Report on the Ecological Impacts of Colonization in the Burrard Inlet

Introduction: A Study in Partnership for Sustainable Goals

A collaborative research study between the səl̓ilwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Nation and the University of British Columbia has quantified the long-term ecological and social impacts of colonization on the Burrard Inlet. This report analyzes the study’s findings through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), highlighting critical connections to SDG 14 (Life Below Water), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Key Findings: Ecological Collapse and its Impact on SDGs

SDG 14: Devastation of Life Below Water

The study reveals a catastrophic decline in marine biodiversity, directly contravening the objectives of SDG 14. The pre-colonial ecosystem, characterized by abundance, was systematically dismantled.

• Overfishing: Destructive practices, such as dynamite fishing for herring between 1885 and 1915, led to the collapse of keystone species populations.
• Species Extirpation: Critical species for the marine food web, including herring, sturgeon, and halibut, were locally exterminated from the Burrard Inlet.
• Degraded Baselines: The report notes that modern Western scientific understanding of the inlet’s biodiversity is based on an already degraded state, masking the true scale of ecological loss.

SDG 2: Destruction of Food Sovereignty and Zero Hunger

The research documents the near-total destruction of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation’s traditional food systems, a direct challenge to the principles of SDG 2.

1. Pre-Colonial Abundance: In 1750, the Tsleil-Waututh harvested an estimated 2,200 tonnes of food annually from the inlet, including clams, salmon, and crabs.
2. System Collapse: The study models a nearly 90 percent destruction of these food sources due to the cumulative effects of colonization.
3. Loss of Access: Community members who could once harvest and consume shellfish directly from the inlet beaches as recently as 1972 are now unable to do so, representing a profound loss of food security and cultural practice.

SDG 10 & SDG 16: Highlighting Inequality and the Pursuit of Justice

The findings underscore the deep inequalities inflicted upon Indigenous populations and the ongoing need for justice and recognition of rights, central tenets of SDG 10 and SDG 16.

• Disproportionate Impact: The study quantifies how colonization, through disease and industrialization, devastated the Tsleil-Waututh population and their environment, while a settler population grew.
• Cumulative Effects: The research provides critical data on the cumulative impacts of development, aligning with legal precedents where such effects were found to violate Indigenous treaty rights in Canada.
• Constitutional Obligations: The report reinforces the message that Canada has a constitutional obligation to uphold Indigenous rights, including the right to a healthy and productive environment that supports traditional ways of life.

Conclusion and Path Forward: Restoration as a Tool for Sustainable Development

Hope for Ecosystem Recovery

Despite the “tremendous loss,” the report concludes with a hopeful outlook, emphasizing that restoration efforts can help rebuild the ecosystem and advance multiple SDGs.

• Active Restoration: The Tsleil-Waututh community is actively engaged in habitat restoration, such as transplanting eelgrass to support forage fish populations.
• Signs of Recovery: The return of herring and orcas to the inlet are viewed as significant positive indicators of food web recovery.
• A Healthier Future: The call for continued restoration and enhancement aligns with global goals for sustainable communities, biodiversity conservation, and food security, demonstrating that ecological health is inseparable from human well-being and justice.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights several issues that directly and indirectly connect to a range of Sustainable Development Goals. The core themes of ecosystem destruction, loss of traditional food sources, and the impact on an Indigenous community link to the following SDGs:

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  The article’s central theme is the destruction of the traditional food systems of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation. It details the loss of access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food sources like fish and clams, which directly impacts food security and sovereignty for the community.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article mentions the devastating impact of smallpox epidemics, which reportedly killed “between 50 and 90 per cent of the Tsleil-Waututh community.” This historical health crisis is presented as a key factor in the subsequent ecological collapse, linking community health directly to environmental stewardship.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The entire study is framed around the “impacts of colonization,” a process that created profound inequalities. The article discusses the dispossession of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation from their traditional resources and the violation of their rights, highlighting the disproportionate environmental and cultural burden placed upon an Indigenous group.

• SDG 14: Life Below Water

  This is one of the most prominent SDGs in the article. The text focuses on the devastation of the Burrard Inlet’s marine ecosystem, including the local extermination (“extirpation”) of key species like herring, sturgeon, and halibut due to overfishing and destructive practices like dynamite fishing. It also touches on habitat restoration efforts, such as transplanting eelgrass.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article references the constitutional obligation of Canada to uphold Indigenous rights and mentions a court case where the cumulative impact of industrial development was found to violate treaty rights. This connects the environmental issues to the need for justice, recognition of Indigenous rights, and inclusive institutions that can address historical and ongoing grievances.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the details provided in the article, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   • Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round. The article illustrates a historical failure to meet this target for the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, whose access to traditional food sources was nearly eliminated.
   • Target 2.4: By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality. The article contrasts the formerly sustainable harvesting practices of the Tsleil-Waututh with the destructive, unsustainable methods like “dynamite fishing” that destroyed the ecosystem.

2. SDG 14: Life Below Water

   • Target 14.1: By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution. The anecdote about community members being unable to boil water from the inlet after 1972 points to severe marine pollution that made traditional practices unsafe.
   • Target 14.2: By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans. The article is a case study of the failure to protect a coastal ecosystem, and the mention of transplanting eelgrass and the return of herring are direct examples of actions for restoration.
   • Target 14.4: By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices. The article explicitly names “overfishing” and “dynamite fishing” as destructive practices that led to the collapse of fish populations, demonstrating a historical failure to regulate harvesting effectively.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The research study itself, being a partnership between the Tsleil-Waututh Nation and the University of B.C., is an example of inclusive and participatory work. The reference to the Blueberry River First Nations court case highlights the importance of legal institutions in upholding Indigenous rights in decision-making processes about land and resource use.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article contains several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure the historical decline and potential future recovery of the Burrard Inlet ecosystem and the well-being of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation.

• Quantitative Indicators:

  • Loss of Food Systems: The study’s primary finding that colonization “destroyed nearly 90 per cent of the food systems and sources” serves as a stark, quantifiable indicator of ecosystem collapse.
  • Historical Harvest Volume: The estimate that the Tsleil-Waututh harvested “more than 2,200 tonnes of food from the inlet every year” in 1750 provides a baseline against which current and future food production can be measured.
  • Population Decline: The statistic that smallpox “killed between 50 and 90 per cent of the Tsleil-Waututh community” and reduced the population from 10,000 to 2,000 is a direct indicator of the health and social impact on the community.

• Qualitative and Species-Specific Indicators:

  • Status of Key Species: The article notes that herring, sturgeon, and halibut were “extirpated” (locally exterminated). The presence or absence of these key species serves as a critical indicator of ecosystem health. The recent return of herring and orcas is mentioned as a positive sign of recovery.
  • Water Quality: The anecdotal evidence of being able to eat clams and boil water directly from the inlet before 1972, versus it being unsafe to do so later, is a powerful qualitative indicator of the decline in marine water quality.
  • Habitat Restoration Progress: The act of “transplanting eel grass” is an indicator of active restoration efforts. The area of successfully restored eelgrass beds could be a metric for progress towards Target 14.2.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: cbc.ca