Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAS): Transformative Opportunities in Bridging Conservation and Reconciliation

Authored by: Nick Leeson  & Jacqueline Ohayon

Canada’s vast landscapes, steeped in deep and rich histories, face a pivotal juncture. Driven by Canada’s ambition to achieve its “30 by 30” [EN.1] conservation goal, lies a transformative force: Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs). More than just a designation, IPCAs are emerging as a potent catalyst for change. A force for challenging traditional conservation narratives. Here, we unearth how IPCAs are fusing Indigenous knowledge with governance, challenging conservation narratives and presenting a new bridge to ecological sustainability and reconciliation.

The Footprints of Colonialism’s Impacts and the Rise of IPCAs

Canada’s story is marred by settler colonialism and extractive capitalism. Few know this better than Indigenous nations and communities. These forces have threatened Indigenous sovereignty and disrupted the natural rhythm of their lands and waters. Yet, despite facing colonialism’s harmful impacts, Indigenous communities have maintained a strong and enduring connection to their territories, safeguarding invaluable ancestral environmental wisdom.

IPCAs symbolize a paradigm shift towards Indigenous-led governance and knowledge systems. By going beyond European-derived conservation frameworks and affirming Indigenous laws and sovereignty, IPCAs provide a crucial link between ecological sustainability and reconciliation. And this doesn’t just signify a power shift, but a holistic transformation in understanding and interacting with nature. Instead of imposing human-centric paradigms, IPCAs signify a revolution in comprehending and co-existing with the natural environment.

From Eurocentric Conservation to Indigenous-Led Guardianship

Historically, Canada’s settler colonialism and extractive capitalism have undermined Indigenous sovereignty, compromising their lands and waters. On the other hand, Crown-led conservation initiatives have, at times, further strained relations by displacing Indigenous Peoples under the banner of environmental protection. [EN.2] But despite the enduring impacts of colonialism, Indigenous Peoples and communities retain an invaluable reservoir of traditional knowledge regarding environmental guardianship, which has been passed down for millennia.

IPCAs engage directly with the knowledge and stewardship responsibilities Indigenous Peoples hold over their territories, by facilitating a deeper engagement with Indigenous laws and sovereignty. IPCAs exemplify a transition from colonial conservation towards Indigenous-led guardianship. This shift fosters the resurgence of Indigenous knowledge and governance, embodying a dynamic reassertion of Indigenous laws, cultures, languages, and livelihoods. IPCAs serve as platforms for a fundamental shift from a divisive human-nature dichotomy ingrained in colonial perspectives towards sustainable ways of living with natural environments.

Embracing the Future with IPCAs

As Canada aspires to meet its “30 by 30” conservation goal, aiming to protect 30% of its land and water by 2030, IPCAs emerge as powerful allies. They serve as more than conservation tools. They embody an avenue to honour Indigenous rights, invigorate Indigenous cultures and traditions, and promote genuine reconciliation. By rejecting colonial conservation narratives, IPCAs light the way for Canada to fulfil its ecological conservation commitments while fostering meaningful ties with Indigenous Peoples.

This transformative approach deepens our engagement with Indigenous laws, merging the goals of reconciliation and ecological sustainability. In championing IPCAs, Canada creates an opportunity to heal our relationship with both the environment and one another.

Canada’s Conservation Commitments and Project Finance for Permanence

A key mechanism that bolsters this shift is the Indigenous-led Project Finance for Permanence (PFP) initiative. PFP is a pioneering conservation funding model that combines contributions from Canadian governments, Indigenous governments and interested philanthropic organizations to ensure enduring protection for land and water ecosystems. By securing the necessary funds at the outset, PFPs deter projects from becoming underfunded or abandoned.

In December 2022, at the 15th Conference of the Parties—COP15—Canada showcased its commitment to these PFP agreements to meet its pledge to conserve at least 30% of its lands and waters by 2030. [EN.3] Key to this is the $800 million allocated in the 2023 Federal government’s budget to bolster PFP agreements, earmarked for Indigenous conservation initiatives. This signifies significant new funding to support PFP agreements to provide long-term financial support for Indigenous conservation initiatives.

These funds will support four major PFP initiatives located in Ontario, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, and British Columbia. These projects aim to protect vast land areas and coastal and inland waterways. The Federal government has already committed an initial $100 million to each of these four initiatives, aiming to bolster Indigenous-led conservation efforts and contribute to Canada’s protected area commitments for 2025 and 2030. The final allotments will be determined through dialogues with Indigenous Nations, reflecting the specific needs and goals of each initiative.

The Federal government has released key considerations that will guide negotiations for Indigenous-led PFP agreements, emphasizing that PFPs for any IPCA be regionally designed and adapted, respect Indigenous rights, and consider the unique diversity of Indigenous cultures, sovereignty, and traditions. Central to these considerations is the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) from involved Indigenous Nations, under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). These PFP initiatives aim to bring all vital partners to the negotiation table, ensuring Indigenous leadership and conservation goals are at the heart of the discussions.

These efforts highlight a reimagining of Canada’s approach to conservation that should be applauded and supported. As Canada grapples with its historical and ongoing impacts of colonialism, IPCAs emerge not only as sanctuaries of biodiversity but as arenas of rights resurgence and sovereignty affirmation. This commitment heralds a paradigm shift, weaving conservation, Indigenous rights, and reconciliation together. But as we move forward, it’s important to demystify IPCAs. In our next segment, we pull back the curtain on the structure and essence of IPCAs. Stay tuned.

A Framework for Indigenous Governance in Conservation

In 2018, an inflection point in conservation efforts was marked. The Indigenous Circle of Experts (ICE) proposed strategies for Canada to achieve the global target of protecting 17% of land and water by 2020, predominantly through establishing IPCAs.
But what are IPCAs? In the words of ICE, they are the “lands and waters where Indigenous governments take the reins, leading the protection and conservation of ecosystems through a tapestry of Indigenous laws, governance, and centuries-old knowledge systems.” [EN.4] While these areas take distinct shapes across different communities, they are united by three non-negotiable pillars:

1. they are Indigenous-led,
2. they elevate Indigenous rights and responsibilities, and
3. they are a long-term commitment to conservation.

Decoding the IPCA Framework

First, IPCAs aren’t just areas on a map. They are a recognition that Indigenous governments are central in sculpting the goals, management plans, and governance frameworks of those areas. IPCAs are shaped and governed by the Indigenous peoples and communities, who possess deep knowledge about the lands and waters and continue to fulfill their stewardship responsibilities over their territories. This approach recognizes and respects Indigenous rights and the profound connection between Indigenous Peoples and their territories. Indigenous Nations have the right to choose the lands and waters included within any IPCA. This is often done through comprehensive community planning processes. It’s more than conservation—it’s about respect, recognition, and realization of Indigenous rights.

Second, IPCAs are not a silent nod but a loud proclamation of Indigenous rights and responsibilities. They highlight the pivotal role of Indigenous laws in shaping conservation outcomes. This includes the inherent right that Indigenous Peoples derive benefits from their natural resources, coupled with the duty to protect and honour the land and water under their laws and governance.

A key part of IPCAs is that they let Indigenous governments and Crown governments work together in a way that deeply recognizes and engages with Indigenous sovereignty. In this way, IPCAs are established through the application of Indigenous law, followed by the formation of partnership agreements between Indigenous governments and Crown governments. These agreements operate on a Nation-to-Nation basis, with each party collaboratively delineating their respective roles and responsibilities. While IPCAs may sometimes be jointly designated as national parks or national wildlife areas, Indigenous governments are always central active participants and co-creators—Indigenous voices aren’t just in the room; they’re leading the conversation. This enables collaboration between Indigenous and Crown governments, reinforcing Indigenous sovereignty while achieving conservation goals.

Third, for Indigenous Peoples, conservation isn’t a project; it’s a legacy. Through IPCAs, they enshrine a multi-generational perspective, preserving their territories for posterity and honouring the wisdom of ancestors. Indigenous Peoples often govern with a multi-generational lens, conserving their territories for future generations and maintaining the duties of past generations. Embedded in Indigenous laws and governance systems is this timeless vision that binds both humans and the environment in a delicate but enduring dance. This approach, which focuses on safeguarding territories for future generations, captures the essence of Indigenous sovereignty.

Role of IPCAs in Upholding Indigenous Sovereignty

Before treaties, before borders, Indigenous Peoples have been the unwavering stewards of Turtle Island. IPCAs are not just tools but torches, illuminating the path some Indigenous governments are taking to honour the ancient laws that dictate their reciprocal relationships with every living being. Guided by Indigenous legal and knowledge systems, IPCAs aim to achieve not just ecological preservation but also sustainable livelihoods, self-determination, culture and language revitalization, and preservation of Indigenous knowledge systems. [EN.5] IPCAs, with their dual focus on social and environmental justice, are not only conserving biodiversity but are also forging harmony between protected areas and local communities. [EN.6] IPCAs uphold an Indigenous government’s authority in collaborating with their communities to determine sustainable land and water use, achieving both conservation and cultural goals. This makes sure the enduring connection between Indigenous Peoples and their ancestral territories is unbroken.

Roles of IPCAs as Tools of Rights Resurgence

More than mere areas on a map, IPCAs are arenas of resurgence. Spaces where Indigenous laws, knowledge, governance systems and cultures thrive and take center stage. There are areas guided by Indigenous epistemologies and ontologies, which inherently value the interconnectedness of all beings, both human and non-human alike. They aren’t just conservatories of biodiversity but repositories of rich histories, relationships and stories interwoven within ecosystems and between Indigenous Peoples and their traditional territories. These sacred bonds and relationships form the cornerstone of Indigenous stewardship practices and environmental management strategies.

IPCAs represent a holistic reimagining of how we approach stewardship, rights, and cultural preservation. But what challenges and opportunities lie ahead in this transformative journey?

Challenging Colonial Conservation through IPCAs

Having previously explored the structure and essence of IPCAs, it becomes even more crucial to contextualize them against the backdrop of colonial conservation practices. Understanding the divide between Western-style conservation and the approach taken under IPCAs is crucial to appreciating their profound impact on conservation practices and Indigenous sovereignty.

Historically, extractive practices and conservation efforts have often collaborated to deflect public criticism of the environmental damage caused by extractive industries. Both sectors tend to commodify natural areas for different commercial uses, whether this be through tourism or resource development. [EN.7] In this regard, both extractivism and many conservation efforts have dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of their territories for capital gain.

Conservation and Colonialism

Tracing back, conservation in the past has been used to justify colonial expansion, and has operated as a form of “conservation-via-dispossession.” [EN.8] European-derived conservation efforts, which are based on the idea of “human vs. nature,” often center on preserving “wilderness,” seen as that which is “untouched” by humans as the answer to environmental degradation.

In Canada, this often meant displacing Indigenous communities to pave the way for National Parks. [EN.9] Even today, as a recent report for the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples noted, in many state-protected areas, “Indigenous peoples are denied their rights to land and resources, self-determination and autonomy, and cultural heritage, and suffer from forced evictions, killings, physical violence and abusive prosecution.” [EN.10] The idealization of “pure” and untouched nature in Eurocentric conservation discourse, or what is referred to as “fortress style” conservation, clashes with Indigenous worldviews, effectively ignoring or seeking to erase their inherent relationships with their lands and waters. Crown-led conservation efforts that disregard Indigenous sovereignty reproduce the colonial myth of terra nullius, which was used to excuse the cultural and physical genocide of Indigenous Peoples after first contact.

Evaluating the Impact of Colonial Conservation Approaches

The effectiveness of colonial conservation approaches has been questioned. It has often led to uncertain ecological results. A 2013 study by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development highlighted significant disparities between the commitments made by Parks Canada and their actual accomplishments. The study showed that less than half of all parks were in satisfactory condition, and that ecosystem health was getting worse in 43% of the parks that were in fair condition. [EN.11] In addition, both Parks Canada and various non-governmental conservation organizations have raised concerns over the health of ecosystems within Crown-managed parks. [EN.12]

Studies show that “fortress-style” conservation can exacerbate ecological degradation and social inequality. Extractive activities often occur near park boundaries, affecting primarily Indigenous communities and other racialized minorities. [EN.13] Some critics of the Eurocentric conservation paradigm convincingly argue that relying on the same system that caused ecological degradation won’t halt it.

Understanding Diverse Indigenous Approaches to Land Relationships

It is paramount to highlight and understand there is no single pan-Indigenous approach to relationships with their lands and waters. The vast diversity of cultures and knowledge is intimately linked to the diversity of ecosystems and bioregions that different communities have been tied to for millennia. This diversity exists not only across but also within Indigenous Nations. Understanding this helps to avoid oversimplifying Indigenous cultures, which flattens complexities and reinforces harmful stereotypes.

Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Ecological Integrity

While avoiding oversimplification or generalizing Indigenous Peoples is critical, many Indigenous knowledge systems and practices prioritize the health of ecosystems as part of a holistic approach to ensure collective well-being. They form relationships with human and non-human kin, across time and space, and embody ways of cultivating reciprocity with and responsibility towards the natural environment. Indigenous law, culture, sovereignty, and livelihood are tightly bound to their territories. [EN.14]

Indigenous Governance and the Role of Guardians Programs

Guardian programs led by Indigenous communities are a modern manifestation of this two-way relationship, presenting a stark contrast to dominant European-derived concepts of conserved areas. Guardians act as stewards, guided by Indigenous knowledge and wisdom passed down through generations. They maintain the balance between the use and protection of the land.

These programs go beyond mainstream conceptions of park rangers in state-led conservation initiatives, employing Indigenous knowledge holders and community members as land stewards. Guardian programs act as vessels for revitalizing cultural practices and knowledge central to Indigenous sovereignty.

IPCAs as a Beacon of Indigenous Self-Determination

Guardian programs underline the importance of Indigenous stewardship and its centrality to cultural, linguistic, and legal resurgence. While colonial endeavours have tried to suppress and overshadow Indigenous Peoples, initiatives under the IPCA umbrella have emerged as a counter-force. They mobilize traditional knowledge towards managing ancestral territories, challenging the status quo of conservation.

IPCAs provide a compelling alternative to conventional conservation models. They challenge colonial conservation approaches and provide opportunities for the resurgence of Indigenous laws, knowledge, and cultures. They are not merely conservation initiatives but robust embodiments of the rights of Indigenous Peoples to self-determination—a testament to the rights of Indigenous Peoples to self-determine their futures. As Canada inches towards embracing IPCAs, a horizon of transformative potential unfolds.

As we focus in on their future trajectory, we ask how do they align with global conservation efforts? And what promises and challenges do they herald?

Embracing Indigenous-Led Conservation: The Promise through IPCAs

As we journeyed from the history and potential of IPCAs in our preceding sections, it’s crucial now to envision their pivotal role in our collective future. Emerging from a rich tapestry of Indigenous laws, governance, and knowledge systems, IPCAs are Indigenous-led initiatives. These initiatives, guided by an Indigenous Nation’s practices and priorities, center on protecting and conserving ecosystems, culture, and language. Rooted in Indigenous laws, governance, and knowledge systems, IPCAs are not merely conservation labels. They are dynamic frameworks echoing the heartbeat of Indigenous Peoples, resonating with their aspirations, rights, and deep connections to their lands.

Indigenous governments take the lead role in setting the goals for the area, drawing the boundaries, making the management plans, and structuring the governance for IPCAs. While external partnerships with Crown governments, environmental NGOs, and philanthropic bodies may support these acts of self-determination and enhance IPCA initiatives, the leadership of the Indigenous communities remains the axis of this wheel.

The Role of IPCAs in Reconciliation

IPCAs can provide a pathway toward reconciliation by acknowledging and confirming the inherent rights and traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples. They highlight the importance of Indigenous laws as part of Canadian federalism and legal system, calling for a level of legal pluralism that demands mutual respect and cooperation. And they promise not just protection, but the maintenance of living connections between people and the environment. IPCAs rekindle active, meaningful connections between people, places, values, and ensuing generations—a vital strategy in our rapidly changing world.

The most northerly parts of Turtle Island are already recognized as providing leadership in Indigenous-led conservation and stewardship, not just within Canada but globally. The triumph of the Thaidene Nëné IPCA in the Northwest Territories, important to several Indigenous communities, serves as an example. Protected through Dene Law and co-managed via a $30 million CAD trust fund, it won the 2020 Equator Prize for innovative, nature-based solutions for biodiversity, climate change, and development challenges. This success story exemplifies the promise that IPCAs hold and should be repeated across Turtle Island many times over.

The crucial role of IPCAs in Reconciliation can’t be overstated. They provide a path towards reconciliation by acknowledging and affirming Indigenous Peoples’ inherent rights and traditional knowledge. They not only recognize but reinvigorate Indigenous languages, cultures, and sovereignty over ancestral and unceded territories. They contribute to the unequivocal recognition of Indigenous laws by acknowledging the distinct legal order and governance structure that the Indigenous Nation possesses.

True Decolonization and the Road Ahead with IPCAs

However, properly implementing IPCAs underscores the essential truth that decolonization involves far more than symbolic gestures; it demands substantive action, collaboration, and systemic change. It’s about restructuring the relationship between the Canadian government and Indigenous Peoples, emphasizing partnership and shared responsibility rather than dominion and ownership.

The collaborative implementation and sustained support of IPCAs serve as potent tools for rectifying and redressing historical injustices. This approach aligns with the goals of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the requirement for Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). The Canadian government has a legal obligation to ensure that IPCAs fully respect and uphold these international standards. [EN.15]

Given this context, the evolution and acceptance of IPCAs set a course for transformative change. IPCAs symbolize not just an alternative approach to conservation, but a more inclusive, equitable, and sustainable vision for our shared future. More, they’re not merely a conservation tool, but a beacon guiding us towards a more reconciled, respectful, and responsible relationship with our natural world and with one another.

Navigating the Future: The Imperative of Collective Commitment

The emergence of IPCAs marks a critical moment in Canada’s journey toward reconciliation and sustainable conservation. We must all play our part in amplifying their momentum and championing these significant initiatives. By doing so, we contribute to a collective future that acknowledges past injustices, honours Indigenous rights and knowledge, and aims for environmental and social well-being.

Canadian governments and conservation organizations should prioritize Indigenous-led conservation. This includes providing adequate funding, opportunities for capacity-building, and legal frameworks that recognize Indigenous jurisdiction and decision-making authority. A collective approach that invites federal departments, philanthropic organizations, and Indigenous communities to work together could magnify the benefits of initiatives like PFP, which unite partners to finance locally designed conservation systems that support not just ecological health but also Indigenous economies.

The Canadian government and conservation organizations must commit to Indigenous-led conservation as we navigate this critical juncture. This will involve providing adequate funding, capacity-building opportunities, and legal frameworks recognizing Indigenous jurisdiction and decision-making authority. The potential benefits are vast, including new job creation, workforce training and skill development investments, educational opportunities, support for new local businesses, and significant infrastructure investments.

IPCAs hold the potential to herald not just a future of conservation, but a horizon where healing, community growth, education, and reconciliation merge. By working together in a way that respects and promotes Indigenous laws and rights, we can better protect our land, waters and future together. We can raise hundreds of millions of dollars for existing and new protected areas, land use plans, Indigenous Guardian programs, and diversify our economy in a way that provides support for healing and wellness, community capacity, training, and education, while furthering reconciliation. The promise of IPCAs lies in the transformative impact they can have on our collective future—a future where Indigenous wisdom and sovereignty guide our shared stewardship of the land.

Endnotes:

1. ECCC. 2023-07-27. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/nature-legacy/about/project-finance-for-permanence.html
2. For a multitude of examples, see: Jago, R. (2020), Canada’s National Parks are Colonial Crime Scenes, The Walrus, available at: https://thewalrus.ca/canadas-national-parks-are-colonial-crime-scenes/ ; Hamilton, G. (2017), The shady past of Parks Canada: Forced out, Indigenous peoples are forging a comeback, National post, available at: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-shady-past-of-parks-canada-forced-out-indigenous-people-are-forging-a-comeback
3. Zimonjic, P (2022), Trudeau announces $800M for Indigenous-led conservation initiatives, CBC News, available at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/indigenous-conservation-protetion-cree-inuit-firstnations-1.6677350
4. ICE Report (2018), available at: https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.852966/publication.html
5. Carroll, C. (2014), “Native enclosures: Tribal national parks and the progressive politics of environmental stewardship in Indian Country”, Geoforum, Volume 53, p. 31-40 ; ICE Report (2018); Murray, G. and King, L. (2012), “First Nations Values in Protected Area Governance: Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks and Pacific Rim National Park Reserve”, Human Ecology, Volume 40, p. 385-395.
6. Artelle, K. et al. (2019), “Supporting resurgent Indigenous-led governance: A nascent mechanism for just and effective conservation”, Biological Conservation, Volume 2, p. 204.
7. Büscher, B. and Davidov, V. (2013), “The ecotourism-extraction nexus: Political economies and rural realities of (un)comfortable bedfellows”, Routledge, doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203384855; Norris, T. (2017), “Shared Social License: Mining and Conservation in the Peruvian Andes”, Antipode, Volume 49(3), p. 721-741 ; Seagle, C. (2012), “Inverting the impact: Mining, conservation and sustainability claims near the Rio Tinto/QMM ilmenite mine in Southeast Madagascar”, Journal of Peasant Studies, Volume 39(2), p. 447-477.
8. Murdock, E. (2021), “Conserving Dispossession? A Genealogical Account of the Colonial Roots of Western Conservation”, Ethics, Policy & Environment, Volume 24(3), p. 235-249.
9. Truer, D. (2021), Return the National Parks to the Tribes, The Atlantic, available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/05/return-the-national-parks-to-the-tribes/618395/
10. Tzay, J. (2002), Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, p. 7.
11. Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2013
12. CPAWS, 2012; Parks Canada, 2019
13. Roth, R. (2008), “”Fixing” the Forest: The Spatiality of Conservation Conflict in Thailand”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Volume 98(2), p. 373-391; West, P. (2006), “Conservation is our Government Now: The Politics of Ecology in Papua New Guinea”, New Ecologies for the Twenty-First Century.
14. FAO and FILAC (2021); Oldekop et al. (2016), “A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas”, Conservation Viology, Volume 30(1), p. 133-141.; Schuster et al. (2019), “Vertebrate biodiversity on indigenous-managed lands in Australia, Brazil, and Canada quals that in protected areas”, Environmental Science and Policy, Volume 101, p. 1-6.; Yellowhead Institute (2019).
15. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, SC 2021, c.14.