The Peel Watershed conflict is a unique case that pitted the Territorial Yukon government and the First Nations of the Peel region. The watershed covers 67, 431 square kilometers in the northeast Yukon[1]. In 2004, the territorial government developed the Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan [PWRLUP] for land use development in the large, unpopulated, and undeveloped area with the potential for oil, gas, and hard rock mineral development[2]. In July 2011, the Peel Watershed Planning Commission produced a Final Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan which recommended that 80 percent of the region should be protected as Special Management Areas and designated as wilderness areas, while the remaining 20 percent of the watershed would be open to “nonrenewable resource-use opportunities" subject to key land-use and environmental management considerations, including enhanced community consultation where specific.” However, the Yukon government presented a set of counter-proposals that only protected 30% of the watershed, significantly reducing environmental protection and opening up the remaining 70% for mineral extraction and oil and gas exploration. This proposals were presented without consulting the First Nations living on and/or using the land, including First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun; Tr’ondek Hwech’in; and thee Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation. Indigenous groups mobilized claiming that the territorial government’s land use plan “did not respect the Chapter 11 process.” Chief of the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in First Nations, Eddie Taylor said “To us that land is sacred and should be preserved for future generations. As our elders say, the Peel is our church, our university and our breadbasket”. First Nations and environmental justice groups brought the Yukon government to court and after five-years of legal battles the case was appealed to Canada’s highest court. On December 1, 2017, after years of court battles, the Supreme Court made a unanimous decision ruling in favour of the Indigenous peoples of the Peel Watershed region. The Court declared the parties must return to the point in the process where the territorial government can either approve, reject, or modify the Initial plan recommended by the Commission. Christina MacDonald, Executive Director of the Yukon Conservation Society, stated, “This is a huge, huge victory for Indigenous people and it’s cause for environmental celebration on a global scale.”[6] ________________________________ [1] CBC News. 2014. First Nations environment groups sue Yukon over peel plan. CBC News online: <http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/first-nations-environment-groups-sue-yukon-over-peel-plan-1.2512433>. [2]Sara L. Jaremeko. 2017. The peel watershed case: Implications for Aboriginal consultation and land use planning in Alberta. Canadian Institute of Resources Law. University of Calgary. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. [3]Ibid. [4]Umbrella Final Agreement between The Government of Canada, The Council for Yukon Indians, and The Government of Yukon (29 May 1993), online: < https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-INTER- HQ/STAGING/texte-text/al_ldc_ccl_fagr_ykn_umb_1318604279080_eng.pdf > [5]Ibid. [6]Tom Clynes. 2017. Vast Yukon wilderness protected in ruling for Native tribes. National Geographic. Online: <https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/peel-watershed-yukon-protected-canada-supreme-court-decision-spd/>. (See less) |
After the Supreme Court ruled in favour of First Nations in the Peel Watershed Region, the Land Use Planning Commission, Yukon government and First Nations groups are heading back to the drawing board to ensure environmental protection!
The Peel Watershed conflict is a unique case that pitted the Territorial Yukon government and the First Nations of the Peel region. The watershed covers 67, 431 square kilometers in the northeast Yukon[1]. In 2004, the territorial government developed the Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan [PWRLUP] for land use development in the large, unpopulated, and undeveloped area with the potential for oil, gas, and hard rock mineral development[2]. |
| Name of conflict: | Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Planning Conflict, Canada |
| Country: | Canada |
| State or province: | Yukon |
| Location of conflict: | Peel Watershed region |
| Accuracy of location | MEDIUM (Regional level) |
| Type of conflict. 1st level: | Infrastructure and Built Environment |
| Type of conflict. 2nd level: | Oil and gas exploration and extraction Other Mineral ore exploration Deforestation Land acquisition conflicts Establishment of reserves/national parks Building materials extraction (quarries, sand, gravel) |
| Specific commodities: | Land Lead Silver Ecosystem Services Natural Gas Tourism services Uranium Copper Gold Iron ore Zinc |
| Project details | In 2004 the Peel Watershed Planning Commission was formed and the process of planning began under the Umbrella Final Agreement. The First Nations in the region advocated for 100% protection of the Peel. After three years of research and consultation the first commission published the first draft, which zoned half the Peel for industrial development. Indigenous peoples expressed that the main priority should be environmental protection and the recommended plan was altered to 80% protection of the Peel. In 2011, the Final Recommended Land Use Plan called for 55% permanent protection, 25% interim protection for possible future plans, with 20% of the region to be open for roads, industrial, and mineral development. The following year it was discovered the Yukon government had its own closed-door plan for the Peel region, favouring extensive industrial development. In 2014, the government rejected the Final Recommended Plan and adopted its own plan to open 71% of the Peel to roads and resource extraction. At this point First Nations groups and conservation groups began legal action. Concluding the legal battles, in 2018, the YLUPC has identified goals and objectives to ensure effective land use planning in the Yukon. They have laid out a plan to carry out in the next three years to fulfill the mandate laid out under Chapter 11 of the UFA. Their goals are: |
| Project area: | 6,743,100 |
| Type of population | Rural |
| Start of the conflict: | 01/10/2004 |
| Company names or state enterprises: | Yukon Land Use Planning Council (YLUPC) from Canada - Company in charge of the Final Recommended Plan for the Peel Watershed Region Regional Land Use Planning Commission (RLUPC) from Canada - Apart of land use planning process |
| Relevant government actors: | Yukon government, Yukon Supreme Court, Yukon Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Canada |
| Environmental justice organizations (and other supporters) and their websites, if available: | Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Yukon [http://www.cpawsyukon.org] and Yukon Conservation Society [http://yukonconservation.org] |
| Intensity | MEDIUM (street protests, visible mobilization) |
| Reaction stage | PREVENTIVE resistance (precautionary phase) |
| Groups mobilizing: | Indigenous groups or traditional communities Local ejos Neighbours/citizens/communities Pastoralists Local scientists/professionals Yukon's environmental groups, Indigenous groups: The Na-cho Nyak Dun, the Tetlit Gwich’in, the Vuntut Gwitchin, and the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in First Nations groups |
| Forms of mobilization: | Artistic and creative actions (eg guerilla theatre, murals) Development of a network/collective action Development of alternative proposals Involvement of national and international NGOs Lawsuits, court cases, judicial activism Media based activism/alternative media Public campaigns Referendum other local consultations Street protest/marches Appeals/recourse to economic valuation of the environment |
| Environmental Impacts | Potential: Air pollution, Biodiversity loss (wildlife, agro-diversity), Food insecurity (crop damage), Genetic contamination, Global warming, Loss of landscape/aesthetic degradation, Soil contamination, Deforestation and loss of vegetation cover, Surface water pollution / Decreasing water (physico-chemical, biological) quality, Noise pollution, Groundwater pollution or depletion, Large-scale disturbance of hydro and geological systems, Reduced ecological / hydrological connectivity, Mine tailing spills |
| Health Impacts | Potential: Accidents, Malnutrition, Infectious diseases, Other environmental related diseases |
| Socio-economical Impacts | Potential: Increase in Corruption/Co-optation of different actors, Displacement, Loss of livelihood, Loss of traditional knowledge/practices/cultures, Land dispossession, Loss of landscape/sense of place, Violations of human rights, Other socio-economic impacts |
| Project Status | Proposed (exploration phase) |
| Conflict outcome / response: | Court decision (victory for environmental justice) Application of existing regulations Project cancelled The government has withdrawn all mineral exploration in the area until January 2020. |
| Proposal and development of alternatives: | The Yukon government has issued a temporary withdrawal from mineral staking for all lands in the Peel Watershed Region. This applies to subsurface mineral staking administered under the Quartz Mining Act and Placer Mining Act until January 1, 2020. Any work on existing mineral claims is permitted, oil and gas extraction will also not be issued in this region during the same period. |
| Do you consider this an environmental justice success? Was environmental justice served?: | Yes |
| Briefly explain: | Yes, environmental justice was served. According to all parties involved, all agree they are going in the right direction for the future of the Peel Watershed. Consultation and approval of all parties is the number one priority. Chief of Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in, Roberta Joseph stated, “We are looking forward to consulting on the final recommend plan now that we have clarity from the Supreme Court. Throughout the planning process, First Nations people and Yukoners told us they wanted increased protection for this pristine, natural area and we are eager to hear from them again as we move through final consultation and approval of the plan.” It is too early to tell how the Yukon government and the First Nation groups will cooperate with each other this time around, but all parties seem to be very optimistic. |
| Juridical relevant texts related to the conflict (laws, legislations, EIAs, etc) |
| |||||||||||||||
| References to published books, academic articles, movies or published documentaries |
| |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Related media links to videos, campaigns, social network |
|
| Contributor: | Olivia Hewitt - [email protected] - Bishop's University |
| Last update | 21/02/2020 |
| Conflict ID: | 3446 |