We Rise Together
Achieving Pathway to Canada Target 1 throughthe creation of Indigenous Protected andConserved Areas in the spirit and practiceof reconciliation

THE INDIGENOUS CIRCLE OF EXPERTS’REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONSMARCH 2018

WE RISE TOGETHERaFront Cover photograph:
The Indigenous Circle of Experts and participants of the Northern Regional Gathering on Indigenous Protected andConserved Areas (IPCAs) at Aurora Village in Yellowknife, NWT.
Photographer: Jeremy Williams, River Voices Productions
Catalogue Number R62-548/2018E-PDF
ISBN 978-0-660-25571-2© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2018
Cette publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre:
Nous nous levons ensemble : atteindre l’objectif 1 du Canada en créant des aires protégées et de conservation autochtones
dans l’esprit et la pratique de la réconciliation

FOREWORD
By Eli Enns and Danika Littlechild, ICE Co-Chairs
Since time immemorial, Indigenous Peoples in Canada
have been diligent and ingenious cultivators of biologicaldiversity through advanced economic practices thatwere founded on natural law. Indigenous economies
followed Indigenous worldviews, which understand thathuman systems are a part of, and must remain in balance
with, ecosystems. The outcome and effect of theseworldviews and economic practices was abundant, thriving
biological diversity.
Historical efforts to create “parks” and “protected areas”
by Canadian governments were not centred on the healthand well-being of nature; nature was instead the backdrop
for recreational experiences. In these early days of parks
creation in Canada, Indigenous Peoples were understoodas obstacles to the enjoyment of nature. Thus, they were
often forced to relocate or were restricted by imposed
jurisdictions that effectively eliminated the Indigenous
practices and economies that were so critical to healthy
biological diversity.
In more recent years, Canadian park agencies have madebiological diversity a management priority for parks andprotected areas. This refocusing has come with a gradualrealization that Indigenous Peoples have something tooffer regarding biodiversity conservation, protection andpromotion. The work of the Indigenous Circle of Experts(ICE) represents a significant milestone in that history.
The ICE Report marks a clear turning point in Canadianhistory. It is an opportunity for all levels of government,
and Canadian society at large, to salvage what is left of
the Creator’s great gift, and begin to rebuild our natural
heritage for future generations. This will require a close
re-examination of the dominant narratives about theconservation and protection of nature. The dominantnarratives we refer to have enjoyed de facto acceptancewithin existing frameworks about conservation andprotection. They have not been fully challenged until now.
This report posits that the time has come for Indigenous
knowledge systems, legal traditions, and customary andcultural practices to be appropriately recognized as equallyvalid and binding versus other frameworks. To achieve this,we have endeavoured to illustrate an important aspectof such appropriate recognition: Indigenous Protected

and Conserved Areas (IPCAs). We hope that through ourarticulation of IPCAs, we can contribute to a more hopefulvision of the future—a future where Indigenous Peoples
decide what conservation and protection means to themand to the lands and waters and are given the space tolead its implementation in their territories.
Canada is a vast and diverse country geographically,
climatically and geopolitically; each region has distinct
opportunities and challenges. For example, north of the58th parallel, the opportunities for IPCAs are different
than in southern regions due to the vast open spaces andsparse populations in the north. British Columbia is largely
without historical Treaties; Quebec has unique civil laws
and historical realities; the Atlantic provinces are small andisland-based. And of course, Indigenous Peoples acrossthe country are as diverse as the land itself.
We do not prescribe a one-size-fits-all solution. Rather, weoffer a tapestry of diverse stories, perspectives, knowledge,
languages, cultures and understandings about Mother
Earth. We do not aspire to provide “the” answer, or todescribe a “finish line” for reconciliation in the context ofconservation and protection. More importantly, we wantto elevate Indigenous Peoples, their worldviews and their
lived realities. As such, we have woven their voices into ourreport in the form of quotations. These quotations sharestories, wisdom, ideas, observations and guidance that we
had the privilege of hearing at Regional Gatherings acrossthe country.
In this time of shifting paradigms—when conceptions
about the legitimacy and veracity of Indigenous voices are
expanding—this report represents a partial answer to thefollowing questions:• If Indigenous Peoples were to have a role in achieving
greater conservation and protection moving forward,
what might that role be? What would it look like?
• How would established practitioners of conservationand protection “make room” for Indigenous Peoples?
• What does reconciliation mean in the context ofconservation and protection in Canada today?

WE RISE TOGETHER

iii

This report is only a partial answer to these questions,because we have only just begun the journey to address
them. It is a partial answer also because we understandthat the richest contributions will come from affected
Indigenous Peoples in all their diversity. And it is a partial
answer because it requires all of us to participate in theprocess of co-creation, collaboration and reconciliation.

We are grateful as well to the participants of our Regional
Gatherings for their immensely stimulating discussions,sharing and truth-telling, and to the POLIS Institute for its
support during and after the Regional Gatherings.

We could not have completed this report without the
many forms of significant support that came to us along
our journey.

• The Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation at the Western
Regional Gathering,

Foremost, we want to acknowledge our ancestors, who
made paths for us to follow to live the good life; and theunborn future generations, who compel us so deeply and towhom we are all ultimately accountable. Similarly, we mustacknowledge the Elders—those who have gone before us
and continue to walk among us today—who gave so muchof their lives to prepare the ground for our work; and theirfamilies, who supported them and held them up when theweight of the burden must have seemed unbearable.
On that sacred and solemn note, we also wish toacknowledge our own families, who, as our Elder Larry
McDermott so often says, have “kept the home fires
burning.” What a simple but profound acknowledgement,
for how it must feel to come home to a cold and quiet
hearth, with no love to light our many homecomings?
Along these lines, the Elders always remind us toacknowledge the many helping hands along our journeys,
whether it is the pilot who delivered us safely to our (many)
destinations, or the cooks who prepared our meals. Alllives are sacred, and it always takes a community, or amultitude of communities, to achieve a goal such as theone we have collectively undertaken.
Our work was conducted with the highest level ofcommitment and dedication of all the members of ICE.
Each member has played a vital role in carrying ourcollective learnings forward in a good way. In particular,
we would like to thank ICE member Eduardo Sousa forhis professionalism in shepherding this report through topublication.
We also thank the Assembly of First Nations, the Metis
National Council, and numerous federal, provincial andterritorial governments and departments for supporting
their members to participate in ICE. In particular, we
thank the provincial governments of British Columbia,
Northwest Territories, Alberta, Ontario and Nova Scotia,
and the following federal departments: Environment andClimate Change Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations
and Northern Affairs Canada, Parks Canada Agency and
Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

iv FOREWORD

We were honoured to have been hosted at each Regional
Gathering by an Indigenous Nation, as follows:• The Bear River First Nation at the Eastern Regional
Gathering in Mi’kma’ki,• The Yellowknives Dene First Nation at the Northern
Regional Gathering, and• The homeland of the Metis Nation and the
traditional lands of the Anishinabe (Ojibway), Ininew(Cree), Oji-Cree, Dene and Dakota at the Central
Regional Gathering.
Each of these host nations welcomed us, fed us well,
supported us and made significant contributions to ourcollective work.
We wish to thank the Parks Canada Secretariat of the
Pathway to Canada Target 1 for its hard work and efforts
to facilitate and support ICE. Its staff members have been
indispensable partners in our process. Their willingness toconsider new methodologies and critical thought, as wellas to ensure Indigenous protocols and practices had thenecessary space, has been admirable and commendable.
In the words of Elder Albert Marshall: “We thank theCreator for giving us this beautiful day to come here
and to share with one another our words. And thosewords will hopefully be used to heal and to inform
each other as to how we can begin these discussions
and be instrumental in living out our responsibilities, notjust to be the stewards of the present but for the next
seven generations.”
Klecko, Klecko! Hai Hai!

CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................................... 4
ICE’s Process.................................................................................................................................. 5
Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs)................................................................ 5
How IPCAs Benefit All Canadians................................................................................................ 6
Ethical Space................................................................................................................................. 6
Understanding Reconciliation...................................................................................................... 7
The Need for a Paradigm Shift in Conservation........................................................................ 8
The Importance of Responsibility................................................................................................ 8
PREFACE..........................................................................................................................................................................................9
THE FOUR MOOSE...................................................................................................................................................................11
1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................................. 14
1.1 Understanding Ethical Space............................................................................................... 15
1.2 Pathway to Canada Target 1 and Indigenous Engagement.............................................. 19
1.3 The Aichi Targets................................................................................................................... 19
1.4 The Indigenous Circle of Experts........................................................................................ 19
2.0 REGIONAL GATHERINGS........................................................................................................................................21
2.1 Introduction and Overview................................................................................................... 21
2.2 The Western Gathering – May............................................................................................. 22
2.3 The Eastern Gathering – June............................................................................................. 23
2.4 The Northern Gathering – August....................................................................................... 24
2.5 The Central Gathering and the Metis Laws of the Harvest – September........................ 25
3.0 THE DARK HISTORY OF PROTECTED AREAS IN CANADA........................................................27
4.0 INDIGENOUS PROTECTED AND CONSERVED AREAS (IPCAs).............................................. 33
4.1 International Context............................................................................................................ 33
4.2 Canadian Context................................................................................................................. 34
4.3 Indigenous Perspectives on Land and Water..................................................................... 35

WE RISE TOGETHER

1

4.4 Defining IPCAs...................................................................................................................... 35
4.5 Characteristics of IPCAs....................................................................................................... 38
4.6 Creating an IPCA................................................................................................................... 42
4.6.1 Appropriate Recognition............................................................................................ 43
4.6.2 Initiating an IPCA......................................................................................................... 44
4.6.3 Modernizing Pre-Existing Protected Areas Through Ethical Space........................ 44
4.7 Governance and Partnership Models for IPCAs................................................................. 45
4.8 Opportunities and Challenges of IPCAs............................................................................. 47
4.8.1 Spaces for Cultural Regeneration Through Healing................................................. 47
4.8.2 Beacons of Teachings.................................................................................................. 47
4.8.3 Restoration Areas........................................................................................................ 48
4.8.4 Reconciliation Regions................................................................................................ 48
4.8.5 Challenges and Learning from Them ....................................................................... 48
4.9 “Cooling-Off Periods”: Measures for Reducing Pressures on Lands............................... 50
4.10 Degraded Landscapes and Land Use Pressures.............................................................. 50
4.11 Shared Territories................................................................................................................ 51
4.12 Capacity and Funding........................................................................................................ 51
4.13 IPCAs’ Connection to UNESCO and Other Designations............................................... 52
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................................................56
5.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 56
5.2 Reconciliation in Conservation............................................................................................ 57
5.3 “We Rise Together”.............................................................................................................. 60
5.4 Holistic and Integrated Approaches to Stewardship......................................................... 62
5.5 Capacity-Building.................................................................................................................. 65
5.6 Sustained Funding................................................................................................................ 66
5.7 Implementation..................................................................................................................... 66
6.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS.......................................................................................................................................68
7.0 APPENDICES........................................................................................................................................................................71
7.1 Voices of the People............................................................................................................. 71
7.2 International Context: International Recognition of Indigenous
Conservation Practices......................................................................................................... 75

2 CONTENTS

7.3 Canadian Context: Governance Models for Crown-Recognized
and Reported Protected Areas............................................................................................ 77
7.3.1 Crown/Government Governance............................................................................... 77
7.3.2 Shared or Co-Governance.......................................................................................... 77
7.3.3 Indigenous Governance.............................................................................................. 78
7.3.4 Indigenous Conservation Efforts not currently recognized and reportedby the crown................................................................................................................. 78
7.4 Case Studies.......................................................................................................................... 80
Case Study: Wehexlaxodıale—An Indigenous-Governed Land Use Exclusion Area...... 80
Case Study: Broadback Watershed Conservation Area.................................................... 82
Case Study: K’ih tsaa?dze Tribal Park, Doig River First Nation......................................... 83
Case Study: Thaidene Nëné National Park Reserve and Territorial Protected Area....... 84
Case Study: Haida Gwaii Protected Areas.......................................................................... 85
Case Study: Conservancies in British Columbia................................................................. 86
Case Study: Seven Paddles Project, Bear River First Nation............................................. 87
Case Study: Dasiqox Tribal Park (Nexwagweẑʔan)............................................................ 87
Case Study: Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks................................................................................ 88
Case Study: The Great Bear Rainforest Agreements......................................................... 91
7.5 ICE Member Biographies..................................................................................................... 94
7.6 Pathway to Canada Target 1 Workflow Diagram................................................................ 98
RESOURCES AND FURTHER READING.............................................................................................................99
ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................................................................................101
GLOSSARY.................................................................................................................................................................................102
DETAILED ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................................105

WE RISE TOGETHER

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I

n 2010, at the 10th meeting of the Conferenceof the Parties (COP 10) to the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) in Nagoya, Aichi
Prefecture, Japan, countries around the world
adopted a Strategic Plan for Biodiversity. The
plan included 20 global biodiversity targets,
which together became known as the Aichi
Targets.1 Each party to the convention agreed
to contribute to achieving these by 2020.
Canada, the European Community and 195
other parties were encouraged to develop their own
targets using the Aichi Targets as a guide.
In response, in 2015, Canada adopted a suite of nationaltargets known as the “2020 Biodiversity Goals and Targets
for Canada.” These four goals and 19 targets cover issues
ranging from species at risk to sustainable forestry toconnecting Canadians to nature. Canada Target 1 states:“By 2020, at least 17% of terrestrial areas and inland water,

1

Terms in italics are defined in the Glossary.

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

McAvoy Rock in Yellowknife, NWT
Photographer: Susan Mather

and 10% of coastal and marine areas, are conserved
through networks of protected areas and other effectivearea-based conservation measures.”
The Pathway to Canada Target 1 focuses on the terrestrial
and inland waters aspects of Canada Target 1, based on
Aichi Target 11.
It was widely understood that Canada Target 1 could only
be achieved through collaboration amongst government
departments, communities, municipalities, Indigenous
Peoples and others. To this end, a National Advisory Paneland an Indigenous Circle of Experts (ICE) were formed
to provide advice and recommendations on achieving
Canada Target 1.
ICE comprises Indigenous and non-Indigenous citizens ofCanada who have worked together to make progress on
Pathway to Canada Target 1. This is ICE’s report.

ICE’S PROCESS
ICE’s vision is for Canada’s entire system of protected
and conserved areas to be identified and managed inpartnership with Indigenous governments, consistent withthe principle of Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)
as expressed in the United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). To develop its
recommendations, ICE conducted a variety of activities
between May and November 2017. It held seven faceto-face meetings and bi-weekly conference calls; theICE Core held two additional face-to-face meetings. ICE
also convened three subcommittees to advance various
aspects of its work, including subcommittees for planningand overview, analysis and drafting, and communications
and outreach.

• They elevate Indigenous rights and responsibilities.
In the Canadian context, IPCAs represent:• a modern application of traditional values, Indigenous
laws and Indigenous knowledge systems,• an exercise in cultural continuity on the land
and waters,• a foundation for local Indigenous economies,

ICE hosted four Regional Gatherings across Canada(Section 2.0), each lasting several days. These gatherings
created the opportunity for ICE to hear from diverse
communities and governments about their thoughts
on Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs).
Through gatherings and other outreach work, ICE
collected input based on on-the-ground experiencesin Indigenous-led conservation. A subcommittee also
developed a data collection template and distributed it tothe broader ICE committee and their networks to inform
ICE’s recommendations. ICE made 28 recommendations
in all. These are outlined in detail in Section 5.0,
Recommendations.

INDIGENOUS PROTECTED AND
CONSERVED AREAS (IPCAS)“IPCA” is the term chosen by ICE to describe a varietyof land protection initiatives in the Canadian context.
Examples include Tribal Parks, Indigenous CulturalLandscapes, Indigenous Protected Areas, and Indigenous
conserved areas.
IPCAs are lands and waters where Indigenous governments
have the primary role in protecting and conserving
ecosystems through Indigenous laws, governance andknowledge systems. Culture and language are the heartand soul of an IPCA.
Through our engagement processes across Canada andour research on national and international case studies, welearned while IPCAs can vary in terms of their governanceand management objectives, they generally share threeessential elements:• They are Indigenous-led.
• They represent a long-term commitment
to conservation.

Aurora Village, NWT. Photographer: Marilyn Baptiste

WE RISE TOGETHER

5

• opportunities to reconnect to the land and heal boththe land and Indigenous Peoples,• support the revitalization of Indigenous languages,• seed conservation economies if possible,• an acknowledgement of international law, such as
Canada’s Treaties, UNDRIP, CBD and other relevant
instruments and commitments,• an opportunity for true reconciliation to take place
between Indigenous and settler societies, and between
broader Canadian society and the land and waters,
including relationships in pre-existing parks andprotected areas, and• an innovative expression of Section 35 (Constitution
Act 1982).
Indigenous governments are responsible for setting theconservation standards for IPCAs. As such, they must havefull scope to design their IPCAs to meet their individualand diverse needs. While IPCAs embody a common goalfor conserving the ecological and cultural values important
to Indigenous Peoples, the priorities and objectives ofindividual IPCAs may vary greatly. As such, they may takevarious shapes and forms based on the objectives for thearea. But they share some commonalities. IPCAs should:• promote respect for Indigenous knowledge systems,• respect protocols and ceremony,• conserve cultural keystone species and protect foodsecurity, and• adopt integrated, holistic approaches to governanceand planning.

HOW IPCAS BENEFIT ALL CANADIANS

IPCAs are first and foremost designed to benefit
Indigenous communities, but they have considerable
potential to benefit all Canadians. When protected andconserved areas across Canada increase, more lands andwaters are relieved of the stresses of unsustainable humanand industrial development. The result is biodiversity
conservation and healthier ecosystems, which in turnbenefit all Canadians in the form of clean air and water,
improved human health, and the mitigation of risks fromclimate change and disease. In this way, IPCAs can be
expected to provide a variety of ecosystem services forgenerations to come.
Protecting and conserving areas will also enhance
Canada’s ability to meet international conservationcommitments, such as protecting 17 percent of terrestrial
lands and waters by 2020. Beyond our borders, weshould not underestimate the impact IPCAs will haveinternationally, not to mention the potential for Canada totake on a global leadership role by supporting Indigenous
IPCA expert participation in dialogues, such as at theInternational Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) or
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO).
The beneficiaries of this work are our future generations,
all living beings on Mother Earth, and the spirit of placefound in every protected and conserved area.

ETHICAL SPACE

Photographer: Harvey Feit

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARYWith opportunity comes risk. Indigenous Peoples
are understandably hesitant to (re)build or establish
relationships of trust with non-Indigenous governments.
The usurpation and dispossession of lands, territories andwaters still resonates in the lived realities of Indigenous
Peoples across Canada. In addition, Indigenous systemsof knowledge, language, laws, customs, protocols andpractices have never been respected as such. There have• One system does not need the other to “corroborate”
it to achieve internal validity. For example, the written
system does not always need archaeological evidence
to provide sound “proof” of an Indigenous practiceor story.
• While agreeing to formally enter ethical space may
be straightforward for most parties, actually being
within that space together requires flexibility. Parties
may frequently need to adjust to change, surprise,and other factors that cannot be envisioned at theinitial stage.

Lutselk’e, NWT. Photographer: Pat Kane
been countless instances of rights violations. Indigenous
land stewards and defenders have been criminalized alongwith their traditional and contemporary relationships withlands and waters.
Nonetheless, with guidance from Elders, ICE came tounderstand that the newly evolving framework has thepotential to enable an “ethical space” that respects theintegrity of all knowledge systems. This ethical spaceprovides a venue for collaboration and advice, sharing
and cross-validation (where one side validates the other’sdecisions). Its methodology applies Indigenous knowledge
in the context of the Pathway to Canada Target 1 initiative
as well as more broadly in conservation and protection
measures going forward.
In ethical space as ICE understands it, relationships
should be nurtured on multiple levels—not just on
a political level—and founded on the principles thatdefine our understanding of ethical space. This should
be done by implementing Indigenous knowledge, therecommendations of this report, and Indigenous protocols.
Relationships require all parties to contribute and decide
which areas they want to advise on, or which issues they
believe require cross-validation. Best practices andprotocols may be developed as the relationships evolve.
For a better understanding of what ethical space is andis not, here are additional principles to consider:• The focus of ethical space is on creating a place forknowledge systems to interact with mutual respect,kindness, generosity and other basic values andprinciples. All knowledge systems are equal; no single
system has more weight or legitimacy than another.

2• While engaged in ethical space, no party can claim
to have achieved (or even entered into) processesof consultation or accommodation as defined under
existing or previous provincial or federal legislationor policies. That is not the purpose of ethical space.
ICE hopes that by adopting the ethical space approach,federal, provincial and territorial governments can movetoward achieving the numeric goals of Pathway to Canada
Target 1 while ensuring that the qualitative elements of thegoals are retained and strengthened.

UNDERSTANDING RECONCILIATIONThe Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada
defines reconciliation as “an ongoing process ofestablishing and maintaining respectful relationships.” It
adds that “a critical part of this process involves repairingdamaged trust by making apologies, providing individualand collective reparations, and following through withconcrete actions that demonstrate real societal change.
Establishing respectful relationships also requires therevitalization of Indigenous law and legal traditions. It is
important that all Canadians understand how traditional
First Nations, Inuit, and Metis Nation approaches
to resolving conflict, repairing harm, and restoring
relationships can inform the reconciliation process.”2Reconciliation can mean different things to different
people. At ICE gatherings, it was acknowledged as “avery powerful word and highly charged, evoking a lotof emotions.” As such, it is up to each nation to definereconciliation for itself. In this manner, reconciliation means
identifying the appropriate healing process for restoring
relationships: first, between Crown and Indigenous
Peoples, recognizing what has not worked in the past so
it is corrected moving forward in the spirit of peace andfriendship; and second, between all people (Indigenous
and non-Indigenous) and the lands.

Canada’s Residential Schools: Reconciliation, The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Volume 6, page 11. 2015.
See http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/index.php?p=890.

WE RISE TOGETHER

7

Participants at ICE Regional Gatherings shared truths
about the impact of past conservation and protection
measures on their lives, livelihoods and connections
to lands and territories. Their contributions represent
both an expression of reconciliation and a part ofthe larger process of reconciliation in protection
and conservation.
ICE’s work has been and will continue to be grounded
in and reflect the principles of the overall Pathway
initiative, including reconciliation, respect, inclusivenessand collaboration, transparency, innovation and creativity,and evidence-based decision-making grounded inscience and traditional knowledge. Its work is therefore
a manifestation of and contributor to reconciliation in a
rapidly changing world.

THE NEED FOR A PARADIGM SHIFTIN CONSERVATION

The path toward the conservation of lands and waters
must be thoughtfully and respectfully navigated. Science,
legislation and policies continue to play the guiding role.
However, ICE suggests that Indigenous expertise becomea part of this guidance, in both substance and method.
This will require:• dedicating time and resources to further exploring
Indigenous-led conservation and engagement with
Indigenous governments regarding IPCAs,• supporting innovative funding models,• identifying new partners, allies and champions, and• creating the kinds of resources that would be usefulto Indigenous governments on their path to IPCAs,
including, for example, a toolkit.
Strengthening existing IPCAs and creating or co-creating
future IPCAs will obviously resonate within IPCAs’ own
respective geographical borders. There will also be broader
impacts on people, communities, provinces and territories,
and the country as a whole. We have yet to measure the full
benefits and true value of IPCAs in that regard.

8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

THE IMPORTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY

Finally, it is important to emphasize that we all have a duty
and responsibility to be real stewards of the land itself.
In that context, what is needed most of all is theleadership of Indigenous Peoples, who feel a deep-seatedresponsibility to leave their lands and waters in abundance
for future generations.
Beyond having rights over lands and waters, responsibility
implies stewardship and caretaking—making thoughtful,well considered choices that factor in the impact ofdecisions made today on future generations’ ability toenjoy the bounty of the land.
The conservation approaches discussed in this reportbuild on the notion that protected and conserved areas do
not represent an assertion of rights, but rather an exerciseof responsibility. This spirit of stewardship or guardianshipis perhaps best understood through the lens of naturallaw, which was often referred to by Elders during the
ICE Regional Gatherings. In Indigenous worldviews, thenatural world is not separate from humans, but is rather
a place where all living beings and spirits are connected.
This understanding requires us to care for, respect and live
within the bounds created by the rest of the natural world.
Natural laws are not negotiable. Indigenous law stems
from natural law, which in turn came from higher universal
principals connected to observations of nature and theprinciple of peaceful relationship with the rest of creationin the forms of duty, responsibility and guardianship of thelands and waters.

PREFACE
Here are a few notes about how readers can best navigate this report to get the most out of it.

Tla-o-qui-aht traditional territory, BC.
Photographer: Margot BishopWe chose to begin with anarrative entitled “TheFour Moose.” We placed
this narrative ahead of
the introduction because
its purpose is to convey
the spirit in which theIndigenous Circle ofExperts (ICE) conducted
its work and in which
we hope you will read the results.
The concept of the “Four Moose” has helped inform
ICE’s thinking. It prepared us for some of the difficult
conversations that were bound to arise as we travelledacross the country in the four directions to gather input
and exchange ideas. In each of the four regions, we tested
the waters, gathered stories and shared experiences.
The “Four Moose” will help readers to understand ourapproach in creating this document.

The report then unfolds in the usual manner, withan introduction, context, history, information about
Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas, and concrete
recommendations. We have provided 10 case studies in
an appendix, which we hope readers will find useful forenvisioning potentials and avoiding pitfalls in future IPCA
discussions and arrangements. Snapshot versions of thesecase studies are also sprinkled throughout the report togive life to the ideas being explained or proposed.
Similarly, we have woven Indigenous voices throughout
the report with brief quotes from Elders, youth and others
who participated in the Regional Gatherings and provided
sincere, insightful perspectives. These should give readersa deeper sense of how the gatherings were conducted
and what Indigenous Peoples’ overriding concerns are.
Additional and longer quotes can be found in Section 7.1,
Voices of the People.

WE RISE TOGETHER

9Abbreviations and Glossary

This report uses abbreviations and terminology that may
be unfamiliar to some. To help readers make the most of
the report, we have provided a list of abbreviations andtheir descriptions as well as a glossary near the end of
the report.

Indigenous Peoples see the land andwater as inseparable when it comes to
stewardship and conservation. In thisreport, any references to land should beassumed to include water. For example,

INCLUSIVE INTENT OF LANGUAGE

Our intention throughout the report is that words
importing the singular shall include the plural, andwords importing the masculine shall include thefeminine (and vice versa).

both Aski (in the Ininiw or Swampy Creelanguage) and Hishuk Ish Tsá’walk (in the
Nuu-cha-nulth language) essentially meanthat everything is one and interconnected.

Lutselk’e, NWT. Photographer: Pat Kane

Please noteThis report represents the consensus views of ICE members, not those of the governments and organizations they
represent. ICE presents this report in the hope that this work will help federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous
governments build a new relationship on protected and conserved areas. This new relationship will almost certainly
enhance Canada’s ability to meet international conservation commitments, such as protecting 17 percent of terrestrial
lands and waters by 2020.

10 PREFACE

THE FOUR MOOSE

Dasiqox Tribal Park, Tsilhqot’in territory, BC.
Photographer: Jeremy Williams, River Voices ProductionsT

he narrative of the “Four Moose”
emerged over the many months of
the Indigenous Circle of Expert’s(ICE’s) work. It has its roots in the latesummer 2016 International Union
for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)World Conservation Congress inHonolulu. ICE co-chair Eli Enns met
with the Canadian co-chairs of the
newly established National Steering
Committee (NSC), who invited him to present on Tribal
Parks and Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas(ICCAs) at the Parks Canada Agency national office. At
this meeting, Eli began “testing the waters of good faith”
by stating explicitly that he would not be a “token
Indian” to endorse or support a watered-down version of
Tribal Parks.
What he encountered instead was a unique setting of
openness with no presupposed ideas. As he shared his
vision for ICCAs and Tribal Parks, instead of moving away,
NSC members moved closer, inviting him to lend his vision

to build a committee of Indigenous experts that would
advise the federal, provincial and territorial governments
on how they could meet their international commitments
to protecting biodiversity through Pathway to Canada
Target 1 in the spirit and practice of reconciliation.
Ultimately, this committee became the Indigenous Circleof Experts, or ICE.
Over subsequent meetings with the NSC, Eli talked
about the four “elephants in the room” that would need
to be addressed: jurisdiction, financial solutions, capacity
development and cultural keystone species. But the“elephants in the room” soon became known as the “FourMoose in the room” since, as someone eventually pointed
out, there are no elephants native to Canada.
The concept of the Four Moose has helped inform ICE’s
thinking. It was clear from the outset that to develop theconcept of Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas(IPCAs) as a living example of reconciliation, and for ICE’s
potential contributions to the Pathway to Canada Target 1process to succeed, there had to be careful and direct

WE RISE TOGETHER

11

consideration of these moose. And so together, ICE hascontinued to “test the waters of good faith” by exploring
the Four Moose among its own members, as well as
among members of Indigenous communities and among
government officials. It has been ICE’s experience that noone has ever left the room when raising and discussing theFour Moose.
The First Moose in the room was jurisdiction. ICE said
clearly that if Canada is willing to have conversations
about jurisdiction with Indigenous Peoples across thecountry and actually give life back to the Treaties—sharing
jurisdiction and responsibilities to and for the land—then
the government will succeed in achieving the Pathway toTarget 1. ICE does not represent Indigenous governments,
but we know this is going to be the first thing Indigenous
governments want to talk about when discussing IPCAs.

Dasiqox Tribal Park, Tsilhqot’in territory, BC.
Photographer: Jeremy Williams, River Voices Productions

The Second Moose in the room was recognized as financial
solutions. Dynamic and substantial financial solutions areneeded to give life to IPCA governance and management
structures. IPCAs need to be endowed with their own
energies so they can become viable and self-sustaining.
Nobody in the room was surprised by this moose.
The Third Moose in the room was capacity development
to support IPCAs with subject matter expertise, such asthat available through Indigenous guardian stewardshipprograms that are popping up across the country. We
must be thoughtful about creating a capacity support
structure that benefits communities and their lands andwaters. Again, there has been no disagreement.
The Fourth Moose in the room was cultural keystone
species and places. This Moose arose from Eli’s travels
across Canada, including his conversations with Elders
and communities about Tribal Parks, ICCAs and IPCAs,
where people have not been all that interested in the Aichi
Targets or Canada’s biodiversity conservation targets. The
Elders and the people on the land are concerned about
the fish, the moose and the birch bark trees. These areexamples of culturally significant species that are importantto the ongoing survival of the people, their ability to be on
the land, and their interactions with the land. Many also
expressed concern about the importance of special places
for personal and community ceremonies. Together, thesecultural keystones species and places are sacred.
The Four Moose narrative, then, has been an exercise intesting the waters of good faith. We had to be preparedto have those difficult conversations as we journeyed
across the country in the four directions. In each of
the four regions, we continually tested the waters,
gathered stories and shared experiences about thoseterritories and what our collective future holds. These
were the Regional Gatherings of Indigenous Peoples, andthey included Elders, youth, community members andgovernment representatives.
As we visited each of the four gates, the Four Moose
narrative became richer. A Woolly Mammoth, a duck and askidoo were added (you will meet them later in this report).
At each Gathering, we also undertook ceremonies andleft prayer flags behind to honour and commemorate theimportant work we had just accomplished and the workthat still lay ahead.
— Eli Enns, October 201712 THE FOUR MOOSEWE RISE TOGETHER

1340°0'0"N

50°0'0"N

60°0'0"N

120°0'0"W

973

170°0'0"W

110°0'0"W4

Map developed by Jenna Joyce, Parks Canada Agency

101

150°0'0"W

15

160°0'0"W

12

Areas featured in the ICE report.

8

13

5

180°0'0"

110°0'0"W

100°0'0"W

11 16

130°0'0"W

90°0'0"W

70°0'0"W

90°0'0"W

50°0'0"W

40°0'0"W

30°0'0"W

80°0'0"W2

20°0'0"W

70°0'0"W146

10°0'0"W

60°0'0"W

0

250

500

750 1,000
km
50°0'0"W

Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic (LCC)

Regional Gatherings:
13 Western: Toﬁno, BC
14 Eastern: Digby, NS
15 Northern: Yellowknife, NWT
16 Central: Winnipeg, MB

Stories:
10. Wood Buﬀalo Na onal Park
11. Riding Mountain Na onal Park
12. Tsá Tué Biosphere Reserve

Case Studies:
1. Wehexlaxodıale
2. Broadback Watershed
Conser on Area
3. K'ih tsaa?dze Tribal Park
4. Thaidene Nëné Na onal Park
Reserve and Territorial Protected
Area (TDN)
5. Haida Gwaii Protected Areas
6. Seven Paddles Project, Bear RiverFirst Na n
7. Dasiqox Tribal Park
(Nexwagweẑʔan)
8. Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks
9. Great Bear Rainforest Agreements

Areas Featured
in ICE Report

30°0'0"N

40°0'0"N1.0 INTRODUCTION

Paddlers make their way up the Mackenzie River near
Fort Providence, NWT.
Photographer: Pat KaneThe Indigenous Circle of Experts(ICE) comprises Indigenous andnon-Indigenous citizens of Canada
who have worked together tomake progress on Pathway to
Canada Target 1. ICE has adopted a
distinction-based approach whereby
First Nations, the Metis Nation
and Inuit are recognized in the
Canadian Constitution and consistof distinct, rights-bearing communities with their own
histories, including with the Crown. A distinction-based
approach ensures that the unique rights, interests andcircumstances of First Nations, the Metis Nation and Inuit
are acknowledged, affirmed and implemented. The workof ICE to advance the concept of Indigenous Protected
and Conserved Areas (IPCAs) reflects the understandingthat moving forward, the unique interests, priorities andcircumstances of First Nations, the Metis Nation and Inuit
must receive appropriate recognition in the context ofreconciliation and self-determination.

14 1.0 INTRODUCTION

ICE members came together to participate in this singular
initiative with ambitious goals and good hearts to hearand elevate the voices of Indigenous Peoples acrossCanada with respect to conserving and protecting lands
and waters. ICE listened to many and diverse voices
of Indigenous Peoples at Regional Gatherings held
to further the work of ICE. Participants shared truths
about the impact of past conservation and protection
measures on their lives, livelihoods and connections tolands and territories. Their contributions represent bothan expression of reconciliation and a part of the larger
process of reconciliation in protection and conservation.
ICE’s collective work on Pathway to Canada Target 1 wascommemorated in a sacred pipe ceremony conducted
June 7, 2017 in Ottawa by Elders Dr. Reg Crowshoe (aBlackfoot cultural and spiritual adviser and former chiefof the Piikani Nation) and Larry McDermott (a member of
Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nation and the executive directorof Plenty Canada). Other participants were ICE members
and two major committees involved in Canada Target 1:
the National Steering Committee (NSC) and the National

Advisory Panel (NAP). The ceremony demonstrated ourintent to do good work together and to co-create theethical space within which we would accomplish this work.
Conducted in both English and Indigenous languages,
the pipe ceremony provided the venue and the actionthat grounded our work moving forward. Indigenous
knowledge systems were lifted and elevated in the
Pathway to Canada Target 1 process. In participating
and contributing, all NSC, NAP and ICE members in the
Pathway process committed to obligations that weregrounded in both written and oral systems represented by
the weaving of Indigenous and other knowledge systems
and sciences. It meant we had collectively undertaken thetask: through our Terms of Reference on the written sideof things, and through ceremony on the oral side of things,
which together validated our agreement to work hard on
our stated goals and objectives. Beginning our collective
work through ceremony also bound us together in a waythat written documents could not have done.
The ethical space that was co-created and commemorated
through ceremony has also been vital to the work
conducted by the NAP and the NSC.

“

In many ways, we are the refugees in ourown country, we’ve been banished to theoutskirts of the cities, to sections of landthat nobody else wants. It has not beena good 150 years for us, and we knowthat and yet somehow what has endured
through all these years is what was there
in the first place when we first welcomed
the first immigrants and refugees—wewant to share, we want a good life
for everybody.”— Stephen Kakfwi, K’asho Got’ine Elder,
former Northwest Territories Premier andDene Nation President

1.1 UNDERSTANDING ETHICAL SPACEFor ICE, it was important to describe our work within alegislative, political and policy framework; however, thatframework has fundamentally shifted recently. The shift
is apparent in the Canadian government’s unequivocal
endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and stated intent
to implement the Calls to Action (CTAs) of the Truth
and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Some provincial
and territorial governments have taken similar positions.
As well, recent Supreme Court of Canada rulings thatdeepened our understandings of Aboriginal title andrights to traditional territories—and acknowledged theMetis Nation as an Indigenous People—have changed theframework of our collective endeavour.
In 1982, the Canadian Constitution Act included the Metis
Nation as one of the three recognized Aboriginal Peoples
under Section 35. In 2003, the Supreme Court of Canadadelivered its landmark decision in R. v. Powley, whichfurther recognized the Metis Nation as a distinct Aboriginal
People with existing rights protected by Section 35 of
the Constitution Act. This was the first Supreme Courtof Canada case for the Metis Nation. It was followed by
two others: one, Manitoba Metis Federation v. Canada in2013, said Canada did not fulfill its constitutional duty to
the Metis on lands promised in the Manitoba Act, 1870;

Elders Dr. Reg Crowshoe (right) and Larry McDermott (left).
Photographer: Marilyn Baptiste
WE RISE TOGETHER

15

the other, Daniels v. Canada 2016, made the historicdeclaration that Metis and non-status Aboriginal Peoples
are “Indians” within the meaning of Section 91(24) of theConstitution Act, 1867.
Finally, existing Treaties, Agreements and Other
Constructive Arrangements—as well as Section 35 of
the Constitution and other aspects of the changed
framework—inform how we understand relationships andthe possibilities of reconciliation.
With opportunity comes risk. Indigenous Peoples
are understandably hesitant to (re)build or establish
relationships of trust with non-Indigenous governments.
The usurpation and dispossession of lands, territories andwaters still resonates in the lived realities of Indigenous
Peoples across Canada. In addition, Indigenous systemsof knowledge, language, laws, customs, protocols andpractices have never been respected as such. Often, roles
for Indigenous Peoples in the conservation and protectionof lands and waters have been negative and havediminished Indigenous Peoples rather than creating spacein which to be themselves and contribute meaningfully todecision-making processes. There have been countless
instances of rights violations. Indigenous land stewards
and defenders have been criminalized along with theirtraditional and contemporary relationships with lands
and waters.

Creating a Venue for Collaboration

However, with guidance from Elders, we have come tounderstand that the newly evolving framework has thepotential to enable an “ethical space” that respects theintegrity of all knowledge systems. This ethical spaceprovides a venue for collaboration and advice, sharing
and cross-validation (where one side validates the other’sdecisions). Its methodology applies Indigenous knowledge
in the context of the Pathway to Canada Target 1 initiative
as well as more broadly in conservation and protection
measures going forward.
Ethical space is not a new concept; it existed as a fundamental principle of engagement between Indigenous
Peoples and settler governments until 150 years ago.
It supported the creation of the original set of Treaties,
defining equitable relationships between Indigenousand settler societies, and gave life to the principle of coexistence, since it was the space that Indigenous Peoples
first entered into with settlers. However, the assimilation
policies that began about 150 years ago served toundermine the spirit and intent of the Treaties (and,consequently, of the ethical space). The spirit of equitableengagement and ethical space is only now resurfacing
through reconciliation efforts.

Defining Principles

In this new ethical space, relationships should be nurtured
on multiple levels—not just on a political level—andfounded on the principles that define our understanding

Chief Gordon Planes, ICE Core.
Photographer: Jeremy Williams,
River Voices Productions

16 1.0 INTRODUCTIONWe have western management strategic
sessions and plans, consultation, collecting
information and assessments and putting
the strategic directions together. It’s all
done through a western concept, but wealso in our culture have collective stories
and Indigenous strategies. Bringing homethe stories and truthing the stories are thesame as any western management strategic
practice direction...The Elders have said weneed to make these parallels, and once wemake these parallels, we need the systems
or the practices to be easy to use, because
if we can make them easy, then we can startworking together in reconciliation.”— Dr. Reg Crowshoe, a Blackfoot Elder andcultural and spiritual advisor and former
chief of the Piikani Nation; stated in Ottawa,
June 2017of ethical space (see diagram, “Understanding EthicalSpace,” on p. 18). This should be done by implementing
Indigenous knowledge, the recommendations of thisreport, and Indigenous protocols. Relationships require
all parties to contribute and decide which areas they wantto advise on, or which issues they believe require crossvalidation. Best practices and protocols may be developed
as the relationships evolve.
For a better understanding of what ethical space is and isnot, here are additional principles to consider:• The focus of ethical space is on creating a place forknowledge systems to interact with mutual respect,kindness, generosity and other basic values andprinciples. All knowledge systems are equal; no single
system has more weight or legitimacy than another.
• One system does not need the other to “corroborate”
it to achieve internal validity. For example, the written
system does not always need archaeological evidence
to provide sound “proof” of an Indigenous practiceor story.
• While agreeing to formally enter ethical space may bestraightforward for most parties, actually being withinthat space together requires flexibility. Parties may

frequently need to adjust to change, surprise, andother factors that cannot be envisioned at theinitial stage.
• While engaged in ethical space, no party can claim
to have achieved (or even entered into) processesof consultation or accommodation as defined under
existing or previous provincial or federal legislation orpolicies. That is not the purpose of ethical space.
Ethical space is not the fulfillment of Indigenous rights as
described under the UNDRIP, the Canadian Constitution,
and/or Treaties, Agreements or Other Constructive
Arrangements. Instead, ethical space is framed by thosefoundational agreements and documents.
Nor is the intent of ethical space to provide a venue for
critique. Rather, its purpose is to co-create a space forcollaboration and achieving common ground.
Concepts and proposals such as an IPCA would, inthe ethical space model, be processed and assessed
through the respective systems of Indigenous and nonIndigenous Peoples. Elder Reg Crowshoe has describedfor ICE and NAP how an issue or matter is fed into boththe oral and written systems of governance, assessment,
administration and validation. In his analysis, a proposal
for an IPCA would, for example, go into an Indigenous
oral system in accordance with Indigenous protocols andcustoms. The proposal would be assessed and any final
decisions validated through the Indigenous governancesystem. The same process would unfold on the nonIndigenous side as well, with a proposal going through theappropriate avenues of government and legislative/policy
assessment. As a result, the respective systems would be
guided by integrity in their consideration of such concepts
and would not disrupt or interfere with each other. Then—
within the framework provided by UNDRIP, the Truth andReconciliation Commission (TRC) Calls to Action, theRoyal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Canadian
Constitution, jurisprudence, and Treaties, Agreements andOther Constructive Arrangements—the oral and written
systems would enter into dialogue and cross-validate theirrespective decisions and considerations with regards toan IPCA.
ICE is hopeful that by adopting the ethical space approach,federal, provincial and territorial governments can movetoward achieving the numeric goals of Pathway to Canada
Target 1 while ensuring that the qualitative elements of thegoals are retained and strengthened. We also encourage
governments to look at the 20 Aichi Targets and the
19 related biodiversity targets for Canada as a whole, as
they are meant to work together to conserve biodiversity
across the country and worldwide.

WE RISE TOGETHER

17

Ethical SpaceAs the below image shows, in an ethical space, relationships should be nurtured
on multiple levels —not just on a political level—and founded on the principles

WRITTEN
SYSTEMS

that define our understanding of the space.

TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION OF CANADA
Calls to Action and Final Report and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples

ETHICAL SPACEDIALO GUEC ROSS -VALIDAT IO NS

CANADIAN CONSTITUTION, CANADIAN JURISPRUDENCE(Powley, Manitoba Metis Federation & Daniels)

18 EXECUTIVE SUMMARYOTHER KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS, CANADIAN GOVERNMENT, PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS,TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY GOVERNMENTS AND THEIRRELATED LEGISLATION, REGULATIONS, POLICIES, CODES OF CONDUCT AND PROCESSESTREATIES, AGREEMENTS AND
OTHER CONSTRUCTIVE ARRANGEMENTS

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTSOF INDIGENOUS PEOPLESINDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS, LANGUAGES, LEGAL TRADITIONS, CULTURES, CUSTOMS,
TRADITIONAL PROTOCOLS, SACRED TEACHINGSORAL
SYSTEMS1.2 PATHWAY TO CANADA TARGET 1
AND INDIGENOUS ENGAGEMENTThe Pathway to Canada Target 1 (the Pathway) is an
initiative that was launched by the federal, provincial,
and territorial authorities responsible for parks, protectedareas and biodiversity conservation to meet Canada’s
Target 1 to conserve at least 17 percent of lands and inland
waters by 2020.
Areas important for biodiversity and ecosystem services
are among the qualitative elements being looked atthrough the Pathway process, which is also looking at
defining protected areas and other effective conservation
measures; equitable management from a non-Indigenous
perspective;
guidanceonassessingecologicalrepresentation; guidance for connected and integrated
parks and conservation areas; and guidance on measuring
effective management.
For a sense of the scope of the initiative, Canada currently
protects 10.5 percent of its land base. Most of the areasthat have been set aside were established throughprotected areas legislation. But to meet Target 1, Canada
needs new solutions, because the methods by which parks
and protected areas have been established in the past are
no longer viable from an Indigenous rights and UNDRIP
perspective. Various jurisdictions are developing solutions
by working in partnership with Indigenous Peoples andother relevant sectors of Canadian society.
The overarching goal of the Pathway, which is co-led
by Parks Canada and Alberta Environment and Parks,
is to establish a coordinated and connected network ofprotected and conserved areas (including IPCAs) throughdecisions that are grounded in science and Indigenous
knowledge systems. These areas will serve as a foundation
for biodiversity conservation for generations to come.
Although the project was initiated by protected areas andconservation authorities in Canada, the Pathway involves
partnerships with Indigenous Peoples and governments,
municipalities, industry, academia, and private and nongovernmental entities managing lands. In addition,
there is strong emphasis on including the voices ofElders and youth. The Pathway was designed to reflect
renewed nation-to-nation, government-to-government,
and Inuit-to-Crown relationships that respect the rights,
responsibilities and priorities of Indigenous Peoples andsupports their involvement in every aspect.
The NSC was formed to coordinate efforts to achieve
Canada Target 1 with representation from the Governmentof Canada, provinces, territories, national Indigenous
groups and municipalities. The NSC reports to acommunity of federal, provincial and territorial ministries
responsible for the Pathway, including those responsible

for parks, protected areas and the conservation of
biodiversity. The NAP was also convened to provide its
own advice and options to organizations, Canadiansand governments at all levels on how to achieve Canada
Target 1. Its membership is drawn from land trusts,
conservation non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
industry, academia, youth and Indigenous organizations.
Another component of the Pathway initiative is theExpert Task Teams, comprising subject matter experts
who provided discussion papers to the NAP and NSC tocomplete their work. Please refer to Appendix 7.6 for adiagram outlining how the Pathway elements interact.

1.3 THE AICHI TARGETS

Canada Target 1 is one of the 2020 Canadian Biodiversity
Goals and Targets developed by Canada as part of its
national action plan to meet its international commitment
to the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, adopted in 2010 at theConference for the Parties for the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) in Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture, Japan. The
plan includes 20 biodiversity targets, known as the Aichi
Targets, which are to be achieved by 2020 to reverse theglobal decline in biodiversity. Aichi Target 11 as expressedin Canada Target 1 aims, through protected areas andother measures, to conserve at least 17 percent of Canada’s
terrestrial areas and inland waters and 10 percent of its
marine and coastal areas by 2020.
As noted throughout this report, ICE believes federal,provincial and territorial governments must take an
integrated approach to meeting their domestic biodiversity
goals and contributing to the global good. The 20 Aichi
Targets and 19 related Canadian biodiversity targets areintended to work together. This approach aligns with
Indigenous worldviews and thinking that have conserved
biodiversity effectively for millennia.

1.4 THE INDIGENOUS CIRCLE
OF EXPERTS

ICE is a key element of the Pathway, comprising Indigenous
experts from across Canada working together with members from federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions.
It was established to provide recommendations andguidance on developing new types of protected andconserved areas that are Indigenous-led, and on how
a spectrum of IPCAs could contribute to Pathway to
Canada Target 1 in the spirit and practice of reconciliation.
The process placed a high priority on a nation-to-nation
relationship, with a direct line of reporting from ICE to
the NSC and the ministers without filtering by any nonIndigenous body.
ICE met various times over 2017 to develop the IPCA
concept and work through how Indigenous governments
WE RISE TOGETHER

19

could contribute to the Pathway. It also convened
four Regional Gatherings to consult Elders and other
Indigenous Peoples about these matters.
The Pathway was created to address the terrestrial
and inland waters components of Canada Target 1,
while Fisheries and Oceans Canada was tasked withleading the marine component—all in partnership with
provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments andinterested Canadian organizations. ICE sees this split
in responsibilities (i.e., the separation of terrestrial andinland waters from marine and coastal areas) as alien to
Indigenous Peoples’ worldviews, which understand land
and water as indivisible, whether in terms of planningor stewardship.
As such, ICE believes that IPCAs do not apply only tolands, but also to waters. Its position is that it is necessary
to address Aichi Target 11 (Pathway to Canada Target 1)
by ensuring full coordination and conservation planning ofterrestrial and marine environments across all departments
at the same time.

1.4.1 MANDATE

The key deliverable is a publicly accessible report submitted to Pathway ministers and Indigenous governments
and organizations. The committee’s detailed mandate canbe found in the ICE Terms of Reference available at http://
www.conservation2020canada.ca/resources.
ICE began its work in March 2017. Its current term willend in March 2018, when the Pathway ministers meet andpublicly release the report and its recommendations.
While the focus of ICE was to develop recommendations
for IPCAs and spell out how they could contribute toachieving Canada’s Target 1 in the spirit and practiceof reconciliation, ICE has elected to provide its
recommendations in a broader context, noting that whilesome IPCAs will contribute to Canada Target 1, others may
not, depending on the priorities and needs of the relevant
Indigenous governments and Peoples.
While ICE was not mandated to develop recommendations
for marine areas, its recommendations are expected toreflect a holistic approach. As stated earlier in this section,
ICE views land and water as indivisible, and acknowledges
the intimate relationship between the two as perceived
by many Indigenous Peoples. Our recommendations

reflect this integrated and holistic approach to planningand stewardship.
In addition to its work on IPCAs, ICE was created to ensure
Indigenous expert advice would be applied to various
elements of the Pathway initiative. To that end, ICE has
been interacting with the Pathway’s NAP and NSC toalign efforts and mutually inform the recommendationsof both bodies. In addition, a subset of ICE, composedof Indigenous members (the “ICE Core”), has provided
feedback on Expert Task Team discussion papers regarding
qualitative elements of Canada Target 1.

1.4.2 MEMBERSHIP AND APPROACH

ICE has 20 members and is co-chaired by Eli Enns andDanika Littlechild. Eli Enns is a Tla-o-qui-aht politicalscientist who co-founded the Ha’uukmin Tribal Park in
Clayoquot Sound and is the regional coordinator in North
America for the Indigenous Peoples’ and Community
Conserved Territories and Areas (ICCA) Consortium.
Danika Littlechild is a lawyer from the Ermineskin CreeNation in Treaty 6 territory in Alberta who specializes ingovernance, Indigenous legal traditions, environment andinternational law.
ICE also includes one member selected by the Assembly ofFirst Nations, one selected by the Metis National Council,
and eight Indigenous experts (or their representatives)
from First Nations across Canada. Government members
include one each from the governments of British
Columbia, Northwest Territories, Alberta, Ontario andNova Scotia, as well as one each from Environment andClimate Change Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations
and Northern Affairs Canada, Parks Canada Agency and
Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
The Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami was invited to participate on
ICE, and Inuit representatives were invited to various
Regional Gatherings; however, Inuit governments
have opted to use other mechanisms to advance theirinterests with respect to protected areas. That said,
Inuit representatives did attend two out of the four
Regional Gatherings.
Indigenous and government members of ICE worked
cooperatively in the spirit and practice of reconciliation,
operating on a consensus basis, with all members
having equal opportunity to express their views andmake recommendations.

ICE is not a consultation body. Its members are serving as subject matter experts and were mandated
to work together to produce the best advice and recommendations possible. Recommendations madeby ICE do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of individual ICE members or their respective
governments or representative organizations.
20 1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 REGIONALGATHERINGS

Eastern Regional Gathering Participants and ICE
members with the four flags at Bear River First Nation, NS.
Photographer: Jeremy Williams, River Voices Productions

T

2.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEWo conduct its work, ICE hosted four
Regional Gatherings across Canada
between May and September 2017,
according to the four directions: West
(Tofino, BC), East (Digby, NS), North(Yellowknife, NWT) and Central/
South (Winnipeg, MB). Lasting
several days and bringing together
First Nations, the Metis Nation,
Inuit, and federal and provincial
government representatives, these gatherings were key
components of a condensed eight-month work planthat ICE implemented to prepare its recommendations
on IPCAs. The gatherings enabled ICE to gather input from
Elders, regional and community Indigenous government
represen-tatives, and a range of protected area andland use planning practitioners. Every gathering was
instrumental in shaping the recommendations containedin this report.

Host communities generously welcomed participants
with songs, drumming and dancing, while ceremonial
protocols in keeping with the traditions of each host region
helped create the ethical spaces required for respectful
and authentic dialogue. Teachings of Elders permeatedeach session. In addition to workshop-style discussions,personal stories and open dialogue, local site visits wereconducted to enrich the discussions.
Each gathering provided a forum for learning andexchange. Topics included the identification of key
principles and common characteristics associated with
IPCAs; the conditions and requirements for successful
IPCA initiatives; the potential role IPCAs could play inreconciling relationships at multiple levels; the integrationof Indigenous and Crown laws; innovations in governancemodels; and the relationship between IPCAs and existing
protected area and conservation networks.

WE RISE TOGETHER

21

Common themes that emerged throughout the gatherings
and informed ICE’s recommendations included thesignificance of language to the health of cultures and theland; the need to respect Indigenous laws, knowledge andprotocols; the critical importance of ceremony; the need toacknowledge and address past wrongs committed in theestablishment and management of parks and protectedareas; the interrelationship between the health of land,
water and people; and the opportunity for cross-culturaland cross-institutional learning, sharing and collaboration
with the intent to improve relationships.

Tla-o-qui-aht Territory) and highlighted the potential for
IPCAs to support and build sustainable livelihoods.
This was the first opportunity for ICE to share information
about its mandate and hear directly from representativesof Indigenous governments and organizations about their
aspirations for Indigenous-led conservation and theirneeds in achieving them. Participants heard stories from
Elders and leaders that were pivotal to the creation andrealization of the Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Park vision.

Each Regional Gathering contributed to the Four Moose
narrative as concerns were raised and opportunities
discussed.
Detailed reports were prepared following each gathering and have been compiled into a single document.
This report contains summaries of the gatherings (below).
Video summaries are also available, with their individual
URLs found in the Resource section at the end of
this report.

2.2 THE WESTERN GATHERING – MAY

To set the stage for the first ICE Regional Gathering,participants first visited the Snaw-Nas-As Garden of
Spiritual Healing in the Mount Arrowsmith UNESCO
Biosphere Region, then were welcomed to Qualicum
First Nation Traditional Territory before travelling throughHa’uukmin Tribal Park en route to Tla-o-qui-aht Territory.
A short visit to the forest workshop of local leader
Joe Martin was an experience many participants reflectedon during the discussions that followed at TinWis (inICE Co-Chair Eli Enns (left) and Tla-o-qui-aht
Master Carver and Elder Joe Martin (right).
Photographer: Marilyn Baptiste

FOLLOWING THE FLAGSAt each Regional Gathering, participants engaged in the protocol of providing cloth, or “flags” asthey are known, to the Elders to bless and pray over in the ceremony. The flags came in four colours:
sky blue, canary yellow, crimson red and bright green. Each of the four Regional Gatherings was
represented by a different flag.
At each gathering, the chosen flag was placed at or near the gathering site to establish a marker,
to commemorate participants’ commitment in that territory, and to offer protection, both to thework being done at that place and generally. The Indigenous Peoples of each territory engaged intheir own ceremonies, laws and protocols in choosing where to place the flags. ICE members, andthose who participated in the processes that led to this report, can return to those places as an
expression of accountability, connection, ongoing obligation and the ceremony with which they
undertook their work.

22 2.0 REGIONAL GATHERINGSWESTERN GATHERING:
THE WOOLLY MAMMOTH
As told by Eli Enns at Regional Gatherings

Western Regional Gathering Participants and
ICE members on Tla-o-qui-aht traditional territory, BC.
Photographer: Jeremy Williams, River Voices Productions

These and other stories of Indigenous Peoples’ innovation
grounded the small-group discussions that began todelve into the topics ICE was tasked with exploring. The
rich dialogue at TinWis provided a significant content
base upon which ICE could begin to build recommendations and articulate an oral narrative about reconciliationin conservation. The Nuu-chah-nulth word, “Hishuk Ish Tsáwalk,” which means everything is one and interconnected,
was a closing theme of the gathering, and one that ICE
built upon at the next Regional Gathering in the east.

2.3 THE EASTERN GATHERING – JUNE

ICE worked with colleagues and leaders from the east to
prepare for and host the second Regional Gathering on
Mi’kmaq territory. Participants were welcomed by Regional
Chief Morley Googoo and provided participants with
an opportunity to tour the Grand-Pré National Historic
Site before travelling to Digby for the remainder of thegathering. The Bear River First Nation graciously hosted
the gathering for a meal and shared its experience of how
reconnecting to the land supports community healing—
a powerful perspective.
Opening words from Elder Albert Marshall inspired
participants to engage in the gathering united by a shared
responsibility: caring for Mother Earth. In the Mi’kmaw
language, Tetpaqo’tmnej means “Let’s take care of
it properly.”“We started on the West Coast. While wewere in Tofino, on opening night, a ‘Woolly
Mammoth’ came into the room. And this Woolly
Mammoth, emerging from the slumber and iceof Treaty 8 country, was about the cumulative
impacts on some of our lands and the need for
immediate release of pressure. We had to begin
contemplating interim measures when thinking
about IPCAs. While continuing this dialogue
about what IPCAs are, we realized that weneeded to be mindful of those calls for immediate
action, for ‘cooling-off periods’ to be in place forcommunities overwhelmed with development
pressures, whose residents need time to consider
their options, including IPCAs.
“When the Woolly Mammoth entered theroom, there was a foul odour that needed tobe addressed. This foul odour reflected thedisconnect between Indigenous worldviews
and western planning processes, actions andeconomic development, as well as the disconnect
between land and water conservation planning.
“We identified these issues as risks because
we didn’t want to give the impression of adisconnected worldview.”
Prominent themes at this gathering included Indigenous
Peoples’ historical and modern negative experienceswith established parks and protected areas; respect for
Indigenous knowledge and the need to integrate it withwestern science to inform action; and opportunities toapply Indigenous law in IPCAs. Concentrated, smallgroup discussions further explored these topics as well
as reconciliation with the land, requirements for creating
IPCAs in a positive way, and the potential role for IPCAs inreconnecting and healing with the land.

WE RISE TOGETHER

23

EASTERN GATHERING: THE DUCKAs told by Eli at Regional Gatherings“When we went to the Eastern Regional Gathering, we again confronted the risks of disconnected
land use planning and conservation through the shortcomings of federal fisheries management,
which our communities in ocean areas have experienced. We came to the realization that, like Aski,a Swampy Cree word that basically means the Earth and everything in it, our Indigenous governments
and Peoples not only understand the interconnectedness of terrestrial and marine life, but have theauthority to speak to both. So, the idea out of the East was of a Mi’kma’ki protected area laid over themarine and terrestrial area.
“We realize government staff also understand that everything is interconnected, but must adhere tolegislation and policies that distinguish between terrestrial and marine conservation. In contrast,
Indigenous governments and Peoples are can lay a ‘blanket’ over the terrestrial and marine areas tocreate the jurisdictional connective tissue that supports coordinated efforts between the two halvesof the Pathway.
“This conversation cleared the air. Although we were discussing touchy subjects, we were able to resolve
them in a positive way. It was an opportunity to look past being frustrated with disconnected policy andsee the opportunity for Indigenous nations to help bring solutions as the Elder societies of the lands
and waters of Turtle Island.
“As the room was clearing out, a single duck flew in—the next character in the Four Moose narrative.
The Metis Nation has taken its traditional Laws of the Hunt and modernized them into the Metis
Laws of the Harvest. From those, they created a permitting system for their hunters based on their own
rules and laws of harvesting. The duck came from an ICE member who had hunted a duck under thispermitting system, but was challenged by a federal wildlife conservation official. He fought in court for
many years for the recognition of his right to hunt that duck.
“This part of the narrative is about empowering ourselves as Indigenous Peoples on our traditional
territories. It is incumbent on all Indigenous Peoples to look internally to our cultures and the teachingsof our ancestors and to distill what our laws are and adhere to them.”

2.4 THE NORTHERN GATHERING –AUGUSTICE convened the third Regional Gathering in Yellowknife,
bringing together participants from Yukon, Northwest
Territories, Nunavut, northern Saskatchewan and Alberta.
The Yellowknives Dene First Nation welcomed travellers
with prayer, drumming and opening remarks that
underscored the challenge of ensuring a prosperous andtraditional way of life for future generations as well as theopportunity to use IPCAs to achieve this vision.

Throat singers (Kayley Inuksuk MacKay and Hovak Johnston)in Dettah, NWT.
Photographer: Jeremy Williams, River Voices Productions
24 2.0 REGIONAL GATHERINGSElders and leaders from diverse northern landscapes
shared stories and inspired valuable discussion on themesof reconciliation, capacity requirements, principles andvalues, and governance innovations to support a spectrumof IPCAs in Canada. Elder Stephen Kakfwi shared his
perspective on the need to assert nationhood and revive
Indigenous laws and ways of life while acknowledging
the potential of the ethical space approach to encouragenation-to-nation relationships.
While the unique geopolitical contexts of the North werevaluable for advancing the concept of IPCAs, participants
highlighted some of the challenges inherent in building
the policy and legal frameworks that would be needed tosupport shared decision-making in managing protectedareas, as well as the financial and capacity requirements
for Indigenous governments to participate in suchframeworks. Challenges associated with integrating
Indigenous and Crown laws in the pursuit of conservation
objectives were also discussed.

and jointly exercise their responsibilities to care for theirpeople, land and water.
As with the other Regional Gatherings, participants
spent time in small working groups discussing regionally
relevant themes, including “inter-national” reconciliation
among Indigenous nations; the impact of pre-1982 parks
and protected areas on culture and individuals; capacity
requirements for successful IPCAs; governance models;defining the spectrum of IPCAs; and the role of ceremonyand spirituality in IPCAs.
Participants toured several significant sites to learn about
Indigenous-led conservation and commemoration,
including the Forks, St. Boniface and Lower Fort Garry
National Historic Site. The gathering closed with anemphasis on shared responsibilities and the importanceof ceremony in IPCAs—a theme that emerged at every
Regional Gathering hosted by ICE.

2.5 THE CENTRAL GATHERINGAND THE METIS LAWS OF
THE HARVEST – SEPTEMBER

The final Regional Gathering took place in Winnipeg
Treaty 1 territory, the Metis Nation homeland. Elder
Dave Courchene of Sagkeeng First Nation and Metis
National Council President Clément Chartier both offeredcontext for participants. Elder Courchane shared a storyof the seven laws, symbolized by seven animals, that arefoundational to his peoples’ way of life. President Chartierencouraged participants to appreciate the Law of Humility,

Metis National Council President Clément Chartier, Winnipeg, MB.
Photographer: Jeremy Williams, River Voices Productions

NORTHERN GATHERING: THE SKIDOO
As told by Eli at Regional Gatherings“When we travelled North, the narrative became richer. We heard from Elders and young people about
the health of the land corresponding to the health of people. During a dialogue on reconciliation, an Inuit
participant talked about the power of shame from residential schools that had hindered him from sharing
his culture and knowledge with his children. He told the story of a broken-down skidoo on the land. While
there were tools and knowledge to fix the skidoo, the risk of being exposed to the elements threatened therider’s life. An igloo was built around the skidoo to shield the rider as he repaired the skidoo. Once it was
repaired, the rider broke out through the walls and drove on.
“This story became a powerful metaphor for all parks that have been created in the past without proper
consultation with Indigenous governments—in other words, for all of the broken-down skidoos acrossthe country. We need to build the igloo of our culture around these broken-down skidoos. Where you
have parks and protected areas that do not yet involve Indigenous Peoples in a proper way, there is an
opportunity to bring those cultures back in and enclose those protected to get them working better again.”

WE RISE TOGETHER

25

THE METIS LAWS OF THE HARVESTThe creation of the Metis Laws of the Harvest, instituted in Manitoba by the Metis government(Manitoba Metis Federation [MMF]), is an example of an Indigenous government moving unilaterally
to implement a structure of rights and responsibilities. The concept of “just doing it” for an IPCA isevident in how the Manitoba Metis Community took the bull by the horns, so to speak, and developed its
own harvesting system based on constitutional rights and, at the same time, responsibilities to the land as
passed on by Metis Elders.
Court cases like the Supreme Court’s Powley decision were in the works when MMF President David
Chartrand began consulting with Metis citizens across Manitoba about how the Metis Nation would
practice its constitutional right to hunt and fish. Hunters, fishers, trappers and other harvesters, alongwith Metis Elders, made it clear that harvesting rights would be useless if, in the future, there were nolonger anything left to hunt, fish, trap or harvest. Conservation was going to be the number one issue, as
explained by the Elders.
Based on these consultations, the Metis Laws of the Harvest were developed. The laws also drew upon theold Metis Laws of the Hunt, which were used by the Metis Nation during the buffalo hunting era. The new
Metis Laws of the Harvest expanded on the old idea of regulating how and when Metis could harvest. For
instance, possession limits were placed on how much fish a person could hold; seasonal and tag limits wereput on big-game animals; and a reporting structure was put in place so that the Metis government could
know how much harvesting was taking place.
For some time, the Government of Manitoba did not recognize the Metis Laws of the Harvest. However,following dedicated negotiations and a few pivotal court cases (such as the Goodon decision, in which
a judge awarded Metis harvester Will Goodon the right to harvest a duck in the Turtle Mountains ofManitoba), the Metis Nation and the Province of Manitoba signed an agreement to recognize the Metis
Laws as set out by the Metis Nation in its own governance structure.
This account is here to offer an idea of what an Indigenous government can do for conservation when it
is necessary and there is sufficient political will.

Central Regional Gathering, Winnipeg, MB.
Photographer: Jeremy Williams, River Voices Productions

26 2.0 REGIONAL GATHERINGS

3.0 THE DARK HISTORYOF PROTECTEDAREAS IN CANADACamp at Gots’ǫkàtì (Mesa Lake), part of the WehexlaxodialeLand Use Exclusion Area designated in the Tłįchǫ Land Use Plan.
Photographer: Petter Fleischer Jacobsen

F

or Indigenous Peoples, the historyof protected areas in Canada, whilesomewhat improved in recent times,
has been fraught with rights violations,
forcible displacement, loss of accessto traditional territories and resources,and other substantial inter-generational
cultural, social, economic and spiritual
impacts. In each of the Regional
Gatherings,
participants
sharedpowerful and unsettling truths through storytelling about
legacies of colonialism that persist in many protected
and conserved areas in Canada, especially those created
before 1982, when the Canadian Constitution recognized
and affirmed Aboriginal rights. The larger context of land
and resource appropriation, breach of historical Treaties,
assimilation efforts, racism and discrimination heightened
the impacts of past protected areas.

Without truth, justice, and healing, there canbe no genuine reconciliation. Reconciliation
is not about ‘closing a sad chapter of Canada’s
past,’ but about opening new healing pathwaysof reconciliation that are forged in truth
and justice.”— The Truth and Reconciliation Commission

Perhaps the most insidious impact of historical protected areas is the disconnection they fostered between
Indigenous Peoples and their territories. This disconnection disrupted far more than just individual experience –it prevented the full functionality of Indigenous legal orders
tied to spaces and places captured by parks; it weakened

WE RISE TOGETHER

27

the necessary linkages for inter-generational knowledgetransmission and sustainable use; it may have even led to
the loss of stories, songs, ceremonies, dances and otherpractices that were geographically and intrinsically tied to
specific sites captured by protected areas.
Many parks and protected areas in Canada were created
without the consent of Indigenous Peoples during periodsin Canada’s history when it was common for people
to be “cleared from the land” to make way for tourism,
recreation and related development, or to maintain theappearance of Eurocentric notions of pristine wilderness
devoid of human influence. Practices like these failed
to recognize the intimate relationships that Indigenous
Peoples have maintained with lands and resources in theirterritories for millennia as users and responsible stewards.
In the most egregious cases, Indigenous Peoples
were removed from their homes to establish national,
provincial or territorial parks. This was the case for the
Keeseekoowenin First Nation when Riding Mountain
National Park was established in Manitoba in 1933, and for
the Mowachaht and Muchalaht First Nations of the Nuuchah-nulth Peoples when Strathcona Provincial Park was
created in BC.
Imagine knowing that your grandparents’ home had
been burned to clear the way for “conservation andprotection.” Imagine not being able to gather yourtraditional medicines—as your peoples have done formillennia—because a stranger to the land says it damages
the land and is a criminal act. Imagine not being able tofeed your family or community because you have been
forcibly prevented from accessing your traplines, hunting
areas or fishing places. Imagine not even being able to
get what is necessary for ceremony or to access a sacredarea because of laws and regulations you had no hand inwriting. Imagine having to fill out applications or forms to
get traditional materials for your cultural practices, such as
basket-making.
The point is: in the not-too-distant past, protected areas
took away not only the rights of Indigenous Peoples,but their ability to exercise their responsibilities related
to the land. The symbiosis between Indigenous Peoples
and the spirits, animals, plants, waters and lands was—and unfortunately, is still—disrupted in many existing
protected areas.
As noted during some Regional Gatherings, there
remain protected areas where Indigenous People are stillprohibited from exercising their rights or are required
to ask for permission to access lands to engage incultural practices.

...Creating space means asserting ournationhood and sovereignty because we arein a colonial situation. We have been madesubjects of a country we never agreed to, lawsthat we never had anything to do with. Ourlaws, our way of doing things, our ways about
how we take care of ourselves, how we relate
to one another, other people, our land, ourwildlife, have been set aside. So you haveto push back, not in the way of ‘please canyou give me a little bit of room?’ as thathasn’t worked.”— Elder Stephen Kakfwi, Northern Gathering,
August 2017

In these places, the promise of IPCAs will ring hollow unless
Canadians take steps to correct past wrongs and manage
existing protected and conserved areas differently moving
forward. This will mean listening to difficult truths about
the colonial history and legacy of this country’s parks
and protected areas. In many other parks and protectedareas across Canada, there is a pressing need and timely
opportunity to demonstrate appropriate recognition
that has been denied for more than a century in somecases. Real implementation of Treaties, Agreements andOther Constructive Arrangements must happen. Real
implementation of Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution
must happen. Otherwise, what is the true value of aconstitutional right? We have to collectively recognize thatIndigenous nationhood and self-determination are key tomoving ahead in a good way. This is reconciliation.
In more recent decades—with the advent of modern
land claims agreements, the constitutional recognitionof Aboriginal and Treaty rights under Section 35 of the1982 Constitution, the increasingly clear articulation ofIndigenous rights in Canadian case law, and the risingassertions of Indigenous rights by Indigenous Peoples
themselves—significant changes have occurred withrespect to protected areas and Indigenous Peoples
in Canada.

28 3.0 THE DARK HISTORY OF PROTECTED AREAS IN CANADAMany Crown agencies have developed and strengthened
their relationships with Indigenous Peoples and haveadopted a range of models for including Indigenous
perspectives in the creation, management and, in somecases, decision-making processes for protected areas.
Examples include the establishment of Indigenous
advisory boards, cooperative management bodies, andshared decision-making and governance. See Appendix
7.3 for more details about these initiatives.
Finally, most protected areas were not created based on
goals like ecological integrity or even science in general.
In the new millennium, we are seeing increasing focus on
science-based rationales for protection and conservation.
Yet Indigenous knowledge systems have been neither
adequately nor equitably engaged with science for these
purposes. This has to change.

Despite progress that has led to the meaningful inclusionof Indigenous People in many existing protected areas,
most protected areas in many parts of Canada have had
limited Indigenous involvement, and certainly are not
managed in accordance with the principle of Free Priorand Informed Consent as expressed by UNDRIP. Thereis much work to do in truth-telling—that is, revealing thetruths experienced by affected Indigenous communities
regarding the creation of parks and protected areas—that
needs to happen as we proceed down the Pathway. In thisregard, ICE is encouraged by the federal government’s
full endorsement of UNDRIP and commitment to an
implementation process, which we expect will include
acting on the recommendations of this report.

WOOD BUFFALO NATIONAL PARK
Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada’s largest national park, has been home to the Mikisew CreeFirst Nation and other Indigenous Peoples for generations. This is the Mikisew story of Wood Buffalo
National Park as passed down through oral history by Mikisew members who, in many instances, wereborn and raised in what is now Wood Buffalo National Park.
When Chief Mikisew Justin Marten and two headmen signed Treaty 8 in 1899 on behalf of the Mikisew,
they did so with the understanding that their people would be free to continue their way of life. Twenty
years later, Chief Mikisew was approached by the Canadian government about the prospect of using someMikisew territory to graze plains bison and wood bison. Chief Mikisew agreed to allow the bison to roambased on the promise that Mikisew people would be allowed to harvest bison once population numbers
were sufficient. This led to the establishment of the park in 1922. Chief Mikisew understood that the land
was being loaned to the government to help the bison and would be given back to the Mikisew after
100 years. The park was expanded several years later to include the Peace-Athabasca Delta.
Old approaches to managing protected areas
The creation of the park and enforcement of regulations removed the Mikisew people’s ability to decide
how they would live their lives away from land that had always been their home. “Parks Canada made its
own regulations and laws without letting the people of the land have input,” said Elder George Martin.
While the Mikisew were allowed to remain within the Park, seasonal regulations limited trapping to winterand limited the hunting of other traditional resources, like moose, at important times of the year. Quantity
limits were also imposed, and harvesting of other species (like fisher and waterfowl) was prohibited
altogether. The promise that Mikisew would be allowed to harvest bison was never honoured. Hunting
these animals is still banned.

WE RISE TOGETHER

29

Mikisew people who were caught breaking these regulations were fined and incarcerated. In some cases,
families were banned from the park forever. For example, Elder George Martin’s father paid a $35 finefor shooting a duck. Later, the cabins of some harvesters were burned down by Parks Canada. The
Mikisew became the people “who broke the law to survive on the land.” A feeling of fear during harvesting
activity emerged.

“Park Wardens would follow trapper trails and see how they had the traps set, what they used for
bait…(Restrictions) put a squeeze on (Mikisew members), afraid of hunting illegally, even though
it is open season year round for them.”(Elder, 2018)
Parks rules and regulations prevented Mikisew people from feeding their families, contributing to themigration of people to Fort Chipewyan. According to Elder Matthew Lepine, “They had regulations for
hunting, and couldn’t kill this or that at certain times of the year. That affected the way the people fed
themselves. They’re not rich by any means and can’t buy groceries—yet they couldn’t kill a moose at a
certain time of year. It was same with migratory birds.”
Despite some improvements, effective involvement of Indigenous Peoples in park governanceremains elusive.
A protected area lacking effective biodiversity protection
Two major developments outside the park’s boundaries have seriously impacted its environment: thedevelopment of the oil sands industry upstream on the Athabasca River and the building of the William
Andrew Cecil Bennett dam upstream on the Peace River. Water levels have dropped, and contaminantsfrom the oil sands affected the water quality. According to Matthew Lepine, this impacts the Mikisew
people’s ability to pass knowledge on to younger generations:“To show them how we used to do our trapping and hunting, and where, —where we used to pick
rat root, pick up eggs, when the birds come out in the spring, annual egg picking—we can’t do thatanymore. We can’t teach anybody these things because we don’t have the birds that used to lay theeggs, or most of the animals we used to hunt. It’s the same with trapping, you know. There is very
little left that you can pass on to the younger generation. I take my grandkids down the river andall I can say is ‘This is what used to be there.’”Opportunities for change
The ecological integrity of parts of Wood Buffalo National Park is at serious risk; the relationship between
Parks Canada and Mikisew is in the early stages of reconciliation. The Mikisew have a Treaty Land
Entitlement Agreement and Treaty rights that should enable the Mikisew to have a real role in decisionmaking. The Mikisew are clear that they must be involved in every step of park planning and procedures toensure that Mikisew knowledge is incorporated into park management. According to Terry Marten,“If you work alongside the people off the land, get their input, it’s a happy medium. Mikisew shouldbe able to say what happens to our land, we are so entwined with it. If anything happens to the land

30 3.0 THE DARK HISTORY OF PROTECTED AREAS IN CANADAit totally, totally affects us. Sometimes people
can’t see that, but anything that happens to
the land, it really, really has an effect.”
Terry’s brother, Elder George Marten, echoes this:“Parks Canada makes its own regulations and laws
without letting the people of the land have input.
That’s why we want to join Parks now, to workwith them. We want to be alongside Parks making
the regulations.”
Simply modernizing the park’s management
approach will not protect biodiversity or advancereconciliation. Given the encroachment ofdevelopment, a more effective southern boundaryor buffer zone south of the park is needed. Most
critically, the park’s continued contribution to
the Mikisew way of life and Canada’s biodiversity
targets will depend on the ability of governments,
together with Indigenous Peoples, to develop new
governance approaches for the threats external
to the park.

Photographer: Susan Mather

RIDING MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK
Riding Mountain National Park is located within the heart of Treaty 2 territory and forms part of
the territory of the Anishinabe of Riding Mountain. It was designated a UNESCO Biosphere Reservein 1986. The following story was submitted by Parks Canada Agency staff.
The Anishinabe refer to the area as Noozaawinijing or Wagiiwing, which means “being in the middleof the mountains.” Riding Mountain presents an example where meaningful steps have been taken toaddress a past wrong—in this case, the wrongful inclusion of Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation
Indian Reserve 61A into the boundaries of Riding Mountain National Park in 1933 and the subsequent
forceful expulsion of Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nations residents. These events created deep intergenerational wounds and a damaged relationship between the First Nation and Canada.
The reacquisition of IR 61A by Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation through a land claim process
was the first step toward repairing the relationship. Working together, both parties facilitated theestablishment of the Senior Officials Forum in 1998. As the relationship and conversations evolved, so
did the need to include other First Nations near Riding Mountain. This led to the establishment of the
Coalition of First Nations with Interest in Riding Mountain National Park and the Riding Mountain
Forum. Coalition members have continued to maintain strong connections to the area and each other.
WE RISE TOGETHER

31

The Senior Officials Forum and the Riding Mountain Forum have provided opportunities for Parks
Canada, Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation and coalition members to work collaboratively in the spiritof mutual interest. Together, they have made progress in recognizing Treaty territory, increasing access tothe park for enjoyment and recreation, increasing access to medicines, increasing Indigenous participationin the management of the lands, waters and fish and wildlife, increasing support for the presentationand discovery of Anishinabe heritage through tourism and community development, and strengthening
partnerships and relationships.
There is a growing acceptance of the need to work together to protect the land. There is recognitionof the need to eliminate tuberculosis in local cattle, protect grasslands and aspen parkland, and create
opportunities for economic development through initiatives such as the Federal Investments in
Infrastructure program. Engaging Indigenous groups in developing the Visitor Experience Strategy helped
Parks Canada staff articulate the essence of Riding Mountain as home to the Anishinabe and realize theimportance of communicating that connection to visitors.
The process of reconciliation and healing requires a sustained effort to facilitate the connections that
Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation and the Coalition have to Noozaawinijing and Wagiiwing. All
parties have taken steps to recognize that Riding Mountain is home to many, with shared responsibility
for strengthening those relationships while protecting and presenting this very special place. The story
and the relationships at Riding Mountain continue to evolve as they work together.

Caribou hide tanning camp near Lutselk’e, NWT.
Photographer: Pat Kane

32 3.0 THE DARK HISTORY OF PROTECTED AREAS IN CANADA

4.0 INDIGENOUS
PROTECTEDAND CONSERVED
AREAS (IPCAS)

Dasiqox Tribal Park, Tsilhqot’in territory, BC. Photographer:
Jeremy Williams, River Voices Productions

F

4.1 INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT

rom one generation to the other, Indigenous Peoples have successfully used, governed and conserved
lands and waters, relying on the transmission and practice of their Indigenous laws and traditional
knowledge. Evidence of such land management practices worldwide is increasingly being documented
and pointing to better results in conservation outcomes for areas under Indigenous tenure when comparedwith government-managed protected areas.

In 2003, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) recognized “Community Conserved
Areas and Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas and Indigenous –owned and managed protectedareas” at the 5th World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa. This concept was subsequently adopted
by CBD parties in 2004 as “Indigenous and Local Community Conserved Areas”. Since that time CBD Parties haverecognized different iterations of this concept3.
One of the four governance types in IUCN’s protected areas matrix is “governance by Indigenous Peoples and/or
local communities”, which led to the CBD Parties recognizing the need to address governance in terms of diversity,
efficiency and equity in protected area systems. The IUCN also recognized that these conserved areas could be effective
mechanisms for supporting the implementation of the 2011–2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and achieving the Aichi
Targets, including Target 11:3

More info on ICCAs in CBD Decisions since 2004 is available in the relevant posts under “Key International Instruments, Mechanisms and Reports” here: https:/
www.iccaconsortium.org/index.php/international-en/conservation-en/.

WE RISE TOGETHER

33

By 2020, at least 17 percent of terrestrial and inland water areas and 10 percent of coastal and marine areas, especiallyareas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably
managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based
conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascape.
Indigenous-led approaches to conservation around the world are diverse: they vary according to the objectives of
the Indigenous Peoples and communities, the legal and historical context of the area, and the degree of support andpartnership of non-Indigenous governments. For example, Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) have been established inAustralia, and there have been Indigenous conservation initiatives in New Zealand, Mexico and many other countries(Appendix 7.2).
Internationally and within Canada, conservation efforts by Indigenous Peoples have become recognized as valid initiatives
to conserve biodiversity and contribute to global conservation goals (Appendix 7.3). Around the world, a variety of terms
are used to identify areas that receive protection because of their recognized natural, ecological or cultural values.
Examples of terms used include parks, wilderness areas,
ecological reserves, conser-vancies, conserved areas,
protected areas and national wildlife areas.

Photographer: Cree Nation Government

Different terms may be used to describe initiatives by
Indigenous governments and communities to assert theirstewardship for their territories and areas. Examples are
Tribal Parks, Indigenous Cultural Landscapes (see below),
IPAs and Indigenous conserved areas. For the purposes ofthis report, ICE has adopted the term Indigenous Protected
and Conserved Areas, or IPCAs, to describe these types of
initiatives in the Canadian context.

In addition to government initiatives around the world (state, Crown and Indigenous), third-party forest certification systems
like the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) have set the stage for increased recognition of Indigenous-led conservation
efforts by requiring certificate holders (forest companies) to recognize and uphold the legal and customary rights ofIndigenous Peoples. This includes full recognition of the right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), protection of
traditional knowledge as intellectual property, and recognition of Indigenous knowledge holders as technical experts
in scientific and cultural assessments. FSC also recognizes “Indigenous Cultural Landscapes”4 (ICLs) when consideringconservation and development objectives in the context of forest management. ICLs are landscapes over which Indigenous
Peoples exercise responsibility for stewardship. They are characterized by features that have been maintained throughlong-term interactions based on land-care knowledge and adaptive livelihood practices.

4.2 CANADIAN CONTEXTThere are currently 55 different pieces of legislation for creating protected areas in Canada, resulting in 77 different typesof protected areas nationwide5. To date, there is no distinct national legislation for recognizing voluntary conservation
actions by Indigenous Peoples or for protecting areas that are culturally, spiritually and ecologically important to
Indigenous Peoples. However, some provinces have created designations under their current legal frameworks to protect
areas that are important to Indigenous Peoples. For example:• “Conservancy” is a designation for biodiversity and culturalconservation on provincial Crown lands in British Columbia
achieved through the province’s Park Act. Conservancies canbe created to preserve and maintain First Nations’ social,ceremonial and cultural uses, among other purposes(Appendix 7.3).

There are currently 55 different pieces oflegislation for creating protected areas in
Canada, resulting in 77 different typesof protected areas nationwide.

4

ICLs are defined by FSC as “living landscapes to which Indigenous Peoples attribute environmental, social, cultural and economic value because of theirenduring relationship with the land, water, fauna, flora and spirits and their present and future importance to their cultural identity.” FSC Canada. 2016.
Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL): Discussion Paper, Version 1. Page 7. See https://ca.fsc.org/preview.icl-discussion-paper-v1.a-1316.pdf.

5Environment and Climate Change Canada (2016). Canadian Protected Areas Status Report 2012-2015. Gatineau, QC. ISBN: 978-0-660-05861-0

34 4.0 INDIGENOUS PROTECTED AND CONSERVED AREAS (IPCAS)

SNAPSHOT: HAIDA GWAII PROTECTED AREAS“Protected areas” is the term agreed to by the Council of the Haida Nation (CHN) and the Provinceof British Columbia for 18 protected sites. The areas consist of seven older parks and ecological reserves(established prior to modern agreements and with little Indigenous involvement or consultation) and11 newer sites (established through government-to-government agreements). The Haida recognize the18 sites as “Haida Heritage Sites” and manage them by way of Haida Stewardship Law. The province
recognizes the sites as parks (two sites), ecological reserves (five sites) or conservancies (11 sites) as definedby the Park Act. As there is no formal recognition of the designations each government uses by the othergovernment for the sites, “protected areas” is the common or generic term.
Prior to achieving protected area status, the 11 conservancies were considered at risk for resource
extraction and impacts to important cultural sites and species. Today, all 18 protected areas aremanaged collaboratively and with respect to Indigenous rights. The 18 protected areas together comprise332,992 hectares of upland and 169,652 hectares of marine foreshore, totalling 502,644 hectares.

• “Indigenous Traditional Use Park” is one of two tools for designating lands that are important to Indigenous Peoples
under the Manitoba Parks Act. The Indigenous Heritage Land Use category is also used as a specific land use
designation tool for protecting unique cultural, heritage or spiritual sites.

4.3 INDIGENOUS PERSPECTIVES ON LAND AND WATER

Land and water are inextricable from Indigenous cultures; they cannot be separated from Indigenous ways of life, identities,
values, spiritual practices or knowledge systems. Similarly, elements of nature are indivisible. Land cannot be consideredseparately from the air, wind, water and complex biodiversity that make up a natural system. Therefore, any discussionof land and Indigenous cultural values is one of interdependent systems within which we are all embedded. This is why
we view our mandate in terms of Pathway 1 as also addressing
the conservation and stewardship of our traditional waters,
In Indigenous worldviews, conservation is
not just our lands.

achieved when the relationships and usesthat have conserved the lands and waters
for thousands of years remain intact or are
re-established.

The belief that humans are part of the land, not sepa-rate fromit, is integral to Indigenous worldviews. This unbreakable andsacred connection to land requires that humans have respect
for the environment and strive to maintain balance in coexistingwith the land and other species that inhabit it.

Indigenous worldviews differ fundamentally from the philosophies that guide many Crown-protected areas, whereconservation is achieved by restricting activities and limiting access. In Indigenous worldviews, conservation is achieved
when the relationships and uses that have conserved the lands and waters for thousands of years remain intact or are
re-established.
Indigenous languages and place names, as well as knowledge systems and laws passed down through the generations,provide oral records of Indigenous Peoples’ relationships with their lands and waters. The health of the land and of thepeople cannot be separated. They are interdependent.

4.4 DEFINING IPCAS

IPCAs are lands and waters where Indigenous governments have the primary role in protecting and conserving ecosystems
through Indigenous laws, governance and knowledge systems. Culture and language are the heart and soul of an IPCA.

WE RISE TOGETHER

35

Through our engagement processes across Canada andour research on national and international case studies, wehave learned that IPCAs vary in terms of their governanceand management objectives. However, they generally
share three essential elements: They are Indigenous-led;
they represent a long-term commitment to conservation;and they elevate Indigenous rights and responsibilities.
Details about these three elements are below.

1. IPCAS ARE INDIGENOUS-LED.

Indigenous governments have the primary role indetermining the objectives, boundaries, management
plans and governance structures for IPCAs as part of their
exercise of self-determination.

Photographer: Chief Gordon Planes

There may be a range of partnerships to support these actsof self-determination, including with Crown governments,
environmental NGOs, philanthropic bodies or others.
IPCAs are, in essence, Indigenous-led conservation
initiatives that reflect the objectives and needs of theirrespective nations or governments and emerge throughtransparent negotiations.

2. IPCAS REPRESENT A LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO CONSERVATION.

Indigenous Peoples take a multi-generational view of stewarding their territories. Therefore, an IPCA represents a longterm commitment to conserve lands and waters for future generations.

3. IPCAS ELEVATE INDIGENOUS RIGHTSAND RESPONSIBILITIES.

• a modern application of traditional values, Indigenous
laws and Indigenous knowledge systems,

Indigenous spiritualities, cultures, languages
and knowledge systems are place-based.
For example, landscapes and landmarks are
essential to the sharing of creation stories andteachings that are unique to each community.
Indigenous place names, and the oral
traditions attached to them, hold the histories
and wisdoms of an area. Because of this, it isessential that cultural transfer between Elders
and youth take place on the land, with thestories transmitted telling what happenedat those locations in the past and providing
fundamental context and teachings for how
these are to be used today.”• an exercise in cultural continuity on the land and waters,— Indigenous Circle of Experts, 2017

Indigenous Peoples have long-standing physical andspiritual relationships with the lands and waters within
their respective territories, and with the natural cycles
that determine their use. These relationships have always
included the right to benefit from the bounty of the natural
world and the reciprocal responsibility to care for and respect
the land and water, consistent with natural and Indigenous
law, for future generations. In IPCAs, Indigenous Peoples’
continued relationship with the land and water must be
assured by acknowledging the authority that Indigenous
governments have to work with their people on how to
use the land and water while achieving conservation andcultural objectives.
In the Canadian context, IPCAs represent:• a foundation for local Indigenous economies,• opportunities to reconnect to the land and heal both the land and Indigenous Peoples,

36 4.0 INDIGENOUS PROTECTED AND CONSERVED AREAS (IPCAS)We have to find a way and be mindful as how we go about exercising our inherit responsibilities of
ensuring that no action that we will take will ever compromise the ecological integrity of the area.
Nor compromise the cleansing capacity of the system. Because our overall objective is to ensure thatthe next seven generations will also have the same opportunities as we have, and hopefully better
opportunities than we have, of not just being able to sustain themselves and harvest the gifts fromthe creator but also be able to enjoy and learn from her just as our ancestors have learned from her.”— Elder Albert Marshall of the Mi’kmaw Nation, Eastern Regional Gathering, Mi’kma’ki, June 2017.

• an acknowledgement of international law, suchas Canada’s Treaties, UNDRIP, CBD and otherrelevant instruments and commitments,• an opportunity for true reconciliation to takeplace between Indigenous and settler societies,
and between broader Canadian society andthe land and waters, including relationships
in pre-existing parks and protected areas, and• an innovative expression of Section 35(Constitution Act 1982).

Indigenous People all have traditional lands,
where their intimate relationships are rooted inreciprocity of each other’s needs. This respectful
relationship defines Indigenous cultures,
languages, spirituality, and the responsibilities thatdefine their worldview and their contribution to themosaic of the human family on Mother Earth.”— Steven Nitah, Lutsel K’e Dene First Nations

Collecting boughs for teepee floor.
Photographer: Chantal Tétreault

WE RISE TOGETHER

37

SNAPSHOT: DASIQOX TRIBAL PARK (NEXWAGWEẐɁAN)
Dasiqox Tribal Park (DTP, known as NexwagweẐɁan, which means “it is there for us”) is an
Inidgenous-led protected area located in traditional Tsilhqot’in territory in the south-central
interior of British Columbia. It covers approximately 300,000 hectares of wilderness, wildlife
habitat and waters. Protection of the area through Indigenous governance was initiated in 2014
by the Xeni Gwet’in and Yunesit’in governments who represent the Tsilhqot’in. DTP connects anumber of existing parks and protected areas across a large area at the heart of Xeni Gwet’in and
Yunesit’in caretaker areas, including the Dasiqox headwaters - an essential water source for thearea’s waters, fish and wildlife.
DTP is a tangible expression of reconciliation that provides its people with a historic opportunity toredefine their relationship with their non-Indigenous neighbours in the region.By establishing it, theTsilhqot’in asserted their rights and responsibilities as caretakers working to protect the ecologicalhealth, cultural revitalization and sustainable livelihoods of its people.
The Tsilhqot’in use three themes to organize their management of the park: ecosystems, culture andsustainable livelihoods. They recognize that these themes are inseparable and interconnected, but feel
it is important to name them in order to remain accountable to them in governance decisions andmanagement practices. Over time, as the Tsilhqot’in’s capacity grows, they may decide to expand the
Tribal Park to include a larger area.

4.5 CHARACTERISTICS OF IPCAS

Indigenous governments are responsible for setting the conservation standards for IPCAs. As such, they must havefull scope to design their IPCAs to meet their individual and diverse needs. While IPCAs embody a common goal for
conserving the ecological and cultural values important to Indigenous Peoples, the priorities and objectives of individual
IPCAs may vary greatly. As such, they may take various shapes and forms based on the objectives for the area. ICE has
identified a variety of characteristics for IPCAs based on the Regional Gatherings. However, it is important to note that thecharacteristics listed below are not exclusive. Some could be expanded on, while others could be added over time, given
the rich diversity in Indigenous cultures across Canada and the different ways in which individual Indigenous governments
may interpret IPCAs.

A. IPCAS SHOULD PROMOTE RESPECT FOR INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS.

Indigenous wisdom and knowledge are embedded in Indigenous practices for managing complex ecosystems and for
addressing conservation- and protection-related challenges. However, protected and conserved areas in Canada are still
established and managed based largely on western science and knowledge. Ideally, Indigenous knowledge systems and westernscience should be valued and respected equally, should inform and complement each other, and should be combined into aseamless approach.
This way, management planning is based in full recognition of Indigenous expertise. The use of both knowledge systems
provides the basis for better management planning and eliminates some of the weaknesses inherent in western science,such as compartmentalization and limited time horizon.Appropriate Indigenous knowledge holders can articulate anddocument Indigenous laws in ways that can serve as the basis for managing and governing IPCAs.

B. IPCAS SHOULD RESPECT PROTOCOLS AND CEREMONY.

The practice of ceremonies is an integral part of the relationship between Indigenous Peoples and the rest of nature.
As such, culturally appropriate ceremonies are vitally important to acknowledge spiritually and socially the work that is
to begin—whether that is to establish a new IPCA, revitalize an existing protected area, or repatriate an area. Preparing
for ceremony and following protocols are activities that should be respected and facilitated where required, and further
built into the development and management of IPCAs.
38 4.0 INDIGENOUS PROTECTED AND CONSERVED AREAS (IPCAS)

The most important part of our knowledge as a people is the spirit that we nurture during ourceremonies. We have always been a ceremonial people. We give thanks for everything we are given inlife but receive our guidance, our direction and our inspiration in ceremony. If we are truly to live ouridentity as Indigenous Peoples, we must always begin with ceremony. We cannot overstep the spirit.”— Elder Dave Courchene, Sagkeeng First Nation in Manitoba and founder of the Turtle Lodge, Central Regional
Gathering, September 2017

C. IPCAS SHOULD SUPPORT THE REVITALIZATION OF INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES.

Indigenous cultures and languages are inextricably tied to the land. Indigenous languages are descriptive and actionbased; as such, they provide the foundation for a rich oral history and tradition. They hold our spiritual connection andrelationship to the land, and need to be at the heart of articulating values and principles. Communities and governments
are encouraged to define the parameters for their IPCAs using their own languages and knowledge systems, since
the common definitions and terminologies used in this report may not adequately capture all Indigenous concepts,
understandings or beliefs. Although many communities are struggling to retain and revitalize their languages, the lessons
and teachings we have learned through language remain.

D. IPCAS CAN SEED CONSERVATION ECONOMIES.
IPCAs represent opportunities to maintain and build conservation economies. Communities and Indigenous governments
want to see the creation of a diversified economy as well as the stewardship of natural, ecological and cultural values.
The term conservation economy refers to the pursuit of social and economic benefits through the conservation of
ecosystems within an area, or a variety of economic arrangements that have been redesigned to restore, rather thandeplete, natural and social capital, based on the premise that life comes from nature and depends on its capacity tomaintain healthy ecosystems. A conservation economy complements and secures the traditional economy, which isgrounded in cultural practices and the abundance of natural resources. Together, these assets contribute to sustaining a
local economy that ultimately supports the development of a strong and sustainable regional economy, extending wellbeyond an IPCA’s borders.
By using traditional Indigenous skills and providing opportunities to learn other skills, a conservation economy canprovide meaningful livelihoods and ultimately support healthy communities. Naturally diverse environments, combinedwith vibrant cultures and histories, create long-term sustainable employment potential for local and regional residents
by maximizing existing skills and knowledge, providing new skills, and adequately supporting families now and into
the future.
A conservation economy is not meant to employ thousands or generate extreme financial wealth. It is meant to create
long-term sustainable employment potential for local and regional residents by maximizing existing skills and knowledge,
providing new skills and adequately supporting families now and into the future.

We have always lived and believed the Earth is alive and has a spirit. The spirit of the Earth was tobe acknowledged with gratitude and ceremony, and we have remained faithful and loved in these
protocols. The Elders who have kept these sacred protocols are more than willing to give in the sharingof the knowledge.”— Elder Dave Courchene, Central Regional Gathering, September 2017

WE RISE TOGETHER

39

When it came to developing stewardship work and guardian’s work, language was really put at theheart and the centre of a lot of the discussions and a lot of the principles and the framework of thework we wanted to do when it came to taking care of the land…The language comes from the land andthe best place to learn the language is out on the land… Being on the land in the Dene way will protect
the land… If Indigenous cultures can continue to thrive into the future then you’re doing somethingright, because the land is so central to Indigenous cultures that if you have a healthy culture, then theland will be healthy as well.”— Dahti Testso, Dehcho First Nations in Akaitcho Territory, Northern Regional Gathering, August 2017

A conservation economy has many important features. The most obvious among them comes from the name itself:“conservation” refers to preserving and restoring the environment in its natural state, while “economy” focuses on
renewable and non-extractive economic activity, such as tourism. There is also the connection to Indigenous cultures,
which are based on sustainable use and strong spiritual connection with the land. As a result, a “conservation economy”
can provide significant opportunities to benefit from living on the land and water while further developing the growing
market for sustainable cultural tourism.
Many Indigenous governments are leading the creation of diversified economies in conjunction with achieving conservation outcomes. Some of the best examples are from the BC Central Coast region, where a comprehensive conservation
planning regime in the Great Bear Rainforest has been paired with sustainable, diversified economic ventures.

E. IPCAS SHOULD CONSERVE CULTURAL KEYSTONE SPECIES AND PROTECT FOOD SECURITY.

In many parts of Canada, Indigenous Peoples continue to depend on the bounty of the land to meet their food needs,
and are particularly reliant on cultural keystone species (species they identify with) because they are culturally important.
Examples are caribou, beaver, salmon and moose, as well as a variety of plants. These iconic species have helped shape
the traditions, beliefs and knowledge systems of Indigenous Peoples over time, and continue to do so. Because of
their association with the lands and waters of Indigenous territories, these species have played essential roles in diet,livelihood, traditional medicines, and materials used for clothing, shelter and tools, and have been featured in thelanguages, ceremonies, stories and narratives that have shaped Indigenous natural laws. Often, these cultural keystone
species are also important to a majority of Canadians and are identified with Canada.
The survival of these species and the cultures of Indigenous Peoples are closely linked, as are the ecosystems that support
them. As an embodiment of the traditional lifestyles, values and laws of Indigenous Peoples, IPCAs will likely be designed
to create the conditions to support cultural keystone species. In this manner, they will support the systems that provide
for Indigenous Peoples’ cultural survival and that maintain their food security.

We need to have the courage to stand up and say that conservation is important, not just for our
cultures, our Indigenous languages or our ways of life, but we also need to recognize that the economic
viability of these communities is also at stake. In protecting our lands and protecting our territories,
we’re also finding ways that we can participate in the economy in ways that we’ve not been allowed toin the past.”— Will Goodon, Metis National Council representative

40 4.0 INDIGENOUS PROTECTED AND CONSERVED AREAS (IPCAS)

SNAPSHOT: SEVEN PADDLES PROJECT, BEAR RIVER FIRST NATION
Bear River First Nation is a small community (108 people on reserve and 226 off reserve) that lies
adjacent to the village of Bear River, Nova Scotia in the traditional Mi’kmaq district of Kespukwitk.
The Seven Paddles project, initially started to re-establish traditional Mi’kmaw canoe routes for
ecotourism in Nova Scotia, has become a way for the people of Bear River to strengthen their ties
with their land and culture. The program, which follows a route between Bear River and Kejimkujik
National Park, has created about half a dozen new jobs. Although the project was initially launchedto create ecotourism opportunities, the community saw a chance to focus inward and return to its
traditional teachings. The community is now providing guiding trips to community members, allowing
them to gut their first moose or catch their first trout while following the same routes as their ancestors.
The results have been transformative.
“[Now we’re] getting our spirit built up, reconnected to the land,” says Councillor Carol Ann Potter.
“Then we can be honest with the people we bring in and make them feel that connection a little bit better.
We really see the best in people when they’re out doing things they love. They forget their stresses, they
forget their problems, they’re getting connected again with Mother Earth. There’s no better feeling,none whatsoever.”The name Seven Paddles is in honour of the seven sacred teachings of love, respect, humility, honesty,
truth, wisdom and courage.
F. IPCAS SHOULD ADOPT INTEGRATED, HOLISTIC APPROACHES TO GOVERNANCE AND PLANNING.

IPCAs are part of the landscape and are based on landscape features, such as watersheds. They should adopt a holistic
approach to land and water, including international boundaries, regardless of jurisdiction. The land and water will dictate
the IPCA.
In this spirit, a governance approach at the landscape or watershed level is one that needs to tie multiple jurisdictions
together to enact equitable and participatory land use or watershed planning for IPCAs.

The ICE Core. Photographer: Jeremy Williams, River Voices Productions

WE RISE TOGETHER

41

The word “Aski” in our Ininiw language (Swampy Cree) means the Earth and includes everything thatis contained in it: air, water, birds, animals, fish, rocks, soil, grass, trees, etc. We do have a separate
word for water, which is Nipi (Ni-pee), but it is included when we say Aski, the Earth. For us Ininiw(Swampy Cree), because we come from a lake environment, when we say Aski, water is included,
because it includes everything, the water in the lake is the source of life for us and is part of andinseparable from the land. Aski surrounds us and forms the very basis of our lifestyle.”— Stewart Hill, Ininiw and member of God’s Lake First Nation, Manitoba

In some cases, planning at the watershed level can be considerable in scope, resulting in large-scale land use orwatershed plans.
IPCAs should also be developed as part of broader land use plans to provide interconnected networks of protected andconserved areas, and to conserve biodiversity and keystone species across entire landscapes.
IPCAs may employ a zoning approach and include:• areas where uses and access are restricted (e.g., certain sacred sites),• areas where Indigenous hunting and gathering are allowed (e.g., subsistence food harvesting),• shared-use areas where non-Indigenous use is allowed (e.g., through permitting), and• buffer areas around sensitive zones where light-touch development—such as micro-hydro, artisanal mining, or
selective logging—are allowed.

4.6 CREATING AN IPCA

The process for creating IPCAs needs to be flexible to account for the diversity of interests, governance systems andaspirations, levels of protection, and partnerships desired by Indigenous governments across the country. Flexibility
is also needed to accommodate protocols and consensus building at the community level, especially since, owing tovarying capacities and priorities, not all Indigenous governments and communities will be starting from the same place.

Xeni Gwet’in /Nemiah Valley, BC. Photographer: Marilyn Baptiste
42 4.0 INDIGENOUS PROTECTED AND CONSERVED AREAS (IPCAS)

SNAPSHOT: WEHEXLAXODIALE—AN INDIGENOUS-GOVERNED LAND USE
EXCLUSION AREA
Wehexlaxodıale (way-he-lax-dia-lay) are two areas of Tłįcho lands (in the Northwest Territories)
where the connection between Tłįcho culture and heritage and the land are very strong. A land use
plan has been in effect since 2013.
In 2005, the Tłįcho Agreement gave the Tłįcho government the power to enact laws in relation to theuse, management, administration and protection of Tłįcho lands and the resources they contained.
Based on the advice and guidance of the Elders of the Land Use Plan Working Group, and after
community meetings and other consultations and engagements, the Tłįcho government completed theland use plan in 2013.
The primary objective for zoning Wehexlaxodıale as a Land Use Exclusion Area was to protect sitesthat are fundamentally linked to Tłįcho history and heritage. To that end, no development proposals
are considered, and only limited activities are allowed. The Tłįcho Land Use Plan Act has the power to
exclude, control and manage all activities within the area that are likely to have impacts on biodiversity.
The land use plan compels the Tłįcho government to prohibit activities that are incompatible with theconservation of biodiversity.

Indigenous governments should have full opportunity to identify IPCA areas of interest based on their own priorities. In
some situations, federal, provincial or territorial governments and other partners may approach Indigenous governments
to determine if there is interest in considering a new or pre-existing protected area as an IPCA candidate.
Concern was expressed in Regional Gatherings that in many communities, consensus building on IPCAs will take longer
than the time frame for Pathway to Canada Target 1 allows (2020), and that if they are to invest in the IPCA process, they
will require assurances that governments at all levels will support IPCAs beyond 2020.
Regional Gathering participants also shared their experiences of past discussions and negotiations about protectedareas with federal, provincial and territorial government staff. Participants were concerned that the transparency insuch processes in the past may put Indigenous negotiators at a disadvantage. Greater transparency would allow allparties to benefit from practical solutions and innovations developed elsewhere. Also, opportunities should be available
to support continuous improvement so existing IPCAs can benefit from the ideas and approaches adopted in otherareas later.

4.6.1 Appropriate Recognition

Few legal mechanisms currently exist to formally recognize and establish an IPCA. For the most part, protected area laws
in Canada either conflict with or do not allow the types of governance arrangements or uses that would be the basis of
most IPCAs.
For example, existing protected areas legislation and policies often focus on protecting lands and waters fromhuman influence, whereas from an Indigenous perspective, continued human presence on the land and water is seen as
positive and essential, with humans being considered an integral part of nature.
ICE also heard examples where Indigenous governments had formally declared their intention to protect an area—for
example, the Tribal Parks declared by the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation—and never received formal acknowledgement fromthe Crown. An Indigenous government’s decision to establish an IPCA is an assertion of sovereignty, and should be
responded to on a Crown-to-Indigenous government basis.

WE RISE TOGETHER

43

SNAPSHOT: TLA-O-QUI-AHT TRIBAL PARKS
At the heart of the Clayoquot Sound UNESCO Biosphere Reserve on the West Coast of Vancouver
Island British Columbia in Canada, a new model of Tribal Parks is emerging as a global example ofsocial-ecological resiliency. The Tla-o-qui-aht have conceived an Indigenous Watershed Governancemethodology that is a model of sustainable livelihoods and promotes environmental security. The
keystone of this methodology is a conception of humanity that orients individuals within a richsocial contract that extends ideas of justice to the environment.
But it was not always this way. Over the years from 1914 to 1984, the Tla-o-qui-aht began with polite
protests and advanced to direct action in the form of blockades and litigation against the BC provincial
government, which had condoned the clear-cut logging of ancient cedar rainforests on Meares Island.
In 1984, Tla-o-qui-aht Ha’wiih (heritary chiefs) declared Meares Island a Tribal Park in response tounsustainable logging practices that were impinging on traditional territories. From 1984 to 2014,
the Tla-o-qui-aht moved from setting up blockades to pioneering Tribal Parks as an alternative tothe business-as-usual approach to natural resource management. Since then, they have establishedthree more Tribal Parks (collectively known as the Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks): Ha`uukmin(Kennedy Lake Watershed), Tranquil Tribal Park and Esowista Tribal Park.
The Tla-o-qui-at vision is to re-establish a healthy integration of economy and environment. Its aim
is to establish a Tribal Parks administrative organization and develop the governance tools needed
to operate Tribal Parks as well as to initiate and partner in business opportunities that promotesustainable livelihoods.

Everything has to have respect or it is notgoing to work right. The challenge is to enable
other people to understand that [the Earth]is living and we need her. Today’s world needs
more of my ancestors’ ways and my ancestors’
teachings, and number one of it all is respect.”— Todd Labrador, Mi’kmaq artist and birch barkcanoe builder, Eastern Regional Gathering,
June 2017

4.6.2 Initiating an IPCA

Although ICE considers full Indigenous governance as theway ahead for IPCAs, as previously noted it is up to each
Indigenous government to identify which governanceand manag ment approach is most appropriate to them.
As such, IPCAs can be established through a range of
supportive partnerships. Critical to the path forward is thatIndigenous governments play the primary role in decisionmaking in any process or approach chosen.
The creation of IPCAs must include room for communities
that are starting from different areas (and have different
interests), including areas that feature a spectrum of
Indigenous/non-Indigenous relationships.

When proposing IPCAs, Indigenous People must do so based on their own priorities. When a federal, provincial or
territorial government proposes a new candidate area for protection, it should do so through an open and transparent
partnership with Indigenous Peoples to determine interest.
Designation mechanisms may include self-declaration (Tribal Parks), agreements under existing federal, provincial or
territorial protected area legislation, or new IPCA legislation.

4.6.3 Modernizing Pre-Existing Protected Areas Through Ethical Space

There are special considerations for pre-existing protected areas: As noted in Section 3.0, some pre-existing
protected areas share a “dark history” and will have a greater need for truth-telling and reconciliation before the44 4.0 INDIGENOUS PROTECTED AND CONSERVED AREAS (IPCAS)

work of “modernizing” can proceed in the spirit and practice ofreconciliation. Others already function as IPCAs and should berecognized for that.
For pre-existing protected areas that are not IPCAs, federal,provincial or territorial governments should approach Indigenous
governments about whether they are interested in having them
become IPCAs in whole or in part. An important aspect of reconciliation is to engage in open and honest dialogue with affected
Indigenous Peoples, and furthermore,to be willing to act on that
dialogue in a constructive and collaborative way. Ethical space may
provide a good framework for discussions that include topics like:• how Indigenous rights have been affected and how those impacts
can be mitigated or remedied,Community flags of the NWT.
Photographer: Margot Bishop• how Indigenous governments should be involved in decision-making and the management of protected areas,• how Indigenous knowledge systems should be considered along with science in the decision-making processes
related to specific protected areas,• how to engage staff, volunteers and visitors on Indigenous place names, histories and stories related to protectedareas, and• how to commemorate dark histories with new initiatives that address those histories boldly and with honesty.

4.7 GOVERNANCE AND PARTNERSHIP MODELS FOR IPCAS

As a matter of principle and priority, ICE views support for full Indigenous governance as the path forward for IPCAs,
including management and operational responsibilities. However, it is up to each individual Indigenous government to
identify which governance and management approach is most appropriate to them. It is ultimately each government’s
decision to choose whether to partner with federal, provincial or territorial governments or other entities.
In some cases, an IPCA that is entirely governed by an Indigenous nation may be the desired option. Other Indigenous
governments may prefer to collaborate with federal, provincial or territorial governments or other partners by adopting
a variety of shared decision-making, joint management or advisory mechanisms, defined by Constitutional Agreements
and Other Constructive Arrangements between the parties.
ICE envisions a similar spectrum of approaches for other protected and conserved areas that may not qualify as IPCAs,
but that nonetheless can support a meaningful role for Indigenous governments within their territories in the manner of
their choosing.Potential IPCA partnerships models include:• Indigenous government–Crown government partnerships: This model emphasizes Indigenous and Crown
governments (including federal, provincial, territorial or municipal) working in partnership, cooperation andagreement to recognize, establish and/or manage a protected area.
• Indigenous government–non-governmental partnerships: This model is based on partnerships between Indigenous
governments and non-government partners. Such partners could include industry, land trusts or conservation
organizations. Often, this model is conducive to the acquisition of private properties for conservation purposes.
• Hybrid partnerships: In this model, multiple parties (government and non-government) work collaboratively toresource and manage protected or conserved areas. The model requires all parties to play a clear role in building
a successful collaborative approach.
• Sole Indigenous governance: In this model, Indigenous governments make unilateral decisions and manage lands(e.g., Treaty lands, reserves, Aboriginal title, etc.) for protection or conservation purposes.
WE RISE TOGETHER

45

Smokey Hill, Waskaganish, QC.
Photographer: Cree Nation Government

SNAPSHOT: BROADBACK WATERSHED CONSERVATION AREA
The Broadback Watershed is a thriving ecosystem of lakes, rivers and old-growth forests that covers
more than 21,000 square kilometres in Quebec. Cree communities in the area have been pushing for
more than two decades to protect parts of it. In 2008, Quebec produced a plan to set aside half of thenorthern portion for sustainable development, with the other half dedicated to conservation. In theconserved portion, 20 percent would be designated as a protected area; the plan for the remaining 30
percent has yet to be defined. The Cree Nation Government (CNG) said it would support the plan if theCree could be full participants in identifying the new protected areas. The Cree formed a committee towork on protecting areas based on their values and released a strategy in 2014. The CNG then began
to implement the strategy in collaboration with Nature Conservancy Canada.
There were hurdles, however—including clashes with forestry companies that wanted to harvest areas
the Cree wanted to protect. Over several years on numerous occasions, Cree communities individually
requested that their proposals be protected, and the CNG began to explore the idea of a watershedmanagement approach. A new agreement was reached between Quebec and the Crees in 2015 thatwould protect part of the Broadback Watershed as a first phase. Ultimately:• Fifty-seven percent of the area achieved protection, with further protection added north of the
proposed area.
• Ouje-Bougoumou’s Assinica Cree Heritage Park was expanded by protecting a long stretchof the Broadback River.
• The Community of Nemaska’s protected area proposal succeeded in protecting 80 percentof the area; its old trading post (Old Nemaska) and rock paintings were included in the newprotected area.
• Forty percent of the Community of Waswanipi’s proposed protected area was accepted forprotection; overall, 12 traplines are now more than 50 percent protected. This area will be
designated as an IUCN Category II biodiversity reserve.
• A buffer along the Broadback River is designated as a park (IUCN Category II).

46

4.0 INDIGENOUS PROTECTED AND CONSERVED AREAS (IPCAS)

4.8 OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF IPCAS

IPCAs have the potential to support conservation efforts and goals on various levels for Indigenous Peoples and theirgovernments as well as Crown governments and Canadians overall. The concept of IPCAs was widely supported byparticipants who attended the four Regional Gatherings. Based on the gatherings, ICE has identified four key visions—which can also be thought of as both opportunities and challenges—of IPCAs. These are related to healing spaces,
beacons of teachings, restoration areas and reconciliation regions.

4.8.1 Spaces for Cultural Regeneration Through Healing

IPCAs can be established to offer spaces for cultural regeneration that may lead to personal or community healing.
The emphasis is on acknowledging and respecting Indigenous knowledge systems and use, and providing opportunities
to connect people to the land and ancestors, thus helping with healing processes. This could be achieved by:• creating cultural immersion programs to connect Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples to the lands, and• creating opportunities to practice traditional lifestyles, bringing Elders and youth onto the land for cultural connection
and mutual learning.

4.8.2 Beacons of Teachings

IPCAs may serve as a forum for demonstrating how to live
well and respect each other and the land and water basedon teachings from the land and Elders and from sharing
knowledge and culture. This can be done through culturallearning programs, language revitalization initiatives andcreating actual spaces for learning.
It is about engaging youth and enabling mentorshipof youth by Elders: that is, not just “getting kids onto
the land,” but helping them to connect spiritually andculturally, and to understand how their ancestors are partof this. IPCAs can be examples of collaborative teachingthat other protected areas can learn from.
They can also be beacons of reconciliation with nonIndigenous peoples, and have the potential to foster culturalcompetency in government agencies and educational
institutions.

We are in this process for future generations.
At the pace we’re going today, we don’t havetime. We’re facing extreme climate change inmany areas in this country. And if we don’ttake these steps now to protect some oursacred places, it is going to be lost.”— Lorraine Netro, Vuntut Gwitchin member in
Old Crow, Yukon, and member of the Assemblyof First Nations Advisory Committee on Climate
Action and the Environment, Central Regional
Gathering, September 2017

SNAPSHOT: K’IH TSAA?DZE TRIBAL PARK, DOIG RIVER FIRST NATION
Doig River First Nation (DRFN) is a Treaty 8 Nation with traditional territory extending from its
reserve land in British Columbia across the provincial border into northwestern Alberta. In 2011,
it announced it was establishing K’ih tsaa?dze Tribal Park—an area covering almost 96,000 hectares—
to protect the area from the impacts of forestry and oil and gas development. (K’ih tsaa?dze means
either “spiritual healing area,” or “old spruce.”) The Alberta portion is managed as public Crown land,
but DRFN would like it to see it designated a Wildlife Provincial Park. The First Nation has expressedinterest in co-management models as well as an openness to tourism. According to DRFN, K’ih tsaa?dze
has been a sacred and spiritually significant area for generations, and a space used both for exercising
Treaty and Aboriginal rights and for teaching traditional practices and knowledge to youth. It also
contains medicinal plants and old-growth forest.

WE RISE TOGETHER

47

4.8.3 Restoration Areas
IPCAs do not necessarily need to be landscapes that are ecologically intact. They could also serve as “restoration areas”
where lands and waters are aided in healing from industrial and human development that have led to serious ecosystem
breakdowns. These could be areas where the focus is on restoring not only the land, but also humans’ relationship to it,with the intention of leaving the land and the relationship “better than we found it.”
An IPCA can be established in area that has been heavily affected by development, or in an area of high tension andinter-community conflict. The priority of such IPCAs could serve as the framework for collaboration to repair the damage
done to the land or heal the surrounding relationships. In areas focused on the health of the land, strategies can be
implemented to heal the land and reinvigorate biodiversity by applying dual knowledge systems.

4.8.4 Reconciliation Regions

IPCA reconciliation regions can be described as areas that focus on “rebuilding” Indigenous nations and communities.
These regions can lead to building and or rebuilding governance systems, establishing health programs, establishingenvironment departments and building conservation economies. They would also emphasize working toward reconciliation
within Indigenous Peoples, between Indigenous Peoples and non-Indigenous peoples, and within a given Indigenous
community. Reconciliation regions could also take the form of “collaborative centres” or working spaces where people
gather to achieve a common conservation or sustainability vision with regards to a certain area or watershed.

4.8.5 Challenges and Learning from Them

However, participants at the gatherings also raised issues and challenges that, if not addressed, may impede progress at
the local and regional level, including:• a history of broken promises and strained relationships with the Crown,• systemic barriers that continue to disadvantage Indigenous People,• communities in crisis,• territories under resource development threats,• declining languages,• loss of Indigenous knowledge and language, and• disconnection from lands creating a climate of cynicism and distrust in many communities.
The need for reconciliation is great on many levels. IPCAs have the potential to contribute to reconciliation, but also
to building genuine nation-to-nation, government-to-government, and Crown-to-Inuit relationships, as well as thosebetween Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples.
In this regard, it is very important that national Indigenous organizations, as well as provincial/territorial Indigenousorganizations, are not seen as the central conduits for IPCA development or funding models. Due to the highly localized
and geographically specific nature of IPCAs, it would be best to ensure a nation-to-nation approach that is not led
by national Indigenous organizations or NGOs, but by Indigenous Peoples and their governments. All too often, suchorganizations are perceived as convenient entry points for funds, programs, initiatives and development relating to
Indigenous Peoples. Unfortunately, sometimes this results in a bottleneck of funds and opportunities that do not end
up having real, on-the-ground impacts for communities. Repeatedly, ICE heard that reconciliation in the context ofdeveloping IPCAs must be grounded in respect, including:• accepting that Indigenous People have sacred connections to their territories that are reflected in their protocols andceremonies and often embodied in their languages,• accepting the existence and validity of Indigenous laws and knowledge systems along with western science,• accepting the diversity of the governance systems Indigenous Peoples have in different regions, and truly
understanding and accepting the distinctions between Inuit, Metis Nation and First Nations governments, and• respecting the spirit and intent of historic Treaties and modern land claims agreements, where they exist, andCanada’s international commitments, such as UNDRIP.
To make progress on IPCAs, all parties will need to work together to address some of the key challenges noted here.
48

4.0 INDIGENOUS PROTECTED AND CONSERVED AREAS (IPCAS)

SNAPSHOT: THE GREAT BEAR RAINFOREST AGREEMENTS
The Great Bear Rainforest represents a quarter of all remaining coastal temperate rainforests on theplanet. This magnificent region of old-growth forests, grizzly bears, black bears, rare spirit bears andsalmon is home to Indigenous communities thousands of years old. Some 6.4 million hectares in size,
it stretches along British Columbia’s west coast from the Discovery Islands to the Alaska border.
Until recently, its cultural and ecological heritage was threatened with industrial-scale logging. The
situation finally began to improve in the mid-1990s, when environmental NGOs stood with the Nuxalk(who have shared territory in the area with Heiltsuk First Nation) to blockade logging companies. Arrests,
protests and the targeting of investors and consumers buying products from the area fuelled international
media attention and forced the province to take First Nations’ concerns seriously.
A turning point came when involved environmental NGOs formed the Rainforest Solutions Project (RSP)
while stakeholder companies formed the Coast Forest Conservation Initiative (CFCI), and following
difficult negotiations, both agreed to work together as the Joint Solutions Project advising First Nations
and the BC government on solutions to unsustainable logging.
Shortly thereafter, all parties agreed to an independent scientific panel, the Coast Information Team (CIT)
to come up with recommendations on how to ensure the socio-economic and ecological well-being of
the region and its peoples. In 2004, CIT called for 70 percent of the region’s natural levels of old-growthecosystems to be protected. This would still allow for a viable forestry sector by implementing a coastspecific forest management regime called Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM).
The proposed solutions led the provincial government to announce the breakthrough Great Bear
Rainforest Agreement in 2006: a comprehensive protection and social well-being package for the region,
which was now permanently defined as the south, central and north coasts of BC and Haida Gwaii. The
result was that 33 percent of the region would be off-limits to industrial logging through a new formof protected area called a conservancy (which was more inclusive of First Nations uses, unlike previous
designations), with EBM protecting another 37 percent. Additional funding was secured from thephilanthropic sector.
But by 2009, all parties had realized that that this ambitious level of protection was going to be impossible
to reach: only 50 percent protection had been achieved by then, and First Nations had not felt enoughsocial or economic improvement. All parties agreed to another five years of negotiations.
At last, in 2016, the Government of British Columbia announced that a final agreement had been reached
to protect 85 percent of the forested land base of the Great Bear Rainforest from industrial logging, withstringent legal logging regulations to be applied to the remaining 15 percent. The Agreement recognizedand enshrined shared decision-making between the Government of British Columbia and First Nations forland use within the region. It also provided increased economic shares of timber rights and new measures
to nurture a conservation economy, with additional funding for the region’s First Nations.
There continues to be challenges with the Agreement such as a less-than-ideal level of Indigenous
government decision-making over their territories, however it is exponentially better than the previous
status quo. Furthermore, this model has been studied throughout the world as it has provided many
lessons gleaned given its innovative multi-lateral large-scale land use planning processes which centredon both Indigenous rights and ecological imperatives.

WE RISE TOGETHER49

We’re in a process now where the government, the prime minister, is talking about reconciliation...
Until we decide what reconciliation means and we agree to move forward on this journey together—and in that understanding, coming to an understanding of reconciliation—you build a moment oftrust. You come to that understanding of what that’s going to mean for you and how that’s goingto look as you move forward. Then and only then, you can sit in a tent frame by the river with firstnations people across this land and have that open and honest discussion...And look at each otherstraight in the eye and say okay, we can walk this journey together for all those that are not born yet.”— Lorraine Netro, Central Regional Gathering, September 2017

4.9 “COOLING-OFF PERIODS”: MEASURES FOR REDUCING PRESSURES ON LANDS

Putting new IPCAs in place will take time. Many territories have been seriously affected by development, and communities
are concerned that their IPCA areas of interest will be degraded before such an area can be formally designated. Examples
were provided at Regional Gatherings of communities whose recent histories have been ones of conflict over imminent
threats to their territories, including litigation and cumulative social and environmental impacts from unmitigated industrial
development. While these communities may be supportive of an IPCA, they may require a “cooling-off” period before
they are willing to engage in collaborative processes.
A strong interest was expressed that in places where land use pressures or impacts are greatest, governments mayneed to consider measures to “pause” development to give Indigenous Peoples and affected interests sufficient timeto achieve solutions that do not result in Indigenous rights, values and priorities being compromised in the meantime.

4.10 DEGRADED LANDSCAPES AND
LAND USE PRESSURES

Regional Gatherings have also highlighted the need for
new and innovative approaches to conserving landscapesthat are subject to greater-than-average land usepressures or impacts, or that have been highly affectedby development. Especially in places where Indigenous
Peoples face pressures to protect areas under imminent
threat of development, current approaches for achieving
protected status (which often takes more than a decade)are not sufficient. In these cases, quicker solutions areneeded. Also, as discussed earlier, governments mayneed to consider measures to “pause” developmentin such areas to give Indigenous Peoples and affectedinterests enough time to achieve solutions that do not
result in Indigenous rights, values and priorities being
compromised in the meantime.
Where landscapes have been affected by development
over time, collaborative restoration efforts provide valuable
opportunities to reclaim areas that are important to
Indigenous Peoples and, in so doing, restore biodiversity
in places where those values were deemed lost.
“Restoration parks” were identified as a specific modelthat could contribute to healing affected landscapes while
contributing to reconciliation between Indigenous andnon-Indigenous Peoples and the land itself.

Tla-o-qui-aht Master Carver and Elder Joe Martin.
Photographer: Marilyn Baptiste

50 4.0 INDIGENOUS PROTECTED AND CONSERVED AREAS (IPCAS)

These approaches will not be consistent, in all cases, with what currently counts as a protected or conserved area in
Canada. Nonetheless, they offer valuable tools that could be used by Indigenous governments and conservation partners
to achieve their objectives in landscapes where biodiversity conservation is more challenging.

4.11 SHARED TERRITORIES

There are many situations in Canada where multiple Indigenous Peoples have connections to some of the same lands andwaters. In these areas, extra attention will be needed to determine the respective “inter-national” interests. Indigenous
governments must have the first opportunity to develop the appropriate protocols for reconciling management and uses
between nations; the designation of an IPCA will reflect these processes.

4.12 CAPACITY AND FUNDING

To establish and manage IPCAs, Indigenous Peoples require the capacity to undertake community consensus
building, land use and watershed planning, mapping and spatial data management, the creation and tracking ofindicators, studies, stewardship, monitoring and cultural interpretation. Many Indigenous governments currently lackthese capacities, and lack the revenue generation potential to address the shortfall.
Traditional capacity and funding models rely on Crown governments as the sole financial providers for Indigenous
capacity-building programs. In many cases, this has resulted in rigid, overly bureaucratic, unreliable funding on a yearto year basis. For IPCAs, which require a long-term commitment to conservation and relationships, a more streamlined,
predictable and flexible funding model is required.
Some IPCAs may be able to secure funding by partnering with philanthropic organizations, environmental NGOs orIndigenous governments looking to partner and support IPCAs. Other IPCAs may be able to secure funding throughrevenue-generating activities, such as user fees and carbon credits. These mechanisms will not be viable for all IPCAs, andsome will take time to develop. Therefore, funding commitments from federal, provincial and territorial governments will
be required to ensure the success of IPCAs until they become self-sustaining.

First Nations across Canada have been estranged from their most important relations: those thatflow through water. External institutions and actors within the dominant legal and political systems,
as well as the private sector, make decisions about water that impact First Nations management,planning, access and use of water. This estrangement has grave consequences for living beings andFirst Nations life-ways within traditional territories and reserve boundaries. This estrangement
has developed slowly, resulting from the impacts of settlement and “development.” Industrial andagricultural projects have polluted, contaminated, deforested and degraded traditional Indigenous
lands and waters across Canada”— Danika Littlechild, ICE Co-chair, Ermineskin Cree Nation in Maskwacis Alberta, Treaty 6 territory

WE RISE TOGETHER

51

T’Sou-Ke First Nation, BC.
Photographer: Margot Bishop

Requirements for Supporting Capacity Development
During the Regional Gatherings, capacity development was discussed as requiring a holistic approach that unites various
perspectives. It is often perceived as a one-way process for empowering Indigenous Peoples in relation to Crown-led
and science-based processes, tools and mechanisms. But it should be a two-way collaboration and learning platform
where Indigenous People are given the means to understand and make decisions within a western-based system, while
non-Indigenous participants are supported in learning, appreciating and integrating Indigenous knowledge into westernbased decision-making processes.
Capacity development was often discussed at the Regional Gatherings in terms of the need to share stories andlessons learned between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, as well as to build a national program for guardiansin support of equity among nations and governments.Examples include reconnecting youth with Elders, documenting
Elders’ knowledge, enforcement staff working with guardians, mapping using Indigenous language, and respecting andparticipating in traditions and ceremonies on the land.

4.13 IPCAS’ CONNECTION TO UNESCO AND OTHER DESIGNATIONS

Within the United Nations system, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has
a unique mandate to designate natural areas of significance. It achieves this through different instruments, including
the World Heritage Convention, the Lists and Register of the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural
Heritage, the Man and the Biosphere Programme (with its World Network of Biosphere Reserves), and the International
Geoscience and Geoparks Programme.
These designations differ in character, criteria, mandate,monitoring and reporting. However, they all share the goal
UNESCO designations may fall withinof conserving the environment (and in some cases, culture)for future generations.
the definition of IPCAs where Indigenous

Peoples have led such nomination processesor have participated significantly throughpartnerships.

UNESCO itself does not designate sites. There aredesignating bodies for World Heritage, Biosphere
Reserves and Geoparks that provide internationalrecognition. Sometimes there are areas that haveoverlapping designations.

52 4.0 INDIGENOUS PROTECTED AND CONSERVED AREAS (IPCAS)

SNAPSHOT: THAIDENE NËNÉ NATIONAL PARK RESERVE ANDTERRITORIAL PROTECTED AREAThe Thaidene Nëné proposed National Park Reserve and Territorial Protected Area (TDN) extends
over an area of approximately 33,000 square kilometres in the Northwest Territories and is in
the traditional territory of the Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation (LKDFN). It is currently subject to aninterim land withdrawal, which provides it with temporary protection from mining claims and otherinterests issued by governments.
The federal government first proposed an “East Arm National Park” for this region in 1969—an ideawith which LKDFN did not agree, as it would have limited traditional activities and ways of life. Since
then, LKDFN has been working for a better solution. Recently, LKDFN asked Parks Canada whether
it was still interested in creating a national park in the area based on the spirit and intent of Treaty 8,
with LKDFN as an equal partner. The answer was yes; thus began several years of collaborative work
between LKDFN and the federal government. In 2015, the Government of the Northwest Territories
joined the table as a partner. Agreements to establish Thaidene Nëné are expected to conclude in
mid-2018. A unique feature of TDN will be the Thaidene Nëné Trust, which will provide long-term
funding for protection.

UNESCO designations may fall within the definition of IPCAs where Indigenous Peoples have led such nomination
processes or have participated significantly through partnerships.
World Heritage sites identify, protect and conserve natural cultural sites of outstanding universal value and transmit themto future generations. Biosphere reserves are spaces dedicated to the harmonized management and conservation of
biological and cultural diversity, and to economic and social development based on science and on the peoples who live
and work in them.
UNESCO Global Geoparks are areas of geological heritage of international value that relate strongly to conservation,
local community and the promotion of heritage and sustainable development. Intangible cultural heritage encompasses
traditions or living expressions transmitted by Elders to future generations, including oral traditions, social practices,
rituals and—most relevant—knowledge and practices concerning nature and the environment.
These international designations all have their own governance, management, legal frameworks, funding arrangements
and reporting requirements.
There are 1,073 World Heritage sites worldwide, of which 18 are in Canada. Of the 669 biosphere reserves in
120 countries (including 20 transboundary sites), Canada is home to 18. There are 127 UNESCO Global Geoparks in
35 countries, with Canada hosting two. Canada is not a State Party to the Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage(ICH), so it does not have ICH inscriptions.
Indigenous Peoples have not played prominent roles over the history of these UNESCO designations. This has shifted
recently with advances in the recognition of the rights of Indigenous Peoples through UNDRIP and UNESCO’s developing
policy on engaging with Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Peoples in Canada have been particularly influential in thisregard. For example, the Tsá Tué biosphere reserve designation is the first Indigenous-led designation in the history of
UNESCO biosphere reserves.
Although the biosphere reserve designation is non-regulatory, some biosphere reserves have core areas that overlap
recognized and reported protected areas. However, not all do, with most not being formally recognized by Crown
governments as contributing to biodiversity and ecological conservation efforts. Biosphere reserves typically involve
collaboration by many partners and levels of government, including (but not always) Indigenous governments.
WE RISE TOGETHER

53

TSÁ TUÉ BIOSPHERE RESERVE DESIGNATION AND IMPLEMENTATIONThe Tsá Tué Biosphere Reserve received formal recognition by UNESCO in March 2016. The Sahtu
Dene First Nation led the submission for the designation to protect Great Bear Lake from threatsof large-scale development. Great Bear Lake is considered the source of life for the Sahtu Dene,
known as the “Bear Lake People,” who have lived in its proximity since time immemorial, caring for
its surroundings and maintaining the Tudze, which according to Dene legend, is a living andbreathing heart buried in its depths.
Tsá Tué is the first biosphere reserve located north of the 60th parallel in Canada. At 93,000 square
kilometres, it is the largest in North America. The Délı̨nę Renewable Resources Council leads its
management in cooperation with a range of agencies and organizations.

“The process leading to designation was fully inclusive of the community. Lead by the Elders,
supported by the leadership and assisted by a senior outside adviser with lengthy experiencein working within government circles and with funding provided by a key foundation,communication within the community was comprehensive and ongoing. Numerous community
meetings were held, and the steering committee met publicly for several days bi-monthly.
Radio announcements and on-air discussions were frequent, and the general public was given
every opportunity to engage in the discussions. From the outset, the community had a veto as
to whether the project would proceed. This was unambiguous: without community support,
particularly that of the Elders and leadership, the nomination process would not proceed. Thisapproach provided the assurances the community required: This was their project, and not
something being imposed by outside agencies. Similarly, outside agencies were aware that despite
their support for the nomination, it was not their call to make. In short, engagement was ongoing,
comprehensive, led by the community Elders and leadership, supported by key individuals andagencies, and the entire project was subject to community veto. These were the key ingredientsto success in Délı̨nę.
“The Tsá Tué Biosphere Reserve Stewardship Council, a registered NWT society establishedpursuant to the NWT Societies Act, now leads biosphere implementation. The Council includes
representatives of the Délı̨nę Renewable Resources Council, other key Délı̨nę agencies, Parks
Canada, Elders, and youth. Advice is provided by resource management boards, federal,
territorial and Sahtu government agencies, industry representatives, and other interested parties
as appropriate. Decisions of the Council are made by consensus. Délı̨nę residents comprisethe entirety of the Council. The commitment to sustainable development in accordance with
UNESCO principles and Sahtuto’ine spirituality is now entrenched in the Délı̨nę Got’ı̨nę
Government constitution.”— Excerpted from Indigenous-led Biosphere Reserves: nothing to fear, a CanadianCommission for UNESCO IdeaLab Discussion Paper by David Livingstone

54 4.0 INDIGENOUS PROTECTED AND CONSERVED AREAS (IPCAS)

Tsá Tué Biosphere Reserve, NWT.
Government of the Northwest Territories,
March 8, 2018

Lutselk’e, NWT. Photographer: Pat KaneWE RISE TOGETHER

55

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONSICE Co-Chair Danika Littlechild leading a breakout group on
Indigenous values and principles at Aurora Village, NWT.
Photographer: Marilyn BaptisteI

5.1 INTRODUCTION
n addition to being woven by the sacred strands of reconciliation, IPCAs must also be shaped by Indigenous
knowledge systems. Indigenous knowledge systems, while defined by those who practice and are guided
by them, are passed from generation to generation through culture, song, language, dance, ceremony andwitnessing. They draw upon the ever-changing natural world. As such, they change over time, bringing
forward new understandings regarding the Earth’s ecology.

The collections of wisdoms and experiences of Indigenous Peoples encompass the interrelationships
between all life forms from a unique historical, cultural and spiritual perspective. This is evident in
Indigenous languages, which come from and are intricately tied to the land and water. Language
speaks to the interconnectedness of all things and to people’s connection to the land and water. It isa human birthright; and it gives rise to the natural laws that make nations. As a result, language andculturally appropriate ceremonies play a vital role in creating and managing IPCAs and in revitalizing existing
protected areas.

Within the spirit of the Indigenous, there is a memory, original instructions that can define ourhumanity. All those original instructions are based on values and teachings that ensure survival andrespect for the land and its natural laws. Our people have always understood that ‘all life is connected.’
You cannot fragment the Earth with the policies or structures.”— Elder Dave Courchene, Central Regional Gathering, September 201756 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Indigenous knowledge systems and western science need to be treated as equally valued and respected parallel systems.
They complement each other while each maintains its integrity. This dual system of knowledge (“two-eyed seeing”)
weaves the two approaches together using Indigenous expertise.

Etuaptmumk: Two-eyed seeing refers to learning to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous
knowledges and ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of western knowledges
and ways of knowing—and learning to use both of these eyes together for the benefit of all.”— Elder Albert Marshall of the Mi’kmaw Nation, Central Regional Gathering, June 2017Federal, provincial and territorial governments must recognize the critical role of Indigenous wisdom and knowledge inmanaging complex ecosystems and addressing conservation- and protection-related challenges. They must also thoroughly
understand Indigenous knowledge systems if authentic knowledge sharing and learning are to be truly reciprocal.
Therefore, there is a need for governments at all levels to build their internal capacity to grasp and value Indigenous
knowledge systems.
IPCAs must be based, at the very least, on joint Indigenous knowledge systems and western science assessmentsof the relationships inherent within the land and water. The resulting analysis can inform management planningand subsequent ecological audits. All management planning, even if it is based in “two-eyed seeing” and brings
both systems together, must nevertheless be rooted in the abiding values of spirituality and respect for the useof traditional protocols.
In the spirit and practice of reconciliation, federal, provincial and territorial governments should acknowledge, respect
and create the space required for the sacred elements of Indigenous local protocols, practices and ceremonies that uplift
Indigenous Peoples and their many traditions. Preparation of ceremony is central to Indigenous Peoples’ relationship withland and water, and is a sacred space where their perspectives and truth must be honoured.
Orientation, relationship-building and cross-cultural competency are important when different worldviews come together.
Bridging methods and tools are needed to learn how to work together respectfully to weave reconciliation with “twoeyed seeing” in the creation of IPCAs. The recommendations set out in this section of the report attempt to lay thenecessary foundation for that.

5.2 RECONCILIATION IN CONSERVATIONThe Government of Canada recognizes that reconciliation is an ongoing process that occurs in thecontext of evolving Indigenous–Crown relationships. This Principle recognizes that reconciliation
processes, including processes for negotiation and implementation of Treaties, agreements and Other
Constructive Arrangements, will need to be innovative and flexible and build over time in the context of
evolving Indigenous–Crown relationships. These relationships are to be guided by the recognition andimplementation of rights. —Principal 9, Principles respecting the Government of Canada’s relationshipwith Indigenous Peoples (see http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/principles-principes.html).
Reconciliation has been a core aspect of ICE’s work. Throughout the process, ICE has delved into various elementsof reconciliation, experiencing it as a multifaceted and dynamic concept.
ICE has examined reconciliation in a historical context, unafraid to cast a critical eye on existing protected areas andIndigenous Peoples. This has necessitated discussion around issues such as exclusion from decision-making, forcible
displacement, rights violations and rights restrictions (such as hunting/fishing, cultural rights or access issues) as well as
the role(s) and breaches of Treaties, Agreements and Other Constructive Arrangements.
WE RISE TOGETHER

57

We need to preserve the woods, we need to preserve the animals and we need to preserve our way oflife. So it is not just about us as people, it’s about the world, it’s about the animals, it’s about everybody.”— Bev New, Métis Nation of Alberta, Co-Minister for Métis Rights, Central Regional Gathering, September 2017

ICE has also considered reconciliation in the current context, looking at the nature of interactions between Indigenous
Peoples and protected areas today. ICE explored whether there were any established relationships between Indigenous
Peoples and established protected areas, and whether Indigenous Peoples were part of decision-making bodies or were
employees, advisers, volunteers or simply voiceless in the function of existing protected areas.
Finally, ICE considered what reconciliation might mean for the future of conservation and protection in the context ofPathway to Canada Target 1. Its vision for future Indigenous leadership, Indigenous participation in decision-making,Indigenous standard-setting and interactions in protected and conserved areas includes its concept of reconciliation andthe implementation of ethical space, including the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada CTAs, UNDRIP, theCanadian Constitution and jurisprudence, and Treaties, Agreements and Other Constructive Arrangements.
ICE hope that its recommendations (set out below) contribute toward reconciliation for all Canadians and Mother Earth.
1. ICE calls on federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments to endorse the concept of IPCAs
outlined in this report:
IPCAs are lands and waters where Indigenous governments have the primary role in protecting and conserving culture
and ecosystems through Indigenous laws, governance and knowledge systems. Culture and language are the heartand soul of an IPCA.
However, ICE also encourages Indigenous governments to develop and refine this proposed definition according totheir local environments.
To be clear, any level of government can propose an IPCA; but once there is agreement to proceed, Indigenous
governments will take the primary role in deciding on all aspects of management and operations. This does not meanthat an Indigenous government must take an exclusive role, as it is understood that different kinds of partnerships andsupports may be required or sought depending on circumstances. However, it does necessitate a deliberate elevationof Indigenous governments in decision-making processes, with appropriate recognition.
2. ICE encourages federal, provincial and territorial governments to work with Indigenous governments to support
the development and implementation of IPCAs that count, when appropriate, toward Canada’s biodiversity andprotected area targets, including Target 1.
3. ICE calls upon federal, provincial and territorial governments to support the development of IPCAs beyond
the Pathway to Target 1 timeline.
Reconciliation is an ongoing process. ICE heard from many Indigenous governments that are interested in IPCAs, butneed time to build their capacity and community vision first. In many cases, this will take time, pushing beyond the 2020
timeframe for Target 1.
4.1 ICE recommends that federal, provincial and territorial governments support IPCAs whether they counttoward Target 1 or not.
In many cases, IPCAs will be consistent with IUCN requirements for protected areas or “other effective area-based
conservation measures” (OECMs); thus, they may contribute to Canada’s targets under international agreements, suchas the CBD (i.e., Aichi Target 11). However, not all IPCAs may contribute; and whether or not they contribute to Canada’s
biodiversity targets, they should be supported by federal, provincial and territorial governments and other stakeholders.

58 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.2 ICE calls on the Government of Canada tosupport and promote its definition of IPCAs
internationally—such as under international
designated areas of protection, including
UNESCO designations like World Heritageand Biosphere Reserves—and with regards
to processes and requirements in thecontext of IUCN and CBD.
5. ICE recommends that federal, provincial,territorial and Indigenous governments
recognize and support the potential of
IPCAs to enable sustainable, conservationbased Indigenous economies to help diversify
local economies.

Yellowknives Dettah First Nation youth drum group, NWT.
Photographer: Jeremy Williams, River Voices Productions

Sustainable economies within IPCAs cancontribute to surrounding local economies.
Many local communities remain heavily
invested in non-renewable resource industries.
IPCAs can contribute, rather than detract
from, robust local economies by providing
opportunities to diversify investments.

IPCAs can be part of a just transition away from boom/bust economic cycles to a more sustainable future, which in turn
may contribute to stable and predictable investment opportunities.
6.1 ICE calls on federal, provincial and territorial governments to acknowledge and address past wrongdoings—
such as appropriating lands and waters from Indigenous Peoples, refusing to recognize the rights of Indigenous
Peoples, and excluding them from access to their resources—in the establishment of parks and protected areas. In
the spirit and practice of reconciliation, ICE therefore also calls on governments to work with affected Indigenous
communities and their governments to determine appropriate action.
When parks and protected areas were established in the past, significant injustices were done to Indigenous Peoples.
Their lands were appropriated, and they were excluded from access to resources. ICE calls on federal, provincial andterritorial governments to acknowledge these wrongs and determine appropriate action in the spirit and practice ofreconciliation through discussion with Indigenous governments. Appropriate actions may include governments issuingformal apologies to Indigenous Peoples.
6.2 ICE calls on federal, provincial and territorial governments to develop collaborative governance andmanagement arrangements for existing federal, provincial and territorial parks and protected areas.
6.3 ICE recommends that federal, provincial and territorial governments support Indigenous-designed and -led
cultural programs in existing parks and protected areas to educate the public (and where applicable, government
employees) about Indigenous natural laws and stewardship. This can be done through Indigenous Peoples’
geographical, spiritual, social and economic connections to a given park or protected area.

The intention of our knowledge keepers has always been to honour the spirit and ceremony and thevalues that underpin Indigenous knowledge. Our strength as a people is in the alliance we have withnature. We rely on nature for its teachings and our sustenance.”— Elder Dave Courchene, Central Regional Gathering, September 2017

WE RISE TOGETHER

59

7. ICE recommends that federal, provincial and territorial
governments enter into good faith discussions with Indigenous
governments that have an interest in establishing IPCAs relating
to, or coinciding with, parks and protected areas where there are
not enough meaningful partnerships with Indigenous governments.
Where parks and protected areas were established without
Indigenous participation, consultation, or free, prior and informed
consent, ICE urges governments to engage in building relationships
and good faith dialogue with Indigenous Peoples through theirchosen representatives. Such dialogue will contributeto reconciliation,
address present challenges, and move toward a vision of strengthened
relationships and self-determination.

Chief Roy Fabian from K’atl’odeeche First Nation(left) and Marilyn Baptiste, ICE Core (right).
Photographer: Jeremy Williams,
River Voices Productions

8. For IPCAs or other protected areas already declared by Indigenous
governments, such as Tribal Parks, ICE calls upon federal, provincial
and territorial governments to formally respond to and engage ingood faith dialogue with Indigenous governments to explore appropriate recognition, level of protection and governance sought by
the Indigenous government.

ICE encourages federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments to collaborate in developing innovative ways
to find common ground and resolve disputes over land and waters that may arise from a proposal to create an IPCA.
9. ICE recommends that federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments work together on an ongoingbasis to review—and, where necessary, amend—protected area legislation, policies and tools to support IPCAs.
ICE recognizes that, at the time of the release of this report, reviews of environmental and other legislation are underway.
While some of these review processes may endeavour to address issues and matters relating to Indigenous Peoples,
ICE encourages those leading such reviews to strengthen and enhance Indigenous involvement.
Indigenous governments that are interested in working with Crown governments to protect areas sometimes
find it difficult to fit their vision and objectives for an area into the types of existing tools that governments haveavailable. For example, parks legislation and policies often focus on protecting lands and waters from human
influence, whereas from an Indigenous perspective, continued human presence on the land and water is seen
as positive and essential, with humans considered an integral part of the land. As a result of western concepts ofprotection, parks legislation and policies are often restrictive in terms of the types of activities that can take place inparks and protected areas. Indigenous communities that are interested in continuing or pursuing certain activities,
including small-scale economic activities, often find that existing parks frameworks do not accommodate the uses
they envision.
Topics the joint reviews could consider include:• recognizing Indigenous legal orders and governance authorities,• creating IPCAs as a distinct category of protected area, and• enabling mechanisms for a spectrum of IPCA governance models, including Indigenous governance and cogovernance models and agreements that allow for joint final decision-making powers between Crown ministers andIndigenous governments.

5.3 “WE RISE TOGETHER”

The following recommendations come from Indigenous communities across Canada that have used creativity, processes
from the ground up, or other interesting and effective means to achieve their vision for creating an IPCA or otherwise
protecting part of their territory, inspiring others.
60 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONSAlthough some of these can be considered “best practices,” ICE considered that term to be limiting. As recommendations,a key principle in these examples is that everyone benefits: “We rise together.” Further, ICE feels strongly that following
these sets of recommendations will save federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments time and money
because they emerge from successful examples, eliminating the need to reinvent the wheel.
10. ICE recommends that federal, provincial and territorial governments use land withdrawals and other measures toprevent development and new third-party interests in IPCA candidate areas while those areas are being considered.
Indigenous governments often struggle to protect lands and waters from industrial development while undertaking thecommunity engagement and governance negotiation needed to establish an IPCA. Typically, a hold on development
pressures is required for an area of interest to be considered.
11. ICE calls on federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments to practice the principle of ethical spaceby building nation-to-nation, government-to-government and Inuit-to-Crown relationships in the pursuit of IPCAs.
The nation-to-nation, government-to-government and Inuit-to-Crown relationship requires significant efforts related
not only to time and resources, but also to approach. ICE urges federal, provincial and territorial governments toengage directly with communities in the pursuit of IPCAs due to their geographically specific nature, and to avoid
an approach that limits engagement to national Indigenous organizations or to provincial or territorial Indigenousorganizations. Further, federal, provincial and territorial governments should approach relationship-building within theframework of ethical space, which includes the minimum standards set out in UNDRIP, the TRC’s CTAs, the Canadian
Constitution and Canadian jurisprudence, and Treaties, Agreements and Other Constructive Arrangements.
12. ICE recommends that when building relationships by developing IPCAs, federal, provincial and territorial
governments respect the diversity of protocols, preferences, relationships and self-determination of Indigenous
governments and regions.
13. ICE recommends that federal, provincial and territorial governments adopt a flexible approach to collaboratingwith Indigenous governments and Peoples when identifying and protecting sacred or culturally important areasand cultural keystone species, whether they are in an existing protected area or an IPCA. Governments should
not be bound by standard objectives and criteria in these matters.
14. ICE recommends that Indigenous governments develop IPCA indicators for success, including social, economic
and cultural indicators.
These indicators should be used to assess progress and outcomes that are in line with their IPCA objectives. An
Indigenous government’s standards and measurements of success could be based on community priorities and evolving
circumstances as successes are reached. However, ICE suggests developing indicators related to the environment,
reconciliation, revitalization of language, cultural practices, protocol and ceremony, job creation, sustainable livelihoods
and social well-being.
15. ICE calls on federal, provincial and territorial governments to acknowledge and respect the fact that Indigenous
governments will use their own unique legal traditions and knowledge systems when establishing IPCAs.
Indigenous legal traditions and knowledge systems are whole unto themselves and are defined and owned by
Indigenous Peoples and their governments.
16. ICE encourages philanthropic organizations and other NGOs to support and partner with Indigenous
governments (and Indigenous NGOs, where applicable) and federal, provincial and territorial governments todevelop, implement and manage IPCAs.
In example after example of successful conservation initiatives involving Indigenous Peoples, a common element
has been the involvement of the non-profit sector, such as philanthropic and environmental organizations. Whether
serving as active partners in developing and implementing IPCA-type projects or sourcing funds and other resources
to leverage support from government, non-profit organizations should be encouraged to join the collaborative process
involved in creating IPCAs.
WE RISE TOGETHER

61

The Great Bear Rainforest is a large temperate rainforest on the coast of British
Columbia whose old-growth trees and rare ecosystems have been protected through various
designations, such as conservancies. It is home to more than two dozen First Nations. Working
with Indigenous governments and the provincial government, a variety of stakeholders—
including environmental organizations (Greenpeace, Sierra Club BC and Stand), the forest
products industry (Coast Forest Products Association) and philanthropic organizations(including Tides Canada and The Nature Conservancy)—collaborated on designing solutions
as well as providing and leveraging funds and expertise toward the long-term protection of
the region while ensuring that a viable conservation economy would take root.

For more information, visit the following three websites, which between them offer a comprehensive picture:• Coastal First Nations: http://coastalfirstnations.ca/• Nanwakolas Council: http://www.nanwakolas.com/• Great Bear Rainforest: https://greatbearrainforest.gov.bc.ca/

5.4 HOLISTIC AND INTEGRATED APPROACHES TO STEWARDSHIPICE heard at Regional Gatherings that Indigenous People continue to feel their perspectives and interests are notadequately reflected in management decisions. Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), as defined by a given Indigenous
government, must be obtained in land use planning and watershed planning processes.
Indigenous People generally take a holistic approach to the stewardship and management of their territories, viewing themthrough the lens of long-established worldviews, practices and actions. They have been stewarding the land holisticallyfor many thousands of years, which has resulted in harmony with the land and sustained biodiversity conservation. Current
management regimes for marine/terrestrial areas and protected/non-protected areas are disconnected from one another;as a result, they are not consistent with Indigenous worldviews. From an Indigenous perspective, it is this paradigm of
disconnectedness that has been causing harm to biodiversity.
Achieving reconciliation on land and resource issues will require holistic, integrated approaches that consider and balance
the conservation and economic objectives of the parties. This is consistent with messaging from Indigenous communities
and knowledge holders across the country.
Canada can be a global leader in attaining international targets while embracing its own unique ways of living in harmony
with the rest of nature.
17. ICE recommends that federal, provincial and territorial governments collaborate with Indigenous governments
to support Indigenous land use planning, collaborative land use planning and governance models to support them.
Such plans and processes should identify and supply resources for equitable, effective and efficient collaborations leading
to mutual agreements, land use recognition (including for IPCAs), and building/maintaining long-term relationships inthe spirit of reconciliation. This should occur not just among federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments,
but with local governments, industry, environmental NGOs and other partners. Examples could include:

62 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS• Indigenous-led or collaborative land use planning at the watershed, landscape or traditional territory scale,• full implementation of modern land claims agreements,• full implementation of shared decision-making models outside of protected areas, and• reconciliation of existing land use plans between Indigenous governments and federal, provincial andterritorial governments.
Such plans and processes may contribute to Canada Target 1 through the OECM designation while
honouring the spirit and intent of the original Treaties.

Hahoulthee [also meaning territory] means marriage to the land and…a responsibility to leave thisland in abundance for future generations.”— Elder Joe Martin, Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation in British Columbia, Western Regional Gathering, May 201718.1 ICE recommends that federal, provincial and territorial governments take a more integrated approach toconservation and biodiversity that is consistent with Indigenous worldviews and tailored to what the land andwater need locally and regionally.
18.2 ICE recommends the full implementation and coordination of the other Aichi Targets and their related
Canadian targets, notably (in the context of ICE’s mandate) Aichi Targets 14 and 18:
TARGET 14
By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related to water, and contribute to health,
livelihoods and well-being, are restored and safeguarded, taking into account the needs of women, Indigenous and local
communities, and the poor and vulnerable.

Photographer: Susan Mather

WE RISE TOGETHER63

TARGET 18
By 2020, the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of Indigenous and local communities relevant for theconservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and their customary use of biological resources, are respected, subject
to national legislation and relevant international obligations, and fully integrated and reflected in the implementationof the Convention with the full and effective participation of Indigenous and local communities, at all relevant levels.

ICE encourages the federal, provincial and territorial governments of Canada to engage in these Aichi
Targets in the context of IPCAs further to the 2020 Biodiversity Goals and Targets for Canada, inparticular Canada Target 13: “By 2020, innovative mechanisms for fostering the conservation andsustainable use of biodiversity are developed and applied.” ICE suggests that Indigenous innovations
may be appropriate mechanisms to be supported within the context of Canada’s progress under thistarget and others.
19. ICE recommends that federal, provincial and territorial governments facilitate and support cross-boundary(inter-national, provincial/territorial) conservation strategies as they relate to IPCAs.
Since federal, provincial and territorial government boundaries separated long-existing Indigenous sovereign lands,
Indigenous governments want to protect their territories that straddle international, provincial or territorial boundaries.
There is a great opportunity for cross-boundary collaboration, cooperation and reconciliation between all levels ofgovernments through the creation of IPCAs that straddle political boundaries.
20. ICE encourages the federal government to enable, fund and build on Indigenous-led processes to examine
IPCAs in the marine context.
Any subsequent marine-focused IPCA process created to provide recommendations on marine IPCAs should emulate
and learn from ICE processes within Pathway to Canada Target 1. In the interest of protecting and enhancing biodiversity,
the marine-terrestrial components of the Aichi Targets should be viewed holistically by governments moving forward.

Dasiqox Tribal Park, Tsilhqot’in territory, BC. Photographer: Jeremy Williams, River Voices Productions
64 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONSWe continue to find ourselves reacting to government-initiated processes and we should bereversing this trend. We must be in the position to be proactive and defining our own processes
and our own initiatives, offering opportunities for those who wish to engage in our defined initiatives
or approaches.”— Elder Dave Courchene, Central Regional Gathering, September 2017

5.5 CAPACITY-BUILDING

Building the capacity of Indigenous Peoples to establish and manage IPCAs takes time and can include the capacity toundertake community consensus building, land use and watershed planning and governance, mapping and spatial data
management, creating and tracking indicators, undertaking studies, stewardship, monitoring and cultural interpretation.
21. ICE calls upon federal, provincial and territorial governments, philanthropic organizations, academia,
environmental NGOs and industry to support the capacity of Indigenous governments, communities andassociated organizations to plan, establish and manage IPCAs and engage in conservation efforts more broadly.
Examples of capacity-building requirements emerging from the Regional Gatherings for successful IPCAs include:• promoting and restoring Indigenous languages and cultural competency/awareness,• supporting reconnection to the land and water whenever possible, especially for Elders, youth and women,• undertaking a holistic approach to identifying capacity requirements,• undertaking a whole-of-government approach and breaking down silos to increase transparency,• fostering relationships through cross-cultural training, including Indigenous knowledge systems andwestern systems,• recognizing the importance of Indigenous ceremony on the land and water and its relation to building capacity,• facilitating access to information and data held by federal, provincial and territorial governments about the lands
and waters being managed while respecting culturally sensitive information,• providing space for Indigenous governments to identify their capacity needs,• creating safe spaces to share capacity and leverage collective knowledge,• sharing resources across Indigenous communities, and• providing capacity rooted in local Indigenous knowledge systems and ensuring that federal, provincial andterritorial governments understand and value the importance of such local systems of knowledge
22. ICE encourages federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments to work together to support thedevelopment of on-the-land programs (e.g., guardian programs or similar community-based initiatives) for thedevelopment and management of IPCAs.
Many existing guardian programs are designed to steward Indigenous territories and transmit Indigenous knowledge.
Guardians should be permitted to exercise their authority, where appropriate, to enforce Indigenous and Crown
laws within IPCAs and to help create land use and/or watershed governance area plans—and in some cases, to work
alongside Crown staff in managing the operations of existing protected areas.

WE RISE TOGETHER

65

23. ICE recommends creating a network of IPCA managers,
supported by an Indigenous-led national coordinating body inpartnership with federal, provincial and territorial governments,
to support the capacity, development, implementation andsuccess of IPCAs now and beyond 2020.
This coordinating body could play a major role in establishing a
network of IPCA managers or its equivalent to facilitate the sharing
of tools, resources, best practices and lessons learned.A consistentmessage emerged from the Regional Gatherings: Indigenous
Peoples see the need for formalized mechanisms to support thework of IPCAs across the country. One example might be theformation of a national coordinating body.

Photographer: Susan Mather

An “ICE 2.0” would consider and put forward recommendations on the creation of such a coordinating body to supportconsistency across the federal, provincial and territorial government spectrum. This will also encourage the sharing ofadvances made in one area to contribute to the consistent growth and improvement of IPCAs across Canada (the “Werise together” approach).
24. Further to TRC Call to Action #57, ICE calls upon federal, provincial and territorial governments to educate
and create mandatory skills-based training relevant to the local context for staff in intercultural competency,
conflict resolution, human rights and anti-racism.
This will develop and strengthen positive relationships between Indigenous Peoples and federal, provincial andterritorial government staff. Training programs should be developed and delivered in collaboration with local andIndigenous partners.
Orientation, relationship-building and cross-cultural competency are important when different worldviews cometogether. Bridging methods and tools are needed if all parties are to learn how to work together respectfully.
25. ICE recommends that federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments collaborate with educational
institutions to support and encourage further research and capacity-building in IPCAs, such as with respect to theimpacts and mitigation of climate change.
IPCAs can be “beacons of teachings”: spaces for higher education research focusing on the recovery and revitalizationof Indigenous knowledge systems and rooted in the guidance and teaching of Elders.

5.6 SUSTAINED FUNDING

26. ICE calls on federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments, and conservation partners, to provide
or facilitate secure multi-year funding for the planning, development and management of IPCAs.
Traditional capacity and funding models rely on Crown governments as the sole financial providers for Indigenous
capacity-building programs. In many cases, this has resulted in rigid, overly bureaucratic, unreliable funding on a yearto year basis. For IPCAs, which require a long-term commitment to conservation and relationships, a more streamlined,
predictable and flexible funding model is required.
Some IPCAs may be able to secure funding by partnering with philanthropic organizations, environmental NGOs orIndigenous governments looking to partner and support IPCAs. Other IPCAs may be able to secure funding throughrevenue-generating activities, such as user fees. These mechanisms will not be viable for all IPCAs, and some will taketime to develop. Therefore, funding commitments from federal, provincial and territorial governments will be required
to ensure the success of IPCAs until they become self-sustaining.

5.7 IMPLEMENTATION

27. ICE recommends that federal, provincial and territorial governments and Indigenous governments continue
to support the work of ICE going forward to help guide the implementation of these recommendations.
66 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Trust funds are increasingly used as a capacity tool to give independence to Indigenous
governments in the governance, operation and management of IPCAs. When governments invest
in these trust funds, they are effectively empowering Indigenous Peoples to have their own sourceof revenue that does not bind taxpayers to annual transfer payments in perpetuity. For example,
a trust fund model is being developed for Thaidene Nëné, through which the Lutsel K’e Dene First
Nations (LKDFN) can fulfill its responsibilities related to the protected area and can invest its own
dollars to make investments from which current and future generations can benefit.]
The ICE process has resulted in positive work, learnings, expertise and relationships among members and participants
at Regional Gatherings. There is an opportunity to maintain the resulting momentum. Consideration should be given
to establishing a national body on IPCAs to support Indigenous governments and local non-Indigenous communitiesin creating and implementing IPCAs, upon request. This could be accomplished by continuing or modifying the ICE
initiative, with supporting mechanisms such as “Regional ICE bodies” and an Elder and youth advisory body. Roles andoutputs could include:• conducting a thorough national review through engagement, research, and communication of current and ongoing
Indigenous-led conservation initiatives to further enhance understanding of the conservation landscape in Canada,• engaging with Indigenous governments to assess on their interest in establishing IPCAs,• exploring and identifying potential funding models to support successful IPCAs,• engaging other partners who can contribute to the success of IPCAs, such as universities, non-profit organizations(including environmental NGOs and philanthropic bodies), industry and municipal governments (could include theIndigenous Leadership Initiative’s Guardian program),• creating a multi-media toolkit for jurisdictions (drawing on existing tools like the Land Code) with a focus on
improving protected and conserved areas and future IPCAs,• participating in international dialogues on conservation and IPCAs (along with other Indigenous IPCA experts), and• continuing to follow up with participants from previous gatherings and providing targeted support upon request.
28. Immediate Actions
1.

Federal, provincial and territorial governments
should support ICE to conduct communication andoutreach directly with these governments, Indigenous
governments, and potential non-government partners
after the ICE Report is released to support the processof building IPCAs.

2.

ICE should be supported to host a National Gathering
on IPCAs in 2018 for a commencement and ceremony tohonour the work completed and work ahead.

3.

ICE should be expanded to include youth advisers (suchas from the Youth Climate Advisory Body, or some otheryouth-oriented group focused on topical environmental
issues) and Elder advisers.

NSC Co-Chairs Nadine Crookes (left) and Scott Jones(right) in Tofino, BC. Photographer: Margot Bishop

WE RISE TOGETHER

67

6.0 CONCLUDINGREMARKS		By Danika Littlechild and Eli Enns

Caribou hide tanning camp near Lutselk’e, NWT.
Photographer: Pat KaneO

ur journey as ICE has been
one of intense learning—
about ourselves, each other,and all the incredible peoples,
places, spaces, lands, waters,and Indigenous territories
that we have encounteredalong the way. We have had
to listen with every faculty ofour beings. We have listenedwith open hearts to words, songs, prayers, emotion, andthe sounds, echoes and silences of Mother Earth.
When we first began our collective work as membersof ICE, it was for the most part as strangers. We had totell each other our stories, we had to trust each other tosomehow appreciate and respect those stories, fears andthe fires that kept us going in our respective work and lives.
Creating trust and good working relationships required a
deep dive into vulnerability and the co-creation of a safe
space for dialogue.

68 6.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS

There were moments of chaos when nothing went asplanned or anticipated, and at those times we had to lift
each other up, holding fast to our collective mandate andcommitment to one another.
It was not just our Terms of Reference for ICE in Pathway
to Canada Target 1 that defined that collective mandate,although that was one core element of our convening.
The other element that defined our collective mandate
was ceremony and our undertaking to honour the
responsibilities we accepted through ceremony. Thiswas our iteration of ethical space, the implementationof our written mandate through the Terms of Reference,and our oral mandate through ceremony andrelated responsibilities.
One of the most important representations of those
responsibilities was manifested in the flags, or cloths,
that we prayed over in ceremony together at the start ofour journey.

Four flags or cloths were blessed in ceremony: one canaryyellow, one sky blue, one crimson red, and one bright green.
Each represented, for us, each of the Regional Gatherings
we held to inform our journey and our work. Each flag was
taken to the site of each Regional Gathering, and put up
in a clean place by the Indigenous hosts through their own
protocols, practices and song. These sacred actions, whichcannot be fully described in writing, represent how we live
in relationship—to each other and to Mother Earth.
The green flag resides in the Tla-o-qui-aht Territory
near Tofino, on Vancouver Island. This was the site of
our Western Regional Gathering, which was also ourinaugural gathering.
The yellow flag resides in Mi’kmaq territory at Bear RiverFirst Nation in Nova Scotia, which was the site of ourEastern Regional Gathering.
The blue flag resides in the territory of the Yellowknives
Dene First Nation in the Northwest Territories, which was
the location of our Northern Regional Gathering.
The red flag resides in Treaty 1 territory and in Metis Nation
homeland, near Winnipeg Manitoba, which was the site of
our Central Regional Gathering.
The flags represent a form of validation and protection of
our work as ICE and the contributions of the participants
at all our Regional Gatherings. Those participants mustnot be forgotten, and deserve our ongoing engagement
and support.
The flags also denote the presence of our collective
contributions and work, our ceremony, and our practices.
The flags are a physical symbol of the songs, ceremonyand stories with which they are imbued. Songs, ceremonies
and stories are oral documentation. We may not all havewritten forms of “permits,” “licences” and “certificates”–
for Indigenous Peoples, there are incredibly diverse
examples of oral documentation and relations to the lands
and waters that provide validation and “evidence.”

The belief that humans are part of the land, rather thanseparate from it, is integral to Indigenous worldviews.
This unbreakable and sacred connection to land requiresthat humans respect the environment and strive tomaintain balance in coexisting with the land and the otherspecies that inhabit it. In this way, the responsibility to begood stewards goes far beyond western conceptions ofenvironmental management and conservation objectives.
Having access to land is essential to the ability to practicethis responsibility, as well as all other Aboriginal and Treaty
rights. For example, there is an understanding that youth
must be on the land to be trained by Elders in how totake on and engage in such responsibility. As such, therole of Elders and youth must be strengthened in the
Pathway journey.
Access to land is critical, but more than that, accessto healthy landscapes and functioning ecosystems isfoundational. The right to a healthy environment is a pillar
right upon which the exercise of other Indigenous rights
depends. If environmental degradation occurs, it threatens
the rights and responsibilities of Indigenous Peoples, aswell as the well-being of nature and peoples.
The land is the provider of all things. Indigenous ceremony
is often based on land, and reflective of the sacred
relationship between humans and Mother Earth. For
example, for some communities, the use of rocks inside asweat lodge represents the grandparents, and the lodge
structure itself represents the womb of Mother Earth.
Indigenous relations, responsibilities and rights regarding
lands, waters, animals, sacred places and spaces, and otheraspects of the physical world, are not homogeneous. We,
as co-chairs, are by no means suggesting there is a onesize-fits-all model or “pan-Indigenous” approach to IPCAs,
Indigenous knowledge, or Indigenous legal traditions.
What we advocate for is an approach that respects true
self-determination—an approach that elevates Indigenous Peoples, in all their diversity, in an equitable andrespectful way.

Eastern Regional Gathering, Mi’kmaq territory, NS. Photographer: Jeremy Williams, River Voices Productions

WE RISE TOGETHER

69

Furthermore, we must also emphasize that this report
represents the views of individual ICE members, andnot the governments and organizations they represent.
ICE presents this report in the hope that this work assists
federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments
to build a new relationship on protected and conserved
areas. This new relationship will almost certainly enhance
Canada’s ability to meet international conservationcommitments, such as protecting 17 percent of terrestrial
lands and waters by 2020. However, the potential benefits
for Indigenous and non-Indigenous society will be much
more far-reaching.
As such, the way forward must be thoughtfully andrespectfully navigated. Science, legislation and policies
continue to play the guiding role. However, what ICE
suggests is that Indigenous expertise become a partof this guidance, in both substance and method. Thisrequires dedicating time and resources to further
exploring Indigenous-led conservation and engagementwith Indigenous governments regarding IPCAs. It requires
the support of innovative funding models. It requires theidentification of new partners, allies and champions. It
requires the creation of the kinds of resources that would
be useful to Indigenous governments on their path to
IPCAs, including, for example, a toolkit. Strengthening
existing IPCAs and creating or co-creating future IPCAs
will obviously resonate within IPCAs’ own respective
geographical borders. There will also be broader impacts
on people, communities, provinces and territories, andthe country as a whole. We have yet to measure the full
benefits and true value of IPCAs in that regard.
Beyond borders, we should not underestimate the impact
IPCAs will have internationally, and the potential for
Canada to take on a global leadership role by supporting
Indigenous IPCA expert participation in dialogues, such as
at IUCN, UNESCO, CBD or the UN Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues.

In IPCAs, Indigenous governments identify the ecologicaland cultural values that need protection. In many cases,
those standards will be consistent with IUCN requirementsfor protected areas or OECMs; thus, they may contributeto Canada’s targets under international agreements, suchas the CBD.
In addition to possibly contributing to Canada’s CBD
and reconciliation objectives, “counting” should not
be a precondition for federal, provincial and territorial
governments to recognize and support IPCAs, which will
have many other tangible benefits, as noted in Section 4.8,
Opportunities and Challenges of IPCAs. Not all IPCAs willcontribute to the 17 percent of terrestrial land and inland
waters conserved as part of Canada Target 1.
What should federal, provincial and territorial governments
focus on to start with? Support the next iteration of ICE.
Build trust with Indigenous partners and co-create new
relationships framed within ethical space. Make room
for Indigenous expertise. Improve communication andoutreach. Most importantly for this leg of our collective
journey, federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous
governments should support the commencement of
the next steps and ceremony to validate this report andits recommendations at a national gathering in spring or
fall 2018.
The beneficiaries of this work are our future generations,
all living beings on Mother Earth, and the spirit of placefound in every protected and conserved area. All ICE
members are honoured to contribute in a small measure
to our collective future at a time when every contribution
matters, and no one should be left behind. Let us respect
each other and Mother Earth on the Pathway to Canada
Target 1.

Strawberry Creek, AB. Photographer: AirScape International Inc.
70 6.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS7.0 APPENDICES

Northern Regional Gathering participants at
the Chief Drygeese Centre in Dettah, NWT.
Photographer: Jeremy Williams,
River Voices Productions

T

7.1 VOICES OF THE PEOPLE
hroughout the Regional Gatherings
and ICE meetings, ICE heard
eloquent and powerful expressions
from participants about Indigenous
world views, ethical space, andthe history and terrible legacy ofcolonization in Canada. We tried
our best to capture these profoundwords (often in the form of videos)
and we have share some of themthroughout this report. We provide them unabridged
below to offer a fuller sense of what was said.

that ensure survival and respect for the land and its
natural laws. Our people have always understood that alllife is connected. You cannot fragment the Earth with thepolicies or structures.”

ELDER DAVE COURCHENE, SAGKEENG
FIRST NATIONMANITOBA/CENTRAL REGIONAL GATHERING,
WINNIPEG, TREATY 1 TERRITORY AND THE METISHOMELAND, SEPTEMBER 2017

“The intention of our knowledge keepers has always been
to honour the spirit and ceremony and the values that
underpin Indigenous knowledge. Our strength as a people
is in the alliance we have with nature. We rely on naturefor its teachings and our sustenance. We have always lived
and believed the Earth is alive and has a spirit. The spiritof the Earth was to be acknowledged with gratitude andceremony, and we have remained faithful and loved in“Within the spirit of the Indigenous, there is a memory—original instructions that can define our humanity. All thoseoriginal instructions are based on values and teachings“The most important part of our knowledge as a people
is the spirit that we nurture during our ceremonies. We
have always been a ceremonial people. We give thanks foreverything we are given in life, but receive our guidance,
our direction and our inspiration in ceremony. If we are truly
to live our identity as Indigenous Peoples, we must always
begin with ceremony. We cannot overstep the spirit. “

WE RISE TOGETHER

71

these protocols. The Elders who have kept these sacredprotocols are more than willing to give in the sharing of
the knowledge.”

pipe, sacred drum, sacred rattles, and the sacred songs ofour people. And if you are serious about engaging, I invite
you to come to our house of knowledge.”“We continue to find ourselves reacting to governmentinitiated processes, and we should be reversing this trend.
We must be in the position to be proactive and defining
our own processes and our own initiatives, offering
opportunities for those who wish to engage in our defined
initiatives or approaches.”“We are living in a time that we really need to seriously
consider the way in which we are treating the Earth. As
Indigenous Peoples, the legacy left to us by our ancestors
is a way of life that reflects our sacred relationship with the
Earth. As we look back, in more recent times, we see thedestruction brought by human kinds’ greed and lust for
power as they continue to spend the inheritance of theirown children. The struggle to find their rightful place in ourhomeland continues. But it is still the world of imposition
and marginalization. Clearly it is a challenge of ourown identity.”“Rights of passage for the young people are very
important. It is through rights of passage for our youth
can connect to the land and receive her messages, for as
Indigenous Peoples, the land gives us an understanding ofour purpose and identity. It is my view that we cannot limit
our view of measuring a certain number of percentage ofprotected areas. We all have a duty to be and responsibility
to be real guardians of the land itself, and what is needed
most of all is the leadership of Indigenous People. A
leadership that will offer an impulsive vision, that can havedefined actions, that can lead to safeguarding nature andall the elements of life found on the Earth. Paramount inthese defined actions is the education of youth. Landbased experience is lived by Indigenous People with thehelp and support of other expertise, such as the scientificcommunity. We cannot separate or fragment the land into
approaches when everything is connected and related to
how we all take care of the land.”“Ceremony and understanding and spirit is not something
we can teach by just talking about it spirit is something youneed to feel, and is best experienced on the land and in
the environment of our sacred lodges. For us in this area,
Turtle Lodge is our house, our place of strength, whereknowledge is kept. It was built on a vision received on theland. Our sacred lodges are outside in nature, and are theplaces where ceremonies live and are practised and intheir fullness.”“Using our sacred places for these meetings and practising
our ceremonies makes our alliance and work together all
the more powerful as we are supported and inspired by
the forces of nature and the forces of spirit. Whatever
approach that is agreed upon, I suggest that ceremonialapproach of the Indigenous lead the process. We need to
set up a ceremonial context. This approach will ensure thetrue practice of our nationhood and it will ensure going
beyond just the politics. Setting a ceremonial context is the
key to our success and is a process that we, as knowledge
keepers, would be prepared to engage in. We would bringin a group of our most respected Elders and knowledge
keepers and begin to set a foundation using our sacred

72 7.0 APPENDICES“We are spending the inheritance of our children. We’redestroying the waters. We’re destroying the air. We’redestroying the land in so many different ways. We’reripping the land apart. And there is a very simple truth thatour people have always understood. What you do to theland, you do to yourself. If she is sick, we are sick. And
sickness comes in many different forms: mental illness,
physical illness, emotional and spiritual illness… This
is where we come in as Indigenous People in the mosthumble way. We are not saying at any time that we wantpolitical control. We are not saying that we are better thanany of our fellow human beings within the circle of life. We
have a duty and responsibility to share what we know…”

ELDER DR. REG CROWSHOE, PIIKANINATION, ALBERTAOTTAWA ON, ALGONQUIN TERRITORY,
JUNE 2017“There is traditional knowledge, but there is also theconcept of collecting data. When we collect data, there isinformation from data. And when we look at knowledge,
there is scientific knowledge that is collected, but you
take knowledge and data and you put them in storage
packages that we call stories. In oral cultures, stories arethose documents, are those reports, are those documentsthat have an R with a circle around it or a C with a circle
around it, and we take the stories and we go through thetruthing process of a smudge, and once it goes throughthat truthing process, then the stories are real.”“We have western management strategic sessions
and plans, consultation, collecting information andassessments and putting the strategic directions together.
It’s all done through a western concept. But we also in our
culture have collective stories and Indigenous strategies.
Bringing home the stories and truthing the stories are
the same as any western management strategic practicedirection. Because bringing home the stories is the
direction, so there are parallels. And when we look at
implementing those strategic practices, one of the words
that western organization fear the most is the concept oftransformation. That’s a hard word to swallow when you’relooking at an oral practice and a written practice. The
Elders have said we need to make these parallels, andonce we make these parallels, we need the systems or thepractise to be easy to use, because if we can make themeasy, then we can start working together in reconciliation.”going to work out in boardrooms in Ottawa or boardrooms
in Vancouver.”“And there is protocol attached, those are laws that are apart of our shared purpose to come together as a society
to deliver education for little birds. Those are concepts oflaws that we look at when we use oral systems.”“We are in this process for future generations. At thepace we’re going today, we don’t have time. We’re facing
extreme climate change in many areas in this country.
And if we don’t take these steps now to protect some oursacred places, it is going to be lost.”

ELDER STEPHEN KAKFWI, K’ASHO GOT’INE,
NORTHWEST TERRITORIESNORTHERN REGIONAL GATHERING,NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, AKAITCHO TERRITORY,
AUGUST 2017

“The land has always sustained our people. The land has
always provided healing and well-being. We are fed. The
land feeds us. And so we go back to that land, we sit onthat land. We sit on the land and touch the Earth andspeak our words of truth. And look at each other straightin the eye and say okay, we can walk this journey together
for all those that are not born yet.”“In many ways, we are the refugees in our own country,
we’ve been banished to the outskirts of the cities, tosections of land that nobody else wants. It has not beena good 150 years for us, and we know that, and yetsomehow what has endured through all these years is what
was there in the first place when we first welcomed thefirst immigrants and refugees: we want to share, we want agood life for everybody.”

ELI ENNS, TLA-O-QUI-AHT FIRST NATION,
BRITISH COLUMBIAOTTAWA, ALGONQUIN TERRITORY, MARCH 2017

“Wherever you find intact ecological biodiversity, you findintact, thriving, cultural holistic diversity.”

LORRAINE NETRO, VUNTUT GWITCHIN FIRSTNATION, OLD CROW, YUKONCENTRAL REGIONAL GATHERING, WINNIPEG,
TREATY 1 TERRITORY AND THE METISHOMELAND, SEPTEMBER 2017

“We’re in a process now where the government, theprime minister, is talking about reconciliation. What doesthat mean for government, what does that mean forme, what does that mean for you? Until we decide whatreconciliation means and we agree to move forward on
this journey together, and in that understanding coming
to an understanding of reconciliation, you build a momentof trust. You come to that understanding of what that’s
going to mean for you. And how that’s going to look as
you move forward. Then and only then, you can sit in atent frame by the river with First Nations people acrossthis land and have that open and honest discussion. It’s not

Miles Richardson, Indigenous Leadership Initiative, in Dettah, NWT.
Photographer: Jeremy Williams, River Voices Productions

WE RISE TOGETHER

73

ELDER ALBERT MARSHALL, ESKASONI FIRSTNATION IN UNAMA’KI, NOVA SCOTIA
EASTERN REGIONAL GATHERING, MI’KMA’KI,
JUNE 2017.

“We have to find a way and be mindful as how we go about
exercising our inherited responsibilities of ensuring thatno action that we will take will ever compromise the ecological integrity of the area, nor compromise the cleansing capacity of the system. Because our overall objective
is to ensure that the next seven generations will have thesame opportunities as we have, and hopefully better opportunities than we have—of not just being able to sustain
themselves and harvest the gifts from the Creator, but also
being able to enjoy and learn from her, just as our ancestors have learned from her.”

DAHTI TSETSO, DEHCHO FIRSTNATIONS, NORTHWEST TERRITORIESNORTHERN REGIONAL GATHERING, NORTHWESTTERRITORIES, AKAITCHO TERRITORY,
AUGUST 2017

“When it came to developing stewardship work andguardian’s work, language was really put at the heart andthe centre of a lot of the discussions and a lot of the principles and the framework of the work we wanted to do when
it came to taking care of the land…The language comesfrom the land and the best place to learn the language isout on the land… Being on the land in the Dene way willprotect the land… If Indigenous cultures can continue tothrive into the future, then you’re doing something right,
because the land is so central to Indigenous cultures that
if you have a healthy culture then the land will be healthy
as well.”need to recognize that the economic viability of thesecommunities is also at stake. In protecting our lands andprotecting our territories, we’re also finding ways that wecan participate in the economy in ways that we’ve notbeen allowed to in the past.”

BEV NEW, METIS NATION OF ALBERTA, ALBERTACENTRAL REGIONAL GATHERING, WINNIPEG,
TREATY 1 TERRITORY AND THE METISHOMELAND, SEPTEMBER 2017

“We need to preserve the woods, we need to preserve theanimals and we need to preserve our way of life. So it is notjust about us as people, it’s about the world, it’s about the
animals, it’s about everybody.”

TODD LABRADOR, MI’KMAQ BIRCH BARKCANOE BUILDER, NOVA SCOTIA
EASTERN REGIONAL GATHERING, MI’KMA’KI,
JUNE 2017“Everything has to have respect, or it is not going towork right. The challenge is to enable other people tounderstand that the Earth is living and we need her. Today’s
world needs more of my ancestor’s ways and my ancestor’steachings, and number one of it all is respect.”

ELDER JOE MARTIN, TLA-O-QUI-AHT FIRSTNATION, BRITISH COLUMBIAWESTERN REGIONAL GATHERING, TLA-QUI-AHT
TERRITORY, MAY 2017

“When Europeans arrived here, our people were rich.
Mother Nature will provide for our need, not our greed.
When one person messes with Mother Nature, we all pay.”“Hahoulthee means marriage to the land and a
responsibility to leave this land in abundance for
future generations.”

WILL GOODON, METIS NATIONAL COUNCIL,
MANITOBACENTRAL REGIONAL GATHERING, WINNIPEG,
TREATY 1 TERRITORY AND THE METISHOMELAND, SEPTEMBER 2017

“We need to have the courage to stand up and say thatconservation is important, not just for our cultures, ourIndigenous languages or our ways of life, but we also

74 7.0 APPENDICES

Alberta Prairies.
Photographer: Creative Commons, Government of Alberta

7.2 INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT:INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITIONOF INDIGENOUS CONSERVATION
PRACTICES

Indigenous-led approaches to conservation around theworld are diverse and vary according to the objectives of
the Indigenous Peoples and communities, the legal andhistorical context of the area, and the degree of support andpartnership of non-Indigenous governments. Indigenous
Peoples’ and Community Conserved Territories andAreas (ICCA) Consortium, which consists of Indigenous
and non Indigenous community constituencies, has beenleading the development and recognition of ICCAs in theinternational fora, and has identified key characteristics
for their embodiment. Because ICCAs are recognized
and accounted for differently by state governments, theircontributions to biodiversity conservation can be difficult
to quantify. However, the ICCA Consortium estimatesthis contribution to be roughly equivalent to or greaterthan government-protected areas. For more informationon the wide range of CBD decisions recognizing ICCAs,
please visit:https://www.iccaconsortium.org/index.php/internationalen/conservation-en/.

The term “ICCA” is an abbreviation fora phenomenon that has many diverse
manifestations and names in cultures andlocations around the world. These include
wilayah adat, himas, agdals, territorios devida, territorios del buen vivir, tagal, qoroq-ebumi, yerli qorukh, faritra ifempivelomana,
qoroq, ancestral domains, country, community conserved areas, territorios autonomos
comunitarios, sacred natural sites, locallymanaged marine areas, and many others. The
ICCA abbreviation may encompass, but should
never obscure, the diversity of such terms,
which is a value in itself. Local / customarynames should always be preferentially used,leaving the term ‘ICCA’ for general or intercultural communication. – ICCA Consortium1

6

A SNAPSHOT OF ICCASIN THE WORLD
Australia: Indigenous Protected Areas
Australia’s Indigenous Protected Areas (IPA)
program offers an example of how governments
can support Indigenous Peoples to give effectto ICCAs on different land tenures. The IPA
program was launched in the late 1990s in
response to the convergence of the national
government’s commitment to establish acomprehensive protected area system with legal
confirmation of Indigenous title of large tractsof land. The Australian government supported
this program with a $64 million (AUS)
investment from 2014 to 2018. Complementary
support is also available through the Indigenous
Rangers – Working on Country program.6
The Australian government defines an IPA
as an “area of land and/or sea over which theIndigenous traditional owners or custodians
have entered in a voluntary agreement with
the Australian government for the purposesof promoting biodiversity and cultural resource
conservation.” IPAs in Australia are declaredor dedicated as protected areas by Indigenous
Peoples based on Indigenous title to lands. The
government provides support, recognition andsubstantial funding.
New Zealand: Te Urewera
The Te Urewera Act, 2014—which saw the landof Te Urewera National Park become a separate
legal entity, with “all the rights, powers, duties,
and liabilities of a legal person”—emerged fromhttps://www.pmc.gov.au/indigenous-affairs/environment/indigenous-rangers-working-country

WE RISE TOGETHER

75

the Tūhoe Claims Settlement Act, 2014. Under the Act, the owner of the land is the land itself.
It is administered by a management board with equal representation from the Crown and the
Tūhoe people. While it is no longer a national park, Te Urewera remains open to the public, andis managed through a management plan, with conservation measures implemented by the board.
New Zealand: Māori Protection Areas
New Zealand’s Department of Conservation established the Nga Whenua Rahui Fund to facilitate
the voluntary protection of Māori-owned land. The objectives of the fund are to support conservationof areas important to Māori owners by helping protect the representative sustainable landscape
integrity of Indigenous ecosystems that have cultural importance to landowners; leaving the land
under Māori ownership and control; and creating covenanting and management agreements.
In these protected areas, the Māori retain ownership and control of the land, and manage the landfor conservation and preservation of the natural environment and the spiritual and cultural valuesof the area. The land is made available for public access. Additional conservation objectives aresupported through the Matauranga Kura Taiao Fund. The fund provides financial support torecognize, retain and promote Māori Indigenous knowledge systems in biodiversity management.
The fund supports the preservation of traditional knowledge and promotes the voluntary protectionof Māori-owned land.
Mexico: Voluntary Conservation Areas
Voluntary Conservation Areas (VCAs) in Mexico are protected, communal areas that have been
publicly declared as ICCAs and are recognized by the Mexican government. After an amendment
to the General Environment Law, social entities (e.g., rural communities) were able to designate
lands as conservation areas. Community conservation reserves are volunteered by the community
to be recognized as VCAs. VCAs are diverse, but all ensure management and decision-making
remain with the community. The Mexican government provides some level of support, interconnects
conservation strategies, ensures a degree protection in specific areas, and recognizes somecommunity biodiversity conservation strategies.
VCAs were created because Mexico’s land tenure system allows for social property, which makes
up 100 million hectares of the country. It is divided between ejidos (areas of communal land used
for agriculture), peasant families, and comunidades, representing old Indigenous communities.
Within communal ownership systems, there is a strong tradition of conservation and sustainable
land management.

76 7.0 APPENDICES

7.3 CANADIAN CONTEXT: GOVERNANCE
MODELS FOR CROWN-RECOGNIZEDAND REPORTED PROTECTED AREAS

Indigenous involvement in the planning, designation andmanagement of Crown-recognized protected areas varies
considerably. In terms of governance (levels of authority),
Indigenous involvement is captured and reported throughthe guidance established by the IUCN, falling under
three of the four protected areas governance categories:
Crown/government governance, shared governance andIndigenous governance.
The Canadian Protected Areas Status Report provides
statistics on the percentage of protected areas that fall
into each of these categories, which were used to provide
the estimates below. The first time the governanceclassifications were reported on by jurisdictions in Canada
was in the 2012 to 2015 Status Report. As the collectionof this data is relatively new, the results may not becomprehensive and accurate at this time.

7.3.1 CROWN/GOVERNMENT GOVERNANCE

Under “government governance,” authority rests with the
Crown while the engagement of Indigenous governments
ranges from consultation to co-management arrangements. This represents the majority of Crown-recognized
and reported protected areas in Canada (94.85 percent).
Consultation
At a minimum, consultation and the duty to consult arenecessary to establish new protected areas and manage
decisions regarding existing protected areas in orderto evaluate and address any issues that may impact therights of Indigenous Peoples, as per Section 35 of theConstitution and the Crown’s duty to consult.
Advisory Boards
Indigenous governments are involved in various protectedareas’ advisory boards, through which they may provide
advice to the Crown. These often exist for protected areasthat have not been created in the context of modern
land claims agreements, particularly in southern Canada.
For example, at Fundy National Park in New Brunswick,an advisory committee was established to work toward
mutually beneficial initiatives, including for informing themanagement planning process.
Joint or Cooperative Management
This governance model involves joint consensus-based
decision-making between Crown and Indigenous
government representatives, typically through a comanagement committee. This type of governance modelis predominant for protected areas created under modern

land claims agreements, such as National Wildlife Areas
in Nunavut and the Torngat Mountains National Parks
in Nunavik (although some other examples exist, suchas for conservancies in BC). Although this governancemodel can afford a high level of collaboration, authority
ultimately rests with the Crown, with recommendations
being submitted to a minister for approval.

7.3.2 SHARED OR CO-GOVERNANCE

Shared governance (also known as co-governance) refers toauthority shared equally between governing bodies, where
various authorities partner to make decisions collectively,
whether through the establishment of a governancebody or other cooperative decision-making mechanisms.
While many of Canada’s protected areas include different
degrees of collaboration between Indigenous and Crown
governments, very few currently involve a joint authority
mechanism. ICE members tend to speak of shared
governance as a relationship of equal power-sharing
between Indigenous and Crown governments, ideallygrounded in both Canadian and Indigenous law.
Only a small portion of protected lands and waters(3.9 percent) are reported in Canada as falling under ashared governance model. However, three-quarters ofthem are attributed to a shared governance model where
Indigenous and Crown governments partner to makejoint decisions. There are examples of this model acrossCanada, with most coming from northern Canada, wheremodern land claims agreements apply, particularly in
Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
A unique collaborative and shared governance model
worth noting is Gwaii Haanas in British Columbia. This
protected area is unique in that the agreements between
the Haida Nation and Government of Canada for Gwaii
Haanas are based on concurrent designations that derivefrom both Haida and Canadian laws. The Haida Heritage
Site was first designated by the Haida Nation, andsubsequently designated as the Gwaii Haanas National
Park Reserve and National Marine Conservation
Area Reserve by the Government of Canada. There
are also dual assertions of sovereignty to title andownership of the land and waters that comprise thearea. Gwaii Haanas is cooperatively managed throughthe Archipelago Management Board, which has anequal number of representatives from the Councilof Haida Nation and the Government of Canada.
Decisions on how to manage the area are made byconsensus, with roles and responsibilities of the board
outlined under agreements for both terrestrial andmarine areas.

WE RISE TOGETHER

77

AREA CO-MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (ACMC) IN NUNAVUT
Under the Nunavut Agreement, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and the Inuit
parties represented by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (Kivalliq Inuit Association, Qikiqtani
Inuit Association and Kitikmeot Inuit Association) have entered into an Inuit Impact andBenefit Agreement (IIBA) for the establishment of a co-management regime for five National
Wildlife Areas and eight Migratory Bird Sanctuaries. According to the terms of the IIBA, an Area
Co-Management Committee (ACMC) was created to advise the minister on all matters related tothe planning and management of each protected area they co-manage. For example, ACMCs will
review permit applications to advise whether activities should be permitted on the lands and watersof these areas, given that all 13 protected areas include terrestrial and marine boundaries. ACMC
members are composed of one ECCC employee and five Inuit from the local community closest to theprotected area. ACMC decisions are informed by Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (Inuit law and traditional
knowledge) and made by consensus. However, the ACMCs remain advisory bodies, with the minister
retaining authority. As such, the IIBA includes a conflict resolution mechanism that would betriggered if the minister were to reject the ACMC advice and through which the minister would haveto justify why the advice is being rejected.

Other innovative co-governance examples are emerging,such as the proposed Thaidene Nëné National Park
Reserve in the Northwest Territories (see Section 7.4,
Case Studies).

7.3.3 INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE“In effect, because of their attachment to anddependence on the land, Indigenous Peoples have been
establishing their own protected areas for millennia”— Steven Nitah, Lutsel K’e Dene First Nations
Indigenous governance refers to the circumstance when
protected areas authority rests solely with an Indigenous
government. While there are numerous areas in Canada thatIndigenous Peoples govern under their own legal traditions,
there are currently only three protected areas recognizedby Crown governments and reported as protected areas
in Canada. All of these are located in northern territories:
two in the Yukon and one, Wehexlaxodıale, in the
Northwest Territories. Covering 976 square kilometres,
Wehexlaxodıale was the first recognized and reported
protected area under an Indigenous governance regime
in Canada. It was established by the Tłįcho Government
as an exclusion zone designation under the Tłįcho Land
Use Plan for the protection of important cultural andnatural features.

7

7.3.4 INDIGENOUS CONSERVATION EFFORTS
NOT CURRENTLY RECOGNIZED AND
REPORTED BY THE CROWN
Indigenous Peoples are conserving biological and cultural
diversity in ways that are not limited to their contribution
to and role in existing recognized and reported protectedareas. Indeed, ICE emerged in the context of increasing
Crown interest in these Indigenous-led conservation
efforts. Indigenous People take part in conservation andsustainable development through broad- and local-scaleconservation and land use planning processes, such as theleadership shown by the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug
in Northern Ontario to protect their watershed.7 Tribal
Parks (described below) are another key example ofIndigenous-led conservation efforts. In addition, many
Indigenous People are pursuing conservation efforts
through international designations, such as World
Heritage Sites and UNESCO biosphere reserves. Other
initiatives are being developed to support Indigenous
conservation efforts, such as Indigenous-led Guardian
programs that empower communities to manage ancestral
lands according to traditional laws and values.

http://kilands.org/2011/10/14/ki-protects-watershed-and-sets-consultation-protocol-through-referenduml/).

78 7.0 APPENDICES

Tribal Parks in Canada and Abroad
A Tribal Park is a land or watershed governance area thatis developed, governed and managed by Indigenous
Peoples and allows for traditional ways of life andecologically sound commercial activities, but not industrial
activities. Tribal Parks exist around the world under different
names. Internationally, they are recognized as Indigenous
Peoples’ and Community Conserved Territories and Areas,or ICCAs. There is a growing interest in Tribal Parks today
on the part of many First Nations communities in Canada.
A Tribal Park can be a model of self-determination anddignity, environmental stewardship, and sustainable
livelihoods—all which need to be mutually supportive.
Ideally, they are based on Indigenous watershed
governance and are on land secured under Aboriginal
title and managed by Indigenous communities. However,in Canada, there are many Tribal Parks that exist on land
where title is contentious, and the communities manage
the park through a shared arrangement with the provincial
or federal government.

Tribal Parks in Canada
The Tribal Park movement in Canada began in the 1980s
with the Meares Island blockades by the Tla-o-qui-aht
First Nation to protest large-scale logging, which was
threatening the old-growth red cedar forests, referred
to as their “garden.” This led to self-declaration of thefirst Tribal Park in Canada, Meares Island, an area that
had been used and conserved for generations by the
Nuu-chah-nulth people but has yet to be recognized byprovincial and federal governments. The Tla-o-qui-aht
First Nation has since declared more Tribal Parks in its
territory, including Ha’uukmin on Vancouver Island, andhas established various partnerships for managing them.
More recently, the Tsilhqot’in Nation of British Columbia
won a 25-year court battle for land that was being
threatened by mining exploration. The Supreme Court
unanimously ruled that the Nation holds title to thisarea as per its constitutional rights to fish, hunt and trap.
Following the court ruling, in October 2014, the Tsilhqot’inFirst Nation declared the Nexwagwez?an -Dasiqox
Tribal Park.

Globally, there is a growing recognition that Indigenousled protection and conservation can be more successful
than state-regulated processes in achieving positive
biodiversity outcomes. For Indigenous Peoples that havenot ceded their rights and responsibilities to manage
their traditional lands through Treaties, it is possible tosecure title to traditional lands through the court system.
Once title is secured, Indigenous Peoples are free toestablish Tribal Parks and determine the appropriate
governance regimes.
Section 35 Innovations and Indigenous Watershed
Governance Areas
Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 says, “Theexisting aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal
peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”
Although the section does not define Aboriginal rights,
the Government of Canada has interpreted Section 35 tomean the inherent right of self-government.
Tribal Parks can be established as Section 35 innovations.
Traditional governance has a role in constitutional law andTribal Parks as legal instruments for establishing ICCAs in
Canada, not as an assertion of rights, but as an assertionof responsibility. From this perspective, if an Indigenous
community is able to manage land better than government
and provide local sustainable livelihoods, it does not need
government recognition (though government recognition
usually comes).

Yellowknife, NWT.
Photographer: Margot Bishop

WE RISE TOGETHER

79

For First Nations, Tribal Parks embody a healthy homelandin that they support the well-being of both the people andecosystems for current and future generations. Currently,
they are being declared mainly in southern regions.
Other Conservation Examples
The land of the Cree, known as Eeyou Istchee, ispredominantly found within the Hudson Bay drainage basin
in Québec. It covers some 400,000 square kilometres andincludes more than 300 traplines that continue to be used
for traditional practices. The area includes the lakes andrivers that drain into eastern James Bay and southeastern
Hudson Bay, as well as significant portions of both of thosemarine areas, as Eeyou Istchee is not limited to terrestrial
boundaries; the coastal communities are connected to theshores and water of James and Hudson Bays. Under the1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, signed
between the Cree and the Government of Quebec, therights of the Cree on these lands are specifically protected
through land management regimes, with the goal ofproviding for the continuation of traditional activities, thewell-being of the Cree First Nation, and the protectionof ecosystems in their territory. Although most of theseareas are managed with a conservation intent (both for
cultural and ecological continuity), these have not beenrecognized as such by Crown governments to date.
Eeyou Itschee, land of the Cree of Northern Quebec
The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement solidified
the rights of the Cree of Northern Quebec (Eeyou Itschee)and set up regimes for the protection of these rights suchas the Environmental and Social Regime of Section 22 andthe Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime of Section 24.
More specifically concerning conservation, the JBNQA
describes the principle of conservation in section 24.1.5 as“the pursuit of the optimum natural productivity of all living
resources and the protection of the ecological systems of
the Territory so as to protect endangered species and toensure primarily the continuance of the traditional pursuitsof the Native people, and secondarily the satisfactionof the needs of non-Native people for sport hunting
and fishing.”
These two regimes in the JBNQA are essential in
addressing the conservation of biodiversity along withthe 2002 adapted Forestry Regime found within the
Paix des Braves Agreement (PDB). The PDB entails an
adapted forestry regime which has specific forestry
provisions in favour of the Crees: preserve or safeguard
portions of each basic trapline; protect 1% the sites of
specific interest; maintain or improve 25% of forested
areas presenting wildlife interest; maintain the forest coverand protect forests adjacent to watercourses; establish
concerted action to develop road access networks;
encourage trappers’ participation in developing forest
management plans.
80 7.0 APPENDICESThe categorization of Cree land outlined in the JBNQA
plays an instrumental role in the level of conservation
performed by the responsible governments:• Category 1 lands surround local Cree communities andare for the exclusive use of Cree individuals• Category 2 lands are public lands where Crees have theexclusive right to hunt fish and trap
• Category 3 lands are public lands which Cree can use
for their traditional activities
The Eeyou Marine Region Land Claims Agreement
recognizes the rights of the Crees in the offshore region of
Eeyou Istchee. Under federal jurisdiction, this agreement
provides for the creation of marine protected areas within
the offshore area. In 2015, the Cree Regional Conservation
Strategy was developed to assist in the development ofprotected areas in both the terrestrial and marine regionsof Eeyou Istchee by using Cree traditional knowledge andwestern scientific knowledge to ensure that the best ofboth of these knowledge systems guide the planning anddecision-making.

7.4 CASE STUDIESICE prepared a number of case studies of existing
conservation and protected-area initiatives involving
Indigenous governments and Peoples in Canada. Some
ICE members also contributed to these case studies.
Below, we present 10 of them. The objective was to
examine different governance models and learn what
could be included in the spectrum of IPCAs. Snapshotsummaries of many of these appear throughout the report.

CASE STUDY: WEHEXLAXODIALE —AN INDIGENOUS-GOVERNED LAND USE
EXCLUSION AREAThe Tłįcho people are a Dene First Nations people in the
Northwest Territories. In 2005, the Tłįcho Agreement gave
the Tłįcho government the power to enact laws in relation
to the use, management, administration and protectionof Tłįchǫ lands and the renewable and non-renewable
resources they contain. The government also obtained thepower to enact laws respecting land use plans for Tłįchǫ
lands. In 2013, the government completed a land use
plan for Tłįchǫ lands based on the advice and guidanceof the Elders of the Land Use Plan Working Group as
well as community meetings and other consultations
and engagements.
Wehexlaxodıale (way-he-lax-dia-lay) are two areas ofTłįcho lands where the connection between Tłįcho culture
and heritage and the land are very strong. Gots’ǫkàtì
(Mesa Lake) means “the place where cloud berries arefound.” Known as “the freezer,” it is where people storedtheir meat and where peace was made between leaders
Edzo and Akaitcho, ending years of fighting between
their people. Hoòdoòdzo (Wolverine Hill or Sliding Hill)
is part of the legend about Yamozhah and his dealings
with the wolverine, and is where people could become
medicine men.

The land use plan compels the Tłįchǫ government
to prohibit activities that are incompatible with theconservation of biodiversity. It states that, to protect
Wehexlaxodıale for all time:

The primary objective for zoning Wehexlaxodıale as aLand Use Exclusion Area in the Tłįchǫ Land Use Plan is toprotect sites that are fundamentally linked to Tłįchǫ history
and heritage. To that end, no development proposals
are considered, and only limited activities are allowed.
The Dene worldview does not separate land from what
is living on it, so protecting Tłįchǫ history and heritage isequivalent to conserving biodiversity.

b) Areas within this zone may be considered for further
protection measures.

The Tłįchǫ Land Use Plan was prepared by Tłįchǫ people
for implementation by the Tłįchǫ government. The Tłįchǫ
Land Use Plan Act has the power to exclude, control andmanage all activities within the area that are likely to have
impacts on biodiversity.

a) Development proposals shall not be considered.

Only camps or cabins (expected to be temporary or
seasonal use only), non-exploitive scientific research, anda transportation corridor (including seasonal roads and/or an all-weather road and associated infrastructure) areallowed within this zone.
With the endorsement of the Tłįchǫ government, theGovernment of the Northwest Territories has reported thisarea to the Conservation Areas Reporting and Tracking
System (CARTS) as a protected area.

Wehexlaxodıale, two land use exclusion areas, on Tłįchǫ lands in the NWT.
Source: Government of the NWT

WE RISE TOGETHER

81

CASE STUDY: BROADBACK WATERSHEDCONSERVATION AREA

In recent years, Quebec has shown progress in conserving
its biodiversity. In September 2008, the provincial
government announced its “Plan Nord.” Its stated goal
was the sustainable development of 50 percent of thenorthern portion of Québec, with the other 50 percent
dedicated to conservation. In the conserved portion, 20
percent would be designated as a protected area; theplan for the remaining 30 percent is in progress and willbe allocated for non-industrial activities.
The Cree Vision of Plan Nord was released in February
2011 as a response to Quebec’s Plan Nord. This document
stressed the importance of harmonizing economic
prosperity and maintaining the Cree way of life bysafeguarding the environment and the wildlife it sustains.
The Cree Nation Government (CNG) supports the creationof new protected areas in Eeyou Istchee, a vast area innorthern Quebec represented by the Grand Council of
the Crees. However, this support is conditional on theCree fully engaging in the process of identifying new
protected areas, and Cree priorities being included in the
final selection process.
The CNG created a committee—composed of members
from the 10 Cree communities that make up Eeyou
Istchee—to form a Cree Regional Conservation Strategy
to develop and implement protected areas that are
based on Cree values. The strategy outlines goals andmechanisms to help achieve this objective of creatingareas that will help sustain the Cree way of life.
The strategy was developed to help the Cree communities
identify areas for protection that are highly valued fortheir environmental and cultural significance. It highlights
the goals and vision of the Cree Nation concerning theconservation of the land and culture. It also promotes tools
to help identify high-priority areas where scientific andtraditional knowledge can be practised independently or
jointly, and examines planning approaches and scales—such as using watersheds—to determine the boundaries
of areas for protection.
The CNG and certain Cree communities began toimplement the strategy after its release in 2014. Soon after,
the CNG began to collaborate with Nature Conservancy
Canada (NCC) to create a footprint map of Eeyou Istchee
and identify potential options for protection. NCC assists
this conservation planning by creating geographic
information system-based scenario modelling that uses
conservation planning tools and incorporates cultural
data and natural landscape information into a watershedbased approach.
8

The goal of the strategy was to make a fresh start on
properly identifying and administering new protectedareas. However, during the creation of the strategy,urgent actions were taken to secure immediate protection
for areas that are heavily developed, mainly in thesouthern portion of Eeyou Istchee. For several years, thecommunities of Waswanipi and Nemaska submitted theirrespective proposals to the Quebec government for theprotection of an area around the Broadback River. These
requests clashed with the interests of forestry companies
that wanted to harvest the area, which is not only one of theremaining old-growth forests in the forestry commercial
zone, but is also a woodland caribou habitat.
Over several years on numerous occasions, thesecommunities individually requested that their lands beprotected through their proposals. The CNG began toembrace the idea of a watershed approach to maximize
the protection of areas. The communities agreed to
combine the individual proposal and submit one largescale watershed proposal, known as the Broadback
Watershed Conservation Area.
Following negotiations between Quebec and the Creesin the summer of 2015, a new agreement (known as theBaril-Moses Agreement) was reached that would protect
part of the Broadback Watershed as a first phase. Fiftyseven percent of the proposal was protected, and further
protection was added north of the proposed area. OujeBougoumou’s Assinica Cree Heritage Park (which runs
through the proposal area), was expanded by protecting
a long stretch of the Broadback River and now includes
a caribou habitat in its southern section. The Communityof Nemaska’s protected area proposal succeeded inprotecting 80 percent of the area. Its old trading post (Old
Nemaska) and rock paintings are included.
Forty percent of the Community of Waswanipi’s proposed
protected area was accepted for protection. Overall, eachof 12 traplines are now more than 50 percent protected.
This area will be designated as a biodiversity reserve.
The objective of biodiversity reserves is to maintainthe biodiversity of ecosystems in optimal conditions ofintegrity and operation. An ecosystem is defined as “allthe ecological conditions of habitats, all species and their
genetic variability, all populations and all interactions
between these components.” Any orientation,
management decision or intervention must comply, above
all, with this objective.
As mentioned, there is currently a buffer along theBroadback River that is designated as a park; therefore,
it is IUCN Category II; the biodiversity reserve will be
Category III8.

IUCN categories classify protected areas according to their management objectives. For information on the protected area management categories, please visit:https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-area-categories,

82 7.0 APPENDICESCASE STUDY: K’IH TSAA?DZE TRIBAL PARK,DOIG RIVER FIRST NATION

Doig River First Nation (DRFN)9 is a Treaty 8 Nation withtraditional territory extending from its reserve land in British
Columbia across the provincial border into northwestern
Alberta. In September 2011, DRFN issued a media releasesaying it was establishing K’ih tsaa?dze Tribal Park toprotect cultural and ecological values within its traditional
territory from the impacts of oil and gas development aswell as from forestry activities. The proposed Tribal Park10
area covers an estimated 95,743 hectares across northeast
British Columbia and northwest Alberta.

Cree Nation Government Broadback watershed protected area
proposal, QC. – Cree Nation Government

The Alberta portion of the park, located some 150 kilometres northwest of Grande Prairie, would encompass
50,010 hectares. While the area on the Alberta side iscurrently managed as public Crown land, DRFN has
expressed interest in designating it a Wildlife Provincial
Park. Doig River has indicated an interest in co-management models and an openness to tourism, stating that its
priority is to protect key cultural and ecological values ofthe boreal forest ecosystem while ensuring that whateverland use designation it receives is compatible withtraditional land use.

K’ih tsaa?dze Tribal Park straddling the BC-Alberta provincial
boarder. – Doig River First Nation
According to DRFN, K’ih tsaa?dze has been a sacred andspiritually significant area for generations, and a spaceused both for exercising Treaty and Aboriginal rights
and for teaching traditional practices and knowledge
to youth. DRFN has stated that its ancestors’ traditionaluse of the area is demonstrated through oral history andarchived documents, and that trail networks, camping

Protected Areas, National Parks, and Biodiversity Reserves in the
Broadback watershed, QC. – Cree Nation Government
9

Doig River is currently in the process of negotiating with the federal government to establish Treaty land within Alberta.

10 he land for the proposed park area, however, is already covered by a forest management agreement held by Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd. (West), oilTand natural gas agreements (covering an estimated 78 percent of the proposed park area), metallic tenures (covering an estimated 0.5 percent of the proposedpark area), and recreation and tourism dispositions.

WE RISE TOGETHER

83

sites, trade sites, and Dane-zaa place names demonstrateongoing use. K’ih tsaa?dze, which according to somesources means either “spiritual healing area,” or “oldspruce,” contains sites that DRFN continues to use for
personal and community healing and spiritual renewal.
DRFN has also stated that the proposed park area contains
valued flora and fauna, including medicinal plants and oldgrowth forest11.

CASE STUDY: THAIDENE NËNÉ NATIONAL PARKRESERVE AND TERRITORIAL PROTECTED AREAThe Thaidene Nëné proposed National Park Reserve
and Territorial Protected Area (TDN) in the Northwest
Territories is in the traditional territory of the Lutsel K’e
Dene First Nation (LKDFN). It is within the NWT Treaty 8
territory of Akaitcho, and extends over an area ofapproximately 33,000 square kilometres. TDN is currently
subject to an interim land withdrawal, which provides
temporary protection from new mining claims or otherinterests issued by governments.

Governance Structure

On July 25, 1900, Treaty 8 was signed to arrange forthe sharing of land and resources—and the associatedresponsibilities and benefits—between the Crown andIndigenous governments.
In LKDFN Territory, LKDFN and PCA intend to establish
a government-to-government relationship in the creation,
management and operation of TDN, with authority sharedthrough a governance body of equal members appointed
by the parties to make consensus decisions.
Through the TDN agreements, the parties are articulating
the spirit and intent of Treaty 8 NWT by agreeing to
identify roles and responsibilities for all and creating atrue
Indigenous-government-to-federal-government
relationship. A similar legal agreement between LKDFN
and the GNWT for the Territorial Protected Area will be inplace before TDN is officially recognized.

Government-to-Government Relationship-Building

The federal government proposed an “East Arm National
Park” for this region in 1969, but the LKDFN opposed theidea because parks at that time imposed limitations on
traditional activities and ways of life. In 1982, the Canadian
Constitution recognized and affirmed pre-existing Treaty
and Aboriginal rights. In 1989, diamonds were discoveredin the region, giving rise to one of the largest staking
rushes on record. In 2001, after completing an extensive
global research scan to identify best practices of protectedareas and deciding on the type of protection it wanted,
LKDFN reached out to Parks Canada Agency (PCA) to see
if the federal government was still interested in creating anational park in the region based on the spirit and intent
of Treaty 8 and LKDFN’s ability to be an equal partner
politically and financially.
PCA responded with an enthusiastic yes, and thecollaborative work began. Based on recommendations
and continued support from the Elders and community
members, LKDFN built a government-to-government
relationship with PCA over many years. LKDFN andthe federal government signed a memorandum of
understanding and negotiated the national park study areain 2006; a framework agreement to guide negotiations in
2010; and an agreement-in-principle in 2013.
In 2015, LKDFN and the federal government welcomed theGovernment of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) to thetable as a partner. They expect to conclude agreements toestablish Thaidene Nëné in mid-2018.

11

Thaidene Nëné proposed National Park Reserve, NWT.
– landoftheancestors.ca

Thaidene Nëné Trust

What makes TDN truly unique is the development of theThaidene Nëné Trust, which will provide long-term funding
for the protection of TDN.
Public funds and private donations will provide the initial
capital for TDN Trust Fund, which will be managed by
LKDFN trustees to generate income to fund First Nations
staff and operational requirements for the governance,
management and operation of TDN. The fund will also
support the education and training of Lutsel K’e Denesoline
to work in TDN; promote the Dene Way of Life; and fostera viable tourism economy in Lutsel K’e.

In spring 2017, DRFN undertook an ecosystem-based management planning exercise on the BC portion of the proposed park area, which it reports shows thepresence of boreal white and black spruce as well as the rare balsam fir.

84 7.0 APPENDICESCASE STUDY: HAIDA GWAII PROTECTED AREAS“Protected areas” is the term agreed to by the Councilof the Haida Nation (CHN) and the Province of British
Columbia for 18 protected sites. The areas consist ofseven older parks and ecological reserves (establishedprior to modern agreements and with little Indigenous
involvement or consultation) and 11 newer sites establishedthrough government-to-government agreements. The
Haida recognize the 18 sites as “Haida Heritage Sites”
and manage them by way of Haida Stewardship Law.
The province recognizes the sites as parks (two sites),
ecological reserves (five sites) or conservancies (11 sites) as
defined by the Park Act. As there is no formal recognitionof the designations each government uses by the othergovernment for the sites, “protected areas” is the common
or generic term.
Prior to achieving protected area status, the 11 heritage
sites/conservancies were considered at risk for resource
extraction and impacts to important cultural sites andspecies. Today, all 18 protected areas are managed
collaboratively and with respect to Indigenous rights.
The 18 protected areas together comprise 332,992
hectares of upland and 169,652 hectares of marine
foreshore, totalling 502,644 hectares.

In 2009, the CHN and the Province of British Columbia
signed the Kunst’aa guu-Kunst’aayah Reconciliation
Protocol which, among other aims, directed the creationof the Haida Gwaii Management Council (HGMC). The
HGMC is made up of two members from each government
with an independent chair and the authority to approve
management plans for the protected areas. The HGMC
receives its authority through the KaayGuu Ga ga Kyah
ts’as – Gin ‘inaas ‘laas ‘waadluwaan gud tl’a gud giidaa(Haida Stewardship Law) and the provincial Haida Gwaii
Reconciliation Act.
The role of the HGMC in protected area management
includes the joint approval of management plans thatgovern the protected areas. Under Haida Stewardship
Law and the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act, no decisionmaker may make a management decision inconsistent
with direction in the approved plans. This results in aconsensus-based model that sets the long-term strategic
management direction for these areas, which includes alegal mechanism to ensure consistency for operational
decision-making. The model ensures governments
collaborate to achieve a shared vision and mutually agreed
direction for these sites. The governments continue
to explore advancing operation-level management,
including future operational decision-making, increased

HAIDA GWAII RECONCILIATION ACT
Eighteen protected areas in Haida Gwaii (covering more than 500,000 hectares of lands and marine
waters) are co-managed by the CHN and the Province of British Columbia under a governmentto-government agreement that created the HGMC. The HGMC is composed of two members fromthe CHN and two from the province, with a neutral chair. Through Haida Stewardship Law and the
Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act, the Council has been given authority to approve jointly prepared
management plans for the protected areas. Once approved, no operational decisions can be made thatare inconsistent with plan direction. The model ensures that long-term management direction andoperational decisions are a result of joint decision-making at the plan approval level. The Council also
recognizes the protected areas as important for preserving and maintaining social, ceremonial andcultural use by the Haida, including the protection of old ts’uu (red cedar), critical to Haida culture.
For more information, see:
• Haida Gwaii Management Council: http://www.haidagwaiimanagementcouncil.ca/index.html• Kunst’aa guu-Kunst’aayah Reconciliation Protocol: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/naturalresource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/first-nations-negotiations/first-nations-a-z-listing/haida-nationcouncil-of• Explanation for the Reconciliation Protocol: https://coastfunds.ca/stories/kunstaa-guu-kunstaayah-reconciliationprotocol-moving-to-a-sustainable-future-together/

WE RISE TOGETHER

85

cultural awareness and education, and the protection ofnatural values.

(d) development or use of natural resources in a mannerconsistent with the purposes of (a), (b) and (c) above.

The provincial “conservancy” designation specificallystates that a purpose of conservancies is to preserve andmaintain them for social, ceremonial and cultural usesof First Nations. However, the governments also agree
that previously designated parks and ecological reserves
are important for this purpose as well. The Haida havebeen undertaking extensive cultural heritage resource
assessments in the protected areas, with a focus on
identifying and protecting important cultural sites andspecies, such as historic village/campsites, plant collection
areas, and areas containing monumental cedar.

Conservancies prohibit commercial logging, mining andhydroelectric power generation other than local run-ofthe-river projects.

Both governments encourage greater public education
about the importance of these sites, as well as direction
for their appropriate use and appreciation. Other priorities
are the important roles they play for Haida culture, theprotection of biodiversity, and low-impact recreation,
where appropriate.

CASE STUDY: CONSERVANCIES IN
BRITISH COLUMBIA

Conservancies were introduced in British Columbia in 2006
as a new designation of protected areas after negotiations
with First Nations related to land use planning andreconciliation on the coast of BC. Historically, some First
Nations had raised concerns that parks or ecologicalreserves did not fully allow for Indigenous social, ceremonialand cultural uses, and that there was a history of restrictions
being imposed on the land without First Nations agreement
or Treaty (beginning in 1911 with the province’s firstprovincial park).
Key to negotiations in the 2000s with First Nations andcoalitions of First Nations (e.g., Coastal First Nations,Nanwakolas Council), if there were to be any new
forms of protected areas, was provincial recognition
that biodiversity protection and Indigenous uses wereintertwined. In addition, such a new designation would
provide for a greater range of low-impact, compatible
economic opportunities that could contribute to socioeconomic objectives for First Nations.
In 2006, the British Columbia Park Act was amended toauthorize the establishment of conservancies with thefollowing criteria:(a) the protection and maintenance of their biologicaldiversity and natural environments;(b) the preservation and maintenance of social, ceremonialand cultural uses of First Nations;(c) the protection and maintenance of their recreational
values; and86 7.0 APPENDICESOf the 1,033 protected areas in BC, 156 are conservancies
protecting 2,998,504 hectares of upland andforeshore areas.
Most conservancies fall within Indigenous territories (manyin shared territories) for which Indigenous governments
have signed either broad reconciliation agreements withthe province or collaborative management agreementswith BC Parks.
Developing and approving management plans jointly
by both the Indigenous and provincial government
representatives is a key management strategy. Basedon community consultation the plans provide in-depth
descriptions of the importance of an area to Indigenous
Peoples and provide direction for preserving andmaintaining the use of the area for social, ceremonialand cultural purposes. Plan approval by the governments
is critical, given that in 2006, the provincial government(with support from First Nations) committed that no newuses in conservancies would be allowed (permitted by thestatutory decision-maker) until approved management
plans were in place.
Following plan approval, and in the spirit and intent ofreconciliation, the governments work together toward
consensus-based decision-making, including making
operational decisions for implementing management plans.
While conservancies are a step in the right direction toward
greater say by First Nations over how their territories aremanaged and where they are located, conservancies
are neither co-governed nor co-managed because theprovincial government still has discretion over whether
conservancy management plans put forth by First Nations
governments are approved. As a result, some plans may go
through many iterations, consuming scarce First Nations
government resources. In addition, resourcing of planning,
implementation and evaluation of management plans
are a challenge with neither the provincial government
nor First Nations governments able to properly resource
them, often leading to generic plans being developed andapproved rather than place-based ones.
Accordingly, the success of the conservancy model lies inthe timely and efficient development of management plansthat meet the needs of First Nations and the provincial
government, with provincial recognition that, dependingupon capacity, First Nations should both be driving thedevelopment of frameworks for management plans at thecommunity level and should have an increasing role in theplan approval process.
For more information, see:• Park Act (with definition of conservancies): http://
www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96344_01• Great Bear Rainforest (where many conservancies
occur): https://greatbearrainforest.gov.bc.ca/• BC Parks information on conservancies: http://www.env.
gov.bc.ca/bcparks/aboutBCParks/prk_desig.html• Nanwakolas Council: http://www.nanwakolas.com/• Coastal First Nations - Great Bear Initiative:
http://coastalfirstnations.ca/

CASE STUDY: DASIQOX TRIBAL PARK(NEXWAGWEẐʔAN)

Dasiqox Tribal Park (Nexwagweẑʔan) is an Indigenous
Protected Area located in traditional Tsilhqot’in territory
in the south-central interior of British Columbia. It covers
approximately 300,000 hectares of land (3,000 km2) that
includes spectacular wildlife habitat and waters that its
people have known and protected for generations.
The Tsilhqot’in people have fought for decades toprotect and defend their lands—from the Chilcotin War(1864) through 20th century threats (such as hydroelectric
development) to the ongoing 21st century pressures fromindustrial mining and logging. There have also been darktimes when they endured disease, residential schools,
poverty and other extreme social, economic and cultural
hardships. Throughout these times, Tsilhqot’in people,
communities and leaders have found strength in theirrelationships with the land, their culture and their way oflife and future generations.

CASE STUDY: SEVEN PADDLES PROJECT,BEAR RIVER FIRST NATION

Bear River First Nation is a small community (108 people
on reserve and 226 off reserve) that lies adjacent to thevillage of Bear River, Nova Scotia in the traditional Mi’kmaq
district of Kespukwitk. The Seven Paddles project, initiallystarted to re-establish traditional Mi’kmaw canoe routes
for ecotourism in Nova Scotia, has become a way for thepeople of Bear River to strengthen their ties with their landand culture. The program, which follows a route between
Bear River and Kejimkujik National Park, has createdabout half a dozen new jobs. Although the project was
initially launched to create ecotourism opportunities, thecommunity saw a chance to focus inward and return to
its traditional teachings. The community is now providing
guiding trips to community members, allowing them togut their first moose or catch their first trout while following
the same routes as their ancestors. The results havebeen transformative.
“[Now we’re] getting our spirit built up, reconnected to
the land,” says Councillor Carol Ann Potter. “Then we canbe honest with the people we bring in and make them feelthat connection a little bit better. We really see the bestin people when they’re out doing things they love. They
forget their stresses, they forget their problems, they’regetting connected again with Mother Earth. There’s nobetter feeling, none whatsoever.”The name Seven Paddles is in honour of the seven sacredteachings of love, respect, humility, honesty, truth, wisdomand courage.

Dasiqox Tribal Park, BC. – Bhattacharyya, J., Murray, M., Whittaker, C.,& the Firelight Group. (2017). NexwagweẐɁan – Dasiqox Tribal Park:
Strategic Management Plan. 1-90.

In 2014, after 25 years of legal action, for the first timeever the Supreme Court of Canada declared title to morethan 1,700 square kilometers of land, and after the mostscathing but significant rejection of the 2010 environmental
assessment of a copper goldmine the Xeni and Yunesit’incommunities (who represent the Tsilhqot’in) decided
to protect their shared caretaker areas as a Tribal ParkWE RISE TOGETHER

87

(to establish Crown recognition of their Aboriginal title
and rights). This decision emerged partly from a fight toprotect Teztan Biny and Nabas from a proposed copperand gold mine. As industrial pressures continued tothreaten Dasiqox and the surrounding lands andwatersheds, the Tsilhqot’in decided to give the area aname of their own choosing:Nexwagweẑʔan, which means“it is there or us.”As a Tribal Park, Nexwagweẑʔan today presents a vision
for the management and governance of the land thatreflects the values, principles, and ways of its people. It lies
outside Tsilhqot’in title lands, but within the area where
Tsilhqot’in rights were declared by the Supreme Court ofBritish Columbia and recognized by the Supreme Courtof Canada.
Dasiqox Tribal Park (DTP) connects a number of existingparks and protected areas across a large area at the heartof Xeni Gwet’in and Yunesit’in caretaker areas. It includes
the Dasiqox headwaters—essential water sources for thearea’s rivers, streams, lakes, salmon, fish and wildlife. It is aland of forests, wetlands, meadows and mountains woven
with the trails, stories and place names. The plants andtrees that grow there provide berries and medicines for
the Tsilhqot’in.
Much of DTP remains wild, clean and quiet, largely removed
from industrial development. But the area is experiencing
significant and ongoing development pressures fromthe forest and mining industries. Some parts have been
logged or damaged by industrial activity in the past,and need to be healed and restored. DTP is a tangible
expression of reconciliation that provides its people with ahistoric opportunity to redefine their relationship with theirnon-Indigenous neighbours in the region.
The Tsilhqot’in use three themes to organize their management of the park: ecosystems, culture and sustainable
livelihoods. They recognize that these themes are
inseparable and interconnected, but feel it is importantto name them in order to remain accountable to them ingovernance decisions and management practices.

In Fish Lake, when a lot of us are up there, thespirits are there. Really strong, like you canjust kind of sense them, they’re there with us.
Sometimes one or two of us can see them, andthey’re our ancestors. They’re the people fromway, way, way back, and they’re there. And wewant to keep it the way it is.”— Xeni Gwet’in community member

88 7.0 APPENDICESDTP is an Indigenous-led protected area. By establishingit, the Tsilhqot’in asserted their rights and responsibilities
as caretakers working to protect the ecological health,cultural revitalization and sustainable livelihoods of its
people. DTP is about self-determination—a new name fora very old relationship.
Over time, as the Tsilhqot’in’s capacity grows, they may
decide to expand the Tribal Park to include a larger area.

CASE STUDY: TLA-O-QUI-AHT TRIBAL PARKS:NUU-CHAH-NULTH SOCIAL INNOVATION FORSUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS, RECONCILIATIONAND ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY

At the heart of the Clayoquot Sound UNESCO Biosphere
Reserve on the West Coast of Vancouver Island British
Columbia in Canada, a new model of Tribal Parks is
emerging as a global example of social-ecologicalresiliency. While coming back from the brink of extinction
and simultaneously adapting its age-old ecologicalgovernance system to a series of aggressive foreign
influences, the Tla-o-qui-aht have conceived an Indigenous
Watershed Governance methodology that marries the oldwith the new to form a model of sustainable livelihoods
that promotes environmental security. The keystone ofthis methodology is a fundamentally different conceptionof humanity that orients individuals within a rich social
contract that extends ideas of justice to environment.
The story begins in 1914, when the Royal Commission on
Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia met with
Tla-o-qui-aht hereditary chiefs (the Ha’wiih) on Meares
Island. Speaking on Opitsaht, Chief Joseph observed thatthe island was not large. “I have 221 Indians and this place
is too small,” he reportedly said. “When there is anothergeneration of people, three hundred years from now,there will be no timber for them at all. It is all taken up
by... settlers who surround the reserve all round, and pretty
soon there will be no room.”
One hundred years later, in 2014, the island marked
the 30th anniversary of the Meares Island Tribal Park
declaration, which was made in April of 1984. The area
was declared a Tribal Park by the Ha’wiih (heritary chiefs)
that year in response to unsustainable logging practices
that were impinging on traditional territories—much as theHa’wiih had foreseen in 1914. After a number of protests
and legal battles, the Tla-o-qui-at First Nation community
was able to prevent MacMillan Bloedel from logging
the island.
Between 1914 and 1984, the Tla-o-qui-aht moved frompolite protest to direct action in the form of blockades andsuccessful litigation against the BC provincial government,
which had condoned the clear-cut logging of ancient cedar
rainforests on Meares. Then from 1984 to 2014, Tla-o-qui-aht advanced from logging blockades to pioneering Tribal
Parks as an alternative to the business-as-usual approachto natural resource management.

in R
Meg

The Tribal Parks model is the manifestation of a dramaticallydifferent social contract that extends ideas of justice tothe environment. This contract is captured in works of art,such as totem poles and their crests. The crests function as
symbolic memory devices that are associated with various
knowledge patterns that have been encoded in story.
The stories provide a moral education for listeners, guiding
their behaviour toward others with whom they sharethe environment.
Cree

k

M
oy
eh

a

iver

ta
Wat

This advanced system of “active participation in a social
contract” ensures that stories with encoded knowledge
patterns about natural law are an ever-present visualcharacteristic of the built environment. Far from being justbeautiful art, these crests and stories influence ecologicalgovernance applications, such as the Tribal Parks initiative.
They lead to effective management outcomes in educational ecotourism, renewable energy projects, ecosystemservice programs, and value-added natural resourceand non-timber forest product sector development—
all with a long-term view of climate change adaptationand supporting the best interests of the future generations.

Easter
Lake

Rive

r

Since 1984, the Tla-o-qui-aht have established three
additional Tribal Parks: Ha`uukmin (Kennedy Lake
Watershed), Tranquil Tribal Park and Esowista Tribal Park,
collectively known as the Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks.

Inlet
r

Ha'huulthii (Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation Territory)
Ha'uukmin (Kennedy Lake Watershed) Tribal Parkqwa siin hap - "leave as it is" - Ha'uukmin Tribal Park Designation

Tla-o-qui-aht | ƛaʔuukʷiʔatḥ(pronounced: klaw-oh-kwee-awt)

Rive
r

er
Shelt

uuya thluk nish - "we take care of" - Ha'uukmin Tribal Park Designation
Atleo

Wah-nah-jus – Hilth-hoo-is (Meares Island) Tribal Park
Tranquil Tribal Park
Inle

Esowista Tribal ParkWest Coast Wild Adventures - Zipline Eco Tours
ert

e Riv

West Coast Wild Adventures - Kennedy River Kayak Tours
Cyp

He
b

FloresIslandT'ashii Paddle School Cultural Canoe Tours
Tin Wis Beach Resort Hotel
Tribal Parks / Treaty Office
no
Cre
e

River

River

Salmon Farm Tenure

Witness
Trail

To
fi

Imperial Metals' Proposed
CatfaceFandora Mine

Cla
yo
qu
ot

Wah-nah-jus(Lone Cone)
Trail

ZiplineEco Tours

Tin
Wis
ResortPacific

Ke
n

Ocean

2.5

dy

5

r

Big
Tree
Trail

River
Kayak
Tours

Kennedy
Lake
Hw

0

ne

Rive

TribalPark
OfficeKennedy

C'is-a-qis
TrailT'ashii
Canoe
Tours

Clayoq
uot

Arm

no

In

let

VargasIsland

To
fi

Cow
Bay

k

Tranq
uil Creek

Hiking Trails
First Nations Village Sites

y4

The vision of Tla-o-qui-at Tribal Parks is to re-establish ahealthy integration of economy and environment in which
there is a balance of creation and consumption and acontinual investment in biological and economic diversity.
Its purpose is to establish a Tribal Parks administrative
organization and develop the governance tools needed
to operate Tribal Parks, including a watershed management plan and community development plan, and toinitiate and partner in business opportunities that promotesustainable livelihoods.

km

Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations Tribal Parks, BC. – https://clayoquotaction.
org/2013/08/gold-exploration-permit-approved/

A Tribal Park is a land or watershed governance area that is developed, governed and managed
by Indigenous Peoples and allows for traditional ways of life and ecologically sound commercial
activities, but not industrial activities. Tribal Parks exist around the world under different names.
Internationally, they are recognized as Indigenous Peoples’ and Community Conserved Territories andAreas, or ICCAs. There is a growing interest in Tribal Parks today on the part of many First Nations
communities in Canada.
A Tribal Park can be a model of self-determination and dignity, environmental stewardship, andsustainable livelihoods—all which need to be mutually supportive. Ideally, Tribal Parks are basedon Indigenous watershed governance and are on land secured under Aboriginal title and managed
by Aboriginal communities. However, in Canada, there are many Tribal Parks that exist on land
where title is contentious and the communities manage the park through a shared arrangement withthe provincial or federal government. Globally, there is a growing recognition that Indigenous-led
protection and conservation can be more successful in achieving positive biodiversity outcomes thanstate-regulated processes. For Indigenous Peoples that have not ceded their rights and responsibilities
to manage their traditional lands through Treaties, it is possible to secure title to traditional lands
through the court system. Once title is secured, Indigenous Peoples are free to establish Tribal Parksand determine the appropriate governance regimes.

WE RISE TOGETHER

89

Globally, there is a growing recognition that Indigenous-led protection and conservation can be
more successful in achieving positive biodiversity outcomes than state-regulated processes. For
Indigenous Peoples that have not ceded their rights and responsibilities to manage their traditionallands through Treaties, it is possible to secure title to traditional lands through the court system. Once
title is secured, Indigenous Peoples are free to establish Tribal Parks and determine the appropriate
governance regimes.
Section 35 Innovations and Indigenous Watershed Governance Areas
Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 says, “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of theaboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”
Although the section does not define Aboriginal rights, the Government of Canada has interpreted
Section 35 to mean the inherent right of self-government.
Tribal Parks can be established as Section 35 innovations. Traditional governance has a role inconstitutional law and Tribal Parks as legal instruments for establishing ICCAs in Canada, not as
an assertion of rights, but as an assertion of responsibility. From this perspective, if an Indigenous
community is able to manage land better than government and provide local sustainable livelihoods,
it does not need government recognition (though government recognition usually comes).
Tribal Parks in Theory and PracticeIn theory and law, Tribal Parks are:1) Traditional governance implementation and development exercises. They apply the teachings of
our ancestors in a modern natural resource management and regional economic development
context. Language, culture and traditional governance are the heart and soulof Tribal Parks.
2) Section 35 (Constitution Act, 1982) assertions of responsibilities and rights, with an emphasis on
the “responsibilities” that go hand and hand with “rights.” Section 35 is a powerful tool available tocommunities to apply its traditional governance principles in practice.
3) Adherence measures to the 2001 UN Convention on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). The 2001
UN R2P created a caveat on State Sovereignty: the protection of “human security.”
A precondition of adequate human security is environmental security—which is where a Tribal
Parks approach comes in.
In practice, Tribal Parks are:1) Indigenous Watershed Governance Areas (IWGAs) that include environmental stewardship,cultural restoration/social justice and sustainable economic development objectives. IWGAs
combine traditional governance values and principles with present-day land management
methodologies for a long-term view of socio-economic resiliency.

90 7.0 APPENDICES

2) ICCAs connecting to a global movement of Tribal Park-type initiatives moving forward on every
continent. ICCAs are internationally recognized protected areas by the International Union for
the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
3) A stakeholder management approach that functions as international/intergovernmental conflict
resolution processes geared toward fostering positive peace. Breaking down real and perceived
barriers, such as racism, mistrust, greed, discrimination, fear, etc., is the key to unlocking a
region’s sustainable development potential.
4) Monitoring regimes to enable Indigenous guardian programs with their “boots on the ground”
approach and built environment branding techniques to extend an Indigenous nation’s
territorial presence.
CASE STUDY: THE GREAT BEAR RAINFOREST
AGREEMENTS

The Great Bear Rainforest represents a quarter of allremaining coastal temperate rainforests on the planet.
This magnificent region of old-growth forests, grizzly
bears, black bears, rare spirit bears and salmon is home to
Indigenous communities thousands of years old. Some 6.4
million hectares in size, it stretches along British Columbia’s
west coast from the Discovery Islands to the Alaska border.
Until recently, the Great Bear Rainforest’s cultural andecological heritage was threatened with industrial-scalelogging and mining. In fact, what we now call the GreatBear Rainforest (a term coined by environmentalists inthe mid-90s) was once referred to simply as the “midcoast timber supply area” by the provincial government
and industry.
To the region’s First Nations, it was not the Great Bear
Rainforest, but Heiltsuk territory, Gitga’at territory, Haisla
territory, Nuxalk territory, Homalco territory and so on.
Nearly 30 First Nations have called the region home forthousands of years.
Traditional economies and social systems that developed
over millennia in ways that maintained and enhanced
biodiversity were massively disrupted as a result ofEuropean contact and the imposition of colonial policies.
These served to disempower local communities,
removing both decision-making through long-establishedgovernance structures as well as the associated responsibilities to care for the land.
By the 1990s, most of the ecosystems and ecologicalrichness of the Great Bear Rainforest were under serious
threat from industrial logging activities. Worse, thesewere going to happen in a way that would continue todisadvantage the region’s Indigenous communities. It wasa double whammy, especially in view of the fact that not
one of the Nations in the region had a Treaty in place with
provincial or federal governments. Essentially, all of theGreat Bear Rainforest was (and is) unceded territory.
Beginning with the Nuxalk taking a stand at the heartof the Great Bear Rainforest on Ista—the site of theircreation story on King Island—to protect it from further
clear-cut logging, the region soon became embroiled
in controversy, as Indigenous communities increasingly
asserted their rights to their territories in the region, bothin terms of decision-making and in terms of benefitingfrom the bounty of their lands and waters. At first, evenwith increasing assertion and precedent-setting court
cases, their concerns were not taken seriously by theprovincial government.
Environmental NGOs were invited to stand with the
Nuxalk to blockade logging companies moving into Ista.
As a result of increasing assertion of Indigenous rights—aswell as partnerships with environmental NGOs, blockades,arrests, public protests, and the targeting of customers
and investors buying wood and paper products from theregion—controversy grew exponentially and intensified
international media attention. The government of British
Columbia could no longer ignore the conflict, especiallywith the threat of losing revenue in the millions of dollars
as customers and investors began to view the region as
too volatile to do business with.
The province began to take First Nations interests andconcerns much more seriously, and set up what eventuallybecame a government-to-government process (thatis, BC government to Indigenous governments and/or their representatives) for creating shared decisionmaking processes in relation to land-use planning andresource management.

WE RISE TOGETHER

91

Land and Resource Management Planning tables ona sub-regional basis soon emerged from this initial
government-to-government process. They included
the provincial government, First Nations, industry andenvironmental organizations.
At the same time, the provincial government continued
to engage in direct talks with First Nations governments
on mechanisms for shared decision-making and shared
revenue. Those discussions involved negotiations withalliances that had coalesced among First Nations (as wellas with individual First Nations governments)—namely
Coastal First Nations-Turning Point (now called Coastal
First Nations-Great Bear Initiative or CFN) in the central
and north coasts and what became Nanwakolas Council inthe southern cone of the Great Bear.
The environmental NGOs that were still formally engaged
at this point in the early 2000s—namely Greenpeace, Sierra
Club BC and Stand (formerly ForestEthics)—coalesced into
the Rainforest Solutions Project (RSP). On the logging andforest products industry side, those companies involved
formed the Coast Forest Conservation Initiative (CFCI).
In order to ensure a movement toward collaborationand problem-solving out of the original five or so yearsof conflict, the environmental organizations agreed tosuspend their campaigns against the companies, while for
their part, the companies agreed to stop logging in the vast
majority of ecologically intact forest valleys in the region.
Although tough at first, with much trust-building needing
to be accomplished and facilitated through an agreed-to
conflict resolution process, RSP and CFCI joined together
as the Joint Solutions Project (JSP) to advise First Nations
and the BC government on solutions to unsustainable
logging in the region.
All parties involved—both decision-makers (First Nations
and the BC government) and stakeholders (environmental
NGOs, industry)—agreed to an independent scientificpanel (the Coast Information Team, or CIT) to come up withrecommendations on how to ensure the socio-economicand ecological well-being of the region and its peoples.
Years of negotiations on various fronts ensued, and in 2004,
CIT delivered its recommendations to the BC government
with the agreement of JSP and the First Nations alliances.
It essentially called for 70 percent of the region’s naturallevels of old-growth ecosystems to be protected. This
still allowed for a viable forestry sector by implementing
improved logging practices, also known as EcosystemBased Management (EBM).
On the basis of continued negotiations and hard work toachieve the two main goals of high ecological integrity andhigh levels of community well-being, proposed solutions
92 7.0 APPENDICES

led the provincial government to announce to the worldin 2006, with much fanfare, the breakthrough Great Bear
Rainforest Agreement: a comprehensive protection andsocial well-being package for the region, which was now
permanently defined as the south, central and north coastsof BC and Haida Gwaii. The Agreement included four
key elements:• A protected areas network meant that 33 percent of theregion was off-limits to industrial logging.
• Improved logging practices through EBM wereintended to result in the protection of an additional 37
percent of the area’s ecosystems.
• There would be increased involvement of First Nations
in decision-making with regards to the land andresources in their respective territories.
• There would be conservation financing for First Nations
to enable economic diversification.
The protected areas network would consist of conservancies(see Case Study: Conservancies in British Columbia),
Biodiversity Mining and Tourism Areas, and othermeasures. Conservation financing for First Nations was tobe achieved by leveraging funds from the philanthropic
sector via environmental NGOs and the provincial andfederal governments. (This resulted in the $120 million
Coast Funds: $60 million contributed by foundations forconservation projects and $60 million contributed by
the two levels of government for sustainable economic
development projects for First Nations communities.)
Essentially, all elements of the Great Bear Rainforest
Agreement, if implemented by 2009, would in theory leadto 70 percent protection of the old-growth ecosystems aswell as higher levels of community social and economic
well-being. However, in 2009, all parties realized that thatlevel of protection would be impossible to reach: only 50
percent protection had been achieved to date, and notenough social and economic improvements had been felt
by First Nations.
All parties agreed to another five years of negotiations
and problem-solving to reach higher levels of human wellbeing and the magical 70 percent goal.
In 2016, the Government of British Columbia announced
that a final agreement had been reached between theprovince, First Nations, environmental NGOs and theforestry industry to protect 85 percent of the forested landbase of the Great Bear Rainforest from industrial logging,with stringent legal logging regulations to be applied to
the remaining 15 percent. This agreement recognizedand enshrined shared decision-making between theGovernment of British Columbia and First Nations forland use within the Great Bear Rainforest, and provided
increased economic shares of timber rights as well as newmeasures to continue to nurture a conservation economy
with additional funding for the region’s First Nations.
It is important to note that none of these achievements
were obtained in a way that would compromise future
treaty-making between individual First Nations and otherlevels of governments. Indeed, it can be argued that muchhas been achieved without ceding land, as is typical in themodern land-claims process.
That said, the way negotiations took place—with JSP
proposing solutions as stakeholders and First Nations
deliberating on those solutions rather than being active
participants—was problematic. This model may haveworked initially, when First Nations didn’t have the capacity
to engage on the technical level. However, by the mid2000s, this had changed—and the model hadn’t. As well,a number of First Nations had already engaged in theirown land use plans that didn’t always line up with what JSP
was proposing.
Additionally, although conservancies were a major
step in the right direction (and did provide for input
from Indigenous communities), the resourcing andimplementation of the conservancy management plansthat undergird many of the protected areas have beenchallenging from a First Nations perspective, leading to
the province stepping in and thus creating inequities inco-decision-making and the co-development of criticalmanagement plans. The province itself also had a very
constrained budget for these plans, which as a result
tended to lead to generic plans, as opposed to thespecific, place-based approach to conservancy planningneeded for those plans to fully reflect the cultural valuesof those First Nations involved, and for the Great Bear
Rainforest Agreements to more fully realize their potential.

The 20-year story of the Great Bear Rainforest Agreements
contains many elements and complexities encompassing
Indigenous rights and land use planning processes,
not to mention multilateral negotiations rooted indeveloping relationships that have shifted from conflict
to collaboration. It is a story that continues to unfold andwhose teachings—as well as the lived experiences of its
peoples in stewarding the lands and waters—holds great
promise for reconciliation.
For more information, see:• Coastal First Nations - Great Bear Initiative:
http://coastalfirstnations.ca/• Nanwakolas Council: http://www.nanwakolas.com/• Great Bear Rainforest:
https://greatbearrainforest.gov.bc.ca/• Coast Funds: https://coastfunds.ca/• Rainforest Solutions Project:
http://www.savethegreatbear.org/• Greenpeace (Great Bear Rainforest) http://www.
greenpeace.org/usa/forests/great-bear-rainforest/

Lastly, related challenges remain for the region under thismodel, from the final implementation of EBM (intended
to result in the expected conservation of ecosystems andold-growth forests) to adequate resourcing of monitoringand implementation, to the ongoing struggle for fullFirst Nations to obtain decision-making powers andresponsibility over their lands.
Nonetheless, this innovative and multiple award-winningmodel represents a significant improvement over the
status quo and holds many lessons for other conservation
initiatives—including IPCAs, where the governancemodel might be more of a hybrid approach to governanceand management.

Level of protection in the Great Bear Rainforest, 2005.

Rainforest Solutions Project (2005). Great Bear Rainforest – 2005 map[JPEG Map]. http://www.savethegreatbear.org/resources/category/maps

WE RISE TOGETHER

93

ensuring clean and healthy water for First Nations andstrengthening Indigenous governance. Danika is currently
serving her second term as vice-president of the CanadianCommission for UNESCO. Danika was also appointed tothe board of directors of MiningWatch Canada last year.
Her practice encompasses international advocacy onbehalf of Indigenous Peoples in the United Nations system,
particularly through her role as consulting legal counsel
for International Indian Treaty Council, an international
NGO with UN Economic and Social Council consultative
status. Danika is a member of the Alberta Judicial Advisory
Committee, and is a recipient of the Esquao Award (2015)
and the Alberta Aboriginal Role Models Award for Justice(2015). Danika holds a BA (Hons), an L.L.B. from the Universityof Toronto and an L.L.M from the University of Victoria.

ICE CORE MEMBERS
Marilyn Baptiste, Councillor Xeni Gwet’in First
NationMarilyn Baptiste is a councillor and former chief of the
Xeni Gwet’in First Nation in British Columbia, one of thesix First Nations that make up the Tsilhqot’in Nation, which
was awarded the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision
declaring Aboriginal title in 2014.

Level of protection in the Great Bear Rainforest, 2016.
– Rainforest Solutions Project (2016). Great Bear Rainforest
2016 – Protected & EBM operating areas [JPEG Map].

7.5 ICE MEMBER BIOGRAPHIESICE CO-CHAIRSEli Enns

Eli is a Nuu-chah-nulth Canadian political scientist who
serves as a research associate for the POLIS Project on
Ecological Governance at the University of Victoria, andas the regional coordinator for North America for the
Indigenous Peoples and Community Conserved Territories
and Areas Consortium. As a co-founder of the Ha’uukmin
Tribal Park in the Clayoquot Sound UNESCO Biosphere
Reserve, and with his work as a steering committee member
for the “Acting on Climate Change: Indigenous Innovations”
research project with the Assembly of First Nations, Elibrings a diverse understanding to the work of ICE.

Danika Littlechild

Danika Billie Littlechild is a member of Ermineskin CreeNation in Maskwacis Alberta, Treaty 6 territory. Danika isa lawyer living and working in her home community, andher practice is focused on matters concerning Indigenous
laws, rights of Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous health,

94 7.0 APPENDICES

Marilyn co-founded the First Nations Women Advocating
Responsible Mining (FNWARM) to challenge mining
development projects in Xeni Gwet’in land, while
supporting other areas of BC facing similar challenges.
She has collaborated with community leaders fromthe Yunesit’in and the broader Tsilhqot’in Nation topermanently protect Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) and thesurrounding areas as Dasiqox Tribal Park.
For her work in leading her community to defeat alarge mining project and preparing submissions for the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency mining
review, Marilyn has been the recipient of several awards.
Her passion and dedication were recognized through
FNWARM when she received the 2010 Boreal Initiative
Award (in recognition of the fight to save Teztan Biny after
the federal government’s initial denial of the Prosperity
Copper Gold Mine’s application). Marilyn has also been
given the Wilderness Committee’s Eugene Environmental
Award and the Activist of the Year Award by the Councilof Canadians. In 2015, she was awarded the prestigious
Goldman Environmental Prize, the world’s largest
international award for grassroots environmental activism.

William Goodon, Metis National Council

William Goodon has built a career out of a combinationof community service and entrepreneurship. Tutored byhis parents to look for opportunities in business, William
seized the calling of working for the Metis Nation in
the Metis government in various capacities. As well,partnering with his father, he is currently developing motel
projects in southwestern Manitoba, with properties inDeloraine, Boissevain and Killarney. William continues towork for Metis governments as a facilitator, consultant andassembly chair. In June 2014, he was elected to the Metis
Government in Manitoba (the Manitoba Metis Federation)
as a provincial board representative for the southwest
region. He was subsequently appointed Minister of
Housing & Property Management.

Steven Nitah, Negotiator for Lutsel K’e DeneFirst Nations

Steven is a negotiator for Lutsel K’e Dene First Nations
and adviser with the Indigenous Leadership Initiative. A
former member of the Legislative Assembly elected to
the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly, Steven
was also elected Chief of Lutsel K’e Dene First Nations(LKDFN) in 2008 and served as CEO for the Denesoline
Corporation, the economic development arm of LKDFN.
Steven has been the lead negotiator on behalf of LKDFNwith the Government of Canada for the creation of aprotected area in Thaidene Nëné, with shared jurisdiction
between Crown and First Nations government. He
continues to play a primary role in engaging with various
levels of government and industry to build support andvalidation for the Thaidene Nëné vision.
To fulfill a promise Steven’s grandmother made to herhusband on his deathbed—that their 10-year old daughter
would not suffer undue stress in life if it could be avoided—
she offered to adopt her 18-year daughter’s baby, Steven,so his mother could finish her education. Steven was taken
by dogsled from Yellowknife to Lutsel K’e to stay with his
grandparents, who customarily adopted him. He grew up in
tents on the land, with little influence from the western world.
Only learning English in kindergarten, he had a traditional
upbringing, following the seasons, hunting, trapping andgathering. Taught by Elders who had not been affected byresidential schools or their legacy, Steven learned about
his responsibilities as a Dene in caring for their lands andresources. Steven’s upbringing and professional career iswhat brought him to the Pathway process.

Pamela Perreault, Garden River First Nation

Pamela Perreault is a member of Garden River First Nationin Ontario. Her academic and consulting careers havetaken her across Canada and around the world in pursuitof knowledge and understanding of Indigenous Peoples’
connection with forested landscapes. Between 1997 and2014 she lived in British Columbia, but worked extensively
with First Nations communities and organizations all overCanada on natural resource issues, such as consultation
policy development and implementation, forest resource
management, land use planning, non-timber forest
resources, community-based research, and Aboriginal

governance related to lands and resources. In 2014,
Pamela returned to her home community of Garden RiverFirst Nation with her husband and son.
Pamela works with FSC Canada as the coordinator of
Aboriginal initiatives, where she oversees the Aboriginal
Rights and Free, Prior Informed Consent Project of the FSC
Canada’s Forest Management Standards Revision Process.
Pamela has been a research fellow at the Universityof Auckland, New Zealand; a member of the Forest
Sciences Board of the BC Ministry of Forests; a program
coordinator in the Faculty of Forestry at the Universityof British Columbia; and a university instructor on Haida
Gwaii and at Algoma University in Sault Ste. Marie. She
has a biology degree, specializing in freshwater ecology,
from the University of Waterloo and a master’s degree inforestry science from UBC. She is co-editor of Aboriginal
Peoples and Forest Lands in Canada (UBC Press 2013).

Chief Gordon Planes, Chief of T’Sou-ke First Nation

Gordon’s traditional name is Hya quatcha, after his great
grandfather from Scia-new, the salmon people. He has
been the elected chief of the T’Sou-ke nation for the pastnine years and was previously the backcountry operations
manager of the West Coast Trail for Parks Canada Agency.
He is the director of the Lands Advisory Board, which
oversees First Nations land management across Canada,and serves as secretary of the Naut’samawt Tribal Council.
Gordon is a Coast Salish carver, artist and traditional singer,
and a captain of T’Sou-ke traditional dug-out canoes forthe last two decades. Gordon has previously taken a threeyear assignment working with his community to bring backtheir Northern Straits Sencoten language.
Gordon lives with his wife, Marcella, in the village of Siaosun.
They have six children and four great-grandchildren.
He is working closely with the community in renewableenergy, food security, cultural renaissance and economic
development.

Curtis Scurr, Policy Analyst Environment Unit,
Assembly of First Nations

Curtis holds a degree in geography from Carleton University
with a background in research, policy and advocacy
and several years’ experience working on Indigenous
environment and environmental health policy andlegislative issues. He has also worked in both government
and the private sector on environmental health, climatechange, species at risk and biodiversity. During his career,
Curtis has served as a research officer and policy analyst as
well as the coordinator of the National Aboriginal Council
on Species at Risk. He continues to work primarily on First
Nations environmental issues, including climate change
and species/habitat conservation and protection.

WE RISE TOGETHER

95

Eduardo Sousa, Great Bear Rainforest
Subcommittee

Lisa Young, Executive Director of Unama’ki
Institute of Natural Resources

Prior to arriving on the West Coast, Eduardo worked formany years as Ontario–Quebec organizer for the Councilof Canadians on public policy issues related to healthcare,water, trade and Canada–US relations. He was also anenvironmental planner and special projects coordinator
for Toronto Parks. Eduardo holds a master’s degree inenvironmental studies from Toronto’s York University, with afocus on watershed planning and community mobilization,
as well as an honours BA in social-cultural anthropology/
environmental studies from Victoria University at the
University of Toronto. He has published a variety of articles
in books and magazines regarding watershed stewardshipand environmental history.

Lisa was UINR’s general manager and director ofadministration before becoming executive director in2006. One of the highlights of her training was participatingin Aboriginal Leadership and Management Developmenttraining at the Banff Centre. As executive director, Lisa’s
job includes program development and participation indeveloping UINR’s overall direction. Lisa participates ona number of committees, including Pitu’paq, Bras d’Or
Lakes Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative, theMi’kmaq Forestry Advisory Committee, and the Advisory
Committee on Climate Action and the Environment.

Eduardo Sousa has worked for the past nine years as asenior forests campaigner for Greenpeace to successfully
implement the world-renowned and award-winning GreatBear Rainforest Agreements with First Nations, the BC
government and the logging industry.

Eduardo acts as a representative for the Great Bear
Rainforest ICE subcommittee, which includes Jess Housty,
Heiltsuk First Nation band counsellor and Qqs stewardshipdirector, and Doug Neasloss, Kitasoo/Xai’xais First Nation
chief counsellor and resource stewardship director.
Through his work on the subcommittee, Eduardo shareswith ICE the expertise and experience he has gained in theconservation of the Great Bear Rainforest

Chantal Otter Tétreault, Protected Areas
Coordinator, Cree Nation Government

Chantal is from the Cree community of Wawanipi inNorthern Quebec (Eeyou Istchee). She is the protectedareas coordinator in the Department of Environment andRemedial Works of the Cree Nation Government. Chantalis also involved in the Cree Nation land stewardship andconservation initiative in Eeyou Istchee, Crees’ traditional
territory in northern Québec, as a member of the Eeyou
Marine Region Planning Commission and the Eeyou
Protected Area Committee. Chantal is also serves as theCree Nation Government representative on the James Bay
Advisory Committee on the Environment, which is tasked
with overseeing the administration of the environmental
and social protection regime established by the James
Bay and Northern Québec Agreement. Chantal holds a
degree in geography from Concordia University and has
extensive training in Geographic Information Systems andenvironmental assessment.

96 7.0 APPENDICES

Lisa Young is the executive director of Unama’ki Instituteof Natural Resources (UINR), a leading Mi’kmaw natural
resources and environmental management organization.
Lisa joined UINR shortly after graduating with a bachelor’s
degree in biology from York University.

ICE FEDERAL, PROVINCIAL, AND
TERRITORIAL MEMBERS
Brian Bawtinheimer, Government ofBritish Columbia

Brian has worked for the BC government for more than
25 years, providing leadership in resource and land use
management including protected areas, conservation,
outdoor recreation, ecosystem management, forestry, land
and marine planning. Brian has a long history of working
with Indigenous governments and communities on newcollaborative management approaches for protectedareas as part of broader government-to-government
reconciliation agreements. Brian currently sits on the
Haida Gwaii Management Council and has served as theprovincial representative and past chair of the CanadianParks Council and the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board. He
continues to be involved in international protected area
efforts, including volunteering as an advisor for nationalpark management in Thailand.

Lillith Brook, Government of Northwest Territories

Lillith Brook has been facilitating collaborative, multistakeholder conservation planning initiatives in the
Northwest Territories for the past 17 years. In her current
role as a senior conservation planner for the Governmentof the NWT Territorial Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Lillith plays a leadership rolein advancing the government’s vision for building a
conservation network in the NWT. Key to this vision is
the meaningful involvement of Indigenous People in
the establishment and management of protected areas,making this national dialogue regarding Indigenous
conservation areas both timely and inspiring for creating astrengthened conservation network in the NWT.

Marlene Doyle, Crown-Indigenous Relations andNorthern Affairs

Marlene manages the Indigenous Community-BasedClimate Monitoring Program at Crown-Indigenous
Relations and Northern Affairs (formerly Indigenous
and Northern Affairs Canada[INAC]). She has worked
to develop coordinated approaches to ecologicalmonitoring and assessment for almost 15 years within
the federal government. From 2011 to 2015, Marlene was
Canada’s representative on the Circumpolar Biodiversity
Monitoring Program Terrestrial Steering Group, where
she helped develop and implement a monitoring plan for
the terrestrial Arctic. Most recently at INAC, Marlene has
supported Indigenous solid waste management initiatives
and environmental management and stewardship.

Scott Duguid, Government of Alberta

Scott Duguid has more than 10 years’ experience working
collaboratively for or with Indigenous groups in Alberta
and the Northwest Territories. He has been with theGovernment of Alberta for the past seven years, where
he has held positions in the Ministry of Environment,
Environment and Sustainable Resources, and Indigenous
Relations. Currently, he is director of consultation with theLand Use Secretariat. Scott’s previous roles with Indianand Northern Affairs Canada and the Sahtu Land andWater Board give him a solid perspective on Indigenous
land use, conservation and protected areas. Scott wasnamed an honorary Elder by the Alexis Nakoda SiouxFirst Nation, and is an active participant in Indigenous
traditional practices.

Paul Dyck, Parks Canada Agency

Paul Dyck is senior advisor of Indigenous initiatives with
the Pathway to Canada Target 1 Secretariat that supports
ICE. Prior to joining the secretariat, Paul served as Parks
Canada’s negotiations manager for western Canada, witha primary focus on Treaty negotiations with First Nationsin British Columbia. In his 10 years with the federal public
service, Paul has contributed to a wide variety of sitebased negotiations, implementation of Treaties andother agreements, protected area establishment, anddevelopment of national policy and guidance supporting
Indigenous rights and cooperative working relationships
in national parks, national marine conservation areas, andnational historic sites.
Paul’s academic background is in political science. He
holds a BA from the University of Calgary and an MA fromthe University of Victoria.

Susanne Emond, Environment and Climate
Change Canada

Susanne Emond has been a policy analyst with theProtected Areas Program of Environment and Climate
Change Canada since 2010. For the last seven years,
Susanne has worked on establishing and managing ECCC’s
network of protected areas, including in collaboration with
Indigenous governments and people of northern Canada.
During this time, she also lived in Iqaluit for a few years,
where she helped implement the Inuit Impact and Benefit
Agreement for the National Wildlife Areas and Migratory
Bird Sanctuaries in the Nunavut Settlement Area.
Susanne has a strong background in community-based
participatory processes. Prior to joining the federal
government, she worked for a number of years with thenon-profit sector, focusing her efforts on bridging the
gap between biodiversity conservation and international
development. This took the form of developing strategies
for the participation of communities in natural resource
decision-making processes, such as through management
and land use planning for protected areas in Latin America,
Africa and Asia. Susanne has also conducted researchand policy advocacy for advancing human rights issues
in the context of conflict minerals as a contributor to theKimberly Process, a United Nations mandated mechanism
for the eradication of conflict diamonds.

Elaine Hardy, Government of Ontario

Elaine Hardy has more than 20 years’ experience as anenvironmental policy and land use planning advisor with
the Ontario government. She studied urban and regional
planning at the University of Waterloo, then pursued amaster’s degree in environmental studies at York University.
For the past five years, Elaine has been working at theOntario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry in the
Far North Branch, where she provides program and policy
support for the Ministry’s work to prepare land use plans
jointly with First Nations in the Far North of Ontario. She
is currently leading work to prepare a Far North Land Use
Strategy which, when complete, will provide guidance andinformation to help joint Ontario–First Nations planningteams as they prepare land use plans.
Previously, Elaine was with the Ontario Ministry of Environment, where she worked mainly on environmental
assessment and energy files, leading the development ofenviron-mental assessment requirements for electricity
projects and developing approvals requirements forrenewable energy projects.

WE RISE TOGETHER

97

Susan Mather, Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Susan J. Mather is an environmental planner, analyst,
facilitator and historian whose professional and academic
experience has centred on nature conservation andthe nature-culture nexus. With more than 20 years ofprofessional experience, Susan is currently working inmarine conservation and integrated oceans management
at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Previously, as a plannerwith Parks Canada, Susan led the development ofmanagement plans for several of Canada’s national parks
and historic sites. Susan has a master of arts in CanadianHistory and a master of applied environmental studies
in planning. She has long been passionate about therelationship between Indigenous Peoples and protectedareas. Her academic pursuits include exploring how
the making of Vancouver’s Stanley Park was a colonial
imposition upon a place that already had meaning in the
Coast Salish world. Prior to joining the federal government,
Susan worked for several years as a historical consultant

for Indigenous governments. She also has experience inthe not-for-profit sector with the Wildlife Conservation
Society, Ducks Unlimited Canada, and the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities.

Tom Soehl, Government of Nova Scotia

Tom has worked on Indigenous issues with the provincial
governments of British Columbia and Nova Scotia for
more than 20 years. He has been involved in Treaty andAboriginal rights negotiations, consultation, land use
planning and a variety of collaborative management
initiatives. Tom is currently director of Aboriginal policy
with the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources,
which is responsible for provincial parks, Crown land
administration, forestry, mineral resources and wildlife
management in the province. His educational backgroundincludes a master of science in resource and environmental
management from Simon Fraser University.

7.6 PATHWAY TO CANADA TARGET 1 WORKFLOW DIAGRAM
National
Advisory
Panel

Recommendations

Expert Task Teams
Other Effective
Conservation
Measures

Effective
Management

National Steering
Committee +• Secretariat• Communications
subcommittee• Engagement
subcommittee

Areas Importantfor Biodiversity &Ecosystem Services

Community of
Pathway
Governments &Indigenous
Governments andOrganizations:
Directors / ADMs /DMs

FPT Ministers

responsible forprotected areas &biodiversity
conservation

Recommendations

Connecting andIntegrating

Other Input
e.g.,
DFO’s marine
planning,
INAC MSR,ENVI Study

Recommendations

Equitable
Management

Discussion Papers

EcologicalRepresentation

Recommendations

Indigenous
Circle ofExperts

Recommendations
on Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas

Pathway to Canada 1 Target– Draft Workflow Schematic

98 7.0 APPENDICES

PathwayTo
CanadaTarget 1

RESOURCES AND
FURTHER READING• Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls
to Action
http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/
Findings/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf• Principles Respecting the Government of Canada’s
Relationship with Indigenous Peoples
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/principles-eng.pdf• Indigenous Leadership Initiative (ILI)
https://www.ilinationhood.ca/• Indigenous Guardians Program
https://www.ilinationhood.ca/our-work/guardians/• Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Acts, 1982:
Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-16.html• United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (UNDRIP)
https://www.un.org/development/desa/
indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-ofindigenous-peoples.html• Free Prior and Informed Consent Manualhttps://www.un.org/development/desa/
indigenouspeoples/publications/2016/10/free-priorand-informed-consent-an-indigenous-peoples-rightand-a-good-practice-for-local-communities-fao/• Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples(RCAP)
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/aboriginalheritage/royal-commission-aboriginal-peoples/Pages/
final-report.aspx• Conservation 2020: Pathway to Canada Target 1
http://www.conservation2020canada.ca/• Convention on Biological Diversity
https://www.cbd.int/• Aichi Biodiversity Targets
https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/• 2020 Biodiversity Goals and Targets for Canada
http://biodivcanada.ca/default.
asp?lang=En&n=9B5793F6-1• United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO)
https://en.unesco.org/• International Union for the Conservation of Nature(IUCN) https://www.iucn.org/• IUCN Protected Areas Categories System
https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-area-categories• Forest Stewardship Council
https://ca.fsc.org/en-ca• Cree Regional Conservation Strategy
http://www.eeyouconservation.com/cree-regionalconservation-strategy.html

INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT SOURCES

Indigenous Protected Areas
Australian Government. (2010). Indigenous protectedareas: Indigenous Australians caring for country.
Department of Environment. Retrieved from http://www.
environment.gov.au/indigenous/ip
a/pubs/indigenousprotected-area.pdf
Australian Government. (2012). About indigenous
protected areas. Department of the Environment. Retrieved
from
http://www.environment.gov.au/indigenous/ipa/
background.html
New Zealand – Te Urewera
Te Urewera Act. (2014). New Zealand Legislation:
Parliamentary Counsel Office.
Department of Conservation. (2014). Tuhoe claims
settlement and Te Urewera bills passed. Media Release,
Office of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations.
New Zealand – FUNDS
Department of Conservation. (n.d-c). Matauranga Kura
Taiao Fund. New Zealand Government. http://www.doc.
govt.nz/mktfund
Department of Conservation. (n.d-c). Nga Whenua Rahui
Fund. New Zealand Government. http://www.doc.govt.
nz/get-involved/run-a-project/funding/nga-whenua-rahui/nga-whenua-rahui-fund

WE RISE TOGETHER

99

MexicoMartin, G., Camacho-Benavides, C., Del Campo Garcia,
C.A., Fonseca, S. A., Mendoza F.C., Gonzalez-Ortiz, M.A.
(2011). Indigenous and community conserved areas in
Oaxaca, Mexico. Management of Environmental Quality:
An International Journal, 22(2), 250-266.
Camacho-Benavides, C., Porter-Bolland, L., Ruiz-Mallen, I.,& McCandless, S.R. (2013). Introduction: Biocultural diversity
and the participation of local communities in national andglobal conservation. In Camacho-Benavides et al. (Eds.)
Community Action for Conservation: Mexican Experiences.
New York, NY: Springer Science and Business Media.

CANADIAN CONTEXT SOURCES

Basso KH. (1996). Wisdom sits in places: Landscape andlanguage among the Western Apache. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012).
Rethinking ecosystem services to better address andnavigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8-18.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011
Dearden, P., R. Rollins and M. Needham. (2015). Parks andProtected Areas in Canada: Planning and Management.
Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press, Canada.
Environment and Climate Change Canada (2016).
Canadian Protected Areas Status report 2012-2015.
Gibson, G. (2017). Culture and Rights Impact Assessment:
A Survey of the Field. The Firelight Group
Herrmann, T.M., Ferguson, M.A.D., Raygorodetsky, G.
and Mulrennan, M. (2012). Recognition and Support of
ICCAs in Canada. In: Kothari, A. with Corrigan, C., Jonas,
H., Neumann, A., and Shrumm, H. (eds). Recognising andSupporting Territories and Areas Conserved By Indigenous
Peoples And Local Communities: Global Overview andNational Case Studies. Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, ICCA Consortium, Kalpavriksh, andNatural Justice, Montreal, Canada. Technical Series no. 64.
Kothari, Ashish with Corrigan, Colleen, Jonas, Harry,
Neumann, Aurélie, and Shrumm, Holly. (eds). (2012).
Recognising and Supporting Territories and Areas
Conserved By Indigenous Peoples And Local Communities:
Global Overview and National Case Studies. Secretariat of
the Convention on Biological Diversity, ICCA Consortium,
Kalpavriksh, and Natural Justice, Montreal, Canada.
Technical Series no. 64, 160 pp.

100 RESOURCES AND FURTHER READING

Langdon, S., R. Prosper and N. Gagnon (2010). The George
Wright Forum, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 222–233. Available at thefollowing link:
http://www.georgewright.org/272langdon.pdf
Schuster, R., Germain, R.R., Bennett, J.R., Reo, N.J., Secord,
D.L., Arcese, P. (in review) (2016). Indigenous lands support
higher biodiversity than protected areas. Conservation
Letters.
Stephenson, J. (2008). The Cultural Values Model: An
integrated approach to values in landscapes. Landscapeand Urban Planning 84 127–139
Stevens, S., T. Jaeger and N. Pathak Broome, G. BorriniFeyerabend, C. Eghenter, H. C. Jonas, and G. Reyes.
(2016). ICCAs and Overlapping Protected Areas: Fostering
Conservation Synergies and Social Reconciliation.
Policy Brief of the ICCA Consortium, Issue No.4, ICCA
Consortium, Tehran, Iran.
UN Human Rights Council, Rights of indigenous peoples,
29 July 2016, A/71/229
World Resources Institute (WRI), United Nations
Development Programme, United Nations Environment
Programme, and World Bank. (2005). Securing Property
and Resource Rights through Tenure Reform, pp.83–87
in World Resources Report 2005: The Wealth of thePoor – Managing Ecosystems to Fight Poverty. Washington,
D.C.: WRI.

WEBSITES• Indigenous Peoples’ and Community Conserved
Territories and Areas Consortium:
http://www.iccaregistry.org/en/about/iccas• Thaidene Nëné:http://landoftheancestors.ca/• UNESCO Website:
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/• Tsa Tue Biosphere Reserve - Indigenous-led
Biosphere Reserve:
http://en.ccunesco.ca/search#q=indigenous-led
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/europe-north-america/canada/tsa-tue/• Canadian Protected Area Status Report 2012 to 2015
http://en.ccunesco.ca/search#q=indigenous-led

• A new Shared Arctic Leadership Model (Mary Simon,
Minister’s Special Representative):
https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1492708558500/14
92709024236

REGIONAL GATHERING VIDEOS• Western:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvw5djVRjE0• Eastern:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3lO_xSRJK0• Northern:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ci-RF5k-Fs• Central:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyG0BI7wzC8ABBREVIATIONSACMCArea Co-Management Committee

INAC

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada

CARTS

Conservation Areas Reporting and Tracking
System

IPA

Indigenous Protected Area

CBD

Convention on Biological Diversity

IPCA

Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area

CHN

Council of the Haida Nation

IUCN

International Union for Conservationof Nature

CIT

Coast Information Team

IWGA

Indigenous Watershed Governance Area

CNG

Cree Nation Government

JSP

Joint Solutions Project

COP 1010th Conference of the Parties

LKDFN

Lutsel K’e Dene First Nations

CTA

Call to Action

MMF

Manitoba Metis Federation

DRFN

Doig River First Nation

NAP

National Advisory Panel

DTP

Dasiqox Tribal Park

NCC

Nature Conservancy Canada

ECCC

Environment and Climate Change CanadaNGOnon-governmental organization

ENGO

environmental non-governmental organization

NSC

National Steering Committee

FPIC

free, prior and informed consent

OECM

other effective conservation measure

FSC

Forest Stewardship Council

PCA

Parks Canada Agency

GNWT

Government of the Northwest Territories

TDN

HGMC

Haida Gwaii Management Council

Thaidene Nëné proposed National Park
Reserve and Territorial Protected Area

ICCA

Indigenous Peoples’ and Community
Conserved Territories and Areas

TRC

Truth and Reconciliation Commission

UNDRIP

United Nations Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples

ICE

Indigenous Circle of Experts

ICH

Intangible Cultural Heritage

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organization

IIBA

Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement

UINR

Unama’ki Institute of Natural Resources

WE RISE TOGETHER

101

GLOSSARY

12

Aichi Targets: A set of 20 targets related to biodiversitythat are included in the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 adopted by the signatory parties to the Convention
on Biological Diversity at the 10th Conference of Parties,
Nagoya, Japan, 2010.13

people is the spirit, which is nurtured through ceremony.
Ceremony and spirit is not something that can be taught,
it is something that can only be experienced.” (Opening
statement of Dave Courchene at the Central Regional
Gathering, Winnipeg, MB)Appropriate recognition: Recognition or acknowledgement that is validated by each Indigenous government
and its peoples in a manner of their choosing. Appropriate
recognition is not a token process. Appropriate
recognition can only be achieved through a due diligenceprocess that is grounded in respect for human rights andthe implementation of United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Conservation economy: Usually refers to the pursuit ofsocial and economic benefits through the conservationof ecosystems within an area, or a variety of economic
arrangements that have been redesigned to restore,
rather than deplete, natural and social capital, based on
the premise that life comes from nature and depends on
its capacity to maintain healthy ecosystems. In this manner,peoples’ needs are directly linked and dependent on local
ecosystem services, which serve as the starting point for adifferent kind of economic prosperity that can provide forgeneration after generation.15 For example, conservation
economy has been used in relation to Tribal Parks todescribe a level of economic development that maintains
the health of ecosystems and communities.

Biodiversity: The biological diversity of life or thevariability of living organisms (e.g., genes and species)
from all sources and biomes (e.g., terrestrial, marine andother aquatic ecosystems), and the ecological complexesof which they are a part.14
Cultural keystone species: Iconic species that havehelped shape the traditions, beliefs and knowledge
systems of Indigenous Peoples over time. Because of
their association with the lands and waters of Indigenous
territories, these species have played (and continue to play)essential roles in diet, livelihood, traditional medicines,
and materials used for clothing, shelter and tools, andhave been featured in the languages, ceremonies, stories
and narratives that have shaped Indigenous natural laws.
Capacity: Having both the knowledge and the skills tobe empowered to act, including for exercising authority.
Capacity and ability are not the same. A need for capacity
is not meant to address a lack of ability, nor can it beresolved by providing funds only. Having capacity means
having access to appropriate tools on an ongoing basis(e.g., long-term support) until individuals, communities
and nations are empowered.
Ceremony (ies): Cultural practice(s) by Indigenous Peoples
for connecting to the spirit and showing respect andgratitude. The practice of ceremonies can be understoodas the gateway through which Indigenous values andprinciples continue to guide the way of life of Indigenous
Peoples: “The most important part of our knowledge as

Customary rights/Indigenous Laws: Principles, rules ofconduct and beliefs that have been informed by a given
generation and transmitted from one generation to thenext, and are recognized and practised by Indigenous
Peoples. Such laws dictate the spiritual, political and social
customs and conventions that guide the relationships
between Indigenous Peoples and their lands and territories
as well as between themselves. These ancient laws are
unique to each community, and identify principles related
to rights and standards of environmental governance.
Indigenous laws are imprinted (transmitted orally) anddistinct from Canadian laws (written and enforced laws).16
Distinction-based approach: Recognizing the specificityof lands, waters, territories, identity, language, culture,
histories, circumstances, legal frameworks, socio-economic
issues and other factors important to First Nations, theMetis Nation and the Inuit, a distinction-based approachprovides for concrete, pragmatic actions that allow for
fulsome self-determination of Indigenous Peoples as theychoose to identify themselves, whether or not they affiliate
with a national Indigenous organization, a provincial or
territorial Indigenous organization, or other representative
or lobby organization.

		The glossary was developed using Regional Gathering notes and summaries. Additional sources were also used in some instances, and are noted for eachspecific term.
13
		 See http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/.
14		Convention on Biological Diversity (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity Article 2. Use of Terms. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity,
Montreal, Canada.
15		The term conservation economy has been used by Ecotrust, one of the first organizations to expand on the implications of the concept.
See http://www.conservationeconomy.net/conservation_economy.html.
16
		 Source: http://www.aboriginallegal.ca/assets/withorwithoutyou.pdf.
12102 RESOURCES AND FURTHER READING

Free, Prior and Informed Consent: The United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)
commits signatory states (including Canada) to consult
and cooperate in good faith with Indigenous Peoples,through their own representative institutions, to obtain
their free, prior and informed consent before adopting andimplementing legislative or administrative measures that
may affect them (e.g., lands, waters and their resources)17.
In this context:• Free implies no coercion, intimidation or manipulation.
• Prior implies that consent is sought sufficiently inadvance of the authorization or start of activities,
with respect for the time needed for Indigenous
consultation and consensus processes.
• Informed implies that information is provided thatcovers a range of aspects, including the nature, size,
pace, reversibility and scope of any proposed projector activity; the purpose and duration of the project; thelocality and areas affected; a preliminary assessment of
the likely economic, social, cultural and environmental
impact, including potential risks; personnel likely to be
involved in executing the project; and procedures the
project may entail. This process may include the optionof withholding consent. Consultation and participation
are crucial components of a consent process.
Governance: The authority or use of power to makedecisions and be accountable for them. In comparison,
management is the making of decisions that will guideactions to meet desired goals or objectives—in otherwords, decisions that can be overturned by the governing
body. Governance differs from management in terms of
who holds the authority and who is ultimately accountable.
Guardians: According to the Indigenous Leadership
Initiative, “guardians are employed as the ‘eyes on the
ground’ in Indigenous territories. They monitor ecologicalhealth, maintain cultural sites and protect sensitive areasand species. They play a vital role in creating land use andmarine-use plans. And they promote inter-generational
sharing of Indigenous knowledge—helping train the next
generation of educators, ministers and nation builders.”18
The original guardians began with the Haida Nation andsoon blossomed into Guardian Watchmen along theWest Coast with a formal program established under thenine member-strong Coastal First Nations Great Bear
Initiative (https://coastalguardianwatchmen.ca/guardianwatchmen-programs).

Indigenous Cultural Landscapes (ICLs):19 The Forest
Stewardship Council defines these as “living landscapes towhich Indigenous Peoples attribute environmental, social,
cultural and economic value because of their enduring
relationship with the land, water, fauna, flora and spirits
and their present and future importance to their cultural
identity.” ICLs are characterized by features that have been
maintained through long-term interactions based on landcare knowledge and adaptive livelihood practices. They
are landscapes over which Indigenous Peoples exercise
responsibility for stewardship. Their functional value may
be vary according the needs and capacity of Indigenous
governments. ICLs may be delineated with the intent toprotect and enhance biodiversity; protect cultural keystone
species; support lower-impact resource development;
support cultural repatriation through mapping of originalplace names; and/or revitalize Indigenous governancesystems. They may also be delineated as part of an
Indigenous-led land use planning process or through agovernment consultation and accommodation process.
An ICL may also be known another name, such as Tribal
Park or Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area (IPCA).
Indigenous governments: The exercise of selfdetermination executed through a representative structureor organization of power and authority that is recognizedby Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous political systems
are extremely diverse and not limited to band councils,
as set out in the Indian Act. In this sense, Indigenous
governments are governing structures embedded in theirtraditional government (pre-colonization) structure andconstitution status, setting the roles and responsibilitiesof all members of each Indigenous chosen according totheir territory. In this manner, each recognized governing“structure or organization” is there to address the political,
social and economic realities and needs of its people, andcan negotiate with other recognized government entities.
Indigenous-led: Refers to Indigenous government
or Peoples having the primary role in determining
the objectives, boundaries, management plans andgovernance structures for IPCAs as part of their exercise
of self-determination. IPCAs are initiated by Indigenous
governments as mandated by Indigenous Peoples in theexercise of self-determination. There may be a range ofpartnerships to support these acts of self-determination.
Indigenous Peoples: The original people inhabiting lands
and territories before the arrival of European settlers.
Canada’s constitution recognizes three distinct groups
of Indigenous Peoples (referred to as Aboriginal Peoples

Source: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/IPeoples/FreePriorandInformedConsent.pdf.
See https://www.ilinationhood.ca/our-work/guardians/.
19
FSC Canada. 2016. Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL): Discussion Paper, Version 1. Page 7 (of 16). https://ca.fsc.org/preview.icl-discussion-paper-v1.a-1316.pdf.
1718

WE RISE TOGETHER

103

in the constitution): First Nations, the Metis Nation, andthe Inuit.
Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs):
IPCAs are lands and waters where Indigenous governments
have the primary role in protecting and conserving
ecosystems through Indigenous laws, governance andknowledge systems. Culture and language are the heartand soul of an IPCA.
IPCAs across Canada will vary in terms of governanceand management objectives however they generally all
include three essential elements: they are Indigenous-led;
they represent a long-term commitment to conservation;and they elevate Indigenous rights and responsibilities.

Protected area: The Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) defines a protected area as “a geographicallydefined area which is designated or regulated andmanaged to achieve specific conservation objectives”20.
CBD parties report on the status of the protected areas
network using the International Union for Conservationof Nature definition: “a clearly defined geographicalspace, recognized, dedicated and managed, throughlegal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term
conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services
and cultural values.”21

Lands: In the context of IPCAs, the term land(s) includes
waters. The relationship between Indigenous Peoples andtheir territories is not limited to lands; it also extends toadjacent waters. Watersheds and rivers are often talked
about as “life-givers” and cannot be separated from any
conservation actions or land use planning processes. In
the Indigenous world view, everything is interconnected(water, land, air, plants and animals); there are no politicalor geographic boundaries

Reconciliation: The Truth and Reconciliation Commissionof Canada defines reconciliation as “an ongoing processof establishing and maintaining respectful relationships. A
critical part of this process involves repairing damaged trustby making apologies, providing individual and collective
reparations, and following through with concrete actions
that demonstrate real societal change. Establishingrespectful relationships also requires the revitalization ofIndigenous law and legal traditions. It is important that
all Canadians understand how traditional First Nations,
Inuit, and Metis Nation approaches to resolving conflict,repairing harm, and restoring relationships can inform thereconciliation process.”22

Natural law: Referred to as the first rule of spirituality
by Elders during the ICE Regional Gatherings. In the
Indigenous world view, the natural world is not separate
from humans, but is rather a world where all living beingsand spirits are connected; this understanding requires us
to care for, live in harmony with, and respect the natural
world. Natural laws are not negotiable. Indigenous law
stems from natural law, which came from the observationof nature and the principle of peaceful relationship withthe rest of creation in the forms of duty, responsibility andguardianship of the lands and waters.

Reconciliation can mean different things to different
people, and was acknowledged at ICE Regional
Gatherings as “a very powerful word and highly charged,
evoking a lot of emotions.” As such, it is up to eachnation to define reconciliation for itself. In this manner,reconciliation means identifying the appropriate healing
process for restoring relationships: first, between Crown
and Indigenous Peoples, recognizing what has not worked
in the past so it is corrected moving forward in the spiritof peace and friendship; and second, between all people(Indigenous and non-Indigenous) and the lands.

Primary role: In the context of this report, the “primaryrole” means Indigenous Peoples control any development,
management or operations that affect them or their lands,
as described in UNDRIP, which states that such control“enables Indigenous Peoples to maintain and strengthen
their institutions, cultures and traditions, and to promote
development in accordance with their aspirations andneeds.” This does not necessarily mean that an Indigenous
government must take an exclusive role; it is understoodthat different kinds of partnerships and supports may
be required or sought depending on circumstances.
However, it does necessitate a deliberate elevation ofIndigenous governments in decision-making processes
with appropriate recognition.

Self-determination: Exercising the right to freely determine
the nation’s political status and pursue its economic, socialand cultural development.23 For Indigenous Peoples,in Canada, rights do not come from Treaty, but fromthe Creator.
Support: Providing or substantiating assistance. In thecontext of IPCAs, it has generally been talked about asrequiring a long-term commitment during the gatherings.
Traditional economy: An economy that is grounded incultural practices and the abundance of natural resources.

See www.cbd.int.
See https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about.
22
Canada’s Residential Schools: Reconciliation, The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Volume 6, page 11. 2015.
See http://www. trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/index.php?p=890.
23
Self-determination for Indigenous Peoples in the context of UNDRIP. See http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf.
20
21

104 RESOURCES AND FURTHER READINGDETAILEDACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
When the Indigenous Circle of Experts (ICE) set out tocomplete its mission, its members understood that it
was a very ambitious project with a short timeline. ICE
succeeded nonetheless, and the evidence is this report.
We could not have completed our work without the
support of family, friends and our members’ respective
organizations. Accordingly, we are immensely grateful to:• The Metis Nation of Alberta, Metis National Council
General Assembly and delegates, Metis National
Council Environment Committee• Creator (in Maskwacis Cree: Kisemanito ᑭᓭᒪᓂᑐ ; in
Nuu-chah-nulth: Nass)• From the Xeni Tsilqot’in and the Tsilqot’in Nation:
giving thanks from our lands and waters, from ourElders, youth, people, leadership and staff as well as
our allies, friends and neighbours for this opportunity
with Canada’s Target 1 to continue the work of our first
duty of protecting Mother Earth above all else, andthen looking at ways of restoring damaged areas toa healthy state for our wildlife, wild plants and future
generations. All other work flows from there. Allow
us to hear our ancestral voices as we move forward.
Sechanalyagh/Thank you.

• Our ancestors for their wisdom and our Elders fortheir guidance• ICE co-chairs Danika and Eli for their leadership• Elder Reg Crowshoe, Elder Albert Marshall, Elder
Stephen Kakfwi, Elder Joe Martin, Elder Dave
Courchene and Elder Larry McDermott• Todd Labrador, Lorraine Netro, Bev New, Stewart Hill,
Dahti Tsetso, Norma Kassi• Metis Elders and mentors• Cree Nation Government, its leadership and Elders• Unama’ki Institute of Natural Resources• Alberta’s Metis Settlements General Council• Family members of ICE for their love and support• The Indigenous Leadership Initiative and partners• Host nations of Regional Gatherings• Greenpeace• All participants of the four ICE Regional Gatherings forsharing their perspectives and experiences with ICE• Georgia Lloyd-Smith from West Coast
Environmental Law• Tonio Sadik from the Assembly of First Nations• Mi’kmaw representatives who shared at the Eastern
Regional Gathering• Lutsel K’e First Nation Elders and members and theThaidene Nëné Advisory Committee for the gift ofThaidene Nëné vision and knowledge• The negotiating teams of the Lutsel K’e First Nation,
Parks Canada Agency, and the Government of the
NWT for their roles in helping create the vision of
Thaidene Nëné• Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks• Alberta’s Treaty 6, 7 and 8 First Nations• Metis National Council President Clement Chartier,
Manitoba Metis Federation President David Chartrand• Dr Kelly Bannister, staff of the Polis Foundationand members of the POLIS Project on Ecological
Governance.
• Ann Zurbrigg and family• The Indigenous Peoples and Community Conserved
Territories and Areas (ICCA) Consortium with special
acknowledgment of Holly Jonas and Kim Wright.
• Pathway to Canada Target 1 Secretariat for ICE: Margot
Bishop, Jenna Joyce• Other Pathway Secretariat members and Parks Canada
Agency staff, including Marie-Josée Laberge, Suzanne
Bessette, Delphine Kamikazi and Denise Plamondon• The Government of the Northwest Territories

WE RISE TOGETHER

105

• Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources• Lillith Brook’s family (Eliza, Cormac, Duncan
and Andrew)• Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry• Marlene Doyle’s family• The Province of British Columbia• Elaine Hady’s family• Kelly-Anne Richmond and the Planning & Protected
Areas Parks and Protected Space, Manitoba
Government.

• Amber Sawkins• Kelly Saunders, Hunter Goodon and Taylor Goodon• Canadian Wildlife Service of Environment and Climate
Change Canada• Alice Littlechild, Alex Littlechild, Stephanie Littlechild,
Pablo Littlechild• David Suzuki and the David Suzuki Foundation• Nadine Crooks and Scott Jones (co-chairs of the
National Steering Committee)• Janet Sumner and Cliff Supernault (co-chairs of the
National Advisory Panel)• Justine, Bryden and Audrina Hotain, Monica Shore,
Ella Rose, Brenden and Ian Wallace, Christina, Karinand Evan Enns, David, Alumna May• Liam and Nathan Daigle• Eduardo Sousa’s family (Hilary, Luiz, Georgie Bella)• Kathy Hodgson-Smith• Silverado• Jess Housty, Doug Neasloss• Emily Chu, Satnam Manhas, Dr Faisal Moola

Photographer: Harvey Feit

106 RESOURCES AND FURTHER READING