Rebuilding Yunesit’in fire (<i>Qwen</i>) stewardship: Learnings from the land

Nikolakis, William; Ross, Russell Myers

doi:10.5558/tfc2022-001

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…States will need to create widereaching enabling conditions, by upholding customary land tenure, leadership, and livelihoods. It is perhaps unsurprising that the most extensive existing programs to support/restore Indigenous fire management are in Australia, the USA, and Canada, all settler-colonial contexts with strong Indigenous social movements, where the rights of Indigenous peoples to customary land tenure and land use are increasingly recognized, and Indigeneity increasingly holds political capital (Ansell et al 2020, Marks-Block et al 2021, Nikolakis and Ross 2022, Neale 2023.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How policy interventions influence burning to meet cultural and small-scale livelihood objectives

Smith,

Ainscough,

Alare

et al. 2024

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fire has cultural and economic significance for Indigenous and rural peoples worldwide, being used to manage landscapes for activities such as hunting, gathering, cropping, and forestry, and for ceremonial and spiritual purposes. Policy interventions by state and non-state organizations, such as regulations, economic incentives, and communication campaigns, can target fire use directly, or affect it indirectly, for example, by restricting land access. Yet evidence of such impacts has not been synthesized at the global scale. We analyzed 512 examples in 68 countries to describe the range of policy interventions by state and non-state organizations that target and/or affect fire use, categorizing interventions based on the broad actor types involved, their mode of operation (e.g., regulation) and their intentionality and/or possible effects vis-a-vis fire use. Of these interventions, 74% involved only state agencies in policy design and implementations, 4% involved only non-state organizations, and 18% involved collaboration between state and/or non-state organizations and/or communities. Three hundred and nine interventions directly targeted fire use, of which 87% aimed to eliminate or constrain fire use. Two hundred and three affected fire use indirectly, of which 88% led to reductions in or constraints upon fire use.Though there is some recognition in the 21st century of a need, in certain contexts, to support local fire use, for reasons related to environmental justice, ecology, wildfire risk and climate change, the literature we reviewed points to several challenges for contemporary efforts toward this end. These include contradictions between policy interventions, mistrust between actors following histories of fire suppression, greater fuel loads increasing the risk of burning where fire has been suppressed, and the need to consider the indirect effects of other types of policy, such as those related to land tenure.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How policy interventions influence burning to meet cultural and small-scale livelihood objectives

Smith,

Ainscough,

Alare

et al. 2024

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, community-led or social science research that offers perspectives from Indigenous and local communities (Labossière and McGee 2017;Lewis et al 2018;Nikolakis and Ross 2022), and that examines issues such as public health (Bowman et al 2018), governance (Hagerman et al 2010;Copes-Gerbitz et al 2022b;Sutherland Fig. 2 Recent (red;2017-2023) andhistorical (yellow;1959 wildfire events (≥ 1000 ha) in British Columbia.…”

Section: Transdisciplinary Fire Research Needs For Bcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guiding principles for transdisciplinary and transformative fire research

Copes-Gerbitz,

Sutherland,

Dickson-Hoyle

et al. 2024

fire ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Managing landscape fire is a complex challenge because it is simultaneously necessary for, and increasingly poses a risk to, societies and ecosystems worldwide. This challenge underscores the need for transformative change in the way societies live with and manage fire. While researchers have the potential to act as agents of transformative change, in practice, the ability to affect change is often constrained by siloed and biased expertise, rigid decision-making institutions, and increasingly vulnerable social-ecological systems where urgent rather than long-term solutions are prioritized. Addressing these challenges requires more holistic and equitable approaches to fire research that promote new models of transdisciplinary thinking, collaboration, and practice. Results To advance transformative solutions to this complex fire challenge, we propose four principles for conducting transdisciplinary fire research: (1) embrace complexity, (2) promote diverse ways of knowing fire, (3) foster transformative learning, and (4) practice problem-centered research. These principles emerged from our experience as a group of early-career researchers who are embedded within and motivated by today’s complex fire challenge within British Columbia (BC), Canada. In this forum piece, we first describe the four principles and then apply the principles to two case studies: (1) BC, a settler-colonial context experiencing increased size, severity, and impacts of wildfires, and (2) our ECR discussion group, a space of collective learning and transformation. In doing so, we present a unique contribution that builds on existing efforts to develop more holistic fire research frameworks and demonstrates how application of these principles can promote transdisciplinary research and transformation towards coexistence with fire, from local to global scales. Conclusions In this forum piece, we identify and apply four guiding principles for transdisciplinary fire research. Collectively, these principles can foster more inclusive applied fire research that matches the scope and scale of today’s fire challenge and promotes transformative change towards coexisting with fire.

show abstract

“…There are two burning periods each year, early spring (April and early May), and late fall (October), and each specific site is burned once a year. The program has now been expanded, and employs and trains dozens of community members in fire stewardship, from a combined population of around 500 people, and over a total area of more than 1,700 square kilometers held under Aboriginal title and reserve lands (Nikolakis and Roberts, 2021;Nikolakis and Myers-Ross, 2022). In April 2022, some 250 hectares of forest and grassland was burned.…”

Section: Adapting the Australian Experience To British Columbiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Diffusion of indigenous fire management and carbon-credit programs: Opportunities and challenges for “scaling-up” to temperate ecosystems

Nikolakis

Welham²,

Greene³

2022

Front. For. Glob. Change

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Savanna burning programs across northern Australia generate millions of dollars per year for Indigenous communities through carbon and other greenhouse gas (GHG) markets. In catalyzing Indigenous knowledge and workforce to mitigate destructive wildfires, these programs are considered a success story on a range of social, ecological and economic measures. Scaling-up to temperate ecosystems requires a focus on applying the architecture and governance of these programs, and accounting for fundamental differences in context. We examine the opportunities and challenges in applying the architecture of savanna burning to an Indigenous Fire Management (IFM) program in central British Columbia, Canada (the Chilcotin). The Chilcotin project involves Yunesit’in and Xeni Gwet’in First Nations, and we draw from eight key elements of the Australian savanna burning model to identify a project area that includes Aboriginal title and reserve lands. The area encompasses Interior Douglas Fir (IDF) and Sub-Boreal Pine—Spruce (SBPS) biogeoclimatic zones, or dry forest and grassland ecosystems where low intensity fires are applied by community members to remove forest fuels, with the goal of mitigating wildfires and associated GHG emissions. The multi-decadal intervals between contemporary fires in the Chilcotin region make it challenging to accurately document historical fire location, scale and intensity, and thus to establish an emissions baseline. If this issue can be resolved, the British Columbia Forest Carbon Offset Protocol version 2 (FCOPv2) offers promise for developing verified carbon credits for three reasons: first, carbon (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4), the three main GHG emissions from Indigenous fire management, are included in the protocol; second, credits under FCOPv2 are eligible for either compliance or voluntary markets, offering diversification; and third, a range of activities are eligible under the standard, including fire management and timber harvesting, which offers flexibility in terms of management practices. The Chilcotin project is likely to generate substantial co-benefits related to cultural, health and wellbeing, and livelihood values among First Nations participants. The Australian experience suggests that getting governance right, and building community ownership through “bottom-up” governance, is critical to the success of these programs. From the Australian model, community-based planning, like the Healthy Country Planning approach, can be a positive step to take, engaging community in goal setting for the program to guide and take ownership of its direction.

show abstract

Rebuilding Yunesit’in fire (Qwen) stewardship: Learnings from the land

Cited by 8 publications

References 33 publications

How policy interventions influence burning to meet cultural and small-scale livelihood objectives

How policy interventions influence burning to meet cultural and small-scale livelihood objectives

Guiding principles for transdisciplinary and transformative fire research

Diffusion of indigenous fire management and carbon-credit programs: Opportunities and challenges for “scaling-up” to temperate ecosystems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About