As part of the process of Canada’s Pathway to Target 1, Indigenous Nations across turtle island in what is now known as Canada, came together in ethical space with the Federal and Provincial governments in ceremony and conference to discuss Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas in Stoney Nakoda / treaty 7 territory (Canmore, Alberta) October 2018. This short film highlights some of those discussions and the guiding principles, and is an excerpt from a longer film to be publicly released in Lkwungen territory of the Songhees, Esquimalt and WSÁNEĆ peoples (aka Victoria, BC) on April 17th, 2019 As part of the 35 year anniversary of the Meares Island Tribal Park.
The REDTalks Series celebrates exceptional ideas and performances from Indigenous artists, innovators and leaders. REDTalks drives ideas, mobilizes action, and serves as a catalyst for social change.
Scroll through Red Talks for some great resources – interviews with Indigenous artists, change makers and knowledge holders.
Co-founded in 2003 by Manon Barbeau, the Council of the Atikamekw Nation Youth Council and the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, with the support of the Assembly of First Nations and the collaboration of the National Film Board of Canada, the launch of Wapikoni Mobile took place in 2004 during the Montreal First Peoples Festival.
Since then, Wapikoni Mobile travels to Aboriginal communities providing workshops for First Nations youth that allow them to master digital tools by directing short films and musical works. During each stopover, “mentor filmmakers” welcome and train thirty young participants during all stages of implementation.
The following is preliminary content for a session at the March 9-12, 2021 Virtual Research Summit, submitted by Chantelle Spicer with Simon Fraser University. Click the image below to view content.
Ce qui suit est le contenu préliminaire d’une session duSommet de Recherche Virtuel du 9 au 12 mars 2021, présenté par Chantelle Spicer de l’Université Simon Fraser. Cliquez sur l’image ci-dessous pour voir le contenu.
Click to view.
ABSTRACT
(Lisez la version française ci-dessous.)
The presentation will be based on my masters research with Snuneymuxw First Nation and Saysutshun (or Newcastle Island Provincial Marine Park in BC). Ultimately what the project argues is that what is happening in co-management cannot be the only way forward for “reconciliation” or national self-determination for Indigenous peoples. What has been observed through fieldwork, which included interviews with citizens of Snuneymuxw and much time with the island itself is that too much of the current co-management agreement is controlled by a colonial heart. If these relationships are to meet the needs of the nation in attaining self-determination, much needs to be done to to transform what is at the heart of these agreements to include Indigenous and place-specific processes. This project drew on a diversity of Indigenous research methodologies and anthropological theory.
ABSTRACT
La présentation sera basée sur mes recherches de maîtrise avec la Première nation Snuneymuxw et Saysutshun (ou le parc marin provincial de Newcastle Island en Colombie-Britannique). En fin de compte, le projet soutient que ce qui se passe dans la cogestion ne peut pas être la seule façon d’avancer vers la “réconciliation” ou l’autodétermination nationale des peuples autochtones. Ce qui a été observé sur le terrain, avec des entretiens avec des citoyens snuneymuxw et beaucoup de temps passé sur l’île elle-même, c’est qu’une trop grande partie de l’accord de cogestion actuel est contrôlée par un cœur colonial. Si ces relations doivent répondre aux besoins de la nation pour atteindre l’autodétermination, il faut faire beaucoup pour transformer ce qui est au cœur de ces accords afin d’y inclure des processus indigènes et spécifiques au lieu. Ce projet s’est appuyé sur une diversité de méthodologies de recherche indigènes et de théories anthropologiques.
Traduit avec www.DeepL.com/Translator (version gratuite)
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version).
The following is preliminary content for a session at the March 9-12, 2021 Virtual Research Summit, submitted by Elizabeth Halpenny with University of Alberta.
Ce qui suit est le contenu préliminaire d’une session duSommet de Recherche Virtuel du 9 au 12 mars 2021, présenté par Elizabeth Halpenny avec Université de l’Alberta.
The Canadian Parks Collective for Innovation and Leadership (CPCIL) is excited to be part of this project
Five case studies will share and compare observations of case studies conducted in five distinct Canadian landscapes. Each case study explores the types of parks and conservation-related knowledge that are known in the region and how this knowledge is use (or not) to advance protected area goals. The cases presented will include: Tofino-Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve; Bruce Peninsula; Pinery Provincial Park; Kananaskis Valley; Beaver Hills Biosphere Reserve. Additionally, in a pan-Canadian survey conservation and park practitioners we asked respondents to describe disputes they had witnessed that arose relating to the use/non-use of science, Indigenous or local knowledge. These findings will also be shared, and compared with the case study observations.
These cases provide insight into the availability of knowledge (natural and social science, local and Indigenous knowledge) for protected area decision making and the degree to which each of these kinds of knowledge are used. Also reported on are insights about the process of knowledge creation, co-creation and sharing, as well as knowledge suppression or devaluation.
ABSTRACT
Cinq études de cas permettront de partager et de comparer les observations des études de cas menées dans cinq paysages canadiens distincts. Chaque étude de cas explore les types de parcs et les connaissances liées à la conservation qui sont connus dans la région et comment ces connaissances sont utilisées (ou non) pour faire avancer les objectifs des zones protégées. Les cas présentés comprendront : Réserve de biosphère de Tofino-Clayoquot Sound ; Péninsule Bruce ; Parc provincial Pinery ; Vallée de Kananaskis ; Réserve de biosphère de Beaver Hills. En outre, dans le cadre d’une enquête pancanadienne sur les praticiens de la conservation et des parcs, nous avons demandé aux personnes interrogées de décrire les litiges dont elles ont été témoins et qui concernent l’utilisation/la non-utilisation de la science, des connaissances indigènes ou locales. Ces résultats seront également partagés et comparés avec les observations de l’étude de cas.
Ces cas donnent un aperçu de la disponibilité des connaissances (sciences naturelles et sociales, savoirs locaux et autochtones) pour la prise de décisions concernant les zones protégées et du degré d’utilisation de chacun de ces types de connaissances. Ils donnent également des indications sur le processus de création, de co-création et de partage des connaissances, ainsi que sur la suppression ou la dévaluation des connaissances.
“Best Practices” in Collaborating with Aboriginal Communities
Canada’s park agencies have a long and diverse history of working with Aboriginal communities. One of the Council’s strategic directions is to “support agencies’ efforts to address Aboriginal interest in parks and protected areas.”
In 2000, the CPC prepared and presented to Parks Ministers a discussion paper on Aboriginal tourism in parks. This was followed-up in 2001 with Parks Canada convening a Round Table on Aboriginal Tourism.
At their fall 2006 meeting, Parks Ministers directed the Council to enhance its work on this strategic direction. In response, the Council has developed a series of “best practices” case studies profiling leading collaborative work between park agencies and aboriginal communities. This approach will help to identify recent innovations and successes, common challenges, and opportunities for shared learning.
Case study text reviewed by profiled communities to ensure their concurrence. Designed by aboriginal-owned communications company. Preface authored by Patterk Netser, Nunavut’s Minister responsible for Parks.
Les « bonnes pratiques » de collaboration avec les collectivités autochtones
Les organismes responsables des parcs au Canada ont une longue expérience de la collaboration avec les collectivités autochtones sous diverses formes. Le CCP a pour orientation stratégique, entre autres, d’appuyer les efforts déployés par les organismes pour tenir compte des intérêts des Autochtones dans les parcs et les aires protégées.
En 2000, le CCP a préparé un document de travail sur le tourisme autochtone dans les parcs, document qu’il a présenté aux ministres responsables des parcs. Parcs Canada a ensuite organisé une table ronde sur le tourisme autochtone en 2001.
Lors de leur rencontre de l’automne 2006, les ministres responsables des parcs ont demandé au Conseil d’axer ses efforts dans cette direction. En réponse, le Conseil a rassemblé une série d’études de cas mettant en évidence les « bonnes pratiques » de collaboration entre les collectivités autochtones et les organismes responsables des parcs.
Cette approche permettra de cerner de façon stratégique les innovations et les réussites récentes ainsi que les occasions d’apprentissage et les défis communs.
On a demandé aux collectivités concernées de revoir le texte des études de cas, au besoin, afin d’obtenir leur accord. Le document a été conçu par une entreprise de communication autochtone. La préface a été rédigée par Patterk Netser, ministre responsable des parcs du Nunavut.
Facing many changes and opportunities, the stories of parks and protected areas need to be shared, understood—and reconsidered—to reflect the role of parks in efforts of conservation, connection, and now Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples.
This webinar was the result of a CPCIL invitation to present the national history of parks and protected areas in Canada, while including the perspective of an Indigenous scholar reconnecting to their land and language. One of the panelists is a biologist and manager in federal protected areas, while the other an Indigenous languages advocate whose ancestors had been removed from what is now referred to as Wood Buffalo National Park. Both presenters hope to spark a meaningful conversation about the historical contexts of parks and protected areas, and the involvement and inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and their rights when co-developing parks and protected areas.
With an increased global interest in Indigenous-led conservation, the Canadian Parks Collective for Innovation and Leadership is excited to host this webinar as an overview of Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs) and Indigenous leadership in conservation in Canada. The emphasis will be on the development of an Assembly of First Nations IPCA Working Group, the Conservation Through Reconciliation Partnership and progress in Pathway to Target 1 through its IPCA working group, and how these three initiatives–in concert with others–are collaborating in support of efforts such as meeting Canada’s international conservation targets.
Panelists:
Curtis Scurr,Associate Director, Environment Sector, Assembly of First Nations, Co-Chair Pathway IPCA Working Group
Wesley Johnston,Federal Lead on IPCAs, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Co-Chair Pathway IPCA Working Group
Robin Roth,Associate Professor of Geography, Guelph University, and Co-Lead, Conservation Through Reconciliation Partnership
Nov. 15, 2018 Hosted by the Canadian Parks Research Network at the University of Alberta
Summary Notes
Indigenous knowledge should not be “academicized”
Waterton’s Indigenous name reflects glacial-time
Combine western science-thinking with Indigenous thought (to bring back free roaming bison)
Rancher opposition – worry tuberculosis will transfer to their cattle
The natural, spiritual laws of the land – Indigenous knowledge
No consultation when names were removed from parks, landscapes, and mountains
Wants signage to include both names in Waterton
Indigenous knowledge incorporates animals
Notes from Workshop Facilitator, Thomas Snow
Another common theme from today is displacement (of Indigenous Peoples from parks)
Notes from breakout session
Indigenous voices first – guiding questions limit the conversations
Brady Highway – what do the settler communities want from Indigenous communities?
To take away knowledge?
Find a place to create space for Indigenous people to lead the way in conservation
Tension between “taking away knowledge” and wanting to engage with Indigenous communities
How can a single representative from Indigenous communities speak on behalf of a large amount of people (who all have varying values and opinions)?
Comparing differences between communities is not productive
“How to make this more human for Indigenous People” – with regards to collaboration on parks management and conservation
Challenges with framing PR – ensuring information shared to the public is fair to everyone
What about revenue generation for the local Indigenous communities?
Creating a place for productive conversations to occur and facilitate these discussions – the communities will decide what is appropriate for conservation management
Nov. 15, 2018 Hosted by the Canadian Parks Research Network at the University of Alberta
Summary Notes
Rapid change – consumers demand more than is available
Trapping has now transformed into a more humane method and this is important to maintaining sustainability
People need to be more aware of the changes that will impact animals
Trappers try to understand the complexities of the environment and learn from previous experiences
Collaboration needed to manage species and ensure their continuity
Pine Lake – Wood Buffalo National Park
Set trap lines for trapping within the park – he was identified as a nuisance to parks by the park’s superintendent
Parks Canada claims his trap line interrupted hiking paths and an active beach
He was considered a commercial trapper by Parks Canada and was under surveillance. No charges
Court case with Parks Canada over dismantling of Robert’s trapping cabin, the loss of trapping opportunities and trapping equipment
Shows a mindset of the dominant society – to build bridges forward we must start off on the same path
According to Parks Canada, he is the only active trapper within the park – this shows the removal of Indigenous Peoples from the land
Attaching monetary values to trapping to manage it is not beneficial
Notes from Workshop Facilitator, Thomas Snow
How many people are aware things like this are happening?
Some policies restrict people from carrying on with their way of life (trapping, etc.)
Notes from Workshop Breakout Session
Indigenous voices first – guiding questions limit the conversations
Brady Highway – what do the settler communities want from Indigenous communities? To take away knowledge?
Find a place to create space for Indigenous people to lead the way in conservation
Tension between “taking away knowledge” and wanting to engage with Indigenous communities
How can a single representative from Indigenous communities speak on behalf of a large amount of people (who all have varying values and opinions)?
Comparing differences between communities is not productive
“How to make this more human for Indigenous People” – with regards to collaboration on parks management and conservation
Challenges with framing PR – ensuring information shared to the public is fair to everyone
What about revenue generation for the local Indigenous communities?
Creating a place for productive conversations to occur and facilitate these discussions – the communities will decide what is appropriate for conservation management
(2) ecosystem services provide services that benefit humans (such as clean air and water)
(3) includes the entire protected areas portfolio (incl. OECMs)
(1) Emerging issues (new issues being identified and not yet being addressed) and horizon issues (issues that may have impacts in 5 to 10 years) are issues that could potentially have a significant impact on the ecosystems and species we manage.
Park Leaders Development Program Participant Details
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
We need some information from you in order to ensure your experience is meaningful and inclusive.
[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Contacter le CPCIL
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Communiquez avec le CPCIL au sujet du programme du formation et de développement des dirigeants de parcs
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
La présentation d’une expression d’intérêt ne garantit pas la participation au programme de développement des dirigeants de parcs.
Des agences de CPC ont des processus internes supplémentaires pour sélectionner les participants.
Connect with CPCIL about the Park Leaders Development Program
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
This form indicates that you are interested in participating in the Park Leaders Development Program. Most CPC Agencies have additional internal processes for selecting attendees.
Submitting this form does not guarantee registration in the program, but will start a conversation with the CPCIL about the Park Leadership Development Program.
