When it comes to relationships between the federal government and Alaska Native people, conversations need to start at the beginning. That's a message that's been repeated time and time again in recent years from a host of Native groups, corporations and organizations.
In its current newsletter, Inuit Circumpolar Council-Alaska called for the same notion of equality in decision-making by way of consultation.
"Well, we think consultation should begin at the beginning of any discussion," said ICC-Alaska President Jim Stotts. "Often what happens is the policy or the legislation or the thought process behind some government action is very well developed and maybe even on the verge of being law already by the time it gets to the Native people."
For the council, consultation would come in the form of talking points over, hashing out ideas from start to finish, while realizing that there will naturally be differences of opinion.
"But I think both sides owe each other that responsibility to talk things through," Stotts said. "If we don't do that, consultation is a misused word, in my opinion. It's meaningless. That's in a whole range of issues. It's not just land issues or development issues. In some cases, particularly when it comes to managing living resources, we believe there should be a co-management structure developed. By co-management I would say more or less a consensus organization where, until you can come to an agreement or understanding, a decision isn't made. That really forces people to compromise and work together to come up with something that works for everybody."
In his president's note, Stotts pointed to one particular incident last year that illustrated issues with consultation, in his opinion, between the federal government and the Arctic Inupiat.
In January 2015, 9.8 million acres of marine habitat in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas were classified as protected, along with additional acreage for Hanna Shoal.
"Inupiat were caught off guard when the protected designation was announced," he wrote. Both the North Slope Borough and the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation spoke out against the designation at the time. "It's clear that the government did not meaningfully consult with Inupiat prior to the announcement. This approach has to stop, now."
In a statement issued by the White House announcing the designation, officials cited that continued development of offshore oil and gas resources must be tempered by "preserving our most treasured places for future generations."
"But even as we consider new places that may be appropriate to responsibly develop oil and gas, we can take meaningful steps to protect areas that matter most for our environment, our Native communities, and our cultural identity," White House representatives wrote in the announcement.
It's this disconnect that's made consultation difficult in the past, Stotts said, and pointed to three main reasons consultation has faltered.
One issue is that there is no consistent interpretation of the term, meaning that each agency or department can interpret it differently, leading to confusion about right practice.
"Also, consultation with Native Americans, including us in Alaska, ebbs and flows with the politics," he said. "It's very much directed by whatever is the prevailing feeling or thought that the administration or presidency has."
Finally, ICC has questioned who should be consulted in negotiations. Should it be tribal governments or corporations or boroughs or land claims organizations? It's a consistency problem, said Stotts.
In his president's message, Stotts began by discussing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted in 2007. Both the U.S. and Canada were two of four countries that initially voted against the declaration, though the U.S. later decided to support it with qualifications.
"There are two noteworthy conditions for support. First, UNDRIP's concept of self-determination is limited by existing U.S. laws and policies which means recognized tribes have inherent but limited powers of self-governance," he wrote. "Second, the U.S. defines consent only as a process of meaningful consultation with tribal leaders, not necessarily the agreement of those leaders. To the United States, consent means consultation. This is important to realize as those two words have vastly different meanings."
While Stotts' note and ICC-Alaska's push for consultation are the opinions of a single organization, they are joining the conversation happening across the board about the responsibilities of all parties involved in federal and tribal negotiations that have been coming into the spotlight in recent years.
This story first appeared in The Arctic Sounder and is republished here with permission.