How Indigenous are Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs)?

Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs) sound promising. They can support Indigenous laws and governance AND protect and conserve nature in a time of climate crisis. What’s not to love? IPCAs have the potential to do both in big and exciting ways, but in practice, IPCAs can leave little room for the ‘Indigenous’ part of the label when it comes to governance.

What are IPCAs?

IPCAs can be defined differently by different people or Indigenous Nations, but the most common definition of an IPCA in Canada is this: lands and waters where Indigenous governments have the primary role in protecting and conserving ecosystems through Indigenous laws, governance and knowledge systems.

Despite different definitions, IPCAs typically have these three elements:

• They are Indigenous-led

• They represent a long-term commitment to conservation

• And they promote Indigenous rights and responsibilities

Even when they are defined the same way, IPCAs can vary. Some may be managed by an Indigenous Nation alone, while in other cases an Indigenous Nation will choose to collaborate with a Canadian government – federal, provincial, territorial, or municipal – and/or a non-governmental organization.

Why are we hearing more and more about IPCAs in Canada?

The federal government committed to protecting 17% of lands and inland waters and 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020. Canada didn’t meet that goal, but moved the goalpost and is now committed to protecting 25% of land and 25% of ocean space by 2025. The progress toward meeting these new protected area goals is called the Canada Target 1 Challenge, and there is a lot of funding on the table to make the Challenge a success.

IPCAs are a great way to help meet protected area goals under the Canada Target 1 Challenge. The Canadian government commissioned a report by an Indigenous Circle of Experts (ICE) – the “We Rise Together” report – to help inform how IPCAs can be included in Canada’s protected area targets.

But IPCAs are not just a means to an end. They have other important benefits too. For one, IPCAs can represent a new chapter in Canada’s approach to protected areas. IPCAs can both advance reconciliation and help Indigenous Peoples heal from the dark history of National Parks and other protected areas in the country. Did you know that Indigenous Peoples were forcibly removed from their traditional territories to create National Parks?

For example, Canada’s oldest National Park, Banff National Park in Alberta, was never a pristine, human-free wilderness. Instead, the area was part of the Stoney Nation’s traditional territory before its members were excluded to make way for sportsmen and tourists. The Keeseekoowenin Ojibway were evicted from their homes at gunpoint to create what is now Riding Mountain National Park in Manitoba. These are only two examples at the national level.

IPCAs can help us start a new chapter in our protected area history, put stewardship back into Indigenous Peoples’ hands, and create space for their laws. We already have more than one legal tradition in Canada: common law and civil law (in Quebec). Why not include Indigenous law, especially since Indigenous Peoples were here first?

The federal government also confirmed, in law, that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) applies in Canada. UNDRIP says that Indigenous Peoples have the right to self-determination and to maintain and strengthen their relationship to traditional territories, including for the sake of future generations. IPCAs can help make the legal commitment to these rights and others real, instead of just empty words.

Why does the way IPCAs are defined matter?

We know IPCAs have a lot of potential when Indigenous governments have the primary role for managing a protected and conserved area under Indigenous laws. We also know that the definition of an IPCA can vary. The federal government has defined IPCAs this way: "[L]ands, waters, and ice where Indigenous leadership is a defining attribute in the decisions and actions that promote and conserve an area.”

Do you see what they did there? Indigenous leadership as a defining attribute of an IPCA seems a bit less promising than Indigenous Peoples having a primary role in protecting and conserving an area under their own laws.

Picture a blue sweater with a small, bright yellow pocket on the chest. Blue has a primary role in the sweater, but you could say that yellow is a defining attribute of the sweater. Still, blue dominates yellow. What if the sweater was exactly half blue and half yellow? Could either color have primary responsibility for the sweater’s look?

Another way of looking at it is to consider this famous line from the movie Forrest Gump: “Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get.” You know a piece will have chocolate, but it’s hard to say anything else with confidence until you dig in. With IPCAs, you know the protected or conserved area will have at least some Indigenous involvement but can’t come to other conclusions with confidence at first glance.

Does the Indigenous Nation have meaningful decision-making power, or a primary management role? Is there any role for Indigenous laws? Who makes hiring decisions, and on what basis? Does the IPCA promote Indigenous self-determination (Indigenous Peoples’ right to choose their own destinies) or reconciliation? We need to dig in deeper than the ‘IPCA’ label to answer these questions, and each IPCA has its own unique flavor.

IPCA examples

How are IPCAs playing out in practice? Just like that box of chocolates, it’s a bit mixed.

Edéhzhíe was the first IPCA established under the Canada Target 1 Challenge in 2018 in the Northwest Territories (NWT). The IPCA was initiated by the Dehcho First Nations and is co-managed with the federal government under a formal legal agreement. Edéhzhíe is protected under both Dehcho and Canadian law and stewarded by Dehcho K’ehodi Guardians. The Edéhzhíe Management Board can do business in Dehcho Dene Zhatié (the Dehcho First Nations language) and Dehcho members have priority for employment and business opportunities. This sounds very progressive, and it is, especially when we remember that protected areas in Canada historically excluded, and had very negative impacts on, Indigenous Peoples.

But Edéhzhíe is still federal Crown land, and the Board operates by consensus. In our everyday lives, ‘consensus’ means there is general agreement about something. In the law world though, operating by consensus means that everyone must agree to move forward. This means that the Dehcho Board members can’t move forward with any decisions about Edéhzhíe unless the Canadian government member agrees with the approach. If the parties disagree, there are complex and lengthy dispute resolution procedures outlined in the legal agreement. Also, the Edéhzhíe Trust Fund, which finances the IPCA, has a third-party corporate trustee. This means that the Dehcho First Nations aren’t trusted to manage the Fund.

The Thaidene Nëné IPCA, established in 2019, is also in the NWT and is protected under both Dene and Canadian law. The IPCA is co-managed by the Łutsël K'é Dene First Nation, the federal government, and the territorial government. This IPCA also operates under a legal agreement and a Management Board that operates by consensus and features both English and an Indigenous language (the Łutsël K'é Dene language: Dene Yati). Łutsël K'é Dene members are prioritized for employment opportunities as well.

A promising difference is that the Łutsël K'é Dene First Nation manages the Thaidene Nëné Trust, unlike what we see in Edéhzhíe. In the “We Rise Together” report, the ICE noted that independent funding is an important, empowering capacity tool for Indigenous Peoples, unlike the annual federal transfer payments we see in a lot of arrangements between Indigenous Peoples and the Canadian government.

These days, IPCAs are popping up coast to coast to coast, and developments are ongoing and in flux. Since each IPCA is unique, the management arrangements will vary somewhat, but we can expect many IPCAs to reflect what we see in Edéhzhíe and Thaidene Nëné as far as co-management through a Board that operates by consensus decision-making.

Remember that federal funding on the table? It comes with strings attached. Accepting federal funding to establish an IPCA means that the area will be co-managed, and that joint management decisions will be by consensus. This means that the Canadian government will have a veto power in IPCAs established under the Canada Target 1 Challenge, even though IPCAs are Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas.

Historic Tribal Parks

  You might have seen IPCAs in the news not only because they’re relatively new and gaining popularity, but also because some Indigenous Nations are creating IPCAs outside of the Canada Target 1 Challenge. The federal government has been reluctant to acknowledge them, and this isn’t too surprising when we look back at early developments toward IPCAs.

While the Canada Target 1 Challenge is fairly new, IPCAs are not, but they used to be called Tribal Parks. The term ‘Tribal Park’ is still sometimes used, but it usually refers to an IPCA that was created by a unilateral declaration by an Indigenous Nation instead of through negotiations with the Canadian government.

You may have heard of the Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve in Haida Gwaii off the central coast of British Columbia (BC), but did you know it started as a Tribal Park in 1985? The Haida Nation declared an area of its traditional territories, which included both terrestrial and marine space, to be protected and conserved as a Haida Heritage Site under its laws. The federal government didn’t accept IPCAs at that time and, after about eight years of negotiations, they signed a co-management agreement with the Haida Nation.

In 1984, one year before the Haida Nation declared its Heritage Site, the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation declared the first Tribal Park in Canada on Meares Island off the west coast of Vancouver Island in BC. In this case though, the Tribal Park did not lead to co-management with the federal government. The Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation now manages a network of Tribal Parks (the Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks), and none of them have received formal recognition from either the provincial or federal governments.

Contemporary Tribal Parks and IPCAs

People have talked about 1984 – the famous dystopian novel by George Orwell – coming true in our time. But the parallels between 1984 and today in the IPCA context aren’t getting much attention, although they should. Like the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation’s Tribal Park declaration in 1984, many Indigenous Nations contemporary IPCA declarations have not been recognized by the Canadian government, despite the Canada Target 1 Challenge.

  A few examples of unrecognized IPCAs and the year they were established are:

• The Tŝilhqot'in Nation: Dasiqox Tribal Park/ Nexwagwezʔan (2014)

• The Dene Tha’ First Nation: Greater Mbecho (Bistcho) Lake Area IPCA (2021)

• Mamalilikulla First Nation: Gwaxdlala/Nalaxdlala (Lull Bay/ Hoeya Sound) in Knight Inlet IPCA (2021)

• Gitanyow Nation: Wilp Wii Litsxw Meziadin Indigenous Protected Area (2021)

Unilaterally declared IPCAs, including Tribal Parks, are established under Indigenous laws and rooted in Indigenous Nations inherent authority, so they exist whether or not the Canadian government recognizes them. But you must be wondering, why not recognize them?

Moving forward with IPCAs

Under the Canada Target 1 Challenge, formally recognizing IPCAs declared outside of the Challenge and its funding restrictions would get us closer to the goal of protecting 25% of land and 25% of oceans by 2025. Formal recognition would also move us toward another goal of the Challenge: advancing Indigenous-led conservation and reconciliation.

Of course, there are important benefits to formally recognizing IPCAs beyond the Canada Target 1 Challenge, such as:

• Breathing life into the Canadian government’s commitments to reconciliation more broadly

• Making the implementation of UNDRIP in Canada a reality, particularly Indigenous Peoples’ right to self-determination

• Creating spaces for Indigenous Peoples to exercise their constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights, which apply to First Nation, Inuit, and Métis Peoples

• Protecting species at risk

• Countering the climate catastrophe

• Fulfilling the publicly funded and commissioned ICE report’s recommendation to recognize and dialogue on unilaterally declared IPCAs

IPCAs can leave little room for the ‘Indigenous’ part of the label when it comes to governance, but they don’t have to. They can feature Indigenous leadership as a defining attribute only, as the Canadian government is promoting, but they can also reserve the primary role for Indigenous Peoples and feature their laws.

IPCAs are clearly a broad category with a lot of potential for Indigenous Peoples in Canada. To realize this potential, IPCAs can and should make the ‘Indigenous’ part of the label meaningful.