“Borders don’t protect areas, people do”: insights from the development of an Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area in Kitasoo/Xai’xais Nation Territory

Increasingly, conservation actors are interested in the use of Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs) to contribute to biodiversity conservation while supporting the rights and roles of Indigenous Peoples. For example, signatories to the international Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 2020 Aichi Targets have committed to increase protected area coverage (Target 11; CBD 2010) while also recognizing, respecting, and engaging “effective participation” of Indigenous Peoples in conservation and restoration activities (Target 14 and 18; CBD 2010). These targets are partly motivated by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP; CBD 2010). Indeed, the success of biodiversity conservation relies on upholding social justice and Indigenous rights (Stevens 2010, 2013, 2014; Artelle et al. 2019; Zurba et al. 2019; Tran et al. 2020). We use the term IPCA to refer to a suite of Indigenous-driven initiatives to protect, conserve, or steward areas where Indigenous Peoples exercise agency in governance and (or) management in ways that promote environmental protection and conservation (ICE 2018; Zurba et al. 2019; Tran et al. 2020).

Though there is growing support for the benefits of IPCAs, a recent global review of IPCAs found that few peer-reviewed academic case studies explicitly center the perspectives of Indigenous Peoples working on IPCA development (Tran et al. 2020). Such case studies can highlight how states and organizations can improve their mechanisms for IPCA support where it is sought by Indigenous Peoples (e.g., partnerships, legislations) and demonstrate on-the-ground approaches that Indigenous governments can adapt (Tran et al. 2020). Through our collaborative case study, we seek to partially address this gap.

Here we present the views of the Kitasoo/Xai’xais Nation (hereafter the Nation) on the rationale and process of developing an IPCA in Kitasoo/Xai’xais Territory. Our objectives were to: highlight the rationale (e.g., gaps, motivations, drivers) behind the Nation’s IPCA development, describe the Nation’s on-the-ground process to plan and implement an IPCA, and articulate key challenges facing the Nation’s IPCA plus solutions to address them.

We used multiple approaches to represent Indigenous and local voices and knowledge in the IPCA development process. Our participatory action research included co-generation of our research questions, data collection methods, and analysis (Chilisa 2012). The Nation has been engaging in long-term initiatives to steward the territory. The Nation is using IPCAs as one route to achieve its aspirations. As such, we designed our collaboration to assist in these efforts. We focused on a proposed IPCA for an area currently known as Green Inlet (Fig. 1). Although Conservancies were a ground-breaking development in 2006, the designation does not meet the Nation’s socio-cultural and ecological goals for Green Inlet. As such, the Nation is building on Conservancies to seek alternative protected area models. The BC government is interested in identifying designations and management options with the Nation for parts of Green Inlet under its jurisdiction. We aimed at furthering the Nation’s IPCA process while sharing its experiences in a way that can benefit other Indigenous governments and interested IPCA supporters. Specifically, we treated our collaboration as an emergent process that influenced our methods (Chilisa 2012). Consequently, we directly contributed to the IPCA planning process by informing and receiving feedback from Nation members, which in turned influenced community deliverables (e.g., management planning documents). Figure S1 in provides an illustration of our research process.

We used document analysis, semi-structured interviews (see Supplementary Material 1 for interview questions), community engagement efforts, and informal discussions among KXSA staff to collect data for our collaboration. We reviewed documents related to broader territory management, governance, and Kitasoo/Xai’xais law; previous work by the Nation around IPCA models; references to Green Inlet in various media, such as interviews, maps, historical documents; and scientific research. We also reviewed public documents (e.g., government reports) that relate to Green Inlet, such as species reports and protected area policies. We conducted 19 semi-structured interviews with 21 people between June 2018 and August 2019. Interview participants held key, sometimes multiple, roles with the Nation including hereditary chiefs, high-ranking ladies, elders, knowledge holders, Kitasoo/Xai’xais leaders, and KXSA staff. As of January 2020, KXSA led three separate community engagement events to share knowledge about the area and to discuss the desire for an IPCA. The first event, in collaboration with the local high school, brought youth, KXSA staff, and elders to Green Inlet. The second event was an intergenerational Green Inlet trip open to all Nation members. The final event was part of KXSA’s annual presentation to Nation members in Klemtu.

We used three analytical methods: coding interviews and documents, active participation in the development of Green Inlet IPCA planning documents, and author reflection throughout the process. Using NVivo software (Bazeley and Jackson 2007), we coded information from interviews and documents. We used deductive coding to summarize information for each of our research objectives. Using emergent coding, we generated themes within the objectives. Nation members had two ways to engage in this analysis. First, as we conducted analysis in tandem with data collection, Nation members could reflect on our coding as themes arose in our interviews, discussions, and community engagement events. Second, we used the collaborative drafting of project deliverables, detailed below, as additional analysis verification.

To describe the Nation’s rationale behind IPCA development, we grouped results into three main themes: (1) building upon ongoing processes, (2) limitations of current protected areas designations and opportunities to address these with an IPCA, and (3) the specific socio-cultural and ecological values in Green Inlet. We then outlined the Nation’s key stages in the IPCA planning process, followed by the Nation’s vision for IPCA implementation. We highlight the main challenges facing the Nation to achieve its goals and the Nation’s approaches to address these issues. We use the past tense to report results from interviews or documents and the present tense when describing processes that are ongoing. Unless otherwise noted, the information below comes from interviews and documents reviewed.

Though there is growing discourse on the social and ecological benefits of IPCAs, the practical process undertaken by Indigenous Peoples to develop them is less known. This collaborative case study demonstrates how such efforts can extend beyond a single area and point in time. Our research supports the Nation’s efforts to establish the Green Inlet IPCA by engaging participatory action research to directly contribute to the planning process. The development of the Green Inlet IPCA manifests years of foundational work articulating and revitalizing Kitasoo/Xai’xais knowledge, rights, and responsibilities across the territory. The challenges the Nation is facing to achieve its vision is similar to other protected areas: limited resources (Balmford et al. 2003), planning for future and compounding uncertainties (Syms and Carr 2001), and balancing uses and impacts (e.g., tourism; McCool 2009). The Nation aims to manage the Green Inlet IPCA holistically, especially with intergenerational community engagement, while using Indigenous and western approaches. In particular, the Nation is a leading advocate for formal IPCA recognition through the establishment of new legislation in BC and Canada.

Our case study demonstrates that territory-wide planning and stewardship capacity building are key investments to support IPCA development and management. By investing in territory-wide planning, the Kitasoo/Xai’xais Nation is able to centre its values in the stewardship of areas and natural resources, which other research has noted as critical to achieving IPCA benefits (e.g., Preuss and Dixon 2012). Research on Australia’s IPA program and Voluntary Conserved Areas in Mexico has similarly noted that broadscale territory planning can improve IPCA development and implementation by creating a mechanism to determine if or how these initiatives can advance long-term aspirations (Ibarra et al. 2011; Davies et al. 2013; Smyth 2015). Thus Indigenous governments can use territory planning to guide options for achieving their goals, which can include IPCA creation (Smyth 2015). Relatedly, Indigenous governments can utilize territory planning to guide needed capacity building. In this case, the Kitasoo/Xai’xais Nation has grown its capacity through incremental steps, guided by visions articulated in Nation documents such as the Kitasoo/Xai’xais land and marine use plans, and is capable to lead IPCA management and monitoring. Other research has also articulated that cultivation of local governance and management capacity is critical for IPCA success (e.g., Mulrennan et al. 2012; Kothari et al. 2013). Consequently, by articulating their long-term territory aspirations and the needed stewardship capacity, Indigenous governments can outline their specific IPCA implementation strategies. As demonstrated by the partnerships detailed above (e.g., with BC Parks, our collaboration), other actors can support territory stewardship by assisting Indigenous collaborators in what they highlight as priority needs (e.g., funding, training, etc.).

Our case study supports that Indigenous Nations can use IPCAs as a tool to advance biodiversity conservation and support Indigenous resurgence. Beyond protecting the values within Green Inlet, the Kitasoo/Xai’xais Nation is developing this IPCA to improve upon existing protected area systems to better reflect its Indigenous rights and responsibilities while intersecting socio-cultural and environmental conservation needs. Other IPCA research similarly support that engaging Indigenous governance through mechanisms like IPCAs has significant potential to simultaneously address issues around Indigenous rights and biodiversity conservation decline (Stevens 2010, 2014; Artelle et al. 2019; Zurba et al. 2019; Tran et al. 2020). Particularly, Indigenous Nations can use IPCAs to reclaim authority by creating space that both use and defy western conservation to advance decolonization (Carroll 2014). However, as the Kitasoo/Xai’xais Nation acknowledges IPCAs as one tool to achieve its aspirations, some Indigenous governments may not wish to pursue an IPCA. With diverse Indigenous Nations’ aspirations and capacities, IPCAs are not a panacea for resolving Indigenous rights or conservation issues (Kothari and Neumann 2014; Tran et al. 2020). For example, IPCAs can be limited in scope to the areas within their boundaries and externally by how states and other actors recognize or support Indigenous title, rights, laws, and governance surrounding those areas (Kothari et al. 2012). Those limitations also challenge the capacity of IPCAs, as much as any form of protected area, to address processes that span spatial and temporal scales. As such, while Indigenous governments consider if IPCAs can be helpful for their aspirations, external actors need to positively address where these issues intersect beyond the border of protected areas.

Our results highlight that IPCA managers can benefit from the use of hybrid approaches. By doing so, the Kitasoo/Xai’xais Nation centers its Indigenous worldviews, knowledge, and values, while applying complementary western approaches to satisfy the current geopolitical, socio-cultural, and ecological context. Other research on IPCA management has also highlighted the value of hybrid strategies. For example, Murray and King (2012) noted the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation governs its tribal parks though customary and contemporary approaches to improve contemporary cultural fit. Verschuuren et al. (2015) emphasized the “two-way” approach in the Dhirrumu IPA (Australia) ranger program improved IPA management, particularly for engaging other actors for ranger program support. Similarly, the Kitasoo/Xai’xais Nation uses hybrid approaches to utilize western tools (e.g., zoning, adaptive management) that align with Kitasoo/Xai’xais worldviews to facilitate cross-cultural strategies to achieve its IPCA goals. However, bridging Indigenous and western approaches may not always be feasible. In particular, working at cross-cultural interfaces are known to bring immense pressure, expectation, and a need for a wide variety of skills and knowledge (Preuss and Dixon 2012). Indeed, IPCA managers and cross-cultural partners interested in hybrid approaches must be prepared for substantial investment of resources to determine appropriate pathways (Preuss and Dixon 2012; Verschuuren et al. 2015). Though understanding these challenges, the Nation continues to use hybrid approaches alongside IPCAs to highlight the socio-cultural and ecological benefits of respectfully engaging with Indigenous forms of stewardship.

Our case study also highlights that pursuing state legislative IPCA recognition is one pathway to support IPCA goals (Kothari 2008; Artelle et al. 2019; Zurba et al. 2019; Tran et al. 2020). However, legal state recognition can be perceived by some people as “colonial entanglement”, where this recognition may require sacrificing some self-determination (Dennison 2012; Carroll 2014; Zurba et al. 2019). State recognition can hinder true respect for Indigenous decision-making and continue to uphold colonial practices (Ibarra et al. 2011; Davies et al. 2013; Carroll 2014; Zurba et al. 2019). As such, certain Indigenous Nations may not want their IPCAs incorporated into state legislation. While the debates around recognition are well-established, with many Indigenous scholars rejecting the frame of state recognition (Coulthard 2014), having an IPCA recognized is the Kitasoo/Xai’xais Nation’s clear goal. The Nation views this as useful because it would streamline efforts to implement timely management actions while clarifying how other actors can engage with the Nation regarding Green Inlet (e.g., potential funding, responsibilities).

The Kitasoo/Xai’xais approach illustrates that partnerships that respect Kitasoo/Xai’xais leadership and goals, despite their challenges, play an important role in IPCA development and implementation. In particular, the Nation uses partnerships, such as this collaboration, to cultivate knowledge and access funding and capacity to conduct IPCA-related work for the Nation to meet socio-cultural and ecological needs. Mulrennan et al. (2012) similarly noted how collaborative conservation research, when done respectfully and centered around tangible outcomes for Indigenous partners, can assist both social justice and environmental conservation issues. For meaningful partnerships to support IPCAs to occur, other actors must push their institutional boundaries and invest in creating cross-cultural capacity (Langton et al. 2005; Tran et al. 2020). Particularly for the Green Inlet IPCA, the Kitasoo/Xai’xais Nation continues to advocate for institutional changes within partnering organizations at discussion tables. These efforts highlight how government staff also must push against restrictive colonial frameworks, particularly siloed environmental management approaches, to create opportunities for true shared decision-making in IPCAs. For example, where states are invested in improving IPCA recognition and support, government organizations should prepare for broad-scale legislative and policy changes, including embracing holistic approaches that better reflect Indigenous worldviews on territory stewardship (Zurba et al. 2019; Tran et al. 2020). Given that Canadian policy and legislative changes can take decades, relationships with local and regional state staff remain important to the Kitasoo/Xai’xais to advance the Nation’s progressive agendas for IPCAs.

We used a collaborative case study to highlight the motivations and on-the-ground efforts required to develop an IPCA in Kitasoo/Xai’xais Territory. We share this case study to inform IPCA supporters on how to positively engage with such activities, while Indigenous governments can adapt the approaches highlighted to inform their IPCA processes. The Nation is using IPCAs to continue its efforts to advance Indigenous-led stewardship beyond existing protected area options to improve socio-cultural and ecological conservation. The Nation has utilized substantial investment in territory planning, stewardship capacity building, and research to develop Green Inlet IPCA. The Nation is employing cross-cultural, hybrid approaches to overcome the anticipated management challenges. Our case study shows that non-Indigenous actors wishing to support Indigenous-led conservation need to invest in supporting territory-scale stewardship activities while fostering internal structural changes to facilitate engaging meaningfully with Indigenous Nations.

Diverse approaches to IPCA development, support, and recognition are necessary (Kothari 2008; Smyth 2015; Tran et al. 2020). Further research highlighting perspectives of other Indigenous Peoples planning and implementing IPCAs can provide additional insight, for example, on how various regional actors (e.g., state, non-for-profits) can support and recognize IPCAs. More publications on primary research led by Indigenous Nations or through participatory approaches can support broad understanding of the challenges and potential solutions associated with IPCA governance and management (Mulrennan et al. 2012; Zurba et al. 2019; Tran et al. 2020).

It is through the generosity of Kitasoo/Xai’xais Nation members and staff that we can share their story; we seek to honour their investment towards a Green Inlet IPCA by including quotes from interviewees (with permission) to illustrate key findings. Thank you to all those who shared their insights with us. We are grateful for the financial support by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the University of Victoria, Oceans Canada Partnership, and Tides Canada. Research activities were carried out with the approval of the University of Victoria Human Research Ethics Board (protocol number 17-211).