Project Report | Land Based Learning

Project Background

Funding for this project was secured by the Bluewater Education Foundation through the United Way Centraide Community Services Recovery Fund program. The purpose of this fund was to assist community organizations in recovering from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The purpose of this project was to develop land-based educational programs, delivered throughout Grey and Bruce Counties to children, youth, and adults. Informed by recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the project was intended to augment the BEF's vision of providing immersive experiences in nature, thereby encouraging personal commitments to environmentally sustainable actions among citizens of Grey and Bruce Counties and beyond. The objectives of this project are two-fold:

To develop and implement outdoor educational programming that promotes indigenization, decolonization, reconciliation, and relationship building.
To foster capacities of critical thinking, especially in relation to sustainability, reconciliation, decolonization, and indigenization, among program leaders and participants.

Although presented as distinct, these objectives are interrelated and mutually dependent. For instance, recommendations from the TRC and UNDRIP informs the Bluewater Education Foundation's understanding of indigenization, decolonization, and reconciliation, which in turn shaped the development of outdoor educational programming. Such programming was designed to instill critical consciousness among participants that encourage future environmentally sustainable actions.

Project Context

The Bluewater Education Foundation is an arms-length organization that supports the activities of the Bluewater Outdoor Education Centre. In 1970, leaders within the then Bruce County Board of Education and the community, including Clarke Birchard and Ray Fenton, recognized a need and location available for outdoor education. In 1972, the Mason Farm, which was situated west of Wiarton and spanning from the shores of Boat Lake in the Southeast to Spry Lake in the Northwest, was purchased by the board to use as an Outdoor Education Centre.

Through fundraising and community sponsorships, including generous donations from the Bruce Nuclear Power Development, the Centre continued to grow. In 1997, the Bluewater District School Board endorsed the construction of new permanent buildings at the Centre. The Bluewater Education Foundation was formed to raise funds for the project. Since then, the Bluewater Education Foundation has grown, and currently hosts numerous community organizations at the Centre, runs outdoor educational programming for youth groups, manages summer camp programming, and organizes fundraising campaigns.

The Mason Farm was purchased by the Mason Family in 1873. However, the history of the land extends thousands of years prior. Archeological evidence suggests that Indigenous peoples began moving to the area approximately 9,500 years ago, after glaciers retreated and exposed parts of the Bruce Peninsula (Pucan, 2018). According to archeological evidence and Indigenous oral histories, Indigenous peoples established a portage route as early as 2000 BCE between present-day Wiarton and Oliphant - where the Centre is located. The land presently known as Grey and Bruce counties has been the land of numerous Indigenous nations across time. Nodwell Park, in present-day Saugeen Shores, was the site of a Haudenosaunee village as early as 1345 to 1375. However, this land is the traditional territory of the Saugeen Anishnaabek, known today as Saugeen Ojibway Nation.

The territory of the Saugeen Anishinaabek is comprised of 2 million acres, extending as south as present-day Goderich, as east as present-day Arthur, and as north as present-day Tobermory. European encroachment led to numerous treaty negotiations. Notably, the establishment of the Mason Farm and subsequently the Bluewater Outdoor Education Centre was possible because of the Saugeen Peninsula Treaty No. 72 of 1854. Local oral histories suggest that this and other treaty negotiations were performed nefariously on the part of the Crown, resulting in detrimental land loss for the Saugeen Anishinaabek.

In recent years, Saugeen Ojibway Nation have seen success in reasserting land rights. In April 2023, Superior Court Justice Susan Vella ruled that Saugeen Ojibway Nation never surrendered 2.5km of shoreline of present-day Sauble Beach, and thus have always been the rightful owners. Outside of court proceedings, Saugeen Ojibway Nation has also negotiated land restitution with local townships. In 2020, Grey County transferred 275 acres of forested area to Saugeen Ojibway Nation. Similarly, in 2021, Bruce County transferred 300 acres of forested area.

Visit the Saugeen Ojibway Nation Environment Office to learn more about treaty history and current initiatives to assert jurisdiction across Saugeen Ojibway Nation territory.

Source: Saugeen Ojibway Nation Environment Office

Key Concepts

This project operationalizes several key concepts including, indigenization, decolonization, reconciliation, decolonial education, and land-based education. The following section provides brief explanations of these concepts and how they were taken up in the context of this project. It should be noted that explanations below are unique and specific to this project, and should not be interpreted as the only way to understand these concepts.

Indigenization

As a concept, Indigenization is closely related to Indigenous resurgence. According to Corntassel and Hardbarger (2019), Indigenous resurgence involves, "reclaiming relationships grounded in land, culture, and community that promote the health and well-being of Indigenous Nations...[This involves] often unseen or unacknowledged everyday actions such as regenerating Indigenous plants and food systems that represent important sites for renewing relationships with community, family, and homelands" (p. 89). Indigenization can involve both large-scale institutional change and everyday actions, particularly those involving the renewal and growth of relationships to land.

Outdoor education can play a role in furthering projects of Indigenization through the design and delivery of programming specifically intended to help participants build relationships with land and culture.

Decolonization

Decolonization involves both conceptual untangling and material repatriation. Regarding conceptual untangling, decolonization involves "uncovering how settler colonial projects are maintained and reproduced" (Calderon, 2014, p. 28). Scholars suggest that colonial ideologies can permeate all realms of contemporary Canadian society (Calderon, 2014). Many settler Canadians are unaware of the ways in which their taken-for-granted assumptions are influenced by colonial logics. Understandings of 'wild' or 'pristine' land that often circulate in outdoor education perpetuate notions of Indigenous erasure or 'empty' land. After all, land can only be perceived as empty because of forcible Indigenous displacement.

Integrating and unpacking colonial ideologies is one project of decolonization. However, arguably the most important project of decolonization involves the "repatriation of Indigenous land and life" (Tuck & Yang, 2012, p. 21). Tuck and Yang (2012) warn against the concept of decolonization getting stuck in metaphor. Indeed, Indigenization and Indigenous resurgence requires land reclamation. Therefore, decolonization must involve Land Back.

Outdoor education can advance projects of decolonization through the design and delivery of programming that encourages participants to engage in critical questioning around concepts related to identity, land, culture, borders, and history. Additionally, outdoor education centres can position themselves to support decolonization through offering space and facilities for Indigenous communities and organizations to engage in resurgence practices.

Reconciliation

Defined by the TRC (2015), reconciliation refers to, "an ongoing process of establishing and maintaining respectful relationships" (p. 16). Regan and Craft (2020) further theorize that reconciliation involves "a decolonizing process of journeying in ways that embody everyday acts of resistance, resurgence, and solidarity, coupled with renewed commitments to justice, dialogue, and relationship building" (p. xi).

Outdoor education can further projects of reconciliation through offering programming and events that encourage commitments to justice, dialogue, and relationship building. Specifically, this project aligns with several calls to action outlined in the TRC (2015), including:

66. We call upon the federal government to establish multi-year funding for community-based youth organizations to deliver programs on reconciliation, and establish a national network to share information and best practices.

62. We call upon the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, in consultation and collaboration with Survivors, Aboriginal peoples, and educators, to:

i. Make age-appropriate curriculum on residential schools, Treaties, and Aboriginal peoples' historical and contemporary contributions to Canada a mandatory education requirement for Kindergarten to Grade Twelve students.

In the context of this project, reconciliation also involves relationship building with Indigenous educators, Knowledge Keepers, and Elders, primarily in Grey and Bruce Counties, and the surrounding area. The long-lasting impact of this project will be tied to these relationships.

Outdoor Education and Settler Colonialism

The field of outdoor education is historically and presently culpable in perpetuating settler colonialism. Scholars argue that outdoor education programming often falls short of accurately and respectfully representing Indigenous cultures and knowledges. Cultural appropriation, reproductions of colonial ideologies, and Indigenous erasure have all been found as common traits of outdoor education programming in Ontario, and beyond.

Settler colonialism

Colonialism refers to an imperial power establishing control over another country or region to increase its own economic wealth. The wealth of the imperial power is increased primarily through resource extraction, and exploitation of the local or Indigenous populace. Colonialism uses the logic of commodification, wherein the exploitation of local or Indigenous populations fuels the accrual of wealth (Veracini, 2011).

Conversely, settler colonialism uses the logic of elimination, wherein wealth producing activities, like agriculture and resource extraction, are only possible after the removal of Indigenous peoples (Veracini, 2011). Therefore, the primary objective of settler colonialism involves Indigenous erasure coupled with the accrual of land (Lowman & Barker, 2015). Lowman and Barker (2015) argue, Indigenous erasure involves a systemized approach to reconfiguring and manipulating spaces, systems, and stories. Conceptual and material manipulation is required to position settler colonial societies as the only legitimate proprietors of a land base. As Wolfe (2006) famously observed, "settler colonizers come to stay: invasion is a structure not an event" (p. 388).

In Canada, settler colonial structures and systems are synonymous with the Indian Act - a Canadian act of parliament containing a collection of assimilative policies pertaining to Indigenous peoples. Many Canadians have heard about the atrocities of Residential Schools, which were administered under the Indian Act. However, other policies also inflicted immeasurable harm. Under the Indian Act, Indigenous spiritual practices were banned, and Indigenous land bases became restricted to reserves that were insufficient in size and abundance to support traditional life ways, among several other assaults. These policies sought to control Indigenous peoples, suppress Indigenous cultures, and ultimately extinguish Indigenous identity.

The perpetuation of settler colonialism relies not only on government policies, but also in collective discourses that work to legitimize the colonial state's entitlement to land. Therefore, settler colonial logics circulate in a variety of industries and fields, including outdoor education.

Settler colonialism and outdoor education

Critiques of outdoor education presented in this section are not intended to diminish or discredit past or current outdoor educators or program developers. While all programming is likely developed with care and good intentions, as discourses surrounding decolonization, indigenization, and reconciliation have evolved, so too must outdoor education.

Criticisms of outdoor education are understandably met with discomfort and apprehension. Indeed, outdoor education programs across Ontario are delivered to decades of student cohorts for good reason - programs are fun, inspiring, memorable, and even life changing. However, nostalgia for programming is not a valid argument for maintaining status quo, especially when programs in their current iteration result in the perpetuation of settler colonial ideologies and structures. Therefore, while arguments in this section may evoke feelings of discomfort, it is hoped that such feelings transform into inspiration and re-imaginings of how outdoor education might contribute to decolonial futures.

Lowman and Barker (2015) propose that settler colonialism unfolds systematically through processes of elimination, 'indigenization,' and transcendence:

"Settler societies seek to eliminate competing assertion of sovereignties having existed, but support settler claims to the land and obscuring the violence and criminal nature of colonial dispossession. Settler societies then seek to claim and 'indigenous' status by right of being the only legitimate peoples on the territories, posing as post-colonial societies. Finally, colonialism is transcended - put into the past - when settler societies fully replace Indigenous sovereignties on the land" (p. 31).

Lowman and Barker's (2015) theory of settler colonialism provides a useful framework to through which to understand and map how settler colonialism permeates outdoor education spaces, programs, and discourses.

Common outdoor education principles such as, leave no trace, promote well-meaning lessons about the importance of preserving ecological integrity. However, these principles conceal that humans always have an impact on nature and therefore 'leave a trace,' whether or not a wrapper is left behind. Furthermore, principles like leave no trace, position humans as separate from nature, rather than a part of nature (Brooks et al., 2023). Colonization becomes much more easily justified when land is coded as pristine and untouched. Indeed, notions of empty land have been used to rationalize and justify Indigenous displacement, control, and assimilative policies (Lowman & Barker, 2015). Therefore, programs and lessons that perpetuate conceptualizations of land as pristine, contribute to the erasure of Indigenous histories and cultures that have always lived with land. Undeniably, most outdoor education centres in Canada were only made possible through coercive and disrespected treaty processes that resulted in the displacement of Indigenous peoples.

Within outdoor education settings, Indigenous knowledges are often used in appropriative ways. Brooks et al. (2023) writes:

"Too often, outdoor education treats Indigenous lands, peoples, and cultures as objects, as property from which to extract activities that might complement or enrich an otherwise Eurocentric curriculum: a tipi for children to play in, a story to tell students, an 'ancestral skill' to teach. Indigenous life ways, like Indigenous lands, become commodities that are extracted for their value" (p. 121).

Outdoor education curriculum is often not informed by Indigenous pedagogies or worldviews. Instead, Indigenous cultures, histories, and experiences are reduced to an activity or game. Moreover, the ways in which Indigenous teachings are incorporated into outdoor education often perpetuates notions of 'pan-indigeneity' (Hamilton, 2003). Within outdoor education programming, references to Indigenous cultures and knowledges are often vague and non-specific. For instance, phrases such as, "this is how Indigenous peoples would harvest maple syrup," or, "this is how Indigenous peoples tan hides" are common place. Knowledges and traditions of specific nations are rarely addressed, which puts into question the accuracy of content being shared (Brooks et al., 2023). Furthermore, programming underscored by pan-indigeneity obscures unique Indigenous cultures, histories, politics, and relationships to land.

Rather than appropriating Indigenous cultures for a single game or activity, this project seeks to demonstrate how outdoor educational programming can be designed to support projects of reconciliation, decolonization, and indigenization.

Land-Based Education and Decolonial Education

Land-based education and decolonial education offer two frameworks through which to rethink and reimagine outdoor education. While related, land-based education and decolonial education have unique objectives. Land-based education refers to an educational orientation that focuses on fostering connections to land, culture, and community (McDonald, 2023). Decolonial education refers to an educational orientation that focuses on critical thinking and reflection, especially as it relates to colonialism and settler colonialism.

Land-Based Education

Land-based education is informed and shaped by Indigenous pedagogies. Indigenous nations throughout Canada have unique cultural practices and worldviews. Therefore, Indigenous pedagogies encompass a plurality of approaches to education that vary from nation to nation. Therefore, the manner in which land-based education unfolds is contingent upon cultural, historical, and ecological contexts.

Broadly defined, McDonald (2023) describes land-based education as:

"a culturally defined program or service that takes place in an urban, nature-based, rural, or remote location, which involves cultural teachings and intergenerational knowledge transfer combined with any number of activities or goals. Programs are informed by an Indigenous pedagogy wherein land is the main source of knowledge and healing" (p. 7).

While land-based education is rooted in the context in which it is being delivered, there are common themes and principles that circulate across programming. Land-based education is a holistic approach to learning that promotes, "multiple interrelated outcomes and benefits for human's mental, emotional, and physical health" (McDonald, 2023, p. 9). Avoiding separation of subjects, land-based education connects numerous fields of knowledge and skills including ecological preservation and restoration, technical and practical skills, governance, Indigenous self-determination, among many others (McDonald, 2023).

Land-based education can unfold in many different forms. However, land is at the centre of all these approaches. Land is the source of knowledge, learning, and reflection. As a result, connection to and relationship with land are centred in all programming.

Decolonial Education

Decolonial education prioritizes dialogue, understanding, and respect for multiple approaches to education, and is committed to interrogating and deconstructing settler colonial projects (Sheldon, 2020). Within decolonial educational programming, students may be challenged to ask questions about land, ownership, identity, history, power, politics, and more.

Sabzalian (2019) offers a helpful framework through which to understand and design decolonial education programming. Focusing on pillars of place, presence, perspectives, political nationhood, power, and partnership, Sabzalian (2019) encourages educators to critique how current programming may perpetuate settler colonial ideologies, and how future programming can be designed in a way that promotes decolonial questioning and critical reflection.

Using the 6 pillars of decolonial education, Sabzalian (2019) encourages educators to ask questions, like the ones listed below, when developing or re-developing programs:

Place

How does the curriculum acknowledge Indigenous land, peoples, and nations from this area?

Presence

In what ways does the curriculum include contemporary Indigenous peoples and issues?

Perspectives

How does the program curriculum incorporate Indigenous perspectives?

Political Nationhood

Does the curriculum draw attention to Indigenous nationhood, sovereignty, and citizenship?

Power

What dynamics of power does the curriculum promote?

Partnership

How does our program consult with and establish meaningful collaborations with Indigenous communities?

While not every program will address or touch upon each of the 6 pillars, Sabzalian's (2019) framework offers a consistent and strategic approach through which to analyze programming as it relates to decolonization.

Similar to land-based education, decolonial education can take on many different forms. However, a common thread across decolonial education involves critical inquiry, especially questioning related to land, history, and identity. Through challenging taken-for-granted assumptions, students of decolonial education create pathways to imagine a future where multiple knowledges and traditions are embraced.

Project Approach

The purpose of this project was to develop land-based educational programs, delivered throughout Grey and Bruce Counties to children, youth, and adults. For this project, program development was informed by principles of land-based education and decolonial education. The project cumulated in 7 distinct programs that link ecological knowledge with themes related to reflection, perspectives, community, navigation, ecological management, seasonal change, and reciprocity.

The learning activities within the programs do not consist of learning or adopting specific Indigenous skills or practices. This is an intentional choice. When publishing programming online, we can not control who or where this programming will be delivered. As a result, we want to avoid encouraging instances of cultural appropriation or integrating cultural knowledges within learning contexts that may not be culturally appropriate. Instead, learning activities broadly adopt principles of Indigenous and decolonial pedagogies. Namely, all programs and learning activities are designed to foster relationship building and connection between land and participants. Additionally, programs challenge participants to reflect upon what land can teach us about better relating to each other.

While specific cultural knowledge is not included, the flexible nature of the programs allows for program leaders and educators to integrate their own knowledge within the learning activities. Therefore, programs can be modified to be more applicable and relevant to the cultural context in which they are delivered.

Furthermore, the voices of Indigenous ecologists, Knowledge Keepers, Elders, and authors from nations across Turtle Island can be found throughout program content and in supplementary learning materials. All of these knowledges were drawn upon when developing learning activities.

Looking Forward

The vision for this project is far from complete. Future steps include trialing the programs with local community organizations. Based on feedback from these trials, programs and website content may be revise.

Additionally, we will continue consultations with local Indigenous educators, Elders and Knowledge Keepers about the program designs, content, and learning activities. Resulting from these consultations, programs may require further development and revision.

In collaboration with Elders and Knowledge Keepers, it is also our hope that program materials will be translated to Anishinaabemowin - the native language primarily spoken in Grey and Bruce Counties.

If you have any questions or comments related to this project, please email info@bef-oec.org