Good morning, everyone.
I'm here on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations. One of the questions we were looking at is how the national conservation plan can complement or enhance habitat conservation.
There were previous submissions by the AFN on the national conservation plan, which focused on the relationship between conservation, first nations, traditional knowledge, and customary and sustainable use of biological resources. Specifically, the AFN's main point was for the NCP to be successful, the AFN recommended three points. First, we need involvement at national, regional, and community levels to ensure a coordinated approach—that's a very important point. Second, we need opportunities to apply and share traditional knowledge and practices through our traditional territories. Third, the NCP should encourage a rights-based approach to first nation partnership with industry, NGOs, etc.
Within this context, we would like to address the following topics. The first one has to do with the most effective groups and organizations. The most effective groups and organizations are those that engage a broad variety of interests, that are driven by first nations, and that allow the application of traditional knowledge by first nations. The other one is to provide a space for customary and sustainable use exercises: harvesting rights by first nations, resource users, conservation, and protecting habitat without singling out individual species for special consideration. One of the most important things is the use of the right tools in the right situations so that environmental economic benefits and burdens are distributed fairly to ensure positive environmental and economic outcomes. That came from the report on the national conservation plan.
When we look at defining conserved lands, one of the things is the issue of working landscapes. It's very important to look at this issue, especially in a first nations context. When we're looking at the amount of lands available to first nations—this is using old data—or talking about a working landscape for first nations, there's an average of 1,176 hectares, which is the average size of a reserve in Canada. When we're talking about needs for economic, social, and cultural use, this is a fairly small land base. Conservation has been proven, under the current regime, to affect our ability to effectively use those lands.
The other part is looking at conserved lands versus conserved species. First nations' traditional knowledge-holders have long advocated the importance of habitat protection as a key strategy to preserve and enhance ecological integrity. One of the things that's absolutely critical is that the NCP recognize the difference between conserving habitat and conserving species.
Specific protection initiatives that do not provide for protection of habitat are unlikely to succeed. What we mean by that is that you can't look on a land base and protect one single species; you have to look at it in the context of a whole unit. If you're only protecting fish, you can't avoid the other species. In British Columbia, you look at birds, bears, other mammals, all uses. In this particular instance, you can't specifically look at protecting one single species.
The other part is the question of first nation management versus prescriptive federal action for species recovery—habitat versus species. The government must show a willingness to work with all Canadians, using a proper set of tools and rights and circumstances, in order for conservation efforts to succeed.
Collaboration is not an option but a necessity, and the government must promote and support it. This came under section 30 in the national conservation plan. This is true, especially when you're looking at things like conservation in the context of the Species at Risk Act.
One of the things in the Species at Risk Act is that how it's been used and how it's applied are two different things. When you're looking at application in British Columbia, there are instances where the act is partially applied to the detriment of first nations' economic use. This came up in the instance of the Osoyoos Indian Band. One of the things in there was a failure to use specific pieces of the Species at Risk Act. They protected the area but they didn't provide adequate compensation to that particular first nation when they were developing their lands. It resulted in a loss of nearly 80% of the most productive lands that were available to that community specifically for development.
There's another instance in there, but that's not the only one. When you're looking at the use of these prescriptive measures, you know what they are. You can't just pick and choose which one applies and which one we're not going to apply. It has to be done in a full sweep. SARA does apply a number of useful tools, many of which are more useful if the act is completely implemented. When you're looking at that act, it took a lot of work. A lot of different first nations that actually worked on that through the aboriginal working group. There was a lot of specific...from the start to the finish of the act. It can work but it has to be followed.
Again, you just can't use specific pieces of it to meet whatever objective. If it's conservation, you can't overlook the economic components of land development, especially on reserve lands and especially when you're looking at an average reserve size of 1,174 hectares. That does not give you a lot of room to actually work with. It's more important to look at how the relationship is going to exist, especially in terms of conservation with regional, municipal, provincial and also federal. It has to be a partnership or else it's simply not going to work. You cannot put the conservation burden on a single part of society and expect success, either in the conservation or in the ability of those people to actually succeed economically or socially.
Another one in there is that the recovery strategy for species at risk needs to include direct communication with the first nations that will be impacted most, as it was with the boreal caribou recovery strategies. Many communities were not notified and were unable to participate in the recovery strategy. Again, when you're looking at sustenance and changes to that, you just can't drop it on people and expect them to be able to accept or participate in whatever is being planned.
Improvement on how first nations are involved in the habitat conservation in Canada is required specifically to protect Canada's most endangered ecosystems and biodiversity hot spots.
Funding for the invasive alien species partnership program was terminated in 2012. There's one thing that should be understood. When first nations look at alien invasive species, we take the position that anything that preys, displaces, or competes against an indigenous species is an infringement of our aboriginal rights. The result can be either curtailment of that activity or extinction of a native species. It is very important that invasive alien species programs continue, especially for that reason, because they do actually infringe upon our rights.
Improving habitat conservation.... First nations' role in habitat conservation derives from constitutionally protected, inherent aboriginal rights and title, and that's supported. Again, when you're looking at species conservation, there is an aboriginal rights' component that is attached to that, and more specifically, if this species goes extinct, that's an extinguishment of the right. That's been identified under numerous court cases, with regard to having a very rigid process for the extinguishment of a right. I think that needs to be looked at, especially when you're dealing with conservation, planning, or protection.
Policies and practices need to be in place to ensure ITK and ATK are promoted, integrated, and protected. There are a number of examples of how indigenous traditional knowledge is actually applied.
On the west coast of Vancouver Island, you have raised clam beds that go back 5,000 years.