Canada and aichi biodiversity target 11: Understanding ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ in the context of the broader target.

Canada and Aichi biodiversity target 11: Understanding ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ in the context of the broader targets

MacKinnon, D., Lemieux, C. J., Beazley, K., Woodley, S., Helie, R., Perron, J., Elliott, J., Haas, C., Langlois, J., Lazaruk, H., Beechey, T., & Gray, P.

First Published Mar, 2021

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-1018-1

A renewed global agenda to address biodiversity loss was sanctioned by adoption of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets in 2010 by Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. However, Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 contained a significant policy and reporting challenge, conceding that both protected areas (PAs) and ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ (OEABCMs) could be used to meet national targets of protecting 17 and 10 % of terrestrial and marine areas, respectively. We report on a consensus-based approach used to (1) operationalize OEABCMs in the Canadian context and (2) develop a decision-screening tool to assess sites for inclusion in Canada’s Aichi Target 11 commitment. Participants in workshops determined that for OEABCMs to be effective, they must share a core set of traits with PAs, consistent with the intent of Target 11. (1) Criteria for inclusion of OEABCMs in the Target 11 commitment should be consistent with the overall intent of PAs, with the exception that they may be governed by regimes not previously recognized by reporting agencies. (2) These areas should have an expressed objective to conserve nature, be long-term, generate effective nature conservation outcomes, and have governance regimes that ensure effective management. A decision-screening tool was developed that can reduce the risk that areas with limited conservation value are included in national accounting. The findings are relevant to jurisdictions where the debate on what can count is distracting Parties to the Convention from reaching conservation goals.

Citation Details

MacKinnon, D., Lemieux, C. J., Beazley, K., Woodley, S., Helie, R., Perron, J., Elliott, J., Haas, C., Langlois, J., Lazaruk, H., Beechey, T., & Gray, P. (2015). Canada and aichi biodiversity target 11: Understanding ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ in the context of the broader target. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(14), 3559-3581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-1018-1

d10030254

About Open Access Peer Reviewed Resources

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the original published site.

Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas Video

Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas summary video YouTube

External Resource

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.

Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas summary video YouTube
Go to YouTube video.

Red Sky Performance: REDTalks

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. 

Wapikoni: Canadian Indigenous Film, Music & Workshops

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.

Towards Reconciliation: 10 Calls to Action to Natural Scientists Working In Canadian Protected Areas

The above was presented at the March 9-12, 2021 Virtual Research Summit.

Ce qui précède a été présenté au Sommet de Recherche Virtuel du 9 au 12 mars 2021.

The following is preliminary content for a session at the March 9-12, 2021 Virtual Research Summit, submitted by Carmen Wong with Parks Canada, and Elder Mary Jane Gùdia) Johnson or Kluane First Nation. Click on the image below to see the full presentation.

Ce qui suit est le contenu préliminaire d’une session du Sommet de Recherche Virtuel du 9 au 12 mars 2021, présenté par Carmen Wong avec Parcs Canada, et l’aînée Mary Jane (Gùdia) Johnson ou la Première nation Kluane. Cliquez sur l’image ci-dessous pour voir la présentation complète.

Click to see full presentation.
Click to see full presentation.

ABSTRACT

(French below)

Many protected areas in Canada were created by the expulsion of Indigenous peoples from their traditional homelands. This history drives a need for reconciliation in all aspects of the management of protected areas. Here we reimagine how research could be conducted in Canadian protected areas by drawing on our recently published paper outlining 10 Calls to Action to natural scientists to enable reconciliation in Canada. This paper was written by an unique group of co-authors representing Indigenous and western science perspectives and fuelled by our critical review of the research field activities we have observed in northern Canada. Two co-authors, an Elder from Kluane First Nation and an ecologist for Parks Canada will present together the 10 Calls to Action and their specific implications for research and management activities in protected areas. Both co-authors have/are worked/working for Parks Canada and have been involved with the permitting process for research for over a decade in Kluane National Park and Reserve which is cooperatively managed with Kluane First Nation and Champagne and Aishihik First Nations. Original paper available online here: https://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2020-0005

ABSTRACT

De nombreuses zones protégées au Canada ont été créées par l’expulsion des peuples indigènes de leurs terres traditionnelles. Cette histoire entraîne un besoin de réconciliation dans tous les aspects de la gestion des zones protégées. Nous imaginons ici comment la recherche pourrait être menée dans les zones protégées du Canada en nous appuyant sur notre document récemment publié, qui présente 10 appels à l’action adressés à des spécialistes des sciences naturelles pour permettre la réconciliation au Canada. Ce document a été rédigé par un groupe unique de co-auteurs représentant les perspectives des autochtones et de la science occidentale et alimenté par notre examen critique des activités de recherche sur le terrain que nous avons observées dans le nord du Canada. Deux co-auteurs, un aîné de la Première nation de Kluane et un écologiste de Parcs Canada, présenteront ensemble les 10 appels à l’action et leurs implications spécifiques pour les activités de recherche et de gestion dans les zones protégées. Les deux co-auteurs ont travaillé/travaillent pour Parcs Canada et ont été impliqués dans le processus d’autorisation des recherches depuis plus de dix ans dans le parc national et la réserve de Kluane, qui est géré en coopération avec la Première nation de Kluane et les Premières nations de Champagne et de Aishihik. L’article original est disponible en ligne ici : https://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2020-0005

Re-Centering the Sacred in Relationship to Co-Management and Parks

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 du Sommet 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).

Back to pre-summit material.

Retour à la matériel de pré-sommet.

Algonquin Aki Sibi Indigenous Protected Area Project

The above was presented at the March 9-12, 2021 Virtual Research Summit.

Ce qui précède a été présenté au Sommet de Recherche Virtuel du 9 au 12 mars 2021.


The following was an ePoster/eMedia submission to the March 9-12, 2021 Virtual Research Summit by Kebaowek First Nation and Rosanne Van Schie of University of Toronto. Click on the video below to view.

Voici une présentation ePoster/eMedia au Sommet de Recherche Virtuel du 9 au 12 mars 2021 par Kebaowek First Nation et Rosanne Van Schie avec l’Université Toronto. Cliquez sur la vidéo ci-dessous pour la visualiser.

ABSTRACT

(Lisez la version française ci-dessous.)

Beginning in June 2019 the Algonquin Aki Sibi Project is an effort to conserve and promote Algonquin traditional ecological knowledge via land and waterway Aki-Sibi community conservation projects. These projects are led by seven partner Algonquin communities Kebaowek, Mitchikinibikok-Inik Barriere Lake, Winneway- Long Point, Kichisakik, Wolf Lake, Kitigan Zibi and Temiskaming The Aki Sibi Protected Area vision is for a network of Algonquin Protected and Conservation Areas and other effective conservation measures (OECMs) that are shaped by the participating communities’ individual cultures and characters, offering a variety of landscapes and values to meet this national challenge.

ABSTRACT

A partir de juin 2019, le projet Algonquin Aki Sibi est un effort pour conserver et promouvoir les connaissances écologiques traditionnelles des Algonquins par le biais de projets de conservation des terres et des voies navigables de la communauté Aki-Sibi. Ces projets sont menés par sept communautés algonquines partenaires : Kebaowek, Mitchikinibikok-Inik Barriere Lake, Winneway- Long Point, Kichisakik, Wolf Lake, Kitigan Zibi et Temiskaming La vision de la zone protégée d’Aki Sibi est celle d’un réseau de zones protégées et de conservation algonquines et d’autres mesures de conservation efficaces (OECM) qui sont façonnées par les cultures et les caractères individuels des communautés participantes, offrant une variété de paysages et de valeurs pour relever ce défi national.

Go back to eMedia presentations.

Retournez aux présentations eMedia.

Ninna Piiksii – Mike Bruised Head, “Obtaining Indigenous Knowledge: Really Knowing From Place”

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

Robert Grandjambe, “Observations from the Land: Insights from 27 Years of Trapping, Hunting and Fishing on the Alberta Landscape”

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

Dr. Leroy Littlebear – “Big Thinking and Rethinking: Blackfoot Metaphysics Working in the Wings, Reflections by a Blackfoot”

Nov. 15, 2018
Hosted by the Canadian Parks Research Network at the University of Alberta

Summary

  • How does the foundational basis of actions become established?
    • How are these foundations articulated?
    • Can they be articulated?
  • Science, within Western society, has been seen as one of these unquestionable foundations—a form of analyzing that assumes objectivity—however, the authority of science can be questioned and many Indigenous ways of knowing challenge the authority of objective science
  • Land may be seen as a source of metaphysics
    • The paradigms of a society are shaped by interactions with the land. The paradigms then determine the beliefs, behaviours and relationships of the society, so then the metaphysics of societies are determined.
  • Language is a tool of metaphysics. The nature and structure of language create a loop where forms of knowing are both created and reinforced through the form of a language
    • Language itself can be colonizing
    • What are the ways in which language (or other manifestations of knowledge and culture) shape individuals?
    • The structuring of both Western mentality and language create the apparent need for an ‘other’
  • Land’s relationship to metaphysics ties land to identity and culture
  • Place is a determinant of identity
  • Ensoulment: a foundation of human psychology
  • Ex. Axiology of Blackfoot Culture:
    • In science: Time and space being the same, non-locality, Higgs particle, special dimensions,
    • In economics: sustainability
    • In psychology: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (holistic approach rather than hierarchical?)
    • In law: oral histories
    • Relationships: Dealing with complexity
  • Current practice continues to reproduce Western metaphysics of practice formed centuries ago.
  • Demonstrates the clear need for a transition to a new application of knowledges, axiology, and metaphysics

Comments from Workshop Facilitator, Thomas Snow

  • Cannot have Indigenous knowledge without Indigenous people
    • The knowledge has been gained throughout thousands of years
    • Often people will try to take shortcuts to incorporate the knowledge, but they need to build a relationship first
  • Example: Tom often dealt with entry-level parks people who had no training with regards to Treaty 6. He would have to step in to provide them with crucial information

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