A tale of two fire systems: indigenous fire stewardship in British Columbia and California

Abstract Background An increasing wildfire problem in western North America has created a policy space for Indigenous fire stewardship (IFS) to mitigate wildfire. We compare how British Columbia and California have supported IFS—two jurisdictions with distinct ecosystems but similar histories of colonialism and its socio-ecological consequences. We examine how IFS is incorporated into each jurisdiction’s institutional framework, and the barriers to, and opportunities for implementation. Results Each jurisdiction’s approach to recognizing IFS is shaped by different constitutional frameworks and legal relationships with Indigenous Peoples. California recently developed policies and planning documents to support IFS and enable co-stewardship and contracting agreements similar to the policies of some federal agencies. However, barriers related to land tenure constrain IFS practitioners and inhibit meaningful implementation across broader landscapes. Compared to California, British Columbia has not shown as much openness to supporting independent IFS practitioners, but instead has begun a project to integrate aspects of IFS into the existing provincial wildfire service. While British Columbia has expressed interest in working toward a shared decision-making approach with First Nations, the present framework restricts IFS to Indigenous land tenures (which comprises only 0.4% of the province). Conclusions Despite legal and policy changes to support IFS since 2017, deep-seated constraints prevent systematic implementation at a meaningful scale in both jurisdictions. Laws cannot by themselves catalyze social change; they must be complemented by a suite of initiatives to transform the social context. Some of these changes to enable IFS include government support for Land Back and land access for IFS practitioners; the removal of agency silos; building awareness of, and support for IFS within agencies and among the public; and providing resources for Indigenous Peoples to steward landscapes throughout the year, to achieve multiple goals.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Fire Ecology
Published
2025-10-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-025-00399-8
Primary Topic
Fire effects on ecosystems
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A tale of two fire systems: indigenous fire stewardship in British Columbia and California

Scott Lewis Stephens, William Nikolakis, Russell Myers Ross, Don L. Hankins et al.
Fire Ecology
Fire effects on ecosystems
article

A tale of two fire systems: indigenous fire stewardship in British Columbia and California

Scott Lewis Stephens, William Nikolakis, Russell Myers Ross, Don L. Hankins, Gabe Schepens
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background An increasing wildfire problem in western North America has created a policy space for Indigenous fire stewardship (IFS) to mitigate wildfire. We compare how British Columbia and California have supported IFS—two jurisdictions with distinct ecosystems but similar histories of colonialism and its socio-ecological consequences. We examine how IFS is incorporated into each jurisdiction’s institutional framework, and the barriers to, and opportunities for implementation. Results Each jurisdiction’s approach to recognizing IFS is shaped by different constitutional frameworks and legal relationships with Indigenous Peoples. California recently developed policies and planning documents to support IFS and enable co-stewardship and contracting agreements similar to the policies of some federal agencies. However, barriers related to land tenure constrain IFS practitioners and inhibit meaningful implementation across broader landscapes. Compared to California, British Columbia has not shown as much openness to supporting independent IFS practitioners, but instead has begun a project to integrate aspects of IFS into the existing provincial wildfire service. While British Columbia has expressed interest in working toward a shared decision-making approach with First Nations, the present framework restricts IFS to Indigenous land tenures (which comprises only 0.4% of the province). Conclusions Despite legal and policy changes to support IFS since 2017, deep-seated constraints prevent systematic implementation at a meaningful scale in both jurisdictions. Laws cannot by themselves catalyze social change; they must be complemented by a suite of initiatives to transform the social context. Some of these changes to enable IFS include government support for Land Back and land access for IFS practitioners; the removal of agency silos; building awareness of, and support for IFS within agencies and among the public; and providing resources for Indigenous Peoples to steward landscapes throughout the year, to achieve multiple goals.

Fire EcologyVol. 21(1)
University of British Columbia (CA), Government of Canada (CA), California State University, Chico (US), Positive Living Society of British Columbia (CA), University of California, Berkeley (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 73%
Fire effects on ecosystems
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.