Research

INTRODUCTION

From time immemorial, the Syilx (Okanagan) people, a transborder First Nation in the southern interior of the province of British Columbia in Canada, and Washington State in the U.S., have depended on fisheries for sustenance, cultural values, and spiritual practices. Overexploitation and human actions since the 19th century, however, particularly the construction of hydroelectric dams and the canalization of the Okanagan River for agricultural development and flood control, destroyed fish and their habitats (Wagner 2008, Schwann 2018, ONA [date unknown]-a). Sockeye salmon, sc̓win, or Oncorhynchus nerka, for example, once abundant in the Okanagan, dwindled to fewer than 10,000 adults returning annually on average in the 1990s. This decline precipitated the virtual elimination of First Nations and other commercial fisheries in the Canadian portions of the Columbia River basin (Hyatt and Rankin 1999, Hyatt and Stockwell 2019, ONA [date unknown]-a) and posed a significant threat to Syilx well-being and way of life (Blanchet et al. 2022).

In the late 1990s, the Okanagan Nation Alliance (ONA), representing seven Syilx bands as the First Nations government on the Canadian portion of the territory, joined forces with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the provincial Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operation and Rural Development (FLNRORD) in an alliance to restore Okanagan sockeye. Guided by Syilx elders and drawing on Syilx traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and Western science, their multi-decade collaboration has yielded remarkable results. Between 2008 and 2016, Okanagan sockeye salmon returns averaged a record 200,000 adults (Hyatt and Stockwell 2019), soaring to an unprecedented 670,000 adults in 2022 (Strachan 2022). This success is noteworthy considering that comparable initiatives in the larger Columbia River basin have failed (Lackey 2000, Hyatt and Stockwell 2019). Moreover, despite increased interest in co-management for marine, fish, and wildlife management regimes, co-management results between Indigenous and non-Indigenous governments and organizations in Canada remain elusive, particularly outside of land claim agreements (Nadasdy 2003a, Swerdfager and Armitage 2023).

In this paper we explore the cross-cultural collaboration that led to the Okanagan Sockeye Program’s (OSP) remarkable success. The research aims to identify the enabling factors that facilitated the Program’s inception and sustained implementation over two decades. Particular emphasis is placed on the characteristics of co-management and adaptive co-management that emerged during the Program’s execution, as well as on the role of Syilx TEK. This study responds directly to a request by Syilx Okanagan Knowledge Keepers for insights from the Sockeye Program into effective cross-cultural partnerships, and is based on research conducted within the framework of the Okanagan Waterways project led by the University of British Columbia in collaboration with the Syilx community.

BACKGROUND

Conceptual background

Co-management

The theoretical underpinnings of co-management span several disciplines, including institutional design and collective action (Ostrom 1990), social-ecological systems and complexity theory (Berkes et al. 1998), collaborative governance (Ansell and Gash 2008), and participatory development (Chambers 1994). In natural resource management, the term “co-management” was initially introduced by treaty tribes in Western Washington State in the late 1970s to define the kind of relationship they hoped to establish with the state following the landmark 1974 US v. Washington case (commonly referred to as “the Boldt decision”; Pinkerton 2003). Co-management was initially defined as “the sharing of power and responsibility between government and local resource users” (Berkes et al. 1991:12), with the transfer of government power taking different forms, e.g., deconcentration, delegation, devolution, and privatization (Pomeroy and Berkes 1997). However, the concept was later broadened to regard the state as only one of the possible actors in a potential management arrangement (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2000, Hasselman 2017).

A related term, “adaptive” co-management, considers the uncertainty, unpredictability, and complexity inherent in social-ecological systems (Olsson et al. 2004, Folke et al. 2005, Armitage et al. 2007). Informed by a constructivist philosophy (Hasselman 2017), features of adaptive co-management include institutional structures designed for shared learning across varying spatial and temporal scales (Armitage et al. 2009, Plummer 2013) and flexible, community-based resource management systems (Olsson et al. 2004, Folke et al. 2005). As Berkes (2007) contends, co-management and the expanded practice of adaptive co-management have several essential characteristics or “faces,” one of which is social learning (Berkes 2009). Social learning is a process of iterative reflection that occurs when experiences, ideas, and environments are shared, leading to new learning (Keen et al. 2012). It is both an outcome and a requirement of partners cooperating (Berkes 2009). As an outcome, social learning demonstrates how co-management partners learn to be adaptive as a result of the uncertainty of social-ecological systems, or they “learn to learn” (Armitage et al. 2011).

Co-management in an Indigenous context

In Canada, co-management emerged as a central theme in Indigenous land claims negotiations, to institute new decision-making arrangements that empower Indigenous peoples with greater control over their land and natural resources (Spaeder and Feit 2005, White 2020, Swerdfager and Armitage 2023) and align with Indigenous values and worldviews (Berkes et al. 1991, Notzke 1995, Silvern 1999, Natcher et al. 2005, Houde 2007). The 1973 Calder Supreme Court ruling was pivotal in recognizing aboriginal rights, leading` to the development of Canada’s land claim settlement policy (Scholtz 2013). A cornerstone of this policy was co-management, designed to afford Indigenous people some level of control over their ancestral lands and provide a limited form of self-determination (Rodon 2021). Section 35 of Canada’s 1982 Constitution Act further accelerated co-management practices by affirming existing aboriginal and treaty rights (Swerdfager and Armitage 2023). One early manifestation of this policy shift was the 1984 Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA), which created co-management boards overseeing fisheries, wildlife, and environmental impacts in Canada’s Arctic (Inuvialuit Regional Corporation 1984, Osherenko and Canadian Arctic Resources 1988). These boards exemplify power sharing in decision making. Various other agreements across Canada have since reinforced co-management paradigms, particularly in the realms of fish and wildlife conservation (Swerdfager and Armitage 2023), with interest in these co-management arrangements continuing to grow in Canada (Armitage et al. 2007, White 2020, Rodon 2021).

The academic discourse on Indigenous co-management is far from monolithic. Although some scholars argue that co-management facilitates Indigenous empowerment (Natcher et al. 2005, White 2020), others see it as a form of co-option and assimilation into Western systems of management (Nadasdy 2003b, Stevenson 2006), thereby further marginalizing Indigenous communities, strengthening the state’s control over resources, and escalating conflict (Rodon 1998, 2021, Castro and Nielsen 2001, Goetze 2005, Spaeder and Feit 2005). Still, co-management experiences in Canada and Australia are often held up as models for replication (Craig 2002). Rodon (2021) concludes that co-management is a multi-faceted social phenomenon encompassing a spectrum of possibilities. Based on the Canadian literature, he presents four interpretive models to analyze co-management: cooption, transaction, self-determination, and mistrust. Swerdfager and Armitage (2023) argue that co-management currently stands at a crossroads, with challenges such as outdated and incomplete Canadian legal and policy framework, insufficient systems for knowledge co-creation, and resource constraints casting shadows over its efficacy in Indigenous settings.

Co-management and TEK

In the realm of co-management, knowledge co-production often acts as a catalyst for collaboration, even when decision-making powers are limited (Armitage et al. 2011, Johnson et al. 2020, Swerdfager and Armitage 2023). In Indigenous contexts, however, the recognition and valuation of TEK in knowledge co-production is a significant barrier (Berkes et al. 1991, McGregor 2004, 2014, 2021, Nadasdy 2005, Williams 2011, Plummer et al. 2012). Originating from international development and adaptive management discourses (Whyte 2013), TEK and related terms (such as Indigenous knowledge or native science), is a recurrent theme in the natural resources, environmental science, and policy literature (Houde 2007, McGregor 2009, Berkes 2018). TEK is referenced in critical international environmental agreements, including the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, the 1992 UN Framework on Climate Change, and the 2012 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Tengö et al. 2014, 2017). It is also acknowledged in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) passed in 2007 (Whyte 2016, Tengö et al. 2017, Berkes 2018). This broad acknowledgment notwithstanding, concrete measures for TEK’s genuine inclusion remain elusive (Tengö et al. 2017, McElwee et al. 2020, Reyes-García et al. 2022).

In Canada, little evidence exists of effective models for the ethical inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in environmental governance even after decades of attempts, according to McGregor (2021). Epistemological differences, colonial legacies, institutional biases, and conflicts with economic interests complicate efforts (Agrawal 1995, Nadasdy 1999, Turner et al. 2000, Houde 2007, Whyte 2013, Berkes 2018). Houde (2007) identifies six “faces” of TEK relevant to natural resource co-management in Canada, noting that the faces related to environmental ethics, values, and worldviews may be the most difficult to accommodate in conventional Western systems. A common misconception is that TEK can be integrated with Western science as data points into existing bureaucracies, a notion that overlooks the inherent differences in cultural values and power dynamics between these knowledge systems (Nadasdy 1999, 2005, McGregor 2021). TEK, however, is not something that can be picked up or extracted and used by scientists or practitioners (Whyte 2013), as McGregor (2021:1) explains:

Indigenous knowledge is not just “knowledge” (a noun) but a way of life, something that must be lived (a verb) in order to be understood. Indigenous knowledge is inseparable from the people who hold and live this knowledge.

The prevailing misconception and complexities associated with TEK and its relation to Western science have been observed in the context of co-management as it relates to fisheries and marine social-ecological systems (Pomeroy and Berkes 1997, Rodon 1998, Armitage et al. 2009, Swerdfager and Armitage 2023). These issues are relevant to this sockeye salmon case study in the Okanagan.

Study Background

The Syilx Okanagan Nation: a salmon people

The Syilx (Okanagan) Nation is an Indigenous people who have lived from time immemorial in the Okanagan and Columbia River basins in both British Columbia, Canada, and Washington State, U.S. Historically, their territory spanned about 69,000 km², extending across modern-day regions in both countries (see Fig. 1; Good Water 2018, Westbank First Nation [date unknown]). Today, the Syilx peoples are represented by the ONA in British Columbia and the Colville Confederated Tribe Business Council in Washington State.

Salmon are central to Syilx identity (Johnson 2016). A saying in the community goes, “if the salmon are gone, there is no place for people,” emphasizing their significance. This importance is further elaborated in the Syilx Four Food Chiefs story, an oral tradition that describes the foundational role of salmon in the Syilx culture (ONA [date unknown]-b). Salmon are a food source and a key element in the community’s cultural and spiritual practices, intergenerational bonds, and overall well-being (Good Water 2018, Terbasket and Shields 2019, Blanchet et al. 2022).

Okanagan sockeye salmon restoration: spatial, temporal, and institutional complexity

Sockeye salmon in the Okanagan River subbasin represent one of several salmon species that thrive in freshwater lakes and rivers along the North Pacific Ocean’s eastern and western coasts (Groot and Margolis 1991). The Okanagan subbasin is the last international watershed in the Columbia River basin system that still supports anadromous salmon. The construction of the Grand Coulee Dam in the United States in 1939 cut off other anadromous species, including Chinook, Steelhead, Coho, and others, from spawning areas in the Upper Columbia Basin (Ortolano and Cushing 2002).

The life cycle of sockeye salmon is marked by spatial, temporal, and institutional complexities (Hyatt and Stockwell 2019). Sockeye salmon are anadromous fish that are reared in freshwater habitats but migrate to the ocean for most of their adult lives. They later return to their natal spawning grounds, a journey that spans over 1000 kilometers through a diverse range of ecosystems at local to global scales (see Fig. 2; Hyatt and Stockwell 2019). This migratory journey lasts anywhere from 3 to 5 years, involving river migration phases through Canadian and U.S. territories (Fig. 2B), oceanic residency (Fig. 2A), and a final migration back to the Okanagan River (Fig. 2C; Burgner 1991, Hyatt and Stockwell 2019). The challenges facing sockeye salmon are not just environmental but are shaped by a complex interplay of natural and human-induced factors. For example, climatic variations driven by atmospheric processes impact both freshwater and oceanic habitats (Hyatt and Stockwell 2019). Human activities, ranging from land and coastal conversions to water regulation, transportation, and even cultural practices, further complicate the conservation landscape (Burgner 1991, Hyatt and Stockwell 2019).

Okanagan sockeye salmon is governed by a complex transnational framework involving 27 actors, policies, and statutes in Canada and the U.S. In Canada, DFO is the main authority, guided by the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Wild Salmon Policy, and the 1982 Constitution (Hyatt and Stockwell 2019). Because water is an area of provincial jurisdiction in Canada, however, formal agreements such as the 1976 Canada-British Columbia Okanagan Basin Implementation Agreement, which includes provisions to protect fisheries values, are also part of the regulatory structure (Hyatt et al. 2015). Transborder management involves three key Canada-U.S. treaties: the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, the 1964 Columbia River Treaty, and the 1985 Pacific Salmon Treaty. These are overseen by the International Joint Commission and the Pacific Salmon Commission. Additionally, several U.S. institutions, policies, and statutes operate parallel, given that Okanagan sockeye traverses U.S. waters (Song et al. 2017, Hyatt and Stockwell 2019).

In British Columbia, the management of fish species like Okanagan sockeye salmon is a complex interplay between federal and provincial jurisdictions, as outlined by the 1982 Canadian Constitution (Hyatt and Stockwell 2019). Although the Constitution assigns the federal government (DFO) the responsibility for “Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries,” focusing mainly on conservation and protection, it allows the provincial FLNRORD (now the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship) to manage other aspects like licensing and leases. In this framework, FLNRORD primarily oversees inland resident fish, whereas DFO takes the lead on anadromous fish like Okanagan sockeye, especially when they enter marine waters. This jurisdictional delineation requires federal-provincial collaboration, especially in the case of inland waters where both types of fish may be found. Specific agreements like the 1976 Canada-British Columbia Okanagan Basin Implementation further reinforce this shared responsibility.

METHODS

Our research is presented as a singular retrospective case study as a strategy for inquiry (Yin 2003), which was considered appropriate given the Sockeye Program’s two-decade horizon. This method allows for identifying variables contributing to the Program’s evolution (Starman 2013). As an in-depth analysis of a single initiative, the case study can be used to generalize across a larger set of similar cross-cultural environmental efforts (Gerring 2004).

The study applied an Indigenous methodological lens (Kovach 2010, 2021, Thambinathan and Kinsella 2021), consistent with the Waterways Project under which the research was conducted. Inter alia, this implied practicing creative reflexivity by questioning epistemological assumptions and considering potential power dynamics during engagement with study participants and analysis of findings; applying reciprocity and respect for Syilx self-determination, including requesting consent at different stages of the research, and listening affectively and attentively to participants; and creating space for discussing decolonization practices and embracing a transformative praxis. Guidance to frame the study with Indigenous methodological elements came from Syilx senior scholars who led the Waterways Project and who ensured the research both responded to Syilx interests and encompassed Syilx TEK as a line of inquiry.

Semi-structured in-depth expert interviews composed the study’s main data source. The expert interview method was considered most appropriate given the Indigenous context (Libakova and Sertakova 2015) and the very few individuals with historical knowledge of the OSP over its 20-year trajectory (Bogner and Menz 2009, von Soest 2023). The selection of interviewees was based on criterion sampling, the most important criterion being the longitudinal knowledge of OSP’s evolution and implementation. A total of eight in-depth expert interviews were conducted with current and former staff from the ONA Fisheries Department, DFO, and FLNRORD.

A joint Syilx-non-Indigenous team conducted the interviews. Having a Syilx researcher contributed legitimacy to the inquiry, facilitated access to Syilx participants, and created trust between the research team and interviewees. Interviews were conducted from October 2019–2022, with interruptions in data gathering due to COVID-19. All interviews were video recorded, which facilitated data analysis. Interview questions were open-ended and organized into four parts: the story of the project; management arrangements; responsibility to restoration, resilience, and reciprocity with salmon; and pivotal success factors.

Interview recordings were transcribed, and thematic analysis was conducted. As described by Braun and Clarke (2006), the thematic analysis method offers an accessible and theoretically flexible approach to analyzing qualitative data compared to other methods. The analysis broadly followed Braun and Clarke’s phased method to generate, view, and refine codes and themes, which was carried out in a reflective and iterative process between phases (Nowell et al. 2017). Given the Syilx context and epistemological differences in Indigenous and non-Indigenous research, flexibility was a priority, as was meeting trustworthiness criteria. On the latter, peer debriefing and researcher triangulation were conducted throughout the data analysis process. We also checked for the credibility of findings and interpretations through participant review and Syilx validation.

This paper represents a collaborative effort between a mixed settler-Syilx team of scholars. As non-Indigenous members (MC and AD), we recognize that our positionality limits our full understanding of Indigenous experiences. Therefore, our Syilx team member (SA) played an integral role in shaping the research design, providing crucial insights that we alone could not offer. As a team, we are committed to a decolonizing approach that includes ongoing learning and accountability through consultations with the Syilx community. We are dedicated to centering Indigenous voices, respecting cultural sensitivities, acknowledging the power dynamics in Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations, and adhering to ethical standards that include informed consent. We acknowledge that this research takes place on the traditional lands of the Syilx Okanagan Territory and respect the Syilx peoples’ enduring relationship with this territory. The research follows ethics protocols established by the Waterways, Past, Present and Future research project in 2017 and was approved by UBC’s Research Ethics Boards.

FINDINGS

Factors identified from the analysis as contributing to cross-cultural collaboration in the Program are summarized in Table 1. Here we elaborate on the more salient features uncovered in the inquiry in two sections: the enablers of the collaboration; and implementation of the Program.

The enablers

An authorizing environment

The Okanagan Sockeye Program was enabled by a series of constitutional, legal, and policy changes that began in the 1980s, affecting both Canada and the United States with regard to First Nations and Tribal rights, as well as environmental management. In the United States, the 1990s saw the inclusion of various salmon populations in the Columbia Basin under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. This motivated U.S. government agencies to explore innovative strategies to prevent further additions to the endangered species list. The Act’s mandate lent urgency to species restoration, compelling industries, and other stakeholders to comply with its legislative requirements.

In Canada, the Species-at-Risk Act was coming into force around the same period. Though it may have had more of a conceptual impact than an operational one, it nonetheless conditioned governmental attitudes toward greater sensitivity in biodiversity preservation. Restoration initiatives such as the Okanagan Sockeye Program allowed DFO to fulfill some of the new policies despite its historically uneasy relationship with First Nations, particularly concerning the co-management of fisheries and salmon harvest allocation.

The DFO was also navigating a series of court cases aimed at clarifying the constitutional rights of First Nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples to hunting and fishing resources. The release of the final Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in 1996, a comprehensive report comprising 440 recommendations, added significant weight to the discourse on Aboriginal rights and environmental protection in Canada (Government of Canada 1996). This report coincided with legal landmarks such as Canada’s 1982 Constitution Act, which recognized Aboriginal rights to fish for food, social, and ceremonial purposes, as well as case law like the Sparrow Decision that upheld these rights (Hyatt and Stockwell 2019, Rodon 2021, Swerdfager and Armitage 2023).

Although the Government of Canada had yet to adopt a coherent stance on matters akin to reconciliation at that time, judicial pressures were nonetheless moving the needle. The courts essentially urged that Indigenous peoples should not be coerced into solutions for resource management issues and that their constitutional entitlements deserved respect. These legal outcomes significantly influenced Indigenous rights and relationships during an uncertain period.

Leadership and institutional interdependence

Syilx leadership served as the catalyst for the Sockeye Program. Key figures like the late Chief Albert Saddleman and Byron Lewis had been vocal about the alarming decline in fish stocks since the 1960s, albeit with limited impact. In 1997, ONA leaders collaborated with the Colville Confederated Tribe Business Council in Washington State to convene a groundbreaking forum of salmon experts. The aim was to address the deteriorating state of salmon populations in the Okanagan River basin, discuss the feasibility of restoration, and explore the responsibilities of Canadian fisheries management agencies in upholding Syilx fishing rights as outlined in the 1982 Canadian Constitution. This gathering served as the launching pad for the Program. Syilx leaders passionately articulated the cultural importance of their ancestral fisheries, pledging a multi-generational commitment to restoring depleted and extirpated anadromous salmon populations. Their efforts were particularly timely, as feasibility studies had projected a 15-year window to prevent the extirpation of Okanagan Sockeye. As one DFO interviewee observed,

[A]bsent their [Syilx] efforts to bring federal and provincial agencies to the table, the state of salmon in the Okanagan River basin would differ little today from that observed during the 1990s when sockeye salmon extirpation seemed imminent.

In the aftermath of the 1997 workshop, ONA, DFO, and FLNRORD agreed to join forces. Recognizing their institutional interdependence, they jointly pooled expertise and resources. This tripartite coalition eventually formalized into the Canadian Okanagan Basin Technical Working Group (COBTWG), which would oversee the planning, execution, and evaluation of the restoration activities. Within this structure, ONA brought implementation capacity backed by inherent rights, while DFO and FLNRORD offered a formal institutional framework underpinned by their constitutional and statutory authority over aquatic habitats and fish. It would take another five years to secure a Memorandum of Understanding. Meanwhile, individuals within the partnership accessed funding and began working together, which fostered mutual trust, respect, and confidence and paved the way for impactful projects, according to interviewees. Recognition of transborder issues led to the formation of a Bilateral Okanagan Basin Technical Working Group of interested parties in the U.S. and Canada, but the group meets irregularly and is limited to information exchange.

In the early stages, individual advocates within DFO and FLNRORD were essential to propelling the Program forward. The provincial and federal governments had fragmented stances on Okanagan fisheries. For DFO, Okanagan fish stock constituted a negligible fraction of the significant British Columbia fisheries population, relegating it to a low-priority status. Moreover, there was no permanent DFO staff presence in the Okanagan region. The provincial government focused mainly on recreational fisheries and angling, such as kokanee and rainbow trout, potentially conflicting with sockeye populations. Efforts to launch the Program were driven by personal commitment rather than institutional directives. Faced with the prevailing colonial attitudes, these champions had to navigate internal resistance, as highlighted by a DFO scientist:

When I started working with the ONA, one of the things I was advised is that I should just talk with them, but do nothing, make no commitments, make no attempts to support them in any kind of tangible way. And I just said, “Why would we do that? These are sincere, respectful people who have invited us because we have expertise, they’re open to working with us, and we’re all open to learning from each other. Why would I behave in a way that would simply send yet another First Nation group back to the barricades, where they developed an intense dislike for us as an institution?”

An opportunistic source of funding

The Okanagan Sockeye Program was significantly enabled by funding from the Washington State Public Utility Districts (PUDs). Under the mandate of the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, major dams operating on the Columbia River system are required to mitigate salmon losses as a condition for renewing their dam-operating licenses. During a workshop hosted by ONA in Washington State, several PUDs were actively exploring new avenues to fulfill their mitigation responsibilities. The ground-breaking idea of financing salmon restoration in Canada as a mitigation strategy originated from a forward-thinking leader within Douglas County PUD. This innovative approach was later adopted by Chelan and Grant PUDs as well. These funds from the PUDs were instrumental in supporting key elements of OSP, including developing the Fish and Water Management Tool and establishing the ONA fish hatchery. Provincial staffers, who had observed decades of inertia in water and fisheries restoration efforts, recognized the influx of PUD funding as “a game changer.”

One initial challenge was the logistical complexity of transferring funds from U.S.-based PUDs to a Canadian entity without getting entangled in bureaucratic complications associated with official government channels. This issue was ingeniously resolved through the leveraging of intertribal relations and networks. The Colville Confederated Tribe acted as an intermediary, receiving the funds from the PUDs, and transferred them to ONA. This streamlined financial arrangement circumvented red tape and facilitated the swift implementation of restoration projects, a testament to the Program’s cross-border collaboration and creative problem-solving effectiveness.

Implementation of the Sockeye Program

Restoring Okanagan sockeye presented a quintessential complex systems problem. What emerged in response was a co-management institutional framework with characteristics of adaptive co-management, which helped address the uncertainty and unpredictability of the system as well as facilitated shared learning among partners and Syilx community involvement.

Co-management structures

COBTWG was established as a tripartite technical group comprising ONA, DFO, and FLNRORD to implement the Program. This decision-making body met quarterly to review operational progress and made decisions by consensus. It overcame a common downfall in co-management—unequal power distribution—by requiring unanimous decisions and rotating chairmanship. Also, public utilities from the U.S. contributed funding through Syilx institutional channels, which helped to redress historical power imbalances with the state. Keeping COBTWG as a technical table and elevating political issues to higher levels was an important design feature. The group was intentionally kept small, involving only key partners.

Ad hoc working groups were created to execute the program’s daily tasks in conjunction with ONA’s Fisheries Department. The groups were adaptive, bringing in expertise as required, and functioning in a nimble, tactile, and collaborative manner, often making on-the-spot decisions during field meetings. The group’s themes included fish water management, habitat restoration, fish passage, and TEK. Among them, the TEK Ad hoc group stood out, with ONA staff serving as the bridge between the Syilx community and the Program.

Syilx community members played a crucial role as the “small champions” on the land. They conducted fish counts, provided technical advice, and participated in ceremonies and feasts. These practices contributed to the Program’s technical aspects and embodied the reciprocal respect and relationships central to Syilx TEK.

An adaptive co-management process

The alliance established an adaptive restoration process featuring an iterative implementation and feedback cycle. This strategy was chosen in light of the social ecosystem’s complexity, its inherent interdependencies, and the unknowns and risks involved. Consequently, three major projects were developed under the Program. First, rebuilding the wild-origin sockeye population in Osoyoos Lake included designing and deploying a novel Fish and Water Management Tool in 2004. Second, the program expanded the range of sockeye to Skaha Lake, situated upstream of Osoyoos Lake. Executed over a span of 12 years, this project entailed re-engineering the floodgates at McIntyre Dam, operating a fishway at Okanagan Falls Dam to allow fish passage, and constructing and operationalizing a fish hatchery in Penticton. Third, the Okanagan River Restoration Initiative aimed to improve both off-channel and in-channel habitats in the Okanagan River, its floodplain, and associated tributaries to benefit all native species of anadromous and resident fish.

These projects were staged with the objectives of monitoring, learning, and adapting. A case in point is the 12-year project designed to reintroduce sockeye into Skaha Lake, framed as an adaptive learning plan. Initially, the provincial government expressed concerns that reintroducing sockeye could negatively impact the already depressed kokanee populations. Although ONA’s Syilx TEK process suggested that the two species could co-exist, federal and particularly provincial partners sought reassurance. This 12-year experiment allowed the partnership to monitor inter-species interactions and population dynamics, ultimately demonstrating that both fish species and other species of interest could thrive. Another point of contention was the sockeye’s upstream trajectory to Skaha Lake; Western engineers and provincial scientists were initially skeptical that this was feasible. However, in line with Syilx TEK, the sockeye salmon successfully navigated past the gates at McIntyre Dam and through Okanagan Falls Dam to reach Skaha Lake, prompting subsequent adaptations in COBTWG’s plans.

An adaptive tool for managing fish and water

The Fish Water Management Tool emerged as the most innovative outcome of the Sockeye Program, as unanimously identified by all interviewees. This tool allows for the adaptive co-management of water flows in real-time and is heralded as one of today’s most data-rich systems in terms of its implications for natural resource outcomes. The tool enables users to assess biophysical process interactions, scrutinize hydrological impacts on both property and fish across multiple locations, and anticipate the socioeconomic consequences of water management decisions, such as property damage risks or irrigation shortages (Hyatt and Stockwell 2019). Studies confirm its efficacy. Comparing the years before and after 2003, when the tool was deployed, observed improvements in following the Okanagan Basin Implementation guidelines on salmon egg to fry emergence compliance increased from 20 to 90% (Hyatt et al. 2015, Hyatt and Stockwell 2019). The Fish Water Management Tool stands as a robust example of an application designed to reconcile multiple objectives amid social and ecological tensions, competing water interests, escalating demands for human water use, diminishing water availability, and species-at-risk situations (Marmorek et al. 2019).

Within the Program context, the Fish Water Management Tool served as a linchpin in solidifying cross-cultural and interinstitutional relationships, particularly during the critical phase when partners were becoming acquainted with one another. The co-design and deployment of the tool served to deepen the relationships among partners and enhance transparency once the tool became operational. Being able to visualize the variables and diverse interests that were factored into the decision-making process engendered greater trust among partners and users.

Social learning and capacity bridging

There was a lot of capacity building: the fisheries biologists had to become water managers, the hydrologists had to become fisheries biologists, whether they liked it or not. Because the way in which we put this together, we recognized that interdisciplinary expertise would be required. And we needed to be able to talk to each other in a common language. And so there was quite a lot of learning that went on, particularly in the first few years of the work. ONA Fisheries Biologist

The Sockeye Program marked the first time that ONA, DFO, and FLNRORD came together with their distinct institutional cultures and worldviews for a common cause. This diversity has the potential to enhance social-ecological management (Natcher et al. 2005, Reed 2008, Prell et al. 2009). The alliance addressed differences through “capacity bridging,” a concept that acknowledges that all parties bring skills and knowledge to a collaborative experience and applies reciprocity in knowledge-sharing (AHA Centre 2018, Muir et al. 2023, CDAC Network [date unknown]). Provincial staff found it eye-opening to understand the Syilx cultural perspective on fish as entities with intrinsic value, contrasting sharply with Western economic viewpoints. One DFO Fisheries Scientist explained the fundamental dissonance between Western and Syilx worldviews:

The Western cultural perspective is social-economically motivated. That’s where most of the attention has gone over the last 100 years. From a First Nations perspective, it’s quite different. It’s, well, “we live in this place. And we have these populations. And it doesn’t matter whether they’re enormously productive, or marginally productive. These are the populations we have and for which we wish to maintain cultural continuity.” And so, from that point of view, you know, a [Western] agency would have written off Okanagan salmon as a hopelessly diminished population, not worthy of time, expertise, or investment. From a First Nation perspective, “they are invaluable, and we will spend the next seven generations doing our utmost to restore them.” So those two worldviews are wildly at odds with each other. DFO Fisheries Scientist

However, DFO has made some progress toward convergence in Western and First Nations worldviews, having shifted from its aim of maximizing biomass of fish harvest to maximizing biodiversity, which is more closely aligned with Syilx views.

The Sockeye Program also facilitated ONA’s ability to operate within a Western bureaucratic structure, and its capacity broadly. Notably, ONA has seen exponential growth in its fisheries staff trained in Western science over the last two decades: from two permanent staff (a policy advisor and a biologist) to 50 full-time staff and 25 seasonal employees.

Capacity bridging meant drawing on the strengths of Western science with Indigenous knowledge, a key feature of adaptive co-management and co-management. The Fish Water Management Tool, supported by Western science, and TEK, provided by the Syilx, were both pivotal, the latter providing essential place-based contextual knowledge (e.g., aquatic ecosystem dynamics, the abundance of fish species pre-1900, spatial trends and range, and population patterns). However, the valuation of TEK has not been without challenges. The moments when Syilx TEK was devalued underscore the political dynamics involved. Yet, attitudes have started to change:

There was a specific personality from the provincial government that we were required to work with, and at the mention of TEK, it was literally, like an eye roll as if “TEK, are you for real?” But basically, the last couple of years, they’ve done a 180 and definitely support it. ONA Fisheries Biologist.

Bridging capacity and knowledge systems remains a challenge given the predominance of Western systems focused on written documentation as building blocks of science and transactional communications. Syilx knowledge co-creation and problem-solving are dialogic and relational. They cannot be reduced to “commenting on a written framework” or “providing a list,” as one ONA Fisheries Biologist points out, in which case “governments will interpret for you.” This effectively sidelines Syilx’ voices.

Conflict and trust

Three distinct organizations, ONA, DFO, and FLNRORD, agreed to collaborate for the first time. Institutionally, the three partners started from dramatically different places. ONA regarded the Syilx people as the legitimate rights holders and caretakers of their lands, whereas DFO and FLNRORD reflected prevailing colonial attitudes at the time. This meant that trust, confidence, and social capital had to be built and conflict resolution mechanisms established.

Developing a shared vision for the future of Okanagan sockeye salmon helped solidify the alliance, and partners quickly learned they could work toward a common cause. Trust among the groups was further cemented as the COBTWG garnered a reputation for effective problem solving. The technical character of the alliance also helped, as did the longevity of individuals who shared a common purpose, remained on the Program for decades, and built interpersonal relationships with other COBTWG members. These observations align with academic research, underscoring the importance of setting and meeting expectations for trust building (Hahn et al. 2006, Reed 2008, Armitage et al. 2009). Moreover, the research highlights the crucial role of trust in establishing legitimacy within the realm of natural resource governance (Turner et al. 2016).

Despite these advances, conflicts were inevitable. These were rooted mainly in jurisdictional ambiguities: the province oversees residential fish, the federal government manages anadromous fish, and the Syilx Nation holds original title and rights over the fisheries. Provincial concerns were the most cited, such as the Program’s impact on the resident kokanee population, the aquatic food web, the potential loss of recreational fishing opportunities, and genetic integrity related to the hybridization of kokanee and sockeye salmon (Veale and Russello 2016, DFO 2017, Hyatt et al. 2019). The introduction of hatchery fry into Okanagan Lake, for example, was described by ONA staff as an “uphill battle” with the province, even though it was part of the Sockeye Program’s original plan and the rationale for the 12-year Skaha learning project. Such decisions required approval from the Introductions and Transfers Committee, a state body with provincial and federal representation. From a Syilx perspective, these conflicts reflected a lack of trust in their Nation’s knowledge and implementation capacity.

ONA staff shared their frustration over being subjected to a higher standard for validating their technical knowledge compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts, a disparity they identified as systemic racism, and which undermined trust. This requirement for additional validation not only undermined trust but also reflects deeper issues of imbalance of knowledge systems. DFO interviews also acknowledged the fragile nature of trust, which requires hard work to build and can be quickly eroded by missteps.

Finding common cause was absolutely essential; by having an open and trusting relationship and building further trust, which can be eroded very quickly, [it is] built with a great deal of work and can vanish in a hurry if missteps are made. DFO Fisheries Scientist

Staff turnover within the province posed another challenge. New members who were either poorly informed, inflexible, or intent on asserting authority joined the group. In these instances, proactive measures were taken by COBTWG members, including taking exception to the appointments and finding ways to undo them or drawing on the political intervention of ONA leadership.

The role of Syilx TEK

The role of TEK was infused throughout the collaborative experience of the Program. The previous sections highlight the use of TEK in terms of data points and knowledge that complemented Western science. More profoundly, however, is the significance of TEK and its value system, worldviews, and ethical foundation, which, as emphasized by McGregor (2021), is inseparable from the people who hold and live this knowledge. TEK motivated and inspired Syilx leadership to fight for decades to bring salmon home, to formally commit seven generations to work on salmon restoration, to create a vision for the Program, and to establish and nurture the cross-cultural collaboration that has endured since the 1990s and continues to this day. If not for the profound Syilx commitment, as one interviewee said, “the salmon would be gone.”

Salmon has deep existential significance for the Syilx people, as noted by Syilx interviewees when asked about their responsibility to salmon:

We [the Syilx people] are all responsible for protecting our land, our water, and our animals; we need to do that so that we can still be Syilx.

If we’re not going to do it [restore sockeye salmon], then who’s going to do it? It’s our responsibility.

The Okanagan people are responsible for the fish, water, and land; we have an obligation to protect and restore it. The Okanagan Nation people - we’re connected to the land and the water and it’s who we are. And I really think it’s what we have to do.

The Syilx Okanagan people believe that they were created to act as caretakers of their lands, and in return, they will be looked after (Armstrong 2009). This obligation cannot be given away; it is the foundation of who the Syilx people are and of their continued existence on the land. Embedded within this belief is the concept of respect and reciprocity. Caretaking and stewardship are standard protocols across Indigenous communities: they represent the protocols in which humans approach the world with the attitude of respect to interconnected human and non-human beings, entities, and collectives, which have reciprocal relationships with one another (Whyte et al. 2016). The relevance of this belief system is that one way or another, the Syilx people would find a way to bring their salmon home. Or, as a DFO interviewee put it, for the Syilx people, “salmon restoration was a cultural imperative.”

Sustainability: an ongoing challenge and opportunity

The question of whether the tripartite alliance will endure over time remains open ended. As highlighted by some interviewees, the group has navigated through turbulent waters. With a fluctuating membership of 20 to 25 individuals, achieving consensus, mandatory for the sustainability of the partnership, has been challenging. For instance, the group faced a crucial divergence of opinions regarding the necessity of a Federal Science Review after completing the 12-year Skaha Lake Project. This review was intended to assess the feasibility of further extending the range of sockeye. Despite these disagreements, COBTWG members recognized the invaluable nature of their collective efforts and managed to bridge their differences.

The sustainability of complex inter-institutional collaborations like COBTWG is inherently difficult. A concern arises as key individuals who dedicated their careers to the Program have left or are nearing retirement. Nevertheless, interviewees expressed optimism for the future. Both Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants emphasized that the Program’s approach to cross-cultural collaboration has evolved into “the new norm,” deemed “the new way of doing business,” and is universally acknowledged as “the right thing to do.” Asked about the resilience and sustainability of the COBTWG, as a legal tool, one ONA Fisheries Biologist put it this way:

It wasn’t the MOU [Memorandum of Understanding] itself [that created the partnership], it was the creation of the MOU as a process that created the relationship, and the relationship [in turn] created the COBTWG. “Relationship” represents one of the Four Food Chiefs in the Syilx traditional decision making and governance process.

From an ONA perspective, both the cross-cultural collaboration and the Sockeye Program are still in their infancy. Given that colonial structures have dominated for over a century, Indigenous systems continue to be overshadowed. Redressing the power imbalances may require a comparable amount of time.

DISCUSSION

Our analysis provides insights into the multidimensional challenges faced by the Okanagan Sockeye Program over its 25-year existence, emphasizing the role of TEK, adaptive co-management, and social learning. Syilx Indigenous leaders initially pushed to restore declining fish stocks. Their warnings, largely unheeded for decades, eventually found support through favorable institutional and policy environments in the U.S. and Canada. The U.S. Endangered Species Act was pivotal, offering a legislative backbone that enabled Washington State dam operators to finance much of the Okanagan Sockeye Program over the decades. Once the ONA, DFO, and FLNRORD agreed to form a tripartite alliance, adaptive structures, processes, and tools were created that allowed the three partners to experiment, learn, innovate, adapt, and problem-solve. Relationships and trust were central features of the partnership, which took time, human interaction, and personal commitment to establish and maintain.

The tripartite alliance encountered hurdles along its trajectory, underscoring the complex interplay of trust, jurisdiction, and equity in collaborative environmental management and restoration efforts. The conflict that arose was largely jurisdictional, given overlapping mandates, as observed by Kadykalo et al. (2022) in their research on British Columbia fisheries. Reintroducing sockeye salmon raised provincial concerns over impacts on resident kokanee populations, the lake ecosystem’s food web, and genetic integrity. Double standards were another source of tension, with ONA facing more stringent technical requirements than their counterparts. This dichotomy contributed to feelings of systemic racism and distrust. Power imbalances were reflected in institutional structures such as the Introductions and Transfers Committee and the Federal Science Review, which had authority at key junctures of the Program and excluded Indigenous representation. Importantly, the dominance of Western bureaucratic systems posed a challenge to effective knowledge co-production, a key element of co-management (Armitage et al. 2009, Plummer 2013).

Restoring anadromous salmon in the Okanagan was a quintessential complex adaptive systems problem, and the tripartite alliance responded with structures and processes characteristic of adaptive management (Olsson et al. 2004, Folke et al. 2005, Armitage et al. 2007). The Sockeye Program was adaptive by design, employing iterative learning cycles to respond to new information. One example of the Program’s adaptive elements is the 12-year experiment to understand how the reintroduction and expansion of sockeye range would affect ecosystem dynamics. Ad hoc groups with the required specialists were created to address operational questions on the ground and provide feedback to the alliance is another. Western science and TEK contributed to the Program at distinct junctures, as exemplified by innovations like the Fish Water Management Tool that allows for real-time transparent water and fish management (Veale and Russello 2016, DFO 2017, Hyatt and Stockwell 2019). With its inherently holistic characteristics, TEK provided overall guidance in dealing with the complexity of the ecosystem, a characteristic of TEK described in the literature (Houde 2007, Berkes 2018).

The Sockeye Program’s approach to capacity bridging shares similarities with social learning, which is a key component of adaptive co-management (Armitage et al. 2007, Berkes 2009). By emphasizing the reconciliation of diverse perspectives from groups with unique institutional cultures and worldviews, the Program aligns closely with the tenets of social learning (Berkes et al. 2003, Armitage et al. 2008, Reed et al. 2010). The juxtaposition of Syilx and Western perspectives, such as viewing fish as autonomous beings compared to economic resources, underscores the challenge of mutual understanding and negotiation in learning frameworks. Through social learning, however, the Program witnessed a change in emphasis from maximizing fish harvest to prioritizing biodiversity, and outcomes. This shift illustrates how co-management partners have shaped their worldviews, consistent with observations by others, such as Pahl-Wostl (2009) and Berkes et al. (2003). Furthermore, although challenges remain in addressing power imbalances and cultural sensitivities, TEK’s growing acknowledgment among partners reveals the transformative potential of capacity bridging and social learning in reshaping prevailing attitudes and practices.

The salience of Syilx TEK in the resurgence of sockeye salmon cannot be overstated. Although Syilx Knowledge Keepers and community members provided “knowledge” such as species interrelationships, spatial trends, and population dynamics, the true essence of TEK’s role lay in its function as a deeply ingrained system of beliefs, values, and way of being. This aligns with writings by McGregor (2004), Houde (2007), Berkes (2018), and others. For the Syilx people, restoring sockeye salmon was a cultural imperative intertwined with a holistic sense of responsibility to the land, water, and fish. Cultural ceremonies served to fortify the Syilx community’s relationship with, and obligations toward, the salmon, underscoring a sense of reciprocity and responsibility. Syilx elders and leaders pledged multiple generations to the task of restoring sockeye, a commitment deeply tied to their collective identity. Such lived values and behaviors corroborate McGregor’s assertion of TEK as a way of being and something that must be lived by the people who hold the knowledge, that is, the knowledge is inseparable from the people who hold it (McGregor 2021).

Considering the Sockeye Program’s effectiveness against the backdrop of Canada’s evolving co-management challenges, as outlined by Swerdfager and Armitage (2023), a few insights emerge. First, the outdated and incomplete Canadian legal and policy framework occasionally strained the tripartite alliance, such as when decisions required approval from the Introduction and Transfers Committee. Nonetheless, the Memorandum of Understanding, which took five years to finalize, has proven resilient thus far. Second, on knowledge co-generation, the alliance has faced obstacles, especially concerning the acceptance of TEK; however, as trust among partners has grown, the value of TEK has become increasingly recognized. Third, on financial resources, the Program has benefited from a sustained funding stream provided by Washington State dam operators. Although these resources have not completely eased financial burdens, they have been instrumental in sustaining the Program for over two decades. Fourth, although human resource turnover and a lack of cultural understanding within government personnel have posed challenges, the alliance has proactively developed institutional strategies to mitigate these difficulties, demonstrating its resilience and adaptability.

Finally, the experience of the tripartite alliance aligns with Rodon’s (2021) nuanced view of co-management, showcasing elements of co-option, transaction, and self-determination. Co-option was apparent as Syilx partners navigated and adapted to Western bureaucratic norms and power dynamics. On the transactional front, the collaboration fostered a unique institutional culture within the alliance, blending aspects of both Syilx and Western traditions to facilitate genuine power-sharing. However, the self-determination component remains an ongoing endeavor, reflecting the broader Canadian context where reconciliation and the integration of UNDRIP principles are still works in progress.

CONCLUSION

The restoration of Okanagan sockeye salmon illustrates how a confluence of factors can align to achieve a goal originally deemed hopeless. At its core, the success of the Okanagan Sockeye Program can be attributed to the unrelenting efforts of the Syilx Nation, whose multi-generational outlook and existential connection to the salmon imbued the Program with a sense of urgency and commitment, effectively making failure an unacceptable option. Conditions observed in the Sockeye Program may not be easily replicable because of their context-specific nature. Nevertheless, experience from the Program offers lessons for similar endeavors, underscoring the importance of acknowledging the Okanagan Nation Alliance as a legitimate government with decision-making authority equal to those of the provincial and federal governments, the innovative sourcing of sustained funding, and the time requirements and flexibility to adapt and experiment within inherently uncertain and complex social ecosystems. The partnership, however, has endured over decades and withstood hurdles, including systemic racism. Thus, while the exact formula for the Okanagan Sockeye initiative’s success might be difficult to reproduce wholesale, its foundational principles could be helpful for future co-management and conservation efforts seeking to navigate their own unique challenges and opportunities. At a time when co-management in Indigenous settings finds itself at a crossroads, as argued by Swerdfager and Armitage (2023), this guidance could prove useful.

The Okanagan Sockeye Program stands as a testament to successful co-management. Yet, it raises an important question: why have similar initiatives in other Indigenous territories within the Columbia watershed faltered to the point that the Okanagan initiative was originally considered an illusion? Future research into other cases should explore this question to glean both lessons and cautionary tales. With Indigenous environmental governance gaining momentum in British Columbia and Canada, spurred by rising calls for Indigenous rights and the adoption of UNDRIP, such studies become even more pertinent, especially in the current climate crisis.

LITERATURE CITED

Agrawal, A. 1995. Dismantling the divide between Indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change 26(3):413-439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.1995.tb00560.x

AHA Centre. 2018. Capacity bridging. AHA fact sheet. AHA Centre, Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, Canada. https://caan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Capacity-Bridging-1.pdf

Ansell, C., and A. Gash. 2008. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of public Administration Research and Theory 18(4):543-571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032

Armitage, D., F. Berkes, A. Dale, E. Kocho-Schellenberg, and E. Patton. 2011. Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global Environmental Change 21(3):995-1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006

Armitage, D., F. Berkes, and N. Doubleday. 2007. Adaptive co-management: collaboration, learning, and multi-level governance. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. https://doi.org/10.59962/9780774855457

Armitage, D., M. Marschke, and R. Plummer. 2008. Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change 18(1):86-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.07.002

Armitage, D., R. Plummer, F. Berkes, R. I. Arthur, A. T. Charles, I. J. Davidson-Hunt, A. P. Diduck, N. C. Doubleday, D. S. Johnson, M. Marschke, P. McConney, E. W. Pinkerton, and E. K. Wollenberg. 2009. Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(2):95-102. https://doi.org/10.1890/070089

Armstrong, J. C. 2009. Constructing Indigeneity: Sylix Okanagan oraliture and Tmix^wcentrism. Dissertation. Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität, Greifswald, Germany. https://epub.ub.uni-greifswald.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/1023

Berkes, F. 2007. Adaptive co-management and complexity: exploring the many faces of co-management. Pages 19-37 in D. Armitage, F. Berkes, and N. Doubleday. 2007. Adaptive co-management: collaboration, learning, and multi-level governance. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. https://doi.org/10.59962/9780774855457-005

Berkes, F. 2009. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90(5):1692-1702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001

Berkes, F. 2018. Sacred ecology. Routledge, New York, New York, USA.

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2003. Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541957

Berkes, F., C. Folke, and J. Colding. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Berkes, F., P. George, and R. J. Preston. 1991. Co-management: the evolution in theory and practice of the joint administration of living resources. Alternatives 18(2):12-18. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45031306

Blanchet, R., N. Willows, S. Johnson, Okanagan Nation Salmon Reintroduction Initiatives, and M. Batal. 2022. Enhancing cultural food security among the Syilx Okanagan adults with the reintroduction of Okanagan sockeye salmon. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism 47(2):124-133. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2021-0321

Bodin, Ö., and B. I. Crona. 2009. The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change 19(3):366-374. https://doi.org/110.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.05.002

Bogner, A., and W. Menz. 2009. The theory-generating expert interview: epistemological interest, forms of knowledge, interaction. Pages 43-80 in A. Bogner, B. Littig, and W. Menz, editors. Interviewing experts. Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244276_3

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., T. Farvar, J. C. Nguinguiri, and V. A. Ndangang. 2000. Co-management of natural resources. GTZ, Heidelberg, Germany and IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2):77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Burgner, R. L. 1991. Life history of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Pages 1-117 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Castro, A. P., and E. Nielsen. 2001. Indigenous people and co-management: implications for conflict management. Environmental Science and Policy 4(4-5):229-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1462-9011(01)00022-3

CDAC Network. [date unknown]. Capacity bridging. CDAC Network, London, UK. https://www.cdacnetwork.org/capacity-bridging

Chambers, R. 1994. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): challenges, potentials and paradigm. World Development 22(10):1437-1454. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(94)90030-2

Craig, D. 2002. Recognising Indigenous rights through co-management regimes: Canadian and Australian experiences. New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law 6(6):199-254.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2017. Review of potential impacts associated with recent and proposed Okanagan sockeye salmon fry introductions to Skaha and Okanagan Lakes. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Response 2017/031.

Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P. C. Stern. 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302(5652):1907-1912. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091015

Fabricius, C., and B. Currie. 2015. Adaptive co-management. Pages 147-179 in A. S. Garmestani and C. R. Allen, editors. Adaptive management of social-ecological systems. Springer Netherlands.

Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30:441-473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511

Gerring, J. 2004. What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review 98(2):341-354. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055404001182

Goetze, T. C. 2005. Empowered co-management: towards power-sharing and indigenous rights in Clayoquot Sound, BC. Anthropologica 47(2):247-265.

Good Water, D. 2018. Okanagan Syilx historical and contemporary salmon distribution: underpinning social and governance structures. Thesis. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Government of Canada. 1996. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/aboriginal-heritage/royal-commission-aboriginal-peoples/Pages/introduction.aspx

Groot, C., and L. Margolis. 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Hahn, T., P. Olsson, C. Folke, and K. Johansson. 2006. Trust-building, knowledge generation and organizational innovations: the role of a bridging organization for adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Human Ecology 34:573-592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-006-9035-z

Hasselman, L. 2017. Adaptive management; adaptive co-management; adaptive governance: what's the difference? Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 24(1):31-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2016.1251857

Houde, N. 2007. The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: challenges and opportunities for Canadian co-management arrangements. Ecology and Society 12(2):34. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02270-120234

Hyatt, K., and M. Stockwell. 2019. Chasing an illusion? Successful restoration of Okanagan river sockeye salmon in a sea of uncertainty. Pages 65-100 in C. C. Krueger, W. W. Taylor, and S. Youn, editors. From catastrophe to recovery: stories of fishery management success. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Hyatt, K., R. Withler, and K. Garver. 2019. Review of recent and proposed Okanagan sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) fry introductions to Skaha and Okanagan Lakes: history, uncertainties, and implications. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada.

Hyatt, K. D., C. A. Alexander, and M. M. Stockwell. 2015. A decision support system for improving “fish friendly” flow compliance in the regulated Okanagan Lake and river system of British Columbia. Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques 40(1):87-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2014.985510

Hyatt, K. D., and D. P. Rankin. 1999. A habitat based evaluation of Okanagan sockeye salmon escapement objectives. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada..

Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. 1984. Inuvialuit Final Agreement. Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Inuvik, Northwest Territories, Canada. https://irc.inuvialuit.com/about-irc/inuvialuit-final-agreement

Johnson, J. 2016. Columbia River Treaty and the Syilx People. Paper presented at the CBRAC Meeting #4, Cranbrook, British Columbia, Canada. https://www.syilx.org/governance/columbia-river-treaty/

Johnson, N., T. Pearce, K. Breton-Honeyman, D. N. Etiendem, and L. L. Loseto. 2020. Knowledge co-production and co-management of Arctic wildlife. Arctic Science 6(3):124-126. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2020-0028

Kadykalo, A. N., A. L. Jeanson, S. J. Cooke, and N. Young. 2022. Uncertainty, anxiety, and optimism: diverse perspectives of rainbow and steelhead trout fisheries governance in British Columbia. Environmental Challenges 9:100610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100610

Keen, M., V. A. Brown, and R. Dyball. 2012. Social learning: a new approach to environmental management. Pages 3-21 in M. Keen, V. A. Brown, and R. Dyball, editors. Social learning in environmental management. Earthscan, London, UK.

Kovach, M. 2010. Conversation method in Indigenous research. First Peoples Child & Family Review 5(1):40-48. https://doi.org/10.7202/1069060ar

Kovach, M. 2021. Indigenous methodologies: characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Lackey, R. 2000. Restoring wild salmon to the Pacific Northwest: chasing an illusion? Pages 91-143 in P. Koss and M. Katz, editors. What we don’t know about Pacific Northwest fish runs: an inquiry into decision-making. Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA.

Libakova, N. M., and E. A. Sertakova. 2015. The method of expert interview as an effective research procedure of studying the indigenous peoples of the north. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 1(2015 8):114-129. https://doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-2015-8-1-114-129

Marmorek, D., M. Nelitz, J. Eyzaguirre, C. Murray, and C. Alexander. 2019. Adaptive management and climate change adaptation: two mutually beneficial areas of practice. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 55(4):881-905. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12774

McElwee, P., Á. Fernández-Llamazares, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, D. Babai, P. Bates, K. Galvin, M. Guèze, J. Liu, Z. Molnár, H. T. Ngo, et al. 2020. Working with Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in large-scale ecological assessments: reviewing the experience of the IPBES Global Assessment. Journal of Applied Ecology 57(9):1666-1676. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13705

McGregor, D. 2004. Traditional ecological knowledge and sustainable development: towards coexistence. Pages 72-91 in M. Blaser, H. A. Feit, and G. McRae, editors. In the way of development: Indigenous peoples, life projects and globalization. Zed Books, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350220720.ch-005

McGregor, D. 2014. Lessons for collaboration involving traditional knowledge and environmental governance in Ontario, Canada. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples 10(4):340-353. https://doi.org/10.1177/117718011401000403

McGregor, D. 2021. Indigenous knowledge systems in environmental governance in Canada. KULA 5(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.18357/kula.148

McGregor, L. 2009. Ontario First Nations perspectives on traditional knowledge: a diagnostic and discussion paper. Chiefs of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Muir, A., A. Duncan, K. Almack, N. Boucher, E. S. Dunlop, C. Fegria, J. T. Ives, R. Lauzon, H. Licker, W. P. Mattes, et al. 2023. Sharing across the space: introduction to a special issue on bridging Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge systems. Journal of Great Lakes Research 49:S1-S11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2023.04.001

Nadasdy, P. 1999. The politics of TEK: power and the “integration” of knowledge. Arctic Anthropology 36(1/2):1-18.

Nadasdy, P. 2003a. Reevaluating the co-management success story. Arctic 56(4):321-440. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic634

Nadasdy, P. 2003b. Hunters and bureaucrats: power, knowledge, and aboriginal-state relations in the southwest Yukon. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. https://doi.org/10.59962/9780774851886

Nadasdy, P. 2005. The anti-politics of TEK: the institutionalization of co-management discourse and practice. Anthropologica 47(2):215-232.

Natcher, D. C., S. Davis, and C. G. Hickey. 2005. Co-management: managing relationships, not resources. Human Organization 64(3):240-250. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.64.3.23yfnkrl2ylapjxw

Notzke, C. 1995. A new perspective in aboriginal natural resource management: co-management. Geoforum 26(2):187-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(95)00019-H

Nowell, L. S., J. M. Norris, D. E. White, N. J. Moules. 2017. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847

Okanagan Nation Alliance (ONA). [date unknown]-a. Fisheries. ONA, Westbank, British Columbia, Canada. https://www.syilx.org/fisheries/

Okanagan Nation Alliance (ONA). [date unknown]-b. n’titxw Chief Salmon. ONA, Westbank, British Columbia, Canada. https://www.syilx.org/fisheries/okanagan-sockeye/

Olsson, P., C. Folke, and T. Hahn. 2004. Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: the development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecology and Society 9(4):2. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00683-090402

Ortolano, L., and K. K. Cushing. 2002. Grand Coulee Dam 70 years later: What can we learn? International Journal of Water Resources Development 18(3):373-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/0790062022000006880

Osherenko, G., and Canadian Arctic Resources. 1988. Sharing power with native users: co-management regimes for native wildlife. Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763

Pahl-Wostl, C. 2009. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change 19(3):354-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001

Pinkerton, E. 2003. Toward specificity in complexity: understanding co-management from a social science perspective. Pages 61-77 in D. C. Wilson, J. R. Nielsen, and P. Degnbol, editors. The fisheries co-management experience. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3323-6_5

Plummer, R. 2013. Can adaptive comanagement help to address the challenges of climate change adaptation? Ecology and Society 18(4):2. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05699-180402

Plummer, R., B. Crona, D. R. Armitage, P. Olsson, M. Tengö, and O. Yudina. 2012. Adaptive comanagement: a systematic review and analysis. Ecology and Society 17(3):11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04952-170311

Pomeroy, R. S., and F. Berkes. 1997. Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management. Marine Policy 21(5):465-480. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(97)00017-1

Prell, C., K. Hubacek, and M. Reed. 2009. Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources 22(6):501-518. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802199202

Reed, M. S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141(10):2417-2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014

Reed, M. S., A. C. Evely, G. Cundill, I. Fazey, J. Glass, A. Laing, J. Newig, B. Parrish, C. Prell, C. Raymond, and L. C. Stringer. 2010. What is social learning? Ecology and Society 15(4):r1. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03564-1504r01

Reyes-García, V., Á. Fernández-Llamazares, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, P. Benyei, R. W. Bussmann, S. K. Diamond, D. García-del-Amo, S. Guadilla-Sáez, N. Hanazaki, N. Kosoy, et al. 2022. Recognizing Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ rights and agency in the post-2020 Biodiversity Agenda. Ambio 51(1):84-92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01561-7

Rodon, T. 1998. Co-management and self-determination in Nunavut. Polar Geography 22(2):119-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10889379809377641

Rodon, T. 2021. Land-use co-management in Canada: a mixed experience. Finnmark Act 15:289-311.

Scholtz, C. 2013. Negotiating claims: the emergence of indigenous land claim negotiation policies in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. Routledge, New York, New York, USA.

Schwann, A. 2018. Ecological wisdom: reclaiming the cultural landscape of the Okanagan Valley. Journal of Urban Management 7(3):172-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2018.05.004

Silvern, S. E. 1999. Scales of justice: law, American Indian treaty rights and the political construction of scale. Political Geography 18(6):639-668. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(99)00001-3

Song, A. M, O. Temby, G. Krantzberg, and G. M. Hickey. 2017. Institutional features of U.S.-Canadian transboundary fisheries governance. Pages 156-179 in O. Temby and P. Stoett, editors. Towards continental environmental policy? State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, USA.

Spaeder, J. J., and H. A. Feit. 2005. Co-management and Indigenous communities: barriers and bridges to decentralized resource management: introduction. Anthropologica 47(2):147-154. https://doi.org/10.2307/25606232

Starman, A. B. 2013. The case study as a type of qualitative research. Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies/Sodobna Pedagogika 64(1).

Stevenson, M. G. 2006. The possibility of difference: rethinking co-management. Human Organization 65(2):167-180. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.65.2.b2dm8thgb7wa4m53

Strachan, B. 2022. Okanagan First Nation fishery celebrates record return of sockeye salmon. CBC News Vancouver. Video. https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2068445251977

Swerdfager, T., and D. Armitage. 2023. Co-management at a crossroads in Canada: issues, opportunities, and emerging challenges in fisheries and marine contexts. FACETS 8:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2022-0217

Tengö, M., R. Hill, P. Malmer, C. M. Raymond, M. Spierenburg, F. Danielsen, T. Elmqvist, and C. Folke. 2017. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond-lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26-27:17-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005

Terbasket, P., and S. Shields. 2019. Syilx perspective on original foods: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 9(A):49-54. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2019.091.016

Thambinathan, V., and E. A. Kinsella. 2021. Decolonizing methodologies in qualitative research: creating spaces for transformative praxis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211014766

Turner, N. J., M. B. Ignace, and R. Ignace. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom of Aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications 10(5):1275-1287. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1275:TEKAWO]2.0.CO;2

Turner, R. A., J. Addison, A. Arias, B. J. Bergseth, N. A. Marshall, T. H. Morrison, and R. C. Tobin. 2016. Trust, confidence, and equity affect the legitimacy of natural resource governance. Ecology and Society 21(3):18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08542-210318

Veale, A. J., and M. A. Russello. 2016. Sockeye salmon repatriation leads to population re-establishment and rapid introgression with native kokanee. Evolutionary Applications 9(10):1301-1311. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12430

von Soest, C. 2023. Why do we speak to experts? Reviving the strength of the expert interview method. Perspectives on Politics 21(1):277-287. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592722001116

Wagner, J. 2008. Landscape aesthetics, water, and settler colonialism in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia. Journal of Ecological Anthropology 12(1):22-38. https://doi.org/10.5038/2162-4593.12.1.2

Westbank First Nation. [date unknown]. Okanagan Nation Territory Map. Westbank First Nation, Westbank, British Columbia, Canada. https://www.wfn.ca/docs/wfn_title_and_rights_maps_8.5x11.pdf

White, G. 2020. Indigenous empowerment through co-management: land claims boards, wildlife management, and environmental regulation. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. https://doi.org/10.59962/9780774863049

Whyte, K. P. 2013. On the role of traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept: a philosophical study. Ecological Processes 2:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-1709-2-7

Whyte, K. P. 2016. Indigenous environmental movements and the function of governance institutions. Pages 563-580 in T. Gabrielson, C. Hall, J. Meyer, and D. Schlosberg, editors. Oxford handbook of environmental political theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199685271.013.31

Whyte, K. P., J. P. Brewer II, and J. T. Johnson. 2016. Weaving Indigenous science, protocols and sustainability science. Sustainability Science 11(1): 25-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0296-6

Williams, B. K. 2011. Adaptive management of natural resources—framework and issues. Journal of Environmental Management 92(5):1346-1353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.041

Yin, R. 2003. Case study research: design and methods. Sage, London, UK.

Copyright © 2024 by the author(s). Published here under license by The Resilience Alliance. This article is under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. You may share and adapt the work provided the original author and source are credited, you indicate whether any changes were made, and you include a link to the license.