William Nikolakis

A growing body of peer‐reviewed literature is focused on the relationship between Indigenous Peoples' lands (Indigenous lands) and conservation outcomes. We performed a systematic review of this English reported peer‐reviewed literature ( n = 111) to examine: the key characteristics; the conservation outcomes documented; the methods used in these studies; and the factors that can shape the effectiveness of Indigenous lands compared to other land tenure types. Positive relationships between Indigenous lands and conservation outcomes were documented in most of the studies ( n = 83, 75%); where Indigenous lands delivered outcomes at levels comparable to or exceeding those of protected areas. Most of these studies were published after 2017 ( n = 81, 73%), and were focused on Amazonia ( n = 67, 60%) and the tropics more generally ( n = 71, 64%). The bulk of these studies performed spatial data analysis ( n = 99, 89%) and compared Indigenous lands to protected areas ( n = 74, 67%) and to multiple tenure types ( n = 52, 47%). Vegetation or forest cover was the most common conservation metric used ( n = 62, 56%), followed by faunal or floral diversity and species distribution ( n = 36, 32%). Eight articles (7%) had self‐identified Indigenous Peoples as authors. Engaging Indigenous Peoples as authors in these studies may deepen understanding of this relationship between Indigenous lands and conservation. The literature highlights numerous threats to Indigenous lands, and 71 articles (64%) offered policy recommendations for sustaining positive relationships between Indigenous lands and conservation, which included strengthening Indigenous land tenure ( n = 37, 33%), supporting Indigenous governance of their lands ( n = 25, 22.5%) and providing funds and resources for Indigenous stewardship of their lands ( n = 24, 22%). Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Background: An increasing wildfire problem in western North America has created a policy space for Indigenous fire stewardship (IFS) to mitigate wildfire. We compare how British Columbia and California have supported IFS—two jurisdictions with distinct ecosystems but similar histories of colonialism and its socio-ecological consequences. We examine how IFS is incorporated into each jurisdiction’s institutional framework, and the barriers to, and opportunities for implementation. Results: Each jurisdiction’s approach to recognizing IFS is shaped by different constitutional frameworks and legal relationships with Indigenous Peoples. California recently developed policies and planning documents to support IFS and enable co-stewardship and contracting agreements similar to the policies of some federal agencies. However, barriers related to land tenure constrain IFS practitioners and inhibit meaningful implementation across broader landscapes. Compared to California, British Columbia has not shown as much openness to supporting independent IFS practitioners, but instead has begun a project to integrate aspects of IFS into the existing provincial wildfire service. While British Columbia has expressed interest in working toward a shared decision-making approach with First Nations, the present framework restricts IFS to Indigenous land tenures (which comprises only 0.4% of the province). Conclusions: Despite legal and policy changes to support IFS since 2017, deep-seated constraints prevent systematic implementation at a meaningful scale in both jurisdictions. Laws cannot by themselves catalyze social change; they must be complemented by a suite of initiatives to transform the social context. Some of these changes to enable IFS include government support for Land Back and land access for IFS practitioners; the removal of agency silos; building awareness of, and support for IFS within agencies and among the public; and providing resources for Indigenous Peoples to steward landscapes throughout the year, to achieve multiple goals.

Indigenous Fire Stewardship (IFS) has long been practiced by Indigenous Peoples to care for the land, reduce wildfire risk, and maintain ecological and cultural values. In British Columbia, Yunesit’in, a member of the Tsilhqot’in Nation, has revitalized their IFS practices following the 2017 Hanceville Fire. As climate policy increasingly supports nature-based solutions, carbon credit programs are emerging as a potential funding source for IFS. This study used grounded theory with interviews to understand Yunesit’in IFS practitioners’ and community leaders’ perspectives on carbon credits. Using the concept of “cultural signatures,” we identified core values shaping community engagement in carbon markets. While most interviewees (7/10) were initially unfamiliar with carbon credits, many saw their potential to support long-term program goals after learning more. Three cultural signatures emerged from the analysis: (1) a sense of stewardship responsibility, (2) the importance of a community-grounded program, and (3) the revitalization of Indigenous knowledge and land-based practices. Interviewees expressed concern that carbon credits might shift the program’s focus away from land and culture toward technical goals that exclude community participation. We conclude that building awareness about carbon and carbon credits among Indigenous Peoples, and supporting engagement processes that reflect cultural signatures in carbon frameworks, are both critical.

Background: Indigenous Fire Stewardship (IFS) is contested within settler-colonial contexts, where its development is shaped by complex and dynamic socio-cultural, legal, and political factors. This manuscript draws from the policy sciences to sketch out a “zone of interaction” between IFS and the state’s wildfire policy system. Drawing from the strategies of bureaucracies, our goal is to illustrate the patterns in this “zone of interaction,” and to identify the implications for IFS, as well as for Indigenous Peoples and landscapes. Results: Drawing insights from the Australian and Canadian contexts where governments are restoring lands and reconciling with the laws and governance of Indigenous Peoples, we illustrate how IFS interacts with the state. We do this in two ways. Figure 1 shows that the state has three general strategies for dealing with IFS: avoidance (ignoring IFS), coping strategies (carefully considering and sometimes accommodating IFS), and learning (embracing and accommodating IFS). We document that post-wildfire, there are affective drivers that move the state’s approach from avoidance to learning; however, over time, as public attention shifts away from alternatives, the strategy moves back to either avoidance or coping strategies (where the state is required to engage with IFS, but cannot fully embrace it because of institutional, tenure, or jurisdictional issues, among other constraints). Figure 2 documents the six coping strategies available to bureaucracies in dealing with IFS, which either institutionalize, partially institutionalize, or do not institutionalize IFS. Each of these pathways has implications for IFS, and the manuscript details the effects on IFS practices, and the impacts for people and landscapes. Conclusions: To better support IFS, we must look beyond the institutionalization of IFS within the state, and nest IFS within Indigenous laws and governance. An Indigenous-led IFS approach can operate in parallel with the state, and develop innovative land-access arrangements and Tribal Parks to apply IFS to landscapes. New structures of engagement must be designed for this parallel space, grounded in the principle of free prior and informed consent (FPIC), and with explicit focus on deconstructing power differences.

The values held by policy makers can influence policy change. But what those values are and their source has received little attention. We argue that one source of these values – and associated differences – is rooted in generational ‘social frames’. We provide evidence from an exploratory survey in British Columbia, Canada, where transformative changes in water policy are being implemented, which include potential changes in water governance to include First Nations (or Indigenous Peoples). Controlling for a range of variables, we found consistent generational differences between personal and organizational values, differences in priorities, and preferences for certain types of economic instruments between Baby Boomers, Generation X and Millennial respondents. We offer our thoughts as to how these differences may influence the policy process. We also call for public water agencies to develop structures that harness this diversity for internal policy learning, adaptation and innovation.