Cultural Keystone Species and Places: Bringing Indigenous worldviews and value systems into species at risk conservation management

Part 1: Introduction to the Cultural Keystone Species Blog Series

By Monica Shore, IISAAK OLAM Foundation & Benjamin Green-Stacey, Assembly of First Nations’ Environment Sector

What to Expect

This blog series intends to share some reflections and learnings about Indigenous perspectives on species conservation, present frameworks that embody these perspectives, and discuss why Indigenous worldviews and approaches to “conservation” (a word that does not often translate directly to Indigenous languages) should be given equal space in Canadian policy.

Acknowledging the intimate connection between species and place, this blog also presents Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs) as an approach and tool for achieving greater biodiversity outcomes. Blog entries were the chosen format for this series because they were conceived as online spaces for reflection and knowledge sharing.

Authors of the blog series feature members of the Conservation Through Reconciliation Partnership’s (CRP) Biocultural Indicators and Outcomes Stream. At a recent meeting, we had an engaging conversation — and many questions — about the different ways of understanding, looking at, and interpreting the relationships between species. The terms we discussed included Species at Risk (SAR) and Cultural Keystone Species and Places (CKSP). Both terms include the word “species,” but as you’ll see in this series, these terms carry with them distinct worldviews about species conservation.

The series begins here with some introductory context about the international and national frameworks that guide conservation and species-related legislation and policies in Canada. We also discuss some of the commitments to reconciliation made by the federal government, as well as several initiatives that aim to decolonize approaches to conservation and species management.

Our intention is to share our learnings with respect, uphold Indigenous worldviews, present information in Ethical Space without making judgments about different approaches and perspectives, and highlight some of the nuances that exist. We hope that it inspires greater dialogue and gives readers a chance to reflect on their own views and questions.

An image of wild blueberries, a cultural keystone species. (Photo credit: Jessica Lukawieckie)

Dominating Frameworks

Species at risk legislation in Canada was adopted to implement national commitments made in the international sphere at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1993. The CBD is the first global agreement to address the conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.

The CBD is also the first UN Convention to explicitly reference Indigenous Peoples within its text and to recognize the role Indigenous Peoples play in achieving the convention’s objectives. Articles 8(j), 10(c), and 18(4) specifically highlight the importance of applying traditional knowledge, innovations, practices, and technologies to conservation, and direct parties to protect Indigenous Peoples’ customary sustainable use of biodiversity.

Canada adopted the Species at Risk Act (SARA) in 2002 following significant engagement and input from Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous organizations. SARA deals exclusively with species in imminent danger of becoming greatly diminished or extinct and is meant to enable the recovery of endangered and threatened species as well as species of special concern. As such, it is very different from resource management acts, like the Fisheries Act, designed for managing species with stable populations.

SARA recognizes the critical role of Indigenous Peoples in the administration and implementation of the act in three key ways:

By legislating the establishment of a national Indigenous advisory committee to the Minister of Environment on the implementation and administration of the act. This advisory committee is called the National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk (NACOSAR);
By legislating that the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), which is responsible for making listing recommendations to the Minister, must consider Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge when conducting species assessments;
By enabling the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada to enter into conservation agreements, including for species not at risk, with “any government in Canada” for the purposes of monitoring species, implementing management plans, conducting research, protecting habitat, and / or raising public awareness about a species. The inclusion of this language is significant. It enables federal bilateral agreements with Indigenous governments (including potentially non-Indian Act governments) that do not require provincial or territorial approval, as would be the case under agreements for these activities under the Canadian Wildlife Act.

Despite these seemingly robust mechanisms for Indigenous Peoples to influence the implementation of SARA, when Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) developed the Pan-Canadian Approach to Species at Risk Management (Pan-Canadian Approach) in 2018 – a national framework for collaboration and cooperation in protecting priority places, priority species and addressing priority threats – it was designed entirely without the input of First Nations. Consequently, the strategy is dominated by Western science, knowledge systems, and worldviews.

Crown Commitments to Reconciliation

The Government of Canada has made numerous commitments to reconciliation, from adopting the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action (2015) to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (2021). In practice, within the conservation sector, some of these commitments have taken shape through the creation of the Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area (IPCA) designation in 2018. It can be argued that without Indigenous leadership or IPCA-type initiatives, Canada will not meet its biodiversity conservation targets of 25% protection by 2025 and 30% by 2030.

There is still a long way to go in decolonizing existing policies, legislation, approaches and knowledge systems within the conservation sector and beyond. This gap is very apparent in the way that species continue to be viewed and managed federally, provincially, and territorially.

Steps Toward Decolonization

Knowing the above context, what are the steps to decolonizing conservation in Canada? This is one of the questions being explored through the Conservation through Reconciliation Partnership, an Indigenous-led initiative whose three host partners are the IISAAK OLAM Foundation, the Indigenous Leadership Initiative, and the University of Guelph. There are many right answers and many perspectives, and it takes working together across Nations, governments, cultures, and sectors to make meaningful change. This is why this initiative focuses on partnerships, and strives to create momentum for, and bring collective energy to, the 28 recommendations of the Indigenous Circle of Experts’ report, We Rise Together.

Furthermore, how do we make space for Indigenous worldviews, values, approaches, and perspectives within existing policies and frameworks such as SARA and the Pan-Canadian Approach? What are the recommendations we need to make to federal agencies responsible for implementing and adapting these legal instruments?

These were some of the questions asked during the national First Nations Species at Risk Dialogues, co-hosted by the IISAAK OLAM Foundation and the Assembly of First Nations’ Environment Sector in March of 2021. These dialogues created a virtual space for First Nations (harvesters, Elders, Knowledge Keepers, Guardians, community stewards, species at risk technicians and youth) to share their perspectives and approaches to species protection and conservation. The graphic recordings by Nuu-chah-nulth artist and facilitator Kelly Foxcroft-Poirier of White Raven Consulting illustrate many of the themes that emerged from those introductory dialogues. Key themes included:

In March of 2022, the First Nations Species at Risk dialogues will continue at a regional level. Visit https://www.iisaakolam.ca/sar-dialogues for more information on how to register.

Co-hosted once again by the IISAAK OLAM Foundation and the AFN Environment sector, the dialogues will create space for First Nations people to express what species conservation looks like through a First Nations lens, how First Nations and western species frameworks might speak to each other, and how to plan for abundance, rather than solely mitigate extinction.

Part 2 of the blog series is dedicated to understanding what is meant by Cultural Keystone Species (CKS), and why and how this concept differs from Species at Risk (SAR) in theory and practice. Future parts will delve deeper into the principles of CKS frameworks, policies and legislation, and the listing process.

Thanks for reading and sharing!

If you have any questions about this topic, feel free to email species@iisaakolam.ca and we’ll do our best to address your questions in future blogs within the series.

This page is also recognized on the The IISAAK OLAM Foundation website, where you can check out the 2023 Dialogues Summary Report

Part 2: Introducing Cultural Keystone Species

By Benjamin Green-Stacey, Assembly of First Nations’ Environment Sector and Toktam Sajedi, Monica Shore, and Eduardo Sousa, IISAAK OLAM Foundation

With contributions and/or guidance from Jessica Lukawiecki (PhD Candidate, University of Guelph), Dr. Allyson Menzies (postdoctoral fellow, University of Guelph), Natowaawawahkaki (Paulette Fox) – Holy Walking Woman (Kainai/Blood Tribe), and Dr. Cheryl Chetkiewicz (Conservation Scientist, Wildlife Conservation Society). All are members of the Conservation through Reconciliation’s Biocultural Indicators and Outcomes Stream.

March 7, 2022

A note for the reader: The use of ‘First Nations’ in this blog is intentional as it is co-authored by staff from the Assembly of First Nations. Some statements may be applicable to Métis and Inuit Peoples as well but we did not want to generalize.

What are Cultural Keystone Species?

In many parts of Canada, First Nations continue to depend on the richness of their lands and waters to meet their cultural and food sovereignty needs. Species that are harvested because of their critical role in food sovereignty, art, language, ceremony, spirituality, and identity, are what we often refer to as Cultural Keystone Species (CKS).

CKS are the salient species that hold up the ecosystems of our territories and significantly shape the cultural identity of our nations. They are often iconic species that have played essential roles in diet, livelihood, traditional medicines, and materials used for clothing, shelter, and tools, and have been featured since time immemorial in the languages, ceremonies, knowledge systems, and narratives that have shaped Indigenous cultures.

CKS offer indicators for ecosystem health and community resilience; protecting them ensures the survival of the communities which depend on them. Stewarding and conserving CKS requires a holistic approach, one that accounts for the relationships between places, ecosystems, and cultures.

The relationship between CKS and First Nations can also extend beyond physical and into metaphysical and spiritual realms, like that of the relationship between the sturgeon and the Stó:lo people.

“There are people who are sturgeon people and they have another level of teachings that come from sturgeon. They carry an understanding of those species, far more than most families … every single year we go to the river and we feed the river and explain what we’re doing, and how we’re going to do it…” – Ernie Victor, Sto:lo Research and Resource Management Centre Fisheries Manager

Ethnobotanists Nancy Turner and Ann Garibaldi have outlined six elements that should be considered when identifying a CKS:

The intensity and variety of ways the species is used;
The species’ influence on language;
The species’ role in cultural practices ( for example: traditional practices, ceremonies);
The continuation of the species’ importance, even as cultural identity changes over time;
The irreplaceability of the species by another species accessible to the group, and;
The species’ role in activities outside its own territory (for example, trade).

The debate over what exactly constitutes a CKS, and whether that is the right term to understand the concept is ongoing. What is clear, however, is that protections offered by species at risk legislation are not extended to CKS; some CKS are critically important to Indigenous Peoples while continuing to maintain abundant populations. The differences in what constitutes CKS and what constitutes an “at-risk” species for the purposes of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) leaves CKS without legal protection that could otherwise prevent declines.

A caribou stands at the edge of a grassy clearing in Miawpukek First Nation territory. Photo Credit: Jessica Lukawiecki.

How Are Species at Risk Listed?

Within SARA, Species at Risk (SAR) are listed based on an assessment of trends in their population, habitat status, threats they face, and available Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge. These assessments are carried out by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), an independent, arms-length advisory group to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada.

COSEWIC was established by SARA to examine the status of wildlife species it suspects may be at risk. COSEWIC assessments make recommendations directly to the Minister to list a species as extinct, extirpated, endangered, threatened, of special concern, data deficient, or not at risk.

The Minister then has 90 days to indicate whether they plan to accept or reject the recommendation, and up to 9 months to conduct consultations and ultimately accept, reject, or refer the recommendation back to COSEWIC for further consideration.

The listing process is important to highlight because once a species is listed, it significantly limits how Indigenous Peoples (or anyone) can relate to or interact with it (for example, the ability of Indigenous rights holders to hunt and fish). It is also important to know that despite the COSEWIC requirement to consider ATK in their assessments, the mechanisms for this consideration are inadequate, and need to be updated in order to fully consider the socio-economic and biocultural impacts of species mismanagement on First Nations. Learn more about the listing of species process here.

Examples of CKS

SAR and CKS are not the same thing, but, as Natowaawawahkaki (Paulette Fox) Holy Walking Woman points out, they are also not mutually exclusive. Trees like red cedar and large mammals such as buffalo may be considered CKS for different First Nations but only the buffalo might be considered a SAR because of the threats they face.

Many of the CKS in the boreal zone, for example, are not at risk, are not rare, and are not regulated by Crown governments, the consequence is that they are not a priority for environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs), or government protection or stewardship.

Those CKS, however, are critical for the well-being and survival of people and cultures who define themselves by their relationship with these species and their environment. If the habitat of a CKS is harmed by approved management practices, such as spraying herbicides in the boreal forest and impacting the trees or plants which sustain that CKS, this practice also harms the surrounding community.

First Nations perspectives on species management are entirely distinct from colonial approaches. While Canada’s SAR philosophy has been based on managing for scarcity, the approaches of First Nations are firmly rooted in understanding the reciprocal needs of nature and people, and recognize the need to manage for abundance. Social responsibilities are critical to the conservation of biodiversity. As Natowaawawahkaki (Paulette Fox), Holy Walking Woman argues, we, collectively, need to understand and communicate the needs of our CKS and then make those our conservation priorities.

The stewardship of CKS is relational, meaning that for CKS to flourish, it is not enough to protect the species and the habitats; we also need to protect the relationships that Indigenous Peoples have to those species.

A good example is the cultural use of fire. Fire is critical to sustaining the presence of many berry-producing shrubs that are CKS, and in the absence of fire, those species diminish in the landscape.

When national (and other) parks were created by colonial governments, Indigenous peoples and their burning practices were removed from the landscape. As noted by the Conservation through Reconciliation Partnership, Parks Canada and some fire agencies are beginning to recognize the value of Indigenous fire knowledge and creating space for Indigenous ceremony and exercise of that knowledge in planning for and carrying out prescribed burning. Re-introducing a fire regime in places like parks and wilderness areas is one way to reestablish relationships between Indigenous Peoples and those CKS like certain berry shrubs that were reliant on recurring fires for their existence.

In fact, using fire in re-establishing a relationship between a people and their CKS could be considered a “cultural keystone practice”.

Protecting CKS within the SARA Framework

While a formal SARA listing carries the weight of legal protections and prohibitions as part of the provided mechanisms for their protection, these measures can serve as a double-edged sword for First Nations wanting to exercise their harvesting and stewardship rights. While CKS have no such formalized forms of protection in Canadian legislation, there are underutilized and unused mechanisms within SARA that could enable their protection even before a listing consideration is ever required.

Sections 11 and 12 of SARA give the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada the authority to enter into conservation agreements, including for species not at risk, with “any government in Canada” for the purposes of monitoring species, implementing management plans, conducting research, protecting habitat, and / or raising public awareness about a species. These tools enable bilateral agreements with Indigenous governments (including potentially non-Indian Act governments), and if negotiated thoughtfully, could enable First Nations-led stewardship for the benefit of CKS.

These tools, however, are not magic fixes. SARA only applies to federal crown lands, and if a CKS’ range extends onto provincial crown lands, the agreement would need tripartite support to be effective.

CKS and SAR management represent two very distinct worldviews and approaches to species stewardship. First Nations stewardship of CKS is grounded in recognizing and respecting the relationships between people, species, and places in order to ensure strong ecosystem health, the abundance of species, and that our own human needs are met.

As we move forward in decolonizing the relationships with our territories and the plants and animals that also call them home, First Nations must be empowered to take the lead in conservation.

In some places, this may include looking to underutilized protections afforded by SAR legislation. In other places, we may look to revitalize Indigenous legal orders and methods of decision-making to assert traditional governance practices and the continued exercise of stewardship and harvesting rights and responsibilities. This could be achieved through the creation and maintenance of Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs), which will be the topic of our next blog post.

Upcoming in the CKS Blog Series:

Future posts will explore:

How Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs) can support a place-based approach to CKS planning and conservation
The role of Guardians Programs in protecting CKS
Frameworks for monitoring and measuring CKS
Planning for Abundance: How CKS principles can inform Federal-Provincial-Territorial SAR policies and approaches

Send your questions about CKS to monica@iisaakolam.ca and we’ll do our best to address these through the CKS Blog Series!

References

Cristancho, Sergio; Vining, Joanne. 2004. Culturally Defined Keystone Species. Human Ecology Review. 11 (2): 153–164. https://www.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her112/cristanchovining.pdf

Council of Canadian Academies, 2012. Aboriginal Food Security in Northern Canada: An Assessment of the State of Knowledge. https://foodsecurecanada.org/resources-news/resources-research/report-northern-aboriginal-food-insecurity?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIvJKQnfyN6AIVMhh9Ch2Jmw4YEAAYASAAEgKwAvD_BwE

Freitas, C. T., P. F. M. Lopes, J. V. Campos-Silva, M. M. Noble, R. Dyball, and C. A. Peres. 2020. Co-Management of Culturally Important Species: A Tool to Promote Biodiversity Conservation and Human Well-Being. People and Nature. 2:61–81. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10064. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.10064

Garibaldi, Ann; Turner, Nancy. 2004. Cultural keystone species: implications for ecological conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society. 9 (3). https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1/

Oliriz, C.; Parlee, B. 2020. Towards Biocultural Conservation: Local and Indigenous Knowledge, Cultural Values and Governance of the White Sturgeon (Canada). https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/18/7320

Natowaawawahkaki (Paulette Fox), Holy Walking Woman (Kainai/Blood Tribe), CRP Biocultural Research Stream meeting, November 2021.

Paine, R. T. 1969. A note on trophic complexity and community stability. The American Naturalist 103: 91-93. http://ib.berkeley.edu/labs/power/classes/2006fall/ib250/16.pdf

Power M. E., D. Tilman, J. A. Estes, B. A. Menge, W. J. Bond, L. S. Mills, G. Daily, J. C. Castilla, J. Lubchenco, and R. T. Paine. 1996. Challenges in the quest for keystones. Bioscience 46(8): 609-620. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/46/8/609/237132

Reyes-Garcia et al. (2020). Cultural Keystone Species subgroup Functional Interactions and Biodiversity Targets (FItBiTs) working group. Retrieved from: https://licci.eu/cultural-keystone-species/.

This page is also recognized on the The IISAAK OLAM Foundation website, where you can check out the 2023 Dialogues Summary Report

Part 3: Seeing the Connections: Species, Places, and Culture

By Dr. Justine Townsend, IISAAK OLAM Foundation

*Note on terminology: This blog is part of a project initiated by the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) who advocates for First Nations across Turtle Island/Canada. Some statements refer specifically to First Nations but may be applicable to Métis and Inuit Peoples as well.

This blog builds on Part 1 and Part 2 of the Cultural Keystone Species blogs. These earlier blogs described how Canada’s Species at Risk Act contains mechanisms that support First Nations involvement in species at risk (SAR) management.

First Nations’ knowledge, approaches, and leadership are still not afforded the same weight as dominant Western frameworks and models. This is reflected in Environment and Climate Change Canada’s (ECCC’s) Pan-Canadian Approach to Transforming Species at Risk Conservation in Canada (2018). This report notes the importance of Indigenous Peoples’ participation in conservation and SAR management. However, Canada did not invite Indigenous Peoples to co-develop this approach. As such, the approach does not reflect First Nations, Inuit, and Métis priorities and approaches.

Indigenous knowledge systems are standalone systems and must not be forced

into Western or colonial scientific frameworks.

Photo: Moose traveling through lake (Lesly Derksen on Unsplash)

2022 Virtual Dialogues

In March of 2022, the AFN and IISAAK OLAM Foundation (IOF), a host partner of the CRP, hosted a second round of virtual dialogues on SAR and culturally significant species and places. These dialogues were open to First Nations harvesters, Elders and knowledge keepers, Guardians, community stewards, SAR technicians or ecologists, youth, and any First Nations people with SAR experience or interest.

Like the first round of dialogues in 2021, these discussions sought to create and foster a space that does not yet exist. This space is one in which First Nations people come together to discuss their perspectives, initiatives, and challenges with respect to SAR and culturally significant species and places. Input from these dialogues inform AFN’s work to centre First Nations perspectives in a more inclusive pan-Canadian approach on SAR conservation.

Read more about AFN and IOF’s work to advance First Nations leadership in SAR and culturally significant species and places here.

What We Heard

During the three March 2022 regional dialogues, AFN and IOF hosted 55 participants from First Nations across Turtle Island/Canada. These dialogues were regionally based around (broadly defined) Pacific, Central, and Atlantic regions.

Participants discussed three key themes in each of the dialogues:

Connections between species, places, and culture;
Planning for abundance; and
Working better together.

AFN SAR Dialogues Public Report 2022

Read more about First Nations’ input into the stewardship of SAR and culturally significant species and places in the 2022 summary report downloadable here.

These dialogues reinforced the need for holistic approaches to SAR and culturally significant species and places. Holistic approaches appreciate the interconnections between human and ecosystem vitality and well-being. First Nations’ worldviews tend to appreciate the connections between species, places, and culture. Approaching stewardship and SAR policies from this perspective requires conversations that include an acknowledgement of how management directives and policies can affect First Nations’ cultural practices and food security.

IPCAs, Guardians, and processes to restore and protect SAR and culturally

significant species are complimentary.

Calls to Action

AFN and IOF’s overarching call to action is for ECCC to revise the Pan-Canadian Approach to Transforming Species at Risk Conservation in Canada in collaboration with First Nations. This process would better reflect First Nations priorities, approaches, and recommendations and make for a more robust and culturally appropriate strategy.

AFN and IOF’s additional calls to action for ECCC include:

Terminology:

Include the terminology of “cultural keystone species and places” and “culturally significant species” along with “species at risk,” which often does not resonate with First Nations people.

Capacity building:

Build internal capacity within ECCC by increasing staff proficiency to work respectfully and effectively in cross-cultural contexts with First Nations. This includes fostering greater understanding of CKSP, and culturally significant species and places and First Nations’ worldviews relevant to conservation and SAR; and
Support First Nations’ capacity to participate in the management of SAR, CKSP, and culturally significant species and places (e.g. provide funding and resources and respond to First Nations’ request for support).

Relationship building and partnerships:

Build meaningful partnerships with First Nations that go beyond consultation on SAR frameworks, policies, and legislation;
Recognize and respect First Nations’ jurisdiction, governance, authority, knowledge and legal systems;
Support a distinctions-based approach, acknowledging the plurality of Indigenous Peoples who co-exist in Canada (e.g. there are distinctions between and within First Nations, Métis, Inuit Nations and communities necessitating different approaches by ECCC);
Actively engage with AFN and First Nations to advance policies, legislation, and processes that better reflect First Nations’ perspectives on SAR, CKSP, and culturally significant species and places;
Engage early and commit to building long-term relationships;
Keep an open mind and heart and approach this work with humility.

Indigenous Knowledge:

Work with First Nations to elevate their knowledge systems as a reliable and complementary source of information when prioritizing places, species, and threats;
Support First Nations’ efforts to increase food security and food sovereignty, ecological restoration, and cultural revitalization as interconnected strategies that can also support SAR, CKSP, and culturally significant species and places;
Make equal space for Indigenous knowledge and Western science (i.e. work in Ethical Space), including language and culture; and
Advance holistic solutions that recognize the connectedness of all things (e.g. “the land, people, and language are one;” economy and biodiversity are inseparable).

IPCAs and Guardians:

Support (e.g. provide funding for and remove barriers to) First Nations to establish and govern IPCAs as a complementary means of managing SAR, CKSP, and culturally significant species and places while supporting Indigenous leadership; and
Fund First Nations’ Guardians programs as a complementary pathway of restoring and protecting SAR, CKSP, and culturally significant species and places.

Upcoming Dialogues

In February and March 2023, AFN and IOF are hosting a third series of virtual dialogues for First Nations on SAR and culturally significant species and places. These dialogues will continue to foster a space for First Nations to discuss their approaches, perspectives, and priorities, which will inform AFN’s ongoing recommendations to Canada.

Like the previous dialogues, these facilitated dialogues are open to First Nations people who are involved in the stewardship or harvesting of SAR or culturally significant species and places.

Participation is free but registration is required. Click on the links below to sign up!

Pacific Regional Dialogue: February 13th, 2023, 10am – 12:30pm PST

Central Regional Dialogue: February 27th, 2023, 1:00pm – 3:30pm CST

Atlantic Regional Dialogue: March 6th, 2023, 1:00pm – 3:30pm AST

Contact Information

Website: https://iisaakolam.ca/sar-dialogues/

Email: species@iisaakolam.ca