RE: Utilizing Traditional Knowledge

[Dean Suagee <dsuagee@vermontlaw.edu>]

Good moring.  I'm Dean Suagee, director of the First Nations Environmental Law Program at Vermont Law School (and a member of the Cherokee Nation).  

Patricia Cochran closes her comment (after telling us about what sounds like a very interesting project) with this:

Indigenous communities provide an opportunity for the rest of the world to see the earth and environment from a unique worldview - one that is based upon tradition, culture, spirituality and our role as stewards of the land. How can others learn from the knowledge of the Indigenous community and how can this knowledge be incorporated into decision-making processes?

Here is one way in which others can learn from this and incorporate what they learn into decisions on actions that affect the environment.

When traditional knowledge relates to specific places, and those places have historic significance, and there is a proposed federal action under consideration that might affect those places, then the consultation process established under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) section 106 should serve as a legal mechanism for bringing traditional knowledge into the decision-making process.  Section 101(d)(6) of the NHPA provides that if places that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places hold religious and cultural importance for an Indian tribe, then the federal agency has a legal obligation to consult with the tribe as part of the section 106 process.  This process is carried out according to regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR part 800 (as revised Dec. 12, 2000).  All sorts of information is available on the Advisory Council's web site (www.achp.gov), including updates on pending cases.

Some places are eligible for the National Register because their on-going importance in the cultural life of a community adds to their historic significance. Such places are often called "traditional cultural places."  The ongoing importance in the life of the community may well be because of traditional knowledge about the place.

This legal requirement is separate from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), although it is often addressed at the same time.  As with other review and consultation requirements, the earlier in the process the fedeal agency identifies concerned tribes and begins to consult, the more likely it is that a favorable outcome will result.  Sometimes the process works, and sometimes it doesn't.  My impression is that it works better when tribes are assertive in using the process.  Alaska Native villages, as well a village and regional corporations are included in the statutory definition of Indian tribe.

I just wanted to offer this response to Ms. Cochran's question.  I would really like to participate more in today's discussion, but, it's our summer session and I have to be in class today for three hours.  So I probably won't check back in until quite a bit later.  I am really interested in learning about what others might consider best practices for tribal governments in promoting public participation.  I am not aware of any comprehensive effort to gather and analze such information.  As I noted last week, I have a published article on the subject (co-authored with John Lowndes) called "Due Process and Public Participation in Tribal Environmental Programs," 13 Tulane Environmental Law Journal 1 (1999).  In addition, we included some treatment of this topic in the NEJAC Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee's "Guide on Consultation and Collaboration with Indian Tribal Governments and the Public Participation of Indigenous Groups and Tribal Members in Environmental Decision Making," which is available on the web site of the EPA Office of Environmental Justice:

http://www.epa.gov/oeca/ej

Please note that this is NOT an EPA document; it's a NEJAC document.

Best wishes,

Dean