It is with great pleasure that I am able to serve as the first Special Guest Editor (health) of the Inter-national Indigenous Policy Journal. This special edition is a compilation of some of the best research con-ducted on Indigenous populations. Moving beyond the disturbing trends so many of us are already well aware of, this body of research provides new theoretical, policy, and practical approaches for researchers, decision makers, and communities seeking to improve health outcomes for Indigenous populations.
Access to safe drinking water is a pressing social policy issue globally. Despite the milestones reached in this area of Canadian public health, marginalized and vulnerable populations, including those founded on racialized identity, such as First Nations, continue to be plagued by accessibility issues. This work sheds new perspective on the issue, arguing for a research and policy focus that is inclusive of risk perception. A model of risk perception of drinking water is developed and tested for First Nations on reserve in Canada using the 2001 Aboriginal Peoples Survey. It is shown that the analytical use of racialized identity advances understanding of risk perception and the environment (water). Moreover, a large degree of heterogeneity within the First Nation population across a number of social determinants of risk perception illustrates the shortcomings of framing the issue in a simplistic manner (First Nation population versus general population). Implications for risk research, including risk communication & management, and policy are provided.
On June 11, 2009, the Director General of the World Health Organization, Dr. Margaret Chan, announced that the scientific evidence indicated that the criteria for an influenza pandemic had been met: pandemic H1N1/09 virus, the first in nearly 40 years, was officially upon us. The World Health Organization has estimated that as many as 2 billion or between 15 and 45 percent of the population globally will be infected by the H1N1/09 virus. Scientists and governments have been careful to walk a line between causing mass public fear and ensuring people take the risks seriously. The latest information indicates that the majority of individuals infected with the H1N1/09 virus thus far have suffered mild illness, although very severe and fatal illness have been observed in a small number of cases, even in young and healthy people (World Health Organization 2009c). There is no evidence to date that the virus has mutated to a more virulent or lethal form; however, as we enter the second wave of the pandemic, a significant number of people in countries across the world are susceptible to infection. Most importantly, certain subgroups have been categorized as high risk given the clinical evidence to date. One of these subgroups is Indigenous populations (World Health Organization 2009c).
On June 11, 2009, the Director General of the World Health Organization, Dr. Margaret Chan, announced that the scientific evidence indicated that the criteria for an influenza pandemic had been met: pandemic H1N1/09 virus, the first in nearly 40 years, was officially upon us. The World Health Organization has estimated that as many as 2 billion or between 15 and 45 percent of the population globally will be infected by the H1N1/09 virus. Scientists and governments have been careful to walk a line between causing mass public fear and ensuring people take the risks seriously. The latest information indicates that the majority of individuals infected with the H1N1/09 virus thus far have suffered mild illness, although very severe and fatal illness have been observed in a small number of cases, even in young and healthy people (World Health Organization 2009c). There is no evidence to date that the virus has mutated to a more virulent or lethal form; however, as we enter the second wave of the pandemic, a significant number of people in countries across the world are susceptible to infection. Most importantly, certain subgroups have been categorized as high risk given the clinical evidence to date. One of these subgroups is Indigenous populations (World Health Organization 2009c).
The condition of water safety and quality on reserve has been a growing concern in Canada. Despite a substantial amount of funding allocated toward improving water infrastructure on reserve, an alarming proportion of communities face boil and drinking water advisories. To understand why this paradox and problem persists, this article will work through the issues and nuances that have created unsafe drinking water on reserve, proposed remedies, and policy implications. To do so, the role of the Government of Canada is reviewed first because reserve land is under federal jurisdiction. Following this, the article will discuss the standpoints of the Assembly of First Nations and other Indigenous groups on the water crisis, and will draw upon focus groups within First Nations that we conducted. To contextualize the water issue on reserve in Canada, a comparison with the United States is then drawn. One of the main themes of this paper with regard to the issue of safe drinking water on reserve is how the legacy of colonization has limited community capacity. This theme is then discussed in depth by comparing Indigenous to non-Indigenous communities, looking to the social determinants of water quality, and possibilities and limitations of building sustainable development allowing for safe drinking water on reserve. To understand what processes consistently intervene in the way of sustainability of safe water in Indigenous communities, regulatory frameworks are examined, funding mechanisms are reviewed, and Aboriginal governance is discussed along with the direction that policy should take.
The condition of water safety and quality on reserve has been a growing concern in Canada. Despite a substantial amount of funding allocated toward improving water infrastructure on reserve, an alarming proportion of communities face boil and drinking water advisories. To understand why this paradox and problem persists, this article will work through the issues and nuances that have created unsafe drinking water on reserve, proposed remedies, and policy implications. To do so, the role of the Government of Canada is reviewed first because reserve land is under federal jurisdiction. Following this, the article will discuss the standpoints of the Assembly of First Nations and other Indigenous groups on the water crisis, and will draw upon focus groups within First Nations that we conducted. To contextualize the water issue on reserve in Canada, a comparison with the United States is then drawn. One of the main themes of this paper with regard to the issue of safe drinking water on reserve is how the legacy of colonization has limited community capacity. This theme is then discussed in depth by comparing Indigenous to non-Indigenous communities, looking to the social determinants of water quality, and possibilities and limitations of building sustainable development allowing for safe drinking water on reserve. To understand what processes consistently intervene in the way of sustainability of safe water in Indigenous communities, regulatory frameworks are examined, funding mechanisms are reviewed, and Aboriginal governance is discussed along with the direction that policy should take.
