Walking Gichigami - Governing Transboundary Waters: Canada, the United States, and Indigenous Communities - page 154

Although 179 nations have ratified the Treaty as of 2014 (and hold themselves
legally accountable), the United States is noticeably absent. The U.S. signed the
convention, but did not ratify - arguably the ratification was halted when dioxin
was included for elimination (Visser, 2014). Other complementary treaties include
the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous
Wastes and their Disposal (Basel Convention) which is designed to reduce the
movements of hazardous waste between nations, particularly as a way to protect
lesser developed countries from the impacts of uneven development. The Basel
Convention came into force in May 1992. As of October 2013, 179 states and the
EU had ratified the Basel Convention (the U.S. and Haiti have signed, but not
ratified). Third, the Rotterdam Convention (known formally as the Rotterdam
Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous
Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade) is a multilateral treaty that aims
to promote open exchange of information related to the importation of hazardous
chemicals - including proper labeling, safe handling instructions, and known bans.
(For a list of substances covered under the Convention, see Appendix B.)
Organizations such as the Arctic Monitoring Assessment Program (AMAP),
Alaska Communication Action on Toxins, and Indigenous Environmental Network
are research and advocacy networks that seek to understand and document the
ecosystem and human health impacts of these ASEPs. Federal Agencies such as the
U.S. Drug and Food Administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environment Canada, and Health Canada each have roles within their institutions
though budget cuts and decentralization continue to compromise their ability to
handle these complex, global issues. At the state and provincial levels, governmental
agencies such as the Michigan Department of Community Health and Ontario
Natural Resources try to make the risks known to the public. Thus, at the local
level, the issue largely becomes one of “informing people what they can and cannot
eat” (Gagnon, 2011). Fish advisories continually try to warn people of the dangers
of consuming “too much” contaminated fish, particularly women of childbearing
age. The outreach to Indigenous communities is slightly different, however.
Although Indigenous communities may know about the health risks associated
with consuming contaminated fish, the idea that there is a “choice” to not eat the
contaminated foods is false. For Indigenous peoples tied to the land - spiritually,
culturally, economically - the choice to move is not an option. The choice to eat
other food is, for many, also not a valid option. As Valoree Gagnon (2011) found
in her important study on fish toxins and advisories in the Ojibwa community of
Keweenaw Bay, Lake Superior, “fish” and “contaminants” appear differently, based
on the perceptions and priorities of those who encounter them. In her study,
Gagnon examined the fish contaminant knowledge, impacts on fishing and fish
consumption, and the factors that contribute to harvesting decisions and behaviors.
She found that the fundamental guidance and essential framework associated with
the harvesting beliefs, values, and traditional lifeways were not represented in the
fish advisories. In fact, having a fish advisory can lead to a politics of calculation,
similar to the ones discussed in Boundary Bay (Chapter 5).