Indigenous protected and conserved areas (IPCAs): Canada's new path forward for biological and cultural conservation and Indigenous well-being
Abstract
Wilderness and national parks play a fundamental role in defining Canadian identity, yet Indigenous Peoples have historically been excluded from conservation decisions, resulting in systematic dispossession and oppression. In this article, we collaborate with Dene Tha'First Nation to discuss the recent paradigm shift towards Indigenous-led conservation and propose guiding principles to advance and assert the critical role of Indigenous Peoples in conservation. We begin with a brief history of Indigenous Peoples in conservation, followed by the concept of Indigenous protected and conserved areas (IPCAs). Our analyses show that IPCAs have gained momentum recently, driven by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Canada's commitment to global conservation goals. With one of the largest landmasses and Indigenous populations in the world, IPCAs in Canada have the potential to make immense contributions to environmental and cultural conservation rooted in an intrinsic relationship to the land. Despite this biocultural diversity, as of 2022, less than 1% of Canada's landmass is declared as Indigenous-led protected areas. However, more than 50 Indigenous communities across the country have currently received funding to establish IPCAs or to undertake early planning and engagement that could position Canada as a global leader in Indigenous-led conservation. As the Government of Canada aims to designate 25% of the territory as protected space by 2025 and 30% by 2030, embedding Indigenous rights, knowledge, and values in the national conservation strategy will be essential to simultaneously honoring the commitments to reconciliation and meeting the ambitious targets stipulated in the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
1. Introduction
Worldwide, there is mounting recognition of the significant role Indigenous-led conservation can play in the protection of nature and the climate. On December 2022, the United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP15) ended in Montreal, Canada, with a landmark agreement, the “Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF) to guide global action on nature through to 2030 (Convention on Biological Diversity 2023). The GBF includes 23 action-oriented global targets to halt and reverse nature loss and recognizes the need to safeguard the rights of Indigenous Peoples as well as their contributions as stewards of nature (Supplement 1). Over 1.6 billion people worldwide rely on forests for their livelihoods, and Indigenous Peoples are the custodians of at least 36% of the world's large, intact forests (Garnett et al. 2018). Evidence shows that when local people are empowered to manage forests they are better protected and managed with positive impacts on global biodiversity and socio-economic benefits for the communities (Dawson et al. 2021; FAO 2022).
The Government of Canada made ambitious announcements at the COP15, committing US$600 million to support Indigenous-led conservation by Indigenous Peoples across the country with the goal of expanding protected areas by 1 million km2 over the next seven years (Government of Canada 2022a, 2022b). With 9% of the world's forests and 30% of the world's boreal forest, Canadian forest landscapes are a global natural and cultural legacy (Wells et al. 2013). As of 2022, more than 1.8 million people in Canada, almost 5% of the total population, identify as Aboriginal people, and almost 70% of them live in or near forested lands (Statistics Canada 2023). There are also more than 50 languages spoken by different Indigenous groups whose cultures and economies are strongly interconnected with the land (Norris 2006). Indigenous Peoples have been part of the land for millennia, and this relationship is critical for their health, livelihood, and well-being. Land means different things to non-Indigenous and Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Peoples view health as a multidimensional balance of emotional, mental, spiritual, and physical health, all of which are interconnected with the relationship to the land. Yet, Indigenous Peoples have been historically excluded from conservation decisions, and their traditional ecological knowledge and holistic view of the land are still not incorporated into land use decision-making (Sandlos 2014).
In Canada, the focal points of environment and conservation have been changing over the last two decades, with greater recognition and commitments to reconciliation and respect for Indigenous rights most recently exemplified through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), as well as in efforts to meet international biodiversity conservation targets (Convention on Biological Diversity 2023; Stevens 2010; Zurba et al. 2019). In addition, Canada is committed to addressing climate change and recognizes that conserving, protecting, and restoring nature are the best nature-based solutions to mitigate its impacts, and that collaboration with Indigenous Peoples is essential in this endeavour (Townsend et al. 2020). As the Government of Canada aims to designate 25% of the territory as protected space by 2025 and 30% by 2030 (Government of Canada 2022a), expectations are high, and challenges remain as to how to build new models of conservation that integrate Indigenous consent and leadership in this global effort.
With the need to move away from traditional conservation approaches, the concepts of Indigenous protected and conserved areas (IPCAs) and Indigenous and community conserved areas have emerged recently in Canada and around the world (Herrmann et al. 2012; Corrigan and Hay-Edie 2013; Stevens 2014; Stevens et al. 2016; Etchart 2017). As a result, federal, provincial, and territorial governments have initiated close collaboration with Indigenous governments to develop some forms of co-management to reclaim lost access, traditional land use, and values of existing protected areas, as well as to create new protected and conserved areas that more directly benefit Indigenous individuals and communities (Keenleyside et al. 2012; Zurba et al. 2019). Despite the progress and the beginning of a mutual understanding, a truly decolonized approach is still a long way away because many efforts remain to be made to develop an inclusive decision-making process and holistic conservation policies that respect the rights and titles of Indigenous Peoples (Artelle et al. 2021; Mullen 2022).
This paper aims to discuss the recent paradigm shift towards Indigenous-led conservation and guiding principles to acknowledge and advance the crucial role of Indigenous Peoples in new conservation programs and policies. The principles presented here are driven by an ongoing collaboration between Dene Tha’ First Nation, represented by co-authors Munson Matt and Didzena Fred of the Dene Tha’ First Nation Land Department, the Canadian Forest Service, and the University of Alberta in the broader context of the Ărramăt project. The Ărramăt project led by the University of Alberta aims to build the capacity of Indigenous organizations to document, curate, share, and use their knowledge about the interconnections between biodiversity conservation and health and well-being. The purpose of this collaboration is multifaceted and echoes the Two-Eyed Seeing approach (Bartlett et al. 2012), which combines the strengths of Indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing with the Western scientific approach to advance Indigenous-led conservation initiatives. Accordingly, we propose an opinion-style paper with the guidance of subject matter experts' advice from academia and the government, as well as Indigenous leaders having firsthand experience in conservation within their own communities and as part of their curriculum. First, we provide a brief history of Indigenous Peoples in conservation, followed by an overview of the origins, role, and distribution of Indigenous-led conservation efforts. Next, we present the concept of IPCAs in Canada and analyze their opportunities, gaps, and challenges. To conclude and find a path toward meaningful and inclusive conservation efforts in Canada, we suggest priority actions and guiding principles to implement community- and Indigenous-led conservation initiatives. Since most Indigenous territories in Canada are located inland, the study is oriented towards terrestrial conservation areas rather than maritime or coastal areas. However, we believe that the challenges and solutions discussed here could be beneficial to all types of Indigenous-led conservation efforts, regardless of their geographic location.
2. Methodology and data
This article aims to follow in the footsteps of previous collaborative work to decolonize conservation models by providing a combination of Western science and Indigenous perspectives (Moore 2020; Mulrennan and Bussières 2020; Artelle et al. 2021; M' sit No'kmaq et al. 2021; Youdelis et al. 2021). This paper stems from the work of Dene Tha' First Nation, who are currently developing an IPCA in the region of Bistcho Lake located in Treaty 8 in northern Alberta, “Creating an Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area at Bistcho Lake” (Dene Tha’ First Nation 2021). The protection and long-term management of the Bistcho Lake region aim to create social and ecological resilience while providing a refuge for future generations of people and wildlife. Founded by the Guardians Program, the project also aims to combine existing environmental monitoring programs with Indigenous-led resource management using traditional knowledge and western science together.
Our study benefits from thoughtful lessons and knowledge from Danika Littlechild. Danika is an Indigenous scholar from Neyaskweyahk, Ermineskin Cree Nation in Maskwacis, Treaty No. 6 territory (Alberta). Prior to joining the Department of Law and Legal Studies at Carleton University, Danika practised law in Canada for almost two decades, advising Indigenous Peoples across Canada and internationally in the areas of conservation, environment, health, and governance. Danika was the co-chair of the Indigenous Circle of Experts under the Pathway to Canada Target 1, intended to contribute to the realization of Canada's commitments under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Danika is one of the principal investigators of the Ărramăt project, along with Brenda Parlee.
The Indigenous perspective on the paper is also enriched by the collaboration of Sharlene Alook and Alexandra Thomson. Sharlene is from Kisipikamahk, Bigstone Cree Nation, Treaty No. 8 territory (Alberta), and a master's student in Indigenous-led conservation and sustainability at the University of Alberta. Her work focuses on Indigenous knowledge, place names and mapping for the Bigstone Cree Nation. Alexandra is a Nakoda woman from Cega'kin (Carry the Kettle) First Nation, Treaty No. 4 territory (Alberta). Alexandra is currently the director of the Youth Programs for Indigenous Clean Energy Network, and she strives to apply her education in combination with Indigenous ways of knowing to solve issues that impact Indigenous communities as they relate to conservation, energy, infrastructure, sustainability, and socioeconomics.
National and international data on protected areas were gathered from peer-reviewed papers and public websites. For the international dataset, we used the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA; ProtectedPlanet 2022), which is the most up-to-date and complete source of data on protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs), updated monthly with submissions from governments, non-governmental organizations, landowners, and communities. For Canada, we used the Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database, which contains the most up-to-date spatial and attribute data on marine and terrestrial protected areas and OECMs in Canada (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2022). It is compiled and managed by Environment and Climate Change Canada, in collaboration with federal, provincial, and territorial jurisdictions.
3. A brief history of conservation and Indigenous Peoples: from colonization to collaboration
The conservation movement, in Canada and globally, has been shaped by settler colonialism (Claperton 2013). Protected areas, including parks and preserves, have been the most important tool of nature conservation since the late 19th century (Höhler et al. 2012). In 1872, Yellowstone National Park, in the United States, was the first area to be designated a national park anywhere in the world. Since then, the idea of “confining nature to a park” has been transferred to a wide and diverse range of political, social, and ecological settings (Höhler et al. 2012). Protected areas have conventionally been centered on the protection of the natural environment and the privilege of non-Indigenous Peoples to access the aesthetic benefits of nature as well as the recreational opportunities of engaging with untouched “Nature” promised by the concept of wilderness (Colchester 2004; Heichler and Baumeister 2021). The American model of nature conservation based on Indigenous exclusion and land expropriation was then rapidly exported to many parts of the planet (Colchester 2004; Claperton 2013; Dominguez and Luoma 2020). The history of Banff National Park, created in 1885 as the first National Park in Canada, and its current position as a world-tourism destination, are symbolic of this history of exclusion and discrimination (Binnema and Niemi 2006; Parks Canada 2022; Fig. 1).
Fig. 1.
This separation of Indigenous Peoples from their natural environments, as well as the erasure of Indigenous cultures and ways of living adapted to these places and replaced by western culture (e.g., renaming of mountains and rivers after colonial figures), was a crucial component of colonization (Adams and Mulligan 2012; Gray and Rück 2019). At the same time conservation efforts were made, treaties were violated, discrimination and racism increased, and cultural assimilation was common practice (Claperton 2013). Canada's conservation system, as a result, typically only recognizes federal, provincial, and territorially legislated protected areas, and Indigenous contributions and leadership have largely gone unacknowledged (Sandlos 2014) .
Over the past 20 years, however, the process of decolonization in the establishment and management of protected and conserved areas has begun to emerge (Stevens 2014; Moore 2020). Greater efforts to promote Indigenous participation in conservation planning and decision-making began in the 2000s at the same time as Aichi targets were being developed to promote biodiversity conservation and increase protected areas globally (Convention on Biological Diversity 2020a). For example, Aichi Target 1 states: “by 2020, at the latest, people are aware of the values of biodiversity and the steps they can take to conserve and use it sustainably” and Target 11 states that “by 2020, at least 17% of terrestrial areas and inland water, and 10% of coastal and marine areas…” would be protected. Although Target 11 of the Aichi Targets formally initiated the work on IPCAs in Canada, there are other Targets that support this work (Zurba et al. 2019; Convention on Biological Diversity 2020a, 2020b). For example, Targets 14 and 18 state that supporting ecosystems includes social outcomes that are part of the ecosystem, such as health and well-being, and accounting for the needs of Indigenous knowledge and leadership in conservation. Convention on Biological Diversity 2020a). Despite ongoing conservation efforts, none of the Aichi Targets have been fully achieved in Canada and around the world, for a variety of reasons, including unavailability of data, insufficient funding, and misguided governance and policies (Xu et al. 2021). In Canada, the methodology to map and identify key areas providing ecosystem services to inform conservation planning at the national scale was lacking until very recently (Mitchell et al. 2021). Furthermore, implementing these goals in collaboration with Indigenous Peoples has been a lengthy and challenging process given the lack of an appropriate framework governing the identification and planning of protected areas as well as the lack of formal recognition of Indigenous stewardship for conservation in Canadian policy (Coristine et al. 2018; Convention on Biological Diversity 2020b).
4. The emergence of IPCAs: concept, opportunities, and challenges
Since 2007, the UNDRIP (Article 29) states that “Indigenous Peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources. States shall establish and implement assistance programmes for Indigenous Peoples for such conservation and protection, without discrimination” (United Nations 2008). This shift from prior approaches that ignored Indigenous Peoples was therefore a major step in awaking Indigenous leadership to advance Indigenous-led conservation, especially in Canada (Marshall No'kmaq et al. 2021).
In Canada, Indigenous-led conservation has gained momentum recently, driven by the growing leadership of Indigenous communities and Indigenous scholars, the TRC, and Canada's commitment to the CBD Biodiversity Goals. In 2017, the Indigenous Circle of Experts (ICE) for The Pathway to Target 1 was established in four regions across Canada and included contributions from Indigenous government representatives and Elders and from a range of land use practitioners (Indigenous Circle of Experts 2018). The ICE was created to define and promote IPCAs in an effort to recognize Indigenous knowledge systems as a binding framework in which to make conservation decisions for land and water (Fig.2). IPCAs are defined as “lands and waters where Indigenous governments have the primary role in protecting and conserving ecosystems through Indigenous laws, governance and knowledge systems" (Indigenous Circle of Experts 2018). IPCAs also aim to fill multiple gaps that are parallel to conservation goals such as respect and restoration of Indigenous language and the practice of ceremony for cultural purposes; the need to recognize and address decolonization as well as the wrongs of the past and present in terms of parks management and protected areas (Moola and Roth 2019; Moore 2020); recognize the interrelationships between the people, water, and land; and create collaboration, learning, and sharing across the Indigenous and Western cultures (Fig. 2; Tran et al. 2020).
Fig. 2.
IPCAs are also intended to elevate conservation from an Indigenous Peoples’ perspective and to re-establish Indigenous systems and knowledge that were historically not respected and sometimes criminalized (Fig. 2; Indigenous Circle of Experts 2018). As a result, IPCAs can also serve as an opportunity for reconciliation between Indigenous and settler or non-Indigenous Peoples. Reconciliation, as defined by the TRC, is “an ongoing process of establishing and maintaining respectful relationships” and is a critical part of repairing trust that revitalizes Indigenous culture, law, and legal traditions and results in “demonstrated real societal change” for Indigenous peoples (Government of Canada 2015). Indigenous voices are diverse, and Nations can choose how they define reconciliation, but typically it involves recognizing what has not worked in the past and remediating the past between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples, based on principals of inclusiveness, resurgence, and self-determination (Gaudry and Lorenz 2018; Artelle et al. 2019). The principle of resurgence is central to the advancement of IPCAs, as it generally refers to Indigenous Peoples re-establishing, restoring, and advocating their knowledge, teachings, languages, practices, histories, and/or other aspects of their way of life and their culture by themselves and for themselves, without the approval or supervision of Western culture or authorities (Simpson 2011; Artelle et al. 2019). Indigenous Peoples, however, are not homogenous, and there is not a “pan-Indigenous” or one-size-fits-all approach to conservation; thus, self-determination needs to respect the full diversity of Indigenous Peoples knowledge and legal traditions (Schmidt and Peterson 2009).
The opportunities for Indigenous-led conservation are significant globally. According to Garnett et al. (2018), Indigenous Peoples have tenure rights or are managing more than 38 million km2 of land located in 87 different countries. This represents more than 25% of the world's land mass and intersects with approximately 40% of all intact landscapes and terrestrial protected areas. Approximately 20% of the Indigenous lands are within protected areas, and these Indigenous lands represent a higher proportion of protected land than other protected land types. Also, 67% of Indigenous lands are classified as natural landscapes compared with 44% of other lands. With a large overlap of Indigenous and protected lands worldwide, Indigenous Peoples can play an essential role in meeting global conservation goals (Garnett et al. 2018) .
With one of the largest landmasses and a disproportionate coverage of intact ecosystems, Canada can make a significant contribution to biodiversity commitments (Coristine et al. 2018), as remaining intact areas play an increasingly important role against the effects of climate change and human-made landscape degradation (Watson et al. 2018). In Canada, the potential of Indigenous conservation is particularly important in the North, where state-recognized Indigenous lands overlap largely with intact forest and intact ecological areas, as described in Artelle et al. (2019). Many Indigenous-led conservation projects are now being developed in the south, adjacent to or overlapping with resource extraction areas, like the Bistcho Lake project developed by Dene Tha' First Nation in Northern Alberta. Yet, Canada is lagging behind when compared to other countries (Fig. 3). For example, relative to other larger countries such as the United States (13%), Australia (20.4%), and Brazil (30.3%), Canada has the smallest percentage of terrestrial protected areas (11.9%) of its total land area as reported to the WDPA. Also, Canada is significantly lagging behind Australia and Brazil in terms of the percentage of Indigenous-led protected land relative to the total land area protected. Brazil has reported 42.82% and Australia has reported 47.23%, while Canada has reported less than 0.48% and the United States has reported 0.03% (Fig. 3; Supplement 2).
Fig. 3.
Although protected areas are relatively well distributed amongst the provinces and territories, current IPCAs are exclusively located in the province of British Columbia (BC) and the Northwest Territories (NT) (Fig. 4). Since 2018, three terrestrial IPCAs have been formally established and recognized under the Protected Area Act, all located in the Northwest Territories, and include: Saoyú-ʔehdacho, Thaidene Nëné, and Ts'udé Nilįné Tueyata for a total of 24,715 km2 (Government of the Northwest Territories 2022). Other examples of IPCAs include Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Park and other Indigenous cultural and conservation landscapes in British Columbia. For international reporting, Canada has three Indigenous-governed areas that have been formally reported to the WDPA for the Aichi Target 1. As of May 2022, the three Indigenous-governed areas reported are all terrestrial and include the Wehexlaxodıale (976.8 km2) in the Northwest Territories, the Ni'iinlii Njik (140.94 km2) and the Van Tat K'atr'anahtii (3947.03 km2), both located in Yukon, for a total of 5064.77 km2 (Supplement 2). The discrepancies between national and international reporting suggest that current IPCAs are incorrectly reported. Indeed, reporting the three IPCAs in the Northwest Territories alone will bring the total of Indigenous-led protected areas to 2% of the total of terrestrial protected areas in Canada. Note that this article only reports terrestrial protected areas and therefore does not consider maritime protected areas such as Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve in British Columbia, which represents a success story (still imperfect) of co-management and Indigenous-led conservation initiatives in Canada (Thomlinson and Crouch 2012).
Fig. 4.
IPCAs still face many challenges, mainly due to the lack of a national legal framework and inconsistencies in designation, reporting, and monitoring. For example, there are no mandatory reporting requirements for Indigenous conservation initiatives, and as such, each country designates and reports based on its own understanding, which results in inconsistent reporting (Lemieux et al. 2019). Therefore, IPCAs are often not identified and reported as such but rather included among the OECMs, which is the designation for areas that are achieving effective in situ conservation of biodiversity outside of protected areas. In Canada, the federal, provincial, and territorial governments self-report on their conservation progress to the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas (CCEA), where the information is then entered into the CARTS database (MacKinnon et al. 2015). For example, some provinces and territories report on private land conservation, while others do not, and some report on Indigenous-led conservation, whereas some jurisdictions do not distinguish between Indigenous and non-Indigenous (Zurba et al. 2019). To date, the jurisdictions reporting to CCEA are not audited for consistency, and standardization is recommended for reporting bodies (MacKinnon et al. 2015; Lemieux et al. 2019). Some of the Indigenous communities that would report on conserved areas or IPCAs lack resources and/or capacity to carry out the required reporting, and thus support should be provided to not only meet the reporting requirements but also to support self-reporting for self-determination reasons for Indigenous Peoples (Singleton 2009; Zurba et al. 2019). Also, there could be some issues in terms of how Indigenous Peoples report on conservation initiatives that utilize traditional knowledge, as the western and Indigenous reporting approaches can differ significantly (Zurba et al. 2019).
This variation in national and global reporting could be attributed to a lack of certainty in legal land ownership for Indigenous People across Canadian provinces and territories (Zurba et al. 2019). For example, in most of Canada, there are historic treaties with Indigenous Peoples; however, in most areas of British Columbia, there are no undersigned treaties (Jones et al. 2010). Likewise, in the Arctic, modern land claim agreements may encourage more Indigenous-led land-use planning and conservation activities (Lloyd-Smith 2017). Areas with historic treaties may have fewer incentives to enter into collaborative agreements with the provincial or federal government as it may conflict with Ministerial authorities (Jones et al. 2010; Zurba et al. 2019). However, treaties, when enacted, were intended to be living documents that would evolve over time and support Indigenous Peoples in governing their traditional territories according to cultural values (Poezler and Coates 2015). The Northwest Territories have created new legislation that supports more collaboration and cooperation for wildlife management at the territorial, regional, and local levels (Government of Northwest Territories 2022). The Canadian Government may also create incentives to contain Indigenous-led conservation areas within the boundaries of current Indigenous land claims and treaties, as it may be more problematic to share or devolve power in other new land areas (Wilson et al. 2012; Zurba et al. 2019). However, flexibility for agreements should be made between Indigenous nations, as there may be openness to collaborative conservation efforts and shared leadership.
5. Guiding principles to support community and Indigenous-led conservation efforts
Canada has committed to protecting 25% of its land and freshwater by 2025, on the way to 30% by 2030, to support conservation, climate change mitigation, and human well-being. Meeting this ambitious goal would mean roughly doubling Canada's protected areas and will require significant investment for increased Indigenous-led conservation, including new and innovative conservation approaches and policies (Mitchell et al. 2021; Beazley and Olive 2021). In 2021, the government of Canada announced up to $100 million over five years in nature conservation projects led by Indigenous communities across the country via the Guardians Pilot program (Government of Canada 2021), promising new pathways for conservation action. As of 2022, more than 50 Indigenous communities across the country have received funding under the Guardians program to either establish IPCAs or undertake early planning and engagement work that could result in additional IPCAs (Fig. 5; Supplement 3). Although this program aims to provide Indigenous Peoples with greater capacity to exercise responsibility and leadership over their land, we suggest guiding principles to ensure that IPCAs are implemented following Indigenous values and ways of life and deliver “demonstrated real societal change” as embedded in the TRC (Table 1). While these recommendations are based on the experience of Dene Tha’ First Nation with the Bistcho Lake project, and the authors of the article, we recognize that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to developing and implementing an IPCA, as every Indigenous culture and vision for protecting the land is different.
Fig. 5.
Table 1.
| Guiding principles Okiskinohtahiwewina tapwewina  | Description Kiskinowahekiwin  |
|---|---|
| The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) | Secure our right to free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) as part of a continuous cycle of engagement for activities taking place on or affecting our customary lands. Based on the UNDRIP, Indigenous Peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources. States shall establish and implement assistance programmes for Indigenous Peoples for such conservation and protection, without discrimination |
| kanakatêtamak kikwayaskino ohci kikîskihtamowina, pâmayesih tamowina kipakiteyimowina mâcika nayistaw kahki kamâmawôpiwina ohci isîhcikêwina kahispayikwaw ahpô kamayitôtamihk kitaskiynaw. Nêhiyawak ayiyawak tipitôtamowin kamâwacihcikêwin mîna kanâkateyimiwin ohci okâwîmâwaskiy ekwa ka nihtâ osihcikehk ispîhcipîsâkwahk ohtaskiywaw ekwa isihcikewina. Kihci-okimânâhkwak kamiyopicikewinitwaw mîna nîsôhkamâkêwin isihecikewina ohci Nêhiyawak kamâwacihcikêwinîtwaw mîna kanâkateycikîtwaw, namoya ka papisiskeyehtimihtwaw. | |
 | |
| Adaptive and holistic management | The priorities of the adaptive management framework will be identified through knowledge co-production. Epistemologies and methods from both Traditional Knowledge and Western science will be used in adaptive management planning and decision-making |
| wâhki nakayâskamowin ekwa ayâtisiwin mawacihcikwin | Nîkâneyihtak ohci wâhki nakayâskamowin mawacihcikwin isîhcikêwina kawîkiskeyihtamohiwewina mâmawô nisitohtamowina kahosihcikatew. Kiskeyihtamôna mîna tôtamowina ohci nânap nêhiyaw kiskeyitamowina ekwa pahkisimôtâhk kiskeyitamowina kahâpatana wâhki nakayâskamowin mawacihcikwin oyeyihcikewinihk ekwa nawasonikewinihk. |
 |  |
| The precautionary principle | The lack of certainty regarding a potential threat to the environment should not be used as a reason for not taking action to avoid or mitigate that threat. Application of this principle in situations of uncertainty promotes action to avert the risk of serious or irreversible harm to the environment |
| Ka asweyihtamihk tapwewin | ka nohtepayihk kêhcinâhowin tâpiskôc ahpô kekway kakwespaneyihtâkosiwin kitaskiynaw moya kahki apachihtak tanehki kîkway ka ispayik ohci mwât kîkway katohtamohk macîkwa eki ahpô kanîkanamak nîma kekway kakwespaneyihtâkosiwin. Âpicitak ôma tapwewin nêta ika kakêhcinâhowin nekâminam tôtamowin mêskwacipayin anima kiya kakîmêskwacipiyîk mayitôtâkewin ki okâwîmâwaskiy. |
 |  |
| Accountability and transparency | Responsibilities are clear, deadlines are established and achieved in a timely manner, and progress is tracked and reported to the public |
| mamisîtotâkewin ekwa ka kwayaskwesichikewnihk | Nâkateyimowewina nisitohcikatewa, atoskewina kesihtak ispi ka ekisipipayikwa ekwa nâkateyihcikatewa tôtamowina ekwa ka wehtamewak ayisiyinowak. |
 |  |
| Inclusivity and Participation | Public participation and community engagement is encouraged and facilitated. Local knowledge and expertise is mobilized |
| Kakimawewin ekwa wîcihiwewin | Kahkiyaw awiyak kawîcihitawaw ekwa mâmawapihk isîhkimiwêwin ekwa ka miyopayik atoskewina. Iyinîsiwin ekwa kiskeyitamowin ka waskawêpayek. |
 |  |
| Sustainable use | Resource development and recreational use of the area must support the ecological integrity of the area and traditional and cultural use locations |
| Neyistaw ka wîhapacitak kîkwaya | Isihcikewina ekwa kîkway ka môcikihtâwakehk âpacitak iko askiy kahki nâtamâkêwin ohci okâwîmâwaskiy kwayaskwâtisiwin ayesawih eta ka tepapekinikatek ekwa nehiyawatisow ka âpacitak anitah misiweyita askiyihk. |
 |  |
| Appropriate research and monitoring | Community-based monitoring will identify ecological indicators to monitor ecosystem processes and health. Based on monitoring needs and identified ecological issues, research programs will be implemented to collect data necessary to support management objectives. Management strategies will be developed to assist in the protection of known endangered, threatened, or otherwise significant species |
| Kwayask tapwewina ka miskamihk atoskwina ekwa askiy kanawapacikanewin: | Kitaskinaw kanawapackikanewin ka kiskeyimowewin askiy tipahikatewina ka kanawapacikatek oskihtêpak nahascikewin ekwa otamahcihowin. Kanawapacikanewin ka kwetamâwin ekwa oskihtêpak kohcispayik, tapwewina ka miskamihk atoskwina ka akwamohcikewitak ohci ka mâwachihcikew kikîskihtamowina ka sihtoska mawacihcikewin tôtamôna. Mawacihcikewin oyeyihcikewin osîschikatew kanôsôkamakew ohci kanâkateycikîtak kiskitamôna pisiskiwak ka ati namatîtwaw ekwa kakwespaneyihtâkosiwin tahtowi micînipahitwaw. |
 |  |
Note: We are very grateful to Sharlene Alook for the translation from English to Cree.
“Indigenous culture and way of life vary because the land varies. Therefore, Indigenous perspectives will vary according to their traditional landscape. It is foreign to Indigenous views to believe that an authority existing outside of this intrinsic relationship is best positioned to make decisions that impact land” (AT)
5.1. Honoring commitments to reconciliation and land rights
The development of IPCAs represents a significant contribution to the TRC however new models of conservation are needed to move away from the colonial approaches that persist today (Littlechild et al. 2021; Artelle et al. 2019). Despite new funding opportunities, including the one announced at COP15, there is still no legal framework in Canada that explicitly recognizes IPCAs as a form of protected area. This lack of legal recognition, combined with the continued assumption of Crown authority over land, makes the creation and operation of IPCAs complex. There are continuing challenges around Indigenous Peoples asserting their rights to some land, such as not being recognized appropriately or supported by all levels of government. For example, some Tribal Parks are situated on land where the land titles are contentious with the federal or provincial governments (Wheeler 2019). Tribal Parks are also sometimes created where Indigenous Peoples have not ceded the rights and responsibilities to manage specific pieces of land through a treaty (Indigenous Circle of Experts 2018). The Government of Canada and provincial governments do not officially recognize Tribal Parks under Target 1; however, they could be considered an effective means to protect land. If a Tribal Park were approved in the future as an IPCA, the current leasers of Tribal Parks would need to make that determination and decide if they would pursue that recognition (Zurba et al. 2019). Therefore, a national conservation strategy including IPCAs should respect the intent and spirit of modern land claim agreements, treaties, other constructive agreements, and any intentional agreements, especially UNDRIP (Table 1). In 2021, the Government of Canada passed The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (formerly Bill C-15), providing a legal framework to guide environmental and conservation policy. The Act sets an obligation to uphold Indigenous rights and well-being (including Treaty and inherent rights) with “early and regular engagement with Indigenous Peoples based on recognition of Indigenous rights and interests from the start” and states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources” (Table 1). Although Indigenous Peoples leadership is critical to the success of nature-based solutions including conservation, restoration, and climate change mitigation, barriers still exist to recognizing Indigenous land rights and Indigenous worldviews of land as systems of reciprocal relations (Townsend et al. 2020; Reed et al. 2022). International and domestic rights frameworks such as the right to consultation, which entitles affected communities to enter into dialogue with governments or companies, and the right to free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), which entitles Indigenous communities to give or withhold their consent to proposed developments on their land, are key to ensure a participation in decision-making processes that directly affect their land and livelihoods (Table 1). However, they have often failed to give a proper say to Indigenous Peoples (Townsend and Townsend 2020). Without the required recognition of Indigenous land rights and jurisdiction, conservation actions, and nature-based solutions, they not only risk perpetuating a form of colonialism that perpetuates the exclusion of Indigenous Peoples in the decision-making process (Domínguez and Luoma 2020), but also miss their ultimate mission, which is to reconnect people with the land. Therefore, meaningful engagement with Indigenous Peoples must recognize and honor their right to self-determination as the foundation of the relationship, and in which the decision-making process is based on government-to-government discussions (Mitchell et al. 2019).
5.2. Holistic approaches in conservation practices, policy, and governance
Conservation models require transformative changes and new policies to ensure that protected areas are better integrated with Indigenous needs and values (Beazley and Olive 2021). According to Littlechild et al. (2021), “transformational changes” must come first from the different levels of education to “indigenize” teaching and erase colonialism from mainstream thinking. Because IPCAs are in their infancy, there is a unique opportunity to use community and holistic approaches to develop conservation practices and policies adapted to Indigenous values and goals (Raymond et al. 2010; Beazley and Olive 2021). The Indigenous conservation approach is not limited to holding rights to the land but also values the reciprocal connection with the land and the people as a central element of how Indigenous governance, language, culture, and knowledge are connected to the land (Zurba et al. 2016; Coulthard and Simpson 2016; Diver et al. 2019).
“Indigenous Peoples view the land as a living being and a life giver, and thus have a relationship to the land that is rooted in respect, kinship, and reciprocity” (AT)
Holistic approaches and reciprocity are, therefore, fundamental concepts to reach the multiple benefits of IPCAs (ecological, socio-economic, and cultural) but also when integrating conservation actions into community development. Community development and land-use management go beyond conservation needs and include other priorities such as energy planning, health, roads and infrastructure planning, food and water resource management, as well as climate change mitigation strategies including fire management (Reed et al. 2021; Hoffman et al. 2022). Moreover, climate change and rapid land use changes result in complex interactions and uncertainties that can compromise conservation actions. Holistic approaches and Indigenous knowledge are therefore central to developing adaptive management practices and climate-informed guidance to improve the multiple values of conservation (Etchart 2017). In fact, Indigenous-based holistic approach to conservation and climate change mitigation can position Indigenous Peoples as key agents of environmental management rather than victims of the impacts of climate change and land use change.
A holistic approach is also key to improving IPCA governance (Artelle et al. 2019). Indigenous systems and knowledge are diverse across landscapes, resulting in governance models unique to each Indigenous culture and community based on geographical area and land-based traditions (Von der Porten 2012). Indigenous Peoples may decide to collaborate with other provincial, federal, or territorial governments, or establish Nation-to-Nation agreements, or, in some cases, an IPCA may be exclusively owned by an Indigenous Nation, like Dasiqox Tribal Park designated and managed by the Tsilhqot'in National Government. Thus, different co-management and joint authority options can be considered in the governance of an IPCA or in determining whether a protected area should be eligible for an IPCA. Most importantly, the role and responsibilities of each party should be clarified from the outset of the project with long-term commitments.
5.3. Linking conservation with indigenous well-being and socio-economic development
Indigenous health, livelihoods, and well-being are intrinsically linked to the health of Nature (Hillary 1993), and therefore Indigenous Peoples recognize “that honoring, caring, and nurturing Mother Earth is critical to create economic benefits both profitable and sustainable for future generations” (Assembly of First Nations 2022). Conservation actions, including avoiding, reducing, and reversing land degradation, are inscribed into many international agreements, such as Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs), and can promote new pathways to advance Indigenous socio-economic development and well-being (Sangha et al. 2015; FAO 2022; Mansuy et al. 2022). IPCAs can enable the development of a conservation-based economy to complement the traditional economy, which together can support sustainable regional economies and provide an opportunity to diversify revenue sources and retain Indigenous individuals within their communities. A conservation economy sustains itself on “principled income” earned from activities that conserve and restore based on a long-term relationship with local lands and resources rather than deplete natural capital (Daily and Ellison 2012). For example, Dene Tha’ First Nation has a particular interest in ecological restoration of man-made disturbances within and surrounding their lands because they want to reduce the impacts of ecosystem degradation and preserve cultural keystone plant and animal species such as caribou, moose, salmon, and beaver that are culturally important as well as for food and water security purposes (Dene Tha’ First Nation 2021). A local economy based on conservation and protection can therefore support the restoration of the natural and social capital of the land (cultural, spiritual, and historical values, including ancestral know-how, language, and archeological sites) which can contribute directly to Indigenous well-being (Youdelis et al. 2021; Mansuy et al. 2020). Another example from Dene Tha’ First Nation is the development of recreation and eco-tourism activities as part of their conservation strategy to support a healthy economy while enabling Indigenous communities to reclaim their role as stewards of the land. While Indigenous tourism growth has outpaced overall Canadian tourism growth (Fiser and Hermus 2019), combining Indigenous eco-tourism with conservation can contribute to inform a model of Indigenous tourism practices and values (Holmes et al. 2016).
5.4. Building capacity, knowledge, and expertise for the present and the future
Developing an IPCA is complex and requires extensive human and financial resources given the multiple phases required (from funding and consultation to implementation and monitoring), the different governance structures, and the different priorities and capacities of the communities. As the Government of Canada aims to invest further in Indigenous-led conservation (Government of Canada 2022a, 2022b), it is important to ensure long-term funding to build local expertise and capacity throughout the life cycle of the IPCA, from the design phase to the implementation and monitoring phases. Also, some Indigenous communities may have geographical and cultural connections to the same pieces of land, and thus care needs to be taken to ensure that multiple Indigenous governments have the opportunity to reconcile land management and uses between Nations. Therefore, building capacity, co-learning, and networking between communities and other stakeholders or nongovernmental organizations is critical to facilitating the development and implementation of IPCAs. For example, in the case of the Bistcho Lake project, Dene Tha’ First Nation acknowledges that the collaboration with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) was fundamental in developing criteria, datasets, and tools to describe traditional knowledge of the land (Fig. 6).
The role of Indigenous-led coordinating bodies such as the Indigenous Circle of Experts, Indigenous Leadership Initiative or Conservation Through Reconciliation Partnership is key to catalyzing current and future IPCAs alongside federal, provincial, and territorial partners. These organizations are helpful in securing greater recognition and long-term funding for IPCAs and mobilizing resources, like planning and development tools and best practices, that can be shared across the country to create consistency and support the work of IPCAs. Also, regional and local Indigenous-led bodies could be created to continue the work of ICE into the future and enhance local knowledge and participation; conduct a thorough review of national IPCA initiatives; involve youth leaders; and engage with other local partners to ensure the success of IPCAs. At the community level, an asset-based community development approach can be of particular interest to evaluate and mobilize existing assets and resources within the community to support conservation activities (Stoltenberg Bruursema 2015). Also, the concept of “sister” communities has already been demonstrated in the bioenergy sector as an effective approach to learning from more experienced communities and sharing knowledge (including challenges and success stories) and expertise to avoid bottlenecks and find solutions (Buss et al. 2021). Also, aligning conservation with cultural revitalization and education is key to empowering Indigenous-led conservation (Littlechild et al. 2021), as many communities and youth are still grappling with cultural disconnect. Intergenerational community engagement is also needed as a key factor in ensuring capacity building and knowledge sharing across generations in environmental stewardship (White et al. 2017). IPCAs therefore provide an opportunity for Indigenous Nations to pass on their knowledge and laws to present and future generations (Youdelis et al. 2021).
On the other hand, Western conservationists and ecologists have yet to learn how to collaborate and work effectively with Indigenous knowledge holders (Adams et al. 2014; Kadykalo et al. 2021). Therefore, cross-cultural approaches are needed to ensure that Indigenous Peoples are understood and engaged early in the process and can contribute meaningfully, but also that Western researchers are trained to understand and integrate the human and social dimensions of conservation, which are relatively new to the discipline (Bennett et al. 2017). In this sense, reciprocity is also key to bridging Western science and Indigenous knowledge to develop mutual understanding in conservation planning and to improve decision-making and communication with multiple stakeholders, including Elders, youth, land managers, NGOs, and federal and provincial/territorial authorities (Fig. 6). Indeed, the creation of synergies and bridges between different knowledge systems is essential not only to contribute to the multiple objectives of IPCAs but also to develop adaptive and participatory governance (Tengö et al. 2014).
Fig. 6.
Conclusion
Conservation has been closely linked to colonialism historically and is still largely so today (Zaitchik 2018). While the opportunities for Indigenous-led conservation in Canada and around the world are significant, decolonial models of conservation and transformational changes are needed to fully achieve their multiple goals. The evidence highlighted in this paper shows that Canada is responding to the new paradigm with promising actions to fund and increase Indigenous leadership in its conservation agenda. Canada has committed to the most ambitious conservation initiative of conserving 30% of its terrestrial and marine areas by 2030, and they have announced in 2022 at COP15 a commitment to prioritize Indigenous-led conservation to protect nature. Canada has stated that meeting accelerated conservation targets will require all levels of government, including the involvement of Indigenous communities. Indigenous Peoples across Canada have participated in information gathering sessions through the Indigenous Circle of Experts to voice their needs and priorities and have blazed a new path forward in adopting Indigenous-led conservation. This path forward would simultaneously address the need to conserve land on a massive scale in a relatively short period of time and support reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples while at the same time improving ecological and socio-economic outcomes. With more than 50 Indigenous-led initiatives underway across the country, Canada is therefore in a unique position to become a leader in Indigenous-led conservation worldwide, but expanded capacity and resources will be needed to meet the ambitious targets stipulated in the Kunming–Montreal GBF.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by The Office of Energy Research and Development (OERD) and the 2 Billion Trees Program granted to Nicolas Mansuy, the Guardian Program from Environment and Climate Change Canada granted to Dene Tha’ First Nation, and a Canadian Tri-Council grant to the University of Alberta (www.arramatproject.org). The authors are also grateful for the support of Jennifer Buss for figures and manuscript editing.
References
Adams M.S., Carpenter J., Housty J.A., Neasloss D., Paquet P.C., Service C., et al. 2014. Towards increased engagement between academic and indigenous community partners in ecological research. Ecology & Society, 19(3): 5.
Adams W., Mulligan M. 2012. Introduction. In Decolonizing nature strategies for conservation in a post-colonial era. Edited by W. Adams, M. Mulligan. Earthscan Publications, London, UK. pp. 1–15. ISBN 978-1-136-56862-6.
Artelle K.A., Adams M.S., Bryan H.M., Darimont C.T., Housty J., Housty W.G., et al. 2021. Decolonial model of environmental management and conservation: insights from indigenous-led Grizzly Bear stewardship in the Great Bear rainforest. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 24(3): 283–323.
Artelle K.A., Zurba M., Bhattacharyya J., Chan D.E., Brown K., Housty J., Moola F. 2019. Supporting resurgent Indigenous-led governance: a nascent mechanism for just and effective conservation. Biological Conservation, 240(240): 108284. .
Assembly of First Nations 2022. Honoring earth. Available from https://www.afn.ca/honoring-earth/.
Bartlett C., Marshall M., Marshall A. 2012. Two-eyed seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together Indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4): 331–340.
Beazley K.F., Olive A. 2021. Transforming conservation in Canada: shifting policies and paradigms. Facets, 6(1): 1714–1727.
Bennett N.J., Roth R., Klain S.C., Chan K., Christie P., Clark D.A., et al. 2017. Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation, 205(205): 93–108.
Binnema T., Niemi M. 2006. ‘Let the line be drawn now’: wilderness, conservation, and the exclusion of aboriginal people from Banff National Park in Canada. Environmental History, 11(4): 724–750.
Buss J., Mansuy N., Madrali S. 2021. De-risking wood-based bioenergy development in remote and indigenous communities in Canada. Energies, 14(9): 2603.
Clapperton J. 2013. Naturalizing race relations: conservation, colonialism, and spectacle at the Banff Indian days. Canadian Historical Review, 94(3): 349–379.
Colchester M. 2004. Conservation policy and Indigenous peoples. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(3): 145–153.
Convention on Biological Diversity. 2020a. Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 – summary for policy makers. Montréal. Available from gbo-5-spm-en.pdf (cbd.int).
Convention on Biological Diversity. 2020b. Strategic Plan 2011–2020. Aichi Targets. Available from https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/.
Convention on biological diversity. 2023. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). Available from https://www.cbd.int/gbf/.
Coristine L.E., Jacob A.L., Schuster R., Otto S.P., Baron N.E., Bennett NJ., Woodley S. 2018. Informing Canada's commitment to biodiversity conservation: a science-based framework to help guide protected areas designation through target 1 and beyond. Facets, 3(1): 531–562.
Corrigan C., Hay-Edie T. 2013. A toolkit to support conservation by Indigenous peoples and local communities: building capacity and sharing knowledge for Indigenous peoples and Community Conserved Territories and Areas (ICCAS). UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
Coulthard G., Simpson L.B. 2016. Grounded normativity/place-based solidarity. American Quarterly, 68(2): pp. 249–255.
Daily G.C., Ellison K. 2012. The new economy of nature: the quest to make conservation profitable, Island Press. Washington.
Dawson N., Coolsaet B., Sterling E., Loveridge R., Nicole D., Wongbusarakum S., Rosado-May F. 2021. The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. Ecology and Society, 26(3).
Dene Tha’ First Nation. 2021. Reconnection, resiliency, and refuge. The case for an Indigenous protected and conserved area at Bistcho Lake. A draft report prepared by the Dene Tha’ First Nation for use in public discussions. Property of the Dene Tha’ First Nation. May 4th, 2021. Available from https://bistcholake.ca/the-case-for-an-ipca-at-bistcho-lake/.
Diver S., Vaughan M., Baker-Médard M., Lukacs H. 2019. Recognizing “reciprocal relations” to restore community access to land and water. International Journal of the Commons, 13(1): 400.
Domínguez L., Luoma C. 2020. Decolonising conservation policy: how colonial land and conservation ideologies persist and perpetuate indigenous injustices at the expense of the environment. Land, 9(3): 65.
Eichler L., Baumeister D. 2021. Settler colonialism and the US conservation movement: contesting histories, indigenizing futures. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 24(3): 209–234.
Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2022. Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas database. Available from https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/national-wildlife-areas/protected-conserved-areas-database.html.
Etchart L. 2017. The role of Indigenous peoples in combating climate change. Palgrave Communications, 3(1): 1–4.
FAO. 2022. The State of the World's Forests. 2022. Forest pathways for green recovery and building inclusive, resilient and sustainable economies. FAO, Rome.
Fiser A., Hermus G. 2019. Canada's Indigenous tourism sector: insights and economic impacts. The Conference Board of Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Garnett S.T., Burgess N.D., Fa J.E., Fernaández-Llamazares Á., Molnaár Z., Robinson C., et al. 2018. A spatial overview of the global importance of indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability, 1(1): 369–374.
Gaudry A., Lorenz D. 2018. Indigenization as inclusion, reconciliation, and decolonization: navigating the different visions for indigenizing the Canadian Academy. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous peoples, 14(3): 218–227.
Government of Canada. 2015. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Available from https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1450124405592/1529106060525.
Government of Canada. 2021. Canada Target 1 Challenge. Available from https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/nature-legacy/canada-target-one-challenge.html [accessed 2 March 2021].
Government of Canada. 2022a. The Government of Canada increases nature protection ambition to address dual crises of biodiversity loss and climate change. Available from https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/2021/11/the-government-of-canada-increases-nature-protection-ambition-to-address-dual-crises, of-biodiversity-loss-and-climate-change.html.
Government of Canada. 2022b. Canada at COP15. An overview of Canada's actions for the Fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Available from https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/wildlife-plants-species/biodiversity/cop15/canada-cop15.html.
Government of the Northwest Territories. 2022. State of the Conservation Network report. Available from https://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/en/services/conservation-network-planning/state-conservation-network-report.
Gray C., Rück D. 2019. Reclaiming Indigenous place names. Yellowhead Institute.
Herrmann T.M., Ferguson M.A., Raygorodetsky G., Mulrennan M. 2012. Recognising and supporting territories and areas. In Recognition and support of ICCAs in Canada. Edited by A. Kothari, C. Corrigan, H. Jonas, A. Neumann, H. Shrumm. Available from https://www. cbd. int/pa/doc/ts64-case-studies/canada-en. pdf.
Hillary E. 1993. Indigenous peoples and protected areas: the law of Mother Earth. Earthscan.
Hoffman K. M., Christianson A. C., Dickson-Hoyle S., Copes-Gerbitz K., Nikolakis W., Diabo D. A., Daniels L. D. 2022. The right to burn: barriers and opportunities for Indigenous-led fire stewardship in Canada. Facets 7: 464–481.
Höhler S., Gissibl B., Kupper P. 2012. Towards a global history of national parks. In Civilizing nature: national parks in global historical perspective. Vol. 1. Edited by B. Gissibl, S. Höhler, P. Kupper. Berghahn Books, New York/Oxford. pp. 1–27.
Holmes A.P., Grimwood B.S., King L.J., Lutsel K'e Dene First Nation. 2016. Creating an indigenized visitor code of conduct: the development of Denesoline self-determination for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(8–9): 1177–1193.
Indigenous Circle of Experts (ICE). 2018. We rise together: achieving pathway to Canada Target 1 through the creation of Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas in the spirit and practice of reconciliation. The Indigenous Circle of Experts. Report and Recommendations. 112 p. Available from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57e007452e69cf9a7af0a033/t/5ab94aca6d2a7338ecb1d05e/1522092766605/PA234-ICE_Report_2018_Mar_22_web.pdf.
Jones R., Rigg C., Lee L. 2010. Haida marine planning: First Nations as a partner in marine conservation. Ecology and Scoiety, 15, 12.
Kadykalo A.N., Cooke S.J., Young N. 2021. The role of western-based scientific, Indigenous and local knowledge in wildlife management and conservation. People and Nature, 3(3): 610–626.
Keenleyside K., Dudley N., Cairns S., Hall C., Stolton S. 2012. Ecological restoration for protected areas. Principles, guidelines and best practices (Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series; 18). IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 120p.
Lemieux C.J., Gray P.A., Devillers R., Wright P.A., Dearden P., Halpenny E.A., et al. 2019. How the race to achieve Aichi Target 11 could jeopardize the effective conservation of biodiversity in Canada and beyond. Marine Policy, 99: 312–323.
Littlechild D.B., Finegan C., McGregor D. 2021. “Reconciliation” in undergraduate education in Canada: the application of Indigenous knowledge in conservation. Facets, 6(1): 665–685. .
Lloyd-Smith G. 2017. An ocean of opportunity: co-governance in Marine Protected Areas in Canada. West Coast Environmental Law.
MacKinnon D., Lemieux C.J., Beazley K., Woodley S., Helie R., Perron J., et al. 2015. Canada and Aichi Biodiversity Target 11: understanding ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ in the context of the broader target. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(14): 3559–3581.
Mansuy N., Burton P.J., Stanturf J., Beatty C., Mooney C., Besseau P., et al. 2020. Scaling up forest landscape restoration in Canada in an era of cumulative effects and climate change. Forest Policy and Economics, 116: 102177.
Mansuy N., Hwang H., Gupta R., Mooney C., Kishchuk B., Higgs E. 2022. Forest landscape restoration legislation and policy: a Canadian perspective. Land, 11(10): 1747.
Marshall No’, Marshall A., Beazley K.F., Hum J., Joudry S., Papadopoulos A., Zurba M. 2021. “Awakening the sleeping giant”: re-indigenization principles for transforming biodiversity conservation in Canada and beyond. Facets, 6(1): 839–869.
Mason CW. 2015. The Banff Indian Days tourism festivals. Annals of Tourism Research, 53: 77–95.
Mitchell M.G., Schuster R., Jacob A.L., Hanna D.E., Dallaire C.O., Raudsepp-Hearne C., et al. 2021. Identifying key ecosystem service providing areas to inform national-scale conservation planning. Environmental Research Letters, 16(1): 014038.
Mitchell T., Arseneau C., Thomas D., Smith P. 2019. Towards an indigenous-informed relational approach to free, prior, and informed consent. The International Indigenous Policy Journal 19: 1–28.
Moola F., Roth R. 2019. Moving beyond colonial conservation models: Indigenous protected and conserved areas offer hope for biodiversity and advancing reconciliation in the Canadian boreal forest. Environmental Reviews, 27(2): 200–201.
Moore M. 2020. Decolonizing park management: a framework for the co-management of national parks and protected areas. Dissertation, School of Public Policy, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Simon Fraser University, BC, Canada.
Mullen J. 2022. The (In)ability to develop Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas in Canada: a literature review. 2022. Dissertation, University of Saskatchewan.
Mulrennan M.E., Bussières V. 2020. Indigenous environmental stewardship: do mechanisms of biodiversity conservation align with or undermine it. Plants, people, and places: the roles of ethnobotany and ethnoecology in Indigenous peoples’ land rights in Canada and beyond. pp. 282–312.
Norris MJ. 2006. Aboriginal languages in Canada: trends and perspectives on maintenance and revitalization. Aboriginal Policy Research Consortium International (APRCi), 122. Available from https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/aprci/122.
Parks Canada. 2022. Indigenous relations at Parks Canada. Available from https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/agence-agency/aa-ia/te-wt/introduction.
Poezler G., Coates KS. 2015. From treaty peoples to treaty nation. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC, Canada. pp. 272–273.
Protected Planet. 2022. The World Database on Protected Areas, UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. Available from https://www.protectedplanet.net/en [accessed 12 March 2022].
Raymond C.M., Fazey I., Reed M.S., Stringer L.C., Robinson G.M., Evely AC. 2010. Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(8): 1766–1777.
Reed G., Brunet N.D., McGregor D., Scurr C., Sadik T., Lavigne J., Longboat S. 2022. Toward indigenous visions of nature-based solutions: an exploration into Canadian federal climate policy. Climate Policy, 22(4): 514–533.
Reed J., Kusters K., Barlow J., Balinga M., Borah J.R., Carmenta R., et al. 2021. Re-integrating ecology into integrated landscape approaches. Landscape Ecology, 36(8): 2395–2407.
Sandlos J. 2014. National parks in the Canadian North. Indigenous peoples, national parks, and protected areas: a new paradigm linking conservation, culture, and rights. 133.
Sangha K.K., Le Brocque A., Costanza R., Cadet-James Y. 2015. Ecosystems and indigenous well-being: an integrated framework. Global Ecology and Conservation, 4, 197–206.
Schmidt P.M., Peterson MJ. 2009. Biodiversity conservation and indigenous land management in the era of self-determination. Conservation Biology, 23(6): 1458–1466.
Simpson L. 2011. Dancing on our turtle's back: stories of Nishnaabeg re-creation, resurgence and a new emergence. Arbeiter Ring Publishing.
Singleton S. 2009. Native people and planning for marine protected areas: how “stakeholder” processes fail to address conflicts in complex, real-world environments. Coastal Management, 37, 421–440.
Statistics Canada. 2021. Census of population. Available from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=PR&Code1=01&Geo2=PR&Code2=01.
Statistics Canada. 2023. Canada’s Indigenous population. Available from https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/3920-canadas-indigenous-population.
Stevens S. 2010. Implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples and international human rights law through the recognition of ICCAs. Policy Matters, 17: 181–194.
Stevens S., Broome N.P., Jaeger T., Aylwin J., Azhdari G., Bibaka D., et al. 2016. Recognising and respecting ICCAs overlapped by protected areas. Report for the ICCA Consortium.
S. Stevens (Ed.). 2014. Indigenous peoples, national parks, and protected areas: a new paradigm linking conservation, culture, and rights. 1st ed. University of Arizona Press.
Stoltenberg Bruursema C. 2015. Asset-based community development: a path toward authentic community development practice. SPNHA Review, 11(1): 7.
Tengö M., Brondizio E.S., Elmqvist T., Malmer P., Spierenburg M. 2014. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio, 43, 579–591.
Thomlinson E., Crouch G. 2012. Aboriginal Peoples, Parks Canada, and protected spaces: a case study in co-management at Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve. Annals of Leisure Research, 15(1): 69–86.
Townsend J., Moola F., Craig MK. 2020. Indigenous peoples are critical to the success of nature-based solutions to climate change. Facets, 5: 551–556.
Townsend L., Townsend D. L. 2020. Consultation, consent, and the silencing of Indigenous communities. Journal of Applied Philosophy 37: 781–798.
Tran T.C., Neasloss D., Ban NC., Kitasoo/Xai'xais Stewardship Authority Bhattacharyya J. 2020. “Borders don't protect areas, people do”: insights from the development of an Indigenous protected and conserved Area in Kitasoo/Xai'xais Nation Territory. Facets, 5(1): 922–941.
United Nations. 2008. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 2008. Available from https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf [accessed 3 March 2021].
Von Der Porten S. 2012. Canadian indigenous governance literature: a review. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous peoples, 8(1): 1–14.
Watson J.E., Evans T., Venter O., Williams B., Tulloch A., Stewart C., Lindenmayer D. 2018. The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(4):599–610.
Wells J.V., Reid F., Darveau M., Childs D. 2013. Ten cool Canadian biodiversity hotspots: how a new understanding of biodiversity underscores the global significance of Canada's boreal forest. Boreal Songbird Initiative, Seattle, WA. p. 19.
Wheeler I.S. 2019. Investigation of the tribal park concept and opportunities for the Blackfeet nation. Graduate Student Theses. p. 11514. Available from https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/11514.
Whyte K.P., Reo N.J., McGregor D., Smith M.P., Jenkins J.F., Rubio KA. 2017. Seven indigenous principles for successful cooperation in Great Lakes conservation initiatives. In Biodiversity, conservation, and environmental management in the Great Lakes Basin. Routledge. pp. 182–194.
Wilson P., McDermott L., Johnston N., Hamilton M. 2012. An Analysis of International Law, National Legislation, Judgements, and Institutions as they Interrelate with Territories and Areas Conserved by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: No. 8 Canada. 2012. Available from: https://www.iccaconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/legal-review-8-canada-2012-en.pdf.
Xu H., Cao Y., Yu D., Cao M., He Y., Gill M., Pereira H.M. 2021. Ensuring effective implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity targets. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(4): 411–418.
Youdelis M., Townsend J., Bhattacharyya J., Moola F., Fobister JB. 2021. Decolonial conservation: establishing Indigenous Protected Areas for future generations in the face of extractive capitalism.
Zaitchik A. 2018. How conservation became colonialism. Foreign Policy, (229): 56–63.
Zurba M., Beazley K.F., English E., Buchmann-Duck J. 2019. Indigenous protected and conserved areas (IPCAs), Aichi target 11 and Canada's pathway to target 1: focusing conservation on reconciliation. Land, 8(1): 10.
Zurba M., Diduck A.P., Sinclair AJ. 2016. First Nations and industry collaboration for forest governance in northwestern Ontario, Canada. Forest Policy and Economics, 69: 1–10.
Supplementary material
Supplementary Material 1 (DOCX / 75.5 KB).
- Download
- 75.58 KB
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
FACETS
Volume 8 • January 2023
Pages: 1 - 16
Editor: Elena M. Bennett
History
Received: 13 May 2022
Accepted: 7 June 2023
Version of record online: 28 September 2023
Notes
This paper is part of a collection entitled “Ărramăt, the intersections of biodiversity conservation and Indigenous health and well-being”.
Copyright
© 2023 Copyright remains with the authors or their institutions. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement
All relevant data are available within the paper.
Key Words
Sections
Subjects
Authors
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: NM
Data curation: NM, DS
Formal analysis: NM, DS
Funding acquisition: NM
Investigation: NM
Methodology: NM
Project administration: NM
Validation: BP
Visualization: MM, FD
Writing – original draft: BP, AT
Writing – review & editing: SA, BP, AT, DBL
Competing Interests
The authors declare there no competing interests.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Other Metrics
Citations
Cite As
Nicolas Mansuy, Diana Staley, Sharlene Alook, Brenda Parlee, Alexandra Thomson, Danika Billie Littlechild, Matthew Munson, and Fred Didzena. 2023. Indigenous protected and conserved areas (IPCAs): Canada's new path forward for biological and cultural conservation and Indigenous well-being. FACETS.
8(): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2022-0118
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
There are no citations for this item