ArticlePublisher preview available

Setting Tiered Management Triggers using a Values-based Approach in an Indigenous-led Cumulative Effects Management System

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract and Figures

Indigenous-led cumulative effects assessment and management (CEM) has emerged in recent years as a proactive and strategic approach for addressing the cumulative impacts of industrial development and other activities. CEM identifies and monitors high-priority values and stressors and develops management strategies to restore and improve the condition of those values. As Indigenous-led CEM evolves, it faces a major challenge in linking cumulative effects assessment and monitoring information to effective management actions. One promising approach to address this challenge is the use of tiered management triggers, which are a series of progressive markers associated with specified degrees of change in the condition of a value, designed to reflect increasing levels of concern about the value. These types of limits or thresholds inform decision-makers that they need to act, or act more intensively, to restore values to an acceptable state. In this paper, we present a novel method for setting tiered management triggers that was developed in an Indigenous-led CEM program. We co-developed this six-step method with the Metlakatla First Nation (located on the northwest coast of British Columbia, Canada) and applied it in a series of community workshops to select triggers for three values in the Metlakatla CEM Program: butter clams, housing, and food, social, and ceremonial activity. The method draws from participatory frameworks including structured decision-making and collaborative planning. The workshop results show that management triggers can successfully be established through a values-focused process of social choice, involving community engagement and informed by relevant scientific research and other knowledge.
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Environmental Management
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-024-02075-0
Setting Tiered Management Triggers using a Values-based Approach
in an Indigenous-led Cumulative Effects Management System
Katerina Kwon 1Tom Gunton2Murray Rutherford1Taylor Zeeg3
Received: 31 August 2024 / Accepted: 17 October 2024
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2024
Abstract
Indigenous-led cumulative effects assessment and management (CEM) has emerged in recent years as a proactive and
strategic approach for addressing the cumulative impacts of industrial development and other activities. CEM identies and
monitors high-priority values and stressors and develops management strategies to restore and improve the condition of
those values. As Indigenous-led CEM evolves, it faces a major challenge in linking cumulative effects assessment and
monitoring information to effective management actions. One promising approach to address this challenge is the use of
tiered management triggers, which are a series of progressive markers associated with specied degrees of change in the
condition of a value, designed to reect increasing levels of concern about the value. These types of limits or thresholds
inform decision-makers that they need to act, or act more intensively, to restore values to an acceptable state. In this paper,
we present a novel method for setting tiered management triggers that was developed in an Indigenous-led CEM program.
We co-developed this six-step method with the Metlakatla First Nation (located on the northwest coast of British Columbia,
Canada) and applied it in a series of community workshops to select triggers for three values in the Metlakatla CEM
Program: butter clams, housing, and food, social, and ceremonial activity. The method draws from participatory frameworks
including structured decision-making and collaborative planning. The workshop results show that management triggers can
successfully be established through a values-focused process of social choice, involving community engagement and
informed by relevant scientic research and other knowledge.
Keywords Cumulative effects Cumulative effects assessment and management Management triggers Thresholds
Indigenous planning Structured decision making
Introduction
Many Indigenous peoples have experienced rst-hand an
accumulation of adverse changes to their environment and
well-being arising from industrial projects and other
development activities (Adams et al. 2023; Lawe et al.
2005). In response, Indigenous groups are leading the
development of innovative cumulative effects management
(CEM) programs to manage the effects of past, present, and
future policies, projects, and activities (Che and Hickey
2021; Davies et al. 2020). CEM is an approach for
addressing cumulative effects that identies and monitors
high-priority values and stressors and connects that infor-
mation to action plans and decision-making (Clogg et al.
2017; Noble 2013). In Indigenous-led CEM, monitoring
and management strategies are designed by Indigenous
people to support their own stewardship and decision-
making and to inuence natural resource decisions made by
other levels of government. Some notable examples of
Indigenous-led or Indigenous-driven CEM in Canada
include the Metlakatla CEM Program (Metlakatla Stew-
ardship Society 2019), Tsleil-Waututh CEM Initiative
(Tsleil-Waututh Nation 2022), and the Northwest Terri-
tories Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program (Govern-
ment of Northwest Territories 2021).
Indigenous-led CEM programs have been lauded for
their innovative and holistic approaches to cumulative
effects assessment and management (Indigenous Centre for
*Katerina Kwon
katerina_kwon@sfu.ca
1School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon
Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6,
Canada
2Resource and Environmental Planning Program, Simon Fraser
University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6,
Canada
3Tributary Project Services Ltd, Whitehorse, YT, Canada
1234567890();,:
1234567890();,:
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
To achieve better biodiversity outcomes and match local governance capacity, cumulative effects assessment frameworks that combine Indigenous and western knowledge to predict future development impacts on biodiversity are needed. We developed a spatial future‐focused model informed by inclusive elicitation and strategic foresight to assess the regional cumulative effects of development on ecosystem health across the land and sea. We collaborated with three First Nations on the Central Coast of British Columbia, Canada, enabling Indigenous priorities, knowledge and values to drive the process, from the choice of priority ecosystem components (including salmon, herring, seabirds and bears), to identifying future development scenarios (based on forestry, energy/mining, tourism and salmon aquaculture sectors). Bayesian networks were populated with empirical data and expert judgement elicited from knowledge holders to predict the cumulative effects of current and future pressures on species and ecosystems. Under current conditions, the lowest probability of persistence was predicted for Pacific salmon (37%), followed by Pacific herring (43%). Under future conditions, the greatest declines in species health were associated with the intense development of mining, tourism and forestry, with up to a 54% decline from the current baseline health estimates predicted for Marbled Murrelets and old‐growth forest. Future outcomes for overall ecosystem health were predicted to be worst in scenarios with high future forestry activities (>60% decline in some areas). The continuation or development of all four industries resulted in an 8% decline overall in ecosystem health across the Central Coast. In contrast, predicted ecosystem health in the tourism economy scenario increased up to 15% in some marine areas, primarily driven by the removal of salmon aquaculture and forestry activities. Synthesis and applications. Our study demonstrates an inclusive, regional approach to assessing the cumulative effects of future development on coastal species. The novel participatory tools and predictive framework draw upon and interweave multiple forms of knowledge, enabling Indigenous values to drive the process, and appropriately integrate Indigenous knowledge into regional cumulative effects assessment. Our interactive web application provides First Nations partners access to all outputs, supporting Indigenous‐led governance and in situ ecosystem‐based management of their lands and water.
Article
Full-text available
Conservation practitioners commonly work together in management teams, contributing expertise to the planning and decision‐making associated with threatened species management. These groups may include individuals with different perspectives around if, when and how to implement management. Yet, rarely do we consider the value of discussion in shaping these perspectives, and thus management. Decision triggers can be used to formalise decisions around management and encourage teams to explore these decisions proactively. Previous research has identified how individual experts set decision triggers but there are no accepted approaches for capturing the expertise that exists across management teams when setting decision triggers. To address this gap, we developed an approach to formalise team deliberations about when and how to intervene if a decline in the condition of a threatened species were to be observed. Using a modified Delphi process, individual experts within a threatened species management team were asked to independently set trigger points and assign actions for the species. Then, as a group, experts discussed anonymised responses, enabling us to understand how group dynamics influenced the decision‐making process. Experts had the opportunity to update their responses based on the group discussion, providing a rationale to support their decisions. We tested the approach with experts from teams managing threatened species across conservation organisations in Australia and New Zealand. We found that experts often updated their responses to incorporate issues raised by the group, demonstrating a willingness to integrate the perspectives of other team members. Experts tended to become more cautious after discussing their responses, setting additional trigger points and actions, and triggering actions sooner. Synthesis and applications: Our approach provides a structured process to formally integrate the range of perspectives and experience of groups of experts when setting trigger points and actions. This can help to address common biases that arise during unstructured decision‐making, and ensure decision‐making processes are transparent.
Article
Full-text available
Quantifying and managing the cumulative effects of human activities on coastal and marine environments is among the foremost challenges in enabling sustainable development in the twenty-first century. As the speed with which these environments are changing increases, there is greater impetus to resolve the evident problems facing governance systems responsible for managing cumulative impacts. Policymakers and regulators recognise the need to assess and manage cumulative effects, as evidenced by widespread legislation requiring cumulative effects assessment (CEA). Yet there is ample evidence that we are not turning the tide in terms of balancing good environmental health with increasing demands of already degraded coastal and marine spaces that are increasingly impacted by climate change. This paper reviews the current state of knowledge regarding scientific and practical advances in CEA, assesses whether these advances are being applied in decision-making and identifies where challenges to implementation exist. Priority research questions are formulated to accelerate the inclusion of effective CEA in marine and coastal planning and management.
Article
Full-text available
The cumulative impacts of human activities and natural disturbance are leading to loss and extinction of species, ecological communities and biocultural connections people have to those ecosystems. Exclusive and extractive western science methodologies often hinder the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge holders in cumulative effects assessments (CEAs), which can lead to regional conflict and ineffective assessment and management of cumulative effects. We offer our reflections on the development of a collaborative CEA process with the Kitasoo Xai'xais, Nuxalk and Wuikinuxv First Nations in what is now known as the Central Coast of British Columbia. We designed our CEA around the guiding principles of respecting Indigenous sovereignty and regional autonomy, designing for trauma‐informed approaches, and prioritizing inclusivity and reciprocity. We focused our efforts on identifying current and future pressures on species of the Nations' choice. We relied on expert elicitation and data‐driven approaches to identify and map current and future cumulative impacts to predict their consequences for species' health. We used combinations of visualizations, numerical, oral and written materials to convey, elicit and share complex information with experts. We found a diversity of elicitation processes fostered the involvement of a variety of experts (e.g. Indigenous knowledge holders and Nation staff, regional biologists, Crown managers, tenure holders). We mapped over 90+ impacts to species in the region and after conversation and facilitated elicitation processes with over 50 knowledge holders, emerged with predictions for the consequences of seven plausible scenarios of future cumulative impacts for eight species as well as broad themes for the management of cumulative impacts to the lands and waters of the Nations with whom we collaborated. Our shared lessons can support researchers, planners, proponents, and Indigenous and colonial government agencies to conduct inclusive, collaborative and accessible CEAs that inform regional land and marine use planning. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
Article
Full-text available
The cumulative effects of human stressors are threatening marine ecosystems. While spatial management tools such as marine conservation areas can help mitigate cumulative effects, several decision-making challenges remain. A limited availability of information and lack of knowledge, inconsistent management approaches, and ineffective consideration of social-ecological interactions hinders current cumulative effects assessment and management efforts. We examined if and how ocean managers assess cumulative effects and incorporate them into their management practices. A survey of the three Canadian federal departments responsible for marine conservation areas was conducted, and focused on the extent to which social and economic factors are considered. Managers seemed to favor ecological factors over social and economic ones when evaluating cumulative effects, such as when defining the spatial and temporal scales to use in their assessments. Managers also indicated a need for greater access to social and economic data and information to improve their assessment and management decisions. Lastly, the lack of a standardized cumulative effects assessment framework and fragmented management approaches appeared to limit managers’ ability to adequately incorporate social and economic factors into assessments. The survey results indicated that a cumulative effects assessment framework that explicitly includes social and economic factors in addition to an enhanced understanding of the suite of factors that influence social-ecological interactions should be developed. This type of framework is essential to help achieve the long-term management solutions required to conserve the health and integrity of Canada's oceans and beyond.
Article
Full-text available
Cumulative effects assessments are often expected to include an analysis of cumulative social effects to people, their communities, and livelihoods caused by resource development projects and land use activities. Understanding cumulative social effects is important for decisions about prospective resource development projects, but there has been limited attention devoted to how to complete such an assessment. This paper critically examines how cumulative effects frameworks are applied to social impacts during environmental assessments. We do this by analyzing semi-structured interviews exploring practitioner experience in environmental assessments for hydroelectric development in British Columbia and Manitoba, Canada. The results provide a conceptual framework for cumulative social effects and illustrate how identified challenges for cumulative effects assessment are exacerbated by social impacts that introduce additional complexities in impact identification, assessment, and decision-making. The paper concludes with a discussion of how these challenges can be addressed and recommendations for improving environmental assessment practice.
Article
Full-text available
Download Link: https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1egxDiZ5t92ci ---- Legal challenges have played an important role in shaping the practices and policies of impact assessment (IA) for more than half a century. Early cases provided the impetus to the development of initial approaches upon which conventional cumulative effects assessment and management (CEAM) frameworks are based. Outcomes of these challenges, when examined from IA perspectives such as CEAM, often serve as important learning opportunities for jurisdictions updating policies and practices in addition to those considering (or needing to undergo) a paradigm shift. Failures and consequences identified therein and the associated implications provide important insights for both decision-makers and those adversely affected. This paper examines the Yahey v. British Columbia (2021) legal decision by a Canadian court that concluded British Columbia's provincial government failed to implement a credible CEAM framework and protect the cultural sustainability of Indigenous peoples. The paper summarises the deficiencies and consequences of the provincial CEAM framework based on the analysis that the court provided in its reasons for decision. These are followed by a critical viewpoint of the current practices concerning the key implications associated with the legal requisite to integrate the cultural ways of life into CEAM and IA more broadly. This discussion combines the extant literature with the findings and conclusions of the court. Each tier (i.e., policy, plan, programme, project) of environmental decision-making contributed to these failures, which makes the decision the most critical analysis and a potentially trans-formative ruling for project and regional assessments that involve Indigenous peoples.