Dr.BrianEgan,DepartmentofGeography,SimonFraserUniversity - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dr.
Brian
Egan,
Department
of
Geography,
Simon
Fraser
University


land
and
property


 the
land
surface
of
the
Earth
is
humankind’s
principal
resource


base:


 across
much
of
the
planet,
human
life
and
well‐being
ulDmately


depends
on
the
biological
producDvity
–
especially
plant
and
 animal
life
–
resulDng
from
the
interacDon
of
solar
radiaDon,
soil,
 and
water.



 criDcal
land
resources
include:
(a)
food
and
agriculture
(Feb
8);


(b)
forests
(Feb
29);
and
(c)
biological
diversity
(Mar
28).



 focus
today
is
on
systems
of
control
and
‘ownership’
over
the


most
basic
resource
–
land.




control
and
ownership


 control
or
ownership
of
land
goes
to
heart
of
many
resource


issues
and
conflicts:


 who
owns
the
land?
who
gets
to
use
it?

  who
owns
the
resources
found
on
(or
in)
the
land?
  who
gets
to
use
the
land
and
resources
or
gets
to
decide
how


they
are
used?


 how
are
the
benefits
from
the
land
and
resources
used
or


distributed
in
society?


 quesDons
of
land
or
resource
control
and
access
are
oRen
central


to
resource
conflicts
or
disputes.



land
and
idenDty


 control
over
or
ownership
of
land
is
Ded
up
with
poliDcal
and


cultural
idenDDes
and
with
socio‐economic
status:


 land
as
territory
and
as
the
basis
for
collecDve
idenDDes
(e.g.,


Canadian,
BriDsh
Columbia,
Vancouverite).



 individual
or
group
(e.g.,
family)
land
ownership
(property)
as


symbol
or
indicator
of
socio‐economic
and
poliDcal
status.


 like
any
other
resource,
land
is
a
cultural
arDfact:


 the
way
land
is
viewed
and
used
varies
from
one
cultural
group
to


another.




regimes
of
control
and
ownership


 open
access
resources
–
no
organized
regime
of
control
or


• wnership
(e.g.,
atmosphere,
open
ocean,
terra
nullius).


 common
property
resources
–
land
and/or
resources


controlled
or
owned
by
a
defined
group,
whether
a
family,
 community,
tribe,
or
some
other
collecDon
of
individuals.



 private‐property
resources
–
control
or
ownership
of
land


and/or
resources
by
individual
(real
or
‘arDficial’
person).



 state
ownership
of
resources
–
the
state
controls
or
owns
land


and/or
resources
(e.g.,
“public
forests”
or
“Crown
lands”
in
 BriDsh
Columbia.




tragedy
of
the
commons


 Hardin
(1986)
–
common
property
resources
(e.g.,
common


pasture)
would
inevitably
be
degraded
by
raDonal
economic
 actors;
thus
need
to
move
to
private
property
regimes.



 Ostrom
(1990)
–
Hardin
confused
common
property
resources


(CPR)
with
open
access,
poinDng
out
that
CPR
regimes
have
 worked
very
well
for
centuries.



 CPR
regimes
rely
on
social
insDtuDons
and
clear
rules
to
operate


effecDvely
and
sustainably.


 tradiDonal
CPR
insDtuDons
have
been
undermined
by


colonialism,
delegiDmaDon
of
local
authoriDes,
centralizaDon,
 imposiDon
of
market
systems.





property


 common
understanding
–
a
thing
that
one
possesses
or
owns
(e.g.,
a


plot
of
land,
real
estate
or
‘real
property’).


 legal
–
a
bundle
of
rights,
including
(a)
to
use
as
one
wishes,
(b)
to


exclude
others,
and
(c)
to
transfer
to
another
person.






 under
liberal
(classical
and
neo‐liberal)
theory,
property
usually


equated
with
private
property,
which
is
seen
as
the
ideal
form
of
 property
to
opDmize
economic
progress
(wealth
generaDon).



 private
property
also
seen
as
best
form
of
property
to
sustain


environmental
resources
–
Michael
Walker
(Fraser
InsDtute)
argues
that
 everything
should
be
privaDzed.



 property
should
be
private;
common
property
and
state
property
seen


as
inferior
and
of
limited
uDlity.



private
property


 source
of
wealth
and
freedom;
bulwark
against
the
state.

  the
owner
is
central,
he
or
she
possesses
most
(if
not
all)
of


the
bundle
of
rights
property
contains.



 owner
is
self‐regarding,
concerned
only
with
his/her
property


with
few
(if
any)
obligaDons
beyond
property
border.



 private
property
has
a
spaDal
form,
with
clear
boundaries,
and


no
two
properDes
overlap.



 property
is
fixed,
certain,
secure,
beyond
poliDcs.


a
broader
view


 property
is
about
organizing
relaDons
between
people
with


respect
to
things
and,
as
such,
is
deeply
implicated
in
social,
 economic,
and
poliDcal
relaDons.


 property
relaDons
reflect
social,
economic,
and
poliDcal
power.


 property
(especially
private
property)
is
not
fixed,
but


historically
and
socially
conDngent
–
property
is
made
and
 requires
conDnually
‘doing’
–
and
is
open
to
contestaDon.


 how
does
property
come
into
being?



 property
as
a
socio‐cultural
pracDce.


 Western
and
Indigenous
concepDons
of
property.



Hul’qumi’num
case
study


 Hul’qumi’num
Treaty
Group
–
6
Coast
Salish
First
NaDons
on


BC’s
south
coast
involved
in
modern
treaty
process.


 history
of
colonizaDon
and
dispossession.


 imposiDon
of
colonial
law.
  creaDon
of
Indian
reserve
system.
  privaDzaDon
of
land
and
resources.



 treaty
negoDaDons.

  appeal
to
OrganizaDon
of
American
States
Human
Rights


Commission.





colonial
dispossession


 introduced
disease.
  physical
violence.
  the
imperial
state
  The
culture
of
colonialism.
  Segler
self‐interest.







Cole
Harris,
“How
did
colonialism
dispossess?
Comments
from
an
edge
of
empire,”
 Annals
of
the
Associa0on
of
American
Geographers
94
(2004):
165‐182


the
imperial
state





“I
informed
them
that
the
whole
of
their
country
was
a
 possession
of
the
BriDsh
crown,
and
that
her
Majesty
the
 Queen
had
given
me
a
special
charge,
to
treat
them
with
 jusDce
and
humanity
and
to
protect
them
against
violence
of
 all
foreign
naDons
which
might
agempt
to
molest
them,
so
 long
as
they
remained
at
peace
with
the
[white]
seglements.”

 
 
 
 
 
James
Douglas,
1853


Photo
by
William
James
Topley,
from
Library
 and
Archives
of
Canada
(PA‐025343)


The
culture
of
colonialism












"I
think
they
are
the
ugliest
and
laziest
 creatures
I
ever
saw
and
we
should
as
 soon
think
of
being
afraid
of
our
dogs
as


• f
them."
(1850)







“[Indians]
really
have
no
right
to
the
lands
 they
claim,
nor
are
they
of
any
actual
 value
or
uDlity
to
them.”
(1867)
 




"I
have
not
yet
met
with
a
single
Indian
 whom
I
consider
to
have
agained
even
 the
most
glimmering
percepDon
of
the
 ChrisDan
creed.”
(1871)
 
 




Joseph
Trutch
(1826‐1904)


Source:
Hul’qumi’num
Treaty
Group


Source:
Hul’qumi’num
Treaty
Group


colonial
legacies


 economic
–
loss
of
access
to
areas
of
economic
importance,
including


hunDng
territories,
fisheries,
areas
for
food
gathering,
sites
for
plant
 culDvaDon,
and
have
received
ligle
benefit
from
the
extracDon
of
natural
 resources
from
this
land
grant
area.


 cultural
–
loss
of
access
to
areas
of
great
cultural
importance
(e.g.,
bathing


and
burial
sites),
loss
of
access
to
materials
used
for
cultural
purposes
(e.g.,
 wood
for
canoes
and
carving).


 ecological
–
degradaDon
of
important
sites
(polluDon
of
clam
beds,


destrucDon
of
cultural
sites),
depleDon
of
resources
(fish
medicinal
plants),
 and
concerns
about
water
quality
and
quanDty.



treaty
process


 increasingly
viewed
as
a
failure.


 18
years
of
negoDaDon
=
2
treaDes.

  negoDaDng
parDes
at
most
treaty
tables
remain
far
apart.
  First
NaDons
see
few
benefits
in
treaDes;
see
beger
opportuniDes


• utside
treaty.



 Crown
does
not
want
to
deal
with
history
and
compensaDon
for
past


wrongs.


 private
property
is
not
on
the
table.



Northern
Gateway:
key
issues


 Canada’s
economic
future.
  a
staples
economy?
  beyond
the
stapes
economy?
  Canada’s
energy
future.
  environmental
risks.

  Aboriginal
land
and
resource
rights.
  foreign
influences.
  “ethical
oil”?
  environmental
assessment
process.