Cultural Keystone Species Series Part 1: Introduction to the Cultural Keystone Species Blog Series
By Monica Shore, IISAAK OLAM Foundation and Benjamin Green-Stacey, Assembly of First Nations’ Environment Sector
February 28, 2022
What to Expect
This blog series intends to share some reflections and learnings about Indigenous perspectives on species conservation, present frameworks that embody these perspectives, and discuss why Indigenous worldviews and approaches to “conservation” (a word that does not often translate directly to Indigenous languages) should be given equal space in Canadian policy.
Acknowledging the intimate connection between species and place, this blog also presents Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs) as an approach and tool for achieving greater biodiversity outcomes. Blog entries were the chosen format for this series because they were conceived as online spaces for reflection and knowledge sharing.
Authors of the blog series feature members of the Conservation Through Reconciliation Partnership’s (CRP) Biocultural Indicators and Outcomes Stream. At a recent meeting, we had an engaging conversation — and many questions — about the different ways of understanding, looking at, and interpreting the relationships between species. The terms we discussed included Species at Risk (SAR) and Cultural Keystone Species and Places (CKSP). Both terms include the word “species,” but as you’ll see in this series, these terms carry with them distinct worldviews about species conservation.
The series begins here with some introductory context about the international and national frameworks that guide conservation and species-related legislation and policies in Canada. We also discuss some of the commitments to reconciliation made by the federal government, as well as several initiatives that aim to decolonize approaches to conservation and species management.
Our intention is to share our learnings with respect, uphold Indigenous worldviews, present information in Ethical Space without making judgments about different approaches and perspectives, and highlight some of the nuances that exist. We hope that it inspires greater dialogue and gives readers a chance to reflect on their own views and questions.
An image of wild blueberries, a cultural keystone species. (Photo credit: Jessica Lukawieckie)
Dominating Frameworks
Species at risk legislation in Canada was adopted to implement national commitments made in the international sphere at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1993. The CBD is the first global agreement to address the conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources*
We have chosen to use the language and wording from the CBD text, mindful that this type of extractive language does not represent a worldview of connectedness, reciprocity, and respect for nature that is often expressed by Indigenous Peoples.
The CBD is also the first UN Convention to explicitly reference Indigenous Peoples within its text and to recognize the role Indigenous Peoples play in achieving the convention’s objectives. Articles 8(j), 10(c), and 18(4) specifically highlight the importance of applying traditional knowledge, innovations, practices, and technologies to conservation, and direct parties to protect Indigenous Peoples’ customary sustainable use of biodiversity.
Canada adopted the Species at Risk Act (SARA) in 2002 following significant engagement and input from Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous organizations. SARA deals exclusively with species in imminent danger of becoming greatly diminished or extinct and is meant to enable the recovery of endangered and threatened species as well as species of special concern. As such, it is very different from resource management acts, like the Fisheries Act, designed for managing species with stable populations.
SARA recognizes the critical role of Indigenous Peoples in the administration and implementation of the act in three key ways:
1. By legislating the establishment of a national Indigenous advisory committee to the Minister of Environment on the implementation and administration of the act. This advisory committee is called the National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk (NACOSAR);
2. By legislating that the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), which is responsible for making listing recommendations to the Minister, must consider Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge when conducting species assessments;
3. By enabling the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada to enter into conservation agreements, including for species not at risk, with “any government in Canada” for the purposes of monitoring species, implementing management plans, conducting research, protecting habitat, and / or raising public awareness about a species. The inclusion of this language is significant. It enables federal bilateral agreements with Indigenous governments (including potentially non-Indian Act governments) that do not require provincial or territorial approval, as would be the case under agreements for these activities under the Canadian Wildlife Act.
Despite these seemingly robust mechanisms for Indigenous Peoples to influence the implementation of SARA, when Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) developed the Pan-Canadian Approach to Species at Risk Management (Pan-Canadian Approach) in 2018 – a national framework for collaboration and cooperation in protecting priority places, priority species and addressing priority threats – it was designed entirely without the input of First Nations. Consequently, the strategy is dominated by Western science, knowledge systems, and worldviews.
Crown Commitments to Reconciliation
The Government of Canada has made numerous commitments to reconciliation, from adopting the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action (2015) to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (2021). In practice, within the conservation sector, some of these commitments have taken shape through the creation of the Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area (IPCA) designation in 2018. It can be argued that without Indigenous leadership or IPCA-type initiatives, Canada will not meet its biodiversity conservation targets of 25% protection by 2025 and 30% by 2030.
There is still a long way to go in decolonizing existing policies, legislation, approaches and knowledge systems within the conservation sector and beyond. This gap is very apparent in the way that species continue to be viewed and managed federally, provincially, and territorially.
Steps Toward Decolonization
Knowing the above context, what are the steps to decolonizing conservation in Canada? This is one of the questions being explored through the Conservation through Reconciliation Partnership, an Indigenous-led initiative whose three host partners are the IISAAK OLAM Foundation, the Indigenous Leadership Initiative, and the University of Guelph. There are many right answers and many perspectives, and it takes working together across Nations, governments, cultures, and sectors to make meaningful change. This is why this initiative focuses on partnerships, and strives to create momentum for, and bring collective energy to, the 28 recommendations of the Indigenous Circle of Experts’ report, We Rise Together.
Furthermore, how do we make space for Indigenous worldviews, values, approaches, and perspectives within existing policies and frameworks such as SARA and the Pan-Canadian Approach? What are the recommendations we need to make to federal agencies responsible for implementing and adapting these legal instruments?
These were some of the questions asked during the national First Nations Species at Risk Dialogues, co-hosted by the IISAAK OLAM Foundation and the Assembly of First Nations’ Environment Sector in March of 2021. These dialogues created a virtual space for First Nations (harvesters, Elders, Knowledge Keepers, Guardians, community stewards, species at risk technicians and youth) to share their perspectives and approaches to species protection and conservation. The graphic recordings by Nuu-chah-nulth artist and facilitator Kelly Foxcroft-Poirier of White Raven Consulting illustrate many of the themes that emerged from those introductory dialogues. Key themes are reflected in the illustrations below:
Read Part 2
Part 2 of this blog series is dedicated to understanding what is meant by Cultural Keystone Species (CKS), and why and how this concept differs from Species at Risk (SAR) in theory and practice.
If you have any questions about this topic, feel free to email species@iisaakolam.ca and we’ll do our best to address your questions in future blogs within the series.