Monday, September 22, 2025
Is a novel land management practice on the horizon? A plan was put forward in British Columbia to transition all public land—which makes up 94 per cent of the province—into a co-management framework with Indigenous populations. Under the proposed plan all approvals of projects, licenses and leases for use of public lands would be a joint decision between the Indigenous groups and the Province. This initiative would bring major economic development and enfranchisement opportunities to Indigenous communities while greatly improving ecological stewardship and enhancing carbon sequestration in the respective territories.
The proposed amendments were retracted after facing severe criticism. Critics voiced concern that the amendments would risk granting a broad veto power to Indigenous groups over project development throughout the province and stall development, among other things.
Was this an opportunity squandered for the enfranchisement of Indigenous populations and the environment? The proposal may have been too much for British Colombians to swallow, as it could potentially obstruct industrial activity and investments that account for thousands of jobs and generate much needed income for the province.
But can there be a better path forward than an all-or-nothing approach?
Land co-management agreement framework
Co-management of public lands means an equal or “joint” decision making power between the government and the local Indigenous group(s) to determine how public or protected land sites are managed, such as coastlines, forests, waterways and grasslands.
Co-management agreements in Canada have grown out of comprehensive land claim settlements (treaties) and increasing legal recognition of Indigenous rights through Supreme court rulings. However, the majority of the agreements established in Canada regarding the development of crown land are largely consultative, as the government continues to have the final say.
According to Heather Morigeau, activist and artist who has extensive experience integrating Indigenous practices with nature restoration projects in urban environments, these arrangements can be performative in nature when First-Nations have little power over final decisions of land usage. She reiterates that for any co-management agreement to be effective, it must allow Indigenous perspectives to have an equal voice in the decision-making process.
Co-management frameworks have also been implemented to varying degrees in countries such as Australia, the United States, South Africa, Bolivia, Norway and more. Such agreements allow for Indigenous groups to play a larger role in resource management within their territories, often leading to increased economic development of Indigenous populations, increased political agency and self-determination, along with better environmental stewardship and preservation. But similar to Canada, the majority of these agreements are consultative in nature, and only applicable within already protected areas.
Bolivia on the other hand, has some of the largest proportion of co-managed land in the world, with over 28 per cent of the country’s forest areas are under such agreements. Since the 1990s, Indigenous groups have greatly improved their economic development while significantly preserving rainforest deforestation in their areas. Numerous studies from these experiences have indicated that the practice both elevated Ingenious opportunities and provided greater protection of the rainforest, leading to improved carbon sequestration, ecosystem health and biodiversity.
Unfortunately, the Bolivian experience, with all its benefits, has also led to conflict between industry interests and Indigenous populations over the co-managed land. This speaks to the importance of collaborative management where both sides are involved in ongoing dialog and planning.
Is it possible to implement a tangible co-management framework to enable greater Indigenous empowerment and environmental protection without reliving the Bolivian experience of armed conflict or the B.C. experience of decreasing buy-in from the wider population?
Lessons learned from the U.S.
Rather than implementing top-down provincial-wide regulations, it is possible to adopt a more case-by- case approach by establishing various specifications that are contextual for the characteristics of the territory in question. For example, forests have a very different set of natural features and considerations for preservation and stewardship than waterways and coastal regions.
This has been the approach adopted in the U.S., where there have been 19 co-management agreements established with specific tribes on specific geographies. This case-by-case approach has worked very well—preserving existing livelihoods of non-Indigenous groups while enfranchising Indigenous populations to greater socio-economic development. Successful co-management agreements have lead to revenue-sharing solutions that increase Indigenous tribal autonomy over their economic and social affairs, developments that can be fostered from the ground-up by each respective nation.
Industry representatives in the U.S. have demonstrated significant willingness to engage in mutually beneficial economic development opportunities with native populations, but advocate for clearer federal consultation standards to streamline the engagement process within the co-management territories.
In the Canadian context
Given Canada’s immense landmass, the opportunity and benefit of implementing co-management agreements are innumerable. Giving Indigenous populations a greater stake in the land they occupy can aid in more ecocentric forest management to prevent wildfires, increase wildlife protection, and preserve waterways and coastal regions.
This is in fact already happening in our back yard, with the Great Bear Rainforest , under a co-management agreement since 2006, has experienced major benefits to the parties involved and is gaining international recognition. This was enabled through the sharing of timber rights, carbon offsets and increased Indigenous decision-making in land management, which have led to increases in biodiversity, wildlife, forestry and coastal preservation along with income and job growth for the First Nations in the area.
Implementing agreements like this can be time and resource-intensive upfront, as it is essential to calibrate the territory sizes and define clear jurisdictions for the stakeholders involved. However, the long-term benefits are innumerable and similar agreements are possible across the country, with a higher chance of success than a top-down approach. Which will in turn greatly improve the economic development and cultural heritage of Indigenous populations while enhancing environmental protection for generations to come.
It will be important to create clear policy arrangements for each co-management agreement and to define the scope of decision-making with as much equality as possible within the defined territories. This will provide industry with clear guidance on how to operate within each co-managed territory, to avoid the uncertainty and resistance experienced after the B.C. plan was introduced. There is a way to pursue these interests in a mutually beneficial way—so what are we waiting for?
Donald MacCallum has a master’s degree in economics with several years experience in the non-profit sector as well as banking industry, with previous work experience at S&P Global in Washington D.C and the United Nations Capital Development Fund in Brussels. He is a member of several Calgary based NGOs that focus on developing sustainable climate action and has collaborated on several newspaper articles on climate awareness and advocacy.
Featured image credit: Getty Images
