ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: EXPLORING
INDIGENOUS EVALUATIONS OF THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT’S INDIGENOUS
GUARDIANS PILOT PROGRAM
by
Abby Dooks
B.A., Saint Mary’s University, 2019

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
IN
GLOBAL & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
April 2022
© Abby Dooks, 2022

1

Abstract
In response to the exclusion of Indigenous people from natural resources management,
the Canadian federal government announced that they would provide $25 million over four years
to support the development of Indigenous Guardians programs across Canada. The program was
promised to “provide Indigenous Peoples with greater opportunity to exercise responsibility in
stewardship of their traditional lands, waters and ice” (Government of Canada 2020). I used a
case study approach to explore the role of this funding to support Indigenous communities in
their Guardians initiatives. I facilitated semi-structured interviews with staff from five
Indigenous Guardians programs from BC and Manitoba, Canada. Participants suggested that the
federal pilot program was a step in the right direction to support environmental stewardship
initiatives led by Indigenous governments or communities. In particular, this program was
successful in increasing monitoring of the land, collaboration with like-minded groups, and
facilitating the education of youth by community Elders.

2

Acknowledgements
I would like to begin by thanking all of the participants who shared their experiences as
Indigenous Guardians. I am truly honoured to have been trusted with such important insights into
the fundamental work that is being done to achieve Indigenous sovereignty and revitalize
reciprocal relationships with the land. I hope that by sharing your experiences I can contribute to
efforts of reconciliation with Indigenous people in Canada and around the world. I would also
like to thank my supervisor Dr. Chris Johnson for all of the help and guidance that he has provided
me over the past two years. I am increasingly inspired by his interest in merging the natural
sciences with the social sciences in order to address wide-reaching, interwoven issues that require
a collaborative response. Additionally, thank you for instilling in me the value that genuine intent
and human-interconnectedness are essential to collaborative research.
Thank you to both Dr. Zoe Meletis and Dexter Hodder for contributing as committee
members and offering fresh perspectives on my research. I sincerely appreciate your comments
and feedback that kept me on my toes and held me accountable to the importance of my research.
Thank you to all of my professors, supervisors, mentors and friendships that I developed
at the University of Northern British Columbia for helping me to grow and develop my academic
voice. It truly takes a village to raise a graduate student.
Last, but certainly not least, thank you to my family, friends and incredible partner for
supporting me even when I decided to move across the country.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………...…ii
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………iii
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………….….vi
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………...….vi
Chapter 1- Introduction……………………………………………………………………..........7
1.1 Guardians Programs……………………………………………………….................12
1.2 Need for this research……………………………………………….…………..........15
1.3 Research Objectives and Questions………………………………….…………….....16
Chapter 2- Methodology and Methods…………………………………………………….…….17
2.1 Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………..………..17
2.1.1 Political Ecology…………………………………………………………...18
2.1.2 Political Ecology and Natural Resources Management…………….….......19
2.2 Research Design…………………………………………………………..……….....20
2.2.1 Research Positionality……………………………………………...............20
2.2.2 Methodological approach: Qualitative case study…………………….…...22
2.2.3 Group interviews……………………..…………………………………….24
2.3 Case Study……………………………………………................................................25
2.3.1 National-Level Study of Successful Guardians Programs……………….…25
2.4 Sample………………………………………………………………………………..26
2.5 Methods……………………………………………………………………..……......27
2.5.1 Telephone Interviews………………………………………….…….….......28
2.5.2 Transcription………………………………………………………….…....29
2.5.3 Coding………………………………………………………………….......29
2.5.4 Ethical Considerations……………………………………………………..31
Chapter 3- Findings……………………………………………………………………………..33
3.1 Communication and participation rate…………………………………………….….33
3.2 Accessing the Canadian Government’s Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program……..…35
3.3 Objectives and goals of participating in the Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program…....37
3.4 Environmental protection and stewarding…………………………………………....37
3.5 Bringing the culture back to the communities and the incorporation of Youth in
Guardians Programs……………………...……………………………………....……....40
3.6 Contemporary Systemic Barriers…………………………………………….…….....44
3.7 Inadequate Funding…………………………………………………………………..45
3.8 Flexibility in Funding Support- COVID-19 as a Barrier ……………………..………49
3.9 Lack of proper recognition as a sovereign nation……………………………..………50
3.9.1 Indigenous Led……………………………………………………………..50
3.9.2 Guardians Facilitating Indigenous Decision Making………………..……..52
3.10 Collaboration for Shared Goals……………………………………………….…….55
3.11 Hope for the future…………………………………………………………….…….59
3.12 Limitations of my research…………………………………………………….……60
Chapter 4- Discussion and Recommendations…………………………………………….……62
4.1 Objectives of the Canadian Government’s Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program….....62
4.2 Positive outcomes of the Guardians programs…………………………………….….64
4

4.3 Barriers to the Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program……………………………….....67
4.3.1 Inadequate Funding …………………………..……………………………....67
4.3.2 Lack of proper recognition as a sovereign Nation…………………….....…69
4.4 Limitations and future directions……………………………………………….…….71
4.5 Short-term recommendations………………………………………………………...71
4.5.1 Sustainable funding policies …………………………………………….……71
Chapter 5- Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..75
References……………………………………………………………………………………….78
Appendix A- Information Letter/ Consent Form…………………………………………….…...85
Appendix B- Interview Guide……………………………………………………………………86
Appendix C- Certificate of Completion: Panel of Research Ethics Tri-Council Policy Statement:
Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans Course on Research Ethics………...….88
Appendix D- Research Ethics Board Approval Letter…………………………………………....89

5

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Indigenous Guardians programs, longevity of program, and participants interviewed...23
Table 2: Positive outcomes of Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program Initiatives………………....66
Table 3: Short-term recommendations for overcoming barriers to achieving the objectives of
Indigenous Guardian programs…………………………………………………………..74
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program Map (captured February 14, 2022) displaying
the location of Guardians programs across Canada in “Year 4” of the pilot program
(2021)……………………………………………………………………………………14

6

Chapter 1- Introduction
Historically, the management of natural resources in Canada, whether in the context of
conservation or natural resources development, have been organized through bi-lateral or multilateral agreements between the government, either provincial or federal, and external actors or
“stakeholders” (Kittmer, 2013). These arrangements, whether extractive or conservationist, have
often excluded Indigenous peoples including when the natural resources are situated on their
land. In the case of natural resources development, extraction is occasionally conducted on
Indigenous land without permission from Indigenous groups and can sometimes cause extreme
environmental damage (Waldron 2020). In regards to conservation or protected areas,
Indigenous people have been excluded from the decision making process and removed from the
“fortress-style enclosure of awe-inspiring ‘wild’ lands for the purpose of settler-colonial
territorialization and tourism” (Youdelis et al. 2020, 233).
In more recent years, international frameworks have been developed to help reshape the
relationship between Indigenous Peoples and colonial states (Latta 2018). These frameworks
include the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people (UN General
Assembly 2007). While great strides have been made to address the intersection of natural
resources development and the rights of Indigenous people, questions and critiques regarding the
degree of on the ground implementation have arisen from various scholars (Aylwin 2008;
Courtis 2011; Barelli 2012).
Natural resources development, specifically, has resulted in environmental damage and
pollution in close proximity with Indigenous communities. These hazardous activities include
direct exposure to pollution including landfills, exposure to potential gas and oil spills, hazardous
waste dumping, mercury contamination and pollution from petrochemical facilities (Waldron
7

2020). This reality was originally defined as "environmental racism” by Chavis (2004), and has
been defined further by Ingrid Waldron as “the disproportionate proximity and greater exposure
of Indigenous, Black and other racialized communities to polluting industries and
environmentally hazardous activities” (Waldron 2020, 1).
Human-induced climate change has added increased strain to Indigenous communities
already facing issues of environmental degradation and pollution (Redvers et al. 2022) and has
been termed as “a multiplier effect” by the United Nations (2021a). Climate change has
increased the difficulties of Indigenous communities who may already be facing onerous living
conditions as a result of colonization. Effects from climate change include an increase of extreme
weather conditions, loss of vegetation, deforestation, shifts in weather patterns and the decrease
of traditional food sources (United Nations 2021b).
Conservation initiatives, on the other hand, have also reinforced the exclusion of
Indigenous people from decision-making processes, and physically from the land as “Indigenous
livelihoods were vilified as anti-ethical to wilderness conservation, and Indigenous Nations were
violently evicted or coercively displaced from the early southern parks” (Youdelis et al. 2020;
Loo 2001). This socially constructed ideology of nature was termed by Cronon (1996) as
“wilderness-thinking”, considering nature as something that is pristine and people-free. This
mentality, as argued by Cronon (1996), developed the “fortress-style” conservation model that
has been used in the past to remove all human activity from the “wilderness”. Youdelis et al
(2020) argued that this mentality has resulted in a violence to Indigenous people “who have lived
in and shaped those environments for centuries” (Youdelis et al. 2020, 233). Indigenous
communities believe, in contrast to the “fortress-style” conservation model, that humans play an

8

integral part of thriving ecosystems and that there is a reciprocal relationship between humans
and nature (Berkes et al. 2000).
There are numerous contemporary examples of the exclusion of Indigenous voices from
broad-scale conservation and natural resource decision making in Canada. Most notably, there
has been considerable criticism of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement between the forest
industry and environmental non-governmental organisations. In that case, logging deferrals
occurred across much of Canada’s boreal forest without direct and meaningful engagement and
partnership with the affected Indigenous Nations (Smith 2015). In other cases, relationships and
partnerships have evolved, often through conflict, to recognise and directly engage with
Indigenous people in government to government negotiations during large-scale planning
initiatives. One such example is the partnership of government, industry and First Nations on the
Central and North Coast of British Columbia (i.e., Great Bear Rainforest) to establish a forestry
and conservation regime based on ecosystem management (Low and Shaw 2012).
In 2015, the Canadian federal government released their Truth and Reconciliation Report
that included ninety-four calls to action, and the assertion that Canada would adopt the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) (Denis and Bailey 2016).
Following Canada’s adoption of the UNDRIP in 2016, Indigenous peoples took it upon
themselves to ensure that the government would follow through with their claims and shift
decision-making power and the guardianship of treaty and unceded lands back to the Indigenous
communities (McMillan and Prosper, 2016; Garnett et al. 2018; Lliso et al, 2020). That has
included pressing for implementation of Article 23, Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of
resource development on traditional lands. The authority of Indigenous people to lead decisionmaking processes of natural resource management is important if Canada wants to meet a

9

number of the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as well as
commitments agreed to when signing UNDRIP or parallel provincial legislation (e.g., British
Columbia Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act). Natural resource management
is directly highlighted in the preamble to UNDRIP and states that Indigenous peoples maintain a
“right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests” (UN General Assembly,
2007, 2). More broadly, it is important that the federal government address the paternalistic
relationship between itself and Indigenous Nations and support those Nations in making
autonomous decisions about how they manage, use or conserve natural resources (Papillon and
Rodon 2017).
In other areas of the globe, multi-level governance initiatives have emerged as a decisionmaking system that can actively include Indigenous peoples’ voices and aspirations in natural
resource management (Latta 2018; Papillon 2015; Alcantara & Spicer 2016). Multi-level
governance has become increasingly notable in successful environmental protection initiatives.
These arrangements typically bring together various governments, including Indigenous Nations,
and stakeholders to establish conservation and management of natural resources (Latta 2018).
However, this is most often successful when each participant has overlapping interests that align
in a cooperative way (Papillon 2015; Alcantara & Spicer 2016; Latta 2018). Multi-level
governance initiatives can also be successful when the participants face a multi-faceted set of
social-ecological issues that are addressed best through collaborative processes (Sayer et al.,
2013).
Unfortunately, Indigenous peoples often are left out, or not properly considered by
stakeholders and other governments when engaging in multi-level governance processes. In
some cases, Indigenous peoples are considered a “stakeholder group” instead of a self-

10

determining nation with their own political system and set of rights, pre-dating European
colonization (Papillon 2012; Reo et al. 2017; Latta 2018). This inability to shift decision-making
authority to Indigenous groups can undermine their participation and reduce their bargaining
power in multi-level governance initiatives (Von de Porten & de Loe, 2013). Also, traditional
ecological knowledge or TEK is often overlooked in many projects that broadly adhere to the
principles of multi-level governance. For example, the International Panel on Climate Change
AR5 excluded Traditional Ecological Knowledge from its official report and favoured the
biophysical, sciences, and economics from countries in the Global North (Ford et al. 2012). This
is despite the recommendations from scholars that TEK can help in our understanding of how the
world is changing and provide valuable solutions for adaptation and mitigation methods (Ford et
al. 2010; Green et al. 2009; Salick and Ross 2009; Turner and Clifton 2009).
Traditional ecological knowledge is recognised in UNDRIP and has become more valued
in policy initiatives as Indigenous peoples have unique philosophies and approaches for
understanding and interacting with the natural world. Through Indigenous law, groups advocated
for the Whanganui River Claims Settlement and the Protection Act of 2017 which recognized the
Yarra River as a living entity (Redvers et al. 2022). Recognition of the person-hood of nature, as
is exemplified in some Indigenous cultures, can achieve legal protection of nature in a way that
is not practiced in western common law. Proponents of TEK also emphasize the
interconnectedness of humans with nature and our dependency on the earth for survival as well
as the recognition that Indigenous people steward 80% of the earth’s remaining biodiversity and
therefore should be recognized as leaders in the environmental protection movement (Garnett et
al. 2018). The ability to steward, guard, manage, and preserve the land is of great importance to
some Indigenous groups and is inherent in their self-determination of their lands (Whyte et al.

11

2016). Failure to properly incorporate and respect TEK is unfortunate as it represents a unique
cultural connection between Indigenous peoples and their environment, as well as various bodies
of knowledge drawn from that relationship.

1.1 Guardians Programs
Historically and today, natural resources development can result in negative social and
environmental effects with particular impacts for Indigenous peoples (Papillon 2012; Reo et al.
2017; Latta 2018). While improvements have been made to recognize the historical and ongoing
injustices of colonization, including the United Nations adoption of UNDRIP, many Indigenous
groups continue to lack full participation in natural resource and conservation decision making
and, more broadly, the stewardship of their Traditional Lands. In response, some Canadian
Indigenous groups have developed “Guardians” programs, largely inspired by similar programs
in Australia (Thomson 2020). In general, Indigenous Guardians programs employ community
members to act as monitors and stewards of the land. For the Australian Indigenous Guardians
programs, participants patrol protected areas, monitor fish and wildlife harvests, collect data
focused on environmental change, including the environmental effects of climate change,
monitor and record industrial activities, and educate visitors on proper use of the land (Social
Ventures Australia, 2016). While some Guardians programs are focused on environmental
stewardship, in the context of the development of natural resources, they also recognize the
intrinsic relationship between people and the environment that is characteristic of many
Indigenous cultures. This means that some Guardians programs may aim to prevent development
activities while others may embrace resources extractive activities in a way that will provide for
their communities (Youdelis et al. 2020).

12

Guardians programs have allowed Indigenous groups to demand and establish
management of their Traditional lands and natural resources, unimpeded by prohibitory
government policies. These initiatives have provided positive results in both contributing to the
conservation of biodiversity in a way that is socially just and enhancing the well-being of the
Indigenous communities in which they operate (Reed et al. 2021). Positive results of Guardians
programs, and similar Indigenous-led conservation activities, include the reduction of species
loss, increased land monitoring and protection, and “locally relevant stewardship practices
embedded in the culture, laws and history of their given Indigenous Nation” (Reed et al. 2021,
180).
In 2017, the Canadian government recognized the potential of Indigenous Guardians
programs to increase natural resources management to a socially just standard. As such, they
announced the “Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program”. That initiative provided $25 million over
four years to support the development of new and existing monitoring programs for Indigenous
communities from across Canada. The program was promised to “provide Indigenous Peoples
with greater opportunity to exercise responsibility in stewardship of their traditional lands,
waters and ice” (Government of Canada 2020). That government funding contributed to a
doubling of the number of Guardians programs across Canada (Thomson 2020). The funding
was renewed in July of 2020 when the Canadian Government announced that it would provide
$600,000 to create 10 additional Guardians programs during 2020–2021 (Government of Canada
2020). Currently, 33 Guardians programs are supported by the Indigenous Guardians Pilot
Program. Those programs are located in all of Canada’s provinces and territories. British
Columbia is home to the largest number of Guardians programs with 7 (Government of Canada
2020).

13

Figure 1: The Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program Map (captured February 14, 2022) displaying
the location of Guardians programs across Canada in “Year 4” of the pilot program (2021)
(Government of Canada, 2020).
Guardians programs and associated land and water management strategies have been
adopted by Indigenous groups in spite of extreme pressures from colonizers to alter their culture
and associated land- and water-based practices (Waller and Reo 2018; Ban et al. 2019). Passed
on through intergenerational knowledge, Indigenous kinship with the land emphasizes the socialecological system that sustains the community and the culture (Berkes 2012, McMillen et al.
2017, Pascua et al. 2017). These reciprocal relationships can not only support the health of the
environment, but also the health of the people dependent on the environmental resources. For
example, the Lutsel K’e Guardians program in Northwest Territories, Canada, generated $11.1
million in social, economic, cultural and environmental value (Thomson 2020). That Guardians
14

programs led to the development of land-based training, facilitated access to traditional foods
and language retention, and played a role in the decrease of both violence against women and
obesity rates in the community (Social Ventures Australia, 2016; Thomson, 2020).
Indigenous people incorporate inter-generational teachings about society and human
relationships into their relationships with the land. Thus, including youth into Guardians projects
is of great importance as it can support and reinforce the learning of cultural practices (Reo et al.
2017). Guardians programs like the Dehcho First Nations Guardians Program (Northwest
Territories, Canada) include teaching youth how to read the weather, fix boat motors, and
develop other technical skills (Thomson 2020).

1.2 Need for this research
More recent studies of Indigenous Guardians programs in Canada are emerging;
however, the Canadian Government’s Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program has not been formally
reviewed or studied. Many Guardians programs that have received federal funding for their
program are still in the early stages of development and adoption. Furthermore, there has been
little investigation of the limits or benefits of the Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program. That
includes reviewing and identifying the discrepancies between the policy’s expected and actual
results. Such insights could be important given the history and ongoing colonisation that has
resulted in the oppression of Indigenous peoples by the Canadian government. This research
could highlight the strengths of Guardians programs and the challenges that Indigenous groups
are currently facing in implementing their management plans (Barichello 2019). Research
focused on the successes and challenges of participating Guardians programs can be shared
informally amongst the Guardians network in attempts to help those facing similar challenges or

15

Indigenous groups that are considering participating in the federal program. Similar knowledge
sharing efforts are being made by the Indigenous Leadership Initiative—a group of Indigenous
leaders advocating for “The recognition and expansion of Indigenous-led conservation and
sustainable development efforts” (Arctic Institute of Community Based Research, Accessed on
February 16, 2022).

1.3 Research Objectives and Questions
I employed a case study approach to explore the role of the Canadian Government’s
Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program in supporting the efforts of Indigenous communities to
monitor and manage their lands and waters. I used semi-structured interviews with members of 5
Guardians programs to identify the main objectives for their programs, potential barriers and
limitations to achieving the Indigenous group’s ideal model of Guardians, paths to success and
how the federal funding was used to achieve each group’s unique goals. My exploration of
Guardians programs focused on three general themes:
1. Inconsistencies between goals of Guardian programs and the goals of the federal
government pilot program.
2. Barriers and limitations in implementation.
3. Effectiveness of the pilot program.

16

Chapter 2- Methodology and methods
2.1 Theoretical Framework:
My research acknowledges major themes in political ecology, including “access to and
control over resources, the importance of local histories, the disenfranchisement of legitimate
local users and uses… and the imbrications of all these with colonial and postcolonial legacies
and dynamics” (McCarthy 2002, 1283). My research is informed by past literature highlighting
these historical and current power imbalances that have occurred as a result of both conservation
initiatives and natural resources extraction on Indigenous land.
Historically, and today, natural resources have been highly sought after to generate
economic revenue. However, scholars, activists, and advocates have pointed out that resource
richness does not necessarily lead to improved living conditions or “development”. This
phenomenon is specifically termed as the resource curse (Robinson et al. 2006). The resource
curse “consistently emphasizes that resource dependent economies and resource booms seem to
lead to highly dysfunctional state behaviour, particularly large public sectors and unsustainable
budgetary policies” (Robinson et al. 2006, 448). The state has failed to enforce policies that
regulate natural resources development in a way that is not environmentally damaging due to the
incentives of high economic revenue (Robinson et al. 2006).
Indigenous peoples have often faced the negative outcomes of natural resource
development. That is because many communities and Reserves are found in rural areas where
these activities occur. Also, Indigenous peoples often still rely on or incorporate the harvest of
plants and animals for subsistence and cultural use. Often those traditional foods and medicines
can be affected by forestry, mineral and energy development (Parlee 2016). Indigenous
communities are increasingly burdened with unkept promises of economic revenue that would
17

otherwise have contributed to poverty reduction initiatives. For example, Indigenous
communities in Northern Alberta, the location of the largest oil deposits in the world, are among
the poorest in the country (Parlee 2016).

2.1.1 Political Ecology
I adopted a methodological framework premised in the methods and theory of political
ecology. That allowed me to transcend the barrier between the ecological and social sciences.
Those broad, but often disparate sciences represent important elements of the Canadian
Government’s Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program. Political Ecology is an “eclectic body of
work” that includes various “traditions and approaches to the politics of the environment”
(Robbins 2020). Political Ecology has been described by Robbins (2020) as a “Tree with Deep
Roots” that began in the 1970s and continues to evolve and branch out to various disciplines
(Robbins 2020). However, the central and unifying aspect of all Political Ecological theories are
that they act as an alternative to “apolitical ecology” and operate under a set of assumptions that
acknowledge political, economic and historical power imbalances in environmental decisionmaking (Robbins 2020). More recently, atmospheric chemist Paul J. Crutzen and ecologist
Eugene F. Stoermer deduced that it was, and continues to be, the interactions of humans and the
ecological systems that create these harms to the planet (Schulz 2017). These theorists suggested
that the new era of human-ecological interaction be termed the “Anthropocene” because of the
considerable effects the human population has on the Earth’s systems over the past two and a
half centuries (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000). However, various other theorists deduced that
unequal power relations came about as a result of conflict brought upon by a capitalist economy
that resulted in some human populations having more harmful relationships with the

18

environment than others (O’Neil, 2020). This resulted in the proposition of other terms for the
new era including the “Capitalocene” (Moore 2015), “Technocene” (Hornborg 2015), or the
“anthrobscene” (Ernstson and Swyngedouw 2015). While the terminology of the new human era
is contested, the heart of these theories all conclude that the way humans interact with the Earth
requires “an equally fundamental shift in our understanding of the human condition and its
symbiotic intersections with nature, society and technology” (Shulz 2017, 127).

2.1.2 Political Ecology and Natural Resources Management
Over the past few decades, political ecologists have highlighted Natural Resource
Management and Conservation as “neoliberal conceptualizations of nature that clash with
Indigenous ontologies” (Bormpoudakis 2019, 546; Kull et al. 2015). This is due to the
commodification of nature that provides goods for the wide-spread neoclassical economic model
(Kull et al. 2015, 3). This neoclassical model contributes to rapid industrialization often at the
expense of other environmental and ecological values. The negative outcomes of natural
resource development – including forestry, energy production, and mining – can have
disproportionately negative impacts for Indigenous communities. That includes the dispossession
of land and resources that sustain cultural and subsistence practices, loss of opportunities to
participate in the modern economy, and environmental pollution and degradation that negatively
affects the physical, mental, and spiritual health of Indigenous people (McCarthy 2002). In
Canada specifically, “resource-extraction-based economic development has arguably unsettled,
undermined, and transformed the circumstances of Indigenous communities” (Parlee 2016, 329
in Adkin 2016). As examples, effluent from a pulp and paper mill in the territory of
Sipekne’katik First Nation was actively polluting a main source of water; a pipeline constructed

19

directly through the Wet’suwet’en First Nation territory continues to undermine the decision
making authority of the hereditary Indigenous governments; and mercury contamination from
industrial facilities renders drinking water unpotable in Grassy Narrows First Nation (Waldron
2021). Consistent with the struggles of Indigenous peoples more broadly, the restrictions to
developing effective and sustainable Indigenous Guardians programs are a product of historical
and ongoing power imbalances brought on as a result of colonialism. Political ecology can offer
an interdisciplinary perspective for studying and understanding this complicated and multilayered subject.

2.2 Research Design:
2.2.1 Research Positionality
As a white, cis-gendered, straight, non-disabled female, I am very aware of the privilege
my positionality in society has afforded me. My family consists of European settlers from
Western Europe, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Scotland. Although my great, great
grandmother is of Indigenous decent hailing from New Brunswick, Canada, my skin is white and
my eyes are hazel—which has allowed me to thrive amongst the settler community.
Furthermore, I was raised in a middle-income family in the suburbs of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia,
and have had the privilege to attend post-secondary education. While having been raised in
primarily white communities, I realize that I have subconsciously inherited biases and
stereotypes towards Indigenous people and people of colour that I will need to continuously
unlearn.
Throughout my research process I attempted to recognize these biases by reflecting on
my underlying assumptions and grounding my thoughts in the literature of political ecology and

20

Indigenous stewardship that highlights power imbalances. I also reminded myself of my position
of power in the system in relation to those who I was interviewing and who were most affected
by the political imbalances. That was important so that I could place the conclusions within a
broader societal or Indigenous context that was beyond my personal experiences. In an effort to
formally reflect on and address those biases, I continuously journaled my thoughts throughout
the project. I used that exercise to practice reflexivity, defined as “Intentional self-awareness
about the reciprocal influence of the researcher-participant relationship on the research process”
(Gilgun 2006; Oliphant 2020, 19). By practicing reflexivity, I continued to address how my
interactions with respondents shaped data collection and analysis, and how my biases influenced
the conclusions of the study. Through this process I discovered that my initial thoughts could
sometimes predict a response and that I often expected a certain answer that either aligned with
my own experience or with what I had discovered in the literature. Whether or not I was correct
in assuming the answer, I realized how important it was to avoid assumptions so that my own
biases did not skew how I interpreted a response.
Additionally, I asked respondents to explain their own understanding of key concepts like
Guardianship, benefits, barriers, limitations, etc. so that their perspective could inform my
perception of what they hoped to achieve with their programs. Practicing reflexivity also helped
me to bridge barriers that arose due to my cultural positionality versus that of the Guardians that
I interviewed.

21

2.2.2 Methodological approach: Qualitative case study
I employed a qualitative case study methodology. This approach allowed me to focus on
the context and learning offered by each case (Yin 1981). In the social sciences, a case study
often creates a micro-macro link from individual social behaviour to a larger historical
occurrence (Alexander et al. 1987). Therefore, delving further into the individual case studies
can help us “gain a better understanding of the whole by focusing on a key part” (Gerring 2007).
This decision proved to be beneficial as each Nation that I interviewed faced unique challenges
and brought unique experiences to the research. In order to record these unique experiences, I
conducted semi-structured interviews of one to three participants from five Guardians programs
(Table 1).

22

Table 1: Indigenous Guardians programs, longevity of program, and participants interviewed.
Guardian
Brief Description
Age of
Person(s) interviewed
group

Program

Anonymous X

3 years

1 participant

Bloodvein
River First
Nation

2 years

2 participants
- Land Guardian
- Co-Chair of the
Board of Directors

2 years

3 participants in a group
interview
-Fisheries Manager
- Natural Resources
Manager
- Environmental
Consultant.

2 years

1x group interview
- Traditional Land
and Guardian
Program
Coordinator
- Land Guardian
1x group interview
- Project Manager
for the Guardians
program/
Archaeologist
- Coordinator- Title
and Rights

“Bloodvein River First Nation is
located 235 kilometres north of
Winnipeg on the east shore of Lake
Winnipeg. It is settled along three
kilometres on the banks of the
Miskwewe Ziibi (Bloodvein River)”
(Pimachiowin Aki 2022).
“Ditidaht traditional territory is large. It
Ditidaht
stretches inland from Cowichan Lake,
First Nation down through Nitinat Lake, and to the
coast between Bonilla Point and
Pachena Point. (Their) territory also
reaches out to sea all the way to the
salmon, halibut and cod banks that feed
(their) people. It includes the
headwaters of streams and rivers that
drain to the coastline” (Ditidaht First
Nation 2021).
Poplar
Approximately 450 kilometers from
River First Winnipeg, on the east side of Lake
Nation
Winnipeg. The remote community is
located at the mouth of the Poplar River
as it enters Lake Winnipeg”
(Pimachiowin Aki 2022).
Williams
“The T’exelcemc, or Williams Lake
Lake First
First Nation… is a member of the
Nation
Secwepemc Nation (Shuswap people)
located in the central interior of British
Columbia” (Williams Lake First Nation
2022).

1 year

23

2.2.3 Group interviews
I initially intended to use semi-structured interviews to elicit the perspectives of single
representatives of Guardians programs. However, a number of the programs that I contacted
requested the participation of more than one person during the interview. This required that I
adopt a group interview method.
Group interviews have been widely used in conservation and natural resources
management research. This method became popular in the 1980s with the rise of participatory
research and attempts to bridge the gap between quantitative research and individual experiences
considered as “local knowledge” (Nyumba et al. 2017). Group interviews require the
participation of multiple individuals. Typically, the group is involved in a facilitated discussion
of a specific topic with the goal of drawing from their complex personal experiences and worldviews (Nyumba et al. 2017). The group interview method has been used to explore the
convergence of western knowledge with traditional knowledge, specifically when discussing
natural resources management (Ajibade 2003). However, this method can sometimes lead to
biased responses “in that all participants (cannot) actively take part in discussions due to
intimidation of influence by dominant or aggressive participants” (Nyumba et al. 2017, 25).
There were a number of advantages to involving multiple participants in each interview
session. For example, group interviews can provide social support, especially when participants
discuss sensitive and difficult issues including colonization, land rights and racism experienced
in the community (Peek and Fothergill 2009). Some participants appeared more comfortable in a
group setting because they were able to assist one another in describing shared experiences and
lean on each other to fill in gaps regarding dates and times. My interviews consisted of
individuals working in various roles, and some in management positions. It is possible that

24

responses were skewed by existing hierarchical power structures, including employer-employee
relationships. Also, the participation of multiple individuals resulted in less time, on a per person
basis, for a response. I did not limit the time for each interview, but the participants were busy
and likely had only a portion of their day to attend the interview.

2.3 Case Study
2.3.1 National-Level Study of Successful Guardians Programs
My research followed the methods of McKay and Johnson (2017). They employed single
participant, semi-structured interviews to collect information from a sample of participants
engaged in Community Based Environmental Management, across Canada. Similarly, I
interviewed a sample of participants from Canadian Indigenous-led Guardians programs. I
purposefully avoided a characterization of each Nation for fear of not having the adequate time
or experience to fully understand the culture and context of each group that is required of an
accurate representation. Each Indigenous Nation differs geographically, culturally, and
historically, therefore I wanted to focus on the main similarity that each group shared—having
been successfully selected to receive funding from the Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program. In
implementing this strategy, I contacted a subset of the listed programs (Government of Canada
2020) to seek their formal participation in the research.
I chose semi-structured interviews as this method allowed me to interview participants in
a way that was “self-conscious, orderly and partially structured” (Longhurst 2016). Semistructured interviews are conducted by an interviewer hoping to illicit certain information from
their interviewee. Typically, the interview is conversational in tone and allows the participant to
discuss aspects of the topic that are most important to them (Longhurst 2016). Arguably, semi-

25

structured interviews are preferable when interviewing a person with a great deal of knowledge
around the subject matter of the research. This allows for the participant to share information that
may have not been considered in the beginning of the research (Darian-Smith and McCarty
2017).
During the interviews we explored the attributes of Guardians programs that received
funding from the Canadian Government’s Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program. This allowed me
to record and compare each group’s unique aspirations, successes, and limitations so that I could
consider variations in cultural practices amongst the participating groups. The interview method
supported the grounded-theory approach that was used to produce my conclusions as opposed to
having developed a theory beforehand that could have reflected my biases and ultimately the
results of the interviews (Thomas 2011).

2.4 Sample
I used the Canadian government’s “Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program Map”
(Government of Canada 2020; Figure 1) as well as a search of the internet to identify the contact
information for each of the 33 active Guardians programs operating with funding from the
Canadian Government. Practical concerns, including the time constraints of this project, the
availability of participants (Fugard and Potts 2015) and meeting the limitations of the COVID-19
pandemic informed my decision to interview five to ten representatives of those Guardians
programs. Additionally, because my research was qualitative, a smaller sample size allowed me
the ability to further analyze each interview more deeply. I may have generated a larger sample if
I had conducted web-based surveys. However, that approach may not have allowed for the
respondents to provide underlying information that I had not considered prior to creating the

26

survey questions (Fugard and Potts 2015). A sample of representatives from five to ten programs
allowed me adequate time to properly engage with each group of participants while maintaining
my research timeline.
I planned to divide my sample group into two sub-groups based on the timeline of their
participation in the Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program. The first sub-group was meant to
consist of those programs who received funding from the initial distribution of funds allocated by
the Canadian Government in 2017. The second sub-group was meant to consist of those who
joined the program after 2019. By analyzing those groups separately, I planned to document any
changes that may have occurred between the Guardians programs and the Canadian Government
over time. I then planned to select groups randomly and incrementally, until I achieved 5
Guardians groups for each sub-group. However, I did not receive a response from the federal
office that would inform me of when each group received their funding. Therefore, I could not
identify these sub-groups prior to conducting the interviews.

2.5 Methods
I employed qualitative research methods, including single-participant and group semistructured interviews. Those interviews were conducted via telephone and video conferencing. I
then transcribed my interviews and employed a coding process to highlight relevant themes in
the discussions (karjala and Sherry 2003). I chose semi-structured interviews as they allowed for
the discussion to follow an organizational format while recognizing the flexibility that is required
for each individual’s unique cultural and societal experience (Hay 2003).

27

2.5.1 Telephone Interviews
Prior to beginning interviews with participants from the Guardians programs I prepared a
semi-structured interview guide (see Appendix A). This guide included open-ended questions
allowing for variation in the level of participant interaction. This allowed interviewees to diverge
from the original question and elaborate on their individual experiences. I pilot tested the draft
interview guide and interview process with a volunteer who had experience working with
Indigenous Guardians programs.
I used telephone and video conference to conduct the interviews with research
participants. The use of telephone communication to conduct semi-structured interviews has
been critiqued as this method of interaction excludes visual cues (Garbett & McCormack 2011),
can lead to data-loss or distortion due to inability to develop personal connections between the
interviewer and participant (Fontana & Frey 2005) and potentially disallows lower-income
individuals from participating due to the lack of access to the necessary communication
equipment (Breakwell et al. 2006). However, telephone interviews have the potential to decrease
costs while conducting research, provide increased access to geographically disparate subjects
and increase safety for interviewers (Novick 2008). Given social-distancing requirements
implemented as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, telephone interviews seemed an appropriate
choice for both myself and the participants so that the research could be conducted safely. Also,
because I dealt with professionals that had access to institutional infrastructure, such as business
phones and internet, access was not a significant issue. When compared to a face-to-face
meeting, a telephone call could demand less of the participant and their limited time as well as
provide more flexibility in scheduling (Cachia and Millward 2011). Thus, telephone interviews
fit well with the busy schedules of prospective participants.

28

2.5.2

Transcription

Each interview was transcribed verbatim and returned to the participants to ensure that
they were not misquoted or misrepresented in the research (Hay 2003). Any notes that had been
manually hand-written were typed and attached to the records of their respective interviews.
Each participant was emailed or mailed a copy of the final interview transcript and asked to
review the transcript to ensure accurate transcription (Place 2007; Hay 2003). Respondents were
given up to fourteen days to review their transcribed interview. I received 6 confirmations about
interview content, at least one from each group interviewed. One respondent requested to remain
anonymous after having reviewed their transcript.

2.5.3 Coding
After conducting the interviews, I used content analysis to identify dominant themes
within and among the interview transcripts.
These themes included:
1) the hoped-for and realised focus and objectives of participating in the Guardians Pilot
Program;
2) the ability of Guardians generally and the Guardians Pilot Program in particular to
help groups to achieve self-determination and reconciliation;
3) barriers to the implementation of their Guardians program and application process to
the Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program, if any;
4) associated non-monetary benefits to participating in the Guardians Pilot Program;
5) anticipated and delivered community benefits; and
6) external benefits of such programs including influences on other management
regimes (e.g., Environmental Assessment).
I identified these themes with recommendations from the framework of “The Aboriginal
Forest Planning Process” developed by Karjala et al. (2003) that reflected on the values of
Indigenous peoples and, in particular, the interaction between those values and natural resource
29

management (Karjala et al 2003). This guide provides the following questions to consider when
researching and analyzing primary and secondary documents related to Indigenous forest
management: “What things related to the land are important to people in the community? What
are community member’s concerns about how the land is managed? What solutions are they
offering to address some of the problems on the land and in the community?” (Karjala et al.
2003, 52).
Similarly, I used the content analysis process formulated by Sherry and Karjala (2003) to
allow themes to emerge from the data among the transcripts. This process is implemented in a
series of steps including:
-

Using semi-structured interviews to collect data.

-

Transcribing the interviews in preparation for coding.

-

Reviewing all of the transcripts multiple times as well as employing an external reviewer
to offer a second perspective.

-

Categorizing information into categories and themes that are consistent with the semistructured interview or the broader goals of the research.

-

Coding each theme and sub-theme, then using these codes to create categories and
summarize the data.

-

Finally, compare and contrast the recurring themes among the interviews in order to
identify consistent patterns amongst the interviews.

Coding qualitative research is described by Elliott (2018) as “a fundamental aspect of the
analytical process and the ways in which researchers break down their data to make something
new” (2850). The process of coding interview text requires the dissection of collected materials

30

to then analyze each aspect of the text more closely and finally decide how the data fits in the
context of the research (Elliott 2018). Coding is a necessary step in the research process because
text data are often dense and content-heavy, therefore requiring an intentional attempt to clarify
and determine the aspects contributing to the data and answers given by respondents (Creswell
2015).
I coded the transcripts manually and without automated software. I began the coding process
by generating as many codes as needed in order to classify each aspect of the interview transcript
to “ensure that the process was creative and exploratory” (Karjala and Sherry 2005, 6). Then, I
compiled the codes into 10 major themes and sub-themes and assigned each theme an indicator
code number. The definition and identification of relevant themes was executed with an
inductive approach allowing the results to emerge from the data (Strauss and Corbin 1998;
Thomas 2006) as it was based on the study objectives, but evolved as the participants informed
my understanding of Guardians programs. I highlighted sections of the transcript with various
colours and assigned each colour an indicator code representing a different theme. By using this
annotated approach, I was able to make the content more visible. This also allowed me to
identify relevant quotes that were directly inserted into my results section (Karjala and Sherry
2005).

2.5.4 Ethical Considerations
While conducting my research, I completed the Tri-Council Policy Statement of ‘ethical
conduct for research involving humans course on research ethics’, provided by the Government
of Canada’s Panel on Research Ethics. Additionally, my proposal underwent review by the
UNBC Research Ethics Board.

31

When conducting interviews I ensured that I presented the questions in a clear and
transparent manner while also maintaining the privacy of my participants. Information letters and
consent forms were sent to interviewees with adequate time to review them prior to the
interview. The information letter outlined the goals of the research, how the interviews were used
in the research, and how the research would contribute to our understanding of Guardians
Programs. The consent form stated clearly that the interview was voluntary and confidential, and
that the process could be terminated at any point. Also, should the participant wish to withdraw
from the research, the form mentioned that their contributions would not be used for the project.
The consent form also detailed how the data would be stored and how I would ensure the
confidentiality of the participants. In addition to providing this information in written form, I
reviewed the consent form and the process of confidentiality with the participant prior to each
interview. This allowed the participant to inform me of any concerns they may have had with the
interview or publication of their contribution, and for me to accommodate those concerns.

32

Chapter 3- Results and Discussion
3.1 Communications and participation rate
Due to the early stages of the Canadian Government’s Indigenous Guardians Pilot
Program, the majority of Guardians groups explained that they were not prepared to participate
in my research as they did not have adequate time to establish their programs since receiving the
federal funding. Therefore, it could be beneficial to conduct additional research of Guardians
programs in future years, after the programs have become more established. Those groups that
did agree to participate have been conducting natural resources based management programs
alongside partner organizations prior to receiving the federal funding for a Guardians program;
that could have contributed to their willingness to participate.
I used email to contact 29 of the 33 Guardians programs listed on the Indigenous
Guardians Pilot Program Map (Government of Canada, 2021). I did not contact several listed
programs because I could not locate their contact information online. This information may have
been difficult to find because broadband infrastructure is not always available to rural Indigenous
communities.
Originally, I planned to interview representatives of 10 Guardians programs. I had hoped
that those programs would represent the geographic extent of programs supported through the
Canadian government’s pilot funding (Figure 1). In total, I interviewed nine participants from
five First Nation groups whose territories fall within the provinces of British Columbia and
Manitoba and who have received funding from the Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program (Figure
1).
Upon reviewing the transcripts, one of the participants requested anonymity within the
research results. Additionally, in attempts to record a telephone conversation, I incorrectly used a
33

recording application on my personal smart phone which resulted in the loss of one interview
from the Bloodvein River First Nation. To rectify this issue, I summarized the notes that I had
recorded during our conversation and returned them for approval and clarification. While that
contribution informed my analyses, I did not include that response in my data section for fear of
misrepresenting what the respondent said during the interview.
I conducted six interviews with a total of nine participants. The roles of the nine
participants included Land Guardian, Co-Chair of the Board of Directors, Fisheries Manager,
Natural Resources Manager, an Environmental Consultant for the Ditidaht First Nation, a
Guardians Coordinator, an Archaeologist, and a Title and Rights Coordinator (Table 1).
Commonly, the interviewees served multiple roles in addition to being involved directly in the
development, management, or activities of the Nation’s Guardians program. The expectation that
staff would fill multiple roles was often a result of limited capacity or funding within their
organisations.
Prior to collecting data, I encountered a number of challenges to communicating with and
identifying Guardians programs. First, a lack of functional or accessible broadband infrastructure
is a known barrier that limits communication and other online activities of rural and Indigenous
communities across Canada (McMahon 2011).
As a second challenge, I was unable to determine the length of time that each Guardians
program had been in operation or received funding from the Canadian Government’s Indigenous
Guardians Pilot Program. I attempted to contact federal government staff with the pilot program,
however I did not receive a response from their office. As a solution, I included a question about
“program age to date” in my semi-structured interview guide.

34

In reply to my invitation, I received a range of responses from representatives of
Guardians programs. Of the 29 programs that I contacted, 6 agreed to participate in my study.
One of those 6 programs required an additional research permit that I could not accommodate
due to time constraints. Of those programs that chose to not participate, some respondents
mentioned that they would have liked to participate but they did not have the capacity or time,
some programs did not respond at all, and some mentioned that, because they had only just
received funding for their program, they did not believe they would be an asset to my research.
Additionally, Guardians programs located in the North, specifically Inuvialuit, required a review
and permit for all land and community-based projects (Aurora Research Institute 2019). I did
undergo the application process for a research permit, but due to time constraints, I did not end
up interviewing any northern communities or governments.
Three of the interviews I conducted included two to three people, while the other
interviews involved the participation of one representative of the Guardians program.
Interviewing multiple people at one time brought a diversity of perspectives and reduced the
burden on the participating Nation by demanding less of their time. However, such group
interviews could also have been dominated by individual participants. Data collected with group
interviews may not have been representative of each individual in the group.
3.2 Accessing the Canadian Government’s Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program
Three representatives of the Guardians programs that I interviewed reported that the
application for the Canadian Government’s Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program funding was
relatively easy to prepare and broad enough to incorporate their specific goals for guardians. Of
particular note, participants were appreciative that the Guardians pilot program was spearhead by

35

the Indigenous Leadership Initiative (ILI). Ray Rabliauskas of Poplar River First Nation
explained the significance of this participation:
The Indigenous Leadership Initiative that’s out of Ottawa... It’s an organization
that lobbied the federal government for a very, very long time for Guardians programs,
Guardian funding and they still do. They helped… or they developed the actual
application for the Guardians funding. So, it was very easy to follow. We had no trouble
at all. (Ray Rabliauskas, Poplar River First Nation).
Rabliauskas went on to further explain that the ILI consisted of Indigenous people from
across Canada. He suggested that amalgamation of such a broad range of experiences was likely
responsible for program goals and an application process that was general enough to meet the
needs of the diversity of Indigenous communities from across the country:
The ILI and the people that are in that are from across Canada. They’re not
just… they’re from Ottawa, there’s some from B.C., there’s some from Alberta… and
Labrador. They’re from all across Canada. And I know it’s a federal government
program but from what we saw was that the federal government was involved with the
ILI. That it was, basically, (the government) had one person. And so (the ILI) developed
the whole project. They decided how to spend it on there together. So, it was pretty much
Indigenous led, the whole process. (Ray Rabliauskas, Poplar River First Nation).
Although not all study participants were directly involved in writing the proposal, none
cited federal requirements for receiving the funding as a barrier or restriction to participating in
the pilot program. Whitney Spearing from Williams Lake First Nation explained her perspective
of the program funding:
It basically is kind of take it and make it what you make it. So, I think very much
so that it’s malleable so that Nations can take it and make it what they need it to be in
their unique circumstances and their cultural circumstances, too. (Whitney Spearing,
Williams Lake First Nation).

36

3.3 Objectives and goals of participating in the Guardians pilot program
The literature provides a relatively narrow review of the expectations and outcomes of
Guardians programs. In most cases, Guardians are expected to protect or manage Indigenous
lands in the context of tourism or development (Reed et al. 2020). When asked about their
perspective of a successful program, the participants of my study reported that Guardians were
expected to address a broad range of outcomes for their communities. Outcomes included
maintaining and caring for the land; reporting back to the community on the health of the
territory and the development of any projects occurring on the land; and facilitating the education
of youth by community Elders and ensuring the continuation of Indigenous culture for future
generations. The following quotes from the Williams Lake First Nation and Poplar River First
Nation exemplify the wide range of expectations that were reported by the study participants:
The general definition for me is the establishment of people who work for the
nation or a collective of Nations, who are out on the land and filling a variety of roles…
it’s a land-based recording, reporting and general health of the territory. (Whitney
Spearing, Williams Lake First Nation).
For me, the Guardianship program definition would be… doing a variety of
things within the nation. Not just sort of natural resource bound tasks. I think that’s a big
part of it but I also think getting them present in youth camps and Elders trips and things.
Just having a presence overall within the community is a really big thing for me and just
making the community aware of who our Guardians are and that it’s an overall, holistic,
position, I think. (Julia Flinton, Williams Lake First Nation).
(A Guardian is) Somebody who can represent the community that can help spread
awareness for the land and with the Poplar River… land management plan. (Norway
Rabliauskas, Poplar River First Nation).
3.4 Environmental protection and stewarding
I found that Guardians programs were required to facilitate and manage a broad range of
projects and activities that included environmental monitoring; emergency services for fires,
37

flooding, and the global pandemic; archeological excavations; administrative work and training
of staff involved in a number of activities; lobbying the government for increased territorial
rights and environmental protection; constructing proper infrastructure; acting as guides for
private companies; and policing against poachers, uninformed visitors, and polluters. All of these
activities required an understanding and knowledge of the territory that Indigenous Guardians
had gained through increased time spent on the land. In Poplar River First, Nation, as well as the
Ditidaht First Nation, Elders came to the current Guardians and Natural Resources stewards to
let them know that their territories needed to be properly managed by the community:
The Elders talked to us years ago about caring for the land that went to the newer
generations… Need to do something to make sure that… it would stay the way it is, clean
and pristine for the future. And things have changed a lot. It used to be, with colonization
and assimilation, there were lots of changes made to a lot of the way things were taught.
Passed on from generation to generation. They don’t exist the same way anymore. To get
back on the land and start doing that again. To work with people to work with their youth
to help them to understand why the land is important. (Ray Rabliauskas, Poplar River
First Nation)
In addition, Melba Green of Bloodvein River First Nation mentioned the importance of
caring for the land:
We are keepers of the land, Anishinaabe people. We’ve been, always been, the
Guardians of our lands in Bloodvein or anywhere else… Anishinaabe land on Turtle
Island (Melba Green, Bloodvein River First Nation).

38

With both increased knowledge of ways to identify environmental degradation and
experience of how to safely navigate interactions with the land, Indigenous Guardians could lead
cooperative projects focused on the health of their territory. Melba Green suggested that
environmental knowledge and respect for the land could be passed on through an educational
aspect of Guardians programs and explained the role that Guardians could play in such a
collaboration:
The Guardians could share, you know, their ideas and concerns about being out
in the land and then, advices, like you know… look out for the land and make sure you
show respect when you go out there, too. Because you never know what will happen.
Even experienced hunters and trappers have accidents when they are out there on the
land. So safety is another issue for us Guardians. (Melba Green, Bloodvein River First
Nation).
If you’ve seen something wrong with the trees then right away I’ll try to work with
the other groups and see if there’s something wrong with our trees with what’s going on.
Then we’ll look for other people to try and work with us. Like, maybe conservation or any
scientists to evaluate what’s wrong with, just an example… trees. (Melba Green,
Bloodvein River First Nation).
In addition to leading environmental management projects, Norway Rabliauskas
explained the role that Guardians could play in monitoring the impacts of visitors on their
territory:
(The community doesn’t) want to see outsiders coming into our area. Especially
hunting like moose … sometimes it does happen and we don’t even really know about it
or there’s like crews on during the winter on the road doing projects, you know… we
don’t really know who’s part of these teams or where they’re going or how they’re doing
it. And I think for the program to help and try to stop some of that from happening.
(Norway Rabliauskas, Poplar River First Nation).

39

Norway and Ray Rabliauskas gave an example of a situation where the Guardians spotted
an outsider who was participating in harmful environmental activities and how the Guardians
made the visitor aware of the potential harm:
There’s a contractor who was in here, it was not far from the community, that was
hauling sand away and we didn’t even know they were here. They didn’t ask anybody and
they made a mistake. And the community likes that, now, when that happens… like,
Norway went out there with the councillors and they spoke to them and they made sure
that everything… and they did come to an agreement to let them know that they couldn’t
just do it, what they wanted to do. And that’s what really, really bothers the community is
that when they lose control over that territory. (Ray Rabliauskas, Poplar River First
Nation).
This is one example of where Indigenous Guardians prevented a harmful environmental
activity before it occurred. This was facilitated through direct intervention with a visitor, but
could take a more pre-emptive form in educational awareness programs facilitated by the
Indigenous Guardians or by having Guardians at the forefront of natural resources management
activities.

3.5 Bringing the culture back to the community and the incorporation of youth into the
Guardians Programs
The presence of Guardians on the land was explained as not only beneficial in ensuring
visitors behave respectfully when visiting the territory, but also to bring the community back out
on the land. Whitney Spearing from Williams Lake First Nation shared that:
I do feel like the more people who are out on the land and who work on the land
are more prone to reconnect to the culture and language pieces… and they’re more likely
to sort of pass it on to their children and families. So, re-engaging in those cultural
pieces that have lost—that’s huge. That’s key. Involving Elders where they otherwise
maybe would not have been I think is a real benefit and having the youth be able to work
with the Elders, as well. (Whitney Spearing, Williams Lake First Nation).

40

Research participants reported that bringing the culture back to the community was an
important element of the Guardians’ work. Julia Flinton, who not only worked with the Williams
Lake First Nation’s Guardians program but also with their Title and Rights program, mentioned
that:
The last five years, I would say, has been really focused on bringing the culture
back to the community. I know within WLFN we have a cultural coordinator and he does
stuff regularly with Elders and the men’s group…The teachers at the primary school are
very culturally rooted… (they) make a point to take those kids out and take them out with
some Elders and take them out doing some berry picking and some traditional
harvesting… we have our language program, we have a language coordinator… and
she’s been involved in that. (Julia Flinton, Williams Lake First Nation).
Seven participants emphasized the importance of incorporating youth in the Guardians
programs. They reported that such activities played a key role in reconnecting or maintaining
connections between community members and their Indigenous culture. Those 7 participants
also noted that facilitating and engaging in education is one of the many roles that Guardians
play in their community. Their youth outreach initiatives included facilitating culture camps and
visiting the local high schools to give presentations about their Guardians program. There were
other programs that brought Elders and youth together on the land. As noted by Guardian Ray
Rabliauskas of the Poplar River First Nation:
We go with Elders and the Elders teach. They teach about why the land is
important. They help with the language and they show them their territory, with the
traditional names that are there… the main is to show… and our young people don’t
understand that anymore— That we need to get them to be able to take over when there’s
nobody else around to do it. And it’s not just something that… they need to understand it
and love it.

41

Exchanging and passing traditional knowledge from Elders to future generations was
reported as a way in which these First Nations communities maintained their culture. Melba
Green recounted how family members passed along their knowledge to her:
Why I was interested is because I learned a few things from my father when we
used to go to the trap line when we were kids. And I’ve seen a lot of things with my mum.
That too, with taking care of the kids, like us. And then, when I had that knowledge with
me being a Guardian is to do the best we can to protect our areas, our lands.
Especially… our biggest enemies are the poachers… the illegal hunters.(Melba Green,
Bloodvein River First Nation).
Green explained that, for upcoming young generations, it’s “their turn” to learn about the
land and act as stewards for their traditional territories:
For the youth to start, you know, to start looking at our areas—their turn. But,
they have to learn from us, as well. That’s why I go to the school when they ask me if I
wanna do a presentation or workshop—I’ll go. Then I’ll start talking about the Guardian
program that I’m working for and then I tell them, like, what’s the things that we have to
do… we have to watch out for the land and anything wrong out there or a dead carcass
somewhere. (Melba Green, Bloodvein River First Nation).
However, getting youth engaged in environmental stewarding initiatives has proven to be
difficult for some Guardians programs, according to participant accounts shared in this project.
For example, Whitney Spearing recounted her experience of hiring youth:
For any sort of profession that’s based in the bush, like actually out in the forest
or in a stream or in a boat, we have very little uptake from younger people. Not just
members, not just community members… across the board. So, when we post positions
for archaeology or for forestry, we have people who are applying from, like Victoria,
Ontario, you know, and they’re people who, they’re already in natural resources, already
have a background where they want to become involved in it. But, trying to get youth
organized and championing for programs that are actually out in the bush is really hard
to do… they’re expecting a desk-based job or working with IT a lot, crunching with ipads and lots of the stuff that we do is that, but it can be extremely hard to find someone
who will really stand the test of time in that. (Whitney Spearing, Williams Lake First
Nation).

42

Two participants noted that a lack of mentors was one of the reasons why it was difficult
to connect youth with natural resource or land-based activities. Whitney Spearing and Julia
Flinton explained:
We have two youth members who are community members and they work with us.
Interestingly, both of their parents work for us and they’re in the older bracket and so
they’ve kind of come along behind their parents and sort of started with us and they are
younger… 18 and 19. (Whitney Spearing, Williams Lake First Nation)
And their parents have definitely given them that nudge to do that. So, I think
when you get the youth that might not have that paternal support behind them, which is
often, you don’t necessarily… get into the programs just because they may not know and
they may not have the push behind them. (Julia Flinton, Williams Lake First Nation).
The lack of mentorship expressed by the respondents could be attributed to the
intergenerational trauma that has come as a result of the colonization of Indigenous people in
both the United States and Canada (Dupuis-Rossi 2021). Intergenerational trauma has occurred
in Indigenous families whose ancestors and relatives have been victims of violent assimilation
strategies including residential schools and the “Sixties Scoop” (Middelton-Moz et al. 2021).
Residential schools required the removal of Indigenous children, as young as three, from
their homes to attend schools specifically aimed at assimilating the children to the colonizer’s
culture. Children were not allowed to speak their own language, engage in the cultural practices
of their families, and were subject to daily racism and cultural shaming as well as physical and
sexual abuse (Bombay et al. 2020). After the residential schools began closing in Canada, an
additional mass removal of children from their communities and families occurred, and has been
classified as the “Sixties Scoop”. This involved Canadian government officials removing
Indigenous children from their homes and placing them into the foster care system where
children were then re-homed to predominantly white households (Bombay et al. 2014).

43

These historical occurrences could have created a generational gap between Indigenous
Elders and youth. Julia Flinton spoke briefly to this issue during the interview with Williams
Lake First Nation:
Yeah it’s definitely something interesting to think about… but with that in mind,
like we’ve definitely— we have some things in the works on title and rights to kind of
combat that I think… and it’s just a matter of reaching out to that age group and get them
motivated to get involved. That’s the biggest thing. They’re kind of at the age where the
choice is theirs to get involved so, yeah I dunno. I think once they hit like 30 (one could
be)…disconnected and running wild and now (they are) definitely more rooted within
(their) culture and getting back to it a lot. (Julia Flinton, Williams Lake First Nation).
Successful Guardians programs led by Indigenous community members have the
potential to inspire others to become more involved in cultural initiatives and develop
community uptake in the Guardians program—a notion that Julia Flinton speaks more to in
section 3.9.1.

3.6 Contemporary systemic barriers
All of the participants mentioned systemic barriers to the broader success of their
Guardians programs that were largely the result of historical occurrences of colonialism in
Canada. Systemic, contemporary colonialism has been described by Lindroth et al. (2018) as
“openly unequal structures of domination, limited freedoms for some and a requirement that
those under colonial rule adjust to the existing conditions in order to survive”. Historical
colonialism in Canada not only included the cultural genocide conducted through residential
schools and the “Sixties Scoop” but also the forced integration of Indigenous people into the
western culture. In addition to forced cultural integration, there is also a lack of recognition by
Canadian governments and settler communities that Indigenous Nations are sovereign entities,
therefore creating power imbalances in political decision-making processes (Hanrahan 2017).

44

Hanrahan (2017) argued that the exclusion of Indigenous people from the Canadian
identity is integral in that “such exclusion is necessary for the successful maintenance of what
constitutes both Canadian national identity and the neo-liberal Canadian state”. The continued
exclusion of Indigenous people from political systems was voiced in the responses from
participants. Inadequate funding and exclusion from decision-making processes were given as
examples of barriers despite recent strides, such as British Columbia’s Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples Act, that have been made to include Indigenous people in political
decision-making processes.

3.7 Inadequate Funding
Eight participants reported that additional and long-term funding was necessary for the
success of their Guardians programs. Sustainable funding would be over a greater period and
with more certainty than expected from a “pilot program”. That perspective was clearly revealed
by the responses of representatives from three Guardians Programs:
For us Natives… we go out all the time. It’s just a natural thing for us. But, to
work for Guardians for the community … the funding is the one that will keep this
program going. (Melba Green, Bloodvein River First Nation).
I think the biggest one for us is definitely funding. The pilot program is a great
start, but we definitely had some internal conversations about how it probably wasn’t
enough to make it feasible. (Julia Flinton, Williams Lake First Nation).
The biggest thing that we are always struggling with is funding. We need funds to
properly run the Guardian program … Ideally, we’d want our Guardians to do training,
to have boats and motors, skidoo’s so they can get out on the land and do the technical
knowledge and the understanding.(Ray Rabliauskas, Poplar River First Nation).
The Canadian Government’s Indigenous Guardians pilot program provided $25 million
over four years for 33 programs. Participants noted that they thought the pilot program funding
was a good place to start but that it was not enough to achieve the long-term goals of a successful
45

program. However, Whitney Spearing mentioned that without the initial funding from the
Canadian Government, a Guardians program for Williams Lake First Nation would not have
been feasible.
We wouldn’t have had a Guardianship program if we hadn’t received the funding.
That would have been a—like to kick off a program from scratch with no funding
probably wouldn’t have happened. Or, at least it wouldn’t have happened until sometime
in the future. (Whitney Spearing, Williams Lake First Nation).
Alternatively, Julia Flinton explained that the funding was inadequate to employ
Guardians and purchase the equipment necessary to implement the projects that were required to
ensure the health of the territory. That lack of funding limited hiring and training of new
members of the Williams Lake First Nation’s Guardians program:
To get (a Guardians program) off the ground it’s really tough just because you’re
trying to train the next people to be the mentors for… the next set of guardians and
there’s not necessarily enough money… in the pilot program specifically, to support that,
especially if you add training into the mix… I didn’t even mention the cost of training and
getting those people trained for the appropriate stuff is— especially if they come in and
are just green. Like, they have no background in anything. That’s a lot of training there
to go through and so, that’s a cost as well. (Julia Flinton, Williams Lake First Nation).

46

Ray Rabliauskas mentioned limitations in the pilot program funding that were counter to
the Canadian Government’s vague, initial goal to “provide Indigenous Peoples with a greater
opportunity to exercise responsibility in stewardship of their traditional lands, waters, and ice”
(Government of Canada 2020). Rabliauskas explained that without adequate staffing, equipment
and training, Guardians programs cannot address the numerous issues that face the Nations.
Insufficient staffing was a particular challenge, as a number of participants noted that there was
insufficient capacity to monitor their large territories.
Our territory is big, eh? Like, I don’t know… two million acres? It takes a long
time to travel… by water. And there’s large areas to look at. People aren’t trapping or
travelling like they used to, so (our Elders) told us that we had to kind of re-establish a
presence on that land to show people that we were looking after it, especially the
government, that we were looking after it. (Ray Rabliauskas, Poplar River First Nation)
These sentiments were also echoed by participants from Williams Lake First Nation:
In our area, our incremental tree line is so huge that that also plays a part.
There’s just so much area to cover. Whereas, like, down on the coast, it’s kind of a
smaller piece that’s wide open. There’s so many people and people everywhere.
Whereas, up here, you don’t have cell service ten minutes outside Williams Lake all the
way to Bella Coola. So, I think that also plays a part. Remoteness and accessibility. (Julia
Flinton, Williams Lake First Nation).
A number of participants also identified the short-term funding window as a problem.
The Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program, in itself, has an expiry date of four years past the initial
funding distributed in 2017. Indigenous groups understand that such funding may not continue
into the future. Ray Rabliauskas explained his program’s frustration working with limited-term,
pilot funding:
We’re fortunate right now. We have funds from the federal government and the
Indigenous Leadership Initiative funds for our Guardians program, but it’s limited. It’s
only for three years. So, trying to get funds for the next hurdle at the moment. It’s
continuous. It’s hard to plan when you’re not so sure you’re gonna be around. (Ray
Rabliauskas, Poplar River First Nation).

47

For some, the lack of long-term and consistent funding called into question the
government’s commitment to supporting Indigenous Guardians and other programs meant to
address reconciliation. This perspective was reflected by Paul Sieber of the Ditidaht First Nation:
The biggest thing is the federal and the B.C. government needs to acknowledge
that (they) haven’t been taking care of the land or water in the past 200 years or so… and
B.C. has acknowledged UNDRIP, so… and they’re making a little bit of planning in
different areas but very slow. And I don’t know if they’re really serious about… working
with First Nations on resources protection (or) proper funding. (Paul Siber, Ditidaht First
Nation)
Participants also noted that it is difficult to recruit and retain staff to support programs
when the funding is limited in scope and longevity. The short-term duration of the pilot program
funding prevents long-term commitments to staff interested in contributing to the First Nations’
Guardians programs. Whitney Spearing explained the hesitancy involved in hiring new staff
without the ability to offer them a commitment for long-term employment:
So, the question too is finding that right person requires that we’re selfsustainable but also, the longevity of the program as well. Because if you’re going to find
that correct person who’s from the Nation and invest in them the time and the training
and energy to get them really going. They also want to know that there’s longevity in the
program. They’re stepping into a position where they’re like, well is this going to be six
months while we have funding or is this going to be the next… 20 years of my life where
I’m really gonna dedicate my schooling and my professional designations towards this
professional endeavour. (Whitney Spearing, Williams Lake First Nation).
While the funding is not guaranteed in upcoming years, First Nations communities have
tapped into resources from other programs in hopes of making their Guardians programs selfsustaining. Participants referenced efforts to find additional longer term funding to maintain their
Guardians program. Julia Flinton from Williams Lake First Nation explains:
We’ve made it work… we have a natural resource department that’s involved in
forestry and various aspects of forestry such as logging, beetle probing, you name it. And
the Borland Creek, our logging company, in correlation with the NR (Natural Resources)
department, does that. We also have a lot of work on reserve right now. In terms of
emergency services and flooding. We have wildfires and so, we’ve tied the Guardians

48

into those different pieces such as that and we’ve made it work. (Julia Flinton, Williams
Lake First Nation).
3.8 Flexibility in Funding Support – COVID-19 as a Barrier
In addition to challenges and constraints associated with the design of the pilot program,
the current COVID-19 era, and related impacts and uncertainties, has influenced how
participants can access and spend funding. For example, social distancing, the lack of face-toface meetings, and lockdown orders prevented some of the Guardian groups from starting their
programs. COVID-19 slowed the implementation of the Williams Lake First Nation’s Guardians
program. Whitney Spearing explained:
The biggest thing for us this year obviously has been Covid. It has been a huge
restriction and so we’ve had to be super creative with what we’ve been able to deliver
and with the Guardians program… If we have a program that’s ongoing… beetle probing
or we’re doing some forestry… we will send someone to do a site visit. So, we’ve sort of
used that as our Guardians program for the year. But, we haven’t been able to hire a
person, which is a huge limitation. Finding that person has just kind of been a struggle,
again with Covid, finding the right person. (Whitney Spearing, Williams Lake First
Nation)
Spearing went on to explain how the lockdown orders limited the abilities of the
Guardians and individuals from the Nation’s Natural Resources department to conduct
environmental stewardship initiatives:
Covid has been an issue. Finding new and creative ways to do the monitoring that
needs to occur and do the Guardianship work that needs to occur when we can’t work in
groups or work in bubbles… it’s not good to work by yourself in the bush, but we’ve had
to do it several times this year because it is what it is… There’s a couple of activities,
like… (the) moose count and sheep count, like the wildlife population counts, that
happened and we would have been really involved with as Guardians, but the provincial
government have said you’re not allowed to come along. Our Covid policy disallows
that… it’s really just a terrible time to sort of launch this program and say, here it is—
we’re not sure what you can do with it, kind of thing. (Whitney Spearing, Williams Lake
First Nation).

49

Going forward, Spearing would like to see their Guardians program continue to receive
funding and support from the government to help in overcoming barriers like Covid-19 and
eventually become self-sufficient:
Really pushing and needling at government and making sure that we have some
supports underneath it is going to be like imperative for it to be a long standing program
(Whitney Spearing, Williams Lake First Nation).
3.9 Lack of proper recognition as a sovereign nation
3.9.1 Indigenous Led
While the role of the Guardians program is to “provide Indigenous Peoples with a greater
opportunity to exercise responsibility in stewardship of their traditional lands, waters, and ice”
(Government of Canada 2020) the Indigenous Guardians programs can also bring additional
benefits and opportunities. For example, participating in such programs can contribute to healing
from some of the impacts of colonialism including intergenerational trauma and cultural loss. By
acting as guides, one anonymous respondent noted that Indigenous Guardians help to create
culturally safe spaces on the land to help families connect with the Creator and the earth. This
approach has also been introduced in literature that discusses trauma informed healing for
Indigenous spiritual healing in the social sciences (Middleton-Moz et al. 2021).
Guardians programs can also contribute to the encouragement of Indigenous people to
“reconstitute power relationships and thus support Indigenous governance” (Reed et al. 2020,
186). Those efforts could support Indigenous-led environmental management programs. The
right of First Nations communities to steward their traditional territories is not only mentioned in
the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People but also in the 2015 Canadian
Truth and Reconciliation Report (Denis and Bailey 2016).

50

Ray Rabliauskas explained the generational effects that colonialism has had on his
community, and, in turn, his community’s Guardians program:
It’s not so much the colonialism, itself. It’s the effects… the generational effects of
it that have… the way things have been done for thousands of years… that’s changed and
they don’t exist as strongly as they were before. They (our Elders) came and told us what
we needed to do. That we needed to kind of take back control over the traditional
territory cause the province was doing it and the industry was trying to do things… there
was no decisions made by the people in the community. …I’ve got this program and our
lands plan have brought that back already. The fact that it’s a continual struggle by the
community is trying to be in a position where they can make decisions that needed to look
after the land. And it’s not just the land. It’s the people and the youth and the whole
process of understanding the land and caring for the land. (Ray Rabliauskas, Poplar
River First Nation)
Two participants reported that the Indigenous Guardians program could potentially help
communities self-govern and manage the natural resources on their traditional territories because
the program requires building on TEK and being out on the land. Melba Green explained:
Guardians would be a big help to work with that self-governance. Like, when we
go out there, well when I go out there, I check all over the land—well not all over the
area. As far as I can go, anyway. And I… we try to stick with the protocols that Bloodvein
has and within the land use plan that we have. And that’s our backup is the land use plan
that we have for Bloodvein land use management. (Melba Green, Bloodvein River First
Nation)
The importance of Indigenous people leading natural resources management initiatives is
not only for the recognition, application and practice of Indigenous Traditional Knowledge, but
also to instill confidence in the communities that are spear-heading management of their lands
and waters. Julia Flinton explained the importance having the community support their
Guardians program:
I definitely agree with the Indigenous-led. I think the community definitely needs
to buy into a program such as Guardians because without the buy-in and support from
the community, overall you’re not going to get the succession and the capacity that
you’re looking to build off of it. If you don’t have the buy-in then you’re not going to get
the youth within the community that are in the High Schools in town participating in the
programs that may be intro to Guardians or Junior Guardian type programs that we’re
51

looking at implementing within the high schools here. They’re not even going to bother if
they don’t see the Guardians out and about and that ties into the presence and then
they’re also not gonna buy in… if they don’t believe in the program overall. (Julia
Flinton, Williams Lake First Nation)
Hesitancy of Indigenous community members to participate in the Guardians program
could come as a result of mistrust instilled by negative past experiences with government or
industry (Beausoleil et al. 2021). These negative experiences have included exclusion from the
decision-making and benefits associated with natural resources projects (Fernandez-Llamazares
et al. 2020), and the negative effects of such projects relative to cultural or community values
(Dennis et al. 2015).

3.9.2 Guardians Facilitating Indigenous Decision Making
The Canadian Government’s Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program funding encourages
Indigenous Nations to steward and manage their lands. However, Indigenous governments face
additional barriers from the provincial and municipal governments as well as private land owners
that restrict the Guardians from accessing their traditional territories. Contemporary governance
of private and Crown lands limits the work and monitoring by the Guardians as well as the
ability of Indigenous governments to make decisions about how natural resources should be
managed. As explained by Whitney Spearing, Williams Lake First Nation:
It’s that effectiveness portion comes from being able to implement those land
management strategies, or wildlife management strategies, whatever they are. Being free
to implement those strategies within the, like the construct of provincial, federal
government, within those… like you say, the barriers. So yeah, in order to be effective it
has to incorporate a feedback mechanism as well to those government bodies. And it has
to be really Indigenous led and Indigenous… like it needs to be fulfilled by the
Indigenous community. There’s no point in having a Guardians program that’s not
fulfilled by the nation itself. (Whitney Spearing, Williams Lake First Nation)

52

Restrictive legislation enacted by the provincial governments was reported by at least one
participant in all of the participating programs. This restriction resulted in barriers for the
Guardians program including lack of access to traditional territories. Whitney Spearing
explained:
We’re attempting to steward some of the range issues to do with traditional plants
and to do with invasive species and archaeology impacts and things like that. Meanwhile,
the provincial government is working on a system where we no longer get range
referrals. Like they’re working in a sort of counter direction. So, it’s really not comanagement even though we have a government agreement. (Whitney Spearing,
Williams Lake First Nation)
In addition, the Government of Canada’s Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program was
highlighted as unable to address the gaps in government legislation that would allow the
Guardians to carry out the goals of their program. Whitney Spearing explained:
It’s great that the program is broad and the funding is broad, but we almost need
a strategy between the closest levels of government. It’s the regional staff and the
regional industry partners and pulling of those people in to make it successful… it’s fair
to throw federal money at these things but we really need uptake of the people who are
regional or else it just won’t hold water. (Whitney Spearing, Williams Lake First Nation)
However, for Williams Lake First Nation, it’s not only the other levels of government
who are restricting their program, but also resistance from some elements of the surrounding
non-Indigenous community:
There’s definitely a lot of push back and a lot of politics with having Guardians
on the land. Like, in Williams Lake we definitely have a large contingent of old school
families that definitely have owned their land for a long time. And so, it makes it very
adversarial in some places and so there’s hesitancy to put people in a position where
they would be not safe in their work environment. (Whitney Spearing, Williams Lake
First Nation)
Indigenous Guardians programs want to be recognized as legitimate environmental
stewards by other governments and private actors so that they can participate in conversations
surrounding natural resources and the protection of the environment. Mike Wright was hired as

53

an environmental consultant for the Ditidaht First Nation over four decades ago in hopes of
developing collaborative relationships that would assist with the management of watersheds in
the Ditidaht territory. Wright was asked by the Ditidaht representatives to be included in the
conversation surrounding their Guardians. He explained the difficulties that the Ditidaht have
faced under colonial rule:
The Nations have been trying for forever, since colonialism started. I mean,
they’ve been trying to have influence in how people listen to what their needs are and
how… governments of the day, and that, could be better managing the resources, but you
know, it’s like talking to a wall. They never got a response. And I certainly don’t know
what that response with the Guardian program is going to be in the future. How much
influence the Nations are going to have, so that’s going to be a challenge. (Mike Wright,
Mike Wright and Associates)
While the Indigenous Guardians program is a step in the right direction for reconciliation
and regaining Indigenous sovereignty, Whitney Spearing argued there was still a lot of work that
needed to be done:
I think that there has to be a lot of change especially with the implementation of
DRIPA (B.C. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act) and the TRC calls to
action, like there needs to be some systemic change in the government to allow those
stewardship activities to happen. If you look at a nation like Haida where they really do
have a very successful government to government relationship and they really do have
the ability to steward their land, then you compare it to a more rural place… well I guess
it’s not more rural. Haida Gwaii is fairly rural, but it’s very different. The dynamics are
different. I think that the Guardianship program is sort of the acting arm where it also
needs a different arm to sort of politically shepherd these things through. (Whitney
Spearing, Williams Lake First Nation)
However, the ingrained colonial values are instilled in the settler community as well as
the provincial laws that restrict Indigenous communities from regaining their sovereignty.
Whitney Spearing shared her experience:
There’s a lot of deeply ingrained racism and colonial values that are still very
much there. So, I think while the Guardians program has some work to do, it’s incumbent
on this area, this district, the public here, through like all of the means that we have, to
change those things so that a program like Guardians will be successful. (Whitney
Spearing, Williams Lake First Nation)
54

3.10 Collaboration for Shared Goals
Four participants recognised that cross-cultural collaboration could be facilitated by their
Guardians program. That included collaboration with non-Indigenous and other Indigenous
communities. Unfortunately, First Nations have had many negative experiences associated with
the disrespectful or unethical practices of outsiders that claimed or implied that their activities
were collaborative or aligned with the interests of the Nation. For example, Melba Green shared
an experience of a harmful interaction with an outside professional:
When I was a lands coordinator an archaeologist came. So I took ‘em out to the
land and we went on the shoreline and he found a few things like Arrowheads, tools and
pottery. So, he took those with him but I have copies, coordinates, and waypoints about
the artifacts that we found. And then, we were on the work to try and retrieve those
things. That was so long ago that he took those away. So, yeah they don’t want
archaeologists here to dig and find out why is that here and how long ago was that there.
They want to leave things as is. (Melba Green, Bloodvein River First Nations).
Despite these negative experiences, the Guardians that I interviewed expressed a
willingness to work alongside private landowners, conservation officers and other government
officials to ensure that the environment is properly protected. For example, both the Bloodvein
River and Poplar River First Nations are working alongside other First Nations in the
Pimachiowin Aki UNESCO World Heritage Site to ensure that their territory remains pristine
and the water for their communities remains free from pollution (Pimachiowin Aki, 2021).

55

Additionally, the Guardians work alongside conservation officers who help in
apprehending poachers and managing visitors to the UNESCO site. The Guardians do not have
the authority to legally remove trespassers from the territories. They also do not want to incite
violence, but instead to educate visitors on proper land use and problems associated with trophy
or wasteful hunting. Ray Rabliauskas explained:
A lot of outside people don’t always understand… they don’t think Anishinaabe
have the right to do anything. But, it’s… the province actually, in that way, they support
us because they don’t wanna see those things happen either. Some of their laws are
identical to the ones we have here… People who come through… they’re generally
canoers… they do call. They’re starting to understand, because it’s a World Heritage
Site, that they do call ahead of time so we know they’re there. We don’t mind them
around…. (Ray Rabliauskas, Poplar River First Nation).
Williams Lake First Nation has also come across potentially dangerous or illegal
activities of people external to their community, but wants to improve these relationships in the
future:
“We’re not sending (the Guardians) out as police, like to police the territory, but
that can often be how it’s seen or perceived. Especially outsiders who are not part of an
Indigenous community. (Whitney Spearing, Williams Lake First Nation).
These types of partnerships and exploratory projects are important to help the community
to preserve their history and culture and can be niche opportunities for the Guardians to work
alongside external communities, towards reconciliation. Julia Flinton explained:
There are a ton of ranches in the area. Williams Lake is known for kind of being
the hub of ranching in B.C. … and I think when the younger generations, like the sons
and the daughters are, you know, right now between 25 and 40, take over that ranch from
their parents that’s like a great opportunity to kind of shift the conversation to a positive
one… just the exercise in itself… just being very open … to letting us have a look, is a
huge step in the right direction and I hope that that continues with… the historical
ranches that are in the area as the younger generation takes over. They’ve been in
school, potentially where they’ve been exposed to the residential schools and things like
that… and they’re friends with people in the area that are First Nations lineage. And so,
the opinion of that is different and I think that’s where you will see that major opinion
shift is when that happens. So, those are kind of the niches that we take and they’re a

56

huge opportunity and few and far between right now. (Julia Flinton, Williams Lake First
Nation).
Also, collaboration between private landowners and the Guardians provides optimism
that the communities are becoming more willing to work towards reconciliation. Whitney
Spearing shared her positive outlook on these collaborations:
I think that ultimately, it’s the way we frame things up right? If we frame this in a
positive manner and there’s people out on the land who are having respectful
communications and doing… work alongside of the government, I think those things will
naturally happen. Right now it’s kind of like shoving a square peg into a round hole. But,
I feel like the more that our Guardians work with government, work with the public, those
types of organic relationships will take off and so, it can only really be a positive.
(Whitney Spearing, Williams Lake First Nation)
Positive collaboration was also reported as being beneficial amongst like-minded First
Nations Communities. For Poplar River First Nation and Bloodvein River First Nation, their
relationship has been ongoing for many years:
We were working together already before we even thought of the World Heritage
Site. We had set up a First Nations accord and it was a lands protection accord where we
started meeting together regularly and talking to each other and rekindling those old…
they had lots of connections years and years ago when they would travel on the land
‘cause they would always see each other and help each other. They would work together
and we can’t… we were fortunate to be able to work with those other First Nations…
they’re the best resources we’ve had and the best partnerships we’ve had is with our
neighbouring communities. (Ray Rabliauskas, Poplar River First Nation).
Partnerships between First Nations communities has also been beneficial for Williams
Lake First Nation who reported having not only partnered with other Nations to apply for
funding but also to monitor development projects in their territories:
There’s a couple of larger parks and groups that have been planned in a few of
our waterways and one of the things we know is that there hasn’t been a lot of inventory
or impact assessment done in these really remote places. And so when they come forward
with parks and they say we’re going to send all of these people into these areas there’s
obviously concern. But, on the flip side of that coin is… provincial government says
there’s no funding to do these things. So, we applied to BC capacity initiative a couple of
years in a row, jointly with the other communities at first. And then, jointly with the
57

Heiltsuk in later years, really to do with governance. (Whitney Spearing, Williams Lake
First Nation)
These sorts of collaboration initiatives and solidarity amongst First Nations communities
is particularly helpful when communities need to remind the government that there are
agreements in place granting Indigenous communities more authority than the government will
permit. Whitney Spearing recounts Williams Lake First Nation’s struggle, as well as the other
First Nations communities affected, with the Yecweminul’ecw agreement:
There needs to be that huge political shift as well, too… There are other places in
the province where Guardians are wildly successful. So, we work jointly with
Inlailawatash and they’re associated with the Tsleil-Waututh Nation. So, their
archaeology people go out with different Guardian groups across Vancouver Island
where it is extremely successful and people are out on the land and interacting with land
owners… where, right now, we’re having largely negative interactions and very few
positive uptake from both the public and from government… Enacting what we have, a
Yecweminul’ecw agreement, government to government agreement that has to do with
stewardship with the BC government. It’s about enacting that agreement. Finding the
governance between the communities under that agreement and sort of sorting out some
of the finer details. (Whitney Spearing, Williams Lake First Nation).
Participants are hopeful that the lines of communication between Indigenous Guardians
initiatives will remain open. Melba Green responded that she is looking forward to further
collaboration in the future:
I think it’ll be helpful to see what other Guardians have, like what they’re up to.
Say if they wanna like ask a question to any of us. If they’re stumped about something like
water. Like, sometimes too, we do water samples. Like, I wanna know, like, if this water
is gonna be, like you know, drinkable or not. Invasive species in the water, things like
that. Oh, and a tool of education for students. They wanna be Guardians in the future.
(Melba Green, Bloodvein River First Nation).

58

3.11 Hope for the future
When asked what a ‘successful’ Guardians program would look like, participants
struggled to picture their ultimate goal, citing only the barriers that they are currently facing and
the difficulties working within the capacity limitations imposed by the pilot funding.
I don’t like talking about the future because we don’t know yet, eh? They start
from now until… don’t worry about tomorrow. (Melba Green, Bloodvein River First
Nation)
However, they mentioned that the Canadian Government’s Indigenous Guardians Pilot
Program was a step in the right direction, and they were optimistic and encouraged that other
Nations were also working towards establishing a program. Paul Sieber from the Ditidaht First
Nation shared his optimism:
We got the vision but we need the funding and the capabilities and the long term
funding to keep going and that’s where I see this national Indigenous program going. I’m
highly aware that they’re having meetings right now or they will be in order to make (The
Indigenous Guardians) program permanent across Canada. But, even a little bit of
funding, I think it’s 25 million for a five-year project, was not even enough. (Paul Sieber,
Ditidaht First Nation)
Participants hoped to see more of Indigenous ideology, in terms of environmental
stewardship, embedded in natural resources management across Canada. Whitney Spearing
discussed the potential that this shift in ideologies could pose:
I think through proper execution that could be one of the end goals, right? Uptake
of Indigenous ideology into the mainstream public way of thinking about it is the end
goal so they’re not these two distinct ways of doing things…I think we’re really poised to
do a lot of unique things in this territory. One of the larger mining disasters in all of the
world’s history has happened in this territory. So, that’s a really sad and unfortunate
event but it’s a unique opportunity to potentially have some Guardianship of Quesnel
Lake …So I think… we’re poised to do some really good things and make some huge
change… and so, what I would say is, for what it’s worth, funding the Guardian
programs across Canada, or across the province, is fantastic. (Whitney Spearing,
Williams Lake First Nation).

59

3.12 Limitations of my research
Many of the participants in my research were engaged in environmental stewardship
initiatives, thus, there is the possibility that the results were influenced by volunteer bias. This
occurs when a set of volunteers differs from the general population and may only represent a
sub-set of those who could have participated (Salkind 2010). Further, I interviewed
representatives from only five Guardians programs located in two Canadian provinces, BC and
Manitoba. I would anticipate regional differences in the objectives and challenges facing
programs that confront the very different political and ecological landscapes found across
Canada. With this in mind, I do not wish to convey the results as if they are the opinions of each
Indigenous person in Canada, therefore insinuating a pan-Indigenous ideology and ignoring the
unique differences of each Indigenous person, experienced over time (MacKenzie 2017).
Additionally, despite practicing reflexivity throughout my data analysis, confirmation
bias may have led to some distortion of the findings. Confirmation bias is described by
McSweeney (2021) as “defining, seeking, perceiving, constructing, remembering, judging,
highlighting, responding to, supposing, imagining and/ or interpreting ‘evidence’… in ways that
give priority, even exclusivity, to confirming a pre-established, or established early in the
research, favoured or focal attitude, belief, claim or message” (1064). Because of my own bias,
potentially developed prior to speaking with participants, I could have developed an
interpretation of the results that matched my previous understanding of issues surrounding
Indigenous people and natural resources development in Canada (Greenwald et al. 1986).
These possible biases are important to consider when interviewing a small number of
participants from a large sample pool. The responses from participants shared similar positive
outcomes and also mentioned similar barriers. However, these insights may not be shared

60

amongst others who have received funding from the Canadian Indigenous Guardians Pilot
Program.

61

Chapter 4- Recommendations
This is one of the first studies to investigate the objectives outcomes of Guardians
programs in Canada. Although my case-study approach only represented five programs, past
research has been limited to in-depth investigations of single programs (Reed et al. 2020).
Internationally, the literature focused on Guardians is also limited (Reed et al. 2020). This is
likely a result of the relatively recent support and development of such Indigenous-led
monitoring and management. The conclusions of my study can provide insight into the further
development of Guardians programs both in Canada and internationally.

4.1 Objectives of the Canadian Government’s Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program
The information provided by participants revealed the objectives and daily operations of
Indigenous Guardian programs in Canada as well as the benefits and challenges facing those
programs. Guardians discussed unique issues facing their traditional territories, but there were
some commonalities among programs. The Canadian programs that participated in my research
had similar ambitions and objectives as those reported for other programs including employing
community members to patrol protected areas and act as monitors and stewards of the land;
monitor fish and wildlife harvest; collect data focused on environmental change, including the
effects of climate change; monitor and record industrial activities; and educate visitors on proper
use of the land (Social Ventures Australia, 2016). However, biophysical monitoring and
stewarding is not the only goal of the Guardians programs in Canada. Facilitating the education
of youth by community Elders and ensuring the continuation of Indigenous culture for future
generations are also large aspects of the Indigenous Guardians programs that were included in
my study.
62

The objectives of the study participants’ programs aligned with the main goal of the
Canadian federal government’s Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program: to “provide Indigenous
Peoples with greater opportunity to exercise responsibility in stewardship of their traditional
lands, waters and ice” (Government of Canada 2020). Corresponding with that broad nationallevel goal, participants noted that the main objectives of their programs included:
-

Supporting the sustainable use of natural resources through monitoring and reporting of
development activities.

-

Protecting ancestral lands from improper use and unwanted visitors.

-

Sharing knowledge of the land with their communities.

-

Returning culture back to the community through the passing of knowledge from Elders
to youth.

-

Developing positive relationships with outside groups for collaboration on environmental
management.

-

Reclaiming national sovereignty.

Despite these apparent successes, my research suggests that there are challenges to meeting
the federal government’s extremely broad mandate for the pilot program. In particular, there is
an explicit expectation that the pilot program will facilitate Indigenous groups efforts to
“exercise responsibility” of stewarding traditional lands. That assumes that the land the
Guardians are stewarding is “theirs” or that they have direct decision making or shared decisionmaking powers over those lands. As noted by participants in the research, other federal or
provincial policy and legislation may not align with this understanding and expectation. In
addition to the broad barriers Indigenous communities face in achieving self-determination, my

63

research identified a number of other barriers that may prevent Indigenous groups from fully
realising aspirations for their Guardians Programs. These other barriers include:
-

Lack of adequate and long-term funding resulting in the inability of Guardian Programs
to retain staff and community support.

-

Insufficient flexibility in permitting the Guardians Programs to spend or allocate funding
within a timeline that accounted for large setbacks, like a global pandemic.

4.2 Positive outcomes of the Guardians programs
The immediate funding provided by the Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program helped initiate
or support the research participant’s programs. Although alternative funding sources may have
allowed the start or development of those Guardians programs, the financial support provided by
the pilot program was necessary and welcomed. Participants reported a number of activities and
actions that were supported by that funding. In particular, increased monitoring of the land
helped Guardians to ensure that visitors were respectful of the territory and the community as
well as ensure the safety of community members when they were on the land. Additionally, the
pilot program encouraged and provided opportunities for collaboration with like-minded groups
including conservation officers.
Beyond outcomes focused on active land management, funding helped facilitate cultural
connections and revitalisation. That included the education of youth by community Elders.
Participants reported that such activities were essential for ensuring the continuation of
Indigenous culture for future generations. Funding could also allow the guardians to continue
maintaining a presence on their traditional territories by purchasing more equipment like vehicles
and hiring more staff. Land-based activities were important for developing reciprocal

64

relationships between people and the land and were reported as a key factor in bringing the
culture back to the community.
Notably, Indigenous people advocated for the federal pilot program through the efforts of the
Indigenous Leadership Initiative. This is a unique circumstance that sets the Canadian program
apart from the other Guardians programs. Other non-Canadian Guardians programs have been
led by the government or external funders, who focus on the need to preserve the biophysical
aspects of the Indigenous community’s environment. In such cases, there is much less emphasis
on enhancing socio-cultural factors and addressing deep seated, systemic issues (Austin et al.
2018). Arguably, the Canadian program allows for more flexibility for the various Nations and
communities to address underlying factors that limit the activities or capacity of their particular
program. These positive outcomes of Guardians programs are summarised in Table 2.

65

Table 2: Positive outcomes of the Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program initiatives
Positive Outcomes
Key Attributes
Flexible application

-

process

Guardians facilitate

-

a broad range of
activities
Guardians increase
knowledge of their
territories and the
requirements for
proper and respectful
land use

-

Guardians monitor
the impacts of
visitors to their lands

-

Guardians facilitate
initiatives that could
bring culture back to
their communities

-

Guardians help
Indigenous
communities
improve selfgovernance

-

The Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program Funding was
advocated for by the Indigenous Leadership Initiative- an
Indigenous-led organization. Because the funding was
advocated for by Indigenous people, some participants believe
this resulted in the funding being flexible enough for each
Nation to organize their program based on their own unique
needs and interests.
Funding for Guardians programs could contribute to
Indigenous-led natural resources management as well as
cultural and social improvements for Indigenous communities.
This is due to the broad range of activities that Guardians could
take on including education, political advocacy, and helping
community members increase time spent on the land.
Due to inter-generational knowledge as well as greater time
spent on the land, Guardians have an increased knowledge of
their territories and how to navigate the land safely. Participants
mentioned that they would like to use this knowledge to
educate surrounding communities and partner with external
like-minded groups. Guardians’ knowledge could also lead to
additional Indigenous-led initiatives on their territory.
Participants mentioned that Guardians monitor their land for
visitors and poachers who may not be interacting with the land
properly. Through education and direct contact with these
individuals, Guardians have the potential to stop harmful
environmental practices before they occur.
Guardians act as guides for Elders, youth and community
members who would like to spend more time on the land.
Participants mentioned that increased time spent on the land has
the potential to reconnect members of the community with their
culture. Bringing Elders together with community members and
youth can help in facilitating the intergenerational passing of
knowledge.
Guardians initiatives can create opportunities for positive
interactions with external groups, including other governments.
These positive interactions have the opportunity to lead to
further recognition of Indigenous groups as self-governing
Nations.

66

4.3 Barriers to the Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program
4.3.1 Inadequate Funding
Inadequate funding was noted by 8 research participants as a barrier to the further
development or activities of their Guardians programs. Lack of funding resulted in insufficient
staffing, including the inability to hire and train new employees. Also, there was no guarantee of
renewal from the federal pilot program, thus, Guardians programs could not offer permanent
positions to Guardians that they did hire. The lack of continuous employment limited the
recruitment and retention of Guardians.
Insufficient funding is not a barrier that is unique to the Canadian model of Indigenous
Guardians. The Australian Guardians model, in particular, also lacked proper economic supports
resulting in “…narrowly defined, short-term, piecemeal, non-investment oriented, cross-agency
funding” (Woodward 2008, 248; Reed et al. 2020). This was due to the lack of a cohesive
agreement between external funders and Indigenous groups as to what an “effective” model of
environmental management looked like. Also, the level of support varied among the types or foci
of Guardians programs. Investors were less likely to fund programs that assessed the sociocultural benefits of an environmental management program as opposed to the biophysical
elements of the environment (Austin et al. 2018). Arguably, the federal government’s pilot
program is an improvement as it allows for Indigenous groups to identify success on their own
terms and to address socio-cultural and environmental benefits. Ultimately, however, Guardians
Programs in Canada, Australia and elsewhere (Reed et al. 2020) are not receiving adequate or
long-term funding to achieve their objectives.

67

4.3.2 Lack of proper recognition as a sovereign nation
Indigenous communities have worked as activists, advocates and alongside governing
bodies in Canada to settle comprehensive land claims and Aboriginal Title. Similar arrangements
are demonstrated in other countries, such as the determination of Native Title in Australia
(Borrows 2002; Reed et al. 2020). These agreements have allowed Indigenous groups to steward
their ancestral territories. However, all of the participants mentioned that their provincial
governments were actively working against their stewardship initiatives by not abiding by
legislation that was already in place, or enacting policies that would limit stewardship by the
Guardians. Additionally, during the interviews some of the participants reported an inability to
implement the goals of their Guardians program due to a lack of proper recognition as a
sovereign nation. This was demonstrated in the two potentially dangerous encounters with
visitors on the territories of Williams Lake First Nation and the Poplar River First Nation, as well
as a lack of understanding by external groups of Indigenous peoples’ ability to steward their
lands.
Around the world, alternative strategies exist regarding land claims and Native Title.
These include collaborative efforts for consensus decision making and addressing conflict
(Maclean et al. 2015). Such approaches include two-way, iterative communication between the
First Nations groups and established government bodies, not unlike that of the Indigenous
Guardians Pilot Program. Consensus-based decision making for Indigenous and non-Indigenous
governments attempts to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes through co-management,
collaborative resource management, and community-based initiatives (Peterson et al. 2005;
Natcher et al. 2005 in Maclean et al 2015). However, this method has been criticized for not
having the ability to transform the system that it is operating within. As noted by Maclean et al.

68

(2015), “consensus building risks legitimizing the hegemonic power of the state and reduces
power inequalities to simply ‘differences of opinion’” (198). Established government bodies
arguably are not acknowledging the right that Indigenous people have to steward their ancestral
lands by directly controlling their territories. Although not a direct outcome of my research,
government institutions will need to grant more autonomy of traditional lands to Indigenous
groups if their broader aspirations for land management and decision making, including greater
powers and control by Guardians, are to be achieved (Peterson et al. 2005).

4.4 Limitations and future directions
The Guardians that I interviewed represented a range of individuals and Indigenous
cultures. However, the results of those interviews do not reflect the views of all Guardians
programs in Canada. The Canadian context is broad and consists of various other land, water and
ice management programs that were not included in this study. Therefore, further research is
necessary to create a more complete understanding of the successes and challenges facing
Guardians programs here in Canada and beyond.
Conducting this study during the global COVID-19 pandemic created an additional strain
on Guardians programs as well as the participation of representatives in this research. Guardians
groups were made to switch to virtual communication and were unable to hire additional staff or
conduct group activities. Because of the broad requirement for social distancing the interviews
were conducted via telephone or Zoom. Poor internet connections proved to be an issue for both
myself and the participants, which sometimes interrupted the flow of conversation. With limited
capacity and insufficient broadband infrastructure, the global pandemic proved challenging to
navigate.

69

Looking beyond Canada, there has been an increase in research focused on the objectives
and workings of Guardian programs. That includes countries such as the United States, New
Zealand and Australia where relatively high-profile programs have been in place for well over
two decades (Reed et al 2020). Although, case studies focusing on the Australia Guardians
programs are increasing, following the first study in 1995 “Australian Caring for Country” (Reed
et al. 2021; Rose 1995). Indigenous Protected and Conserved areas (IPACS) or “tribal parks” are
emerging as a way to address the colonial management of natural resources (Carroll 2014; Rist et
al. 2019; Zurba et al. 2019). As these initiatives become more popular there has been an effort to
understand the role of Guardian programs in monitoring and managing those lands. As noted by
Reed et al. (2020, 187), “further efforts are needed to understand the implications of Guardian
programs for indigenous self-determination as well as indigenous decision-making institutions
and knowledge systems when embedded within broader western environmental governance
structures”.
Going forward, alternative models of studying and reporting on Indigenous Guardians
programs have also been proposed as a means to move away from a colonial academic model
and towards Indigenous forms of knowledge sharing. Such strategies are meant to “decenter
research away from the academy and toward those indigenous leaders on the ground” (Reed et al
2020, 187). As the number of Guardian programs increases, a collaborative effort between
scholars and other types of researchers should be made to ensure that colonial programs like the
Canadian Government’s Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program are able to address the formal and
informal restrictions imposed on Indigenous people to steward their traditional lands.

70

4.5 Short-term recommendations
Participants in this project provided a number of criticisms and limitations of the
Canadian Government’s Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program that indirectly suggested
improvements. Also, they implied remedies for a number of those limitations. Both inferred or
implied recommendations were broadly focused on identifying models for long-term, selfdetermined sustainable funding as well as changes in the historic relationship between
Indigenous peoples and other levels of government (Table 3).

4.5.1 Sustainable funding policies
Sustainable funding requires a guaranteed funding base. This will remove pressures, as
has been witnessed in other jurisdictions, for Indigenous people to seek ad hoc or short-term
private or institutional funding to subsidize government grants (Austin et al. 2018). Also,
sustainable funding would reduce the fear that government funding will be discontinued or
withdrawn based on shifts in political will. Ultimately, such assurances will support Indigenous
people in achieving “the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic,
social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in
the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State” (UN General Assembly, 2007).
More research needs to be conducted in Canada to identify funding models that could
lead to the long-term support of Guardians programs. That might include the identification of
governance models that allow Indigenous peoples control over the allocation of funding and
evaluation of proposals to such a program. Also, there are opportunities to explore partnership
agreements between Indigenous peoples, other levels of government and the private sector in
supporting Guardians programs. Such arrangements have been developed in the context of large

71

and long-term resource extractive projects. For example, the Ni Hadi Xa agreement between six
Indigenous Nations and De Beers Canada is designed to support environmental and traditional
knowledge monitoring of the Gahcho Kue Diamond Mine in the Northwest Territories (Ni Hadi
Xa 2022). Although, there is the risk that these agreements could further long-term dependencies
between funding and projects designed to increase local livelihoods as well as paternalistic
relationships with federal and provincial governments. Ultimately, such agreements could hinder
self-determination. One solution to that challenge is for Indigenous Nations to prioritise selffunding of their Guardians programs, similar to the case of the rural Indigenous communities in
South Africa (Thakhathi 2019). Of course such budgetary decisions require increased creativity
from the Indigenous communities and has not been extensively researched.
Nature United, an organization working towards collaborative efforts of conservation in
Canada, are developing a “sustainable conservation financing model… that supports Canada’s
commitment to the Aichi Targets by ensuring Indigenous co-management can be sustainably
financed for years to come” (Nature United 2020). The Aichi Targets were adopted at the United
Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2010 and work towards the reduction of
biodiversity loss, globally (UNEP 2010). This funding model is designed to incorporate “a multi
sector approach to expanding (the) amount and diversity of funding for conservation actions”
(Nature United 2010, 1). There is some potential that such a model could facilitate long-term and
stable support for Indigenous Guardians program.
In various international contexts, some have questioned the ability of federal funding to
support decision-making authority of Indigenous communities over their natural resources
management programs (Pathak et al. 2004). Pathak et al. (2004) reported that the Australian
Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCA) have been recognised as positive examples

72

of governmentally supported initiatives. This is because the Indigenous communities are able to
regulate the extent to which external governments are included in the implementation of their
programs. In addition, the Australian government provides financial support to the Indigenous
groups after receiving a land management plan from the Indigenous or community program
(Pathak et al. 2004). Some argue that ICCAs are categorized as “co-management” programs due
to the fact that these initiatives are regulated by the government’s conservation policies, and
therefore the programs are under constant threat of government intervention. This calls into
question the genuine shift of decision-making authority to Indigenous groups and the potential
continuation of challenges faced by ICCA’s including the ability to manage natural resources
through traditional practices and secure land tenure (Berkes 2004). A more sustainable model of
funding support is required to ensure that there is a genuine shift in decision making power to
Indigenous natural resources management programs.
The current Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program allocates short-term government
funding to Guardians programs. This model arguably continues to uphold the systemic
paternalism that has been imposed upon Indigenous people since the onset of colonization in
Canada (Alfred 1999; Coulthard 2014 in Reed et al. 2020). However, further freeing up such
programs to Indigenous governance would require bold commitments from political leaders that
will lead to legislative change at the federal, provincial and municipal level. While this sort of
systemic change will take much time and is dependent on sincere collaboration, governments can
implement policy initiatives on a smaller-scale, within a shorter time-line, to immediately
address barriers inherent to the Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program or other similar government
support. That includes increasing funding to Guardians groups, ensuring that the funding

73

continues long-term, and formally recognizing the right that Indigenous Guardians have to
manage their ancestral territories. These recommendations are further explained in Table 3.

Table 3: Short-term recommendations for overcoming barriers to achieving the objectives of
Indigenous Guardians programs.
Recommended short-term solution
Barriers
Insufficient
Funding

-

Low employee
retention and staff
capacity

-

Poorly structured
intergovernmental
relationships that
limit shared
environmental
stewardship

-

Lack of autonomy
and decisionmaking authority
of traditional
lands

-

-

-

Formally recognise (e.g., policy statements) and promote the
positive outcomes of Guardians programs that were supported by
the Canadian government. Direct recognition of success will
support future funding decisions.
Given the interest and success of the pilot program, increase the
funding to support a larger number of Guardians programs across
Canada.
Conduct a budgetary review of supported programs to determine
sufficient funding levels.
Recognise that pilot programs are designed for short-term
developmental support. Transition successful programs from
“pilot” funding to longer term support (>5 years).
Fund training programs for Guardians in alignment with TEK.
Fund youth mentorship programs in Indigenous communities to
bridge cultural gaps and provide recruitment opportunities for
future Guardians.
Improve communications or protocols that allow for regular
dialogue among Indigenous, federal, provincial and municipal
governments when making decisions that influence land-use or
monitoring.
Include Indigenous groups in decision-making processes regarding
the territory that the group is stewarding.
Revise current provincial and federal legislation to allow some
authority to Guardians (e.g., Peace Officers that could enforce
various Wildlife Acts).
Outreach and education to non-Indigenous people in the broader
community.
Formal agreements with other governments and tenure holders to
allow and facilitate the extension of the work of Guardians to nontreaty/reserve lands.

74

Chapter 5- Conclusion
The Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program (2017) is a step in the right direction to support
environmental stewardship initiatives led by Indigenous governments or communities. In
particular, this program is successful in increasing monitoring of the land, increasing
collaboration with like-minded groups, and facilitating intergenerational knowledge transfers
between Elders and youth. This federally funded program is unique in that it was lobbied for by
Indigenous people. Indigenous Guardians Programs have the potential to contribute to the
facilitation of opportunities for reconciliation amongst settler communities, ensure that natural
resources management projects are conducted properly, serve as a vehicle to maintain or
revitalise Indigenous cultures, and achieve national sovereignty for Indigenous groups. All of
these benefits are apparent in the early stages of the pilot program, despite significant set-backs
brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Employing a Political Ecology framework helped to inform the findings and
interpretations of the research. The contemporary systemic barriers that each participating group
faced are consistent with the struggles of Indigenous peoples more broadly, including the
historical and ongoing power imbalances brought on as a result of colonialism (McCarthy 2002).
Political ecology offered an interdisciplinary perspective for studying and understanding this
complicated and multi-layered subject. Many of the foundational elements of political ecology,
including access to and control over resources shifting as a result of colonial and postcolonial
legacies (McCarthy 2002), were particularly suited for exploring the interconnections between
Guardians programs and natural resources management. The literature and responses from study
participants strongly suggest that independence in natural resource and conservation decision
making is essential if Indigenous Nations are to become self governing and to have control over
75

their participation in the modern economy. For some Indigenous Nations, this could also mean
guarding or stewarding traditional land in a way that facilitates a reciprocal relationship that may
not align with the contemporary colonial practices of either excluding people from nature for
conservation efforts (Cronon 1996) or commodifying nature for rapid industrialization (O’Neil
2020).
Unfortunately, the pilot program continues to operate within the context of ongoing
colonialism. Although there are now efforts to address those long-standing injustices, including
the BC Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, many impacts and inequities in
power still exist. In response to these restrictions, both the 2015 Canadian Truth and
Reconciliation Report as well as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
People (UNDRIP) provide recommendations and guidelines on how to overcome systemic
colonization. Scholars in the field of Indigenous Guardians argue that “governments use their
acceptance of the UN Declaration and the minimum standard of free, prior, and informed consent
to catalyze domestic conversations intended to decolonize conservation policy and practice”
(Tuck & Yang 2012; Domínguez & Luoma 2020 in Reed et al. 2020, 187).
My research has illustrated positive outcomes from Guardians programs, many of which
are still in their infancy. The potential benefits and opportunities that Guardians programs are
working towards (e.g., Table 2) could make a strong case for direct recognition in policy of the
value of Guardians programs and, by extension, a sustainable funding model that is either largely
independent of government or more concretely supported by future government policies.
However, even a greatly improved funding model will not overcome systemic barriers to
decision-making of traditional lands. While there have been positive interactions between
Guardians, non-Indigenous Canadians, like-minded organizations, and external governments on

76

a small scale, a larger collective movement is required. Fully adopting the recommendations of
UNDRIP, in addition to increasing support to Guardians programs can result in achieving the
objectives of both the Indigenous Guardians and the federal government program.

77

References:
Ajibade, L. T. 2003. “In search for methodology for the collection and evaluation of farmer’s
Indigenous environmental knowledge”. Indilinga African Journal of Indigenous Knowledge
Systems, vol. 2, no. 1.
Alcantara, C. & Spicer, Z. 2016. “A new model for making Aboriginal policy? Evaluating the Kelowna
Accord and the promise of multilevel governance in Canada”. Canadian Public Administration,
vol. 59, no. 2, pp.183-203.
Alexander, Jeffrey, Giesen, B., Munch, R. and Smelser, N. 1987. “The Micro-Macro Link”. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Alfred, T. 1999. “Peace, power righteousness: an indigenous manifesto”. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, United Kingdom.
Arctic Institute of Community-Based Research. Accessed on February 16, 2022. “Indigenous
Leadership Initiative- National Guardians Network (2017-2018)”. Arctic Institute of CommunityBased Research.
Aurora Research Institute. 2019. “Inuvialuit Settlement Region”. Aurora Research Institute.
Austin, B. J., Robinson, C. J., Fitzsimons, J. A., Sanford, M., Ens, E. J., Macdonald, J. M., Hockings,
M., Hinchley, D. G., McDonald, F. B., Corrigan, C., Kennett, R., Hunter-Xenie, H. and Garnett,
S. T. 2018. “Integrated Measures of Indigenous Land and Sea Management Effectiveness:
Challenges and Opportunities for Improved Conservation Partnerships in Australia”.
Conservation & Society, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 372-384.
Aylwin, J. 2008. “Globalization and Indigenous People’s rights: An analysis from Latin American
perspective”. Aboriginal Peoples Research and Knowledge Network.
Ban N.C., Frid A., Reid M., Edgar B., Shaw D., and Siwallace P. 2018. “Incorporate Indigenous
perspectives for impactful research and effective management”. Nature Ecology & Evolution
vol. 2, pp. 1680-1683.
Ban, N. Wilson, E. and Neasloss, D. “Historical and contemporary Indigenous marine conservation
strategies in the North Pacific”. Conservation Practice and Policy. vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 5-14.
Barelli, M. 2012. “Free, prior and informed consent in the aftermath of the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Developments and challenges ahead”. The International Journal
of Human Rights, vol. 16, no. 1, pp.1-24.
Barichello, J. 2019. “Guardians of the Gudzih: Yukon program demonstrates how protecting caribou
preserves a way of life across the North”. Alternatives Journal, vol. 44, 1.
Beausoleil, D., Munkittrick, K., Dube, M. G., & Wyatt, F. 2021. “Essential components and pathways
for developing Indigenous community-based monitoring: Examples from the Canadian oil sands
region”. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 407-427.
Berkes, F. Colding, J. and Folke, C. 2000. “Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive
management”. Ecological Applications. 10(5): 1251-1262.
Berkes, F. 2004. “Rethinking community-based conservation”. Conservation Biology. vol.18, no. 3, pp.
621-630.
Berkes, F. 2012. “Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and resource management”. Third
edition. Routledge, New York, New York, USA.
Bombay, A., McQuaid, R. J., Youong, J., Sinha, V., Currie, V., Anisman, H., & Matheson, K. 2020.
“Familial attendance at Indian residential school and subsequent involvement in the child welfare
system among Indigenous adults born during the sixties scoop era (Record)”. First Peoples Child
78

& Family Review: An Interdisciplinary Journal Honouring the Voices, Perspectives, and
Knowledges of First Peoples, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 62-79.
Bormpoudakis, D. 2019. “Three implications of political ontology for the political ecology of
conservation”. Journal of Political Ecology, vol. 26. pp. 546- 566.
Borrows, J. 2002. “Recovering Canada: the resurgence of Indigenous Law”. University of Toronto
Press, Toronto.
Breakwell, G. M, Hammond, S. E. Fife-Schaw, C. E. Smith, J. A. 2006. “Research Methods in
Psychology”. Sage Publications.
Cachia, M. and Millward, L. 2011. “Semi-structured interviews: a complementary fit”. Qualitative
Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, vol. 6, no. 3.
Carroll, C. 2014. “Native enclosures: tribal national parks and the progressive politics of environmental
stewardship in Indian Country”. Geoforum vol. 53, pp. 31–40.
Chavis, B. F. 1994. “‘Preface’: Unequal Protection: Environ-Mental Justice and Communities of Color”
edited by Robert D Bullard, San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Coulthard, G. 2014. “Red Skin, white masks: rejecting the colonial politics of recognition”. University
of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Courtis, C. 2011. “Notes on the implementation by Latin American courts of the ILO Convention 169
on Indigenous Peoples”. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, vol. 18, no. 4, pp.
433-460.
Creswell, J. 2013. “Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches”. Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Cronon, W. 1996. “The trouble with wilderness”. In Uncommon ground: Rethinking place in nature, ed.
W. Cronon. New York, NY: W. W. Norton, pp. 69-90.
Crutzen, P. J. and Stoermer, E. F. 2000. “The Anthropocene”. IGBP Newsletter, vol. 41, pp. 17-18.
Darian-Smith, E. and McCarty, C. 2017. “The Global Turn: Theories, Research Designs, and Methods
for Global Studies”. University of California Press.
Denis, J. and Bailey, K. 2016. “‘You Can’t Have Reconciliation Without Justice’: How Non-Indigenous
Participants in Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Process Understand Their Roles and Goals”.
In: Maddison S., Clark T., de Costa R. (eds) The Limits of Settler Colonial Reconciliation.
Springer, Singapore.
Dennis, J. H., Spink, D., Abel, R., Stuckless, D., & Fort McKay First Nation. 2015. “Alberta Oil Sands
development and odour issues: The First Nation of Fort McKay’s experience, perspectives and
initiaitves”. Semantic Scholar.
Ditidaht First Nation. 2021. “Ditidaht First Nation”. Ditidaht First Nation,
https://www.nitinaht.com/first-nation/.
Dupuis-Rossi, R. 2021. “The violence of colonization and the importance of decolonizing therapeutic
relationship: The role of helper in centring Indigenous wisdom”. International Journal of
Indigenous Health, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 108-117.
Elliott, V. 2018. “Thinking about the Coding Process in Qualitative Data Analysis”. The Qualitative
Report, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 2850-2861.
Ernstson, H. and Swyngedouw, E. 2015. “Rupturing the Anthro-obscene! The political promises of
planetary and uneven urban ecologies”. Position Paper. Conference at Teater Reflex. pp. 16-19
September, organized by KTH Environmental Humanities Laboratory, Stockholm
Fernandez-Llamazares, A., Garteizgogeascoa, M., Basu, N., Brondizio, E., S., Cabeza, M., MartinezAlier, J., McElwee, P., & Reyes-Garcia, V. 2020. “A state-of-the-art review of Indigenous

79

peoples and environmental pollution”. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management,
vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 324-341.
Fontana, A. and Frey, J. H. 2005. “The Interview: From Structured Questions to Negotiated Text”. The
Sage handbook of qualitative research.
Ford, J. D., Berrang-Ford, L., King, M., and Furgal, C. 2010. “Vulnerability of aboriginal health systems
in Canada to climate change”. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions,
20, pp. 668-680.
Ford, J. D., Vanderbilt, W., Berrang-Ford, L. 2012. “Authorship on IPCC AR5 and its implications for
content: Climate change and Indigenous populations in WGII”. Climatic Change, 113, pp. 201213.
Fugard, A. J. B. & Potts, H. W. W. 2015. “Supporting thinking on sample sizes for thematic analyses: a
quantitative tool”. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, vol. 18, no. 6.
Garbett, R. and McCormack, B. 2001. “The experience of practice development: an exploratory
telephone interview study”. Journal of Clinical Nursing, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 94-102.
Garnett, S. T., Burgess, N. D., Fa, J. E., Fernandez-Llamazares, A., Molnar, Z., Robinson, C. J., Watson,
J. E. M., Zander, K. K., Austin, B., Brondizio, E. S., Collier, N. F., Duncan, T., Ellis, E, Geyle,
H., Jackson, M. S., Jonas, H., Malmer, P., McGowan, B., Sivongxay, A., Leiper, I. 2018. “A
spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation”. Nat. Sustain.
Vol. 1, pp. 369-374.
Gerring, J. 2007. “Case Study Research: Principles and Practices”. Cambridge University Press, New
York.
Gilgun, J. F. 2006. “Commentary: On Susan Smith: Encouraging the use of reflexivity in the writing up
of qualitative research”. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation. Vol. 13, no. 5, pp.
215.
Government of Canada. 2020. “Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program”. Government of Canada.
Government of Canada. 2020. “Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program Map”. Government of Canada.
Government of Canada. 2021. “Canada, Environment and Climate Change”.
Green, D., King, U., Morrison, J. 2009. “Disproportionate burdens: the multidimensional impacts of
climate change on the health of Indigenous Australians”. Medical Journal of Australia, 190, pp.
4-5.
Greenwald, A. G., Pratkanis, A. R., Leippe, M. R. and Baumgardner, M. H. 1986. “Under what
conditions does theory obstruct research progress?” Psychological Review, vol.93, pp. 216-229.
Hanrahan, M. 2017. “Water (in) security in Canada: national identity and the exclusion of Indigenous
peoples”. British Journal of Canadian Studies, Liverpool University Press, vol. 30, no. 1
Hay, L. 2003. “Ethical Practice in Geographical Research” in Key Methods in Geography, edited by
Clifford, N., and Valentine, G. SAGE.
Hornborg, A. 2015. “The political ecology of the Technocene: uncovering ecologically unequal
exchange in the world-system”. In C. Hamilton, C. Bonneuil and F. Gemenne (eds.) The
Anthropocene and the global environmental crisis. Rethinking modernity in a new epoch.
London: Routledge. Pp. 57-69.
Indigenous Leadership Initiative. Accessed on August 24th, 2021. “Mission”. Indigenous Leadership
Initiative.
Karjala, M. and Sherry, E. 2003. “The Aboriginal Forest Planning Process”. Ecosystem Science and
Management Program, the University of Northern British Columbia.
Kittmer, S. 2013. “Neoliberal conservation: Legitimacy and exclusion in the Canadian Boreal Forest
Agreement”. Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario.
80

Kull, C. Arnauld de Sartre, X. Castro, M. 2015. “The political ecology of ecosystem services”
Geoforum, Elsevier.
Latta, A. 2018. “Indigenous Rights and Multilevel Governance: Learning From the Northwest
Territories Water Stewardship Strategy”. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, vol. 9,
no. 2.
Lindroth, M., & Sinevaara-Niskanen, H. 2018. “Global Politics and Its Violent Care for Indigeneity:
Sequels to Colonialism”. Springer International Publishing AG.
Lliso, B., Pascual, U., Engel, S. and Mariel, P. 2020. “Payments for ecosystem services or collective
stewardship of Mother Earth? Applying deliberative valuation in an Indigenous community in
Colombia”. Ecological Economics, vol. 169. 106499.
Longhurst, R. 2003. “Semi Structured Interviews and Focus Groups” in “Key Methods in Geography”
edited by Clifford, N., Cope, M., Thomas, G. and French, S. Sage.
Loo, T. 2001. “Making a modern wilderness: Conserving wildlife in twentieth-century Canada”. The
Canadian Historical Review. 82(1):91-121.
Low, M. and Shaw, K. 2012. “Indigenous Rights and Environmental Governance: Lessons from the
Great Bear Rainforest”. BC Studies: The British Columbia Quarterly.
MacKenzie, C. J. 2017. “Politics and Pluralism in the Circulo Sagrado: the Scope and Limits of PanIndigenous Spirituality in Guatemala and Beyond”. International Journal of Latin American
Religions, vol. 1, pp. 353-375.
Maclean, K. Robinson, C. J. and Natcher, D. C. 2015. “Consensus Building or Constructive Conflict?
Aboriginal Discursive Strategies to Enhance Participation in Natural Resource Management in
Australia and Canada”. Society & Natural Resource, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 197-211.
McCarthy, J. 2002. “First World political ecology: lessons from the Wise Use movement”. Environment
and Planning A, 34(7), 1281-1302.
McKay, A.J., and Johnson, C.J. 2017a. “Identifying effective and sustainable measures for communitybased environmental monitoring”. Environmental Management, vol. 60, pp. 484–495
McKay, A.J., and Johnson, C.J. 2017b. “Confronting barriers and recognizing opportunities: Developing
effective community-based environmental monitoring programs to meet the needs of Aboriginal
communities”. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. Vol. 64, pp. 16–25.
McMahon, R. 2011. “The Institutional Development of Indigenous Broadband Infrastructure in Canada
and the United States: Two Paths to “Digital Self-Determination”. Canadian Journal of
Communication, Vol. 36, pp. 115-140.
McMillan, J. and Prosper, K. 2016. “Remobilizing netukulimk: Indigenous cultural and spiritual
connections with resource stewardship and fisheries management in Atlantic Canada”. Rev Fish
Biol Fisheries. Vol. 26, pp. 629- 647.
McMillen, H., T. Ticktin, and H. K. Springer. 2017. “The future is behind us: traditional ecological
knowledge and resilience over time on Hawai’I Island”. Regional Environmental Change. vol.
17, pp. 579-592.
McSweeney, B. 2021. “Fooling ourselves and others: confirmation bias and the trustworthiness of
qualitative research- Part 1 (the threats)”. Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol.
34, no. 5, pp. 1063-1075.
Middelton-Moz, J., Mishna, F., Martell, R., Williams, C., and Zuberi, S. 2021. “Indigenous trauma and
resilience: pathways to ‘bridging the river’ in social work education”. Social Work Education,
pp. 1-18.
Moore, J. W. 2015. “Putting nature to work: Anthropocene, capitalocene, & the challenge of worldecology”. In C. Wee, J. Schonenbach and O. Arndt (eds.) Supramarkt: A micro-toolkit for
81

disobedient consumers, or how to frack the fatal forces of the Capitalocene. Gothenburg: Irene
Books. Pp. 69-117.
Natcher, D. C., Davis, S. and Hickey, C. G. 2005. “Co-management: Managing relationships and not
resources”. Hum. Organization, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 240-250.
Nature United. 2021. “About the Toolkit”. Nature United.
Nature United. 2020. “The Road to Sustainable Conservation Finance”. Nature United.
Ni Hadi Xa. 2022. “People Watching the Land Together”. https://nihadixa.ca/about/#agreement,
Accessed on March 23, 2022.
Novick, G. 2008. “Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research?”. Research in
Nursing and Health, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 391-398.
Nyumba, T. O., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J., Mukherjee, N. 2018. “The use of focus groups discussion
methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation”. Methods in Ecology
and Evolution, vol. 9, pp. 20-32.
Oliphant, S. M and Bennett, S. C. 2020. “Using reflexivity journaling to lessen the emic-etic divide in a
qualitative study of Ethiopian immigrant women”. Qualitative Social Work. Vol. 19, no. 4, pp.
559-611.
O’Neil, B. 2020. “The World Ecology of Desalination: From Cold War Positioning to Financialization
in the Capitalocene”. Journal of World-System Research, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 318- 349.
Papillon, M. 2012. “Adapting federalism: Indigenous multilevel governance in Canada and the United
States”. Publius, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 289-312.
Papillon, M. 2015. “Introduction: The promises and pitfalls of Aboriginal multilevel governance. In M.
Papillon & A. Juneau (Eds.), Canada: The state of the federation 2013: Aboriginal multilevel
governance (pp. 3-26)”. Montreal: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, School of Policy
Studies, Queen’s University, McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Papillon, M. and Rodon, T. 2017.”Indigenous Consent and Natural Resource Extraction”. IRPP Insight,
no. 16.
Pascua, P., H. McMillen, T. Ticktin, M. Vaughan, and K. B. Winter. 2017. “Beyond services: a process
and framework to incorporate cultural, genealogical, place-based, and Indigenous relationships
in ecosystem service assessments”. Ecosystem Services. Vol. 26, pp. 465-475.
Parlee, B. 2016. “Mobilizing to Address the Impacts of Oil Sands Development: First Nations in
Environmental Governance” in Adkin, L. E. 2016. “First World Petro-Politics: The Political
Ecology and Governance of Alberta”. University of Toronto Press.
Pathak, N., Bhatt, S., Balasinorwala T., Kothari, A., Borrini-Feyerbend, G. 2004. “Community
conserved areas: a bold frontier for conservation”. TILCEPA/IUCN, CENESTA, CMWG and
WAMIP, Tehran.
Peek, L. and Fothergill, A. 2009. ‘“Using focus groups”: lessons from studying daycare centers, 9/11
and Hurricane Katrina’, Qualitative Research, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 31–59.
Peterson, M. N., Peterson, M. J. and Peterson, T. R. 2005. “Conservation and the myth of consensus”.
Conserv. Biol. Vol. 19, no.3, pp.762- 767.
Pimachiowin Aki. 2021. “Pimachiowin Aki World Heritage Site: The Land that Gives Life”.
Pimachiowin Aki, https://pimaki.ca/the-land-that-gives-life/.
Pimachiowin Aki. 2022. “Bloodvein River First Nation”. Pimachiowin Aki, https://pimaki.ca/aboutus/communities/bloodvein-river-first-nation/.
Pimachiowin Aki. 2022. “Poplar River First Nation”. Pimachiowin Aki, https://pimaki.ca/aboutus/communities/poplar-river-first-nation/.

82

Place, J. 2007. “Expanding the mine, killing a lake: A case study of First Nations’ environmental values,
perceptions of risk and health”. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Natural Resources and
Environmental Studies, University of Northern B.C., Prince George, B.C.
Reed, G., Brunet, N. D., Longboat, S. and Natcher, D. C. 2020. “Indigenous Guardians as an emerging
approach to indigenous environmental governance”. Conservation Biology, vol. 35, no. 1, pp.
179-189.
Redvers, N., Celidwen, Y., Schultz, C., Horn, O., Githaiga, C., Vera, M., Perdrisat, M., Mad Plume, L.,
Kobei, D., Cunningham Kain, M., Poelina, A., Nelson Rojas, J. and Blondin, B. 2022. “The
determinants of planetary health: an Indigenous consensus perspective”. Personal View: Lancet
Planet Health 2022, 6. Pp. e156- 63.
Reo, N., Whyte, K., McGregor, D., Smith, P. and Jenkins, J. 2017. “Factors that support Indigenous
involvement in multi-actor environmental stewardship”. AlterNative. vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 58-68.
Rist, P. et al. 2019. “Indigenous protected areas in Sea Country: Indigenous-driven collaborative marine
protected areas in Australia”. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems vol. 29,
pp. 138-151.
Robbins, P. 2020. “Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction”. Critical Introductions to Geography,
Wiley Blackwell.
Robinson, J. A, Torvik, R. Verdier, T. 2006. “Political Foundations of the Resource Curse”. Journal of
Development Economics. vol. 79, Pp. 447-468.
Rose, B. 1995. “Land management issues: attitdues and perceptions amongst the Aboriginal people of
Central Australia”. Central Land Council, Alice Springs, Australia.
Salick, J. and Ross, N. 2009. “Traditional peoples and climate change introduction”. Global
Environmental Change- Human and Policy Dimensions, vol.19, pp. 137-139.
Salkind, N. J. 2010. “Volunteer Bias”. Encyclopedia of Research Design.
Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., and Buck, L. E. 2013. “Ten principles for a landscape approach to
reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses”. PNAS, vol. 110, no. 21,
pp. 8349-8356.
Schulz, K. A. 2017. “Decolonizing political ecology: ontology, technology and ‘critical’ enchantment”.
Journal of Political Ecoloy, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 125-143.
Smith, P. 2015. “A Reflection on First Nations in their Boreal Homelands in Ontario: Between a Rock
and a Caribou”. Conservation and Society, vol. 13, no. 1, pp.23-38.
Social Ventures Australia. 2016. “Analysis of the Current and Future Value of Indigenous Guardian
Work in Canada’s Northwest Territories”. Social Ventures Australia.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. 1998. “Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.)”. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Thakhathi, A. 2019. “Creative start-up capital raising for inclusive sustainable development: A case
study of Boswa ba Rona Development Corporation’s self-reliance”. Journal of Cleaner
Production, vol. 241, no. 118161, pp. 1-12.
Thomas, D. R. 2006. “A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data”.
American Journal of Evaluation, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 237-246.
Thomas, G. 2011. “A Typology for the Case Study in Social Science Following a Review of Definition,
Discourse, and Structure”. Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 511-521.
Thomson, J. 2020. “Australia just committed $650 million to Indigenous rangers programs. Should
Canada do the same?” The Narwhal.
Tuck, E. and Yang, W. K. 2012. “Decolonization is not a metaphor”. Decolonization: Indigeneity,
Education & Society vol. 1, pp. 1- 40.

83

Turner, N. J. and Clifton, H. 2009. “It’s so different today: climate change and Indigenous lifeways in
British Columbia, Canada”. Global Environmental Change- Human and Policy Dimensions, 19,
pp. 180-190.
UN General Assembly. 2007. “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”
A/RES/61/295.
United Nations. 2021a. “Climate Change a ‘Multiplier Effect’, Aggravating Instability, Conflict,
Terrorism, Secretary-General Warns Security Council”. United Nations.
United Nations 2021b. “Climate Change”. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs:
Indigenous People.
Von der Porten, S. and de Loe, R. C. 2013. “Collaborative approaches to governance for water and
Indigenous peoples: A case study from British Columbia, Canada”. Geoforum, vol. 50, pp. 149160.
Waldron, I. 2020. “Environmental Racism in Canada”. The Canadian Encyclopedia.
Waller, D. M. and Reo, N. J. 2018. “First stewards: ecological outcomes of forest and wildlife
stewardship by Indigenous peoples of Wisconsin, USA”. Ecology and Society. vol. 23, no. 1, pp.
45.
Whyte, K., Brewer, J., Johnson, J. 2016. “Weaving Indigenous science, protocols, and sustainability
science”. Sustain Sci. vol. 11, pp. 25-32.
Williams Lake First Nation. 2021. “About WLFN”. Williams Lake First Nation,
https://www.wlfn.ca/about-wlfn/.
Woodward, E. 2008. “Social networking for Aboriginal land management in remote northern Australia”.
Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 15, pp. 241-252.
Yin, R. K. 1981. “The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers”. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 26,
no. 1, pp. 58-65.
Youdelis, M., Nakoochee, R. O’Neil, C., Lunstrum, E., and Roth, R. 2020. “’Wilderness’ revisited: Is
Canadian park management moving beyond the ‘wilderness’ ethic?”. The Canadian Geographer,
64(2): 232-249.
Zurba M., Beazley K. F., English E. and Buchmann-Duck J. 2019. “Indigenous protected and conserved
areas (IPCAs), Aichi target 11 and Canada’s pathway to target 1: focusing conservation on
reconciliation”. Land vol. 8, no. 10.

84

Appendix A- Information letter/ Consent form

Information letter/Consent form- Draft
For national participants of the Canadian Government’s Indigenous Guardianship Pilot Program

Environmental Monitoring for the 21st Century: Exploring the Role
of Community Based Guardianship Programs to Facilitate LocalLevel Natural Resources Management
Date: ______________
Researcher:
Abby Dooks
Global & International Studies- International Development, Graduate Program, University of
Northern British Columbia
3333 University Way
Prince George, BC, V2N 4Z9
Phone: 250-960-5357 E-mail: dooks@unbc.ca
Faculty Supervisor:
Dr. Chris Johnson
Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Graduate Program, University of Northern British
Columbia 3333 University Way Prince George, British Columbia, Canada, V2N 4Z9 Office: 8215
Phone: 250-960-5357; E-mail: chris.johnson@unbc.ca
Purpose of research
My research is designed to use a case study approach to explore the role of Guardianship
Programs in facilitating or enabling Indigenous communities to monitor and manage their lands
and waters. The main objectives of my project are:
1. Develop criteria of what constitutes effective Indigenous Guardianship Programs from
the perspective of Indigenous communities. Criteria will address both the establishment

85

Appendix B- Interview Guide
Interview Guide- Indigenous Guardian Participants
Definitions: - Barriers: any process or limitation that is internal or external to a community or
Indigenous government that restrains or restricts progress in initiating or maintaining a
Guardianship program; examples of barriers include: a lack of funding; insufficient community
or program capacity; restrictions imposed by other governments or funding agencies
Guardianship- General
- What is your definition of a Guardianship program? How would you define an effective
Guardianship program?
- What external barriers or limitations do you foresee that would inhibit an effective
Guardianship program?
- A large barrier that Indigenous communities have faced, as a result of historical colonialism, is
the inability to steward their lands as a self-governing Nation. Do you believe this to be true?
- How might a Guardianship program address the inability of groups to steward their lands as a
self-governing nation?
Guardianship Programs Process of Development Application process:
- Where did you learn about the Canadian Government’s Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program
Funding?
- Why did your community decide to apply for the Guardianship Pilot Program Funding?
- Did you encounter any challenges when applying for or accessing the Pilot Program Funding?
If so, what were these?
- Which characteristics of a Guardians program do you feel are more likely to contribute to
successfully obtaining the Guardians Pilot Program funding?
Program Development:
- How long has your community been engaged in the process of operating as a Guardianship
program?
- Do you think the Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program is effectively addressing the issue of lack
of proper recognition in natural resource management and political decision-making for
Indigenous communities?
- Which resources from the Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program have most contributed to the
success of your Guardianship program (e.g., funding, facilitating information exchange)?
- Are there any downsides or negative impacts that come with participating in the Guardianship
program?
Guardianship Program- Results
- What community benefits would you like to see from the Guardianship program?
- What benefits do you think the community would like to see from the Guardianship program?
- Do you consider the Government’s Indigenous Guardianship Pilot Program to be flexible
enough to adapt to each nation’s unique cultural circumstances?

86

- Do you think the Guardianship program could influence how non-Indigenous people manage
natural resources?
- How do you think your Guardianship Program will influence the relationship that you have
with other governments or industry when discussing or managing natural resources found across
your territory?
Guardianship Program- Other Information
- Is there anything else that you would like to share about the purpose, strengths, benefits or
challenges facing your Guardianship program?
- Do you have any other thoughts or comments in describing the role of the Federal
Government’s Indigenous Guardianship Pilot Program?
- Are there any other comments you would like to make?
Thank you for taking the time to discuss your views on the Canadian government’s Indigenous
Guardians Pilot Program. I am extremely grateful for your insights and the invaluable
information that you provided. Transcripts of your interview will sent back for approval and any
updates to the research project will be shared via email. Additionally, I will return a final copy of
my thesis to you and provide a brief video outlining my findings that I hope you will share with
your program and others in your community or beyond that might be interested in Guardianship.
All the best,
Abby

87

TCPS 2: CORE

Date of Issue:

29 April, 2020

has completed the Tri-Council Policy Statement:
Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans
Course on Research Ethics (TCPS 2: CORE)

Abby Dooks

This document certifies that

Certificate of Completion

Navigating the ethics of human research

PANEL ON
RESEARCH ETHICS

Appendix C- Certificate of Completion: Panel of Research Ethics
Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research
Involving Humans Course on Research Ethics

88

Appendix D- Research Ethics Board Approval Letter

RESEARCH ETHICS BOARD
MEMORANDUM
To:
CC:

Abby Dooks
Chris Johnson

From: Davina Banner-Lukaris, Chair
Research Ethics Board
Date: March 17, 2021
Re:

E2021.0209.003.00
Environmental Monitoring for the 21st Century: Exploring the Role of the
Canadian Government's Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program Funding to Facilitate
Local-Level Natural Resources Management

Thank you for submitting revisions to the Research Ethics Board (REB) regarding the abovenoted proposal. Your revisions have been approved.
We are pleased to issue approval for the above named study for a period of 12 months from the
date of this letter. Continuation beyond that date will require further review and renewal of REB
approval. Any changes or amendments to the protocol or consent form must be approved by the
REB.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, no in-person interactions with participants are permitted
without an approved Safe Research Plan and the protocol mitigations for COVID-19 being
submitted as an amendment and approved by the REB. Please refer to the Chair Bulletins
found on the REB webpage for further details. If questions remain, please do not hesitate to
contact Isobel Hartley, Research Ethics Officer at Isobel.hartley@unbc.ca or reb@unbc.ca.
Good luck with your research.
Sincerely,

Dr. Davina Banner-Lukaris
Chair, Research Ethics Board

3333 University Way, Prince George, BC, V2N 4Z9, Telephone (250) 960-6735

89