AS WE MOVE AHEAD TOGETHER:

FOREGROUNDING RECONCILIATION AND RENEWED FIRST NATIONS/NON-ABORIGINAL RELATIONS IN

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH -
AN EXAMINATION OF THE SPECIES AT RISK CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY SCENARIO IN
SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO

by

Zoe Katherine Dalton

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy

Department of Geography
University of Toronto

© Copyright by Zoe Katherine Dalton, 2010

 AS WE MOVE AHEAD TOGETHER:
FOREGROUNDING RECONCILIATION AND RENEWED FIRST NATIONS/NON-ABORIGINAL RELATIONS IN
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH -
AN EXAMINATION OF THE SPECIES AT RISK CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY SCENARIO IN
SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO

Zoe Katherine Dalton

Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Geography
University of Toronto
2010

ABSTRACT

The research project upon which this dissertation is based focused on enhancing

understandings of the nature of current First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in environmental

management. The project was undertaken as a collaborative initiative by the author, a non-

Aboriginal doctoral researcher, in partnership with Walpole Island First Nation. The research

served as an opportunity for co-producing knowledge on this subject across cultures and

worldviews, and as an effort to build towards our shared aspiration of learning how distinct, yet

inextricably linked, First Nations/non-Aboriginal understandings, approaches and worldviews

can come together within a context of mutual respect and mutual benefit. The purpose of the

research was to investigate the existence and types of issues leading to First Nations/non-

Aboriginal tensions in environmental management, to analyze and unpack underlying causes of

challenges identified via the research, and to construct avenues for relationship improvement.

The research project was grounded in a specific investigation into relations in species at risk

conservation and recovery in southern Ontario, Canada. The resulting dissertation is structured

around three primary focal areas: 1) investigating and exposing colonial influences at play in

Canada‟s Species at Risk Act, and offering a new model for co-governance in this arena and

beyond; 2) investigating relations surrounding efforts towards traditional ecological knowledge

(TEK) transfer in species at risk work, with a focus on exploring issues identified in relation to

ii
intellectual imperialism; and 3) introducing and characterizing an original, reconceptualized

approach to First Nations/non-Aboriginal relationships in academic research; this approach

focused on ways in which investigatory practice can become a means of working towards

broader reconciliation goals. Research findings from this dissertation indicate that colonial

factors, often unevenly visible to actors involved in environmental management and research,

continue to strongly affect the potential for positive, productive First Nations/non-Aboriginal

relations in these spheres - including within the species at risk conservation and recovery arena

examined here. Project results provide insight into the nature of the factors influencing

relationships, as well as potential avenues for addressing the vitality of colonialism in

contemporary relations and overcoming the influences on First Nations and on First

Nations/non-Aboriginal relationships.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project would not have been possible without the generosity, openness and faith of the
Walpole Island First Nation (WIFN) community, my collaborating partner from the very
beginning of this initiative. I would like to thank all those who received me with such trust and
welcoming warmth. As an outsider arriving in the community purporting to want to do good - a
suspicious entry in a First Nations context – the reception shown me could have been vastly
different. The trust and goodwill that people demonstrated is a testament to a vision so
obviously embedded in this community: a vision for living and working together as two separate,
but linked, cultures in mutual respect and benefit.

I have to extend particular gratitude to the three individuals with whom I worked directly
throughout this project: Clint Jacobs for his unfailing friendship and encouragement, unending
commitment to this project, and constant faith in its possibilities; Aimee Johnson for her
straightforwardness and honesty regarding the issues central to this project, and her
companionship in sharing project findings; and Dean Jacobs for believing in this project from the
beginning, mentoring me along the way, and – despite his many worldly accomplishments – his
warmth towards me always. These individuals have made this project rewarding beyond
description, and their always ready ear, faith in me and the project have meant never a moment
of flagging motivation during my experience as a researcher in the community.

I would also like to thank other individuals from WIFN who contributed great depth and meaning
to this project, and to my experiences in it: Bryan Loucks, whose thoughtfulness and ongoing
contributions to the project inspired, gratified and illuminated; Mike Williams, who generously
shared his personal and professional experiences related to this project in a way that so
effectively tied together for me the inter-linkages between the many issues at play in the
research; Naomi and Eugene Williams, who brought to light some of the core issues at the heart
of this project, which on my own I would have left unexplored; Anika Altiman, for sharing the
warmth of her home and family with me and my son, and for sharing in such gentle ways such
profound truths; Moose (Jerome) Isaac for his consistent friendship and insights, and for sharing
his beautiful work; Ashley Shipman and Buddy Riley for inspiring me to look to the young for
visions of the future; Chris Riley, for emphasizing the centrality of language in approaches to
caring for the land and relating to others, and for inspiring in me a better understanding of and
wish to support revitalization efforts; Louis Johnson for treating me with such warmth, and for
his always ready „good job Zoe‟ after community presentations; Summer Sands for „saying it like
it is‟- for the bravery to express what needs to be said, and for always communicating with me
with such kindness and friendship; Dave White for sharing his deep knowledge and experience,
despite any real knowledge of me as an outsider or my commitments; Brenda Wheat, Elaine
Jacobs and Ralph Jones (and again Louis Johnson) for sharing their experiences of the
subjects at hand from childhood on, giving historical depth to a topic otherwise explored
primarily in the contemporary context; Marcia Peters, for taking time out of mothering her new
infant to share her knowledge and understanding of what makes for good relationships; Kennon
Johnson, for highlighting areas still requiring research, including ways in which community
approaches to caring for species at risk differ from conventional state and scientific approaches;
and Myrna Kicknosway for joining me for lunch after a 5 am start to the day to so thoughtfully
express some of the key shortcomings in current approaches to working with First Nations. To
Teresa Altiman, my B&B hostess with the mostest, and the always cheery and friendly staff at
the Heritage Centre (Tylor, Cam, Olivia, Norma and the rest of the gang): you always made my
visits to the community the highlight of this project.

iv
From communities outside of Walpole, I‟d like to thank Darren Jacobs, Paul General, Rod
Whitlow, Dave Mowat, Rick Beaver, and Dan Longboat for sharing such depth of experience
and such inspiring visions for what may be.

To the many representatives of non-Aboriginal conservation groups, organizations, agencies

and institutions with whom I spoke during the research: your openness, candid sharing and
generosity with your time were invaluable to this project. Better understanding the positions and
understandings of people in your roles was critical in clarifying the nature of and bases for on-
the-ground interactions between individuals from First Nations communities and groups such as
those you‟re associated with – and for grounding proposed new ways of interacting in
environmental management in everyday experience.

It goes without saying that Deb McGregor, my PhD supervisor, has been a central part of
making this project successful. Throughout our years of working together, she has remained an
unfailingly true guide, never hesitating to set me straight when I needed it, always deepening my
understanding of where I needed to turn next - yet never discouraging me, and always keeping
up my motivation. Despite her humility, her guidance always sent me in the right direction, in
both the academic and community spheres, and I know and appreciate the rarity of one
individual being able to provide all this. It is her guidance that opened doors for me to being able
to work in the community context, that enabled me to put my foot in my mouth a minimum
number of times, that allowed me to share understandings deepened and inspired in so many
ways by hers, and, as her student, to travel to conferences and various communities with a
degree of credibility as a result of the admiration she has inspired in others. Despite her
unbelievably busy life outside of academia, there was never a time that Deb was not there for
me when I needed her. Thanks, Deb, for being the guide I truly needed, and yet for also having
the faith in me to figure things out on my own.

My PhD committee: Kathi Wilson, Tenley Conway, Virginia Maclaren – you too have guided me
in ways most necessary, yet always with such friendliness and encouragement that I have been
lucky enough to brag about the loveliness of my committee. I know that your influence helped to
make my life as a doctoral student one full of richness and security – an experience not all are
as lucky to have.

To Margaret Brigham, WIFN community member and former U of T professor: although we only
worked together for a short time, your insight, encouragement, humour and ability to teach such
harsh truths while inspiring such hope has remained with me always. I am grateful for our short
time together, and very much hope for more opportunities to learn together in the future.

For the financial support central to making this project feasible, I would like to extend my
gratitude to the Department of Geography, SGS (U of T‟s School of Graduate Studies), and
SSHRC (Canada‟s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council).

To my mother, Jane – for your support and inspiration to undertake this academic journey in the
first place - thank you, and much, much love.

More than anyone, my husband, the love of my life, deserves gratitude for the support he
provided throughout this project. It was he who experienced and heard the gritty details of all the
ups as well as downs bound to occur in four years of doctoral work. He always supported me
regardless of the hardships experienced as a result: fathering our newly-weaned and mommy-
missing son with love and tenderness as I went off to conferences, research trips and meetings
with project contributors. He has been there for me through thick and thin, made this project

v
possible when in another family my responsibilities at home may well have precluded anything
of this sort and, although I couldn‟t love him any more than I already do, thinking of the tireless
support he provided reminds me of just how lucky I am. Thank you, Hamilcar. And to my little
son, Joaquim: an endless gratitude to you for giving up your beloved companion so that I could
pursue something I so believe in. You are my angel. May any goodness from this project help
make the world a little better for you and those with whom you share it.

In a project of this scope and duration, many more individuals than those listed here were part
of contributing to its success; to all those left unnamed here, I would like to express my sincere
thanks.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iv
List of tables viii
List of figures ix
List of appendices x
List of commonly-used acronyms xi

Chapter 1: Dissertation Introduction 1

Chapter 2: First Nations and Canada’s Species at Risk Act: Moving Towards Co-Shaping
the Species at Risk Agenda 28

Chapter 3: Contextualizing Divergence: Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Species at

Risk, and First Nations/non-Aboriginal Relationships in Environmental Management

67

Chapter 4: Adding Layers, Building Linkages: Non-Aboriginal Contributions to Model-

Building, and Steps towards Achieving the Ideal
101

Chapter 5: Your Sincerity, Your Mind, a Little Bit of Yourself: In Pursuit of Reconciliation
Research 114

Chapter 6: Dissertation Conclusion

154

Literature Cited 166

Appendices 181

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: Characteristics of Reconciliation Research 117

Table 4.2: Lessons from the Community: Insufficiencies in Conventional Research 124

Table 4.3: Lessons from the Community: Trends to Counter and New Ways to Work Together
127

Table 4.4: Lessons from the Community: Community Benefit is an Essential Outcome of
Research 135

Table 4.5: Lessons from the Community: Relationships, Trust and Communication Matter to
People 140

viii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Location of Walpole Island First Nation 13

Figure 2.1: Predominant relationship scenario within SARA processes 47

Figure 2.2: SARA processes in a co-governance context 49

Figure 2.3: Schematic of predominant, mismatched scales of interactions in SARA processes

55

Figure 2.4: Schematic of improved SARA governance structure 57

ix
LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Interview Guide – Representatives from the Non-Aboriginal Restoration Community

182

Appendix 2: Interview Guide – First Nations Community Leaders in Ecosystem Recovery,

Collaboration Topics 183

Appendix 3: Interview Guide – First Nations Community Members, Ecosystem Degradation and
Recovery Topics 185

Appendix 4: Focus Group Discussion Guide – First Nations Community Members, Collaboration
Topics 187

x
LIST OF COMMONLY-USED ACRONYMS

WIFN: Walpole Island First Nation

SARA: Species at Risk Act
SAR: Species at risk
TEK: Traditional Ecological Knowledge
ATK: Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge
COSEWIC: Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

xi
 CHAPTER 1

Dissertation Introduction

Authored by Zoe Dalton, in collaboration with Walpole Island Heritage Centre (community
supervisors: Clint Jacobs and Aimee Johnson)

Backgrounder

First Nations throughout Canada1 are asserting their historical and constitutional rights to

play central roles in environmental management, and are increasingly requiring full and

meaningful involvement in environmental research. Calls for central involvement in both of these

spheres are expressed as being rooted in aspirations of self-determination, a commitment to

enhancing opportunities for cultural survival and recovery, the pursuit of recognition of rights to

manage the land and to tenure of the land, and a desire to be able to continue fulfilling

responsibilities to care for „the environment‟ (Atleo, 2006; Cajete, 1999 a and b; Good Striker,

1996; Lambert and Lorelie, 1999; Manuelito, 2004; McGregor, 2004 a and b; Nelson, 2005;

Ransom and Ettenger, 2001; Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996; Schnarch, 2004;

Stevenson, 1999; Wavey, 1993).

However, a generalized lack of understanding of, and lack of attention to, First Nations

perspectives continues to be identified, and both Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars are

highlighting the need to decolonize relations with indigenous peoples in environmental

management and research (Adams and Mulligan, 2003; Mander, 2006; Nadasdy, 2005;

Stevenson, 2006). This need is felt equally strongly in geographical thought and activity as in

other areas in these domains, particularly given that the discipline is identified as being

1
Various terms are used throughout this dissertation. The term „Aboriginal Peoples‟ is used to refer to the original
peoples of Canada. Legally, this is divided into three groups: „Indians‟, Inuit, and Metis. Many prefer the term „First
Nations‟ to „Indian‟ and the former is used in this work; however, the latter, outdated misnomer – frequently
considered offensive - is still the legal term in use in Canada. First Nations are considered to be those First Peoples
in Canada who are not Inuit or Metis (National Aboriginal Health Association, 2003).

1
historically complicit in perpetuating colonial relationships with Indigenous peoples (Johnson et

al., 2007); geography and can therefore be understood to be a field with a “compromised

genealogy” (Howitt, 2001, 150) from which careful and thoughtful emergence is necessary. The

continued “whiteness” of the discipline has been critiqued as further compromising the field‟s

contemporary capacity for dealing appropriately with cross-cultural issues (Pulido, 2002).

In the Canadian context, environmental management is currently characterized as being

based on “systemic inequities” (Assembly of First Nations, 2005a, 1), in which First Nations‟

interests and concerns are routinely ignored or are simply not understood, and in which calls for

shared control in environmental decision-making processes are rarely addressed (Nelson, 2005;

Stevenson, 2006; The Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty #3, 1997; The Anishinabek/Ontario

Resource Management Council, 2003). Such a scenario is seen as resulting in inertia regarding

creating space for central roles for First Nations actors in environmental management, and a

continued lack of opportunities for co-governance2 in this sphere. In its turn, environmental

research has been implicated in reproducing colonial First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations (and

thus precluding co-governance), and too commonly leading to negative results for First Nations

communities and individuals on both discursive and material levels (Fletcher, 2003; Johnson et

al., 2007; Maneulito, 2004; Shaw et al., 2006).

Findings from this dissertation project (focused on the species at risk conservation

scenario in southern Ontario) affirm that the interests and understandings of dominant society

remain the central subject onto which First Nations considerations may be appended in

environmental management and research, largely at the discretion of non-Aboriginal agents.

Governance in environmental management frameworks such as Canada‟s Species at Risk Act

2
Note regarding terminology: several terms are used in this dissertation to refer to a context of shared decision-
making in First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations. Co-leadership is used to denote shared decision-making or
leadership bases to relations in small scale interactions (e.g. the research initiative described in Chapter 5). Co-
governance, and sometimes shared governance, are terms used to denote broad-scale, shared direction and decision-
making bases at the highest levels of engagement. See page 7 for further clarification and elaboration with respect to
terminology.

2
(SARA), as well as conventional understandings of who controls research processes and

products, appear to remain foundationally premised on Eurocentric understandings of the

environment and the investigatory sphere, and a colonial approach to interacting with Aboriginal

peoples.

This is not to say that progress is not being made. Gains have been achieved, for

example, within SARA and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in terms of a now

mandated need to seek out and consider Aboriginal environmental knowledge; new openings

for Aboriginal involvement have come into existence in other national and regional

environmental management initiatives as well3. Within the research sphere, new funding

requirements for academic research have evolved to be more attuned than in the past to First

Nations priorities (e.g. the updated Tri-Council policy in Canada). On the ground community

efforts are also raising research standards. In many cases, communities now require formal

agreements with outside researchers; alternatively, when necessary, communities are making

powerful statements about new research requirements by simply disengaging from initiatives

that don‟t meet community-determined ethics and equitability standards. Times are changing,

and opportunities and recognitions that didn‟t exist twenty years ago are increasingly being

recognized as new standards in practice.

3
The Haida Nation and the Government of Canada have, since 1993, been involved in formal agreements centered
on sharing governance in the management of Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve and Haida Heritage Site, despite
unresolved issues of land title. The agreement, equal federal/First Nation representation in protected site governance
and the resulting cooperative relationship have led to successful ecological conservation, while simultaneously
addressing the Haida Nation‟s political and cultural priorities (Parks Canada, 2010a and b). The Coastal First
Nations Turning Point Initiative provides another - albeit more recent, as well as provincially rather than federally-
based - example of a government-to-government environmental initiative. In this arrangement, a number of Coastal
First Nations and the province of British Columbia collaboratively make decisions regarding management of
relevant coastal ecosystems (Turning Point Initiative Coastal First Nations, n.d. a). The arrangement has been hailed
by First Nations, environmental groups, private environmental funders and government actors as uniquely capable
of addressing ecological, cultural, political and economic issues in the region (Turning Point Initiative Coastal First
Nations, n.d. b). These two examples represent rare instances in which such governance models have been
implemented, as indicated in the dissertation. However, each of these cases provides an example of the possibility of
shared governance in environmental management - the focus of recommendations from this dissertation - as well as
the capacity for such arrangements to simultaneously contribute to the achievement of ecological objectives and
improved First Nations/state relations.

3
 However, research - including that shared in this dissertation - suggests that openings

for meaningful involvement for First Nations in environmental research and management are

still very much moving targets. Full cooperation and involvement in decision-making -

involvement of a type capable of contributing to reconciling tarnished First Nations/non-

Aboriginal histories in Canada with a future of renewed relations: these goals appear to still be

achieved only rarely.

It appears that inequities and exclusion from decision-making structures - antithetical to

First Nations‟ aspirations of self-determination, restoration of jurisdiction and recognized

sovereignty - remain common to many mainstream attempts to include First Nations peoples

and their ecological understandings in environmental management and research. As discussed

in this dissertation, a dominant society conceptualization of „inclusion‟ of First Nations people in

species at risk work appears to complicate and almost invisibly, but actively, preclude First

Nations from playing key roles in decision-making processes or participating in co-shaping

management or research policies and agendas. By enabling disaffiliation with colonial

influences, „inclusion‟ can open powerful new spaces for a normalized reproduction and

reification of colonial relationships and the loss of an opportunity to contribute to reconciliation4

and renewed First Nations/non-Aboriginal relationships.

Thus, in species at risk work in southern Ontario - as in many other areas of

environmental management and research - opportunities for meaningful involvement as defined

by communities remain limited. So while progress has certainly been made in recent decades in

4
Reconciliation can be defined in a number of ways. In this dissertation, the predominant usage of the term refers in
a general sense to regaining relationships of trust, friendship and mutual benefit between Aboriginal and non-
Aboriginal peoples. In the Canadian discursive context, however, reconciliation has come to be associated with
specific usages of the term in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996), as well as in Canadian case law.
In the former instance, new treaty-making processes are proposed throughout Volume 2, Chapter 2 as a means of
justly and honourably reconciling Aboriginal rights and interests with those of non-Aboriginal people in Canada. In
the latter case, a series of Supreme Court of Canada rulings have been influential in defining the meaning and scope
of reconciliation, particularly within the context of acknowledged and protected Aboriginal and treaty rights under
Section 35 of the Constitution Act, and in relation to Crown sovereignty (see Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor on Metis and Non-Status Indians, 2009 for a list of relevant case
law; and Wilson, 2009 for detailed analysis and contextualization of this legal framework).

4
terms of increased openings for Aboriginal involvement in environmental management and

research, much more remains necessary to ensure that meaningful involvement is achieved –

involvement constituted not by merely consultative or advisory status as currently predominates,

but rather involvement in which First Nations play active, direct roles in decision-making

structures. This is the repeated call from First Nations across Canada on fronts ranging from

health to economics to education to environment and research: Acknowledging and addressing

First Nations‟ primary targets of self-determination and recognized sovereignty are a necessity if

reconciliation and renewed relations – in addition to revitalization aspirations - are to be

achieved (e.g. Assembly of First Nations, 2005a and b.; 2005; First Nations Centre, 2007;

National Aboriginal Health Organization, 2007; Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996;

Williams and Steward, 1992). Reconciliation simply cannot occur if openings for First Nations in

environmental management and research continue to be merely carved out of governance

structures still shaped and directed by dominant society (Assembly of First Nations, 2005b).

Consultative and advisory openings for First Nations need to be understood as residing in a

deeply-rooted adherence to and still vital colonial narrative; this narrative continues to centralize

- in terms of validation, valuation and perception of moral right - the authority of western vs. First

Nations peoples, and is irreconcilable with renewing relations of friendship, trust and mutual

benefit.

Issues of governance and the ongoing vitality of colonial relations are thus key to

findings and recommendations from this research. Attention is paid throughout the dissertation

to the need for more equitable power structures in environmental management frameworks

such as SARA, and in environmental research initiatives. These issues are explored specifically

via an investigation into three related topics: the species at risk conservation and recovery

framework under SARA (addressed in Chapter 2); the exchange of Traditional Ecological

Knowledge (TEK) within this framework (covered in Chapter 3); and research involving

intersections between First Nations and non-Aboriginal actors (see Chapter 5).

5
 The project investigated these topics via a case study approach, focussing primarily on

one particular endangered ecosystem5 with associated at-risk species in the contested terrains

of southern Ontario. Both First Nations and non-Aboriginal perspectives regarding the nature of

current relationships in this conservation scenario are explored. In Chapters 2 and 5, First

Nations voices - rarely or only minimally heard within the subject areas covered in these

chapters - are foregrounded. Chapters 3 and 4 additionally highlight non-Aboriginal

conservationists‟ perspectives; this combination of voices provides greater comprehensiveness

in investigating and analyzing topics covered in the dissertation.

Contribution of Dissertation to the Literature

While a significant body of literature exists on First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in

environmental management and research in general, very little work on this topic pertains to the

southern Ontario context, a dearth of research exists on relations surrounding species at risk

conservation specifically, and there exists, to my knowledge, no scholarly investigation into

species at risk and related First Nations/non-Aboriginal relationships in this region. This

dissertation thus fills gaps in the literature in both its geographical focus and its contribution to a

still nascent body of research in the area of First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in species at

risk conservation and recovery.

The dissertation provides a unique analytical window into the topics explored here in two

other significant ways as well. Firstly, this dissertation research occurred within a collaborative

academic/First Nation community framework. As a result, knowledge production was

foundationally shaped and directly informed by both community and academic sources, a still

uncommon occurrence in research involving intersections between academics and First Nations.

Secondly, as noted above, this project deliberately foregrounds First Nations voices: Direct

5
The name of the ecosystem at the basis of this case study is not being used in the dissertation to contribute to the
maintenance of non-Aboriginal participants‟ anonymity. Some of these actors expressed concern regarding privacy
given the small number of individuals working on species at risk conservation in this ecosystem in this region.

6
quotes from First Nations project contributors represent the framework around which much of

the work in the dissertation is structured and from which grounded analysis emerged during the

research process. Given that opportunities to directly hear and learn from First Nations voices in

the academic literature are limited, this dissertation provides a rare opportunity to benefit from

insights shared by those experiencing first-hand subjects frequently addressed in abstraction

and isolation by non-Aboriginal academics.

This dissertation is also unique in its provision of two novel strategies for guiding inter-

cultural work in environmental management and research:

1. The first of these is what is referred to here as a co-governance model: an approach

to decision-making based on shared First Nations/non-Aboriginal governance. Discussed and

elaborated upon in Chapter 2, the model addresses First Nations calls for recognition of rights to

and responsibilities for a central role in environmental management, as well as for recognition of

rights to shared governance in decision-making in Canada more broadly. However, the model

also addresses issues raised by non-Aboriginal theorists and participants in this dissertation

research, and was constructed in collaboration between myself – a non-Aboriginal academic –

and a First Nation community. Thus, the model is unique in comparison to, for example, the

Two-Row Wampum Belt 6 or the One Dish, One Spoon Treaty 7 in that it is not a solely

Indigenous model, but rather one co-developed as a result of a convergence of First Nations

and non-Aboriginal understandings of environmental management and relations within this

sphere, and one in which implementation of the model requires the cooperation, commitment

and resources of both parties.

6
The Two-Row Wampum Belt is a 1664 Haudenosaunee Treaty based on principles of friendship, equality, and
mutual respect (Bird, 2002; Erasmus, 1989). Conceptually, the Belt depicts two vessels sharing one river; these
vessels, or nations, move in parallel to one another in common purpose, but as distinct nations with recognized
sovereignty. The Two-Row, or Kaswentha‟ (Ransom and Ettenger, 2001), was intended to clarify Haudenosaunee
expectations regarding relations with European nations
7
This early-1700s peace treaty between the Haudenosaunee and Anishinaabe in the Lake Ontario region was based
on a conceptualization of honourable relations being premised on all who shared the lands and waters doing so
responsibly, equally and equitably (Blair, 2008).

7
 The model also differs from conceptual strategies offered by theorists such as

Stevenson (2005 and 2006) and Berkes (e.g. 1994, 1997 and 1999). In the examples cited, the

models for engagement offered by these authors– while articulating the need to include

Aboriginal people vs. solely Aboriginal knowledge in engagements in environmental

management - centralize knowledge and knowledge sharing as the core issue of relevance,

particularly within specific contexts: forest management in the former case and co-management

arrangements in the latter. In contrast, the model offered in this dissertation privileges people,

relationships and power distribution as the central issues around which all others revolve. It is

posited here that centralizing the concept of governance allows for recognizing and addressing

calls from Aboriginal people that extend far beyond demands for incorporation of traditional

knowledge, emphasized in the cited Stevenson and Berkes conceptualizations8. The model in

this dissertation privileges shared decision-making and power-sharing as the core issues that

need to be addressed in order to improve inter-cultural relations on a fundamental level; using

such a construct, topics beyond knowledge-sharing alone can be addressed – topics as diverse

as the legal rights of First Nations to participate in decision-making, the ongoing relevance of

original agreements between the Crown and Aboriginal peoples, the meaning of conservation

and sustainability in diverse cultural contexts, varying understandings of the roles and

responsibilities of human communities in achieving these ends, and joint directions we can take

to achieve these ends together.

It is also important, in this discussion of what is and is not constitutive of co-governance,

to distinguish this concept from its near homophone „co-management‟. The latter is a

commonly-used term referring to formalized agreements between the state and Aboriginal (or

8
Berkes‟ more recent work (e.g. 2009, 1692) continues to centralize knowledge as the core issue, referring to co-
management as “a knowledge partnership”, and emphasizing other factors, including “building trust, [and] resolving
conflict” as means of facilitating “generation and mobilization of knowledge…[and allowing] for the interaction of
these different kinds of knowledge [i.e. traditional knowledge and western science]”. Stevenson‟s recent work (e.g.
Stevenson and Natcher, 2009) more explicitly centralizes Aboriginal rights, needs and interests in Aboriginal/non-
Aboriginal engagement, in the area of Canadian forestry.

8
other) people – usually constituted by some level of joint management arrangement surrounding

a defined geographical area and a particular resource issue (Berkes and Henley, 1997;

Nadasdy, 2005; Pomeroy and Berkes, 1997). Co-governance shares with co-management the

premise that cooperation on environmental issues leads to better environmental outcomes, as

well as to a greater chance that the needs of those directly impacted by a management decision

will be appropriately addressed (e.g. Nadasdy, 2005). However, the construct of co-governance

broadens the scope beyond that typified in co-management - arrangements whose existence

frequently depend on claims to specific land bases, or resource-specific issues. Co-governance

moves beyond particularized geographies and issue-specific agreements towards normalized

co-decision-making surrounding environmental issues across the board, and at the highest

levels9. Thus co-governance – consistently-applied, shared direction of environmental decision-

making - takes into account more effectively than co-management the broad basis of Aboriginal

calls for central involvement in this sphere and the de facto partnership agreements sanctified in

original agreements between the Crown and Aboriginal peoples (e.g. the Royal Proclamation of

1763 and treaties, with their nation-to-nation10 bases).

2. The second strategy provided in the dissertation is an original construct termed here

„reconciliation research‟: an approach to investigatory initiatives premised on working directly

9
Other work has been done which looks at new forms of engagement in environmental management, notably Peggy
Smith‟s work in the area of forestry (2007). The primary distinction being drawn here is that the construct of co-
governance as used in this dissertation extends beyond single environmental or resource management areas such as
forestry – as well as the topic area explored in this dissertation: species at risk conservation and recovery.
10
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996, Volume 2, chapter 3) discusses the use of the term „nation‟
in the Canadian context, in which it is utilized in reference to both a „band‟ under the Indian Act (preferably and
more respectfully referred to as a First Nation community), as well as to a nation of people with a shared collective
identity - which could encompass multiple communities. It is acknowledged that the particular conceptualization
used in discussions surrounding governance is significant; in this dissertation, the particular body referenced by the
term „nation‟ could influence the scope of, potential for and outcome of co-governance scenarios. However, within
the Canadian context – in which the existence of the Indian Act and ongoing colonial implications are current
realities - working towards nationhood as encompassed in RCAP‟s broader definition of the term brings with it a
great deal of inherent complexity, and resulting lack of clarity in many cases in terms of logistical implementation,
at least in the immediate term (National Centre for First Nations Governance, 2008). As such, use of the term
Aboriginal „nation‟ was not circumscribed in this dissertation, instead being left open and inclusive, focused on the
fundamental reality of Aboriginal nations‟ rights in a governance context - however Aboriginal peoples ultimately
come to define the concept of nationhood.

9
with communities on their self-defined priorities, and with the aim of contributing to broader calls

for reconciliation and renewed First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations. As discussed in Chapter 5,

where reconciliation research as an investigatory method is characterized and unpacked, this

approach offers a strategy for engagement between researchers and communities distinct from

decolonizing, deconstructive methodologies, and from community-based participatory action

approaches: Reconciliation research centralizes construction and renewed Indigenous/non-

Indigenous relations as core aims, and offers specific avenues for researchers to take to

contribute to achieving such aims.

In grounding this research, relevant theoretical insights were drawn from a wide range of

Indigenous, social science and natural science bodies of knowledge rather than one particular

disciplinary base. However, the research is specifically geographical in nature in several

respects. Firstly, the project addresses some of the fundamental goals of the field of geography:

understanding relationships between people and place, and understanding inter-group relations

centered on place. Secondly, as mentioned above, the project is unique in its geographical

focus. Finally, with both Indigenous peoples and critical geographers providing increasingly

strong critiques of the field‟s interactions with First Peoples (e.g. Braun, 1997; Collignon, 2004;

Hodge and Lester, 2006; Howitt, 2001; Johnson, 2007; Shaw et al., 2006), the project

represents an opportunity to better understand how to improve engagement between First

Nations and those positioned within the field of geography.

Methodological Approach to Dissertation Research

Research goals and objectives:

This project was initiated in order to gain insight into First Nations/non-Aboriginal

relations in environmental management surrounding species at risk (SAR) protection and

recovery in southern Ontario. As a model development initiative, the aim was to use the insights

gained to develop a proposal for a relationship context capable of allowing for more productive,

10
mutually beneficial interactions between First Nations communities and actors within the non-

Aboriginal conservation community. The ultimate goal of the research - to effect positive change

in the area of environmental management – was originally conceptualized as being framed by

the following guiding research question: what constitutes decolonized environmental

management, and (how) can it be developed? However, as the research process progressed

and First Nations community priorities began to be understood in different terms, the nature of

the research question shifted subtly, yet fundamentally. Research foci moved from centralizing a

deconstructionist, decolonizing aim to one of „construction‟, better captured by the following

question: what constitutes environmental management capable of contributing to reconciliation

and renewed relations, and how can it be developed? The framing of this question in

constructive rather than deconstructive terms is significant, as is the removal of the brackets

around the word „how‟; this latter decision stemmed from an enhanced understanding of the

necessity for such development, rather than viewing as an appropriate project goal merely an

academic or intellectual exploration of “if” such were possible, as was implied in the original

question.

In more specific terms, project objectives revolved around exploring ways in which First

Nations community members and non-Aboriginal conservationists envisioned the possibility for

and development of an approach to species at risk management capable of: 1) supporting First

Nations goals of self-determination and cultural survival and recovery; 2) effecting better

conservation; and 3) building towards reconciliation and renewed First Nations/non-Aboriginal

relations.

An additional objective of the project was, as indicated above, the development of the

model itself, which emerged from themes and principles drawn from the research material, and

was developed out of insights shared by the various contributors to this project. The model

proposes an approach to species at risk conservation based on co-governance. As explored in

greater depth in Chapter 2, this proposed governance structure would allow for enhanced

11
fulfillment of ecological recovery objectives, while simultaneously addressing calls from First

Nations regarding rights to and the need for centrality in environmental decision-making.

However, as discussed in Chapters 4 and 6, the model also contributes to addressing issues

raised by non-Aboriginal participants, many of whom communicated that they wished to be

involved in this research initiative specifically to gain clarity on what was lacking in current

relations and how to move ahead to a model that would facilitate First Nations engagement in

mainstream conservation initiatives and allow for productive relations. A variety of efforts have

been and continue to be made with respect to facilitating improved relations by disseminating

research findings, including the proposed model, to First Nations communities and non-

Aboriginal conservation groups (see footnote 19).

Overview of and Rationale for Research Partnership

Given the goals and objectives of this dissertation research, the project‟s structure

centered on exploring the topical issues introduced earlier from the perspective of a variety of

First Nations environmental professionals and community members as well as non-Aboriginal

conservation scientists and environmental professionals. However, my direct partner throughout

this research initiative has from the beginning and continues to be Walpole Island Heritage

Centre11, the research arm of Walpole Island First Nation (WIFN)12 (See Figure 1.1). Conceived

11
Efforts were made early in the project to establish a formal research relationship with a second community in
addition to WIFN. Largely due to the community‟s capacity issues, however, a formal research partnership was not
possible. Individual-based contributions from several members of this community took the place of full
collaboration.
12
While in many ways the Walpole Island Heritage Centre can be considered an independent research centre within
Walpole Island First Nation, it is directly influenced by and linked to the community and the community‟s
administration for direction and re-direction of Centre goals, projects and priorities (see
http://www.bkejwanong.com/about.html for further background). This governance approach means that, while my
relationship with the broader Walpole Island First Nation community during this project was mediated by the
Heritage Centre, the initiative can be considered to be community-based in that this body grounds its work in efforts
to reflect the values and priorities of the broader community. Communication, review and approval mechanisms
utilized throughout the project (standard Heritage Centre practice for work with collaborating researchers, and
described in both this Chapter and Chapter 5) helped to ensure that the project remained community-based
throughout its duration.

12
from the outset as a collaborative partnership, our relationship in this project has always been

rooted in co-leading and co-directing all aspects of the research.

Early development of the project drew heavily on insights and approaches from

community-based, participatory action research (PAR and the broader community-based

research - CBR - umbrella under which it falls); these approaches share a common principle

that research is not carried out on, but rather by, for or with communities (Belanger, 2003;

Fletcher, 2003). Throughout the project, both my partners and myself have adhered to the

principle that „the process is the methodology‟ (Kovach, 2005; Rice, 2003), and that a central

goal of research must be to produce knowledge that can directly contribute to making

constructive change (Austin, 2004; Schnarch, 2004).

A community-based, participatory

action research approach premised on

working with and for the community was

seen originally as an appropriate

theoretical base for this project. However,

Chapter 5 addresses the ways in which,

while these early emphases influenced

research directions, shifts in

understandings and foci during this

investigatory initiative resulted ultimately

in greater project emphases on

Indigenous-specific constructs, Figure 1.1: Location of Walpole Island

First Nation
approaches and priorities. Regardless of

such shifts in understandings and foci, however, the project remained centralized on actively

contributing to the renewal of positive First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations. From this vantage

point, it was considered essential to create openings for academic research to support First

13
Nations self-determination and for rebuilding community/researcher trust within a context in

which many First Nations people express a sense of being „researched to death‟ (Belanger,

2003; Schnarch, 2004).

Sharing direction of all aspects of the research project has meant that my WIFN

research partners and I - as the contributing academic researcher – shaped the research

process collaboratively, from developing and focusing the research questions and the project‟s

design through to determining the most appropriate means of sharing research findings.

Continuous communication, reporting and feedback – common weak points in research

involving First Nations (Schnarch, 2004) - have been key elements in the ongoing research

development process (see Chapter 5 for a description of some of the communication means

used in the project).

In order to ensure the type of co-governance within our project indicated via both our

research commitments and findings from the project, WIFN has not only always maintained a

role of co-leadership in the research, but has from the beginning been considered the owner of

„data‟ gained from research carried out within the community. As such, the community has

ultimate veto power over the research initiative in terms of both research processes and

products (Couzos et al., 2005; Piquemal, 2003; Potts and Brown, 2005). This approach

coincides most closely to adherence to OCAP (ownership, control, access and possession)

principles13; direct and open affiliation with these principles provided clarity in our relationship as

well as protection of WIFN‟s intellectual assets within our research relationship (Schnarch,

2004).

13
OCAP principles centre on ensuring self-determination in research involving First Nations, and represent a
response to extractive, disrespectful and damaging research practices of the past. Originally referred to as OCA
(ownership, control and access), this concept was expanded in 2007 by the National Aboriginal Health Organization
(NAHO) to include „P‟ in the acronym, additionally indicating the need for First Nations possession of data (NAHO,
2007).

14
A Note on Shifts in Research Directions

As noted above, a significant aim of this project was to ensure potential for community

benefit, meaning, in practice, shaping research directions in collaboration with my WIFN

research partners (see Chapter 5 for a more in-depth discussion of the significance of this aim).

Initially, this process revolved around creating a research proposal that would drive our project,

allow for clarity, and provide community and academic committees with formal material for

review and approval. I had developed an initial proposal for preliminary meetings in the

community to serve as a starting point for discussions; this document was based on significant

prior research into community – as well as broader First Nations - aspirations in the area of

environmental management and First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations. However, shaping

research directions as a team meant that many small-scale and two large-scale changes were

made to the original proposal. These more significant changes were: 1) adding as a research

objective a focal point lacking in the original proposed document (i.e. project contributors‟

ecological understandings of the ecosystem at the basis of our project and these actors‟ visions

for ecological and cultural recovery for this system); and b) shifting the proposal's emphasis

from vague references to First Nations/non-Aboriginal „relationship improvement‟ towards a

concrete model-building exercise capable of actively contributing to re-building.

Shifts outlined in point b) re-directed the project significantly and permanently. Changes

with respect to point a), however, led in the end to only a temporary shift in focus: Many of the

people to whom I was referred for interviews or focus groups (see „research contributors‟

section below) felt that others in the community were better able to communicate specific TEK-

related information on the ecosystem. These former individuals instead focused primarily on

relationship-oriented issues raised during research discussions. However, they frequently

highlighted that, while others in the community did have much more expertise on ecological and

cultural knowledge regarding the ecosystem, it was questionable as to whether these actors

would share such understandings with me, an outsider and a newcomer in the community.

15
Stories were related in which some of the elders and others with specific ecological and cultural

knowledge were unwilling to share sensitive information even with life-long community members.

The additional research objective related to this point was thus eventually let go from our formal

project. However, ongoing discussions revolve around building efforts to directly link community

youth (e.g. the „Future Elders‟, a WIFN-based, youth-driven group) with specific knowledge

holders in order to facilitate both greater intergenerational contact and knowledge transfer and

fulfilment of this community research priority.

Research Contributors

Twenty-seven members of four First Nations communities and thirty-one representatives

of twenty-two conservation groups from southern Ontario contributed to this project. Twenty-one

of the First Nations contributors were from WIFN.

As a community, WIFN was originally approached for collaborative research

development for a number of reasons: 1) the Walpole Island Heritage Centre, founded over 20

years ago, is a recognized leader among First Nations in the area of environmental

management and has a great deal of experience in partnering with non-Aboriginal organizations

and agencies on environmental initiatives14; 2) the community is home to some of southern

Ontario‟s most ecologically significant remnant habitats and species at risk; and 3) the Heritage

Centre is directly involved in species at risk management programs - both those that are directly

community-based and those at least in part derived by external agencies and groups.

Given that I myself knew and thus could directly ‟select‟ very few people in the WIFN

community at the outset of research activities, research contributors were either referred via

14
Despite the fact that the Walpole Island Heritage Centre does not receive core funding from either community or
other sources, the Centre has been a long-time leader in environmental research and action. This fact is explained by
Centre representatives to be a result of the commitment of community members, staff, community politicians and
administrators to the Centre‟s goals and processes, of the community‟s outstanding natural heritage basis, and of
ongoing and consistent interest from external sources in both the community‟s natural heritage and the Centre‟s
work surrounding it.

16
WIFN‟s natural heritage leadership (my community research supervisors, see Chapter 5 for

greater detail) – or voluntarily signed up as a result of the initial research lecture I gave in the

community during which interest for involvement was solicited. Both those who self-selected

and those referred for involvement in the project contributed to the research based on their

knowledge of, experience with or insight into First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in

environmental management and/or knowledge of environmental history and management in the

community. The majority of individuals who expressed interest in or were referred for the project

contributed to the research via focus groups or interviews; the small number of people who were

either unable to attend focus groups or turned down invitations for interviews primarily cited

personal circumstances (health, work or family considerations) as the reason for non-

involvement.

Six community members from the three other First Nations communities were referred to

me as key informants by community, academic and professional sources. These communities

were not formally involved in shaping the research as WIFN was. Rather, the individual

contributors involved from these communities provided additional breadth to the project, and

opened up an opportunity for an examination of considerations, visions and concerns regarding

relations from the perspective of members of communities with diverse histories, capacities, and

extent of involvement with external conservation groups.

In order to gain insight into non-Aboriginal conservationists‟ perspectives on relations,

representatives from a range of groups and institutions involved in species at risk conservation

and in work with First Nations in southern Ontario were involved in the project. The majority of

these individuals were referred to me as key informants by academic and community sources,

and in some cases by other research participants themselves; a small number responded to

advertised solicitation in regional conservation organizations‟ newsletters and e-bulletins. While

the names of these participants and the organizations they represent are withheld in the

dissertation to protect individuals‟ anonymity, these non-Aboriginal participants included

17
conservation scientists and professionals from universities, federal, provincial and municipal

government agencies, First Nations, environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs ),

and a public research institution. This diverse participant body provided breadth in the project by

allowing for investigation into perspectives held by actors across the environmental

management spectrum in this region. It also created opportunities for comparative analyses by

providing a range (at both the agency/organizational and individual level) in terms of extent of

experience in working with First Nations, and with respect to the governmental vs. non-

governmental positioning of project participants.

Data Collection

As noted earlier, this research aimed to explore project contributors‟ understandings on

current - and potential future - First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in environmental

management and research. Given that the aim was to investigate perspectives and seek out

themes via an analysis of many individuals‟ personal understandings, interviews were

considered appropriate and were used for the majority of research discussions15 in this project.

Interviews are referred to as a valuable qualitative research methodology choice in that they

open space for participants to voice their individual perspectives on a topic, bringing to the

discussion histories, backgrounds and positionalities which they determine are relevant to the

development of their perspectives (Skelton, 2001). This was seen as necessary in a project

aimed at drawing out rich, in-depth insights from those involved. Interviews were utilized

exclusively with the non-Aboriginal participants in this project, and with the majority of the First

Nations research contributors.

However, in WIFN, the original seven research contributors were involved in focus

groups. The first group involved four people and the second involved three other individuals.

15
The terms „research discussions‟ and „research conversations‟ are used to refer in the dissertation to data-
collection-oriented conversations (i.e. interviews and/or focus groups) with First Nations research contributors and
non-Aboriginal research participants.

18
Focus groups were approximately three hours in length, including a midway break; research

conversations (based on Appendix 4, the focus group guide) were held at the Heritage Centre

and were led by both myself and one of my community supervisors. We decided beforehand

that I would pose to the group those questions which related to First Nations/non-Aboriginal

relationships and collaboration, while my supervisor would pose questions related specifically to

cultural or ecological knowledge about the ecosystem at the base of our project. Following

Walpole Island Heritage Centre protocol, we recorded both focus groups on digital audio and

video recorders.

The methodological choice to use focus groups was made primarily because this format was the

stated preference for research in the community. This approach had successfully been used in

WIFN in the past; the group discussion format had been found to add to the comfort level of

those involved and was felt to allow for enhanced knowledge sharing via, for example, greater

memory recall. From a theoretical perspective, the group discussion format is considered to be

a culturally-relevant means of opening space for a communal basis to decision-making

(Graveline, 2000) and for acknowledging community-based ownership of cultural knowledge

(Loppie, 2007; Schnarch, 2004). In addition, in other research contexts as well as in WIFN, it

has been found that group feedback and input from a variety of sources can allow for deeper

insight into the research topic than would emerge solely from interviews with individuals16

(Bedford and Burgess, 2001; Conradson, 2005; Kneale, 2001).

Interviews in WIFN were thus held largely due to logistical reasons – i.e. simplicity of

scheduling given the relatively large number of individuals referred for involvement in this

project. Arranging to gather more than seven of the twenty-one community contributors in focus

groups did not appear feasible. Nevertheless, the fact that interviews were, in the end, the

primary means of gathering research contributions in the community was not considered

16
Surficial analysis revealed no significant difference in depth or scope of research results from either method, but
direct comparisons were not made in this project regarding efficacy of these research methods.

19
inappropriate. In allowing for a means of transmitting knowledge orally and via a process of

dialogue, interviews were, theoretically and practically, seen as a sensitive method of learning

within this cross-cultural and specifically First Nations research framework (Kovach, 2005;

Skelton, 2001). All interviews with First Nations contributors were carried out in-person, and, in

contrast to focus groups, I „led‟ these on my own (i.e. my community supervisors were not in

attendance).

Twenty-four of the research conversations with non-Aboriginal participants were in-

person interviews. The remaining seven were held over the telephone, largely due to logistical

challenges – most frequently related to distance or time scheduling issues. I alone was involved

in interviewing these participants.

Interviews ranged in duration from one to four hours, determined primarily by the level of

interest and engagement demonstrated by the interviewee. Questions posed to both „sets‟ of

contributors revolved around issues related to interactions between First Nations and non-

Aboriginal conservation organizations and/or actors (e.g. how did the interviewee characterize

these interactions? What explanations could individuals offer for the experiences they had had?

What relation or linkages did interviewees see between the work of non-Aboriginal conservation

organizations and First Nations aspirations towards self-determination? What recommendations

could the interviewee provide for improving/changing future relations?). Interview guides

included in Appendices 1 and 2 provide further details on questions posed to interviewees.

In all cases, a semi-structured, dialogic rather than interrogative (Laidler, 2007)

approach was taken in interviews and focus groups. These two choices are viewed as critical

not because they allowed for effective coverage of points initially conceived in the research

process (which they did), but because they enabled participants to raise issues/topics not

considered in the initial research design. The significance of this approach is particularly great in

an attempt to carry out grounded research, in which information provided during the research

process contributes to directing the evolution of the research project as a whole (Letendre and

20
Caine, 2004; Loppie, 2007). In this dissertation, the topic covered in Chapter 2 and at the basis

of Chapter 3 would not have been addressed had research foci not been permitted to evolve as

a result of the information being shared by contributors: The Species at Risk Act was not one of

the topics initially conceived of as relevant early in the research17. It is only because of insights

shared by research contributors that the significance of this Act to First Nations and First

Nations/non-Aboriginal relations was made apparent; research on this topic was then actively

investigated.

Data Interpretation and Analysis

Interviews and focus groups with the 58 contributors involved in this project resulted in

large quantities of transcribed „data‟ to interpret and analyze. Using atlas.ti, a qualitative data

analysis software, quotes from transcripts were coded according to theme areas; these themes

were developed during preliminary stages of analysis. Quotes appearing in the papers in this

dissertation were chosen in a number of ways: 1) certain quotes were selected because they

most clearly and cogently described what many others had said – i.e. these quotes could be

considered to be representative, to at least a certain extent, of more broadly-expressed

opinions18; 2) in other cases, quotes were chosen because they articulated themes I considered

significant based on theoretical discussions in the literatures examined for this research; 3) in

Chapters 4 and 5, quote selection occurred slightly differently. Quotes appearing in these

Chapters represent the majority of commentary on the focal subjects. In relation to Chapter 5,

17
The research discussion guides included in the Appendix - documents used as the basis for research
conversations - originated from early project foci and understandings. SARA-specific topics are thus not included in
these documents, but became as the research progressed an-ever greater focus of interviews, both as a result of
topics raised by interviewees themselves and due to my more specified lines of questioning.
18
Quotes appearing in various Chapters in the dissertation frequently indicate a narrow range of perspectives on a
given topic, particularly within a particular group (i.e. First Nations as opposed to non-Aboriginal conservation
community representatives). While each contributor to this project naturally expressed his/her perspectives on
topics uniquely, within the subject areas chosen as focal points in this dissertation, perspectives as provided within
each of these groups were typically in close alignment. Within the analysis process, potential difficulties of dealing
with perspectives that could be considered to be widely divergent or to represent outliers were thus not
significant.

21
insight into First Nations/non-Aboriginal relationships surrounding research was not directly

targeted in this project, and a limited amount of information was thus produced on this theme;

however, the fact that project contributors raised points on this subject of their own accord

speaks to the significance understood to reside in this theme area. Similarly, quotes appearing

in Chapter 4 represent the majority of material from discussions with non-Aboriginal participants

that expressed focused, cogent perspectives on governance and implications for inter-cultural

relations. Questions on governance were not specifically raised during these interviews,

particularly given that the significance of governance as a central theme in this project was not

formally developed or conceptualized until the analysis and writing stages. Rather, the quotes in

Chapter 4 represent discussion foci prompted in the interviews by questions tangentially

directed at issues of governance: questions typically focused more broadly on challenges to

relations, the possible root causes of these, and potential means of overcoming them. The

perspectives offered in Chapter 4 were thus largely identified, conceptualized and prioritized by

the participants themselves, and represented an important element indicating during analysis

the significance and centrality of governance issues in First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in

the sphere under investigation here.

Linkages indicated in Chapter 4 between First Nations and non-Aboriginal contributors‟

understandings of governance-related issues and needs – noted as potentially surprising given

divergences in perspectives addressed in other chapters - can be understood in part to reside in

the positioning of the particular non-Aboriginal individuals involved in this project. The majority

of these participants were involved with First Nations on a local scale, and at the ground level.

These represent individuals with direct experience working with First Nations in the area of

environmental management and research – not, in general, policy makers removed from the

day-to-day context of interacting with communities and the realities of challenges in this context,

and not individuals with little interest or expertise in the dissertation‟s focal areas. Thus, the

deliberate selection criteria used in recruiting non-Aboriginal participants no doubt influenced

22
the types of responses received; but it was those with ground-level, day-to-day interactions with

communities whose insights were considered most valuable in a project seeking answers

grounded in the everyday experiences of individuals immersed in the field in question.

Organization of the Dissertation and Introduction to Thesis Papers/Research Findings

This dissertation is structured around four papers which, together, constitute the body of

the thesis. Chapters 2, 3 and 5 will – via submission to academic journals - serve to share

findings from this research with academic audiences19. The topics addressed in each of the

papers are introduced below:

1) The Species at Risk Act (SARA): SARA‟s colonial affiliations are identified and

unpacked in the first paper in the dissertation (Chapter 2). Via an exploration of the ways

in which SARA impinges on First Nations communities and individuals, the paper unveils

some of the specific mechanisms serving to reproduce and reify a colonial basis to First

Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in the area of species at risk work and the legislation

governing it. The research shared in this article sheds light on some of the underlying

features leading to tension and stalemates in First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in

this arena. Findings suggest that making progress in relations in this sphere will require

formal recognition of SARA‟s colonial affiliations (particularly the exclusive, paternalistic

approaches currently characterizing openings for First Nations involvement in this field),

as well as a commitment to moving away from colonial approaches to environmental

management. The paper offers a model focused on sharing governance in species at

risk work as a route for overcoming the colonial influences shaping SARA-related modes

of power distribution. It is argued that moving toward adopting this model would allow for

19
As requested by project contributors - both First Nations community representatives and professional non-
Aboriginal conservationists working in species at risk conservation and recovery - findings from the research are
also being translated into formats more appropriate for non-academic audiences. Posters, brochures, executive
summaries and comprehensive reports are all in production.

23
 not only more equitable species at risk work, but more effective and sustainable

ecological work in this arena: Given that close to half of Canada‟s species at risk can be

found on Aboriginal federal lands20 (Crawford, 2006), adequately and appropriately

including First Nations and their approach to and understanding of SAR conservation

and recovery is a necessity.

2) Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK): The second paper in the dissertation

(Chapter 3) offers both First Nations and non-Aboriginal contributors‟ perspectives on

the nature of TEK, and why and how it should be shared in species at risk conservation

and recovery work. SARA mandates the collection and attempted incorporation of TEK

into SAR work in Canada. As such, it provides valuable openings for First Nations

contributions to this arena, and for both First Nations and non-Aboriginal

conservationists to gain insight into ecological parameters and management

perspectives from cross-cultural knowledge exchange.

However, this research exposed the existence of very real challenges in

interactions surrounding TEK; challenges were expressed by both scientists attempting

to gather this information, and by First Nations actors from whom knowledge was being

sought. Non-Aboriginal conservationists communicated that while SARA‟s TEK-inclusion

mandate allows an opportunity for gaining knowledge frequently unavailable elsewhere,

this knowledge is often difficult to access, frequently appears to be limited and/or

fragmentary in nature, and as a result was often of questionable value and validity for

these actors. First Nations contributors repeatedly expressed a desire to be directly

involved in species at risk work as a means for both gaining a foothold in this area of

environmental management, and fulfilling what they described as their responsibility to

care for „the environment‟. However, they also expressed tensions inherent in

20
40% of SAR are found on federal reserve lands. In Canada, First Nations communities are legally called reserves;
Inuit and Metis live in non-reserve communities.

24
negotiating the rocky terrain of knowledge-sharing within a political context characterized

by ongoing exclusion from power structures and an inability to control what happens to

their knowledge once shared.

This paper attempts to contextualize the divergent understandings and

conceptualizations revealed in interviews and focus groups via an analytical lens that

privileges an understanding that intellectual imperialism exists within and actively

influences relations surrounding TEK and SAR work. The research indicates that, while

this lens offers significant explanatory power for conceptualizing many of the

expectations, behaviours and perspectives expressed by the various actors in this arena,

acknowledgement of the vitality of intellectual imperialism appears uneven - referred to

repeatedly by First Nations contributors, but recognized and addressed only rarely by

non-Aboriginal participants involved in this project.

3) Non-Aboriginal Contributions to Model-Building, and Steps towards Achieving the

Ideal: Chapter 4 provides an additional conceptual layer to the dissertation. This piece

indicates support from various actors in the non-Aboriginal conservation community for

the model proposed here, and bridges the gap between current governance scenarios

and those proposed in the model.

4) First Nations/non-Aboriginal engagement in environmental research: The

dissertation‟s final empirical chapter (Chapter 5) focuses on reconceptualizing the

purpose, practices and outcomes of research involving intersections between First

Nations and outside researchers, particularly non-Aboriginal academics. The article

focuses on the necessity of eschewing typically exploitative, extractive research

practices involving First Nations, and suggests moving instead to what here is

conceptualized as reconciliation research: research that supports First Nations‟ self-

defined goals and aspirations. Via a theoretical overview of currently strained First

Nations/non-Aboriginal research relations, attention to first-hand insights shared by First

25
 Nations project contributors, and an analysis of research practice and decision-making in

the dissertation project itself, the paper provides theoretical evaluation and concrete

evidence of the benefits of alternative research practice to both communities and

academics.

Constructive Intents, Contentious Discussions: Rationalizing Approaches to Sharing

Dissertation Findings

As my research partners and I envisioned it, effecting positive change in First

Nations/non-Aboriginal relations would be achieved by communities and conservation groups

better understanding how to work together more effectively in the future. Thus, with such a

constructive aim, an explanation is required as to why much of the research shared in this work

is focused so heavily on problematic foundations of current relationships. Such characterization

of the dissertation is certainly appropriate: Research findings shared here indicate that, while

strides have been made in terms of opening doors for potential cooperation between First

Nations and non-Aboriginal environmental groups / institutions / agencies in the area of species

at risk conservation and recovery, deep chasms common to many other areas of environmental

management persist in this particular scenario.

However, the answer to the question raised above lies in the fact that, although the

project is constructive in ultimate intent, we understood the precursor to constructing renewed

relationships to be an enhanced understanding of challenges facing current relationships, and

how and why underlying difficulties can and need to be addressed. Thus, the aim of the project

has always been to build constructive solutions - but solutions grounded in enhanced clarity

regarding the nature and scope of problematic bases to relationships. We perceived that such

an outcome would result from providing both understandings of the mechanisms currently

maintaining strained relationships, and concrete conceptualizations for mechanisms capable of

enabling cooperative conservation and ecological recovery in the future. This was considered

26
particularly necessary following data collection for this project, given what was revealed to be

limited and uneven clarity regarding some of the systemic forces actively contributing to

stalemates in First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in environmental management.

Despite the disconnects and divergent perspectives illuminated here, however, forging

linkages between First Nations and non-Aboriginal environmental management organizations

and agencies remains of significant importance to all of the players involved. Research findings

revealed that great interest exists on all fronts to persevere despite the challenges, and despite

the frequently acknowledged blurred nature of actors‟ comprehension of many of the issues

underlying tense relations. Repeatedly, throughout the research, contributors to this project

expressed their desire to learn how to make positive, productive interactions possible. Providing

transparency via this dissertation will therefore, we hope, be of particular significance in a

scenario such as the one we are investigating here. Generally poor historical First Nations/non-

Aboriginal relations, in combination with the inherent challenges posed by working in a cross-

cultural context, have led to limited, frequently strained current relations in which communication

regarding relationship difficulties is often minimal and minimally productive. Within such a

context, the intention in sharing problematic elements of current First Nations/non-Aboriginal

relations becomes not to discourage further attempts at interaction, or to pass judgement on the

actions and understandings of various actors. Rather, this work is meant to clarify, to make

visible, and, grounded in this new visibility, to develop paths towards new ways of working

together.

27
 CHAPTER 2

First Nations and Canada’s Species at Risk Act:

Moving Towards Co-Shaping the Species at Risk Agenda

Authored by Zoe Dalton, in collaboration with Walpole Island Heritage Centre (community
supervisors: Clint Jacobs and Aimee Johnson)

Abstract
This paper presents findings from a recent research project investigating First
Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in environmental management. The paper draws from
discussions with 27 First Nations project contributors from four First Nations
communities in southern Ontario, Canada, in 2008. Findings presented here indicate the
significance for First Nations communities of Canada‟s 2003 Species at Risk Act (SARA),
and unveil specific mechanisms in SARA-related processes that serve to reproduce
colonial relationships between First Nations and the state. The paper analyzes the gap
between the potential gains created by openings for Aboriginal inclusion in SARA versus
realized outcomes for Aboriginal people in terms of implementation of rights. It is
proposed that closing the gap and overcoming the living colonial legacy identified in
SARA processes will require a paradigm shift in current Aboriginal/state relations. Such
a shift will require honourably addressing Canada‟s fiduciary responsibilities to
Aboriginal people, enacting historical and contemporary commitments to nation-to-nation
relationships, and, in practical terms, involving Aboriginal people in decision-making
roles throughout SARA structures and processes.

Introduction

The involvement of Indigenous peoples and their knowledge in environmental

management is increasingly viewed as both a positive and a necessary means of addressing

ecological and resource management issues (Adams and Mulligan, 2003; Arquette and Cole,

2004; Doyle-Bedwell and Cohen, 2001; Ford and Martinez, 2000; Jacobs, 2006; Kimmerer,

2002; Ransom and Ettenger, 2001; Turner et al., 2000; UNEP, 1992). Summarizing an

increasingly broadly-held sentiment, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz (Chair of the United Nations

Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues), states that “[t]he wisdom and knowledge of

Indigenous peoples can help lead humanity forward” (2006, 14). Linking Indigenous

understandings of and relationships to the environment with western scientific ecological

28
approaches is now commonly seen as having the potential to engender more effective, efficient

and sustainable environmental management (Adams and Mulligan, 2003; Barnaby, 2002;

Chapeskie, 2002; Stevenson, 2006).

However, acknowledgement of the value of Indigenous21 contributions is not only the

result of a changing tide of sentiment regarding the utility of traditional knowledge in

environmental management. In Canada, it is also the result of decades of political advocacy and

lobbying by Aboriginal leaders and communities, who have been increasingly asserting their

constitutionally-acknowledged rights to participate in environmental management on both local

and national scales. The culmination of these two factors has led to new opportunities for

Aboriginal people in Canada with respect to involvement in some of the country‟s highest level

environmental management strategies.

Further, international, national and regional conventions, strategies, policies and

legislation (e.g. the Convention on Biodiversity, the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy, the

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the North American Migratory Birds Convention Act,

and Ontario‟s Endangered Species Act) provide acknowledgement of the distinct nature of

Indigenous peoples‟ relationships with the environment, and recognition of the importance of an

Indigenous contribution to the creation of a sustainable future (Canada, 2002; Canada, 1994;

Canada, 1992; Environment Canada, 1995; Ontario, 2007; UNEP, 1992). Language used in the

Species at Risk Act (SARA), the focus of this paper, provides an indication of the nature of

some of the references to Aboriginal people and knowledge in recent official documents: “the

21
Note regarding terminology: the literature reviewed in this paper frequently focuses on scenarios common to
Aboriginal peoples throughout Canada (First Nations, Inuit and Metis); in these cases the term „Aboriginal‟ is used.
The term commonly used when referring to First Peoples internationally - „Indigenous‟ - is used in the paper in
cases in which scenarios addressed are relevant to this broader context. However, this specific research project
focused specifically on SARA-related experiences and impacts as related to First Nations people (i.e. not other
Aboriginal peoples in Canada: Metis or Inuit; the experiences of these latter groups with the Species at Risk Act
differ from those of First Nations).

29
roles of the aboriginal [sic] peoples of Canada…in the conservation of wildlife in this country are

essential” (Canada, 2002, 2).

Within this context, this paper then explores the question: Why, with such significant

recognition of the role of Aboriginal people in so many areas of environmental management,

has a departure from colonial practices and affiliations not resulted within Canada‟s species at

risk approach? The paper explores the evidence that such departure has not occurred,

investigates the mechanisms that serve to maintain a colonial legacy in this area of

environmental management, and seeks to indicate potential avenues for emerging from the

current scenario.

Investigating the Gap Between Recognition of Value and Implementation of Rights

Discussion of aspirations towards restoration of jurisdiction in key areas, including the

environment, can be found throughout the Aboriginal literature in Canada (e.g. Assembly of First

Nations, 2006; Assembly of First Nations, 2005a; Assembly of First Nations, 1993; Barnaby,

2002; Bird, 2002; Land and Townshend, 2002; Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996;

Venne, 2002). Surficially, recent political, legislative and institutional recognition of the value of

Aboriginal contributions to environmental management - and direct reference to Aboriginal

peoples and knowledge in such frameworks – appears a significant step towards achieving such

restoration. However, findings from this research initiative support the argument that, from a

First Nations perspective, exclusionary practices remain widespread in Canadian environmental

management, even though new avenues for involvement have opened up in arenas such as

SARA. As a result, restoration of jurisdiction over environmental matters – with the implication of

regaining some form of control in this area – appears to remain fundamentally unaddressed for

First Nations.

First Nations actors continue to report that they and their environmental understandings

are marginalized by institutionalized mechanisms within environmental management such as

30
exclusion from decision-making processes; external agenda-setting; a mining of traditional

knowledge holders for ecological knowledge, with no accompanying space for the expression

and implementation of associated understandings of and visions for the environment; and

consistent imbalances in power that allow for the domination of western scientific

understandings of the environment and its management over First Nations understandings

(McGregor, 2004a; Nadasdy, 1999; Nelson, 2005; Stevenson, 2006). Typically, First Nations

groups are at best afforded advisory status within dominant society conservation frameworks,

as opposed to shared control over and co-shaping of environmental resolutions, as historical

commitments would require22 (Adams and Mulligan, 2003; Barnaby, 2002; Bird, 2002;

McGregor, 2009; McGregor, 2008).

Such realities led the Assembly of First Nations, in its First Nations Environmental

Stewardship Action Plan, to characterize contemporary approaches to environmental

management as marred by “systemic inequities”, and to argue that “existing approaches to

environmental stewardship…consistently ignore or are ignorant of First Nation‟s environmental

stewardship concerns” (2005a, 1). Ongoing patterns of exclusion, marginalization and inequity

contribute to a generalized sense that “indigenous people have…been ignored in both colonial

and post-colonial conservation ideas and practices” (Adams and Mulligan, 2003, 9).

It thus becomes important to analyze the gap between the potential inherent in recent

acknowledgements regarding Aboriginal contributions and First Nations‟ lived experiences of

continued marginalization and exclusion in environmental management practice. Doyle-Bedwell

and Cohen (2001) frame such a gap as one characterized by a disparity between recognition

22
Historical commitments in Canada relevant to this discussion include the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which
recognized the sovereignty of Aboriginal nations and established the Crown‟s fiduciary relationship with Aboriginal
peoples; the various treaties signed with the Crown, which again affirmed the sovereignty of Aboriginal nations and
recognized Aboriginal rights and title to the land; section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act, which recognizes and
affirms Aboriginal and treaty rights and binds Canada to honour these principles; and Supreme Court decisions,
which continue to affirm Aboriginal rights to the land and waters and to participation in decision-making regarding
the environment, as well as Canada‟s ongoing legal obligations to act in the best interests of Aboriginal peoples
(RCAP, 1996; Slattery, 2000).

31
and implementation. The term „implementation‟ refers to putting in place principles of co-

governance - nation-to-nation dealings - embodied in historical acknowledgement of the

nationhood of First Peoples (see footnote above), as well as contemporary commitments

requiring the state to act honourably towards Aboriginal people and work towards reconciliation.

Doyle-Bedwell and Cohen argue that such implementation is the only way to move beyond the

current scenario of a living colonial legacy and often tense Aboriginal-state relations: “[t]he

transition from recognition of the Aboriginal role to its implementation is critical” (2001, 181).

Baldwin‟s work (2009) provides an additional analytical lens for understanding „the gap‟.

Providing official recognition of the value of an Aboriginal role in such arenas as SARA can

allow for an apparent disaffiliation with colonial processes and implications. Such disaffiliation

invites us to forget that, while exclusion and marginalization of Aboriginal peoples are now

recognized as inappropriate colonial practices, they remain potent forces in peoples‟ everyday

lives (2009, 439). Within the SARA context, disaffiliation allows colonial practices to continue

under the guise of „inclusion‟; it is not until the meaning of inclusion in the everyday lives of First

Nations is investigated that the illusion of this concept becomes clear: There is a hidden but

jarring mismatch between the promises of recognition in SARA, and what such recognition

delivers in practice.

In fact, as expanded upon in later sections of the paper, SARA processes can be

understood as serving not simply to veil ongoing and consistent inequities, but rather to intensify

these, burdening and disadvantaging communities to a greater extent than experienced

previously. It is argued in this paper that mechanisms of exclusion and marginalization are

active and vital within SARA processes, and that these serve to reify and reproduce patterns of

colonialism23 in the lives of First Nations people in Canada – as well as additionally intensifying

23
Colonialism is understood in this context as a system whereby one nation (Canada) controls and governs another
nation or people (Aboriginal peoples) (as discussed in Atleo, 2009) - a system rooted in Euro-American settler
imaginaries of „primitive‟ First Peoples and their „empty‟ home continents that led to “discourses of difference and
superiority…as well as political domination” (Nash, 2004).

32
burdens impinging on First Nations. The paper seeks to unveil the elision of colonial implications

at play in the „inclusion‟ of First Nations peoples in the development, administration and

implementation of the Species at Risk Act. It aims to „invite us to remember‟: to acknowledge

the vitality of colonial relations present in environmental management scenarios such as SARA,

and to work towards de-naturalizing – and eventually overcoming - the hegemonic implications

of such practices.

The paper stems from a 2008 collaborative university-community research project and is

an example of grounded research: This SARA-focused investigation came about only as a

result of broader environmental management research discussions with First Nations project

contributors. Within these discussions, contributors repeatedly spoke of the significance of

SARA to First Nations communities, highlighting the need for a research direction focused on

more fully investigating issues in this area. There is currently a paucity of published research

addressing First Nations‟ experiences with SARA processes and outcomes; as a result, findings

from this project offer a rare opportunity for analyzing the vitality of colonialism in this area of

environmental management. This study also offers a unique chance for hearing and addressing

First Nations perspectives within the academic literature - where these voices are often sorely

underrepresented - and thus opens further doors for enhancing scholarship in the area of

colonialism and environmental management.

Backgrounder: Canada’s Species at Risk Act and Implications for First Nations

Within the Canadian context, a species at risk (SAR) is described as a native Canadian

floral or faunal species at risk of going extinct or being extirpated from Canada (COSEWIC,

2009a). There are 585 species in Canada listed as being at risk by COSEWIC (the Committee

on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) (Hutchings, 2009). In 2003, the legislation that

currently governs the protection and recovery of SAR on a national level - the Species at Risk

33
Act - was passed (Canada, 2008a). SARA is administered by Environment Canada, Fisheries

and Oceans Canada and Parks Canada Agency, and, as a federal piece of legislation, applies

to federal lands, including national parks, national historic and heritage sites, federal agricultural

lands, military bases and „Indian reserves‟24.

SARA‟s mandate is to prevent the extinction of SAR and allow for their recovery.

COSEWIC assesses the conservation status of species and recommends which should be

listed under the Species at Risk Act. Legal protection is afforded each listed at-risk species, as

well as the habitat identified as critical to its persistence (its „critical habitat‟). Prohibitions with

respect to SAR are fundamental to the Act‟s mandate (Canada, 2008b), and “make it illegal to

kill or harm species listed under the Act, or to destroy their critical habitats” (Fisheries and

Oceans Canada, 2009). Legal enforcement measures can be taken in relation to breached

prohibitions.

SARA provides several avenues for Aboriginal involvement. The first is via NACOSAR,

the National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk, which – with six Aboriginal representatives –

acts in an advisory capacity to the Minister on matters related broadly to the administration of

SARA (Assembly of First Nations, 2005c). The second is via the Aboriginal Traditional

Knowledge (ATK) subcommittee of COSEWIC. This subcommittee is meant to facilitate the

incorporation of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (ATK) into the assessment processes carried

out by COSEWIC (COSEWIC, 2008a). The committee has a minimum of nine Aboriginal

members; its voting co-chairs represent two of the total thirty-one voting COSEWIC members

(Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources, 2008; COSEWIC, 2008a; NACOSAR, 2008).

This subcommittee is considered by COSEWIC to still be “in its formative stages” (COSEWIC,

2008a). Both NACOSAR and the ATK Subcommittee were proclaimed/established in the Act

itself (NACOSAR, 2008). First Nations are also able to become involved in SARA processes via

24
„Indian reserve‟ is the legal term referring to land “set aside by the Crown for the use and benefit of a band in
Canada” (NAHO, 2003), where a band is a First Nation. The preferred term for this land base, used by many First
Nations, is „First Nation community‟.

34
other routes, including: 1) participating in SAR research being carried out by government or

independent scientists; 2) applying for federal Aboriginal-specific funds for running SAR

initiatives within their own land base; 3) joining „recovery teams‟: teams of scientists and other

experts responsible for researching and drafting recovery strategies and plans for at-risk

species; 4) providing comments and input to drafted assessment and recovery documents; and

5) entering formal SAR stewardship agreements under SARA‟s sections 11, 12 and 1325

(experiences in relation to Section 11 in particular are discussed in the section of this paper

entitled SARA-Related Processes: Contributing to Distrust).

SARA: Implications for First Nations

Given the federal land base regulated under SARA, First Nations communities are the

only permanently resident human communities directly regulated by the Act (Smallwood, 2003).

While other people in Canada may be affected by, for example, provincial legislation

surrounding species at risk, the burden on First Nations is particularly onerous. Perhaps most

significantly – and as expanded upon at the beginning of the Results and Analysis section of

this paper - the fact that rare „oases‟ of high quality habitat frequently exist on First Nations land,

and that communities thus frequently harbour a disproportionate number of at-risk species in

comparison to the small land base, has unfortunately become a dubious distinction. The

outcome is that First Nations are inordinately burdened by an Act focused on the conservation

of species at risk simply because they are more likely to harbour these species.

Additionally, other legislation focused on species at risk conservation (e.g. Ontario‟s

Endangered Species Act) regulates the population at large; as a result, the burden of these

25
Section 11 provides an avenue for the development of formal stewardship arrangements between the federal
government and another person, organization or government in Canada for the benefit of SAR; Section 12 allows for
the same provisions, but in this case for species not at risk; and Section 13 provides for the transfer of funds from the
federal government to the body signatory to either a Section 11 or Section 12 agreement (Lindgren, 2001). Entering
agreements under these sections is seen as an opportunity for First Nations to gain not only an agreed-upon level of
control of conservation in their communities, but also the core and sustained financial capacity necessary for
carrying out initiatives.

35
regulations can be considered, at least at a theoretical level, to be shared equally amongst

people representing the full socio-economic and cultural diversity of the province‟s population. In

the case of SARA, First Nations are the only people whose activities are regulated by this

distinct, federal piece of legislation. The implications of an Act with such uneven application

have received attention: In a federally-commissioned report, it is stated that “[t]he Act will not be

considered a success and will likely face significant challenges if it is seen to have a

disproportionately negative impact on Aboriginal peoples” (Kerry et al., 2006, 23). However,

unevenness with respect to application is only one of several areas in which SARA burdens

Aboriginal people to a greater degree than other Canadians, as is expanded upon later in this

section.

Canada‟s obligation to fulfill its fiduciary responsibilities to Aboriginal peoples and act in

their best interests extends to the application of SARA. As such, SARA, like other Canadian

legislation, contains a non-derogation clause indicating that Aboriginal and treaty rights will not

be infringed upon by the Act (Canada, 2008b; Crawford, 2006). However, in the case of SARA,

there is concern that Aboriginal and treaty rights are being and will continue to be infringed upon

(Assembly of First Nations, 2005c). A change to the wording of the non-derogation clause in

SARA – a change made without input from Aboriginal people (Assembly of First Nations, 2005c;

Crawford, 2006) - means that “[t]he promise of non-infringement has been replaced by a neutral

statement that, in effect, indicates the Act may or may not infringe Aboriginal or treaty rights”

(Assembly of First Nations, 2005c, 2). As a result, SARA has a number of implications for

Aboriginal communities.

SARA-related species and habitat protection - and associated prohibitions mandated in

the Act - impinge on First Nations communities in many ways, one of which is by limiting the

activities communities can carry out on their lands. While section 83.(5) of the Act provides legal

exemption for Aboriginal peoples‟ use of plants or animals for medicinal or ceremonial

purposes, the limited nature of this exemption is seen as one of the factors allowing for

36
infringement on Aboriginal and treaty rights. Many activities that First Nations consider a right,

and see as vital to the survival and revitalization of their culture, are made illegal under the Act;

restrictions could limit activities such as hunting, fishing, trapping, and living on the land

(including camping and the establishment of permanent dwelling places) (Assembly of First

Nations, 2005c; Crawford. 2006). A community member attempting to utilize a species at risk as

a food source or to build a home in the critical habitat of a species at risk would be exposed to

legal enforcement mechanisms as an outcome of SARA prohibitions. Exemptions regarding the

use of listed species for sustenance, or regarding critical habitat designation and resulting

implications for development in First Nations (e.g. building homes for burgeoning community

membership), are simply not referred to in the Act or related documentation, despite being

considered critical issues by many First Nations (Assembly of First Nations, 2008; Crawford,

2006; Kerry et al., 2006; WIFN, 2009a). And the more SAR on a First Nations land base, the

higher the likelihood of activities being illegal, and the greater the chance of critical habitat being

designated.

If Aboriginal and treaty rights are infringed upon by the Act, Canada is obliged to justify

such infringement and, in the case of SARA, to potentially mitigate implications of the Act via

compensation (Canada, 2008b; Kerry et al., 2006). However, what compensation means, and

when it is triggered, are far from clear. In addition, contestation regarding infringements and

their justification has been reported: “First Nations have expressed concerns with the lack of

justification for the infringement of rights resulting from listings. This failure has resulted in our

citizens being charged with SARA-related offences for practicing inherent rights of use and

benefit” (Assembly of First Nations, 2008).

The Results and Analysis section later in the paper provides insight into the ways in

which these impacts are being experienced and expressed by individual First Nations

community members, and offers an analysis of such impacts in the context of what is

understood here to be a living legacy of colonialism within SARA. The following section outlines

37
the methods by which this project was carried out, and alludes to the ways in which project

methodology sought also to address issues of colonial relations, specifically within a research

context.

Methods

The field of environmental management has been implicated in contributing to the

creation and maintenance of Aboriginal peoples‟ colonial present; environmental research

involving Indigenous people is similarly notorious for repeatedly-reported instances of

exploitation, appropriation, and cooptation of knowledge (Schnarch, 2004; Smith, 1999).

Grounded in such an understanding of what research on the environment can mean and has

meant to Aboriginal peoples‟ realities, a collaborative research approach premised on co-

leadership of all aspects of the initiative was enacted for this project. The project was carried out

in collaboration with the Walpole Island Heritage Centre, the research arm of Walpole Island

First Nation (WIFN). Chapters 1 and 5 provide further details on the rationale behind our project

partnership, as well as steps we took to ensure co-leadership during our research relationship.

In total, twenty-seven First Nations individuals contributed to the research, twenty-one of

whom were WIFN environmental professionals and community members. The remaining six

First Nations contributors were from three other First Nations communities located in southern

Ontario. An additional thirty-one non-Aboriginal conservation scientists and professionals from

twenty-two environmental organizations / institutions / agencies / groups participated in the

research initiative via interviews. While touched on only briefly in this paper, further results of

elements of the project involving these latter participants are covered in Chapters 3 and 4 of the

dissertation. Further description and analysis of project methods and methodology can be found

in Chapters 1 and 5 of the dissertation.

38
 The following section serves to ground earlier-discussed references to SARA‟s colonial

patternings in the experiences of First Nations community members dealing first-hand with the

implications of the Act. How are individual community members expressing their personal

experiences with SARA-associated mechanisms and impacts? How are First Nations

communities handling SARA-related processes and implications? What are individuals and

communities proposing and enacting in response to SARA? And what do these experiences tell

us about SARA‟s affiliations with colonialism? These and other questions are explored below.

Results and Analysis

Understanding SARA as an Inequitable Burden: The Act in the Context of Tough Community

Realities

Before analyzing what makes SARA „colonial‟, it is first necessary to examine SARA-

related inequities as understood and experienced by First Nations community members

themselves. SARA-related implications inequitably burden First Nations because they are the

only communities in Canada directly regulated by this Act, but additionally because of the

context with which many communities are dealing: a plethora of urgent community issues (e.g.

individual and community health problems, contaminated water and land bases, community

safety concerns), rapidly growing populations and severely constrained land bases – as well as

little chance of acquiring additional land. SARA has been described as “unfairly targeting and

adding burden to First Nations that are already overburdened and under resourced” (WIFN,

2009a, 4).

Perhaps the most tangible element of the inequity is related to a point raised earlier: the

fact that First Nations are home to so many of Canada‟s species at risk contributes particular

burden to which these communities are exposed under SARA. The following comments by

39
southern Ontario conservationists indicate the disproportionate ecological significance of First

Nations land bases in the southern Ontario context26:

If you look at our watershed, we have on average 19% forest cover. And the Six Nations‟
lands have 50% forest cover. You can see the difference; you can see the outline of their
lands on satellite imagery, just based on the amount of forest cover there. (Eric, NAR27)

I‟ve been working on Walpole Island, and those are some of the best [of that
endangered ecosystem] (Nadine, NAR)

our mandate is to identify high quality…remnants, initiate recovery of those remnants,

and to connect, buffer and increase the size of [these endangered] habitats in between
so that there‟s more continuity. And when you take that approach, those places like
Walpole Island stand out, from an ecological point of view. (Benjamin, NAR)

You could look at all these satellite images and you can see little green spots where
there‟s still forest cover and it‟s for the most part First Nations. (John, FNR)

the natural areas are in relatively good shape… you can see things in a much more
contiguous landscape scale on Walpole…as well as [they are] the people who have
looked after it best over eons. (James, NAR)

the First Nation [referring to Alderville First Nation] really had been playing the
leadership role, and…they have some of the best examples of what we‟re trying to
create elsewhere (Roger, NAR)

it‟s [Walpole Island is] a big area with lots of significant natural areas and species [Tony,
NAR]

So if you look at the map, really it jumps out: Six Nations is the Carolinian headquarters,
kind of forest headquarters of it. Walpole plays another part of that - and Akwesasne, to
some degree (Dr. Dan Longboat, FNR)

On Walpole Island, species inventories indicate that the majority of the community‟s land

and water base could be considered critical habitat. As this former Environment Canada

employee states, “for the most part their whole reserve is critical habitat now” (John, FNR). At

present, this statement is factual conceptually, but does not as of yet represent legal fact: critical
26
The situation is not unique to southern Ontario: In Canada more broadly, approximately 40% of SAR are found on
Aboriginal federal lands (Crawford, 2006); on an international level, Indigenous land bases are home to some of the
most ecologically valuable habitat remnants on the landscape (e.g. International Indian Treaty Council, 2001). This
fact has been referred to as speaking to “a spiritual connection and reliance on the environment...that maintained
refuges for species that declined in other parts of their ranges as a result of overharvest, ecological disturbance
and/or habitat destruction” (Crawford, 2006, 6). However, as discussed in this chapter, it also leads to inequitable
burdens for communities.
27
All names are pseudonyms, unless a contributor specifically asked that his/her name be used. NAR indicates a
non-Aboriginal respondent while FNR indicates a First Nations respondent.

40
habitat has yet to be officially declared on WIFN despite the constant threat. However, the fact

that Fisheries and Oceans Canada recently drafted a recovery strategy for a single species of

fish in which all of the waters on and surrounding WIFN were deemed critical habitat (Aimee

Johnson, pers. comm., 2010) provides an indication of the extent of the burden facing this

community and others in its position, and the ever-present and all-too real possibility of official

critical habitat declaration.

Additionally, it is important to note that, while critical habitat has not yet been designated

on community lands, this does not mean that WIFN or other communities have been unaffected

as a result of SARA mechanisms. Frank (FNR) related a scenario in which a planned housing

development on WIFN was brought to a halt and years of strained community-state relations

resulted due to the presence of one individual member of a listed plant species at risk on the

land in question28.

Inequities related to SARA are felt particularly acutely given that “First Nations continue

to lag significantly behind other Canadians” in the areas of health, economic opportunities,

infrastructure, and education, and in which they face serious future challenges related to

demographic pressures (populations on reserves are growing at an average of three times the

general Canadian rate) (Assembly of First Nations, 2006, iii). As a result, First Nations

community members commonly view this Act - with the potential to limit their activities on

already constrained land bases and potentially shrink these areas still further - as unfair and

inequitable. The following contributors describe this sense of inequity:

they‟re only impacting the most impoverished people in the country, basically. (Frank,
FNR)

Right now, there‟s no equity in it. You‟re going to all these little oasis First Nations and
you‟re saying: “You can‟t do anything there because we need you to keep that space
there green for SAR.” There‟s not equity. And so that has to be addressed. (John, FNR)

28
This relatively straightforward case (one individual of one plant species) was finally resolved and mitigation was
achieved via transplanting. Similarly clear-cut solutions may not always be tenable, however – e.g. in cases in which
large numbers of a listed species or significant diversity of listed species exists on a site, or in which the biological
characteristics of a species are such that simple transplanting is not possible.

41
 One result of this sense that SARA unfairly burdens First Nations communities is

resentment and a sense of resistance, as expressed by this WIFN band employee:

There‟s no support for it…people are all aware what species should be protected and
what shouldn‟t be. But…the legislation is there and people here hate it. (Roy, FNR)

Resistance is manifested in, for example, reticence among individuals to share

information on SAR for fear of future legal reprisal, and on the part of community leadership in

terms of disengagement from or refusal to engage initially in state-sponsored SAR initiatives.

Concerns about SARA are applicable not only to WIFN or the other First Nations communities

with which project contributors were associated. Roy (FNR), who has been involved in nation-

wide gatherings of First Nations in environmental and community planning fora, states regarding

SARA, “[i]t‟s just about every First Nation that feels its impact”.

Contributors noted that some of the most acutely-felt impacts are related to the unique

combination of demographic pressures and land base constraints faced by First Nations across

Canada. Communities are grappling with planning issues related to how to maintain community

strength, membership and cohesiveness and achieve nation-building goals given dramatic

population growth (Assembly of First Nations, 2006). The already limited nature of the land base

formally „set aside‟ for First Nations in the form of reserves poses real challenges in allowing for

community growth:

we already have an extremely large housing shortage. (Dawn, FNR)

Right now, if people want to build, they‟re asking everybody: Can I buy some land, can I
buy some land? Because there‟s no land for sale here anymore. When they try to
purchase, they can‟t find it. (Roy, FNR)

Within a SARA context, species-specific prohibitions and the possibility of critical habitat

designation compound demographic issues. Communities are put in a bind when space is

needed for young families, yet significant portions of the land base contain SAR which cannot,

by law, be harmed for any purposes other than ceremonial or medicinal. Community planners

42
are struggling to find ways to enable community members to continue sharing their land base

with family members, retaining family bonds and community strength. But with the application of

SARA, retaining existing community strength and beginning to rebuild as a nation can become a

seemingly insurmountable challenge:

What are we going to do? Eventually we‟ve got to make that hard decision: do we build
our house here? Do we build our community here? Or do we conserve it? Then what
happens? We lose our membership because they have to move off the Island, because
there‟s no room for them to live. Tough choices. (Danny, FNR)

While officials and bureaucrats may be able to approach these issues on a somewhat

abstract level, individual community members must grapple with these dilemmas on a personal

scale:

I noticed Dense Blazing Star [a listed species at risk] is out there. What‟s going to
happen if my daughter asks me for some land to build a house? That‟s the only land I‟ve
got. So I‟ve got to decide: give it to her, so she can build her house and possibly destroy
these Blazing Stars? Or tell her: „no: you can‟t build a house there, because there‟s
important plants there.‟ (Danny, FNR)

Contributors to this project indicated that communities simply cannot effectively balance

the needs of rapidly growing populations with the conservation of species at risk without gaining

meaningful support for the very pragmatic, interrelated range of issues they face. Placing

communities in such difficult positions is therefore of questionable value not only in terms of its

appropriateness politically, but also in terms of its efficacy from a sustainability perspective.

Contributors routinely spoke of their abiding commitment to protecting all species, including

species at risk, and their deep desire to be able to do so – but their simultaneous, frequently

urgent, requirements to meet community needs such as those related to housing. As one

participant who has worked with Indigenous communities internationally and throughout Canada

argues:

You cannot just support conservation of biodiversity as a goal. You need to really work
with the community to solve social needs, social problems. (Alexandro, NAR)

43
 Such a statement indicates that supporting communities in solving these latter needs is

not a side issue when aiming for SAR protection and recovery, but rather one central to its

achievement. It also indicates the necessity of addressing and accommodating First Nations

calls for holistic approaches that would allow for simultaneously dealing with community and

ecological needs. One example of such an approach was WIFN‟s land swap proposition, which

would have seen habitat set aside for conservation in the community matched by additional, off-

reserve land granted for the community‟s use. While this approach was tabled and discussed

with federal officials, this contributor, who was involved in land swap meetings, describes the

outcome:

The book wasn‟t really shut on it, but you could tell it was going to be a long and difficult
struggle. And once the Species at Risk Act got proclaimed, they didn‟t need us anymore;
so nobody else pursued it. (Danny, FNR)

Failure to address some of the core issues facing First Nations in the species at risk

conservation framework both stem from and further the colonial nature of Aboriginal/state

relations in environmental management in Canada. The following section analyzes the

relevance of the inequities discussed in this section in the context of understanding SARA as an

Act with colonial implications.

SARA: Reifying a Colonial Legacy?

the prerequisite to the successful and effective engagement of Aboriginal Peoples in the
implementation [of] SARA is based on the principles of mutual respect, trust, and equity
(Jacobs, 2006b).

Earlier discussion indicated that First Nations calls for increased involvement in

environmental management have seemingly been heard, but that assertions of rights to

participation at decision-making levels have been infrequently addressed; unequal power

relations continue to dominate Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal relations in this area (McGregor, 2009;

44
Nadasdy, 1999; Nelson, 2005; Ransom and Ettenger, 2001; Stevenson, 2006). What relevance

does this have in the SARA scenario, particularly in light of the experiences of inequity and

marginalization discussed in the previous section? Contributors to this research project

indicated that equality in decision-making is, at best, atypical within SARA processes, and that

this is part of what enables their continued marginalization in this sphere. In the experiences of

these contributors, First Nations input has little influence on decision-making, and community

needs as expressed by those providing input are typically not addressed:

They ask for input, and we provide input. But a lot of times it‟s not put in policy itself. It‟s
taken and maybe filed someplace, but it‟s not utilized (Cole, FNR)

Interviewer: Do you see a change in species at risk legislation in the future to

accommodate what‟s being said from an Aboriginal perspective?
Dawn (FNR): No, no, not at all. It‟s not going to happen

Frustration with First Nations perspectives not making their way into decision making -

and community needs therefore not being addressed - was discussed not only in relation to the

current scenario, but also as having existed throughout the evolution of the Act. WIFN was one

of the communities that contributed to the Aboriginal Working Group involved in SARA‟s

development29. The Group was created during the development of the Act as a conduit for

gaining Aboriginal input. However, one project contributor who had been involved in the

Working Group expressed his disillusionment with the processes and outcomes of this initiative:

First Nations are the only Federal lands that are occupied. So they had to involve us -
like a gun to the side of their head kind of situation. That didn‟t really mean they wanted
to listen to us, or take us seriously...There‟s a lot of things we wanted changed, but they
wouldn‟t move on a lot of them. (Danny, FNR)

One of the primary goals of WIFN‟s involvement in the Working Group was to be able to

gain an understanding of the ways in which endangered species legislation would impact First

29
WIFN was contacted by the Federal Department of the Environment in 1996 with inquiries regarding becoming
involved in developing federal endangered species legislation (then referred to as CESPA, the Canadian Endangered
Species Protection Act). This involvement formalized to participation in a network of more than 90 Aboriginal
groups in 1997, but CESPA was never passed; in 1999, an Aboriginal Working Group was established to obtain
Aboriginal input into SARA, the new proposed Act, and WIFN became directly involved (Nin-da-Waab-jig, 2006).

45
Nations, and to contribute input such that any potential impact would be minimized. Project

contributors expressed that the fact that their input (frequently directly requested) has gone and

continues to go unheeded has created a sense that Aboriginal involvement is considered by

federal representatives to be something which they are obliged by law to allow for (as a result of

constitutional and case law imperatives), rather than as an opportunity for contributions of value

to be made and space to be opened for true Aboriginal involvement in this area. Danny (FNR)

indicated that, as a result of his experiences, he viewed Aboriginal involvement in the

development of SARA as an instance of tokenism:

They saved face, I guess...They saved face by having this Aboriginal Working Group,
and saying: „we got this Aboriginal Working Group, and they‟re guiding us; they‟re
providing direction to us...some of it was [token]; a lot of it was.

This statement alludes back to Baldwin‟s concept of disaffiliation: By allowing for the

involvement of Aboriginal people in SARA‟s development via a body like the Aboriginal Working

Group, SARA processes were able to be portrayed as a modernized approach, disconnected

from historical instances of Aboriginal exclusion. Thus, while Aboriginal involvement at the early

stages of SARA‟s development created a sense of progressive action being taken (e.g. via the

existence of the working group, and the establishment of NACOSAR and the ATK

subcommittee) the experiences of contributors shared here indicate that the establishment of

such bodies - with limited capacity and influence over decision-making - did more to elide

SARA‟s colonial affiliations than to actually address and overcome them.

A sense of tokenism in SARA administration and implementation – and a sense of the

resulting insufficiency of current avenues for First Nations involvement - is not restricted solely

to past experiences in SARA‟s development, as this contributor indicates:

we don‟t have a relationship with them [e.g. the boards of organizations responsible for
SAR recovery], and they‟re driven by recent legislation…yes, it‟s a good thing to have
First Nations on their boards. Well, where were the First Nations on their boards before
the legislation? And now they‟re just doing it because they are told to do it by

46
 legislation…We could have a seat on their boards; but it‟s one or two seats out of thirty.
And that‟s more tokenism: what kind of influence would we have? We would have some,
but not very much. We‟re saying we‟re just not interested in that kind of involvement.
(Zak, FNR)

Aboriginal
advisory
Aboriginal body Aboriginal
advisory advisory
body body

Dominant
society
decision-making
body(ies)

Environmental Management Decisions:

May or may not incorporate Aboriginal input

Figure 2.1: Predominant

relationship scenario within SARA
processes

Figure 2.1, above, provides a visualization of what inclusion in SARA currently means for

First Nations30 in the context described by Zak and other project contributors.

30
First Nations are not alone in holding advisory positions to state-level decision-making bodies. Inherent structural
bases built into SARA mean that, while scientists advise regarding which species should be listed under the Act,
socio-economic considerations (e.g. related to mining or forestry industry expressions of need) can and do influence
species which the Minister chooses to officially add to SARA lists. Thus scientists, industry representatives and
others can be considered stakeholders acting in advisory capacities. However, given the existence of treaties and

47
 Research contributors indicated that truly addressing issues of First Nations exclusion

and marginalization – getting beyond the scenario portrayed in Figure 2.1 - would mean opening

space for a meaningful versus token role in SAR protection and recovery. Practically, this would

mean being a part of nation-to-nation decision-making processes. In such a scenario, equitable

decision making structures would allow for First Nations to share in setting the agenda

surrounding SAR protection and recovery, and their distinct worldview and approach to

conservation would necessarily be incorporated into decision-making. The following contributors

make clear the need and mandate for moving towards such a scenario:

we haven‟t moved [to] the mutual respect of nation-to-nation that we had at the time of
settler governments coming into this homeland of ours and treating us equally. And
that‟s where we‟re trying to come full circle…the next step for us would be to have that
decision-making...We want to have more say as a government. (Zak, FNR)

what gets in the way is this ethno-centrism of the larger society to think that: if we‟re
going to do it, then here‟s how we‟re going to do it. That has to stop. There has to be an
opportunity for an equal partnership to begin to develop. (Dr. Dan Longboat, FNR)

we‟ve had these agreements [referring to the Two-Row Wampum Belt31] since the 15th
century. So we have always tried, and we‟re talking about partnerships here, to work
alongside people. It‟s part of our cultural mandate, if you will. (Cole, FNR)

Figure 2.2 provides a visualization of the nation-to-nation alternative of involvement

referred to as requirements by these and other contributors to the project. The type of

governance structure depicted in this latter Figure takes into account a number of specific

changes required in SARA processes in order for such a nation-to-nation basis of relations to be

achieved. Those who contributed to this study were explicit with respect to these specific

requirements, indicating clearly what SAR protection and recovery would look like for First

Nations in such a scenario: a central role in co-shaping protection and recovery policies and

agendas; incorporation of traditional knowledge as well as values and conservation approaches

historic and contemporary agreements with First Nations and other Aboriginal peoples, positioning these actors in
the role of advisory stakeholder is both an inaccurate and inappropriate application of terms, as well as an
insufficient response to Canada‟s responsibilities to Aboriginal peoples in terms of sharing jurisdiction in the area of
environmental management (Doyle-Bedwell and Cohen, 2001; Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996).
31
The Two-Row Wampum Belt is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 1, footnote 6.

48
 Co-governance
Aboriginal Dominant society
decision-making decision-making
body(ies) body(ies)

Environmental Management Decisions:

Directly incorporate Aboriginal contributions

Figure 2.2: SARA processes in a

co-governance context.

into the SAR protection and recovery process; the equal representation of First Nations

knowledge holders in SARA governance structures; implementable section 11, 12 and 13

agreements under SARA to support these roles; and recognized sovereignty and autonomy

within SARA processes (Assembly of First Nations, 2005a and c; Crawford, 2006; Powless,

2006; WIFN, 2009a).

However, project contributors such as Dawn (FNR), below, state that the nation-to-

nation basis to relations depicted in Figure 2.2 is still far from being implemented in the SARA

context:

49
 they‟re [federal government representatives are] still hell-bent on pushing their own
agenda and trying to make us forget ours.

Thus, it appears that openings for power-sharing and equitable decision-making

structures have in the past and continue to be atypical of First Nations peoples‟ experiences in

SARA-related processes. Despite overt recognition of the importance of an Aboriginal role in the

protection and recovery of wildlife species – as well as specific openings for Aboriginal

involvement in SARA processes - an institutionalized colonial approach appears to remain at

the heart of the Act:

1) Canada, as the colonizing agent, exerts control over First Nations in the area of

species at risk protection and recovery, and thus fails to address First Nations

assertions of sovereignty or to work towards reconciliation via the institutionalization

of equitable decision-making structures; and

2) By providing First Nations opportunities for involvement in advisory capacities at

most – and then deciding on the (ir)relevance of input provided – Canada reproduces

via SARA that central theme of colonialism: the narrative of the colonizer‟s superior

ability and moral right to manage the land (Panagos, 2007).

So while openings for First Nations involvement in SARA may initially appear to be

dramatic improvements over historical patterns of outright exclusion, current avenues for

involvement fall far short of what is being called for: “transformative change” (Assembly of First

Nations, n.d., 6). As the Assembly of First Nations states in its report Our Nations Our

Governments: Choosing our Own Paths (n.d., 6), this type of change – the type required to

emerge from still vital colonial relationship patterns – “will not come...without addressing the key

relationship issues…like the power imbalance and failure to recognise rights”. Transformative

change means extricating approaches to caring for the land from the colonial mold. Such an

exercise will require a dramatic shift in the way in which relationships surrounding sharing

control of the land are currently understood, as indicated in Figure 2.2 and associated quotes

50
and analysis surrounding this visualization. The next section explores the complications of

effecting transformative change contributed by currently divergent understandings on this issue.

The Land: Central in Questions of Jurisdiction

Beyond the constrained „reserve‟ land base are the traditional territories32 of First

Nations. Together, reserves and traditional territories form the basis upon which First Nations

community members rely for their resources – economic, natural, social, spiritual, cultural and

political.

An issue of relevance in this discussion is that these land bases are viewed differently

from a First Nations as compared to a state government position. From a First Nations

perspective, historic and contemporary agreements exist which retain First Nations‟ rights and

shared title to the land (Erasmus and Sanders, 2002; Land and Townshend, 2002; RCAP, 1996).

Legal and constitutional acknowledgement of First Nations‟ claims to the land and rights

associated with these result in – from a First Nations perspective – a national geography in

which shared jurisdiction over environment and resources is a fundamental, if not yet

implemented, reality.

However, under federal legislation governing First Nations peoples‟ lives in Canada (the

1985 Indian Act), reserves are considered the primary land bases of relevance to First Nations

people, and are described by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) as a “tract of land, the

legal title to which is held by the Crown, set apart for the use and benefit of an Indian band”

(INAC, 2009). As such, applying SARA - a federal Act - on reserves is an appropriate move

from a legalistic perspective: First Nations land bases are, within this context, considered to be

under federal title. However, from a First Nation perspective, in which jurisdiction and rights of

32
“Traditional territories” or “traditional homeland” are two terms used to refer to the land base traditionally - and in
many cases continually - used by First Peoples. These land bases may be the basis of treaties and treaty rights and/or
land claims. The terms stand in contrast to „Indian reserves‟, the narrowly-defined and geographically constrained
land base legally „set aside‟ for First Nations.

51
control have not been relinquished or extinguished (RCAP, 1996), the application of such a law

– externally derived and applied – is frequently viewed as being highly inappropriate. This issue

is particularly relevant for a community such as WIFN: The land base which constitutes the

current reserve was omitted from land cessions in the 18th and 19th centuries and thus

represents an unceded land base; large tracts of the traditional territory of the First Nation are

also the subject of active land claims, based on assertions of abrogated treaties and land bases

for which treaties were never signed (WIFN, 2009b).

Given this type of context, contributors to this study discussed the application of SARA in

such instances as exemplifying the ongoing colonial nature of land rights and tenure issues for

First Nations in Canada, in which their assertion of rights and unrelinquished title to the land are

simply not addressed. While SARA, mandated to protect SAR, may initially appear to have little

relevance in the area of Aboriginal rights and title, the implications of this Act on these issues

are such that its relevance in this sphere can be little denied. In discussing the continuous threat

of critical habitat being declared on community lands under SARA – and severe restrictions thus

being placed on the community‟s use of and connection to the land – two WIFN contributors

expressed their community‟s concerns:

the way people see it [SARA] is another attempt for them to take our land away. They‟ve
taken all our land away across this country. But they‟re still at it…they‟re trying to wipe
us out. (Frank, FNR)

it feels like: is it [SARA] another land grab? It‟s colonization all over again. (Dawn, FNR)

These concerns appear not to be singular to the experience of WIFN. Rather, fears are

widespread that the Act has the potential to further erode a land base seen as already

dramatically and inappropriately reduced as a result of the colonial process. Beverley Jacobs,

past chair of NACOSAR, presents a national picture of Aboriginal peoples‟ resistance to the

implications of SARA on communities‟ land rights: “We must not allow government to act

unilaterally and without regard to our substantive rights and interests of our peoples to our lands

52
and resources” (Powless, 2006, 2). The inequitable burdens on First Nations resulting from SAR

conservation strategies in such a context thus appear to be serving to heighten – rather than

reduce – already strained First Nations/state relations, as is discussed in the next section.

SARA-Related Processes: Contributing to Distrust

Core departments’ activities and undertakings to support Aboriginal involvement have

not been commensurate with the requirements of SARA, the requirements of other
federal acts and agreements, or the federal government’s responsibilities towards
Aboriginal people, as determined by the courts33 (Kerry et al., 2006, vii).

An overarching theme of generally poor Aboriginal/state relations in Canada serves as a

background to First Nations SARA-related concerns. First Nations people frequently refer to

such relations as being characterized by inadequate attention to urgent issues facing

communities, including dire poverty and serious health problems; failure to resolve longstanding

political issues such as land claims; abrogation of treaty commitments; and land use policies

which regularly deny constitutionally-acknowledged Aboriginal rights in favour of economic

forces (Assembly of First Nations, 2006; Erasmus and Sanders, 2002; Land and Townshend,

2002; RCAP, 1996). These repeated, and apparently patterned, failures of Canada to honour its

fiduciary duty to Aboriginal peoples lead to real fears about the extent to which SARA may

impact on communities, and little faith in the possibility of the federal government ensuring

protection under and benefit from SARA for communities. In discussions regarding the

implications of SARA on First Nations communities, the constructs of faith, trust and distrust

were expressed frequently.

Contributing to a generalized sense of distrust surrounding SARA are ongoing state

actions which call into question the Crown‟s commitment to involving Aboriginal peoples in

SARA processes, including recent reports of fiscal mismanagement in regards to SARA.

33
This statement was extracted from a commissioned report developed as a formative evaluation for the core
departments responsible for SARA (Environment Canada, Parks Canada Agency and the Fisheries and Oceans
Canada).

53
NACOSAR was reported in an independent formative evaluation of SARA to be receiving only

50% of the budget allocated for its activities by the Treasury Board (Kerry et al., 2006). And

more generally, “despite the identified risks, challenges and needs, Environment Canada is

directing less than one quarter of the total resources set aside for Aboriginal involvement (about

$1 million of the approximately $4 million per annum) to this purpose” (Kerry et al., 2006, 22). In

some cases, funds allocated for enhancing Aboriginal involvement in SARA “were re-profiled to

other non-Aboriginal program areas” (Kerry et al., 2006, 22). Such reports serve to solidify a

sense of distrust of federal SAR processes and a lack of faith in the state‟s commitment to

Aboriginal involvement.

Such reports also strengthen the resolve of communities like WIFN to move towards

regaining control over SAR conservation in their own communities. During the CESPA and then

SARA development processes, the WIFN community expressed their desire for WIFN to

continue controlling conservation and species protection and recovery on its own land base.

Something akin to this possibility is provided for in the Act. For example, Section 11 agreements

would, if entered into, allow the opportunity for communities to secure sustained core funding for

- and at least shared control over - species at risk protection and recovery processes on their

land bases. Thus far, however, despite efforts to move towards this type of scenario, WIFN has

encountered significant resistance from federal officials:

I‟ve been asking this [about Section 11 agreements] for 3 years. I know it‟s been around.
I said “can we get into this agreement? This will allow the funding mechanisms that will
allow us to work together”…And they‟ve been refusing…Whoever starts it‟ll be the first
agreement in Canada, and they‟re pretty leery about that. (Frank, FNR)

There appears to be significant inertia in terms of moving towards a scenario of greater

control over SARA processes by First Nations. This inertia appears to be at least partially rooted

in a basic mismatch in terms of scale of interactions at the First Nation versus federal levels, as

54
depicted in Figure 2.334. This schematic represents input from research contributors indicating

that, predominantly, First Nations decision-makers (e.g. Chief and Council, top left of the

diagram) deal with the federal government regarding SARA issues via meetings with civil

servants or direct environmental practitioners such as government environmental scientists

(depicted by bottom right-most circle in the diagram) rather than their dominant society decision-

making counterparts (top right circle in diagram).

First Nation Dominant Society

political body political body
(charged with (e.g. relevant
decision-making directors/ministers,
responsibilities) with jurisdiction for Inappropriate /
decision-making)
mismatched scale
of interaction
(represented by
dashed arrow)
leads to challenges
to cooperatively
First Nation Federal Civil making decisions
environmental Servants and/or
practitioners (lack environmental
jurisdiction for practitioners (lack
decision-making) jurisdiction for
decision-making)

Figure 2.3: Schematic of predominant, mismatched

scales of interactions in SARA processes

While First Nations leaders are charged with carrying out decision-making

responsibilities, and therefore need to know the political implications of and political routes to

various scenarios, civil servants are not in a position to provide this type of information or to

make decisions that First Nations leaders may require. Thus, while the scale of interaction

between First Nations environmental practitioners (circle at bottom left of diagram) and civil

servants/state environmental practitioners may be appropriate, meetings between First Nations

34
In Figures 2.3 and 2.4, interactions between the political and practitioner levels on both the left and right sides of
the diagram are omitted in order to provide a simplistic representation allowing for the primary argument regarding
appropriate interactions between political bodies to be visually paramount. However, interactions between the
practitioner and political levels can be considered givens – either through direct interfacing in small-scale scenarios
or via protocols or policy direction in broader-scale scenarios.

55
politicians and „low-level‟ federal staff is not appropriate – at least when decision-making

regarding legislation-based issues is on the table. And, according to contributors, such

mismatched scales of interaction lead not only to awkward social encounters and frustration on

both sides, but to resistance in terms of First Nations engagement with government bodies

responsible for SAR conservation and recovery.

In reference to ongoing interactions between federal civil servants and WIFN‟s Chief and

Council regarding SAR work, the following statement indicates the need for alternative

structures and processes, for all parties involved:

They sent different people…people lower…from Environment Canada. They‟re

communications people, I guess…and our Chief said “We expect you to address these
issues [regarding impacts of critical habitat designation and compensation]. We‟re re-
stating these issues again. You haven‟t dealt with them.”… And he told them - if you
can‟t come back with answers, don‟t come back at all.” (Frank, FNR)

This statement presents an indication of a basic challenge to engagement resulting from

current governance structures, and the need for a restructured scenario that would allow for

greater equity in SARA governance. A model for addressing the issues raised here, and

implementing on a practical level the principles introduced in Figure 2.2, is depicted in Figure

2.4. This schematic provides a concrete example of what nation-to-nation governance in SARA

processes – called for by contributors throughout the project - could look like. In this scenario,

First Nations sovereignty is recognized: the two „sets‟ of political bodies engage directly at

decision-making levels (represented by the arrow connecting the top two circles), and „low level‟

federal representatives (e.g. civil servants or environmental practitioners) only engage directly

with their counterparts in the community (e.g. community-based environmental professionals);

this latter interaction is represented by the arrow connecting the lower two circles. As indicated

in the schematic, First Nations would, via this route, be able to contribute directly via

cooperatively-developed strategies and outcomes, and these outcomes would thus have a

greater likelihood of addressing and accommodating First Nations concerns and needs.

56
 First Nation Dominant Society
political body political body
(charged with (e.g. relevant
decision-making directors/ministers,
responsibilities) with jurisdiction for Matched scales of
decision-making) interaction lead
to ability to
cooperatively
make decisions.
Mismatched scale
of interaction is
First Nation Federal Civil removed in this
environmental Servants and/or scenario.
practitioners (lack environmental
jurisdiction for practitioners (lack
decision-making) jurisdiction for
decision-making)

Figure 2.4: Schematic of improved

SARA governance structure

When Inclusion Isn’t all it’s Cracked up to be

However, as has been noted throughout this paper, such a nation-to-nation governance

structure does not yet exist. Rather, throughout the various manifestations of Canada‟s SAR

strategy – from SARA‟s development to its administration – First Nations continue to be

marginalized and excluded from decision-making while simultaneously being heralded as

„included‟ in SARA processes. The illusion of disaffiliation from colonial practices created by

(limited) openings for First Nation participation in SARA processes is further demonstrated in

the research and information collation processes mandated in the Act; these stages serve as

additional sources of scepticism regarding the role envisioned in SARA for the inclusion of

Aboriginal peoples.

In the SAR context, research must be carried out on each species for the development

of status assessments, recovery strategies and recovery action plans (Canada, 2008c and d).

Primarily, community involvement in this research takes place in one of three ways: 1)

communities submit applications to competitive government stewardship funding programs

57
(where limited-term, limited scope funding opportunities predominate)35; 2) opportunities are

offered for community members to work with government-hired researchers in investigating

various attributes of SAR on First Nations lands; 3) community representatives are asked to

provide comments and editorial/review work on SAR-related documents. These opportunities for

involvement are seen as problematic in several ways.

Firstly, opportunities for communities to run their own SAR programming rely on

accessing support available primarily through programs based on dominant society‟s

understanding of what is relevant for environmental management and for communities (see

quote below). This level of involvement within SARA processes does not accord with most First

Nations people‟s ideas of restoration of jurisdiction or centrality of roles in environmental

management and, according to contributors, leads to a frequent mismatch in initiatives for which

communities are seeking funding versus initiatives for which funding is considered relevant, and

therefore is made available. For example, in reference to a WIFN initiative targeted at

enhancing community knowledge of and involvement in SAR initiatives, Frank (FNR) noted:

And they [federal officials] were saying - well, it‟s not really a recovery strategy. It didn‟t
fit their model. It was more of a community plan. And our argument was - well, that‟s our
approach. We deal with things as a community…we want to be going arm in arm with
people. And that‟s a whole different approach. The government doesn‟t see it that way.
So they weren‟t accepting our approach.

Other contributors further explained that funds are frequently only secured for portions of

community initiatives that accord with dominant society understandings of what constitutes

relevant aspects of environmental management, leaving community-based approaches,

understandings and strategies unsupported.

35
Some communities have successfully accessed resources for self-directed programs via one of the two funding
initiatives under the Aboriginal Funds for Species at Risk Program, managed by the three relevant government
agencies in cooperation with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (Species at Risk Public Registry, 2009).
Contributors from WIFN, however, expressed that their own experiences indicated that these programs would make
financial resources available to the community only for the transfer of administrative function from state to First
Nations bodies - not for community direction of programming.

58
 Secondly, SAR-related documents to which communities are asked to provide input are

very often sent to First Nations after having already been tendered, researched and written.

While consultation with communities is required, First Nations assertions that true consultation

means involving them from the earliest stages are rarely addressed. In addition, there is usually

no offer of support for the significant human resources required for the requested involvement

(WIFN, 2009a). As a result, many communities have minimal if any resources to deal with

„consultation‟, and SAR-related documents are frequently completed without any real First

Nations input: Documents are simply unlikely to be reviewed adequately – if at all - given

unaddressed capacity issues. As a result:

what will happen is they will go ahead and they‟ll push their plan through. The plan will
get adopted and signed-off on. And they‟ll say “was there Aboriginal input?” And they‟ll
say “we tried to call 14 times and they wouldn‟t comment, and we can‟t wait any longer,
so we have to move forward.” (Cole, FNR)

What is significant about this unsupported - and thus frequently unrealized - opportunity

for First Nations involvement is that finalized SAR-related documents (recovery strategies and

action plans) constitute the foundation for triggering SARA processes such as critical habitat

designation and related prohibitions. As discussed above, these outcomes have the potential to

significantly impact communities.

Adding to the frustration surrounding the need for First Nations input into these

documents, but little support for capacity to actually provide this, is the tight timeframes under

which First Nations are routinely expected to operate. It has been argued that the temporal

structures established in SARA processes are insufficient for accommodating Aboriginal

consultation. Within SARA, “[r]ecovery strategies must be completed within one year of the

species being listed as endangered, and within two years of the species being listed as

threatened or extirpated” (Canada, 2008c); both recovery strategies and action plans provide for

60-day comment periods, after which the documents must be finalized in 30 days (Canada,

2008c and d). While the federal government has been criticized for frequently failing to meet

59
these legally mandated timelines (Ecojustice et al., 2009), SARA processes as imposed on First

Nations reflect the tight nature of the temporal structures built into the Act. Meaningful

engagement in one- or two-year strategy development processes – and certainly commenting

periods of 60 days for those communities not able to engage directly in such development - are

woefully inadequate for communities dealing with frequently severe resource limitations.

Referring to the repercussions for communities, one participant states,

deadlines for establishing recovery strategies...in SARA were set without taking into
account the Crown‟s legal responsibilities relating to engagement, consultation,
accommodation, and informed consent by First Nations that might be impacted by
rushing to meet those artificial/ political deadlines – it points to the broader scale lack of
consultations with folks that will be infringed upon. (Frank, FNR)

Finally, another problematic feature of SARA processes for First Nations is the fact that,

if communities do provide input, the criteria of Aboriginal consultation can be checkmarked by

officials, whether that input is directly incorporated into the direction/shaping of a strategy or not.

In addition, if input is requested and is incorporated (such as information on important hunting

grounds in a community, or knowledge of the whereabouts of particular SAR), such information

can form the basis for triggering SARA mechanisms. Thus, requests for First Nations

involvement in SARA processes are frequently met with suspicion and resistance, as expressed

by this contributor:

where the distrust comes from is if they were to be applying laws and policies that were
going to change our lifestyle, and tell us that we can no longer be using those plants and
animals…and say: “you can‟t use them anymore; you need to protect them; you can‟t
touch them; this is the last remaining area with them, therefore you can‟t use them
anymore.” So we don‟t want to see that. I guess that‟s what our first suspicions would be.
(Cheryl, FNR)

As a result of such concerns, information is frequently simply not shared (see Chapter 3

of the dissertation for further discussion on challenges in information exchange in the SARA

context). Expressing his concerns surrounding SARA-related implications for First Nations,

another contributor equates current requests for First Nations involvement across the SARA

framework to state-sanctioned sleight of hand:

60
 You‟re going to give us a little bit of money…to document all the SAR, and it‟s going to
create some summer jobs for some summer students. [Then] we‟re going to give you
this lesson at the end of the day: we‟re going to tell you “you know what? We clear-cut
everything else in the province. There‟s only this little oasis. You‟re not going to be able
to do anything on your property, I‟m sorry.” (John, FNR)

Concerns that openings for First Nations within SARA processes can lead to potential

infringement on rights - in combination with a generalized lack of opportunity for decision-

making and paternalistic relations within the SARA context more broadly - have contributed to a

questioning of what „inclusion‟ in SARA processes really means for First Nations. As a result, a

number of contributors questioned the wisdom for First Nations of engaging in SARA processes

at all. On the ground, the outcome is an increasing resistance to research and activities related

to SAR on community lands:

no, we don‟t need any more species at risk out here identified, because it just puts more
potential for critical habitat to be found here. (Frank, FNR)

Concerns regarding such outcomes have, in some cases, led to reticence or outright

refusal on the part of WIFN or Heritage Centre leadership to engage in SARA processes and

SAR-focused research initiatives. As Zak (FNR) indicates in reference to attempts by, for

example, Stewardship Councils or Conservation Authorities to involve First Nations in initiatives,

decisions regarding non-participation sometimes need to be and are made – and often the basis

for such decisions is governance structures that simply don‟t fit with the community‟s priorities:

There‟s no relationship with Ontario, or Canada, with our government…where is the

other recognition and respect for the different levels of our government, and our
structures, and our stakeholders?...because it‟s not a good fit, we‟re not participating.

This and earlier sections focused on First Nations‟ responses to, and fears and

frustrations surrounding, SARA as well as resentment and resistance to SARA processes,

outcomes and impacts. Why then, given the challenging, inequitable context in which current

61
relations take place, do First Nations continue, at least to a certain extent, to work with SARA

processes? The following section explores this question.

Engagement Anyway? Rationalizing Involvement in SARA Processes Amidst a Sea of

Challenges

Perspectives shared by contributors offer insight into why, amidst the sea of challenges

related to SARA processes discussed here, First Nations communities and individuals still

frequently engage in these. While communities may be fearful of, frustrated with and resistant to

many of the processes within SARA and the colonial principles on which they rest, this should

not be conflated with a notion that communities are resistant to the basic principles of SARA:

protecting and working towards the recovery of SAR. Contributors routinely expressed their

profound commitment to ensuring ecological health, frequently referencing their people‟s sacred

responsibility to the land and life on it:

we have a responsibility to do what we can to protect something that is sacred…our

trees and water and air - all these sacred elements that we need in order to live…in our
language we‟re seen as the keepers of the land. (Harold, FNR)

It‟s our responsibility…we‟ve got the responsibility to take care of these things [SAR].
(Frank, FNR)

We‟ve looked after this land for many generations. We‟ll continue to do so. (John, FNR)

These sentiments are echoed by First Nations throughout Canada. The Assembly of

First Nations‟ calls for a central role for First Nations in the area of species at risk protection and

recovery is expressed as being rooted in traditional (and continuing) relationships with and

responsibilities to the land: “…as traditional Keepers of the Earth, we have a solemn duty to try

to help prevent species from becoming at risk, and to assist in saving those that are at risk”

(Assembly of First Nations, 2005c, 2).

62
 It was this sense of deep responsibility and a sacred relationship with the land that was

expressed as the motivation behind being involved in SARA processes to the extent that

communities have been thus far. Contributors expressed that their commitment to caring for the

land meant that, if external initiatives such as SARA-related processes might benefit the

environment, then working towards combining internal directions with external efforts was

responsible and appropriate:

it‟s not just the planning on Walpole Island - because we‟re connected to the rest of the
territories. So we‟re hoping that…we‟ll be able to work more - closer together, and for the
benefit of all people. (Zak, FNR)

if it benefits our homeland, yeah: we want to see it done. (Frank, FNR)

In addition, contributors expressed hope that First Nations involvement – even if

currently inadequate and inequitable – will, in the long term, positively influence the outcomes

for SAR:

We‟ve got a completely different perspective on the world. So, our hope is that by being
involved…that it will make the outcome much better. And eventually maybe it will. (Dawn,
FNR)

Thus, despite the many ways in which SARA may negatively impact on communities

such as WIFN, a commitment remains to effecting the basic goals of species protection and

recovery – if necessary, by engaging with federal actors under less than ideal circumstances.

Conclusion: Shifting Perspectives, Moving Towards Equity

What is needed is “the inclusion of colonized peoples in institutions of power…which

reflects [sic] the priorities and cultural assumptions of the colonized as well as those of
the colonizer” (Green, 2002, 33)

This paper outlined some of the many and varied ways in which the federal Species at

Risk Act impacts on First Nations communities in Canada. The Act was shown to inequitably

burden First Nations; to have the potential to allow for significant infringement on Aboriginal

63
rights; to enable only a version of Aboriginal inclusion which precludes any decision-making or

restoration of jurisdiction; and to contribute to distrust and scepticism in what are already

strained First Nations/state relations. An enhanced understanding of these varied impacts was

made available only by paying attention to the perspectives of First Nations actors themselves;

these voices have been inadequately heard in the literature thus far, on this topic and others. It

is contributors‟ own expressions about SARA‟s impacts which permitted this opportunity for

improving current understandings of the colonial forces still being felt by communities, and these

expressions which can allow for an opportunity – through knowledge of this fact – to overcome

these.

The experiences shared through this project support the assertions of Indigenous and

western critical theorists that, within environmental management at least, colonial institutions

and implications persist for Aboriginal peoples in Canada. The convergent perspectives offered

by contributors on the topic addressed in this chapter indicate a widely-shared sense of SARA‟s

significance for First Nations communities within this context36. Charting a path to a scenario

beyond the inequities and systemic colonial patterns identified in SARA processes is perhaps

especially relevant at a time when, in so many cases, exclusion takes the complex, often

confounding and slippery form of „inclusion‟.

Aboriginal leaders and scholars continue to argue that this path must be based on

Aboriginal people themselves participating via decision-making roles in environmental

management; only via these means will restoration of jurisdiction and full implementation of

legally-recognized rights be achieved. Such participation would mean working alongside

Canada to shape and implement approaches to SAR management and protection (McGregor,

2009; Nelson, 2005; Stevenson, 2003). This form of participation is key to allowing for a closing

36
Debates or conflicts about the implications and relevance of SARA did not arise during the research – either
amongst those directly involved as contributors to this research, or amongst community members with whom project
findings were shared during later research phases (for example, via presentations or other communications).

64
of the gap referred to earlier between the promises of recognition of an Aboriginal role in

environmental management and the implementation of Aboriginal rights – i.e. key to the

achievement of a meaningful First Nations role in this arena37.

A practical reading of this sounds manageable: “[w]e need…a co-decision environment,

equal parties making the decisions” (Powless, 2006, 56). However, achieving a shared

understanding of equality and „inclusion‟ in decision-making is a complex and challenging task.

The only way to build a new First Nations/state relationship is to move “away from...legislation

and policies that are anchored in colonialism” (Assembly of First Nations, 2009). This will

require a major paradigm shift in how the federal government currently functions in the area of

Aboriginal relations – from a primarily minimum obligation approach to enactment of Canada‟s

fiduciary responsibility to ensure actions in the best interests of Aboriginal peoples, to

reconciling acknowledgement of past and current inequities with a commitment to improved

future relations, and to paying honourable attention to our historical and contemporary

commitments. Chapters 5 and 6 of this dissertation further discuss specific changes necessary

for implementing the co-governance arrangements indicated in Figure 2.2, as well as the broad,

policy-level scale at which these changes are being recommended.

The nation‟s historical and contemporary recognitions and commitments mean that – in

the context of SARA as elsewhere – Canada does not have ultimate dominion over decisions

which affect the environment; Aboriginal people are de facto partners in endeavours related to

the land (Doyle-Bedwell and Cohen, 2001; RCAP, 1996). Historical and contemporary political

bases for relations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians rest on acknowledgement

of the sovereign nationhood, and therefore autonomous decision-making powers, of both

Aboriginal nations and Canada (Erasmus and Sanders, 2002; RCAP, 1996). While legally-

recognized, however, and now recognized at least surficially within environmental management

37
See Chapter 1, footnote 3 for examples and a brief analysis of current environmental management initiatives in
which governance structures akin to that described here have been implemented.

65
arenas such as SARA, the paradigm shift will involve growing accustomed to the necessity of

closing the gap between recognition and implementation. It will require top-down,

institutionalized shifts in terms of how Aboriginal people are included in policy, legislation and

the implementation of national strategies. It will require listening to – and addressing issues

raised by – Aboriginal people in terms of what this shift must entail. It will also require a

commitment on the part of Canadians more broadly to advocate for the achievement of national

governance structures and processes that would allows us to genuinely call this a post-colonial

nation.

66
 CHAPTER 3

Contextualizing divergence:
Traditional Ecological Knowledge, species at risk, and First Nations/non-Aboriginal
relationships in environmental management

Authored by Zoe Dalton, in collaboration with Walpole Island Heritage Centre (community
supervisors: Clint Jacobs and Aimee Johnson)

Abstract

This article explores perspectives on traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) as

expressed by First Nations environmental professionals and community members and
non-Aboriginal environmental scientists and practitioners, particularly in relation to
species at risk protection and recovery in southern Ontario, Canada. By providing both
scientists‟ and First Nations community members‟ perspectives on this topic, this paper
makes more transparent the experiences of each of these groups in relation to TEK work,
and provides an opportunity for analyzing some of the divergent perspectives illuminated
through the research. Framing this topic is a heightened overall interest in TEK for
conservation, the mandated use of Aboriginal traditional knowledge in species at risk
work, and thus an overall increase in inter-cultural and inter-epistemological interactions.
Conservation scientists and professionals working within this context expressed their
belief in the potential of TEK to enhance conservation, but also raised questions about
the authenticity/authentic Indigeneity of First Nations knowledge holders in Canada‟s
south, and therefore of TEK in this region. They also expressed a perceived need to
systematize TEK research and validate traditional knowledge. Discussions with First
Nations environmental professionals and community members also highlighted the
importance to these actors of using traditional knowledge to enhance conservation.
These contributors additionally raised a number of concerns, however, including
perceptions that currents of intellectual imperialism underlie typical approaches to TEK
research and application, as well as a sense that the value of TEK for conservation is
being significantly limited by trends of reductionism and de-contextualization within TEK
work.

Introduction

A review of the environmental management literature indicates an increasing interest in

recent decades in Indigenous people‟s environmental expertise, commonly termed Traditional

Ecological Knowledge (or - particularly in a Canadian context - Aboriginal Traditional

67
Knowledge, or ATK38). Increasingly, the scientific community is recognizing that “knowledge

about the complexity of ecosystems is incomplete” (Houde, 2007, 11). Within this context,

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is coming to be seen as complementary to western

science, and the inter-linkage of these two knowledge systems is seen as offering the potential

to enhance capacity for addressing conservation issues (e.g. Balick and Cox, 1997; Barker and

Derocher, 2008; Hanbridge, 1993; Freeman, 1992; Hall, 2009; Houde, 2007; Hunn et al., 2003;

Shackeroff and Campbell, 2007; Usher, 2000). For example, recent work by Ban et al. (2009)

on marine protected areas indicates that greater knowledge - and greater conservation value -

result from combining scientific and traditional ecological knowledge. The authors found that an

enhanced informational base was produced when both knowledge traditions were drawn on,

and that the result was enhanced protected areas design as well as improved potential for

sustainability. Eisner et al. (2009) similarly found that landscape changes in the north could be

better understood with the incorporation of local Indigenous knowledge, that scientific research

could be ground-truthed, and that novel research questions as well as causal understandings

arose from engagement with Indigenous knowledge holders.

Much of the potential value discussed by scientists as residing in TEK lies in the in-depth,

detailed, local and long-term nature of environmental understandings held by Indigenous

peoples. This type of information is often not available in the documented scientific record (Ban

et al., 2009; Barker and Derocher, 2008; Bart, 2006; Houde, 2007), and in some cases is not

readily accessible via standard field work methodologies (e.g. typically short research project

timelines, limited numbers of study sites, and minimal longitudinal data collection for individual

sites) (Battiste and Henderson, 2000; Cardinal, n.d.; Freeman, 1992). Including TEK in

conservation is now seen (at least at a conceptual level) by many theorists and practitioners to

be a „no-brainer‟. As Usher emphasizes, “[i]t makes good sense to involve people who spend a

38
ATK is the acronym commonly referenced in documents related to Canada‟s Species at Risk Act, discussed in this
paper. However, for the sake of consistency with broader literatures on this subject, the acronym „TEK‟ is
predominantly used in this paper.

68
lot of the time on the land in environmental assessment and management, for the obvious

reason that they get to see things more often, for longer, and at more different times and places

than is normally the case for scientists” (2000, 187). Carmack and MacDonald concur, stating

that “close dependence on the land for survival builds an intimacy with nature that most Western

scientists simply do not attain” (2008, 277).

The local, detailed and longitudinal knowledge understood to reside in TEK is

increasingly being seen as particularly valuable for efforts focused on ecological recovery

(Turner et al., 2000). Within this area, TEK is discussed as having the potential to contribute

historical and baseline data: information that is often difficult to obtain, yet is critical in fields

focused on returning ecosystems and ecosystem components (e.g. species at risk, or SAR) to

their historical trajectory (Society for Ecological Restoration International, 2004; Wehi, 2009).

In Canada, recognition of the value of TEK – as well as of Aboriginal people‟s assertions

of rights to be involved in environmental management – have led to references to TEK in many

of the country‟s primary guiding environmental policy documents and legislation, including the

Canadian Biodiversity Strategy (emerging from the Convention on Biodiversity), the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act, the North American Migratory Birds Convention Act, and

Ontario‟s Endangered Species Act (Canada, 1994a; Canada, 1994b; Canada, 1992; Ontario,

2007; UNEP, 1992). Most significant for this particular discussion are references to TEK within

Canada‟s Species at Risk Act (SARA) (Canada, 2002). The result is the mandated collection

and utilization of TEK in some of the core areas of environmental management in Canada.

However, the collection and utilization of this knowledge is not unproblematic, as

revealed in this paper. This article is based on findings from a research initiative exploring

perspectives from First Nations environmental professionals and community members, as well

as non-Aboriginal environmental scientists and practitioners, working in SAR protection and

recovery in Canada's south. Contentious issues illuminated via the research centre around

divergences in First Nations/non-Aboriginal perspectives on the nature, existence, validity and

69
relevance of TEK and traditional knowledge holders in SAR-related conservation. Findings

indicate that TEK, as well as TEK work, are frequently understood and characterized in distinct

– and often distinctly different – ways by the various actors involved. How and why should TEK

be incorporated into SAR conservation work? Who should be involved in this incorporation, and

to what extent? The research reveals that fundamental questions such as these can elicit vastly

different responses from First Nations vs. non-Aboriginal actors involved in the same field: SAR

conservation. Such differences in understandings are discussed here as leading to a range of

challenges in First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in this area, including frequently strained

and sometimes truncated interactions; these divergences are offered as at least partial

explanatory mechanisms for identified incapacities of these actors to effectively work together

on SAR conservation initiatives. It is argued here that the root of relationship challenges resides

in undercurrents of intellectual imperialism running through SAR-related TEK work, and that

identifying, recognizing and addressing these undercurrents is necessary if relations are to

become more productive, effective and positive in nature in the future.

A Road Map: Why This Paper Matters, Where it Leads the Reader and Why

The literature is replete with research on a variety of aspects of TEK in relation to

environmental management, and discussion and debate on the topic can be found across the

environmental management literature, within the natural sciences, social sciences and

Indigenous literatures (e.g. Ban et al., 2009; Houde, 2007; Hunn et al., 2003; Huntington, 2000;

Nadasdy, 1999; Nadasdy, 2005; McGregor, 2000; McGregor, 2004a; Nelson, 2005; Stevenson,

2006; Tsuji, 1996; Usher, 2000). However, the majority of this work focuses on fields such as

fisheries management, environmental assessment, wildlife management and protected areas

creation, and predominantly, studies have been focused on northern research scenarios. This

paper addresses gaps in the literature by providing original research on a little-investigated

subject (i.e. relations surrounding TEK work in SAR conservation and recovery), and in a

70
geographical location in which this topic has been little investigated (i.e. the south, specifically

southern Ontario).

Within this framework, the paper also represents a novel approach to presenting and

analyzing the divergent and frequently conflicting perspectives on the topic addressed here. As

the product of a research initiative aimed at improving First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in

environmental management, the article attempts to offer a direct contribution to such an effort.

Achievement of this goal was understood as requiring greater clarity regarding ways in which

efforts to collect and incorporate TEK in SAR work are influencing current First Nations/non-

Aboriginal relations, specifically within the field of SAR conservation and recovery. The paper

rests on the premise that, although presenting contentious material, its strength lies in providing

transparency surrounding the implications of divergences revealed via this research, and that

such transparency offers both the potential to enhance opportunities for constructive dialogue

between these two groups, and to provide insight into potential opportunities for overcoming

illuminated challenges.

The multiple aims of this paper - clarifying the bases of relationship challenges, providing

an analysis of significantly divergent perspectives, and contributing to improved relations –

indicated structuring the article in such a way as to unveil rather than attack or assign blame. As

such, arguments were deliberately presented so as not to appear in direct conflict with one

another: the paper introduces the reader to the broad „classes‟ of perspectives revealed in the

research (i.e. First Nations „vs.‟ non-Aboriginal) – but independently, rather than side by side

and in immediate contrast to one another. Perspectives of participating scientists are presented

in earlier portions of the article (labelled „Results Section A‟), but are not analyzed or „critiqued‟

at this point. Rather, the reader is permitted to take in and hear these perspectives for what they

are: common to the field, and representative of perspectives actively influencing First

Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in this area. What was shared by the non-Aboriginal

conservationists was also contextualized within the broader fields in which these actors are

71
positioned in order to provide greater strength to the argument that perspectives revealed here

are typical, and fit within the context in which these actors go about their daily activities. Latter

portions of the article (termed „Results Section B‟) present First Nations perspectives on

relations in TEK work and, via these perspectives as well as analytical review of the social

science and Indigenous literatures contextualizing the subject, provide the grounding for an

analysis of what was shared in earlier portions of the article. The paper‟s structure thus

represents an attempt to reveal and unpack what can be characterized here as unevenly-

perceived imperialist tendencies in relations surrounding TEK work.

Within the above-outlined framework, Sections A and B of the paper are organized

around the following themes:

1. The potential of TEK to augment and enhance environmental management,

particularly SAR work. This theme opens both Results Sections A and B, and

provides for the reader an indication of the significant common ground shared by

First Nations and non-Aboriginal actors in understanding TEK as significant in

conservation efforts.

2. Perspectives on the authenticity of traditional knowledge holders, the authenticity of

TEK itself, and the influences of such perspectives on capacity for cross-cultural

knowledge exchange. This theme introduces the reader in each results section of the

paper to some of the core areas of divergence actively influencing First Nations/non-

Aboriginal relationships in this field. Differences in understandings revealed here

revolve around the effects of colonial history, perceptions of assimilation of

Aboriginal peoples into dominant society, and perceived impacts on the persistence

of Indigeneity and authentic TEK.

3. Perspectives on challenges involved in inter-epistemological interactions, the ways in

which these influence First Nations/non-Aboriginal relationships in environmental

management, and the impact of these challenges on knowledge production.

72
 Exploration of this final theme takes the reader through a number of additional issues

influencing relations in this sphere, including scientists‟ calls for validation, „truthing‟

and systematization of TEK, and First Nations identification of such calls as markers

of intellectual imperialism. Analysis within this theme also enables an exploration of

the challenges posed to knowledge production from efforts to link a reductionist

scientific paradigm with a holistic First Nations understanding of environmental

management.

These latter two themes provide the context for analyzing relationship challenges

identified via the research, and provide the background on which are mapped recommendations

for mechanisms for relationship improvement. The first theme, prefacing these earlier themes,

provides context for some of the rationale and motivation behind persevering with cross-cultural

engagement despite challenges revealed via the research. Examining these topics from both

non-Aboriginal and First Nations perspectives provides a unique window into understanding and

navigating through some of the complexities involved in TEK-based relations in these contexts,

as well as ways in which to work towards overcoming identified challenges. Prior to delving into

such analysis, however, the rationale behind and „formula‟ by which the research was carried

out is outlined below.

Methods

This project represented an attempt, in process as well as product, to work towards

overcoming historically exploitative and extractive relations between non-Aboriginal researchers,

particularly academics, and First Nations (e.g. Schnarch, 2004). The project was carried out as

a collaborative initiative in partnership with the Walpole Island Heritage Centre, the research

arm of Walpole Island First Nation (WIFN). Chapters 1 and 5 provide greater depth with respect

to the rationale behind, and purpose and nature of our research relationship.

In total, fifty-eight people contributed to this element of our research initiative: twenty-

73
seven environmental professionals and community members from four First Nations (twenty-

one from WIFN), and thirty-one non-Aboriginal conservation scientists and professionals from

twenty-two organizations / institutions / agencies / groups39. Research discussions focussed on

gaining perspectives on topics related to a variety of aspects of First Nations/non-Aboriginal

relations, including relations surrounding TEK. The case study basis of our project, centred on a

particular endangered ecosystem, enabled research questions regarding First Nations/non-

Aboriginal relations surrounding TEK-based interactions to be grounded in specificity.

Background information on the context in which this research took place (i.e. SAR-related TEK

work in Canada) is provided below, and provides a foundation for interpretation of material

covered in subsequent results and analysis sections.

Backgrounder: Species at Risk and TEK

The federal Species at Risk Act (SARA), passed in 2002, governs national SAR

protection and recovery efforts on federal lands (including First Nations land bases) and

mandates the collection and incorporation of TEK into SAR research and management in

Canada. Five hundred and eighty-five species at risk are currently listed under the Act

(Hutchings, 2009) and over 1000 candidate wildlife species have been identified as requiring

assessment (COSEWIC, 2009c). Given that Aboriginal communities are home to approximately

40% of Canada‟s species at risk (Crawford, 2006), a great deal of interaction therefore has and

continues to occur between First Nations and scientists in the area of TEK and SAR work.

Community-based, Aboriginal-driven TEK research related to species at risk is occurring

in some communities - in some cases in partnership with external, non-Aboriginal groups or

agencies (e.g. Walpole Island Heritage Centre, 2006). Much of the SARA-driven TEK research

taking place, however, involves non-Aboriginal conservation scientists and professionals

working to collect TEK from First Nations individuals and communities and incorporate this

39
See Chapter 1 of the dissertation for an explanation of the rationale behind selection of research contributors.

74
knowledge into mainstream SAR work; these actors include:

 staff from a variety of government departments (SARA is administered by

Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Parks Canada Agency);

 academic and independent scientists; and

 scientists associated with COSEWIC (the Committee on the Status of

Endangered Wildlife in Canada), the “independent body of experts” charged with

gathering, interpreting and disseminating information regarding the status of

wildlife species (COSEWIC, 2009d).

Assessing the status of wildlife species is the first step in determining which species will

be listed under the Act; listed species receive legal protection. During this phase of SAR

research, “COSEWIC is explicitly required to use non-Western scientific (notably ATK)

information” (Crawford, 2006, 23). This is a result of the clause in SARA which states that, in its

efforts to determine the status of and threats to the persistence of species at risk, COSEWIC‟s

work must be based on “the best available information on the biological status of a species,

including scientific knowledge, community knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge”

(emphasis added) (Canada, 2002, 13). Via a tendering process, COSEWIC hires researchers to

gather information for species status assessments and write status reports.

Beyond the initial COSEWIC-driven species assessment and classification stages,

SARA mandates that TEK be sought out and efforts be made to incorporate this knowledge into

subsequent recovery strategies and recovery action plans. Employees of the relevant federal

department (e.g. Fisheries and Oceans Canada for aquatic species) are responsible for

developing these documents and ensuring that “the traditional knowledge of the aboriginal [sic]

peoples of Canada…[is] considered in...developing and implementing recovery measures”

(Canada, 2002, 2). Discussion in Chapter 2 of the dissertation clarifies the extent to which such

mandates are fulfilled in practice. Researchers involved at this stage may be government staff

or researchers hired via a tendering process similar to that used by COSEWIC.

75
 Results Sections A and B below provide specific context for and analysis of these

processes, as well as their outcomes, first from the perspective of conservation scientists, and

then from the perspective of First Nations contributors.

Results Section A: Perspectives From Scientists

Excerpts from discussions with participant scientists, below, offer insight into these

actors‟ experiences and perspectives related to mandated interactions surrounding TEK. This

Section begins with what are characterized as positive attributes of TEK, followed by some of

the challenges perceived to exist in TEK-related work40.

1. The potential of TEK to augment and enhance environmental management

Environmental management practitioners frequently face significant challenges in the

form of limited knowledge and understandings regarding historical occurrence, abundance and

distribution of species or other ecosystem attributes, and in the form of environmental

uncertainties (Bart, 2006; Brown, 2004). In the species at risk protection and recovery

framework particularly, information on historical parameters related to each species, as well as

how such parameters have changed over time, is frequently limited - yet constitutes some of the

fundamental material SAR scientists must attempt to gather as they work to determine a

species‟ status (e.g. endangered vs. not at risk) and develop an appropriate recovery strategy

and later recovery action plan for the species (Canada, 2008 c and e; COSEWIC, 2009d). This

contributing conservation scientist clarified the nature of the challenge:

one of the things that we struggle with in species at risk monitoring and recovery is:
every recovery strategy, you‟ve got this big section called “recovery goals and
objectives”. And you sort of sit there and go: how do we know when these things are

40
TEK-related perspectives as provided by participants were not typically divergent regarding, for example, the
value or validity of this knowledge during earlier stages of SARA processes (e.g. species assessment) vs. later stages
(e.g. strategizing around species recovery). Analysis of the data obtained during interviews indicated that
participants referred to seeking similar (i.e. basic ecological and natural history) information, and thus encountering
similar issues, for both of these stages.

76
 recovered? How many were there? Where were they at? What was the historical range?
(Jason, NAR41)

Within such a context, TEK is discussed as being able to contribute in significant ways to

SAR conservation and recovery. This is particularly so when settler accounts, early survey

records, maps or other documented historical information is unavailable or insufficient, and/or

information is impractical to obtain via conventional scientific methodologies. Several scientists

reported that, in such cases, TEK has played a critical role in their understanding of at-risk

species. In describing a scenario in which traditional knowledge holders were employed to

assist in finding a faunal species at risk as part of understanding its habitat needs, this

conservation scientist related:

they took us to places that we would never have considered - and found them [the SAR
in question]...would we have missed places? Yes...One place he took us was [a
particular location in the community]. We never would have gone there. (Anna, NAR)

Statements by several other participants concurred with Anna‟s, affirming the

significance of TEK in SAR work, particularly with respect to its provision of historical and

baseline information:

there‟s often really good information that comes out that isn‟t available
elsewhere...There‟s probably more ATK for some of these species than there is
scientific-type knowledge (Tony, NAR)

if you lock on to one or two key [First Nations] individuals...those are just invaluable
resources...in terms of being able to provide information on species, or abundance
(Jason, NAR)

The elders, when you talk about traditional ecological knowledge: they‟ve seen changes
within their own lifetime in the prevalence of certain plants, or the disappearance of
certain plants…different growing patterns, an increase in certain populations of plant
species, and a decrease in certain other populations of species; and the health of the
plants and the size of the plants. These are all examples of how traditional ecological
knowledge is able to be used as a baseline. (Suzanne, NAR)

41
All names are pseudonyms, unless a contributor specifically asked that his/her name be used. NAR indicates a
non-Aboriginal respondent while FNR indicates a First Nations respondent.

77
 in terms of ecological work...traditional ecological knowledge...offer[s] insight that needs
to be incorporated. (Emily, NAR)

These quotes are representative of what was shared by many of the participant

scientists in this study, indicating broad concurrence in perceptions of TEK as having the

potential to enhance SAR conservation and recovery.

2. TEK’s authenticity, and influences of perceptions on capacity for cross-cultural knowledge

exchange

However, not all of the perspectives shared by participating scientists focused on

perceptions of TEK‟s positive attributes. Questions were raised by some participants regarding

the status of TEK-based understandings, particularly in relation to issues of authenticity. The

root of this questioning frequently resided in a perception that TEK has been largely lost, or at

the very least, is a knowledge system experiencing rapid decline. The following statements by

environmental scientists - each of whom reports having worked with First Nations communities

for several years (decades in certain cases) - summarize the perceptions of many of the non-

Aboriginal scientists who participated in the study; as can be seen, concurrence is notable in

perceptions that, at least in this part of Canada, TEK is at best a knowledge system in decline:

I honestly think a lot of it is lost. I really do. I‟d love to be proven wrong. (Debbie, NAR)

traditional ecological knowledge is on the wane. (Robin, NAR)

there‟s a fair bit of effort expended to try and find ATK when there just isn‟t any. You still
have to go through the process to find out if there is. But there‟s lots of [cases where]
there isn‟t any ATK. (Tony, NAR)

I‟ve had such a vague response in some cases when I try to find out about traditional
knowledge…there‟s that…lack of total understanding even within the culture of what
everything is, and all that traditional ecological knowledge. I think a lot of it has been lost.
(James, NAR)

Other than a few extremely important and key people...it‟s [the level of TEK in
communities is] extremely low. (Jason, NAR)

78
 The majority of scientists who contributed these perspectives explained their

understanding of mechanisms behind knowledge loss as being directly related to historical and

contemporary colonial influences, resulting processes of assimilation, and an outcome of

decline or disappearance of traditional cultural practices and lifeways:

my impression is that that [TEK] is certainly declining, especially in more southern

reserves, where their lifestyle isn‟t that different than non-Aboriginals...my impression is
that, in southern [Canada], there‟s very few people - in fact, it‟s certainly true [at X First
Nation]: when we were doing work there, we were basically telling the First Nations
people what these plants were. And there was virtually nobody there that knew what the
plants were, or even what they were used for historically by the ancestors - for medicinal
or food purposes, or anything like that. There may be the odd person that knows
something about it, but I think it‟s sort of part of their culture that‟s disappearing...in my
experience, there isn‟t a lot of that in [this] southern [region]. (Tony, NAR)

I think there are a few people who are really knowledgeable about that [TEK]. But I think
it is just a small handful of people. It‟s difficult. This is south-central Ontario: nobody lives
off the land. (Emily, NAR)

I think that in today‟s society they‟ve lost a lot….actually going on the land…and tracking
and hunting in the traditional way. Nobody does that anymore. They haven‟t been doing
that since the „50s. (Janice, NAR)

I think the whole TEK thing to be highly variable...in our region, First Nations
communities are losing a lot of that traditional knowledge because of influences,
presumably of European culture. (Jason, NAR)

These understandings fit with trends identifiable in the environmental management

literature regarding perceptions of TEK loss. Hunn, a prominent ethnobiologist, argued almost

two decades ago that, due to colonial process, a great deal of traditional environmental

knowledge and traditions had already been destroyed (1993). In a 1999 paper, Zent argued that

such losses meant that TEK would soon be “gone forever” (91). The message remains similar

today: Carmack and MacDonald, in their work incorporating „Native experience‟ with western

science in the arctic, ask “whether or not the value of indigenous [sic] knowledge will be

recognized before it is lost” (2008, 279). Recent research (e.g. addressed in Furusawa, 2009)

points to various facets of modernization - including proximity to non-Indigenous settlements,

cash income and use of western goods - as contributing to the loss of traditional knowledge.

79
 The result of such perceptions of loss, and understandings of the colonial/assimilation-

based roots of such losses, is two-fold. On the one hand, motivation has increased for recording

remaining traditional knowledge before it is „too late‟ (McGregor, 2004a; Zent, 1999). On the

other hand, there is, associated with this perception of loss, a questioning of the authenticity –

and therefore validity - of knowledge provided by contemporary Aboriginal peoples (Nadasdy,

1999). This questioning of authenticity has led to calls for systematization and validation of TEK,

as explored below.

3. Challenges in inter-epistemological interactions surrounding TEK and impacts on knowledge

production

Processes of systematization and validation of data are central components of the

scientific approach to knowledge production. Perceptions regarding the questionable

persistence and value of TEK today has led to assertions that the use of TEK in conservation in

the contemporary context requires similar „safeguards‟ – i.e. not a wholesale acceptance of this

knowledge, but rather a systematized process of collecting, codifying, organizing and presenting

TEK, and a rigorous validation of this knowledge via western scientific methodologies once

gained in order to better evaluate and understand its relevance to environmental management

(e.g. Chalmers and Fabricius, 2007; Hunn, 1993; Usher, 2000; Tsuji, 1996).

The perceived need for such processes is strengthened by doubts communicated by

scientists such as those quoted below about the authenticity of First Nations‟ claims to

traditional knowledge regarding SAR, and therefore about the validity of the knowledge itself:

I think it‟s a bit of a leveraging tool they can use…I‟m not even so sure that all the people
in First Nations that use that [term] really understand what it is and what they have: what
their knowledge is. I get the sense that it‟s - not a flavour of the day; I don‟t mean that -
but it was a nice little flag to wave: „hey: we‟re special; we‟ve got this traditional
knowledge - but don‟t ask me what it means.‟ (James, NAR)

80
 I don‟t know. Honestly, I don‟t know...when it becomes a show, or a lobbying effort -
which frequently it‟s used as...It‟s a show that they‟re putting on because they‟re trying to
lobby someone else. I‟m not impressed by that. (Ken, NAR)

The following two participants also confirmed difficulties in accessing TEK, and

expressed that they were left via the following experiences of First Nations‟ hesitance to engage

in SAR protection and recovery (cited in the literature as experienced by others in this field as

well, e.g. Aurora Trout Recovery Team, 2006) similarly questioning the existence and validity of

TEK:

you can invite First Nations to a table on a recovery team - and I‟m not sitting on a single
recovery team; I sit on a lot - I‟m not sitting on any that have Aboriginal people sitting on
that team. And it‟s not because they haven‟t been invited...we throw mouth service that
we‟re going to use traditional knowledge whenever possible. But they‟re not there;
they‟re not there at the table to help contribute it. (Robert, NAR)

Jason (NAR): I want to know, as a biologist: where were they [the given species]? What
were they used for? How many were there? And things of that nature.
Interviewer: But you‟re not finding people forthcoming with that information?
Jason (NAR): No.

Regardless of participants‟ interpretation of the causes or implications of these types of

experiences, however, there was broad agreement amongst those involved in this study that

accessing TEK is challenging:

It‟s one thing to gather scientific information - and there‟s lots of tools out there for doing
that. But to gather ATK is a whole different ballgame. Well, how do we get this ATK? If
it‟s in elder‟s hands, it‟s not like it‟s written down. You usually can‟t just pick up a report
and say “here‟s the ATK on such and such a species”. (Tony, NAR)

people want to know that [TEK]…So the question is: how do you gain access to that; find
it out? (Linda, NAR)

I‟d like to know more. I‟ve had a tough time getting that information out (James, NAR)

it‟s not easy to track down who has the knowledge and then who‟s willing to share.
That‟s difficult. (Debbie, NAR)

I have a lot of difficulty with the concept of traditional ecological knowledge... I‟m not
seeing what they have, and then trying in my own mind to figure out what I think they
have. It‟s based entirely on what I think, not what I see. (Robert, NAR)

81
 These types of experiences contribute to arguments in the scientific literature that some

action must be taken in order for TEK-based understandings, mandated as they are within so

much of the environmental management field (including SAR work), to be made more

accessible to scientific and public audiences, and more useful in management. Within this

context, systematization and validation are discussed as necessary for ensuring that the

collection of traditional knowledge results in tangible improvements in the field. Such calls are

based on the following arguments:

1) if not evaluated and validated via scientific means, TEK-based knowledge claims will

simply not be consistently applied within environmental management (e.g. Tsuji, 1996);

and

2) traditional ecological knowledge alone is considered insufficient for determining

environmental phenomena or causality (e.g. Bart, 2006; Hall, 2009) or for balancing the

needs of human and ecological communities (e.g. Hunn et al., 2000); therefore, means

of integrating TEK with western scientific environmental knowledge must be developed

in order for the value held within TEK to contribute most effectively to environmental

management.

Usher (2000) argues that validation and systematization processes would render TEK

comparable to western science, making this knowledge more accessible to those unfamiliar with

it, and allowing scientists and the lay public to compare TEK-based knowledge with that

provided by western environmental science. Similarly, Wenzel (1999, 117) advocates for a

process by which to „truth‟ TEK, and Hunn calls for rigour in processes used to evaluate TEK:

“[TEK‟s] value should be assessed impartially on the basis of a careful and comprehensive

analysis” (1993, 15). Usher proposes such means: “integrating scientific and traditional

environmental knowledge requires validation through independent corroboration, internal

consistency of evidence, and similar approaches” (2000, 190).

82
Getting to Validation, Starting with Interpretation

The above discussion reveals that accessing Traditional Ecological Knowledge, the first

step in the process of incorporating TEK into SAR conservation work, is clearly challenging for

many scientists. And, for a variety of reasons including these challenges, many scientists are

calling for processes that would allow for a determination of the validity of knowledge gained

from those claiming to be TEK holders. However, determining validity requires first interpreting,

at least at some level, the information that has been provided by knowledge holders; and this,

as discussed below, is described by many to present a host of challenges all its own:

interpretation of data is a central part of an environmental scientist‟s responsibilities (Wenzel,

1999), yet many practitioners express that they are at a loss when it comes to interpretation of

TEK.

Some of the participants in this study expressed that their lack of clarity regarding TEK

interpretation stems from a basic discrepancy between the form of information commonly

provided by traditional knowledge holders vs. the form scientists are used to receiving,

interpreting and using in scientific decision-making. Frequently described as a knowledge

system they found to be qualitative, „fuzzy‟ and descriptive in nature, TEK was described by

some of the conservationists in this study to be disorienting:

there‟s a bit of uncertainty about this traditional Aboriginal knowledge, or Aboriginal

traditional knowledge - or ATK. That‟s always been somewhat of a - I shouldn‟t say a
mystery - but an uncertainty, or an unknown (James, NAR)

there‟s certainly a lot of - well, there‟s at least some kind of western science distrust in
some of the ATK data, because it‟s usually not the type of data that we‟re used to
dealing with as scientists. It‟s usually not quantitative; there‟s no kind of counts. You just
say “no, we don‟t see as many muskox over there as we used to,” and that‟s the ATK.
(Tony, NAR)

Part of the disorientation arising from attempts to link two disparate knowledge systems

can be explained by an inexact fit in terms of both conceptual categories and epistemology

related to understanding environmental phenomena. TEK has been discussed as

83
encompassing at least six different facets of knowledge: factual observations and classifications,

management systems understandings, facts related to past and current land uses, ethics and

values, and links with culture and identity and with cosmology (Houde, 2007). Given that the

scientific method is based on an observation - hypothesis development - hypothesis testing

model, scientists involved in TEK work frequently face conceptual challenges when provided

with facets of this latter knowledge system which cannot be readily observed or tested (e.g.

ethics and values regarding the land and relationships to it). In practice, these latter facets are

commonly integrated with the more „factual‟ information provided by traditional knowledge

holders during research discussions, resulting in a frequent lack of clarity for scientists on what

constitutes relevant TEK, and what elements of the information provided by traditional

knowledge holders should be applied in the field of environmental management (e.g. Houde,

2007; Nadasdy, 1999; Shackeroff and Campbell, 2007). For example, Stevenson (2006, 169)

notes that the Aboriginal concept of reciprocity (e.g. between hunters and the animals they hunt)

as fundamental to sustainability and to comprehending ecological phenomena is disparate in

nature and substance from conventional wildlife management approaches; the latter typically

focus on analyzing the impacts of humans on wildlife (e.g. intensity of hunting in relation to

population size), not the opposite. A scientist seeking information related to managing a species

thus has to decide whether and/or how much „data‟ relevant to the management issue under

consideration is provided within discussions surrounding, in this example, the idea of reciprocity.

For western-trained scientists, what at first appears to be a simple process of „gathering data‟

can thus become quite murky: because the interpretation of TEK means dealing with alternative

forms of evidence - such as stories rather than counts, and what are perceived to be vague

rather than fixed observations – many biological scientists find themselves in positions beyond

their comfort limits (Huntington, 2000).

84
 For some scientists, traditional knowledge holders‟ integration of additional facets of

TEK-based information with what are perceived to be TEK-based „facts‟ is felt to present

challenges to the efficiency of SAR-related processes, as expressed by this participant:

they‟re [traditional knowledge holders are] going to bring other things to the table, and
it‟s just going to make it [decision-making regarding SAR protection and recovery] that
much more difficult to do. (Tony, NAR)

Crossing disciplinary boundaries is becoming more commonplace and is being

increasingly called for in environmental work (Naveh, 2007). However, working with knowledge

systems other than the one in which an actor is embedded may require inter-epistemological

rather than simply interdisciplinary thinking (Beck, 1992; Murphy et al., 2009; O‟Donoghue and

Neluvhalani, 2002). And this can present significant challenges for scientists, particularly as, in

their training, few have the opportunity to develop „professional literacy‟ in areas other than their

own specializations (Stevenson, 2006). These factors, in addition to a common discomfort in

inter-cultural interactions, can cause both inertia and resistance to the use and incorporation of

TEK (Huntington, 2000; Shackeroff and Campbell, 2007). One participant stated that she feels

practitioners trained in western science may simply not be able to work effectively with TEK:

I don‟t think you can teach us how to listen for that traditional knowledge (Anna, NAR)

If such is the case, and many scientists indicate that accessing, interpreting and applying

TEK is challenging - and that the means to overcoming these challenges is frequently unclear -

where does this leave inter-cultural knowledge exchange in environmental management

spheres such as SAR conservation? The following section provides alternative perceptions of

the problem, as well as proposed visions for overcoming identified challenges.

85
Results Section B, and Analysis: Responses from the Social Sciences and from

Indigenous Actors

A number of responses to trends in TEK research and application exist within the social

science and Indigenous literatures, where understandings of TEK as lost, only partially relevant

to conservation – as determined by scientists - and/or in need of validation are frequently

problematized. Two of the primary focal points of this problematization centre on issues of 1)

intellectual imperialism, and 2) reductionism. Before embarking on a discussion of these issues,

however, it is important to note that there is a significant area of convergence – between both

the sets of literature being examined in this paper, and between the perspectives of those who

contributed to this study. This convergence revolves around perceptions of TEK‟s ability to

enhance conservation.

1. The potential of TEK to augment and enhance environmental management

Just as emphasized in Section A above, many of the First Nations contributors to the

research attributed great importance to including TEK in environmental work, indicating that

they felt that knowledge held by community members was essential to providing an accurate

and complete picture of environmental phenomena. This First Nations contributor summarizes a

sentiment expressed by many others:

those living in the area, and those that know that species in that particular climate and
area are going to know it best - because they‟ll be able to pinpoint more accurately when
that animal goes to breed, or when certain plants are not in bloom. It‟s going to vary from
place to place…if you‟re not there working with it as closely, or living with it and
depending on it, there are certain things that you‟re going to exclude. (Cheryl, FNR)

Such a sentiment is echoed across the Indigenous environmental literature, where the

ability of TEK to offer new strength to conservation is considered a given, and where the need

for more than solely scientific approaches to environmental management is emphasized (e.g.

Barnaby, 2002; Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force, 1999; McGregor, 2009; Stevenson,

86
2003). Specifically within the SAR context, First Nations‟ contributions are considered

imperative “in the struggle to protect and recover species at risk and their habitats” (Assembly of

First Nations, 2005c, 2).

So, within this study – and within the literature - there exists a powerful point of

convergence in which the majority of both First Nations and non-Aboriginal actors agree that

TEK can – at least potentially - enhance our collective capacity for conservation. However, deep

divides in perspectives exist in terms of how the knowledge of First Nations people should be

incorporated into environmental management, as explored below.

2. TEK’s authenticity, and influences of perceptions on capacity for cross-cultural knowledge

exchange

Within the social science and Indigenous literatures, one of the primary critiques of TEK

work centres on calls discussed earlier for a more consistent and rigorous validation of TEK-

based understandings via an increasingly systematized process of collecting, integrating and

evaluating these within environmental management.

The assumption critiqued as implicit in such calls is that dominant society‟s

environmental management framework - and its scientific underpinnings – constitute the sole

legitimate basis for conservation. Statements such as the following provide fodder for these

arguments:

although traditional ecological knowledge is important in its own right, it cannot replace
western science. However, traditional ecological knowledge can be used as a starting
point (or can be added to existing data bases), to help facilitate the direction and
approach western science takes to a resource management problem. (Tsuji, 1996, 75)

Seeking to make explicit the unequal power relations present when TEK meets western

conservation science in such a context, Agrawal highlights that, because Indigenous knowledge

“must first be recast in the image of science before being utilized”, the implicit assumption is that

“[i]ndependently…such knowledge has no existence, only possibilities” (2002, 290). Underlying

this is the message that traditional knowledge as provided is insufficient, and that only via a

87
western lens can it be truthed and be shown to be useful. Such an assumption has been framed

in the following way: “considering Western science as the central subject and object of

legitimate, important or serious intellectual endeavour is quite simply part and parcel of the total

European colonial structure – intellectual imperialism” (Colorado, 1988, 60). Louis refers to the

ongoing centralization of western ways of knowing as part of the “legacy of invalidating

Indigenous knowledge” (2007, 131).

Cajete (1999a) discusses that a perception of western knowledge as holding central

authority and legitimacy has shaped Indigenous experiences in powerful ways, resulting

repeatedly throughout history in the denial of Indigenous ways of knowing, being in and

understanding the world. The following statement, by a First Nations woman who has been

involved in externally-driven TEK-based environmental management research in her community,

indicates that traditional knowledge holders encounter a questioning of the value of their

knowledge and an implicit centralizing of western ways of understanding in their everyday

experiences with researchers seeking TEK:

“where‟s your research, and where‟s your statistical information?” You have to prove to
the outside world that what you‟re saying is true. (Susan, FNR)

The following contributors indicate that, in many cases, seeking TEK from a rigidly

scientific standpoint (e.g. demanding statistics on a particular environmental phenomenon)

actually inhibits one‟s ability to perceive, access and interpret traditional knowledge:

when they deny a people‟s knowledge because they cannot see or feel or quantify using
their methods, suggests maybe that the issue is that their methods or the lens that
they‟re using…are not allowing them to see what is truly there from our perspective.
(Bryan Loucks, FNR, pers. comm.)

Usually our validation comes from the experience, and showing. So if we can show by
our stories and demonstrate that and replicate it, I think that‟s where we get the believers.
But…they just want this quick validation: „show me; show me‟. You have to respect how
we show you. (Zak, FNR)

Several First Nations contributors expressed that denial of TEK as a valid, valuable

knowledge system in itself – or at the very least failure to perceive its validity and value – is an

88
active undercurrent in TEK-based work, where research and application embody the following

assumptions: TEK has value for dominant western environmental management, only once

legitimized, validated and/or authenticated via science. Bryan Loucks (FNR, pers. comm.)

distills the meaning of this undercurrent:

underneath it is always - whose knowledge is valued…and who benefits from valuing or

devaluing other kinds of knowledge?

Further calling into question the appropriateness of centralizing western science as the

sole valid basis for conservation is the fact that many First Nations contributors fundamentally

disagreed with the evaluation that TEK is lost or has been invalidated via colonial history.

Nadasdy (1999) reports instances in which scientists, while mandated to interface with First

Nations and incorporate TEK, believe First Nations cultures to be so eroded that they question

the credibility of the information to which they are exposed. Results in Section A above provide

affirmation of such findings. This belief is refuted, however, by the very different viewpoints

expressed by First Nations as opposed to non-Aboriginal contributors to this research; the

former consistently reported that, despite many challenges, TEK is still vital even in the south:

it [TEK] still exists, certainly. And then again, if you‟re not in the culture, you wouldn‟t
know that...Yes, it‟s still there, and people still collect plants and still use medicines and
everything. I guess that‟s part of the cultural shift that needs to take place - is the fact
that people still, even in this day and age, do that. And western society doesn‟t believe
that we still do that. They assume that we‟re all TV-watching, Nintendo-playing - I don‟t
want to go down the beer drinking route. But they have their opinions of First Nations:
that we‟re urbanized, and we no longer function as a culture - which is inaccurate...I try
to make sure people understand that we still do fish, and we still do hunt and gather
plants. It‟s still out there [that inaccurate perspective]; there‟s no denying that. (Cole,
FNR)

I‟d say there‟s a lot of challenges. There certainly are challenges...So I look at it as
challenges, but not being lost; it‟s always there. (Zak, FNR)

Even though we have been exposed, and many of us…have been living a modern
life…There has been that loss; but it does still exist....even though I live in this modern
lifestyle I still go out and collect medicines; I still collect nuts and berries. I know where to
find them and know which areas they‟re in. (Cheryl, FNR)

89
 it‟s more common than a lot of people think. (Bill, FNR)

Interviewer: Do you think that in the community there‟s still traditional knowledge?
Henry (FNR): Yeah, there is. That‟s what people don‟t want to really share too well right
now, too much about it.

In addition to refuting the perception that TEK no longer exists, a number of contributors

emphasized that an approach to TEK work based on a perception of loss can negatively impact

the potential to build First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in the area of SAR work and

elsewhere - and therefore negatively impact the potential to access and derive benefit from TEK:

As for outsiders who don‟t believe in traditional knowledge, that to me is a warning sign:
they‟ve got a closed mind, and they‟re going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to work
with. (Danny, FNR)

Until people fully listen, they won‟t get it. That‟s all I can really say...Hopefully, those
individuals will say: „it was all around us to begin with; we just didn‟t see it‟...But again, it
takes time to understand those teachings. And again, people don‟t have the time. So,
some will say: „I don‟t get it‟ and leave. (Zak, FNR)

if somebody doesn‟t believe that there‟s traditional ecological knowledge then that‟s fine.
I would just say: I‟m not here to prove it (Bryan Loucks, FNR, pers. comm.)

Interviewer: how would you respond to someone who says that traditional knowledge
doesn‟t exist anymore, and traditional values have been eroded to the point that they
aren‟t worth considering anymore?
(Greg, NAR): It may not exist for them; and they may never find it with that attitude.

Centralizing western scientific knowledge and legitimizing this form of knowing to the

exclusion of others is therefore problematic in several respects: It is a process that can be

understood as being underpinned by imperialism and acting to reify unequal power relations; it

may significantly limit scientists‟ ability to access and comprehend environmental phenomena

perceived by traditional knowledge holders; and an understanding of other knowledges as

illegitimate, invalid or non-existent is – from the perspective of the „other‟ knowledge holders

themselves – simply inaccurate. The following section examines some of the implications of

such centralization on knowledge production in the environmental arena.

90
3. Challenges in inter-epistemological interactions surrounding TEK and impacts on knowledge

production

Several authors argue that the process of legitimizing one body or form of knowledge to

the exclusion of another rests on a faulty intellectual foundation. Burgess, for example,

questions the supportability of claims that one situated, contextualized knowledge system (TEK)

can be validated via another (western scientific knowledge): “scientific knowledge can no longer

claim the status of objective truth. It [is]...one discourse among many” (2000, 276). Freeman

(1992, 11) concurs, stating that “[n]o one group of observers has a monopoly on truth.”

Regardless of the fact that the appropriateness of trends of intellectual imperialism may

now be in question – historically and within contemporary approaches to TEK work – these

influences appear to be directly impacting First Nations‟ interest in and willingness to become

involved in dominant society‟s environmental management structures and processes, including

SAR work. Many of the First Nations contributors to this project contextualized scientists‟

reported difficulties in gathering TEK within a colonial legacy that has left them distrustful and

resistant to sharing. Despite wishing to share knowledge they feel is important for accurately

understanding environmental problems and solutions, many contributors stated that the

destructive history and generally poor contemporary nature of First Nations/non-Aboriginal

relations – as well as the colonial undercurrents in TEK work – are a potent force limiting their

engagement:

because of the context, the background that we have to deal with: the issues of our
treaties not being honoured; to being marginalized economically by legislation like the
Indian Act; to residential school issues...There is still lots of suspicion from First Nations.
And our community is: „are we going to be screwed again if we share? How‟s it going to
be used, this knowledge, if it‟s not respected?‟ So we‟re still dealing with whether or not
it‟s a good thing. (Zak, FNR)

And our elders would say “don‟t share anymore. Every time we do the white man steals
it; they took it and used it against us”. And so there‟s a risk feeling that you have - risk
being taken if you do that, whenever you operate with other agencies, outside
organizations, people outside the community. (Bill, FNR)

91
 we‟re protective over that data; and hopefully they‟ll understand why. It‟s not because we
don‟t want to work with them and don‟t want to share the data...we do want to share it for
the benefit of the natural environment. What we don‟t want to see is the knowledge
being used in an ill-fated manner, so to speak, especially if we feel that in some way it‟s
going to be infringing on our rights42. (Cheryl, FNR)

working with non-Aboriginal people about things like that [environmental management] is
really difficult, because there‟s no, there isn‟t the same level of understanding, and, I
guess, value for the knowledge that we have as a people (Susan, FNR)

Thus it appears that centralizing western scientific approaches to environmental

management – as well as approaching TEK work from the premise that TEK no longer exists, or

is of only limited value until proven valid by science – serve as obstacles to the very aspirations

towards which conservation scientists are attempting to work, namely: 1) more effectively

accessing TEK; and 2) using TEK more widely and more effectively within conservation – both

of which rely on greater First Nations engagement with SAR-related work.

First Nations community members and professionals with whom I spoke expressed that,

in order for these aspirations to be achieved in the future, First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations

surrounding TEK – in the area of SAR work and beyond - must be improved. They

recommended the following as actions that scientists can take to facilitate achieving this end:

 working to build trust with individuals and communities, and taking the time to do

so over long periods rather than expecting to gain TEK “data” immediately

(community members discuss that, typically, scientists arrive expecting to be able

to parachute into communities and immediately gain - and then leave with -

information);

 relinquishing control over TEK research and conservation agendas, instead

having faith in First Nations‟ abilities, approaches to and understandings of land

42
See Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion on the ways in which providing ecological data can lead to infringement
on First Nations rights, particularly within the species at risk conservation and recovery context. For example, data
gathered from First Nations community members on a species at risk can form the basis for decisions regarding
declaring „critical habitat‟ on community land bases under the federal Species at Risk Act, and ultimately impact the
community‟s ability to access, use and maintain connections with designated lands or waters.

92
 and SAR management and conservation, and contributing towards allowing for

First Nations shared control over these activities;

 not expecting to be able to simply interpret TEK via the scientific approach –

instead seeking to learn with and from one‟s community partners: those

embedded in this different way of knowing and understanding the natural world;

 developing safeguards in cooperation with the community with which one is

working to ensure that collected TEK will not be used in such a way as to cause

harm to communities or individuals and/or be exploited for monetary gain for

external actors;

 respecting TEK as a holistic and sophisticated knowledge system in its own right

rather than valuing it solely for its potential to fill scientific knowledge gaps;

 shifting from trying to engage First Nations solely in dominant society-controlled

SAR initiatives to establishing co-developed, co-led SAR governance bodies and

strategies;

 recognizing that the time of community-based knowledge holders is as valuable

as that of scientists, monetarily, among other, respects: valuing time dedicated to

a project via monetary exchange may thus be appropriate in acknowledging

services rendered, similar to cases involving non-Aboriginal

specialists/consultants;

 acknowledging that traditional knowledge will frequently only be passed on when

the knowledge holder feels that the receiver is ready to benefit others with it.

Contributors to this study indicated that the above are key measures that must be taken

if progress is to be made in knowledge sharing and co-production in the area of conservation,

and SAR recovery more particularly. However, the following section explores a factor that, by its

93
entrenchment in the scientific paradigm, may serve to limit the ease by which progress towards

such goals may occur: namely, adherence to the conceptual ideology of reductionism.

Reductionism: Limiting knowledge production in cross-cultural TEK work - and beyond?

The second primary point of critique surrounding TEK research and application is the

reductionist foundation of the contemporary sciences, which are discussed as limiting, via

culturally-mediated understandings and approaches, comprehension of much of the value

residing in traditional knowledge (e.g. McGregor, 2004a). Authors describe two processes that

contribute to reducing the ability of science to gain from TEK-based understandings:

1. decontextualization, whereby traditional knowledge is extracted from knowledge

holders and analyzed and interpreted not within the framework from which it was

derived or by the original knowledge holders themselves, but within the western

science-based environmental management framework and by culturally embedded

actors trained within the western scientific knowledge paradigm;

2. „particularisation‟ or distillation of knowledge, during which TEK is broken down into

those parts comprehended via and seen as useful within the western scientific

framework and those that „don‟t fit‟ (Agrawal, 2002; Nadasdy, 1999; Nelson, 2005).

The underlying assumption in both of these processes that only via science-based

evaluation is truth and fact emergence possible – referred to by Agrawal (2002, 291) as a

process of “truth-making” - is problematic in several respects. While scientists such as those

involved in this project report that the goal of attempting to interpret and validate TEK is to

improve environmental management, the extent to which this goal can be reached via

approaches currently premised on the above means is being called into question.

Several authors argue that extracting and utilizing only those elements of knowledge

which correspond to pre-existing scientific categories of environmental understandings is a

94
faulty approach if the aim is to expand beyond our current capacity to care for the environment.

The current trend of extracting and using only those aspects of TEK understood by western

scientists to be relevant within current environmental management understandings “means that

the insights into the nature of the environmental crisis and approaches to its restoration that

TEK offers get lost” (McGregor, 2004a, 72). Referencing the concept of reciprocity again is

useful in illustrating this point: the author emphasizes that the Aboriginal concept of needing to

give back to rather than simply extracting from the natural world is an essential lesson for

sustainability. However, as discussed earlier, in a mainstream conservation paradigm in which

facts and data are the primary currency of the scientist‟s trade, straightforward adoption of a

foreign construct such as reciprocity is not a seamless endeavour. McGregor‟s argument is

particularly poignant given that only legitimizing as „truth‟ information based in or validated by

science means that contemporary scientific knowledge and approaches serve as the limits to

our environmental understandings – problematic in part because “the history of western science

makes it quite clear that the scientific truths of today will…constitute the bulk of tomorrow‟s

discarded hypotheses and superseded knowledge” (Freeman, 1992, 11).

The following contributor to this research affirms that, in his experience, reductionist

approaches to SAR work mean that the value TEK holds over and above that knowledge which

is directly analogous to science is often overlooked:

it‟s not just western science…There‟s a TK component to it, and there‟s our philosophies
and our way of protecting the environment that you have to respect as well. (John, FNR)

As Collignon states, “[j]uxtaposition has replaced opposition [to using other knowledges

such as TEK]. It is a first step, but we cannot stop there” (2004, 377). Nadasdy (1999) further

clarifies the insufficiency of using TEK only to verify or fill gaps in a pre-existing western

scientific knowledge framework. Concretizing via example, the author argues that it may appear

within current TEK research approaches that First Nations have no knowledge category

analogous to science for something like mining, and thus have no relevant knowledge to

95
contribute to decision-making in this arena. However, he argues that values, practices and

beliefs related to relationships with the land – knowledge categories with limited currency within

contemporary science-dominated environmental management approaches - do exist, and could

significantly impact management decisions in this and other areas of environment/resource

management.

The argument is that discounting elements of TEK that don‟t fit current western scientific

knowledge categories severely limits our collective capacity to move beyond the current

environmental crisis – a crisis which many argue is due at least in part to separating „facts‟ and

observation from ethics and values (e.g. Higgs, 2003; Naveh, 2007), a process evident in much

TEK research. The apparent incapacity of a strictly reductionist scientific approach to respond

adequately to environmental problems thus far is cited as an additional cause for First Nations

resistance in terms of engaging in contemporary science-dominated SAR work (Bryan Loucks,

FNR, pers. comm.)

Within leading-edge scientific discourse, there is increasing recognition that the

Cartesian-Newtonian philosophical underpinnings of the contemporary natural sciences – the

basis for much TEK research - contain pitfalls in dealing with an environmental crisis often

constructed as one whose cure lies in the collection of more isolated „facts‟. Naveh (2007) and

others (e.g. Sanderson and Harris, 2000) argue that the current reductionist approach to

environmental management is simply insufficient given the scale and level of complexity of

current environmental problems. Solutions to these problems, argues Naveh, simply cannot

arise from a paradigm premised on dealing with quantifiable, measurable and reducible „facts‟ to

the exclusion of ethical, values-based and spiritual facets of people‟s knowledge and experience.

Nevertheless, while theorists may be starting to adopt and incorporate these

understandings into their thinking, the social science and Indigenous literatures – as well as the

contributions of the First Nations actors involved in this study - indicate that such trends do not

96
appear to have yet manifested in the majority of TEK-based research and application, including

in the area of SAR conservation and recovery.

Conclusions and Future Research Directions

This paper aimed to provide transparency regarding perspectives on cross-cultural

interactions involving SAR-based TEK work in Canada‟s south, to provide analysis regarding

First Nations/non-Aboriginal relationship challenges identified by actors in this field, and to offer

some suggestions for mechanisms for relationship improvement. The article offered new

insights into cross-cultural engagement in environmental management by highlighting a topic

little explored previously (i.e. relations surrounding SAR-based TEK work), and, to my

knowledge, not explored at all in this southern location. In addition, by focusing in one

discussion on the perceptions of both First Nations and non-Aboriginal actors in this context, the

paper provided a unique vantage point for comprehending and analyzing challenges identified in

the research.

Research findings indicate that, frequently, a rocky playing field constitutes the basis of

interactions between non-Aboriginal scientists and First Nations involved in SAR-based TEK

work in Canada‟s south. A complex and divided theoretical and epistemological matrix, in

combination with - for many of the actors - a poorly understood backdrop of strained historical

relations, result in significant challenges for players in this field. Scientists who contributed to

this research expressed that they find it difficult to fulfill mandates to incorporate TEK into

environmental management arenas such as SAR work. And First Nations contributors

expressed that they are hesitant to engage in processes and structures perceived to differ little

in nature and form from a legacy of intellectual imperialism and knowledge appropriation.

Scientists involved in this field are attempting to gather and apply TEK within dominant

society‟s environmental management structures, but are doing so at a time when past

engagement between First Nations and western science is being critically evaluated and

97
actively challenged and resisted, in which the hegemonic knowledge claims of dominant society

are being rejected, and in which First Nations are increasingly questioning the value of

engagement with research and other activities seen as premised on knowledge extraction,

reductionism and intellectual imperialism – activities repeatedly seen to infringe on First Nations‟

rights.

Conservationists involved in the research expressed that they are seeking, via efforts to

fulfill TEK-related mandates, to enhance conservation. Yet, the fact that these actors are

positioned within and are operating from a dominant society, dominant intellectual tradition

framework is being increasingly problematized by Indigenous theorists and social scientists. In

question is the capability of such culturally embedded actors, situated within the predominantly

reductionist, mechanistic western scientific environmental management framework, to fully

access and apply the environmental understandings residing in TEK, much of which may not

neatly juxtapose with pre-existing environmental management understandings and structures.

The implications discussed within this paper are apparent incapacities to expand the SAR

knowledge base beyond what current mainstream approaches allow.

Both scientists and traditional knowledge holders who contributed to this project

expressed a desire to figure out how to emerge from the challenging situations in which they

find themselves in SAR-based TEK work. There is broad recognition that such emergence

would have potential benefits for all involved:

1. for scientists, who express a desire to overcome the current context of confusion and

lack of clarity and move on to effecting better conservation in a less challenging

working environment;

2. for First Nations, who communicate that they want to be integrally involved in

conservation activities - including SAR conservation and recovery - but feel that

current avenues for involvement aren‟t premised on equity or respect for them or

their knowledge;

98
 3. for the natural environment – in this case, SAR in particular - which would benefit

from stewardship approaches drawing on the strengths of both western scientific and

traditional knowledge intellectual traditions.

Ways in which to overcome the challenges discussed here is something that a number

Indigenous writers and theorists think and communicate extensively about. Many argue that

there are clear alternatives to failing via a bounded positionality to derive full benefit from other

knowledges. Primary among these is including „other‟ knowledge holders themselves in the

interpretation, application and evaluation of that knowledge – a movement considered central in

Indigenous calls for the restructuring of environmental management processes. As McGregor

states, “the only way for traditional knowledge to be respectfully utilized in environmental

management is to involve the people, the holders and custodians of traditional knowledge, in

such processes” (2009, 7)

The fact that “[t]his idea has not yet received sufficient attention” (McGregor, 2009, 7)

has led to something of a stalemate in terms of TEK being used in conservation arenas such as

SAR work. It appears that SAR scientists simply will not be able to fully access TEK via an

extraction-based, integration approach – particularly within a context in which First Nations in

Canada are increasingly asserting rights to play a leadership role in co-shaping environmental

agendas. Shifting paradigms to acknowledge the need for co-governance in this area appears

essential if relations in TEK work are to move ahead and conservation is to be truly based on

the best available knowledge rather than short-changed by truncated cultural exchanges. Such

a paradigm shift requires basing future TEK work on nation-to-nation relations as called for by

Aboriginal peoples in Canada and as enshrined in historical documents such as treaties, the

1763 Royal Proclamation and the constitution.

A suggested area of future research, therefore, is building and testing model scenarios

in which First Nations and scientists equally and equitably contribute, evaluate and apply SAR-

related traditional knowledge, and decide on the outcomes of knowledge application in the area

99
of SAR protection and recovery. Such a model would constitute a different form of governance

than currently typifies SAR conservation - or most other contemporary environmental

management – scenarios, and could allow for openings for TEK to be shared more freely and

applied more broadly. It could contribute to overcoming First Nations‟ fears of seeing their

extracted, decontextualized and particularized environmental understandings inserted into

dominant society‟s environmental agenda in potentially harmful or inappropriate ways, and work

towards their desire of having environmental management address and accommodate the

needs and priorities of communities. It could work towards overcoming the challenging situation

in which conservation scientists frequently express that they find themselves by allowing them

to more readily access knowledge they are mandated to seek out. And it could address the

hope inherent in documents such as SARA, which – by explicitly mandating the inclusion of TEK

in SAR work – provide a unique opportunity for enhancing environmental knowledge and

problem solving. For such a scenario to be successful, “the rules of engagement have to be

really clear and negotiated. And they have to be ethical and equitable” (Bryan Loucks, FNR,

pers. comm.). The potential gains of such an exercise appear to far outweigh any risks of

attempting to meet such requirements.

100
 CHAPTER 4:

Adding Layers, Building Linkages:

Non-Aboriginal Contributions to Model-Building, and Steps towards Achieving the Ideal

Authored by Zoe Dalton, in collaboration with Walpole Island Heritage Centre (community
supervisors: Clint Jacobs and Aimee Johnson)

Introduction

The aim of this Chapter is to offer additional layers of understanding regarding linkages

between the data collected and analyzed during dissertation research and development of the

model for improved First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations introduced and discussed in other

chapters. The focus in this piece is two-part: firstly, illustrating the support that exists for the

types of governance changes indicated in the model; and, secondly, exploring ways in which to

move from the current relationship scenario to that posited in the model. More specifically, this

Chapter offers further understandings regarding: 1) support for the underlying principles of the

model as shared by non-Aboriginal research participants; and 2) particular actions or steps

recommended by a range of research contributors to move towards achieving the goals on

which this model is premised. Given the nature of the topics explored in this Chapter, discussion

and analyses offered here are directly grounded in findings from the research itself. Section A of

the chapter addresses the first point raised above; Section B addresses the second.

Section A: Non-Aboriginal Contributions to Model-Building

The bulk of this dissertation may initially appear to centre on addressing governance

issues, needs, concerns and priorities as expressed by First Nations contributors to the project

and within the Indigenous studies literature. As a result, the reader may be left asking: what

about „buy-in‟ from the non-Aboriginal actors with whom First Nations are interacting in

101
environmental management? How useful can we consider the model for improved relations

offered in this dissertation to be if we don‟t know the extent to which these actors on „the other

side of the equation‟ may or may not feel it fits their expectations, understandings and needs?

This section of the Chapter responds to these questions by highlighting non-Aboriginal

participants‟ insights regarding shared leadership – indicating already-existing buy-in, and thus

probability of co-governance model acceptance and success. It is argued here that confidence

can be attributed to the theoretical constructs developed in this dissertation via the fact that First

Nations were not the only ones to express during the research a need for sharing leadership:

the underlying premises on which the model is based. In fact, perhaps somewhat surprisingly

given apparent divergences in perspectives indicated elsewhere in this dissertation,

perspectives shared by a number of non-Aboriginal actors on relationship improvement were in

alignment, on a fundamental level, with the nature of calls for change from First Nations

contributors, as expanded upon later in this section.

Additionally, it is important to note that the exercise of model development was

motivated not only by calls from my First Nations research partners. Rather, the majority of non-

Aboriginal conservationists interviewed for the project communicated that they agreed to be

involved in the research because they, like their First Nations counterparts, were seeking

answers and guidance regarding relationship-building based on insights shared by others in the

field – the basis of the model offered here. These actors expressed strong interest in working

with First Nations in conservation, but frequently communicated a recognition that current bases

of interactions did not - given failed attempts to initiate relationships, or truncated interactions

that many had experienced - appear to be working. As a result, a number of these actors

communicated that changes appeared necessary to allow for interactions to become more

positive and productive in the future, and that developing a model based on various

perspectives and a wide array of insights would be of immense value in knowing where to turn

next. Many of these participants expressed that they predominantly felt a sense of lack of clarity

102
regarding how to move ahead; however, in many cases these actors communicated significant

insights on some of the fundamental causes of relationship challenges, as well as the types of

changes that may be required in order for these to be addressed and overcome. Primary among

these expressions were statements related to the fact that: 1) current approaches to interactions

based on asymmetrical governance do not appear to be leading to successful First Nations/non-

Aboriginal relationships in conservation, and such a lack of success is translating directly into

both limited productivity in the area of environmental management and frustration for the actors

involved; and 2) shared direction of initiatives appears to be necessary if relations in this sphere

are to become more successful in the future and lead to more productive environmental

outcomes.

Thus, the model of co-governance offered in this dissertation was directly influenced in

its development by an attempt to respond to: 1) the self-determination, sovereignty and

reconciliation aspirations expressed by First Nations, but additionally: 2) the lack of clarity and

relationship-building challenges expressed by non-Aboriginal actors – and to do so via an

incorporation of insights shared by both „sets‟ of actors involved in the research.

Highlighted below is a portrayal by non-Aboriginal participants of the failure of current

approaches to working with First Nations, followed by insights these actors provided on how to

move beyond such failure. Each of the statements included here draws on the participants‟ own

experiences with or perspectives on unsuccessful attempts to work with First Nations; each also

provides an indication of the causes of such a lack of success: asymmetrical governance, and

lack of First Nations input and control in decision-making frameworks.

A Portrait of the Failure of Asymmetrical Governance

if you sort of come at them and say: „I think you should do this‟ or „I think you should do
that‟, it really just builds a wall between the two cultures…It was an example [referring to
his organization‟s failed attempt to initiate a conservation partnership with a First Nation]
of saying that: „this is what we want to do; and if you become a partner, then…‟
(Benjamin)

103
 [The organization I work for] had proposals in there to do a lot of [ecosystem] restoration
and everything else…[we] would have gotten the money, and then we would have spent
the money…and then never heard anything from them [the First Nation community]…
the money would come to [my organization]; and [the organization] would work with
them in order to accomplish what it was we wanted to do...But they didn‟t want to work
with us; they never even responded. (Ken)

this fall, I got five [contracts from a SARA-related gov‟t body] that are all on mainly
Walpole Island species. So that was supposed to be a joint project. But at the moment,
the lawyers from Walpole Island are talking to the lawyers at [this government body],
because [the latter] put out this tender bid without consulting…They have these bids.
And they wanted somebody to do most of the Walpole Island species - and somebody
who would work with the Heritage Centre. But they didn‟t run that by Walpole Island
before they put that in; so they [WIFN representatives] weren‟t very pleased about
it…legally, [this government body] and Walpole Island are having „a discussion‟ at the
moment…Yes, so, and that‟s just - it‟s just a jurisdictional thing. If they [WIFN] allowed
the federal government to do something like that, they‟d lose another few inches of
gain…it may be a lost opportunity for everybody. (Nadine)

It would be quite a novel approach for some people, I know. That‟s part of the problem.
They go there thinking they‟ve got all the answers; they think they can direct things…
There‟s still sort of, I think, in some areas, this thought that our knowledge is superior to
theirs…And that‟s going to be the biggest hurdle, I think. (James)

this extra hurdle of sizing everybody up and mistrusting everyone first…and rightly so,
because the rules under SARA governing First Nations are basically unfair, because
they‟re [First Nations communities are] considered federal lands. So that in the end, they
[the federal government] could just decide whatever they wanted - and they were
fundamentally unfair…And I think where the tension came in [in the conservation project
in which she was involved] was: “how do we [in the First Nation] know that they [the
federal government] are just not going to come and do whatever the hell they want to
do?” So that was a fundamental problem. (Robin)

These quotes provide a sense that, firstly, asymmetrical governance and lack of First

Nations direction in relationships appear to commonly result in strained or truncated interactions,

and secondly, that there is amongst the non-Aboriginal conservationist community in this region

a perception of both this fact and the limitations that result in terms of conservation outcomes.

Below are quotes in which direct recognition of the need for co-governance is communicated by

these actors.

104
Visions of Sharing Leadership and Working Together More Effectively in the Future

Even though we can provide all sorts of these things that may be of use, unless we have
the right motives and the right working relationship, there‟s going to be that resistance.
They don‟t want money for our agenda. We have to find out what is good for Walpole, or
with the First Nations, and respect that. (James)

I think you almost have to form - almost like a working group that is made up of First
Nations and these type of groups: like [X and Y non-Aboriginal conservation
organizations], Walpole; Alderville - so that you have sort of equal representation of First
Nation groups… (Benjamin)

I think maybe it [the approach of organizations to working with First Nations] just needs
to be a bit more open to what the community would have to offer on their own, and
maybe change a little bit of the way that assistance is offered…because sometimes
there seems to be…that sort of attitude that – “we know what we‟re doing, and we‟re
going to tell you how to do what we want you to do if you‟re going to take our money or
assistance, or whatever.” (Debbie)

arrogance…it‟s the first thing that‟s going to put off First Nations…People have been
telling them what to do for 200 years, and they‟re justifiably sick of it…[instead] you say,
you know: „here‟s an idea for a project; what do you think about it?...‟ And if everybody
says yes, yes, you have a meeting…But you don‟t sort of march in and start doing it, or
demanding that you have access to places and that that you set up experiments (Nadine)

[reflecting on a failed attempt to initiate a partnership with a First Nation] it should have
been more: „this is what we want to do; how can you help us achieve that?‟ Or: „did
these - any of these goals and objectives mesh with what - a program that you‟re
needing?‟ (Benjamin)

I‟ve heard about people making phone calls to First Nations communities saying “if you
let us in to do the survey, we‟ll give you this in return.” And that‟s not how you should be
approaching these. It‟s: “we‟re going to help you manage this resource, or this issue, or
whatever by working on something together for mutual benefit.” (Jason)

I think it‟s probably not telling them exactly, you know - what you want to do and saying
“you‟re not doing it this way” - but being open. (Roger)

you need to have a culture of cooperation. You need to have a culture of ethics and
ethical practice… rather than the institution setting down in stone “thou shalt do this.”... it
has to be mutual from the beginning so that perhaps there‟s a co-leadership…I think that
- ways of things being able to be done cooperatively… then you would have probably a
true partnership, where you would have „pro-choice‟. (Robin)

These insights, in combination with those shared earlier in this section and in other

chapters, affirm that: 1) members of both „sets‟ of actors involved in the research indicated that

movement towards a co-governance scenario is significant if both inter-cultural interactions in

105
conservation and the productivity of resulting ecological outcomes are to be improved; 2) a co-

governance model has the capacity to serve the needs and interests not only of First Nations

peoples, but also of non-Aboriginal conservationists; 3) as a conceptual guide, the co-

governance model forwarded in the dissertation has utility value, and can be reasonably

expected to receive favourable responses from a broad range of actors involved in this field.

Having thus addressed the first point outlined in the introduction to this Chapter, the

outstanding issue at this point becomes one primarily of implementation: how to move from a

scenario currently characterized by modes of interacting distant in nature and form from that

proposed in the model to a scenario of co-governance. The following section addresses this

issue.

Section B: Steps towards Achieving the Ideal

Given insight in other chapters in this dissertation regarding the fact that a co-

governance model is currently far from the norm, what types of changes implemented now

would support the paradigm shift in First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in Canada indicated

by the model? Section B addresses this point by providing suggestions offered by those

involved in the research regarding getting „there‟ from „here‟. It is important to highlight that the

following recommendations represent isolated and relatively small-scale alterations to current

scenarios, and that they cannot in themselves be considered constitutive of the types of

fundamental, systemic, broad-scale change posited in this dissertation as required precursors

for reconciliation and renewed relations. And yet, there is value in achievable tasks and tangible

accomplishments if these are supportive of movements towards the more fundamental goals of

achieving First Nations self-determination, recognized sovereignty and restoration of jurisdiction,

a return to nation-to-nation relations between Canada and Aboriginal peoples, more effective

environmental initiatives, and less strained, more successful, productive and respectful cross-

cultural interactions (Arquette and Cole, 2004; Assembly of First Nations, 2005b; Bird, 2002;

106
Erasmus, 1989) – in other words, movement towards reconciliation and renewed relations. The

following represents a summary of suggestions provided by those involved in the research that

offer direct relevance to moving towards reconciliation and renewed First Nations/non-Aboriginal

relations:

1. Core funding43: The need for core funding for conservation on First Nations lands was

raised by both First Nations contributors and non-Aboriginal participants in the research.

This latter group posited that the recognized ecological value of First Nations land bases

in this region warranted, in and of itself, dedicated, sustained, long-term funding support

for conservation. Those familiar with internal scenarios in First Nations communities

recognized that little to no sustained funding for conservation currently exists in these

communities, and that key players in these First Nations frequently do not even know

from one year to the next whether funding will be in place for them to retain their

positions – resulting in little guarantee that conservation initiatives in communities will be

able to continue from year to year. Non-Aboriginal participants typically did not refer to

governance in reference to funded programming, simply stating that core funding was

needed for conservation and to ensure communities would have financial backing for

ongoing conservation work. First Nations contributors were more specific, indicating the

need for community direction and control over the programs for which funding would be

received in order to ensure community-centered and community-appropriate approaches.

Recommendations for sources of funding from a variety of research contributors

included implementing Section 11, 12 and 13 agreements (see Chapter 2 for a full

description of these agreements), in which federal funding would be routed directly via

provisions under SARA. Other suggestions centred on fairly distributing the funds that

43
The recommendations offered in this section of the Chapter were not raised or discussed by all who participated in
the research. Rather, recommendations provided by contributors – in some cases many individuals, and in others a
smaller number – are offered here as relevant suggestions given challenges discussed in other areas of the
dissertation and/or in the literature.

107
 ENGOs (environmental non-governmental organizations) secure for work in their

„catchment areas‟: given that First Nations are often „within‟ these areas and, at least in

southern Ontario, are frequently home to the greenest land bases in the region, a more

equitable funding distribution would, it was suggested, be premised on assessing the

relative ecological value of First Nations land bases in those specific geographical areas

and distributing funding according to such assessments - e.g. funding allocation could be

based on the percentage of SAR on First Nations land bases in relation to the remainder

of catchment area.

2. Equal First Nations/non-Aboriginal representation on task forces and/or working groups:

regardless of frequently different rationales for this suggestion, both First Nations and

non-Aboriginal contributors to this research expressed that greater cross-cultural

interaction in conservation was an ideal that needed to be worked towards. Along with

this general comment came acknowledgement - from both groups of contributors - that

equal representation on task forces or working groups may increase the likelihood of

success and productivity in cross-cultural interactions. As noted in Chapter 6,

implementing this recommendation at exclusively local scales is insufficient for achieving

long-term, transformative change in First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations, but was

discussed as an interim measure to alleviate strain and improve engagement in the

immediate term and at the local level. Suggestions were made to include knowledgeable

and experienced facilitators in such groups, at least initially, to optimize communication

in a setting in which many actors would likely be unfamiliar with culture-based variances

in communication styles and decision-making approaches. Non-Aboriginal participants

who referenced this concept indicated the utility of such facilitation given a frequent lack

of understanding of how and why cross-cultural communication breakdowns had

occurred in the past. First Nations contributors suggested that aiding communication

108
 would be an important element in ensuring that equal representation (e.g. an equal

number of First Nations and non-Aboriginal individuals on a board) actually resulted in

equal voice, equal say in decision-making, and adequate understanding of community

approaches to conservation.

3. Funding/capacity to support greater First Nations involvement in environmental

management initiatives: Many non-Aboriginal participants involved in this project noted

that First Nations conservation actors appear to have too much to do and too few

resources with which to do it. This recognition led some to acknowledge that resource

shortages limited the extent to which their desire to have greater First Nations

involvement in management was achievable. First Nations contributors made more

explicit the fact that funding and human resources simply weren‟t available to participate

in a great number of external conservation initiatives, even when strong interest in an

initiative existed in the community. As a result, recommendations were made – primarily

by First Nations actors, but also by a select number of non-Aboriginal participants – to

accompany invitations for involvement in external conservation initiatives with, at the

very least, the funding support necessary to make this possible (i.e. to cover mileage

and accommodation costs, as such costs typically are not and cannot be covered by

communities). It was noted that, to make regular First Nations involvement in external

conservation work possible, funding would be required both for those First Nations

community representatives directly participating in initiatives, and for the research

centres, community administration offices or other community-based institutions

impacted by the absence of these staff/representatives. Several WIFN representatives,

for example, noted that participating in every initiative to which they were invited would

constitute a full-time job, and that, as a result, extensive involvement in external

109
 initiatives would require abandoning their community-based work – unsurprisingly

considered an untenable option.

4. More First Nations/non-Aboriginal engagement in long-term relationship building: one of

the challenges raised in this dissertation in relation to knowledge exchange centred on

the frequency with which First Nations/non-Aboriginal engagement is based on short-

term, project- or task-oriented, time-sensitive interactions (see Chapter 3). The need to

gain data or achieve specific targets in a limited time, within a scenario in which actors

involved frequently have little to no familiarity with one another, was discussed by a

number of contributors as both typical and straining to relationships. Both non-Aboriginal

actors who had been involved for many years with First Nations and First Nations

contributors themselves indicated that building relationships and maintaining contact

over the long term was important in allowing cross-cultural learning, establishing trust,

improving understandings of what mutual benefit might mean, and better comprehending

the structures, approaches, priorities and limitations with which each party contends.

Recommendations in this area centred on non-Aboriginal practitioners making contact

and attempting to build relationships with local First Nations as a matter of course in their

work – without any specific targets, timelines, deliverables or goals in mind aside from

simple relationship building. It was suggested that, if and when initiatives arose which

both parties considered to be of mutual interest, partnerships could then be initiated

based on already-established relations.

5. Improved cultural awareness/education for non-Aboriginal actors: A wide range of

research contributors emphasized that non-Aboriginal Canadians‟ awareness of First

Nations/non-Aboriginal relations – historical as well as within the contemporary context –

is typically quite poor, and that this scenario creates unnecessary challenges in

110
 interactions between these actors in environmental management. Many non-Aboriginal

participants opened statements during interviews with qualifiers such as „this is not my

area of expertise‟ or „this is not something I know much about‟. Cultural awareness

training was suggested as one means of addressing such shortcomings. Non-Aboriginal

participants discussing training noted that value would come from allowing them to better

understand how to approach and deal with sensitive issues, and from enhancing their

understandings of First Nations specifications around engagement. First Nations

contributors discussing this point expressed that educational initiatives surrounding

historical relations and commitments, as well as the ongoing vitality of colonialism (e.g.

the existence of the Indian Act) could greatly ease much of the strain they encounter in

day-to-day relations with non-Aboriginal conservationists, limiting the extent to which

they had to „start from scratch‟ with each new individual with whom they worked, and

setting the stage for potentially much more successful, respectful and productive

engagement. Recommendations for training venues ranged from sessions at

conservation conferences, to the workplaces of non-Aboriginal conservationists - to

fundamental educational transformation via incorporation of knowledge related to

historical and contemporary relations throughout academia, from the undergraduate and

graduate levels all the way down to the elementary grades. First Nations actors

emphasized the importance of training being led by Aboriginal individuals.

6. Support for First Nations environmental management network development: First

Nations contributors from the four communities involved in this research frequently

discussed the benefits they felt would arise from First Nations networking in

environmental management. Reference was frequently made to the fact that actors in

each community typically had little idea of issues facing others, strategies by which other

communities were dealing with challenges in environmental management arenas such

111
 as species at risk conservation – as well as successes and how others were building on

these. Suggestions for supporting First Nations networking in environmental

management ranged from making room (and providing funding to allow) for First Nations

environmental representatives to come together at local and/or regional conferences to

discuss areas of shared interest/concern - to securing and providing funding for regular

communication and meetings between First Nations to exchange knowledge, expertise

(particularly important for smaller or less well-resourced communities) and strategic

development opportunities. Such opportunities were seen as important in providing

learning opportunities, bringing together communities around shared priorities, and

building greater strength in terms of working towards adoption/implementation of First

Nations understandings and approaches in environmental management.

7. Support for First Nations protocol development: community-based protocols for

interactions in research and elsewhere were discussed by a number of contributors as

potentially helpful in serving as a guide for First Nations/non-Aboriginal engagement in

environmental management. First Nations contributors saw a two-fold value to protocols:

1) the guidance these documents would provide to external parties, meaning, again, not

needing to „start from scratch‟ with each new individual; and 2) ensuring consistent

understanding and implementation of strategies by new internal community

representatives, or those less familiar with standard, but unwritten approaches. Input

from non-Aboriginal actors indicated that clearer guidelines on expectations, roles and

responsibilities would aid in their understandings of how to appropriately relate in the

community context, particularly in that protocols could specify issues regarding direction

of projects, ownership of data, timelines, and research/initiative priorities. Funding,

research and capacity-building for protocol development were recommended to help

communities develop such protocols.

112
Conclusions

This Chapter aimed to add further layers to the research presented elsewhere in the

dissertation, and centred on answering two particular questions: 1) what support do the

underlying premises of the model offered in this dissertation have amongst non-Aboriginal

actors in the conservation community? and 2) what tangible steps, taken now, can contribute to

achieving these goals? Section A of the Chapter highlighted that, among the conservationists

involved in this dissertation research, recognition exists regarding the insufficiency of

asymmetrical governance structures and the need for sharing direction with First Nations in

environmental management work. Quotes from non-Aboriginal participants illustrated what is

argued here to be already-existent „buy-in‟ to the shared governance aims to which First Nations

contributors referred repeatedly, and thus a pre-existing receptivity to the governance directions

forwarded in this dissertation.

Section B of the Chapter focused on providing linkages, bridging the gap between

current governance scenarios in environmental management arenas such as SARA - in which

First Nations continue to have little direction - and what is posited in the model: co-governance

and nation-to-nation bases to relations. Linkages were provided here by sharing

recommendations raised by research contributors for improving current scenarios for both First

Nations and non-Aboriginal actors in environmental management. As referenced earlier, each of

the seven recommendations offered here (for example, support for protocol development) is, in

and of itself, insufficient for achieving the model‟s goals of equitability in leadership and

honourable relations between the state and First Nations. However, these recommendations

represent tangible actions capable of contributing to the achievement and effectiveness of

model implementation, while at the same enhancing the chances of success and productivity in

small-scale, day-to-day interactions - and thus improving working relationships for

environmental actors at the ground level.

113
 Chapter 5

Your Sincerity, Your Mind, a Little Bit of Yourself:

In Pursuit of Reconciliation Research

Authored by Zoe Dalton, in collaboration with Walpole Island Heritage Centre (community
supervisors: Clint Jacobs and Aimee Johnson)

Abstract: This paper introduces and explores the concept of reconciliation research –
an approach to the investigatory method characterized here as being premised on
supporting Indigenous communities‟ self-defined goals and aspirations. This approach is
proposed as necessary to overcome histories of Indigenous/non-Indigenous
relationships tarnished by the exploitation, extraction and cooption of knowledge and the
marginalization of Indigenous actors in the research sphere and beyond, and to
contribute to reconciliation and renewed Indigenous/non-Indigenous relationships. The
paper draws on a recent collaborative research project carried out between a non-
Aboriginal academic researcher and a First Nation community in southern Ontario,
Canada to define and characterize the concept of reconciliation research, and to
illustrate the benefits of this research approach to both communities and academics.

Introduction

The future cannot be built without due regard to the past, without reconciling44 the
incredible harm and injustice with a genuine commitment to move forward in truth and
respect (Atleo, 2009).

Indigenous communities45 have devoted a great deal of resources to the research

programs and practices of others, yet research relationships have rarely been of mutual benefit.

Non-Indigenous researchers have gained personally and professionally via their interactions

with Indigenous peoples, but such interactions have often left communities further marginalized,

44
Chapter 1, footnote 4 provides a contextualization of the term „reconciliation‟, both within the Canadian
discursive context (in relation to the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and Canadian Supreme Court
rulings) and with respect to usage of the term within this dissertation.
45
Note regarding terminology: the terms „Indigenous‟, „Aboriginal‟ and „First Nation‟ are all utilized in this paper.
„Indigenous‟ is the term commonly used to refer to First Peoples internationally; „Aboriginal‟ is the term used to
refer to First Peoples in Canada; and „First Nation‟ is the term used to refer to Aboriginal people in Canada who are
not Inuit or Metis. Use of terminology depended in this paper on to whom the scenario under discussion – or the
literature being referenced – was relevant.

114
both discursively and materially (Fletcher, 2003; Mutua and Swadener, 2004; Salmon, 1996;

Smith, 1999). Indigenous people have typically been treated by western researchers as

repositories of „data‟, providers of information that has proven to be of great value –

economically and otherwise – to western societies, yet knowledge providers have typically

received little or nothing in return for imparting invaluable information to researchers. Such a

history has been experienced not only in far off, distant locales, but here at home as well: “For

people in Aboriginal communities in Canada science and research have been inseparable from

political processes resulting in their economic, political and physical marginalization” (Fletcher,

2003, 34). Within Canada and internationally, research involving Indigenous people has come to

be notorious for its exploitative nature: the term “„research‟, is probably one of the dirtiest words

in the Indigenous world‟s vocabulary” (Smith, 1999, 1).

Research in the natural sciences, the foundation field on which the research project

discussed here is based, is considered by many Indigenous scholars to be the worst offender in

terms of perpetuating colonial-style relationships based on exploitation, and appropriation and

cooption of knowledge (Doxtater, 2004; McGregor, 2004b; Ransom and Ettenger, 2001; Salmon,

1996; Smith, 1999). The field of environmental management – the focal point of the research

project discussed here - has been implicated in creating and maintaining Aboriginal peoples‟

colonial present, and the literature indicates that environmentally-focused research is similarly

implicated. Geography, the discipline in which I, the author of this piece46, officially operate, has

been identified as foundational in the western imperial project: “geography as a discipline has a

46
I, the collaborating non-Aboriginal researcher, am the person who constructed and wrote initial versions of this
piece. However, the paper‟s underlying philosophies developed out of a shared investigatory endeavour, and the
piece itself underwent extensive and repeated review by my First Nations research partners; all revisions required
my partners‟ final approval. While this process is one significant step short of the co-authoring hoped for for this
paper, this strategy of academic drafting of written work followed by community revision and approval allowed us
to address the need for shared knowledge production while balancing this against the realities of limited and strained
human resources capacity within the community. My community colleagues have jobs, families, educational
commitments and other responsibilities which have meant that, thus far at least, co-authoring simply has not been
able to become top priority. So, in this piece, the primary voice is mine. However, perspectives shared here have
been foundationally altered and re-shaped by those with whom I work.

115
long, well documented history of creating and contributing to the perpetuation of the colonial and

neo-colonial realities of Indigenous peoples worldwide” (Johnson et al., 2007, 118).

What openings do such tarnished historical and contemporary patterns of engagement

with Indigenous peoples allow for enacting research processes and practices that can benefit,

rather than further disadvantage, communities and nations? This paper represents an

exploration of how I (a non-Aboriginal doctoral researcher collaborating on an environmental

management research initiative with a First Nation community) have come to understand

investigatory practices as offering a key opportunity to acknowledge and address past wrongs

and move towards a future of truth and respect: an opportunity to enact what I am terming here

„reconciliation research‟.

Backgrounder: Defining and Characterizing Reconciliation Research

Given that the term „reconciliation research‟ is, to my knowledge, a novel one,

explanation is required as to the aim, scope and definition of this approach, as well as to its

relation to and divergence from pre-existing methodologies. The reader attuned to the existence

of and significant discussion around postcolonial research, decolonizing research, participatory

action research (PAR), community based participatory research (CBPR) and allied

methodologies and approaches may question what, other than its name, is unique about

reconciliation research. As teased out in this section, reconciliation research is characterized

here as an approach with roots in existing investigatory strategies, yet one that is distinct in

terms of the outcome of its synthetic evolution, its specific aims, and its underlying premises.

With respect to the aim of this approach, reconciliation research can be understood as a

form of praxis: “reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it” (Freire, 1989, 36).

With respect to scope, it is argued here that effecting the type of transformation called for in the

opening statement by Atleo (2009) requires at minimum attention to four primary points, as

outlined in Table 4.1 below:

116
Table 4.1: Characteristics of Reconciliation Research

Primary Requirement Description

A. Make injustices visible reconciliation research is grounded in acknowledging and

making visible the historical and contemporary injustices which

Aboriginal people have in the past and continue to deal with

B. Working directly with reconciliation research works to not only counter these trends,

communities47, counter but to construct new ways of relating - in the research context

harmful trends and and beyond – in direct collaboration and co-construction with

construct new modes of communities

relating

C. Foreground revitalization reconciliation research contributes to serving as a rejuvenating

and revitalizing force for communities, as defined by

communities themselves

D. Research = relationships reconciliation research retains at its core the fact that research,

in an Indigenous context at least, is about relationships, which

are personal, based on mutual trust and affinity

From this characterization, reconciliation research can be seen to share in common with

community-based and action research approaches the aim of leading to change (Belanger,

2003; Fletcher, 2003; Savan and Sider, 2003), and to share with postcolonial and decolonizing

methodologies the goal of making colonial forces and implications visible, and therefore making

their subversion possible (Braun, 1997; Diaz Soto, 2004; Hodge and Lester, 2006; Sidaway et

al., 2003; Sidaway, 2000; Smith, 1999). However, reconciliation research is distinct from these

47
The community with which a particular researcher works may vary depending on research focus and community
interest and need. For guidance on what, after lengthy consideration and consultation, Canada‟s research Tri-
Council has considered constitutive of „community‟, see the agencies‟ definition (Interagency Advisory Panel on
Research Ethics, 2009, 94).

117
methodologies in its holistic efforts to bring together the deconstructive power of decolonizing

methodologies, the action and participatory thrust of PAR and CBPR approaches, and

Indigenous research foci on self-determination (Schnarch, 2004), responsibilities in relationships

(e.g. Colorado, 1988; Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force, 1999; Kimmerer, 2002;

McGregor, 2004b; Michell, 2005; Stevenson, 2003) and emphases on construction rather than

solely deconstruction (e.g. Battiste, 2004; Castellano, 2000; Weber-Pillwax, 2001).

While its originality thus arises in part from its synthetic provenance, reconciliation

research is additionally argued here to be unique and uniquely valuable in four distinct respects:

1) Hodge and Lester (2006, 50) discuss that an essential distinction of decolonized

versus colonial-style research is “research undertaken with communities…as

opposed to conventional research practice on Indigenous peoples”. I would argue

that a hallmark of reconciliation research is that it must go beyond working with to

working in direct support of communities - contributing to effecting communities‟ self-

defined goals. This point relates to characteristic C, above, in its focus on

contributing directly to communities‟ benefit, where „benefit‟ is defined by

communities themselves.

2) Reconciliation research as a methodological approach focuses specifically on

contributing in process and product to renewed Indigenous/non-Indigenous relations,

in the research sphere and beyond; while incorporating facets of western qualitative

research approaches, it overtly takes into account Indigenous approaches, strategies,

direction of and priorities in research – a point left unspecified within decolonizing,

postcolonial or PAR/CBPR approaches – and thus offers unique value for

intersections between western researchers and Indigenous actors.

118
3) Reconciliation research is fundamentally different from decolonizing and other

deconstructionist approaches at its philosophical and etymological base:

Reconciliation‟s prefix „re-„ means again, renew, rebuild, go back to the original place

again; this approach therefore responds directly to calls within the Indigenous

literature in that it is both constructive in intent, and in alignment with the many

specific calls “[t]o restore the essence of the early relationship between Aboriginal

and settler societies” (RCAP, 1996) – i.e. to return to original relations of mutual

respect, nation-to-nation dealings, and friendship. In contrast, the prefix „de-‟

prefacing decolonizing/deconstructionist approaches indicates the need to move

away from something, to remove oneself from the current scenario. While moving

away from colonial Indigenous/non-Indigenous relations and extricating ourselves

from the colonial mold is undeniably necessary, the question becomes: what are we

moving towards? Grounded in Indigenous calls for rebuilding, reconciliation research

is, at its base, poised to move us one step further ahead than the necessary - but

alone insufficient – approaches to research focused on decolonizing. Beyond simply

acknowledging our positioning in and seeking to remove ourselves from the colonial

mold, a reconciliation research approach places us instead in a decidedly

constructive position, with the responsibility to actively contribute to renewed

relations. This point relates to characteristic B in that it prioritizes construction as a

responsibility in research.

4) Discussions surrounding decolonization tend to frequently retain the centrality of the

colonizer and the colonizer‟s needs (e.g. the need to decolonize the discipline of

geography, as referenced in Hodge and Lester, 2006 and Johnson et al., 2007, or to

decolonize science and research more broadly, as discussed in Fletcher, 2003). In

contrast, a focus on reconciliation allows for a decentralization of the colonizer, a

119
 shifting of focus towards co-constructing processes of moving forward – with both

„the colonizer‟ and „the colonized‟ as active, critical and essential agents in a process

of re-becoming. This shift in focus allows for a conceptual movement away from the

need to continuously reference „us‟ and „them‟, away from the colonizer/colonized

binary, away from inimical foci, and instead to a place in which we may acknowledge

our coincident embeddedness in a colonial history and present and our shared need

to negotiate and strategize as co-constructive agents how, together, to move forward

– not as allies vs. foes, not as friends vs. enemies, but as peoples who, for now, for

several centuries past, and for the forseeable future, must share the land and

everything material and discursive that proceeds from this base.

Thus, reconciliation research, while sharing foundational motivations and directions with

other research methodologies, is distinct in a number of ways. Unsurprisingly, this approach

comes along with specific practical requirements and ramifications for the researcher.

Reconciliation research requires being open to and listening to the needs, wants and aspirations

of those with whom we wish to work, and basing our research directions and modes of inquiry

and action on what we hear. It means truly departing from conventional paternalistic research

approaches in the following ways:

1) Recognizing a community’s already existing capacity to address its own issues, and

committing to contribute to rather than attempting to supercede this; such capacity includes

deep understanding and knowledge of problems, culturally relevant and appropriate visions for

solutions, and desire, motivation and energy for problem solving.

2) Relinquishing control of the research process, as well as research products.

Identification of priority research areas, decisions regarding research protocols and methods, as

well as what will happen to research products once an initiative has been completed: In

reconciliation research, these decisions must be made by the community and the researcher in

direct collaboration (if not by the community itself) - not by the researcher in isolation.

120
 Enacting the principles outlined in this section offers the beginning of building the

relationships of respect and reciprocity in research being called for by Indigenous peoples, and

may, if we are lucky, form the foundation for reconciliation and renewed relations in the

investigatory sphere.

The remainder of this paper focuses on further characterizing and developing an

understanding of reconciliation research as a concept and a methodology. Later sections

contextualize the need for this type of approach within the history and contemporary legacy of

research involving Indigenous peoples, explore how this methodology relates to current theory

on Indigenous/non-Indigenous relations in research, and describe how efforts were made to

enact this strategy in the doctoral dissertation research discussed here. Living and working

within a Canadian context, I explore these points in specific relation to initiatives involving First

Nations and non-Aboriginal researchers in Canada. The following section, prefacing these

discussions, provides background for the reader on the dissertation research project from which

the construct of reconciliation research was developed, and on which much of this discussion of

the relevance of and need for the methodology is based.

Methods:

For the last two and a half years, Walpole Island First Nation (WIFN) and I have been

working collaboratively on a project investigating First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in

ecological recovery work in the contested terrains of southern Ontario, Canada, the country‟s

most populous and rapidly-growing region, and an area with relatively longstanding and

intensive European settlement. The Walpole Island Heritage Centre, the research arm for

Walpole Island First Nation, is the home base of my community research supervisors48, the

48
From my first meeting at the Walpole Island Heritage Centre, I established a relationship with the Director of the
Centre and two key Centre staff. These three individuals were to become the core team or partnership around which,
throughout the project, communication and decision-making were to be structured. The two latter staff members,

121
institution that has guided this initiative from the beginning49, and the base of community contact

for my relationship with the broader community.

Our research project can be considered to represent an investigation into understanding

– and ultimately reconciling - histories and peoples surrounding land management, and

research surrounding this, in this region. Our work centred on investigating the possibility of

linking Aboriginal understandings of caring for an endangered ecosystem with those of western

science within a context in which colonial trends in First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations could

be exposed, addressed and overcome. This paper highlights findings from components of the

research involving twenty-one community members and environmental professionals from

WIFN.

The following results and analysis section of the paper is divided into four subsections,

each focussing on one of the characteristics of reconciliation research listed in Table 4.1. Each

subsection provides the reader with three distinct, but linked, means of contextualizing the

particular attribute. Firstly, contextualization of the characteristic within current theory on

Indigenous/non-Indigenous issues in research is offered. Next, community perspectives on the

relevance and importance of the attribute are provided. This element of each subsection allows

for a foregrounding of understandings shared directly by First Nations project contributors

themselves: in their own words, WIFN community members and environmental professionals

describe what matters to them in research; what, to them, makes for good, appropriate

investigatory practice in a First Nations community context. And finally, an understanding of the

relevance and applicability of each attribute is further developed with a description and analysis

active in co-leading the research initiative from the beginning, were to become my community supervisors, and are
listed in the papers in this dissertation as co-authors (see footnote 46 for contextualization of this decision).
49
The existence of this community body and the extensive nature of the Heritage Centre‟s experience and expertise
facilitated building the type of relationship described in the remainder of this paper. Research relationships in
communities lacking such an institution, or with less experience, expertise or resources related to the focal area of a
particular research project, may be different than that described here. However, one means of addressing this issue -
raised by community representatives throughout the dissertation research - was the establishment of mentoring
relationships between smaller or less well-resourced communities and those with greater experience, resources
and/or expertise in a particular area.

122
of how, in process and product, this doctoral dissertation research related to the particular

characteristic under discussion. This part of each subsection also offers an analysis of how our

practice attempted to honour the types of principles shared by contributors and raised by writers

in the Indigenous literature.

Results and Analysis: Contextualizing Reconciliation Research in Theory, Perspectives

from the Community, and Research Practice

Exploring characteristic A: Making injustices visible

Within Canada, marginalizing, colonial-style research is concurrent with the country‟s

overall questionable postcolonial status. Canada has been identified as being pockmarked by

internal colonization (Anderson, 2000; Sidaway, 2000), and Aboriginal people inhabit those

spaces where colonialism remains very real and very present: “For us [the „colonized‟], there is

no postcolonial, as we live our daily realities in suffocating spaces forbidding our perspectives,

our creativity, and our wisdom” (Diaz Soto, 2004, ix). By excluding Aboriginal people from

decision-making and meaningful representation in research processes, researchers have

contributed to such suffocation: Within this sphere, the ongoing “narrative and material power”

of colonialism has remained the basis upon which Aboriginal peoples‟ experiences have

primarily rested (Anderson, 2000; Fletcher, 2003).

The call now is for research to contribute instead to self-determination and revitalization:

An entire body of Indigenous scholarship focuses on research methodology, exploring how

investigation can occur and people can learn from each other in a context that departs from a

colonial legacy and is premised on building respectful relations anew (Bishop, 1998; Doxtater,

2004; Fletcher, 2003; Jimenez Estrada, 2005; Letendre and Caine, 2004; McGregor, 2004b;

Mutua and Swadener, 2004; Ruttan, 2004; Smith, 1999; Salmon, 1996). I propose here that

reconciliation research offers the chance to honour this, to capture the power of investigatory

123
practice for narrative and material benefit for Aboriginal people, for spaces beyond colonialism:

spaces for reconciliation.

In order for research to contribute to the achievement of such a goal, it must first

contribute to enhanced understandings of the ongoing power of colonial influences and

outcomes for Aboriginal peoples. Reconciliation research responds to this need in that one of

the primary requirements of this approach is that it make visible the injustices experienced by

Indigenous peoples. Such a step is proposed as a first move towards enabling the ultimate goal

of countering processes contributing to exploitation and marginalization, and moving ahead to

renewed relations based on reconciliation.

Statements by WIFN representatives in Table 4.2 below indicate that conventional

research insufficiently acknowledges or addresses exploitative and marginalizing influences,

and indicate that significant room for improvement exists in this area of First Nations/non-

Aboriginal interactions.

Table 4.2: Lessons from the Community: Insufficiencies in Conventional Research

They [researchers] could take that information and apply it wherever and just ignore us after

that…that‟s more or less the fear, or the condition we find ourselves in. (Bill50)

our knowledge was not valued [in another research initiative]…there was no offer…for any

monetary thing at all. Yet everyone else [involved was being paid]…(Susan)

[typically, t]hey‟ll say - we‟ve got this really good idea and here‟s where we think Walpole fits in.

They don‟t ever say - let‟s come up with a good idea together. (Dawn)

Application in the Dissertation Research and Analysis of Outcomes

One aim of this paper is to forward the argument that reconciliation research can be a

powerful medium for effecting change by making injustices visible and that, given a legacy of
50
All names are pseudonyms, unless a contributor specifically asked that his/her name be used.

124
tarnished First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations and an urgent need for genuine efforts towards

building renewed relations, researchers working in First Nations contexts have a responsibility

to use their positions to work towards such ends - to contribute to reconciliation. This argument,

along with the types of sentiment expressed in Table 4.2 above, directly influenced the way in

which dissertation research was carried out.

While this project had a model development orientation (relating to the constructive

requirements of reconciliation research, as introduced earlier and discussed further in following

subsections), this research emphasized first enhancing an understanding of what is and isn‟t

working in current interactions between First Nations and non-Aboriginal groups in

environmental management in the study region. Specifically, this topic was investigated using

an analytical lens focused on comprehending colonial forces in First Nations/non-Aboriginal

relations in ecological recovery – i.e. making visible challenges facing First Nations communities

as a result of ongoing colonial influences. Other papers resulting from this research (see

Chapters 2 and 3) provide an indication of the extent to which colonial forces continue to

influence relationships in the area of species at risk management and in interactions

surrounding traditional knowledge. Understandings gained as a result of dissertation research

contributed to charting a path for improving relationships in the future.

Thus, in terms of research products, this project addressed characteristic A of

reconciliation research in contributing to making injustices visible – posited here as the first step

in setting the stage for reconciling groups of peoples, cultures, and lifeways separated by gulfs

of historical and contemporary inequities and – in many cases - blurred comprehension of

divergences or of avenues for potential convergence. The second requirement of reconciliation

research, centered on constructing new ways of relating that counter destructive relationship

trends, is the focus of the next subsection.

125
Exploring characteristic B: Countering trends and constructing new ways of relating

Interpretation of Indigenous realities and aspirations by non-Indigenous researchers has

proven harmful for both Indigenous peoples and for the endeavour of cross-cultural research

(e.g. Deloria, 1992; Smith, 1999). Paternalistic assumptions embedded in non-Indigenous, non-

community specific understandings about what is good for Indigenous peoples have typified

research by external actors, and have had innumerable negative consequences for

communities (Fletcher, 2003; Letendre and Caine, 2004; Mutua and Swadener, 2004; Ruttan,

2004; Schnarch, 2004; Smith, 1999; Weber-Pillwax, 2001) as well as creating significant

resistance among Indigenous peoples to engaging in research contexts with non-Indigenous

actors (Fletcher, 2003; Schnarch, 2004).

Hence the development of the concept of reconciliation research and its requirement

that different ways of relating be contemplated and constructed. Reconciliation research

addresses, at its core, the expressed need to overcome paternalistic relationship patterns in

investigatory initiatives and centralize Indigenous community direction and control in research

process and practice. Such control is argued to be necessary in overcoming the otherwise

significant power imbalance remaining between the community and the researcher: without

direct and overt community direction in initiatives, too many opportunities exist for the

researcher to represent and interpret inappropriately, as has happened so frequently in the past

(e.g. Smith, 1999).

The perspectives offered below from WIFN community members provide a window into

some of the issues these actors feel need to be addressed, directions that need to be

incorporated, and characteristics that need to be included in a newly-constructed

conceptualization of working together.

126
Table 4.3: Lessons from the Community: Trends to Counter and New Ways to Work

Together

1. Trends to Counter I know from past initiatives there was some work that was done

[in the community], and…because we didn‟t fund it and we didn‟t

finance it, they didn‟t really feel as if it was our data. They felt

that it was their data. (Cheryl)

2. New Ways to Work

Together

Work together from the part of your responsibility is to approach us; get us involved in

beginning the development of that project. (Danny)

that‟s when we really want to get involved, is at the planning

stages. As soon as they think of the idea, that‟s when we want

to get involved and help them develop a proposal…not for them

to come halfway through their project, and just kind of drop the

bomb on us…when it comes to doing research, and any

collaboration: as soon as you think about the idea, involve us in

the planning stages. (Cheryl)

Enable community direction giving direction to the researcher…or to set out our particular

ground rules…I think that probably adds to the comfort of

everyone. (Bill)

Usually when we get people who want to do their papers…we‟ll

tell them: „yes, but...‟ We‟ll try and guide them, and again make

sure that the Island is going to benefit, too. (Danny)

before final reports are made, before anything is finalized, we

want to be able to have the chance to read the document and

127
 be able to put our feedback, and input, and any suggested

changes into that paper before it is finalized and published. In

that way - doing it that way, we could also see if there‟s maybe

some sensitive information that we feel shouldn‟t be in there. Or

maybe we feel like it‟s missing something, and we want to see

something else put into it which would also strengthen the

paper. (Cheryl)

Application in the Dissertation Research and Analysis of Outcomes

This paper, in positing a new, co-constructive form of engagement with First Nations in

research, and other chapters in this dissertation forwarding a co-governance model for First

Nations/non-Aboriginal relations more broadly, represent together the ways in which this

initiative directly addresses the reconciliation research requirement for construction –

construction based on both acknowledgement of past/ongoing inequities and visions of renewed

future relations.

Sharing distribution of power and control in our project represents one of the most

significant ways in which we directly applied in practice the reconciliation research principle of

constructing and enacting new ways of engaging. This practice was directly influenced by both

acknowledgement of the negative impacts research has had and continues to have on

Indigenous peoples, as outlined earlier, as well as paying attention to the types of contributions

provided in Table 4.3. It is clear in these results that community direction and control in research

is considered important: 1) as a safeguard against damaging research practices common to

past initiatives; 2) as helpful in ensuring the appropriateness and fit of a particular research

initiative for the community; 3) as part of ensuring formal protection for individuals‟ and

communities‟ intellectual property; and 4) as capable of providing an enhanced sense of

security and comfort for those directly involved in a research initiative.

128
 In the research project at the basis of this dissertation, we dealt with questions of

direction and control by agreeing from the outset on a fundamental basis of shared leadership in

our relationship. From the beginning, WIFN has had and maintained a pivotal role of co-

leadership, a central characteristic of the reconciliation research approach. We agreed early on

that our research relationship would be premised on principles and practices referred to as

OCAP (community ownership, control, access and possession of research products and

processes; see Chapter 1 for more detailed discussion of this concept). Our commitments mean

that ultimate veto power over research processes and products has always resided in

community hands (Couzos et al., 2005; Piquemal, 2003; Potts and Brown, 2005; Schnarch,

2004). As a result, while sharing control of the research process is key to our relationship, the

community is additionally safeguarded against any opening which sharing may allow for

researcher misdemeanours by being able to call a particular initiative to a halt, and allow it to

begin again only once community concerns have been addressed.

Adhering to OCAP principles and co-leadership in our research initiative has, I argue,

been key in making our practice so mutually successful51, as well as to vastly improving the

quality of research output. Working closely together from the outset has meant that research

products (from proposals to presentations to final papers) were not only enriched, but

foundationally altered by the commitment on both sides to collaboratively develop this research.

For example, the project I had originally proposed as a basis for discussion for our initial

meeting at the Walpole Island Heritage Centre was revised during this process: One aspect of

the initially-developed proposal saw a fundamental shift in emphasis, and another element not

initially included was added (see Chapter 1 for further details). Thus, as a core principle of our

relationship, decision-making and priority setting about all aspects of the project – including the

nature, scope and focus of the research topic itself - occurred in collaboration from the outset.

51
My partners and I have been working productively (and enjoyably) together for close to three years and intend to
maintain and further develop our working relationship into the foreseeable future.

129
 An additional benefit for the research arising from community control in the project was

the enhancement of a sense of safety and comfort for those involved in the research, a feature

which, in the following paragraph, I argue led to better research outcomes. Information about

the research arrangement - including the community-based supervisory team guiding and

evaluating the research and my role in it, as well as the project‟s OCAP foundation – was

provided at a variety of points in the research, including in the information and consent letter

outlined to contributors prior to the commencement of focus group and interviews. In addition,

given that my supervisors provided the lead on protocols we would follow during the project, it

was community-based guidance that directly shaped the way involvement in the research would

feel for contributors. Decisions regarding protocol included the format „data collection‟ activities

would take (interviews and focus groups), how we would document research conversations

(digital audio and video recordings for focus groups and audio only for interviews) as well as

what would be offered to thank contributors for their involvement, including refreshments, gifts

(usually thank-you cards and chocolates or other confections that I made) and an honorarium52,

which provided concrete acknowledgement of the time people contributed to this project. These

were areas about which I, as an outsider, could have had little knowledge of appropriateness; it

was my supervisors‟ community-based knowledge and experience that created for contributors

a sense of comfort and trust.

In this, as in other instances, community control in the project benefitted the research

directly, not least significantly in that contributors – many of whom I myself had never met

before – were extraordinarily open, generous with their sharings and candid during interviews

52
Heritage Centre protocol involves acknowledging the value of people‟s time with honoraria and other gifts, and
input from contributors affirmed that financial compensation for time taken to contribute to projects such as this is
seen as appropriate and responsible. Other individuals and/or communities may feel differently about the exchange
of money in a relationship such as this; there has been discussion, for example, about some people‟s discomfort with
the sense that exchanging money would monetize and therefore dehumanize the relationship (Shiri Pasternak, pers.
comm.). But it is unsurprising that, just as each community will have its own protocols related to research
relationships, viewpoints on this topic will differ; in this project, honoraria were provided and were considered
appropriate.

130
and focus groups. I consider this to be significant in a reconciliation research context. I would

suggest that such open sharing of knowledge was only made possible by the foundation of

community control at the heart of this project – the nature of the relationship between myself, an

outside, non-Aboriginal researcher, and trusted community decision-making bodies. Ensuring

community control, putting relationships and process ahead of research products and career

aspirations (i.e. adhering to principles of reconciliation research): This approach resulted in

better, more productive, richer research. In our case, a reconciliation research approach, with

community direction and control at its foundation, allowed the project to be sensitive to

community needs, preferences, understandings and protocols, and as a result, to be productive

beyond what I personally could have hoped for. And this only makes sense: As a non-Aboriginal

person and as someone who has not spent my life in the WIFN community, I simply could not

have anticipated or filled in those gaps in my insight that were highlighted to me via my

community supervisors‟ guidance – and this guidance and direction were instrumental in

determining the success of research outcomes.

Regardless of the many benefits perceptible in such an approach, however, researchers

unused to this research construct may question whether too much power is being placed in a

community‟s hands, and whether community censorship is accepted in this context. In such a

case, it is useful to remember that the type of community control described here is similar to that

held by a graduate student‟s academic committee. It is the responsibility of this latter body to

ensure that the student is grasping the concepts considered central to the given field and

adequately and appropriately addressing these. The responsibility of a community in an OCAP

context is little different.

It is also important to note that the requirement for community control does not have to

mean that complete direction of the project rests in community hands. In fact, in many cases,

limited capacity in communities may mean that full responsibility for projects simply cannot be

taken on (Good Striker, 1996; Wavey, 1993). However, implementation of community-directed

131
control mechanisms, and an agreement to share control of the research throughout a project‟s

life cycle help to ensure that community-based interpretation, representation and priority-setting

are maximally present and active throughout the project.

There is also the possibility that some may be concerned that, in projects like ours, there

is too little community control. Concerns have been expressed regarding the ability of

„community-based research‟ to truly represent and serve the needs of the broader community

(Belanger, 2003; Potts and Brown, 2005). Concerns revolve around the fact that, in some cases,

few community members other than a select group of individuals are ever involved directly in

decision-making in a research initiative. We attempted to address this issue in a number of

ways.

Firstly, community control of the project extended beyond the core research team of my

community supervisors and myself. At many decision-making points during the research,

questions or review opportunities were brought to the Walpole Island Heritage Centre

Committee, the group that oversees, evaluates and guides the Centre‟s activities. Comprised of

community members from a variety of backgrounds, the Committee is meant to help ensure that

Heritage Centre activities represent the desires, interests and priorities of the broader WIFN

community, and Centre staff are responsible to this body. In receiving proposals and reports on

our project, being given the chance to review various plans and products, and having the

opportunity to question or veto research decisions, the Committee has acted as an additional

outlet for ensuring that this project is and remains appropriate for the community at large, and

has added to the research an additional layer of accountability to the community. As discussed

later in the paper, each of the varied communication opportunities we utilized in the research

provided additional openings for broader community direction of the project.

In summary, it can be argued that reconciliation research provides the external

researcher with a rare opportunity to be exposed to and analyze a rich body of knowledge, while

simultaneously allowing for addressing community needs and retaining community control.

132
Exploring characteristic C: Foregrounding revitalization, ensuring community benefit

In one respect, this paper can be understood as revolving around the argument that

research can – and should - serve positive ends. This argument is not mine alone. While many

Aboriginal individuals and communities have expressed a sentiment of feeling „researched to

death‟ as a result of interactions in conventional - typically exploitative and extractive – research

(Schnarch, 2004, 3), a different sentiment is also being expressed. There is hope and belief

amongst some that within the practice of research lies the potential to start “researching

ourselves back to life” (an elder‟s statement quoted in Castellano, 2004, 98). First Nations

communities are frequently dealing with issues or problems requiring resolution, and research

has the potential to contribute to better understanding the problems, means to allow for

overcoming them, and the most effective route(s) to achieving identified solutions. As noted in

Williams and Stewart, “[a] research process can be of immediate and direct benefit to a

community” (1992, 8). And academic researchers, with training, knowledge and expertise

regarding research processes and products, and access to resources, can contribute

significantly to such benefit.

However, the challenge of achieving renewed relationships based in trust, fellowship and

friendship is significant for anyone in a nation like Canada, scarred as relationships have been

by the country‟s colonial legacy. And the challenge is perhaps particularly great for non-

Aboriginal researchers - like myself - who may wish to work closely with First Nations, but who

operate within a sphere of activity and are positioned within a society enjoying the spoils of a

colonial legacy based on Aboriginal peoples‟ loss and marginalization. For those in such a

position, building research relationships with First Nations means addressing our historical and

ongoing gains from such a legacy and working to directly rebuild lost trust and damaged bases

for friendship. Reconciliation research offers a rare opportunity for initiating such a rebuilding

exercise: Entering research contexts from the premise of working in support of communities – a

differently conceptualized and constructed mode of interacting - is a demonstration of a

133
commitment to the ultimate goal of living and working side-by-side in mutual trust and benefit as

nations sharing the same home land. It also communicates a commitment to a new kind of

knowledge production based not solely in a researcher‟s necessarily biased and limited

understandings of Indigenous research spheres, but rather in co-production with communities

self-defining their own issues53.

However, a form of research capable of fulfilling the reconciliation research requirement

of contributing to revitalization and rejuevenation – a type of research able to contribute to

„researching communities back to life‟ - must depart dramatically from conventional research

practice. Working in support of communities – relating back to the key principle of contributing to

a community‟s self-defined aspirations - can be an essential part of meeting these goals. Such a

shift in perspective regarding research purpose and practice can also address some of the

problematic elements of being a non-Indigenous academic researcher exploring issues related

to Indigenous peoples. As Staeheli and Lawson (1994, 98) discuss, “we as academics can

colonize and dominate…and so be complicit in the perpetuation of power structures that

maintain difference”. In academic/community relations, issues of representation, of uneven

resources, mobility and „privilege‟ must be considered and addressed; the premise of working in

support of communities can form an important part of addressing and dealing with these issues.

In fact, I propose that, if successful cross-cultural research is to take place in a First

Nations context, this type of fundamental alteration to the way non-Indigenous researchers

perceive relations with and responsibilities towards Indigenous actors is necessary. Only by

ensuring space in research processes for communities to self-define research priorities and

directions can community concerns, interests and needs be fully comprehended and adequately

53
It is proposed in this chapter that reconciliation research offers particular value in scenarios characterized by
intersections between First Nations and non-Aboriginal, academic researchers. However, the underlying principles
and characteristics of this approach are argued to be applicable to engagement between First Nations communities
and a broad spectrum of actors, with significant potential to facilitate positive, mutually productive, equitable
relations; to ensure research focuses on effectively supporting a community‟s self-defined priorities; and to
contribute to effecting aims related to reconciliation and renewed relations.

134
addressed; only through such commitments can research effectively contribute to a

community‟s own rebuilding, revitalization and rejuvenation aspirations. I therefore argue here

that the requirement within reconciliation research to work for community benefit is an important

part of directly addressing and overcoming the potential negative repercussions of cross-cultural

research for communities, and can contribute to the sustainability of the endeavour.

Contributions from WIFN community members highlighted in Table 4.4 below affirm that

the overarching priority for these actors is that research initiatives provide benefits for the

community – that research is not just carried out for the sake of abstract knowledge creation,

but that initiatives contribute to effecting good in the community in which they take place.

Table 4.4: Lessons from the Community: Community Benefit is an Essential Outcome of

Research

our community was telling us: people are coming out here and doing their work and then they‟re

leaving; and they‟re not leaving anything. What good is that doing us? It does them good. But

what good is it going to do the Island in 5 years from now? 10 years from now? 20 years from

now?... we have to see the benefit to the Island. (Danny)

my hope would be that…there‟s acceptance and support and I guess meaningful collaboration,

that it‟s a true benefit for everybody, and most importantly for the people, the community, the

land. Because essentially that‟s what the work is for. (Grace)

this is our approach now. We ask: what‟s the benefits? (Frank)

Application in the Dissertation Research and Analysis of Outcomes

Developing a model for improved First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in environmental

management, making visible the ongoing nature of colonial implications for First Nations in this

sphere, and working to develop and forward this – a reconciliation research – approach to

interacting in the investigatory realm: all of these elements are representative of attempts within

135
this dissertation research initiative to contribute to the rebuilding and revitalization efforts of First

Nations. As such, they represent attention to one of the hallmarks of the reconciliation research

approach: the requirement of contributing to a community‟s self-defined needs - benefitting a

community via research.

Fulfilling this requirement occurred in a variety of ways in our project. Perhaps most

significantly, we were committed to ensuring that not only priorities related to the relatively

limited dissertation focus, but other community-defined priorities as well might benefit from the

unique convergence of resources brought to life by our research partnership. From my

perspective, this meant in practice that in certain instances, I spent time on activities that may

initially appear unrelated to our particular research initiative.

For example, early in the project, a research priority for the Heritage Centre was

understanding how to develop a management plan for the ecosystem at the basis of our

research. My colleagues hoped to compile a bibliography of materials that could contribute to

developing such a plan, and asked if I could contribute in any way to this. I thus spent time early

in our relationship researching management plans and basic ecological information on the

ecosystem to support this, and by the end had compiled approximately one hundred pieces of

literature relevant to the initiative.

Later in the project, after having completed data collection, transcription and analysis

and coming to terms with some of the implications and shortcomings of the Species at Risk Act

(see Chapter 2), I learned that the community had established a committee to deal with

formalizing their own approach to conserving species at risk based on customary law. The

committee was comprised of a group of community members carving time out of their own work

and family schedules to develop an approach to caring for species at risk that made sense for

their community and supported the maintenance of their unique cultural traditions and decision-

making bases. I wanted to contribute to this work, and was told when I offered that it would be

helpful if I researched potential funding sources for this initiative. I therefore compiled the

136
information deemed most useful: summaries of the sources‟ funding histories and interests, and

contact information for the foundations/organizations.

Another area in which I felt it important to enact the reconciliation research principle of

contributing directly to self-defined community benefit was by ensuring shared voices at

conferences and other external communication venues. Early in our project, interest was

expressed by my community supervisors in co-presenting our work at such events - as a means

of both ensuring equitable community representation, and expanding capacity in this area. Both

were considered significant in contributing to internal rebuilding work as well as strengthening

the community‟s presence in external environmental contexts. As a result, from the beginning of

our work together, I began to invite my project supervisors to attend and present at conferences

with me. However, it was only late in the first year of our relationship that I discovered that my

supervisors had no funding from the Heritage Centre or other community sources to attend

events like this. It became clear that a meaningful invitation to co-present would have to be

accompanied by an offer of financial support to cover the often significant expenses of attending

these events. I therefore sought out and applied for funding specifically for co-presenting. In the

academic milieu, where research products are valued over research process, this was not an

easy goal to achieve. However, applications did result in funding for several events. Where

funding could not be secured but an event was considered significant, funding for which I had

applied earlier in the project was allocated to ensuring community representation. Securing

funding for attending these events is, of course, only part of the work associated with preparing

for conferences and other similar fora. Being committed to contributing to a community‟s self-

defined goals, to co-presenting as one means of overcoming representation issues in research,

to sharing the voice in these opportunities for talking about our research: This meant taking over

the time burden of these aspects of the process. As alluded to earlier, my community

colleagues are already working within a context of limited and strained human resources; they

simply do not have the time to spend dealing with the logistics behind conference attendance,

137
regardless of how important it may be to them to co-represent our perspectives on the research.

Therefore, I managed the abstract submission process, frequently dealt with registration and

travel coordination, drafted presentation materials and submitted them for review to my

community supervisors, and revised and submitted them to conference organizers.

While the activities outlined above vary widely in nature and scope, descriptions were

offered in order to clarify the types of opportunities a reconciliation approach to research

provides in terms of serving self-defined community needs and opening doors for reconciliation.

Turning the Tables: It’s Good to Ensure Community Benefit, but what about Benefit to the

Researcher?

For some readers, a sense of „voluntarism‟ in this research approach may lead to the

question of whether this approach truly provides mutual benefit – benefit to the community and

to the researcher. However, clear and direct benefit did arise for me as the researcher via each

of the above-described processes. The creation of the bibliography provided me with a chance

to become more knowledgeable about my partners‟ priorities early on, as well as better versed

in the scientific elements of the project. This latter fact was significant given that I would soon be

interviewing ecological scientists on matters related directly to this ecosystem. Thus, far from

seeing this compilation process as working for the community for free, I felt that it represented

an important opportunity to contribute to an identified community need, and simultaneously

contributed to the breadth and depth of my understanding regarding the nature of our research.

In the case of working on the community‟s species at risk approach, my contribution was, firstly,

extremely limited and, given the resources to which I had access, required very little effort.

Secondly, this initiative was significant from a research perspective, directly linked as it was to

findings from our project related to variations between community and external conservation

approaches to species at risk. In the case of working to ensure co-presentations could occur, I

was simply making sure that what was shared out of this co-produced research project was

138
accurately and most fully represented to audiences. Thus, while these initiatives may at first

appear to fall outside the scope of the project in which I was involved, each in fact provided the

chance for me as a non-Aboriginal researcher to expand my understanding of the context of our

relatively narrowly-defined project, while simultaneously allowing me to enact the principles of

an approach that I believe is central to reconciliation in this context – directly supporting

communities and providing benefit as defined by the community itself54.

Exploring characteristic D: Research = Relationships

Discussions within the Indigenous studies literature stress the essential nature of

relationships – between individuals, between communities, between nations of peoples,

between human and non-human nations, and between humans and the land more broadly (e.g.

Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force, 1999; Kimmerer, 2002; Michell, 2005).

Incorporating this principle into research requires first of all acknowledging its centrality in

Indigenous worldview. Putting such centralization into practice requires establishing trust,

committing to the principle that „the process is the methodology‟ (Kovach, 2005; Rice, 2003),

bringing to the relationship sincerity of purpose (Castellano, 2004), devotion of time, and

adherence to the concept of responsibility in relationships: these are all critical factors in

establishing inter-cultural relations from which mutually-satisfactory, mutually-beneficial and

equitable processes of shared knowledge production can emerge (Absolon and Willett, 2005;

Belanger, 2003; Wilde, 2003).

54
It is important to note that benefits as defined by communities can vary widely. In the case of WIFN, for example,
practical community benefit has resulted from ichthyological research indicating the health and status of significant
fisheries species in the community. In terms of perhaps more theoretical and political benefit, feedback on this
dissertation research from community supervisors - and other community members involved in project evaluation -
indicates a high level of satisfaction with the utility value of the research. Feedback has communicated that, in
process and product, this initiative has provided a strong basis for pushing for and ensuring newly-formalized and
further validated co-leadership-based engagement with external parties.

139
 The comments in Table 4.5, below, affirm the importance contributors to this research

project attributed to relationships, trust, and a sense that the researcher feels a sense of

responsibility and commitment to the community.

Table 4.5: Lessons from the Community: Relationships, Trust and Communication Matter

to People

It has to be personal, I think. It has to be: meet the people; work with them; meet with them, talk;

and just sharing things…I think it involves social, as well as business together. And I think their

ability to trust, too, if the person is more open to talk and willing to talk about what‟s

behind…Like, if they‟re willing to get slightly more on a personal level too, you‟re more likely to

trust them - how they feel; how they grew up. (Theresa)

I‟d want to meet the people first. I wouldn‟t be open to just start working with them on the first

day; I‟d want to know them for a while first. (Amanda)

I think there has to be trust established…The big thing is that they have to know how to

listen…They have to be basically sensitive, intuitive people. (Bev)

there has to be a reciprocity there. There has to be something like…your sincerity and your

mind…a little bit of yourself. (Bryan Loucks, pers. comm.)

I think first of all: if they came out, and spent maybe a little bit more time with the community…I

think you just got to hang out with the locals for them to go: - “OK, you‟re OK; all right: I think I

do trust you; I think you‟re really here for good reasons.” (Tess)

I think a lot of people think that our role ends after the project is implemented…Don‟t forget

about the maintenance of the relationship, too. It doesn‟t just happen spontaneously….It takes

time, and you‟ve got to be able to devote some time. (Zak)

It‟s not something you can just show up once in a while and say - here‟s what we‟re working on

and can we slap your name on it? (Dawn)

140
Application in the Dissertation Research and Analysis of Outcomes

Centralization of the concept that „research equals relationships‟ began at the outset of

this research initiative. Knowing how important it is to dedicate sufficient time to building

relationships, contact between myself and WIFN was made early in the research process, in the

first year of my doctoral dissertation program - before research plans were (or needed to be,

from an academic perspective) crystallized. Efforts at relationship building began, however, prior

even to contacting the community. I spent a significant period of time in my first year of the PhD

program studying WIFN community publications and reports to gain a preliminary understanding

of community priorities, as well as discussing potential avenues for research relationships with

my First Nation supervisor from the university and another professor of mine, who also

happened to be a WIFN community member. I structured my early coursework so as to allow for

opportunities to study WIFN-specific topics, as well as to develop a greater understanding of

broader First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations, an area in which I – like many conventionally-

educated Canadians – was sorely under-informed.

After much research and discussion, I sent an introductory letter to the Chief of the

community. In the letter, I offered my research support for community priorities to which I felt I

could contribute, given my area of expertise, and requested a preliminary meeting and

discussion. Permission was granted for a meeting at the Walpole Island Heritage Centre, and I

proposed a project to serve as the basis for our discussion. The initial concept for this project

was based in large part on the research I had done to try to understand the priorities of the

community – priorities in the area of research as well as broader nation-rebuilding aspirations.

The first meeting saw us discussing a wide range of topics: why I wanted to work with the

community; what collaborative research meant to me; what stage I was at in the research

process; what I understood about First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations historically and in the

contemporary context, and the relevance of this understanding to research relationships. It was

clear from the meeting that many negative research practices had been experienced in the

141
community, and that the standards expected of this research initiative were high. But it was also

clear that we shared important understandings and commitments, and that our mutual interests

and needs could be served by entering this research relationship. This meeting can thus be

conceived of as a process of negotiating a relationship between an unknown, external

researcher and an important gatekeeper for the WIFN community, the Heritage Centre. Both

those who were to become my community supervisors and I put ourselves forward, indicated

the relationship we were willing to and interested in embarking on, and mutually concluded that

what we shared offered fertile ground for beginning to build a relationship.

This early relationship between my community colleagues and I began to further develop

as we worked over the next four months to co-strategize around research directions and

develop the research proposal that would later be submitted to and approved by both university

and community research committees. Early processes of discussion, writing and revising, and

meeting with one another led to basic relationship-building fundamentals of getting to know

each other, building trust, and further enhancing our understandings of what we could both bring

to and gain from the research. And these processes were all initiated long before any formal

research was initiated, allowing the project to develop in step with our growing relationship.

Building Broader Relationships with the Community

Due to the close nature of the working relationship between myself and my community

supervisors, relationships in this area developed easily and fairly quickly. However, the research

relationship referred to throughout this paper was not solely between myself and my community

supervisors: many opportunities were taken to reach out to and involve the broader community

in all aspects of the research initiative, and to build relationships – to the extent possible in a

community of over 2000 – with others in WIFN.

Within the context of the final characteristic listed in Table 4.1, regular, informative and

accessible communication can be considered one element of building and maintaining broader

142
relationships; communication is also significant in ensuring relevance of and benefit from the

research to the community, and in providing opportunities for broad community direction in the

project, in keeping with other characteristics of reconciliation research.

Reporting to the community and staying in regular contact is one of the areas referred to

as a weak link in Aboriginal research – and is a problem highlighted both in the literature (e.g.

Laidler, 2007; Schnarch, 2004) and in results from this research project. Contributions

highlighted in Table 4.5, for example, emphasized the need for communication to occur, to

continue throughout the research project, and to be appropriate to the community context.

In our project, we conceptualized communication as a central part of relationship

building and maintenance with the broader community in its contribution to ensuring that: 1)

community members feel that the researcher considers their knowledge of the project and

response to it to be significant and important; 2) people simply remain informed of research

planning and activities taking place – for their general knowledge, so that they may become

involved, or so that they can provide feedback; 3) community members are invited in multiple

ways and at multiple points to express whether the research, as it develops and progresses, is

actually likely to benefit the community; their validation of the work is thus communicated as

being important; 4) people are given multiple opportunities to become involved in shaping

and/or contributing to the research directly. As a result, communication opens the opportunity

for the broader community to be involved in directing the project throughout its duration, as well

as for community members to get a sense of familiarity with and relationship to the research and

the researcher – even if, as is perhaps unavoidable in a large community, only in a virtual sense.

We attempted to centralize relationship building with the broader community in our

project via a number of strategies, including via newsletter articles, presentations and

attendance at community-wide events, radio announcements and online contributions.

Throughout the project, however, communication could be characterized in the following ways:

by variety (in terms of type, format and focus), by the fact that an attempt was made to never

143
allow long periods of time to elapse without some form of communication, and by efforts to

ensure communications were informative and accessible.

From the first month of our research relationship, I began to write regular newsletter

articles in the Heritage Centre‟s community publication. These offered information about our

project and myself as a researcher and an individual, and invited open contributions and

feedback from community members. These also offered information that could be of interest to

community members (e.g. other Indigenous environmental initiatives, educational or funding

opportunities, reports on conferences attended). Over the course of our project, I also provided

a number of announcements, expressions of gratitude for contributions, invitations for

participation and other communications on the community‟s radio station; towards the end of the

project I had writing posted on one of the Heritage Centre‟s web communication outlets.

Each of these communication initiatives was collaboratively produced in the sense that I

would draft communication material that would then be reviewed by my community supervisors

and revised if necessary. This process helped to ensure that what was being shared with the

community under the banner of „our project‟ was something we all agreed was accessible,

appropriate, and most conducive to facilitating a sense of relationship between community

members and myself, and between the community and the research itself.

While communications via newsletters, radio and online communication tools were

unquestionably useful and undoubtedly necessary in order to communicate with, build and

maintain a relationship with an audience as large as a 2000-strong community, the „getting to

know each other‟ elements of relationship building occurred to the greatest extent via in-person

meetings: the opening lecture I was asked by my community supervisors to provide before

initiating any formal research activities in the community55, interviews and focus groups,

55
The event - supported by funds I had raised from academic sources - was open to all members of the broader
community. It was here that I was able for the first time to directly open up the opportunity for those in attendance to
contribute to the formation of this project, maintaining that decision-making processes about the research and the
direction it would take resided in the hands of the community at large.

144
presentations at the Heritage Centre‟s community-wide open houses and research days, and a

pizza party we coordinated to return transcripts to contributors. Unsurprisingly, these

opportunities for face-to-face interactions acted as the primary means for building the closest

bonds and most lasting relationships between myself and particular community members. While

logistically impractical on a large scale, these in-person interactions represented critical

additional opportunities for community members and I to get to know each other, and for people

to better understand what I was doing in the community and how they could be involved in

shaping this project. These face-to-face opportunities for relationship development, in

comparison to newsletters, radio announcements and online contributions, also generated the

most extensive feedback from community members56.

In person engagement, along with all of the other means of communication utilized in the

project, served a similar end: an attempt to stay in touch with the broader WIFN community, to

provide repeated opportunities for community members to directly participate in co-shaping the

research process and products, and to contribute to the trust- and relationship-building so

clearly prioritized in investigatory practice in a community context. In summary, putting a

reconciliation research approach into practice involves focusing on relationships in the research

process, and communication can be considered a core element of this process.

56
Questions geared towards better understanding research directions and choices were those most frequently asked.
While seeking clarity rather than offering critique appeared to be the predominant means by which community
members provided input at these events, these requests frequently triggered for me an understanding of a new or
revised direction to take in the research. For example, when asked for clarification regarding a quote on a poster I
was presenting at a community lecture, it became clear that varying interpretations of the original contributor‟s
meaning indicated the need for greater discussion and feedback about my understanding of related project results.

145
What about the Needs of the Academic Researcher? Exploring the Concept of Mutual

Benefit in Reconciliation Research

In our research relationship, committing to a reconciliation research approach clearly

meant for me, the collaborating academic, prioritizing a significant proportion of my time to

building and maintaining relationships with the community. In addition to the communication

initiatives mentioned above, relationship building took the form of meetings, phone calls and

emails with my community supervisors, as well as discussions about research directions and

products and revisions to these. In addition to my supervisors, other community members

expressed a wish to review, comment on and be part of the revision process for final research

products, and relationship maintenance with these individuals was thus prioritized as well. As a

researcher in an academic context, all of these efforts towards relationship building had to occur

simultaneously with devoting time to other standard responsibilities such as teaching, preparing

for and attending conferences, applying for funding, taking part in professional development

programs, fulfilling departmental and committee requirements and completing basic research

activities such as proposal writing, data collection and analysis, and research write-up.

Adding the level of community interaction described here may seem cumbersome to

some, as could the instances of „volunteering‟ outlined earlier in the paper57. As a result, while

this paper may convincingly portray the ability of reconciliation research to benefit communities,

some may ask: what about the researcher? Are this person‟s needs being met, or is her/his

commitment to this type of research acting as a detriment to ensuring mutual benefit – i.e.

benefit for the researcher as well as the community?

In response to these points, I argue that the additional responsibilities in terms of time

requirements are not unique to relationships with First Nations, and that working outside the

57
The activities referred to here as „voluntarism‟ are better understood in this research context as being rooted in the
Indigenous concept of reciprocity, in which giving back – in any context - is a core value (see McGregor, 2004a and
Stevenson, 2006 for brief references to this concept). Within this framework, giving back as a researcher working in
an Indigenous context is thus understood to be appropriate and fitting within the overall reconciliation approach
posited here.

146
narrow sphere of one‟s own research project allows for the development of greater

understandings of the context in which research issues exist, as well as the opportunity to enact

principles posited here to be critical to engagement with First Nations.

In collaborations with First Nations communities, the requirements in terms of time and

commitment level are high, but benefit to the researcher is clear: Partnerships lead to

knowledge production more accurately and fully portraying and interpreting the phenomena

under study – i.e. to better research - thus a better result for all involved, including for the

researcher needing to forward and defend the work in which s/he was involved. In addition, the

nature of commitments in a First Nations community context may be unique, but the level of

commitment is little different than in investigatory initiatives co-produced with colleagues or

supervisors, or in partnerships with industry. Any partnership requires time: Shared

understandings must be built; time must be devoted to meeting and discussing research

directions and protocols; communications must be produced to keep key actors informed of

progress; feedback from a variety of people may have to be incorporated into a final research

product. Researchers across disciplines regularly accept these requirements in non-Aboriginal

spheres because better research results. The rationale is no different in a First Nations context.

As such, reconciliation research should be recognized as being not uniquely burdensome, but

rather as sharing many of the same levels of responsibility and commitment as any other

research partnership.

In terms of contributing to initiatives outside the official scope of the research project in

which I was involved, these, as mentioned earlier, resulted in better research outcomes,

including fuller understandings for me of the nature and scope of community priorities and the

research project itself, and more comprehensive representation and analysis of research

findings. As such, engagement in processes beyond the confines of one‟s specific research

project – engagement which may initially appear to serve only the community‟s good – instead

confirmed my belief in the benefits of this approach for all involved. Reconciliation research may

147
initially appear to be based primarily on supporting communities and working towards

reconciling tarnished histories with future opportunities for working together; but there is no

doubt that this approach to research can also provide a far richer experience for the researcher

than conventional fly-in, fly-out methodologies.

Thus, when in the throes of contemplating the heavy burdens of a researcher involved in

investigations oriented towards benefitting Indigenous communities, it‟s important to bear in

mind the many ways in which reconciliation research directly benefits the academic community:

1. Despite gains a community may experience via reconciliation research, a research

relationship between a First Nation and a non-Aboriginal academic provides the

means by which the academic researcher will profit in a very material way – myself

by obtaining a doctoral degree; others by similar means of „advancement‟. A core

element of reconciliation research may be its aim to ensure community benefit, but

there is no denying that this type of research provides direct benefit to the academic

researcher by providing invaluable and enriched research products and outcomes.

2. A legacy of colonial research has left researcher-First Nations relations scarred and,

at present, significantly more limited than in the past (e.g. Schnarch, 2004).

Reconciliation research can contribute to re-opening doors for working with First

Nations, thus creating opportunities for researchers to benefit from an opportunity to

publish fresh, new, original research – the currency of the academic‟s trade.

3. Researchers are not the only ones devoting time and resources to making the

research work. Collaborating First Nations communities typically devote a significant

amount of time to supporting research initiatives involving academics. My community

supervisors organized community events for me to present at, contacted initial

research contributors and organized focus groups, routinely co-developed and

reviewed research products (from proposals to presentations for academic

conferences to dissertation papers), made time for regular discussions and meetings

148
 with me, and ensured regular contact when we could not meet in person (e.g.

exchanging over 150 emails a year). The time and commitment required of those

with whom I worked was significant – something that is particularly admirable within

a context of already strained human resources capacity. Academics interested in

reconciliation research have to devote a significant amount of time to collaborations;

but so too do communities, and this contribution needs to be equally recognized and

valued.

Thus, reconciliation research may represent a conceptualization intended to benefit

rather than disadvantage communities, via both research processes and products. However,

researchers engaging in this type of activity gain significant benefit as well; such mutual benefit

leaves little room for rationalizing adherence to conventional extractive, marginalizing

approaches to research. In summary, there needs to be no mutual exclusivity in terms of a

project based in this approach benefiting the community or benefitting the researcher.

A Note on Rigour

After reading thus far, many would likely agree that reconciliation research opens the

doors for more equitable, just cross-cultural research. However, some may question how and

whether rigour is addressed in this research context. First of all, it is important to reiterate that

reconciliation research offers the opportunity for better knowledge production, not just more

equitable research. Reconciliation research does not simply act as a demonstration of faith that

communities hold knowledge and judgment of core value in the research process. Rather, this

form of research also acts as a demonstration of humility within a research context in which –

professional and seasoned as one may be – non-Aboriginal researchers frankly have little

purview. As a result, far short of martyring ourselves or compromising our responsibility to

knowledge production in the investigatory process, reconciliation research allows us to become

more open to opportunities for enhanced knowledge production by premising our research

149
practices on collaborating with those „in the know‟ – common enough practice in interdisciplinary

and even collaborative intra-disciplinary research in academia. As noted above, enacting

practices more attentive to the issues of paternalism, interpretation and representation that have

plagued research in cross-cultural contexts also offers the potential to renew what have become

increasingly closed-off opportunities for productive research with First Nations – thus represent

possibly the only way to engage in research in this context.

However, there may be those convinced that adhering to reconciliation research

principles will inhibit the potential for academic rigour and purity of knowledge production. For

these, as for those as yet concerned with guarding against bias, Freire notes: “one cannot

conceive of objectivity without subjectivity” (1989, 35): in reconciliation research, as in all

research, the supportability and value of the concept of objectivity is questionable. A

reconciliation researcher acts and is influenced in the research context as a socially constructed

and ever-malleable subject, just as do all researchers in all milieux. The very foundation of

concepts such as objectivity and positivism in investigatory practice have been questioned to

the core, and scholars from many disciplines have argued that, whether or not we are fully

cognizant of the fact, we are all coming from particular experiences and are influenced by

deeply embedded, socially constructed understandings; we act upon what we know and

understand from our own positionalities: None of us is positionless, making claims to objectivity

suspect (Absolon and Willett, 2005; Haraway, 1991; Hodge and Lester, 2006; Latour, 1999).

This is no more or less true for reconciliation researchers working in close contact with First

Nations communities than it is for, say, graduate students being mentored and enculturated into

the academic sphere.

For reconciliation researchers, achieving credibility in this research area, achieving

success in the area of rigour, can thus best be conceived of as residing primarily in attempting

to provide transparency. In this piece, the reader - the evaluator - knows where I as the

collaborating academic researcher stand, what I‟ve done and why I‟ve done it, because I have

150
told you. The value of attempting to ensure reliability and reproducibility in research has been

questioned, and the achievement of such goals has been discussed as potentially impossible,

particularly in research seeking to explore and illuminate the ever-diverse human experience.

However, if there remains value in reproducibility as an element of rigour, this paper has

provided the „formula‟ by which research for this dissertation was carried out – thus keeping

open the possibility important to some: the ability to replicate methods and results and ensure

that someone other than solely the researcher in question could have arrived at similar

conclusions.

Conclusions and Future Research Directions

This paper discussed what is referred to here as „reconciliation research‟ – an approach

to research that involves capturing the power of the investigatory method to directly support

First Nations‟ self-defined goals and aspirations. Reconciliation research was defined in this

paper as a research approach characterized by adherence to four principles, namely: 1) making

visible injustices with which Indigenous people have dealt and are dealing; 2) countering these

trends and contributing to the construction of new, more equitable, just and productive ways of

interacting across cultures; 3) contributing to Indigenous community revitalization and

rejuvenation, as defined by communities themselves – i.e. working in direct support of

community benefit; and 4) centralizing theoretically and in practice the principle that research in

Indigenous contexts is about relationships.

The necessity for this approach to research was discussed as being grounded in the

need to begin to address calls for reconciliation, in investigatory work and beyond. It was argued

that the work of reconciliation researchers, in process as much as in product, is about

addressing and attempting to figure out how to move beyond a history of tarnished, typically

exploitative and extractive First Nations/non-Aboriginal relationships – in the research sphere

and in general relations in broader society.

151
 The paper focused, however, not only on the ability of this research approach to benefit

First Nations communities, but also on its potential to provide direct and immediate benefit to

participating academic researchers, and to the academic community at large. It was argued

here that both external investigators and First Nations can benefit from research that: 1)

attempts to rebuild damaged bases for friendship and trust between First Nations and non-

Aboriginal researchers by sharing control of research direction, processes and products; 2)

renews the potential for productive research relationships between these two groups by

ensuring community benefit as well as benefit to participating external (academic or other)

researchers; and 3) provides enhanced research outcomes by enabling greater openness from

contributors, richer analysis of research topics as a result of shared interpretation and analysis,

and a more comprehensive understanding of research phenomena as an outcome of

collaborative inquiry and knowledge production. Reconciliation research is thus argued here to

be an approach that allows for supporting the goals and aspirations of communities while also

directly supporting academic research programs.

This paper explored these topics via several means: 1) on a theoretical level, by

examining the literature on Indigenous/non-Indigenous relationships in the research sphere; 2)

from a grounded perspective, by highlighting perspectives shared by project contributors

regarding appropriate research practices in a First Nations context; and 3) on a practical level,

via an examination of how, in the dissertation research project in which I have been involved

with Walpole Island First Nation for the last two and half years, we attempted to enact

reconciliation research in practice.

The paper thus aimed to introduce and characterize a different conceptualization of

research involving Indigenous peoples, to highlight opportunities afforded to researchers

wishing to work with First Nations communities, as well as communities wishing to engage with

academic researchers, and to provide description and analysis of one particular research

project in which reconciliation research principles were enacted. It is hoped that the article will

152
contribute food for thought for both communities and academics interested in engaging in

research that is more attuned to contemporary realities and understandings regarding First

Nations/non-Aboriginal relations, and to the need for reconciliation.

Innovative avenues for future research remain at the end of this initiative, however.

While analyzed in this paper in light of a reconciliation research perspective, our research

practice was in fact carried out before the concept of research as a means of working towards

reconciliation was concretely formalized. As a result, while our underlying commitments to just,

equitable, mutually beneficial, community-based research - in combination with our experiences

during the research process – directed our work in this initiative, it is suggested here that

research undertaken with reconciliation research principles in the foreground would provide

further insights into the broad-scale efficacy of this approach.

153
 CHAPTER 6

Dissertation Conclusion

Authored by Zoe Dalton, in collaboration with Walpole Island Heritage Centre (community
supervisors: Clint Jacobs and Aimee Johnson)

Filling Gaps, Constructing Bridges: The Dissertation’s Contributions to Theory

First Nations within Canada, and Indigenous peoples internationally, hold a wealth of in-

depth, detailed and long-term knowledge of local environments, as well as distinct

understandings of and approaches to caring for the environment (Barnaby, 2002; Chapeskie,

2002; Mander, 2006; Stevenson, 2006). Both of these types of contributions are increasingly

recognized as being urgently needed in broad-scale environmental initiatives, particularly those

focused on conservation and ecological recovery (e.g. Ford and Martinez, 2000; Turner et al.,

2000). In the Canadian species at risk (SAR) context explored in this dissertation, the value of

such understandings has been officially acknowledged, consideration of Aboriginal Traditional

Knowledge is now mandated, and new avenues have opened up for Aboriginal involvement in

the SAR conservation, recovery and research framework.

Yet, exclusion of First Nations from meaningful involvement - particularly with respect to

decision-making roles – remains typical, both within this context and in other areas of

environmental management. This remains so despite Aboriginal peoples‟ constitutionally-

acknowledged rights to be involved in decisions that will impact their lives, and with little

accommodation of the fact that claims to the relevant land bases frequently remain unresolved

(Land, 2002; Land and Townshend, 2002; Macadam, 2002; Ominayak and Bianchi, 2002;

Schouls, 2002; Venne, 2002). First Nations communities, leaders and scholars have identified

fundamental disparities between the nature of typical openings for First Nations in

environmental management – commonly based on consultative or at best advisory status - and

154
First Nations‟ aspirations of self-determination, recognized sovereignty, and a nation-to-nation

basis to dealings with the state. Findings from this dissertation indicate that such disparities

exist not only broadly in environmental management, but also specifically within the species at

risk management scenario. This research affirms that a strong First Nations sense of the

inadequacy of current openings, in combination with a commonly blurred non-Aboriginal

understanding of the presence and/or rationale for such a sense, can serve to perpetuate an

already wide gulf of suspicion and mistrust in First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations (MacAdam,

2002). Such outcomes often lead, in this particular scenario and others, to the existence of

“intense controversy between environmentalists and indigenous peoples, two communities that

should be working together” (Mander, 2006, 9).

By exploring both First Nations and non-Aboriginal actors‟ perspectives on relations in

this sphere, this research allowed for a unique examination of some of the mechanisms

contributing to identified tensions. The case study basis to this research – focused on gaining

relevant actors‟ perspectives on current relations within the SAR management and research

context in southern Ontario - allowed for broadly-articulated challenges to be explored in a

specified and localized research context. And the collaborative academic/First Nations

community basis to this dissertation research allowed for an analysis of findings based both in

academic and community understandings and interpretations of problems and solutions.

The research can thus be seen to uniquely address gaps in current understandings in a

number of ways - via:

1) A collaborative community/academic research relationship.

2) An examination of perspectives on relations shared by both First Nations and non-

Aboriginal actors.

3) An investigation of an as yet little-explored area of environmental management:

Formal examinations of First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in the area of species

at risk have been minimal, despite the significance of Canada‟s Species at Risk Act

155
 (SARA) to communities, and despite unique – and thus uniquely analyzable -

openings for First Nations in SARA-related processes.

4) A focus on a geographical location that is underexplored in terms of First

Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in environmental management: Relations have been

examined to a far lesser degree in southern than in northern contexts in Canada, and

have essentially not been explored at all in southern Ontario with respect to species

at risk work.

5) The provision of two original strategies for improving cross-cultural interactions in the

areas of environmental management and research – namely, the co-governance

model developed in Chapter 2 and the reconciliation research methodology explored

in Chapter 5.

6) The project‟s reconciliation thrust: This initiative‟s approach was based on seeking to

comprehend, unpack and, where appropriate, make visible buried colonial forces and

influences in First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in this sphere. As is explored in

following sections, analysis in this dissertation points to the basis of tensions as

being rooted in normalized – and as a result largely unaddressed - paternalistic,

colonial approaches to dominant society‟s mode of relating with Aboriginal peoples in

Canada. However, the aim of the research was not solely to offer additional data on

colonial forces as yet unearthed in an unexplored subject area. Rather, the intent

was to work collaboratively across cultures and worldviews to understand not only

what these forces meant to people‟s everyday lives, but how this knowledge could be

used to construct alternative pathways of relating.

It is posited here that this unique combination of research bases contributes to the

dissertation‟s value and its ability to offer insights relevant to a wide range of actors, including

academics, First Nations, policy leaders and non-Aboriginal environmental professionals.

156
Recommendations from the Research: Shared Leadership, Co-Governance

In its community-based, constructionist intent, the project‟s proposed model for improved

relations arose out of what research contributors shared, and revolved around what is being

called for by Indigenous peoples on a broad scale: recognition of rights to self-determination,

and manifestation of this recognition via openings for decision-making roles in institutions of

power. However, as a project exploring both First Nations and non-Aboriginal perspectives on

challenges to relations, any proposed model arising out of this work had to incorporate both

First Nations perspectives as well as understandings gained from the non-Aboriginal

conservationists who contributed to this research.

Proposals from this research, focused on co-governance and summarized in Figure 2.2,

may belie by their apparent focus on addressing First Nations interests their ability to fulfill

needs identified by non-Aboriginal conservationists. However, the model directly addresses

perspectives shared by this latter group as well: If non-Aboriginal conservationists‟ interest in

working with First Nations are to be fulfilled, if stalemates are to be overcome, and if

unproductive, unsuccessful attempts at working together are to become a thing of the past,

moving towards a model of co-governance in environmental management arenas such as

SARA is critical. Chapter 4 addresses non-Aboriginal participants‟ perspectives on this topic.

Results from this research indicate that relations simply cannot fully develop in this

sphere if First Nations continue to feel hesitant about becoming involved in relationships; and

such hesitation will not disappear if its fundamental bases are not addressed: lack of control,

and exclusion from positions of decision-making. While exceptions may exist, First Nations‟

reticence to become engaged when approached by non-Aboriginal conservationists will persist

if what people are asked to become engaged in is a context constituted by dominant society-

shaped and directed institutions of power in which what happens to their knowledge or their

communities as a result of sharing that knowledge is determined by influences out of their

control. All of this is far too reminiscent of the failed paternalistic, colonial scenario that has

157
characterized First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in Canada for centuries, and has resulted in

such loss and marginalization for First Peoples. Making visible the links between this historical

background and the contemporary scenario provides a rationale for the need for co-governance,

as well as insights into non-Aboriginal contributors‟ identification of First Nations „non-

participation‟.

The concept of co-governance as a model for engagement in environmental

management was introduced and expanded upon in Chapter 2 of the dissertation; this chapter

explored the SARA legislative framework and its on-the-ground ramifications for First Nations. In

this paper, current avenues for First Nations inclusion in SARA institutions were exposed as

representing, in many respects, exemplars of ongoing exclusion from roles of decision-making

authority and capacity. The co-governance model was proposed within this framework as a

means of attaining meaningful inclusion, and contributing to the fulfillment of First Nations goals

of nation-to-nation relationships in environmental management and elsewhere; the model also

represented a response to critical scholars‟ identification of the need for instituting the „post‟ in

(post)-colonial dealings between Canada and Aboriginal people (e.g. Baldwin, 2009; Braun,

1997).

While not explored in the same depth in Chapter 3, the model can be considered equally

applicable for addressing the challenges raised in this piece regarding seeking out and

incorporating Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in species at risk work. In Chapter 3, non-

Aboriginal conservationists‟ expressions of lack of clarity regarding First Nations „non-

participation‟ were brought to light. It was also in this paper that First Nations contributors‟

reticence about engaging in SARA-related TEK initiatives was revealed to be rooted in a

perception that such initiatives are closely aligned with trends of intellectual imperialism, in

which First Nations peoples and knowledges continue to be understood primarily as resources

to be exploited – in this case for achieving dominant society-derived conservation ends – and

with little attention to First Nations needs, aspirations or priorities. Again indicating the value of

158
the co-governance model for both non-Aboriginal and First Nations actors, such a scenario

would directly address the „non-participation‟ challenge in TEK-related SARA work identified by

non-Aboriginal participants as well as the challenges related to paternalism and colonial-style

relations in this field identified by First Nations contributors. Creating new spaces in this sphere

for First Nations involvement based on equity, meaningful participation and decision-making

authority and capacity would offer security in engagement in this work, enhance comfort in and

motivation for such engagement for First Nations, and thus contribute to creating new

opportunities for cross-cultural learning.

In Chapter 5, it was demonstrated that the model can form the basis of opportunities for

carrying out successful, productive cross-cultural research relationships involving First Nations

communities and non-Aboriginal investigators (termed here „reconciliation research‟). Shared

leadership was analyzed in this article as being key to the formation and ongoing success of the

community/academic relationship at the basis of this dissertation research. It was argued in

Chapter 5 that without a co-leadership basis to project governance, the smooth nature of the

research relationship would have been far less likely to result, especially given that, before

project commencement two and half years ago, my research partners and I were unknown to

each other. It was suggested in this article that the co-leadership approach was also responsible

for enabling immensely productive research outcomes: Shared direction in the investigatory

elements of this initiative was considered essential in building trust and openness on the part of

the community leadership responsible for supervising this project at the community level58, as

well as on the part of individual research contributors, who shared so generously, and thus

enabled the creation of a productive research initiative.

58
Capacity for such involvement may vary from community to community; Chapter 4 addresses the importance of
building or further developing First Nations networks in the area of conservation as one means of addressing and
overcoming capacity-related issues – particularly for smaller, less well-resourced, or less experienced communities
seeking assistance in this area.

159
A Note on Scale, and Recommendations for Policy

When considering the co-governance model as a mechanism for enabling more

productive and successful cross-cultural relations in environmental management, the issue of

scale needs to be addressed. How, at what level and by whom must this model be implemented

to lead to the desired outcomes? In its applicability to the re-visioning of both broad-scale

policies as well as smaller-scale protocols and approaches, the utility of this model becomes

apparent: as a concept, it can be implemented at a variety of scales of interaction between First

Nations and non-Aboriginal actors, with, I would argue, productive, mutually beneficial results as

the immediate and long term outcomes.

However, it is argued that in the SARA context (including with regards to TEK work),

policies regarding First Nations inclusion in this legislative framework require alterations at the

highest levels in order to create meaningful openings for co-governance. It is changes at this

level that, by allowing for shared control of the SARA agenda – in terms of directions,

approaches, processes, outcomes and evaluations - have the potential to restore First Nations

faith in this framework and as a result enable newly productive on-the-ground relations between

First Nations and non-Aboriginal actors in this area. Thus, the proposal here is for top-down,

structural and institutional adjustments.

For several reasons, bottom-up re-visioning of governance in SARA and TEK work (e.g.

ensuring an equal number of First Nations and non-Aboriginal seats on individual SAR recovery

teams or relevant SAR management boards) is here considered an insufficient response to

issues revealed via this dissertation research. Firstly, while changes at this level could provide

opportunities for more satisfying engagement experiences for individual First Nations actors

and/or communities, without changes at the policy level, no fundamental alterations would have

occurred in terms of First Nations‟ direction of overall approaches to SAR conservation, and

broad scale faith in SARA processes would thus not be gained.

160
 Secondly, it is argued that, if implementation of co-governance were left up to the

discretion of local or regional SAR conservation and recovery leaders, too patchy a result is

likely to be seen, and broad-scale improvements in First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in this

sphere would therefore, again, be unlikely to result. This assertion is not meant to devalue the

understanding of issues and capacity to appreciate the need for co-governance among some, if

not many, dominant society actors in the conservation arena. Rather, it represents an

acknowledgement of the embeddedness of Canadians in general in a normalized colonial

relationship with Aboriginal peoples in which dominant society‟s ways of understanding, relating

to and planning for the environment not only direct environmental management strategies, but

are typically seen as the only valid system for doing so. Such a critique is perhaps particularly

applicable to conservation actors trained in the natural sciences: Stevenson (2006, 168) argues

that science-based training programs for environmental professionals serve to promote the idea

that “critically important issues such as…equity, social justice and cultural sustainability…[are]

someone else‟s problems to be dealt with outside the realm of ERM [environmental resource

management]”59.

It is thus posited here that the implementation of co-governance – i.e. the

implementation of legally-recognized rights of Aboriginal participation - should occur at the

federal level at which SARA is administered, evaluated and implemented. This would ensure

that the co-governance model be implemented notwithstanding a potentially unrealizable

expectation that individual non-Aboriginal actors in the conservation sphere will come to fully

understand First Nations approaches to SAR conservation and the ways in which these should

translate into policy. Thus, instead of waiting until such full understanding is achieved for

policies to be implemented, the direct participation of First Nations people as equal partners in

the creation and implementation of policies, principles and approaches - representing the

59
Having myself been trained in the natural sciences, I can attest to the fact that the indoctrination of young students
into the field typically includes a clear distinction between scientific and social responsibility.

161
nation-to-nation basis to relationships called for by First Nations across Canada – will have, as

an outcome, the capacity to transform each party‟s understandings of the other‟s expectations

and requirements and the ways in which these need to be addressed, in combination, in policy.

As a beneficial by-product, then, top-down, structural adjustments can allow for changes in

individual actors‟ perceptions and comprehension by denaturalizing dominant society direction

of conservation.

What about scale in relation to implementing a co-governance model in the research

context? As was demonstrated in Chapter 5, co-leadership at the scale of the individual

research relationship can be implemented with good results. But again, small scale changes are

considered, on their own, to be insufficient to addressing the broad-scale issues of exclusion,

paternalism, and non-Aboriginal embeddedness in normalized colonial realities in the research

sphere, as identified in this dissertation and elsewhere. If left to the discretion of individual

researchers – variably committed to and knowledgeable of the rationale behind co-governance

as a means of relationship renewal - results are again likely to be patchy, and broad-scale

issues related to damaged bases for trust between First Nations and researchers will be

inadequately addressed. Again, a co-governance approach is considered to be one

implemented not simply at the scale of individual research projects, but rather at the broad-scale,

highest-order level in the research arena, just as in the SAR legislative framework.

It is important to note that progress is already being made in the research sphere, in the

Canadian academic context at least: Funding bodies are increasingly aware of Aboriginal

concerns about and priorities in research, and are increasingly requiring researchers to adhere

to new research standards (standards created, notably, with extensive Aboriginal input - e.g. Tri

Council policies). However, significant changes are only just getting off the ground, evaluative

mechanisms to ensure adherence to new standards are often minimal, and a great deal of

research – particularly in the conservation scenario explored in this dissertation research –

occurs outside of academia, beyond the reach of newly-revised standards in the academic

162
funding realm. Thus, work still needs to be done to move towards broad-scale implementation of

co-governance in research scenarios. Protocols regarding interacting with First Nations in

government-sponsored TEK/SAR research, for example, are only now being developed, seven

years after SARA was brought into effect (Hutchings, 2009). And the protocols are brand new:

not yet public; not yet in common usage. Once in place, such protocols will have the potential to

enhance the efficacy and ethics of TEK work involving First Nations. But in order to catalyze

long-term, broad-based, systemic change in First Nations/non-Aboriginal relations in the SAR

conservation and recovery sphere, such protocols will have to be matched with top-down

policies mandating co-governance in SARA institutions, including within research.

Summary and Avenues for Future Research

This dissertation confirms research indicating that Aboriginal people continue to grapple

with persistent colonial forces in environmental management and elsewhere (Mander, 2006;

Tauli-Corpuz, 2006). Findings indicate that current approaches to involving First Nations in

SARA management and research - labelled as inclusion – frequently represent little more than

extensions of past trends of exclusion. As Land (2002, 137) states, “[t]here remains a deep

denial in Canadian society about the historic and contemporary destruction of Aboriginal

peoples and cultures in this land”. Locating current openings for First Nations involvement in

environmental management under the banner of „inclusion‟ was shown here to be a powerful

means of disaffiliating still vital colonial processes from now „out of fashion‟ colonial associations:

„Inclusion‟ can thus be part of this ongoing denial. This research aimed to move beyond both

exclusion and its as yet too-closely related cousin, „inclusion‟, to a space in which reconciliation

and renewed relations can be foregrounded in environmental management.

This project thus uniquely offered a sense of some of the mechanisms affecting First

Nations/non-Aboriginal relations, as well as potential avenues for moving beyond these.

However, the insights offered here are acknowledged to be premised on understandings rooted

163
in one particular geographical location, and based on understandings from a relatively limited

number of First Nations communities and non-Aboriginal groups. Future research into relations

in geographical contexts other than southern Ontario, and with additional First Nations

communities and non-Aboriginal conservation groups, would provide a sense of the extent to

which findings shared here, in terms of relations surrounding SAR management and research,

are common to other contexts. This aim to explore the „generalizability‟ of research findings is

perhaps most significant in that additional research supporting findings related here would

strengthen arguments for systemic, top-down changes at the policy level.

Based on feedback on this research received from First Nations reviewers, as well as a

personal commitment to augmenting outcomes from this research, additional future work of

value in relation to the dissertation would focus on the following:

1) First Nations‟ alternative constructions of caring for the land in the context of species

at risk conservation and recovery;

2) a first-person exploration of internal processes of reconciliation experienced as a non-

Aboriginal researcher working in First Nations contexts;

3) an exploration of the concept of white privilege in reconciliation-oriented, collaborative

First Nations/non-Aboriginal relationships;

4) a fully-implemented scenario of co-authoring, in which both academic and community

voices are fully present in the research products.

Closing

Indigenous writers propound - as the only way forward for social and ecological

imperatives to be met - bridging the still significant Indigenous/non-Indigenous divide and

building institutionalized spaces for friendship, equality and justice. Each of the articles in this

dissertation responded to this call in its focus on understanding improved relations as a means

of moving towards reconciliation and renewed First Nations/non-Aboriginal relationships. In

164
combination, these papers represent an attempt to come to and provide an enhanced

understanding of how to break out of conventional oppositional molds and move into a space of

respectful, equitable relations. Such an outcome would provide broad-scale benefit by allowing

for collaborations between First Peoples and dominant society of a type not seen since those

early days of friendship after contact, when our mutual dependence and the mutual benefit of

working together, learning from each other and evolving as a result of both our similarities and

our differences were acknowledged. This work urges that such acknowledgement be re-

membered: pieced back together by crossing those bridges and recognizing that foregrounding

respect, friendship and trust in our relations is not only „responsible‟, but offers opportunities for

material and discursive benefit for all involved.

165
 LITERATURE CITED

Absolon, K and C. Willett. 2005. Putting ourselves forward: Location in Aboriginal research. In L.
Brown and S. Strega (Eds.). Research as Resistance: Critical, Indigenous, and Anti-Oppressive
Approaches, pp. 97-126. Toronto: Canadian Scholars‟ Press/Women‟s Press.

Adams, W. M. and M. Mulligan. 2003. Decolonizing Nature: Strategies for Conservation in a

Post-Colonial Era. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Agrawal, A. 2002. Indigenous knowledge and the politics of classification. International Social
Science Journal, 173: 287-297.

Anderson, K. 2000. Thinking “postnationally”: Dialogue across multicultural, Indigenous and

settler spaces. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(2): 381-391.

Arquette, M. and M. Cole. 2004. Restoring our relationship for the future. In M. Blaser, H. Feit,
and G. McRae (Eds.). In the Way of Development: Indigenous Peoples, Life Projects and
Globalization, pp. 332-349. New York, NY: Zed Books; Ottawa: International Development
Research Centre.

Assembly of First Nations. 2009. Assembly of First Nations marks second anniversary of the
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Available at:
http://www.afn.ca/article.asp?id=4594, accessed September 30, 2009.

Assembly of First Nations. 2008. Special Chiefs Assembly report – December, 2008. Fisheries,
Key issues and Activities: SARA. Available at: http://www.afn.ca/article.asp?id=3284, accessed
September 30, 2009.

Assembly of First Nations. 2006. Securing our future: The First Nations agenda for the 2007
federal budget. A submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.
Ottawa: Assembly of First Nations.

Assembly of First Nations. 2005a. First Nations environmental stewardship action plan. Availabe
at: http://www.afn.ca/cmslib/general/Environmental-Stewardship-Action%20Plan.pdf, accessed
April 28, 2010.

Assembly of First Nations. 2005b. Our Nations, our governments: Choosing our own paths.
Report of the Joint Committee of Chiefs and Advisors on the Recognition and Implementation of
First Nation Governments, Final Report. Available at:
http://www.afn.ca/cmslib/general/FNG%20report_Eng%20final.pdf, accessed April 28, 2010.

Assembly of First Nations. 2005c. Overview of the Species at Risk Act. Available at:
http://www.afn.ca/cmslib/general/SARA.pdf, accessed April 28, 2010.

Assembly of First Nations (AFN). 1993. Environment. In Assembly of First Nations, Reclaiming
our Nationhood: Strengthening our Heritage, pp. 39-50. Report to the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples. Ottawa: AFN.

Assembly of First Nations. No date. Our Nations Our Governments: Choosing our own paths.
Report of the Joint Committee of Chiefs and Advisors on the Recognition and Implementation of

166
First Nation Governments. Executive Summary. Available at:
http://www.afn.ca/cmslib/general/Executive-Summary.pdf, accessed September 30, 2009.

Atleo, E. R. 2006. In D. Deur and N.J. Turner (Eds.). Keeping It Living: Traditions of Plant Use
and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America, pp. vii - xi. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Atleo, S. 2009. AFN National Chief responds to Prime Minister‟s statements on colonialism
Assembly of First Nations. Available at: http://www.afn.ca/article.asp?id=4609, accessed March
9, 2 010.

Aurora Trout Recovery Team. 2006. Recovery Strategy for the Aurora trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis timagamiensis) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa:
Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Austin, D.E. 2004. Partnerships, not projects! Improving the environment through collaborative
research and action. Human Organization, 63(4): 419-430.

Baldwin, A. 2009. Ethnoscaping Canada‟s boreal forest: Liberal whiteness and its disaffiliation
from colonial space. The Canadian Geographer, 53(4): 427-433.

Balick, M. J. And P. A. Cox. 1997. Plants, People and Culture: The Science of Ethnobotany.
New York: Scientific American Library.

Ban, N.C., C.R. Picard and A.C.J. Vincent. 2009. Comparing and integrating community-based
and science-based approaches to prioritizing marine areas for protection. Conservation Biology,
23(4): 899-910.

Barker, O.E. and A.E. Derocher. 2008. Brown bear (Ursus arctos) predation of broad whitefish
(Coregonus nasus) in the Mackenzie Delta Region, Northwest Territories. Arctic, 62(3):312-316.

Barnaby, J. 2002. Recognizing traditional environmental knowledge. In J. Bird, L. Land, and M.

Macadam (Eds). Nation to Nation: Aboriginal Sovereignty and the Future of Canada, pp. 85-91.
Toronto: Public Justice Resource Centre.

Bart, 2006. Integrating local ecological knowledge and manipulative experiments to find the
causes of environmental change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10:541-546.

Battiste, M. 2004. Respecting postcolonial standards of Indigenous knowledge: Toward „A

Shared and sustainable future‟, Journal of Aboriginal Economic Development, 4 (1): 59-67.

Battiste, M. and J. Youngblood Henderson. 2000. Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and

Heritage: A Global Challenge. Saskatoon: Purich Press, 2000.

Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. New Delhi: Sage.

Bedford, T. and J. Burgess. 2001. The focus-group experience. In M. Limb and C. Dwyer (Eds.).
Qualitative Methodologies for Geographers: Issues and Debates, pp. 121-135. London: Oxford
University Press.

167
Belanger, Y. 2003. Issues of developing relationships in Native American studies. In J. Oakes,
R. Riewe, K. Wilde, A. Edmunds and A. Dubois (Eds.). Native Voices in Research, pp. 211-221.
Winnipeg: Aboriginal Issues Press.

Berkes, F. 2009. Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging

organizations and social learning, Journal of Environmental Management, 90:1692-1702.

Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management.
Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis.

Berkes, F and Henley, T. 1997. Co-management and traditional knowledge: Threat or

opportunity? Policy Options, March: 29-31.

Berkes,F. 1994. Co-management: Bridging the two solitudes. Northern Perspectives, 22(2-3):
18-20.

Binder, L., and B. Hanbridge. 1993. Aboriginal people and resource co-management. In J.T.
Inglis (Eds.). Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases, pp. 121-132. Ottawa:
International Development Research Centre and International Program on Traditional Ecological
Knowledge.

Bird, J. 2002. Reconciliation. In J. Bird, L. Land, and M. Macadam (Eds). Nation to Nation:
Aboriginal Sovereignty and the Future of Canada, pp. xiii-xvii. Toronto: Public Justice Resource
Centre.

Bishop, R. 1998. Freeing ourselves from neo-colonial domination in research: A Maori approach
to creating knowledge. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(2): 199-219.

Blair, P. 2008. Lament for a First Nation: The Williams Treaties of southern Ontario. Vancouver:
UBC Press.

Braun, B. 1997. Buried epistemologies: The politics of nature in (post)colonial British Columbia.
Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 87(1): 3-31.

Brown, J.D. 2004. Knowledge, uncertainty and physical geography: towards the development of
methodologies for questioning belief. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 29:
367-381.

Burgess, J. 2000. Situating knowledges, sharing values and reaching collective decisions: The
cultural turn in environmental decision-making. In Cook, I., D. Crouch, S. Naylor and J. R. Ryan
(Eds.). Cultural Turns/Geographical Turns: Perspectives on Cultural Geography, pp. 273-287.
Harlow: Pearson Education Limited (Prentice Hall).

Cajete, G. 1999a. Indigenous science: An overview. In Igniting the Sparkle: An Indigenous

Science Education Model, pp. 81-87. Asheville, NC: Kivaki Press.

Cajete, G. 1999b. Ethnoscience: A Native American perspective. In Igniting the Sparkle: An

Indigenous Science Education Model, pp. 73-80. Asheville, NC: Kivaki Press.

168
Canada. 2008a. Canada‟s Strategy, SARA: History. Available at:
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/approach/strategy/background/history_e.cfm, accessed Sept 28,
2009.

Canada. 2008b. Canada‟s Strategy, SARA: Purpose. Available at:

http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/approach/strategy/background/Purpose_e.cfm, accessed Sept 28,
2009.

Canada. 2008c. SARA Components, Recovery: Recovery Strategies. Available at:

http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/recovery/recovery2_e.cfm, accessed Oct 28, 2009.

Canada. 2008d. SARA Components, Recovery: Action Plans. Available at:

http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/recovery/action2_e.cfm, accessed Oct 28, 2009.

Canada. 2008e. Species at Risk Act: Process. Available at:

http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/approach/strategy/background/Process_e.cfm, accessed October
26, 2009.

Canada. 2002. Species at Risk Act: Statutes of Canada 2002, c. 29. Canada Gazette, Part III
25(3). Ottawa: Queen‟s Printer for Canada, 2003.

Canada. 1994a. Migratory Birds Convention Act: 1994, c. 22. Available at:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/M-7.01/, accessed January 22, 2010.

Canada. 1994b. Canadian Biodiversity Strategy: Canada‟s Response to the Convention on

Biological Diversity. Available at: http://www.eman-
rese.ca/eman/reports/publications/rt_biostrat/intro.html, accessed January 22, 2010.

Canada. 1992. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: Statutes of Canada 2002, c. 37.
Available at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-15.2/, accessed October 14, 2009.

Cardinal, N. No date. Challenges and implications of using ATK for species conservation: A
case study of Northern Canada wolverines. Available at:
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/bridging/papers/cardinal.nathan.pdf,
accessed Nov 12, 2009.

Carmack, E. and R. MacDonald. 2008. Water and ice-related phenomena in the coastal region
of the Beaufort Sea: Some parallels between Native experience and western science. Arctic,
61(3): 265-280.

Castellano, M.B. 2004. Ethics of Aboriginal research. Journal of Aboriginal Health, January: 98-
114.

Castellano, M.B. 2000. Updating Aboriginal traditions of knowledge. In G. Dei, B.L. Hall, D.
Goldin-Rosenberg (Edsl). Indigenous Knowledge in Global Contexts: Multiple Readings of our
World, pp 21-36. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources (CIER). 2008. Species at Risk Act Information
Package: Newsletter #4, SARA – The Species at Risk Act and Aboriginal involvement. Available
at: www.cier.ca/WorkArea/downloadasset.aspx?id=1156, accessed January 25 2010.

169
Chalmers, N. and C. Fabricius. 2007. Expert and generalist local knowledge about land cover
change on South Africa‟s Wild Coast: Can local ecological knowledge add value to science?
Ecology and Society 12(1): 10.

Chapeskie, A. 2002. Liberating Canada from the settler mythology. In J. Bird, L. Land, and M.
Macadam (Eds). Nation to Nation: Aboriginal Sovereignty and the Future of Canada, pp. 74-84.
Toronto: Public Justice Resource Centre.

Collignon, B. 2004. It‟s a long way to the other geographers and geographic knowledges.
GeoJournal, 60: 375-379.

Colorado, P. 1988. Bridging Native and western science. Convergence, 21(2/3): 49-68.

Conradson, D. 2005. Focus groups. In R. Flowerdew and D. Martin (Eds.). Methods in Human
Geography: A Guide for Students Doing a Research Project, pp. 128-143. London: Oxford
University Press.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2009a. About

COSEWIC: Mission. Available at: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct6/sct6_1_e.cfm, accessed
October 2, 2009.

COSEWIC. 2009b. Candidate wildlife species. Available at:

http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct3/index_e.cfm, accessed Nov 18, 2009.

COSEWIC. 2009c. COSEWIC and the Species at Risk Act. Available at:
http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct6/sct6_6_e.cfm, accessed Oct 26, 2009.

COSEWIC. 2009d. COSEWIC‟s Assessment process and criteria. Available at:

http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/pdf/assessment_process_e.pdf, accessed Oct 23, 2009.

COSEWIC. 2008. COSEWIC subcommittees. Available at:

http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct4/index_e.cfm, accessed Nov 12, 2009.

Couzos, S., L. Traven, R. Murray and M. Culbong. 2005. „We are not just participants – we are
in charge‟: The NACCHO Ear trial and the process of community-controlled health research.
Ethnicity and Health, 10(2): 91-111.

Crawford, S.S. 2006. Effects of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) on First Nations‟ fisheries. A
background discussion paper prepared for Assembly of First Nations, Ottawa, Ontario.

Davis, A. and J.R. Wagner. 2003. Who knows? On the importance of identifying “experts” when
researching local ecological knowledge. Human Ecology, 31(3): 463-489.

Deloria, V. Jr. 1992. Indians, archaeologists, and the future. American Antiquity, 57(4): 595-598.

Diaz Soto, L. 2004. Decolonizing research in cross-cultural contexts: Issues of voice and power.
In K. Mutua and B.B. Swadener (Eds.). Decolonizing Research in Cross-Cultural Contexts:
Critical Personal Narratives, pp. ix - xi. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Doxtater, M.G. 2004. Indigenous knowledge in the decolonial era. American Indian Quarterly,
28(3/4): 618-633.

170
Doyle-Bedwell, P. and F. Cohen. 2001. Aboriginal people in Canada: Their role in shaping
environmental trends in the twenty-first century. In E. Parson (ed.). Governing the Environment:
Persistent Challenges, Uncertain Innovations, pp. 169-206. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Ecojustice, David Suzuki Foundation, Nature Canada and Environmental Defence. 2009.
Canada‟s Species at Risk Act: Implementation at a snail‟s pace. Available at:
http://www.ecojustice.ca/publications/reports/canadas-species-at-risk-act-implementation-at-a-
snails-pace/attachment, accessed October 28, 2009.

Eisner, W.R., C.J. Cuomo, K.M. Hinkel, B.M. Jones and R. H Brower, Sr. 2009. Advancing
landscape change research through the incorporation of Inupiaq knowledge. Arctic, 62(4):429-
442.

Environment Canada. 2000. Canadian Biodiversity Strategy: Canada's response to the

Convention on Biological Diversity, doing our part to conserve biodiversity and sustainably use
biological resources. Available at: http://www.eman-
rese.ca/eman/reports/publications/rt_biostrat/cbs1.htm, accessed Sept 28, 2009
Environment Canada. 1995. Canadian biodiversity strategy: Canada's response to the
Convention on Biological Diversity. Biodiversity Convention Office, Environment Canada,
Quebec.

Erasmus, G. 1989. Twenty years of disappointed hopes. In B. Richardson (Ed.). Drum Beat:
Anger and Renewal in Indian Country, pp. 1-42. Toronto: Summerhill Press.

Erasmus, G. and J. Sanders. 2002. Canadian history: An Aboriginal perspective. In J. Bird, L.

Land, and M. Macadam (Eds). Nation to Nation: Aboriginal Sovereignty and the Future of
Canada, pp. 3-11. Toronto: Public Justice Resource Centre.

First Nations Centre. 2007. Understanding Health Indicators. Ottawa: National Aboriginal Health
Organization (NAHO). Available at: http://www.naho.ca/firstnations/english/documents/FNC-
UnderstandingHealthIndicators_001.pdf, accessed April 28, 2010.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2009. SARA: Frequently asked questions. Available at:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/faq/faq-eng.htm, accessed September 30, 2009.

Fletcher, C. 2003. Community-based participatory research relationships with Aboriginal

communities in Canada: An overview of context and process. Pimatisiwin: A Journal of
Aboriginal and Indigenous Community Health, 1(1): 27-62.

Ford, J. and D. Martinez. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge, ecosystem science, and
environmental management. Ecological Applications, 10(5): 1249-1250.

Freeman, M.M.R. 1992. The nature and utility of traditional ecological knowledge. Northern
Perspectives 20(1):9-12.

Freire, P. 1989. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company.

171
Furusawa, T. 2009. Changing ethnobotanical knowledge of the Roviana people, Solomon
Islands: Quantitative approaches to its correlation with modernization. Human Ecology, 37: 147-
159.

Gonzalez, E. R., R. P. Lejano, G. Vidales, R. F. Conner, Y. Kidokoro, B. Fazeli, and R. Cabrales.

2007. Participatory action research for environmental health: Encountering Freire in the urban
barrio. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(1): 77-100.

Good Striker, D. 1996. TEK Wars: First Nations‟ struggle for environmental planning. In J.
Weaver (Ed.). Defending Mother Earth: Native American Perspectives on Environmental Justice,
pp. 144-152. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books.

Graveline, F. J. 2000. Circle as methodology: enacting an Aboriginal paradigm. Qualitative

Studies in Education, 13(4): 361-370.

Green, J. 2002. Decolonizing in the era of globalization. Canadian Dimension, 36(2): 31-33.

Hall, S. 2009. Cultural disturbances and local ecological knowledge mediate cattail (Typha
domingensis) invasion in Lake Patzcuaro, Mexico. Human Ecology, 37:241-249.

Haraway, D.J. 1991. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege
of partial perspective. In Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, pp. 183-202.
New York: Routledge.

Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force (HETF). 1999. Words That Come Before All Else:
Environmental Philosophies of the Haudenosaunee. Cornwall Island, ON: Native North
American Travelling College.

Higgs, E. 2003. Nature by Design: People, Natural Processes, and Ecological Restoration.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Hodge, P. and J. Lester. 2006. Indigenous research: Whose priority? Journeys and possibilities
of cross-cultural research in geography. Geographical Research, 44(1):41-51.

Houde, N. 2007. The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: Challenges and opportunities
for Canadian co-management arrangements. Ecology and Society, 12(2): 34.

Howitt, R. 2001. Constructing engagement: Geographical education for justice within and
beyond tertiary classrooms. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 25(2): 147-166.

Hunn. E. 1993. What is Traditional Ecological Knowledge? In N. Williams and G. Baines (Eds).
Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Wisdom for Sustainable Development, pp13-15. Canberra,
Australia: Australian National University, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies.

Hunn, S., Johnson, D., Russel, P., Thornton, T. 2003. Huna Tlingit traditional environmental
knowledge, conservation, and the management of a “wilderness” park. Current Anthropology,
44 (Supplement): 79-103.

Huntington, H. 2000. Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: Methods and

applications. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1270-1274.

172
Hutchings, J. 2009. COSEWIC annual report presented to the Minister of the Environment and
the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council from the Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada, 2008-2009. Available at:
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/car_COSEWIC_Annual_Report_0809_e
.pdf, accessed November 30th, 2009.

INAC (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada). 2009. Terminology. Available at: http://www.ainc-
inac.gc.ca/ap/tln-eng.asp, accessed April 28, 2010.

Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. 2009. Draft 2nd Edition of the Tri-Council Policy
Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS). Available at:
http://pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/Revised%20Draft%202nd%20Ed%20PDFs/Revised%20Draft%2
02nd%20Edition%20TCPS_EN.pdf, accessed May 17, 2010.

International Indian Treaty Council. 2001. Statement of International Indigenous Forum on

Biodiversity at the Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group on Access and Benefit Sharing,
Convention on Biological Diversity, 22-26 October 2001 - Bonn, Germany. Available at:
http://www.treatycouncil.org/new_page_523211.htm, accessed May 5, 2010.

Jacobs, D.M. 2006. Report on the Minister‟s Round Table under the Species at Risk Act,
December 6-7, 2006 Gatineau, Quebec. Prepared for Chiefs of Ontario.

Jimenez Estrada, V.M. 2005. The tree of life as a research methodology. Australian Journal of
Indigenous Education, 34: 44-52.

Johnson, J.T., G. Cant, R. Howitt and E. Peters. 2007. Guest editorial: Creating anti-colonial
geographies: Embracing Indigenous peoples‟ knowledges and rights. Geographical Research,
45(2): 117-120.
Kerry, A., H. Versteeg, L. Labelle and T. Shillington. 2006. Formative evaluation of federal
Species at Risk programs, Final Report July 2006. Prepared for: Environment Canada,
Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Parks Canada Agency. Ottawa: Stratos Inc.

Kimmerer, R. 2002. Weaving traditional ecological knowledge into biological education: A call
to action. BioScience 52(5):432-438.

Kirk, D. 2005. Species vs. ecosystem recovery. Presentation: Tallgrass Ontario Forum,
September 21, 2005. Available at:
http://www.tallgrassontario.org/Publications/Forum_SpeciesVsEcosystemRecovery.pdf,
accessed October 27, 2009

Kneale, J. 2001. Working with groups. In M. Limb and C. Dwyer (Eds.). Qualitative
Methodologies for Geographers: Issues and Debates, pp. 136-150. London: Oxford University
Press.

Kovach, M. 2005. Emerging from the margins: Indigenous methodologies. In L. Brown and S.
Strega (Eds.). Research as Resistance: Critical, Indigenous, and Anti-Oppressive Approaches,
pp. 19-36. Toronto: Canadian Scholars‟ Press/Women‟s Press.

173
Laidler, G.J. 2007. Ice, Through Inuit Eyes: Characterizing the Importance of Sea Ice Processes,
Use, and Change around Three Nunavut Communities. PhD thesis submitted to Department of
Geography, University of Toronto. Toronto: University of Toronto.

Lambert, C., and A. Lorelie. 1999. Keepers of the Central Fire: Issues in Ecology for Indigenous
Peoples. Sudbury, Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett.

Land, L. 2002. Gathering dust or gathering strength: What should Canada do with the report of
the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples? In J. Bird, L. Land, and M. Macadam (Eds).
Nation to Nation: Aboriginal Sovereignty and the Future of Canada, pp. 131-138. Toronto:
Public Justice Resource Centre.

Land, L. and R. Townshend. 2002. Land claims: Stuck in never-never land? In J. Bird, L. Land,
and M. Macadam (Eds). Nation to Nation: Aboriginal Sovereignty and the Future of Canada, pp.
53-62. Toronto: Public Justice Resource Centre.

Latour, B. 1999. Pandora‟s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Letendre, A. and V. Caine. 2004. Shifting from reading to questioning: Some thoughts around
ethics, research, and Aboriginal peoples. Pimatisiwin: A Journal of Aboriginal and Indigenous
Community Health, 2(2): 1-31.

Lindgren, R.D. 2001. The Species At Risk Act: An overview. Report No. 408. Toronto: Canadian
Environmental Law Association. Available at:
http://env.chass.utoronto.ca/env200y/ESSAY03/cela_sara.pdf, accessed March 20, 2010.

Loppie, C. 2007. Learning from the grandmothers: Incorporating Indigenous principles into
qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 17(2):276-284.

Louis, R.P. 2007. Can you hear us now? Voices from the margin: Using Indigenous
methodologies in geographic research. Geographical Research, 45(2): 130-139.

Lynes, D.A. 2002. Cultural pain vs. political gain: Aboriginal sovereignty in the context of
decolonization. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25(6): 1043-1065.

MacAdam, M. 2002. Once more with honesty: Christian-Aboriginal solidarity. In J. Bird, L. Land,
and M. Macadam (Eds). Nation to Nation: Aboriginal Sovereignty and the Future of Canada, pp.
247-257. Toronto: Public Justice Resource Centre.

Mander, J. 2006. Introduction: Globalization and the assault on Indigenous resources. In J.

Mander and V. Tauli-Corpuz. Paradigm Wars: Indigenous Peoples‟ Resistance to Globalization
(2nd ed), pp. 3-11. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

Manuelito, K. 2004. An Indigenous perspective on self-determination. In K Mutua and B.B.

Swadener (Eds.). Decolonizing Research in Cross-Cultural Contexts: Critical Personal
Narratives, pp. 235-253. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

174
McGregor, D. 2009. Linking traditional knowledge and environmental practice in Ontario.
Journal of Canadian Studies, 43(3): 69-100.

McGregor, D. 2008. Linking traditional ecological knowledge and western science: Aboriginal
perspectives from the 2000 State of the Lakes Ecosystem conference. Canadian Journal of
Native Studies, 28(1): 139-158.

McGregor, D. 2004a. Traditional ecological knowledge and sustainable development: Towards

co-existence. In M. Blaser, H. Feit, and G. McRae (Eds.). In the Way of Development:
Indigenous Peoples, Life Projects and Globalization, pp. 72-91. New York: Zed Books.

McGregor, D. 2004b. Coming full circle: Indigenous knowledge, environment and our future.
American Indian Quarterly, 28 (3/4): 385-410.

Michell, H. 2005. Nehithawak of Reindeer Lake Canada: Worldview, epistemology and

relationship to the natural world. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 34: 33-43.

Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-
Status Indians. 2009. Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation: Interim Guidelines for
Federal Officials to Fulfill the Legal Duty to Consult. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and
Government Services Canada.

Ministry of the Solicitor General. 1996. Community development and research - Aboriginal
peoples collection. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, Cat. No. JS5-1/13-1996, 129 pages.

Murphy, B.L., A. Chrétien and L. Brown. 2009. Maple syrup production and climate change in
the near north: Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal perspectives. Ottawa: Aboriginal Policy Research
Conference.

Mutua, K. and B.B. Swadener. 2004. Introduction. In K. Mutua and B.B. Swadener (Eds.).
Decolonizing Research in Cross-Cultural Contexts: Critical Personal Narratives, pp. 1-23.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

NACOSAR (National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk). 2008. Frequently Asked Questions:
What is the Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (ATK) subcommittee? Available at:
http://www.nacosar-canep.ca/faqs_en.php, accessed January 25, 2010.

Nadasdy, P. 2005. The anti-politics of TEK: The institutionalization of co-management discourse

and practice. Anthropologica, 47(2): 215-232.

Nadasdy, P. 1999. The politics of TEK: Power and the „integration‟ of knowledge. Arctic
Anthropology, 36(1/2): 1-18.

Nash, C. 2004. Postcolonial geographies: Spatial narratives of inequality and interconnection. In

Cloke, P., P. Crang and M. Goodwin (Eds.). Envisioning Human Geographies, pp. 104-127.
London: Arnold.

National Aboriginal Health Organization (NAHO). 2007. Broader determinants of health in an

Aboriginal context. Presentation: Senate Committee Hearing. Available at:
http://www.naho.ca/publications/determinants.pdf, accessed April 28, 2010.

175
National Aboriginal Health Organization. 2003. Terminology guide. Available at:
http://www.naho.ca/english/pdf/terminology_guidelines.pdf, accessed April 28, 2010.

National Centre for First Nations Governance. 2008. Governance think tank, March 27th-28th,
2008. Final report conveyance letter from the President. Available at:
http://www.fngovernance.org/pdf/governance_thinktank_mar08.pdf, accessed July 14th, 2010.

Naveh, Z. 2007. Transdisciplinary Challenges in Landscape Ecology and Restoration Ecology:

An Anthology. Springer.

Nelson, M. 2005. Paradigm shifts in Aboriginal cultures? Understanding TEK in historical and
cultural context. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 25 (1): 289-310.

Nin-da-Waab-jig (Walpole Island Heritage Centre). 2006. Walpole island ecosystem recovery
strategy: Chronology of events. Nin-da-Waab-jig News, 4(11): 4-5.

O‟Donoghue, R. and E. Neluvhalani. 2002. Indigenous knowledge and the school curriculum: A
review of developing methods and methodological perspectives. In J. Hattingh, H. Lotz-Sisitka
and R. O‟Donoghue (Eds.). Environmental Education, Ethics and Action in Southern Africa,
Chapter 10. Pretoria, South Africa: Human Sciences Research Council Publishers.

Ominayak, B. with E. Bianchi. 2002. The Lubicon Cree: Still no settlement after all these years.
In J. Bird, L. Land, and M. Macadam (Eds). Nation to Nation: Aboriginal Sovereignty and the
Future of Canada, pp. 163-174. Toronto: Public Justice Resource Centre.

Ontario, 2007. Endangered Species Act. 2007 c. 6. Accessed October 14, 2009 http://www.e-
laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_07e06_e.htm#BK16

Panagos, D. 2007. The plurality of meanings shouldered by the term “Aboriginality”: An analysis
of the Delgamuukw case. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 40(3): 591-613.

Parks Canada. 2010a. Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve and Haida Heritage Site -
Agreements. Available at: http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/bc/gwaiihaanas/plan/plan2.aspx,
accessed April 5, 2010.

Parks Canada. 2010b. Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve and Haida Heritage Site - Gwaii
Haanas Agreement. Available at: http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-
np/bc/gwaiihaanas/plan/plan2/a.aspx, accessed April 5, 2010.

Piquemal, N. 2003. Redefining ethics in research. In J. Oakes, R. Riewe, K. Wilde, A. Edmunds

and A. Dubois (Eds.). Native Voices in Research, pp. 199-210. Winnipeg: Aboriginal Issues
Press.
Pomeroy, R.S. and F. Berkes. 1997. Two to tango: The role of government in fisheries co-
management. Marine Policy, 21(5):465-480.

Posey, D. and G. Dutfield. 2005. Beyond Intellectual Property: Toward Traditional Resource
Rights for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. Ottawa: International Development
Research Centre.

176
Potts, K. and L. Brown. 2005. Becoming an anti-oppressive researcher. In L. Brown and S.
Strega (Eds.). Research as Resistance: Critical, Indigenous, and Anti-Oppressive Approaches,
pp. 255-286. Toronto: Canadian Scholars‟ Press/Women‟s Press.

Powless, R. 2006. National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk, National Workshop for
Aboriginal Peoples: Species at Risk – our Heritage, our Responsibility. Available at:
http://www.nwac-hq.org/en/documents/NACOSARFINALREPORT.pdf, accessed October 5,
2009.

Pulido, L. 2002. Reflections on a white discipline. Professional Geographer, 54(1):42-49.

Ransom, R. and K. Ettenger. 2001. Polishing the Kaswentha‟: A Haudenosaunee view of

environmental cooperation. Environmental Science and Policy, 4:219-228.

RCAP (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples). 1996. Highlights from the Report of the
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: People to People, Nation to Nation. Available at:
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ap/pubs/rpt/rpt-eng.asp, accessed April 28, 2010.

RENEW. 2005. Saving the wild: An opportunity to participate in species recovery in Canada.
Ottawa: Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council.

Rice, B. 2003. A Methodology based on Rotinonshonni traditions. In J. Oakes, R. Riewe, K.

Wilde, A. Edmunds and A. Dubois (Eds.). Native Voices in Research, pp. 171-182. Winnipeg:
Aboriginal Issues Press.

Ruttan, T. 2004. Exploring ethical principles in the context of research relationships. Pimatisiwin:
A Journal of Aboriginal and Indigenous Community Health, 2(1): 12-28.

Salmon, E. 1996. Decolonizing our voices. Winds of Change, summer: 70-72.

Sanderson, J. and L.D. Harris (Eds). 2000. Landscape Ecology: A Top Down Approach. Boca
Raton, Fl: Lewis Publishers.

Savan, B and D. Sider. 2003. Contrasting approaches to community-based research and a case
study of community sustainability in Toronto, Canada. Local Environment, 8(3): 303-316.

Schnarch, B. 2004. Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession (OCAP) or Self-Determination

Applied to Research: A Critical Analysis of Contemporary First Nations Research and Some
Options for First Nations Communities. Ottawa: First Nations Centre, National Aboriginal Health
Organization.

Schouls, T. 2002. The basic dilemma: Sovereignty or assimilation. In J. Bird, L. Land, and M.
Macadam (Eds.). Nation to Nation: Aboriginal Sovereignty and the Future of Canada, pp. 12-26.
Toronto: Public Justice Resource Centre.

Shackeroff, J.M. and L.M. Campbell. 2007. Traditional ecological knowledge in conservation
research: Problems and prospects for their constructive engagement. Conservation and Society,
5(3): 343-360.

177
Shaw, W.S., R.D.K. Herman and G.R. Dobbs. 2006. Encountering indigeneity: Re-imagining
and decolonizing geography. Geografiska Annaler B, 88(2): 267-276.

Sidaway, J.D. 2000. Postcolonial geographies: An exploratory essay. Progress in Human

Geography, 24(4): 591-612.

Sidaway, J.D., T. Bunnell and B.S.A. Yeoh. 2003. Editors‟ introduction: Geography and
postcolonialism. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 24(3): 269-272.

Skelton, T. 2001. Cross-cultural research: issues of power, positionality and „race‟. In M. Limb
and C. Dwyer (Eds.). Qualitative Methodologies for Geographers: Issues and Debates, pp. 87-
100. London: Oxford University Press.

Slattery, B. 2000. Making sense of Aboriginal and Treaty rights. The Canadian Bar Review, 79:
196-224.

Smallwood, K. 2003. A Guide to Canada‟s Species at Risk Act: A Sierra Legal Defence Fund
Report. Vancouver: Sierra Legal Defence Fund.

Smith, M.A. (Peggy). 2007. Creating a New Stage for Sustainable Forest Management
Through Co-Management with Aboriginal peoples in Ontario: The need for Constitutional-Level
Enabling. PhD thesis submitted to Graduate Department of Faculty of Forestry, University of
Toronto. Toronto: University of Toronto.

Smith, L. T. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London:

Zed Books Ltd.

Society for Ecological Restoration International Science and Policy Working Group. 2004. The
SER Primer on Ecological Restoration. Tucson: Society for Ecological Restoration International,
and available at: http://www.ser.org/pdf/primer3.pdf, accessed October 9, 2009.

Species at Risk Public Registry. 2009. Aboriginal Species at Risk Program: Aboriginal Capacity
Building Fund, Aboriginal Critical Habitat Protection Fund - The Aboriginal Species at Risk
Program and the Species at Risk Act. Available at:
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/involved/funding/asrp_e.cfm, accessed January 25, 2010.

Staeheli, L.A. and V.A. Lawson. 1994. A discussion of “women in the field”: The politics of
feminist fieldwork. Professional Geographer, 46(1): 96-102.

Stevenson, E. 2003. TEK and EA: Towards a relationship of respect. In J. Oakes, R. Riewe, K.
Wilde, A. Edmunds, and A. Dubois (Eds.). Native Voices in Research, pp. 248-258. Winnipeg,
MB: Aboriginal Issues Press, University of Manitoba.

Stevenson, M.G. and D.C. Natcher (Eds). 2009. Changing the Culture of Forestry in Canada:
Building Effective Institutions for Aboriginal Engagement in Sustainable Forest Management.
Edmonton: CCI Press.

178
Stevenson, M.G. 2006. The possibility of difference: Rethinking co-management. Human
Organization, 65(2): 167-180.

Stevenson, M.G. 2005. Traditional Knowledge and Sustainable Forest Management. Edmonton,
Alberta: Sustainable Forest Management Network.

Stevenson, M.G. 1999. What are we managing? Traditional systems of management and
knowledge in cooperative and joint management. In T.W. Veeman, D.W. Smith, B.G. Purdy, F.J.
Salkie and G.A. Larking (Eds.). Proceedings of the Sustainable Forest Management Network
Conference: Science and Practice, Sustaining the Boreal Forest, pp. 161-169. Edmonton:
Sustainable Forest Management Network.

Tauli-Corpuz, V. 2006. Our right to remain separate and distinct. In J. Mander and V. Tauli-
Corpuz (Eds). Paradigm Wars: Indigenous Peoples‟ Resistance to Globalization, (2nd ed.), pp.
13-21. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

The Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty #3. 1997. Manito Aki Inakonigaawin Unofficial Consolidation.
Available at: http://www.gct3.net/wp-
content/uploads/2008/01/mai_unofficial_consolidated_copy.pdf, accessed April 28, 2010.

The Anishinabek/Ontario Resource Management Council (A/ORMC). 2003. Reaching Effective

Consultation: A Guide on How to Get There! “When in doubt, check it out”. Available at:
http://caid.ca/AnishinaabekConPol2003.pdf, accessed April 28, 2010.

Tsuji, L.J.S. 1996. "Cree traditional ecological knowledge and science: A case study of the
sharp-tailed grouse, Tympanuchus Phasianellus Phasianellus." Canadian Journal of Native
Studies, 16(1):67-79.

Turner, N., Boelscher, I., and Ignace, R. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom of
Aboriginal people in British Columbia. Ecological Applications, 10(5):1275-1287.

Turning Point Initiative Coastal First Nations. No Date a. Ecosystem-based management: A

commitment to our future. EBM Fact Sheet 1. Available at:
http://coastalfirstnations.ca/files/Publications/Fact_Sheet_1.pdf, accessed April 7, 2010.

Turning Point Initiative Coastal First Nations. No Date b. Groundbreaking Conservation

Investment Package Goes to Coastal First Nations. Available at:
http://coastalfirstnations.ca/files/PDF/EBM/ConservationInvestmentPackage.pdf, accessed April
7, 2010.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Program). 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity.

Available at: http://www.unep.ch/bio/conv-e.html, accessed April 28, 2010.

Usher, P. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental assessment and

management. Arctic, 53(2): 183-193.

179
Venne, S. 2002. Treaty-making with the Crown. In J. Bird, L. Land, and M. Macadam (Eds).
Nation to Nation: Aboriginal Sovereignty and the Future of Canada, pp. 44-52. Toronto: Public
Justice Resource Centre.

Walpole Island Heritage Centre. 2006. E-niizaanag wii-ngoshkaag Maampii Bkejwanong

(Species at Risk on the Walpole Island First Nation). Walpole Island First Nation (Bkejwanong):
Natural Heritage Program.

Wavey, R. 1993. International workshop on Indigenous knowledge and community based

resource management: Keynote address. In J.T. Inglis (Ed.) Traditional Ecological Knowledge:
Concepts and Cases, pp 11-16. International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and
International Development Research Centre.

Weber-Pillwax, C. 2001. Coming to an understanding: A panel presentation – what is

indigenous research? Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(2): 166-177.

Wehi, P. 2009. Indigenous ancestral sayings contribute to modern conservation partnerships:

examples using Phormium tenax. Ecological Applications, 19(1): 267-275.
Wenzel. G. 1999. Traditional ecological knowledge and Inuit: Reflections on TEK research and
ethics. Arctic, 52(2): 113-124.

WIFN (Walpole Island First Nation). 2009a. Experiences to date and recommendations from the
Walpole Island First Nation in regards to Species at Risk Act processes. Presented at a
workshop hosted by NACOSAR (National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk) in association
with the Assembly of First Nations, Feb 10-12, 2009, Halifax, NS.

WIFN. 2009b. Walpole Island First Nation Consultation and Accommodation Protocol. Available
at: http://wifncap.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/0/8/2608010/wifn_cap_06_29_09.pdf, accessed
October 28, 2009.

Wilde, K. 2003. Storytelling as a methodology. In J. Oakes, R. Riewe, K. Wilde, A. Edmunds

and A. Dubois (Eds.). Native Voices in Research, pp. 191-198. Winnipeg: Aboriginal Issues
Press.

Williams, S. and I. Stewart. 1992. Community control and self-determination in Aboriginal

education research: The changed roles, relationships and responsibilities of Aboriginal and on-
Aboriginal researchers and Aboriginal communities. Presented at the National Aboriginal Torres
Strait Islander Higher Education Conference, Harvey Bay, Australia.

Wilson, P. 2009. Interconnections: The Symbiosis of Human Rights and Environmental

Protection - an Argument for First Nation Environmental Governance. PhD thesis submitted to
Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa. Ottawa: University of Ottawa.

Zent, S. 1999. The quandary of conserving ethnoecological knowledge: A Piaroa example. In

T.L. Gragson and B.G. Blount (Eds.). Ethnoecology: Knowledge, Resources, and Rights, pp.
90- 124. London: The University of Georgia Press.

180
 Appendix 1
Interview Guide – Representatives from the Non-Aboriginal Restoration Community

Topic Guide and Prompts (broad topics that will be posed to the interviewee are numbered;
prompts fall under lettered bullet points):
1. Project/researcher introduction, consent form explanation and completion
a. Do you feel that you understand the consent information I‟ve explained?
b. Would you prefer to remain anonymous (i.e. for your name not to be used?)
c. Do you have any questions?
d. Do you feel comfortable going ahead with the interview?

2. Interviewee‟s personal information: name, position/background/role in [ecosystem x]

recovery

3. Experience with collaborations/partnerships with First Nations

4. Characterizing the current relationship between First Nations and non-Aboriginal

ENGOs/government agencies involved in [ecosystem x] restoration
a. How would you describe current relationships between First Nations and non-
Aboriginal organizations/agencies in [ecosystem x] restoration right now?

5. Interviewee‟s perspective on why the current relationship scenario exists

a. Why do you think these relationships exist?
b. What factors do you think led to/are perpetuating the development of these
relationships?

6. Interviewee‟s perspective on the role of non-Aboriginal [ecosystem x] recovery

organizations in supporting First Nations‟ goals of cultural survival and recovery, and
self-determination
a. Do you think it‟s important to work with First Nations on [ecosystem x] recovery?
b. What would you say is important about working together?
c. What role would you say your organization/other [ecosystem x] recovery groups
play with respect to First Nations right now?
d. Could you tell me what kind of role, if any, you think your organization/other
[ecosystem x] recovery groups could/should play in supporting First Nations in
the following areas:
i. Improving quality of and access to traditional ecosystems and resources?
ii. Curbing/reversing the loss of traditional ecological knowledge associated
with the [ecosystem x]s?
iii. Reviving traditional practices in the [ecosystem x]s?
iv. Supporting First Nations‟ efforts towards self-determination (having the
right to determine what happens to them, as a people, in every aspect of
their lives – health, education, environment…)?
v. Are you familiar with the term self-determination?
vi. How would you describe your understanding of the term?
e. How important/appropriate do you think the involvement of non-Aboriginal
[ecosystem x] recovery groups is/could be in terms of meeting goals that are not
strictly „ecological‟?

7. Visions regarding collaborating with First Nations on [ecosystem x] restoration

181
 Appendix 1 (continued):

a. What is your vision for an ideal relationship between your organization and local
First Nations in [ecosystem x] recovery efforts?
b. What are some of the key points you think would make for good relationships
between your organization and local First Nations in [ecosystem x] recovery
efforts?

8. Concerns regarding collaboration with non-Aboriginal ENGOs/government agencies

involved in [ecosystem x] restoration
a. Can you tell me about any concerns you might have regarding developing
partnerships with First Nations for [ecosystem x] recovery?
b. How might these issues affect collaboration/partnership development?

9. Recommended changes to facilitate the development of positive collaborative

relationships
a. How would you say positive collaborative relationships should be developed?
b. What kinds of changes, if any, would you say need to be made -
i. By non-Aboriginal [ecosystem x] recovery groups?
ii. By First Nations?
c. What are some of the key points that you think First Nations should know in order
to facilitate the development of good relationships?
d. How do you think these points should be communicated to First Nations?

10. Other thoughts – open conversation

182
 Appendix 2

Interview Guide – First Nations Community Leaders in Ecosystem Recovery

Collaboration Topics

Topic Guide and Prompts (broad topics that will be posed to the interviewee are numbered;
prompts fall under lettered bullet points):
1. Project/researcher introduction, consent form explanation and completion
e. Do you feel that you understand the consent information I‟ve explained?
f. Would you prefer to remain anonymous (i.e. for your name not to be used?)
g. Do you have any questions?
h. Do you feel comfortable going ahead with the interview?

2. Interviewee‟s personal information: name, position/background/role in [ecosystem x]

recovery, experience with collaborations/partnerships with non-Aboriginal
ENGOs/government agencies

3. Characterizing the current relationship between First Nations and non-Aboriginal

ENGOs/government agencies involved in [ecosystem x] restoration
a. How would you describe current relationships between First Nations and non-
Aboriginal organizations/agencies in [ecosystem x] restoration right now?
b. Do you feel that current relationships are supportive of your community‟s visions
and goals – ecologically, but also in terms of cultural survival and recovery, and
self-determination? If not, why/how?

4. Interviewee‟s perspective on why the current relationship scenario exists

a. Why do you think the relationships you described earlier exist?
b. What factors do you think led to/are perpetuating the development of these
relationships?

5. Interviewee‟s perspective on the extent to which, and ways in which, non-Aboriginal

[ecosystem x] recovery/restoration organizations can/should contribute to addressing First
Nations goals
a. Do you see a role for non-Aboriginal [ecosystem x] recovery groups in supporting
your community‟s goals of cultural survival and recovery, and self determination?
b. How would you describe that role?
c. How important would you say the involvement of non-Aboriginal [ecosystem x]
recovery groups is to meeting your community‟s goals?
d. To what extent should non-Aboriginal [ecosystem x] recovery groups be involved
in meeting your community‟s goals?

6. Visions regarding collaboration with non-Aboriginal ENGOs/government agencies

involved in [ecosystem x] restoration
a. What is your vision for an ideal relationship between your community and non-
Aboriginal [ecosystem x] recovery groups?
b. What are some of the key points you think would make for good, supportive
relationships between your community and non-Aboriginal [ecosystem x]
recovery/restoration groups?

7. Concerns regarding collaboration with non-Aboriginal ENGOs/government agencies

involved in [ecosystem x] restoration

183
 Appendix 2 (continued)

a. Can you tell me about any concerns you might have regarding developing
partnerships with non-Aboriginal [ecosystem x] recovery groups?
b. Why are these significant concerns for you/your community?

8. Recommended changes to facilitate the development of supportive collaborations

a. How would you say collaborations supportive of your community‟s visions and
goals should be developed?
b. What kinds of changes, if any, would you say need to be made to current
relations
i. By non-Aboriginal recovery/restoration groups?
ii. By First Nations/your community?
c. What are some of the key points that non-Aboriginal [ecosystem x]
recovery/restoration groups need to know in order to support your community‟s
goals?
d. How do you think these points should be communicated to these groups?

9. Other thoughts – open conversation

184
 Appendix 3

Interview Guide – First Nations Community Members

Ecosystem Degradation and Recovery Topics

Topic Guide and Prompts (broad topics that will be posed to the interviewee are numbered;
prompts fall under lettered bullet points):

1. Project/researcher introduction/recap, explanation regarding and completion of consent

material
a. Do you feel that you understand the consent information I‟ve explained?
b. Would you prefer to remain anonymous (i.e. for your name not to be used?)
c. Do you have any questions?
d. Do you feel comfortable going ahead with the interview?

2. Interviewee‟s personal information: name, types of experience in/with the [ecosystem

x]s, other roles in/outside of the community

3. Characterizing the historical ecological status of the [ecosystem x]s

a. Can you tell me a bit about what the [ecosystem x]s used to be like?
i. Plants? Animals?
ii. Density of trees/openness of understory?
b. Do you know any stories about what the [ecosystem x]s used to be like? Who
used to tell these kinds of stories?

4. Characterizing the current ecological status of the [ecosystem x]s

a. How would you describe the [ecosystem x]s now/today?
b. What do you think are the most significant problems facing the [ecosystem x]s
these days?
i. Invasive plants?
ii. Too many trees? Not enough burning? Too much burning? Burning out of
season?
iii. Shortage of high quality resources (e.g. medicines)?
iv. Disappearance of certain species of plants or animals?
c. In what other ways do you think the [ecosystem x]s have changed?
d. What would you say are the reasons for that change?

5. Characterizing traditional/ cultural relationships with the [ecosystem x]s

a. What kinds of things did people used to do in the [ecosystem x]s?
i. Collect medicines?
ii. Hunt?
iii. Ceremonies?
iv. Gather plant foods?
v. Harvest crafting material?
vi. Burn?
b. How and why did [ecosystem x]s come to be?
c. In what ways were the [ecosystem x]s important to you/your family/the
community?
d. Were the [ecosystem x]s places where wild ponies grazed?
e. Are [ecosystem x]s places where the Little People live?

185
 Appendix 3 (continued)

6. Characterizing current relationships with the [ecosystem x]s

a. What kinds of things do you/your family/other people in the community do in the
[ecosystem x]s these days?
b. In what ways have these kinds of activities changed over time?
c. What do you feel are the reasons for why they have changed?
d. In what ways would you say the changes to the [ecosystem x] ecology
(plants/animals/fire) have affected you/your family/the community?
e. If [ecosystem x]s were lost or filled in/became woodlands, what kind of losses or
impact on traditional culture would be experienced?

7. Recovery/ Restoration goals - ecological

a. What do you think needs to be „fixed‟/helped in the [ecosystem x]s in terms of
[ecosystem x] ecology?
i. Removing invasive non-native plants?
ii. Enhancing traditional resources?
iii. Reintroducing plant or animal species that have disappeared?
iv. Opening up the tree canopy in former savanna areas?
b. Do you have some ideas of how this should be done?

8. Recovery/ Restoration goals - cultural

a. What kinds of things would you like to see people doing in the [ecosystem x]s
these days?
i. People carrying out traditional activities?
ii. People helping the [ecosystem x]s to recover ecologically/be restored?
iii. People being able to support themselves from [ecosystem x] resources?
1. such as?
b. Do you have some ideas of how this could come about?

9. Other thoughts – open conversation

186
 Appendix 4

Focus Group Discussion Guide – First Nations Community Members

Collaboration Topics

Topic Guide and Prompts (broad topics that will be posed to the group are numbered; prompts
fall under lettered bullet points):

1. Pre-session „administration‟
a. Project/researcher introduction/recap, consent material explanation and
completion
i. Are you comfortable with the consent information I‟ve explained?
ii. Do you have any questions?
iii. Are you comfortable going ahead with the discussion?
b. Focus group participants‟ personal information: names, types of experience
in/with the [ecosystem x]s and/or collaboration/partnerships, other roles
in/outside of the community

2. Visions regarding collaboration with non-Aboriginal ENGOs/government agencies

involved in [ecosystem x] restoration
a. What is your vision for an ideal relationship between your community (Walpole
Island First Nation) and non-Aboriginal [ecosystem x] recovery/restoration
groups?
b. What are some of the key points you think would make for good, supportive
relationships between your community and non-Aboriginal [ecosystem x]
recovery/restoration groups?

3. Concerns regarding collaboration with non-Aboriginal ENGOs/government agencies

involved in [ecosystem x] restoration
a. Can you tell me about any concerns you might have regarding developing
partnerships with non-Aboriginal [ecosystem x] recovery/restoration groups?
b. Why are these significant concerns for you/your community?

4. Recommended changes to facilitate the development of supportive collaborations

a. How would you say collaborations supportive of your community‟s visions and
goals should be developed?
b. What kinds of changes, if any, would you say need to be made -
i. By non-Aboriginal recovery groups?
ii. By First Nations/your community (Walpole Island First Nation)?
c. What are some of the key points that non-Aboriginal [ecosystem x]
recovery/restoration groups need to know in order to support your community‟s
visions and goals?
d. How do you think these points should be communicated to these groups?

5. Other thoughts – open conversation

187