tribe. Regional agencies work closely with the villages and can share

which ones will prefer which approach. Economic Development Committee

(within NANA) goes around and talks with a lot of the tribes.

4 Case Study- Arctic Canada Inuit

4.1 Area Oil and Gas Assets

Canada became a natural gas-producing giant and began constructing its vast pipeline

networks in the late 1950s. The conventional oil and gas industry in western Canada is mature,

while the country's Arctic and offshore petroleum resources are mostly in early stages of

exploration and development. “The Oil and Gas industry is a substantial national business:

In 2006, the industry generated $ 65 billion of GDP, paid $9 billion in taxes and

employed 800,000 people directly or indirectly, right across the country.

The Canadian rig fleet consists of close to 800 drilling rigs and almost 1,100 service rigs.

Canadian pipeline transmission companies operate more than 100,000 kilometers of

pipelines in Canada and the United States” (ElectricCanadian.com, 2014).

4.2 Oil Spill Regulatory Regime

In the Northwest Territories and Nunavut: Eight agencies are signatory to the ”NWT/NU

Spills Working Agreement” which summarizes which agency is designated to take the lead in

any given spill incident, ensuring that adequate spill response and follow-up is occurring.

Agencies parties to the agreement include Transport Canada/Canadian Coast Guard, Indian and

Northern Affairs Canada, Environment Canada, National Energy Board, Inuvialuit Land

Administration, Government of the Northwest Territories, and the Government of Nunavut. In

the Yukon there are similar arrangements to those in place in the NWT.

“Primary authorization for an oil and gas industry activity in Canada's Arctic offshore is

by the National Energy Board (NEB) under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act (COGOA),

while Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is responsible for the issuing exploration, significant

discovery and development licenses under the Canadian Petroleum Resources Act” (Arctic

Council, 2009). Prior to issuing an authorization under COGOA, the project must undergo an

environmental assessment. Due to the settlement of land claim agreements, different

environmental assessment processes apply in various regions of the northern Canada. For

example, in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, the environmental assessment processes under the

Western Arctic Claim (Inuvialuit Final Agreement) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment

Act, apply. In the Nunavut Settlement Area, Article 12 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement

outlines the environmental assessment process applicable to the area.

4.3 Indigenous Participation in Planning and Response

4.3.1 Beaufort Regional Environmental Assessment 2011 Workshop in Inuvik, North

West Territories

The Workshop on Dispersant Use in the Canadian Beaufort Sea, was held in Inuvik,

NWT, July 25 to 28, 2011. It was sponsored by Beaufort Regional Environmental Assessment

(BREA) Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and Canadian Association of

Petroleum Producers Calgary, Alberta, Canada (BREA, 2011). The NW Territories has tribal

governments and about a third of the 57 attendees appear to represent these entities or villages,

while the remainder were federal or oil company representatives. Some notes from the general

objectives of the conference:

a. To inform regional stakeholders about dispersants and the implications of including

them as a response tool for cleaning potential oil spills in the Canadian Beaufort Sea; and

b. To help identify paths forward for planning for including chemical oil spill dispersants

in the “toolbox” of spill response countermeasures available to responders in the Beaufort Sea,

along with mechanical containment and recovery, in-situ burning, and shoreline cleanup.

The workshop was designed to present options, and to conduct tabletop exercises to

explore the implementation strategies and effectiveness of various spill response options. Lastly

there were opportunities to comment or to “express concerns.” Here are some of the comments

from the “Inuvialuit Community” representative:

General Comments

About two-thirds of the comments referred to the desire of the Inuvialuit community to

develop response capabilities, training, and associated compensation. The community felt that

by utilizing local resources in responding to emergencies, indigenous peoples and communities

could provide their abilities and knowledge in planning and responding as part of the solution,

and the initial response time would be reduced in most cases. Respect for land claims and

provisions for indigenous peoples employment should also be considerations in seeking local

resources.

Approximately one-third of the comments refer to issues relating to the process or to the

feeling that their culture was not sufficiently considered by decision-makers.

Some parts of the workshop were too technical and some presentations too long – the

information should have been simplified to explain in laymen’s terms for community

people.

How do we (the Inuvialuit participants) explain the technical information back to the

communities? Leaders attended and needed to know how to bring back to village.

Inuvialuit participants felt it was difficult to formulate appropriate questions sometimes.

NEBA process is difficult for indigenous populations because it is difficult to put a value

on parts of the culture.

Inuvialuit view the environment holistically.

Environmental health is closely associated with well-being of Inuvialuit.

Community consultation doesn’t equal consent for what is proposed.

The whole of the Beaufort Sea is important to the Inuvialuit.

Communities need to better understand all the options and the pros and cons of each.

Need to get information to a broader audience to foster more understanding in the

Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR).

Understanding needs to be gained about Inuvialuit understanding of “significant.”

The way Inuvialuit understand a “significant” or “not significant” determination of

impacts may be different than what the regulators or the proponents understanding of

“significant” is.

Understanding is needed about the process that would be followed to come to a decision

on whether dispersants are utilized or not, and who has the ultimate authority in the end

to approve their use in the case of responding to a spill.

Guidelines will have to be developed before any drilling occurs in the Beaufort Sea

Developers, regulators and science (researchers) will have to consider Inuvialuit culture

when making decisions on the use of dispersants in the Beaufort Sea.

I believe this dispersant workshop should not be the deciding factor to drill in the

Beaufort Sea. This is an information workshop to make Inuvialuit understand what

regulators and developers know about dispersant use and the effects of this deleterious

substance. Developers, regulators and science (researchers) will have to work together on

safe drilling [to ensure the integrity of the Beaufort Sea ecosystem is maintained] as the

Inuvialuit had done in our culture before southerners disrupted our lives.

5.0 Case Study- Arctic Norway Sami

5.1 Area Oil and Gas Assets

Production from the first offshore oil and gas discovery in Norway began in 1971, with a

number of major discoveries made in subsequent years. Foreign companies dominated

exploration off Norway in the initial phase, and were responsible for developing the country's

first oil and gas fields. Statoil was created in 1972, and the principle of state participation in each

production license was established.

To date, approximately 42 percent of the total recoverable resources have been produced.

“Production (including NGL (Natural Gas Liquids)) reached a peak in 2001 of 3.4 million

barrels per day. In 2012, the liquids production was 1.8 million barrels per day. Gas sales the

same year was 114.8 billion cubic metres. There are 8000 km of offshore gas pipelines with

landing points in four countries in Europe. 53 companies are currently licensees on the

Norwegian continental shelf and 42 exploration wells were drilled in 2012” (Norway Ministry

of Petroleum and Energy, 2014).

5.2 Oil Spill Regulatory Regime

Before areas are opened for oil and gas licensing, an Environmental Impact Assessment

(EIA) must be carried out and may lead to an integrated management plan being issued.

Integrated management plans should take into account activities in all existing developments in

the relevant area, such as fishing, oil and gas and transportation. “In Norway, governmental

institutions, consultants and research institutes, NGOs and other stakeholders are involved. The

intention is to be aware of any potential conflicts between different users of the area, and to

ascertain sustainable development and protection of sensitive resources. The Ministry of the

Environment is responsible for the administration and coordination of integrated management

plans. EIA’s has been carried out regionally in two regions, the North Sea and the Norwegian

Sea” (Arctic Council, 2009).

5.3 Indigenous Participation in Planning and Response

A study of the corporate and social responsibility (CSR) and consultations as dialogues

between the Eni Norge oil company, the municipalities and the Sami Parliament was completed

by Aambø for a Master’s thesis from the University of Tromsø. (Aambø, 2012) For its planned

work in Norway, Eni Norge produced a document, Policy on Indigenous People, that includes

the statement: “Consult with Sámi People before taking any decision that may affect them

directly with the objective to achieve agreement and incorporate their perspectives in our

company decision-making” (Eni Norge, 2007). The phrase “Sami People” requires some

explanation. The Sami are an indigenous people of the region that spans northern Norway,

Finland and western Russia. Reindeer herding is an important traditional activity of the Sami.

The Sami are represented by the Sami Parliament. The Sami Parliament is not sovereign, but the

Norwegian law states the function of the Sami Parliament is 1) to serve as the Samis’ elected

political body to promote political initiatives and (2) to carry out the administrative tasks

delegated from national authorities or by law to the Sami Parliament. As a political organ, the

Samediggi (Sami Parliament) works with the issues that the Samediggi considers to relate to or

are of special interest for the Sami people (Wikipedia, 2014).

The goal was to evaluate the following:

1. How did the Sami Parliament and the municipalities conduct their dialogues with Eni

Norge and the Norwegian State? and

2. How is the consultation process between the State and the Sami Parliament affected

by the new opportunities formed by the oil company’s CSR initiatives?

5.3.1 Aambø’s Findings summarized:

The Eni Norge oil and gas company has a Corporate and Social Responsibility

(CSR) commitment to incorporate the Sami perspective in the decision-making

and incorporate the outcome of the consultations in the conduct of their activities.

The Sami Parliament was able to express themselves freely and certain issues

raised as part of the consultation process have been followed up on and it appears

that Eni Norge tried to incorporate the Sami Parliaments perspective into their

decision making (Eni Norge, 2007).

The Impact Assessment (Eni Norge, 2008) listed the strategies for building the

competence on petroleum extraction and oil spill response, in addition to

mitigating effects.

Two-way dialogue was shown to be a critical part in the impact assessment, and

appears to have had positive results. The information provided by Eni Norge was

consistent and transparent with both the Sami Parliament as well as the

municipalities.

While oil spill response planning was discussed with both the Sami Parliament

and the municipalities, the Sami people were more focused on indigenous rights

and the municipalities on where and how any oil spill response would be housed

and conducted.

As to the process, it appeared that the Sami Parliament was focused on the

consultation process whereas the municipalities were focused on the final

outcome.

It was also noted that the Sami consultation process was started early, before the

impact assessment, allowing for the Sami Parliament to have input prior to any

decision making.

6 Participation in Oil Spill Planning and Response: Differences between Indigenous

Areas and Process-Experienced Areas

The following are observations and opinions based on the above workshops and the

author’s previous experience as to the differences in oil spill planning and response between

Arctic indigenous peoples and process-experienced areas. It is noted that national and local laws

for oil spill response are the same for all peoples – the basic laws do not distinguish indigenous

people. However, there are additional national and local laws and company commitments

ensuring inclusion of traditional knowledge and recognition of the role of indigenous peoples

such as those residing in the Arctic. We note the wisdom of including indigenous peoples in

each oil spill phase planning, response, and restoration. For the public involvement process, we

believe there are certain special efforts that need to be made for efficient information exchange

with indigenous peoples.

6.1 Start early and Make Integral to Project Planning and Decision Making.

Most importantly is the early public involvement in the project planning stage. Because of

remoteness, seasonality and communications difficulties, more time and resource commitment is

needed. Besides getting good public relations started, it provides an opportunity to change the

preliminary design concept or scrub the project altogether, before more money is spent. Several

corporations have adopted a ‘Free, Prior, Informed Consent’ process in Indigenous peoples areas

prior to investing significant efforts to develop oil and gas resources (Eni Norge, 2008, and

Talisman Energy, 2010)

6.2 Identify and Build Relationships.

Given the sporadic nature of oil spill planning and response, it can be difficult to maintain

connection with the potentially impacted public. In oil and gas developed areas with process-

experienced communities, relationship management is important, however, it is made easier

through structured and planned meetings on multiple developments, with government agencies

which would have more expertise given the oil and gas field existing developments.

In most indigenous areas, it is important to explain who and why a meeting is being

requested, and know what the process is to receive their input. In general, it can be difficult to

get indigenous people to come to public meetings. There are a wide variety of cultural,

historical, and practical reasons for this non-attendance. For example in interior Arctic Alaska,

meetings should be scheduled for spring break up and fall freeze up, when river travel is

uncertain and thus people stay near the village, rather than travel to hunting or fishing sites.

Meeting in mid-winter may work as well, but summer meetings should be avoided. Schedule

meetings to avoid fishing, berry picking, and hunting seasons, and seek opportunities to meet on

multiple topics at the same time, such as medical screening, or training. Once a meeting is

scheduled, locals communicate via mobile phone, CB radio and Marine band VHF.

6.3 Work with Established Local Leaders

If there is a government, for example the NW Alaska Borough or North Slope Borough, they

often have employees at rural locations. In Alaska, the native regional corporations are generally

helpful. However many locals have a mixture of official governmental and tribal entities, as

well as various established religious and business entities. It is very important to find out who

are the official and unofficial leaders of the community, and then obtain their permission before

seeking out individual citizens to contact.

6.4 Human Health Risks

As part of risk communication for most industrial developments, communities tend to focus

on the potential for the development to cause increased health risk to themselves and their

families. The communities generally have heard and been educated on risk terminology such as

excess cancer risk and net benefits.

In many indigenous communities, there exist a common fear about cancer and a belief that

cancer is being induced by activities from outsiders. In certain cases, fear and perception can

trump science. It is critical for speakers to be trained in appropriate communication techniques

to assist in effective consultation. In all locations, it is vital to not minimize their concern, but

rather describe how the risk is being addressed or mitigated.

6.5 Effective Communication Takes Time and Should be Two-way. Effective

communication is difficult in most locations, whether the region has generally easy access or is

in more remote locations. In both locations, the time for public involvement is generally

underestimated, however, can actually be reduced if there is good interaction throughout the

process.

For many of the indigenous communities, governments and industries, the difficulty is

increased due to the remoteness of the areas, cultural differences, high travel costs, variable local

workforce and hesitancy around many indigenous peoples trusting and willingness to listen to

outsiders. Sharing of knowledge on the linkage between the Environmental Impact Analysis and

the spill response plan is important, as well as having locals act as environmental monitors. The

materials presented should be clear and in a language consistent with the communities, and

include hands-on demonstrations when possible and appropriate.

Generally, indigenous individuals are respectful of knowledgeable people, but caution is

needed if the experts are not respectful of the cultures, language and traditions of the people.

Experts with experience living in the Arctic and having local knowledge are invaluable.

7 A Recent Case on Collaboration and Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples As part of recent lease sales, Shell currently holds or has interest in, over 300 leases in the

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. As part of Shell’s preparation and development of its exploration

program, Shell began a process of early engagement with the local native communities. In 2009,

Shell held numerous public meetings in North Slope communities to inform and obtain input

from the indigenous populations on potential human health, social and environmental impacts

and develop proposed mitigation and conflict avoidance strategies. As an outcome from these

meetings, and following discussion with regulatory agencies, Shell established and committed to

the following as part of their partnership with indigenous people:

Establishment of communication centers with the hiring of local subsistence advisors

Execution of an agreement with ARO, a local native corporation, to provide primary spill

response training, vessels and other spill response resources for the offshore exploration

program. ARO is committed to maintaining a consistent, trained local native workforce.

Agreement to “zero discharge” into the water of drilling muds and cuttings

Suspension of all drilling activities during subsistence bowhead whale hunting

Execution of a CAA (conflict avoidance agreement) with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling

Commission which outlined avoidance measures such as those stated above, in addition

to Shell agreeing to store and barge off-site six waste streams (drilling mud, drill cuttings,

and domestic, sanitary, ballast and bilge wastewaters) (DOI, 2013).

8 Conclusion

National laws and international conventions encourage consultation with indigenous people and

their participation in decisions that affect their lives. Oil spill response planning and

preparedness requires many decisions and thus communication between industry, government,

and affected local populations is vital. Such participation and communication is never perfect,

even in developed areas with populations that have prior experience in industrial development.

Regarding indigenous peoples in remote areas, understanding cultural differences and

anticipating communications difficulties is the first step – communications will require more

time and effort. Effective communications must be based on knowledge of the concerns and

values of local residents. Of course once a project starts, proponents must honor the concessions

and commitments made during the initial involvement processes and thus an ongoing

commitment to inclusion and communications is required.

9. References Aambø, K.O., 2012, Oil Development in the North – Concerted Dialogue or a Dialogue for

Concern? A Study of CSR and Consultations as Dialogues between an Oil Company, the State,

Municipalities and the Sami Parliament, Master of Philosophy in Indigenous Studies to the

Faculty of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education, University of Tromsø, 98 p.

Arctic Council, 1996, Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council, Ottawa, Canada,

Retrieved March 2011 from http://www.international.gc.ca/arctic-arctique/ottdec-

decott.aspx?lang=eng

Arctic Council, 2009, Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment Working Group, Arctic

Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines, Arctic Council, April 29, 2009.

Arctic Council, 2014, Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response retrieved February 24,

2014 from http://eppr.arctic-council.org/.

Arctic Nations, (Arctic Nations of Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Union

of Soviet Socialist Republics and United States of America) 1991, Arctic Environmental

Protection Strategy, June 14, 1991, 45 p. Accessed March 2014 from

http://library.arcticportal.org/1542/1/artic_environment.pdf

Aurand, Don and L. Essex, Ecological Risk Assessment: Consensus Workshop; Environmental

Tradeoffs Associated with Oil Spill Response Technologies, Northwest Arctic Alaska; U.S. Coast

Guard, 54 p., 2012.

Bird, K. J., R. R. Charpentier, D. L. Gautier, D. W. Houseknecht, T. R. Klett, J. K. Pitman, T. E.

Moore, C. J. Schenk, M. E. Tennyson and C. J. Wandrey, Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal;

Estimates of Undiscovered Oil and Gas North of the Arctic Circle: U.S. Geological Survey Fact

Sheet 2008-3049, retrieved March 9, 2014 from http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3049/, 4p. 2008.

BREA, 2011. Workshop on Dispersant Use in the Canadian Beaufort Sea, Inuvik, NWT, July 25

to 28, 2011. Sponsored by Beaufort Regional Environmental Assessment (BREA) Aboriginal

Affairs and Northern Development Canada and Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Available from: http://www.beaufortrea.ca/wp-

content/uploads/2012/03/BREA-Dispersant-Workshop-Final-Report-October2011.pdf ]

BSSE (Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement), 2014, retrieved March 9, 2014 from

http://www.bsee.gov/BSEE-Newsroom/Press-Releases/2012/BSEE-Oversees-Shell-Arctic-

Capping-Stack-Test/, 1 p.

DOI (Department of the Interior) 2013, Report To The Secretary Of The Interior Review Of

Shell’s 2012 Alaska Offshore Oil And Gas Exploration Program March 8, 2013.

ElectricCanadian.com, 2014, retrieved February 24, 2014 from

www.electriccanadian.com/transport/oilgas/index.htm, 2 p.

Eni Norge, 2007, Policy on Indigenous People, 1p. Downloaded from

http://www.eni.com/en_IT/attachments/sostenibilita/Eni-Norge-Policy-on-Indigenous-People.pdf

April 19, 2013

Eni Norge, 2008, Goliat, HSE retrieved from http://www.eninorge.com/en/Field-

development/Goliat/HSE/ downloaded March 2014.

IMO (International Maritime Organization) 1969, International Convention Relating to

Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969, adopted in Brussels,

Belgium on 29 November 1969,

http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publications/UNTS/Volume%20970/Volume-970-I-14049, 13 p.

IMO (International Maritime Organization) 1991, International Convention on Oil Pollution

Preparedness, Response and Co-operation 1990, 39 p., 1991.

IMO (International Maritime Organization) 2006, International Convention for the Prevention of

Pollution from Ships, 1973, MARPOL, Consolidated Edition 2006, 483 p., 2006.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and Coastal Response Research

Center, May 22-23, 2012, Northwest Arctic Borough Oil Spill Response Workshop: Natural

Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) & Environmental Response Management Application

(ERMA), 153 p., 2012.

Norway Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, 2014, Norway’s Oil History in 5 Minutes, retrieved

February 24, 2014 from www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/oed/Subject/Oil-and-Gas/Norways-oil, 2p.

Schive, P. W., “The Co-operation Agreements on Oil Spill Combattment in the North Sea and

the Barents Sea,” PAJ Oil Symposium 1997, 8 p.

State of Alaska, Division of Oil and Gas Annual Report, 2006.

Stein, E. S., P. J. Brandvik, I. Buist, P. Daling, D. Dickins, L.-G. Faksness, S. Potter, J. F.

Rasmussen and I. Singsaas Joint Industry Program on Oil Spill Contingency for Arctic and Ice-

Covered Waters Summary Report, Report No.:32, SINTEF A14181, 39p. 2010

Talisman Energy, 2010, Global Community Relations Policy, 3p. http://www.talisman-

energy.com/upload/editor/File/10417493%20-

%20GLOBAL%20COMMUNITY%20RELATIONS%20POLICY%20-

%20DECEMBER%209%202010%20-%201%20-%20TLMPRD.pdf

United Nations, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 61/295, 18 p.,

2007.

United Nations, 2008, Indigenous People Indigenous Voice Fact Sheet, 2p. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs326/en/

USCG (United States Coast Guard), 2008, Final PEIS for VRPs and FRPs for Oil, 784 p. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2009/08/31/E9-20311/vessel-and-facility-response-

plans-for-oil-2003-removal-equipment-requirements-and-alternative .

USGC (United States Geological Survey), Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal and Estimates of

Undiscovered Oil and Gas North of the Arctic Circle, USGS Fact Sheet 2008-3049, 4p., 2008.

Wikipedia, 2014. Article “Sami Parliament of Norway” Retrieved March 2014 from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Parliament_of_Norway