The name Canada would come from the word Kanata, which in Huron-Iroquois – an indigenous language – means ‘the village’. The origin and the meaning of that name already sound like good omen to discuss conservation undertaken precisely by (indigenous) communities in that country. In fact, the majority, if not all forms of ICCAs that have been reviewed for the purpose of this study are related to
... [Show full abstract] indigenous groups. In Canada, they are divided between First Nations People, Métis and Inuit. There are at least 50 First Nations language groups (including dialects) spread in 11 language families.
Indigenous and other communities that play a role in conservation have only recently been introduced to the name and acronym of ICCA, to describe a concept that has been present for millennia and therefore preceded the creation of that fairly recent country. Examples used in the Canadian report are not restricted to ICCAs proclaimed by Indigenous people and communities under that specific name and acronym but rather all initiatives that would match the broad definition of such a concept (whether the ICCA acronym may have been adopted or not). The discussion around that topic being fairly recent in the country, it is still difficult to paint an accurate picture of the spatial extent it really represents as well as all communities it may include. A portion of those ICCAs may have been overlapped by more conventional forms of protected areas (such as national and provincial parks), however when they maintain characteristics that broadly define ICCAs, we included them in our inventory. It explains why some portions of them that may be included in parks and conservancies have also been included in the report.
Federal, provincial and territorial (three levels of government in Canada) respective conservation strategies have made considerable progresses since their origin in the 19th century in terms of inclusiveness of the role of local communities in the management process. From an original model that excluded indigenous communities from their own territories, we have now transitioned to a more inclusive process that opens doors to various modes of governances and tend to be based on preliminary consultation, in the case of recently state declared conservation areas. This recent trend should not prevent encouraging and promoting the existence of ICCAs in a setting completely distinct from any state conservation process.
Another report, produced by the ICCA Consortium, details the limitations in terms of legislation and policies in Canada that would support voluntary designation and protection of terrestrial and marine ICCAs on indigenous/aboriginal-owned lands/waters. However, several land claim agreements in Canada do recognize indigenous ownership of land, and therefore responsible indigenous communities could voluntarily take actions to protect their lands (e.g. the Inuit have negotiated comprehensive constitutionally protected agreements for land and self-government). Yet, even if indigenous territories are constitutionally allowed (land claim agreements), the transfer of powers to the indigenous communities remains of critical importance. The phenomenon of indigenous conservation and governance that the Indigenous Peoples’ and Community Conserved Areas and Territories (ICCAs) concept partially embodies has been well established in indigenous lands across Canada for thousands of year. Indigenous Peoples in Canada adapted to the territories that they have occupied and used since times immemorial, and developed various ways to modify and manage the natural ecosystems that they depended upon for part of their livelihoods and cultures, as well establishing social and spiritual connections with these ecosystems. Self-identity, place and cultural identity of Indigenous Peoples in Canada are strongly linked to the land upon which they rely for their livelihoods. The wide range of terrestrial and marine areas that can be considered as ICCAs in Canada requires site specific approaches to adapt solutions to local problems through learning-by-doing. ‘Packaged’ prescriptions do not work in Canada and it justifies the relevance of ICCAs that by definition are not based on a template or blue print. Long-term financial sustainability for communities is crucial for effective ICCA management.
If recognition of ICCAs is an important factor for their existence, some threats also compromise their integrity. Two types of threats are identified: external and internal. Hydroelectric megaprojects, mining, oil and gas (and associated means of transportation across territories), large scale logging, climate change and correlation of environmental and anthropogenic changes are described as external threats. Cultural realities that are often consequences of the previous list of external threats can be accounted as internal threats. For instance, the decline of ecological cultural knowledge and the loss of ability to transmit traditional culture (including languages) are two serious threats to indigenous peoples and their respective ICCAs. The last generation of elders who lived a ‘traditional life on the land’ is passing away quickly. In fact, examples used in this report demonstrate the role ICCAs play in reinvigorating traditional cultures.
This report points out key issues faced in governing and managing ICCAs. It also highlights key issues related to the recognition and support given by the government or non-governmental actors to ICCAs in Canada. At the end of this report there are a number of recommendations highlighted that could encourage recognition and support of ICCAs in Canada.