Ongoing Colonization and Indigenous Environmental Heritage Rights: A Learning Experience with Cree First Nation Communities, Saskatchewan, Canada
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I think that "Ongoing Colonization and Indigenous Environmental Heritage Rights: A Learning Experience with Cree First Nation Communities, Saskatchewan, Canada" is a good paper, well organized and interesting.
My only doubt is related to the frequent use in the text of the first person pronoun instead of the impersonal form.
Author Response
Author Response: Thanks for the comment; we appreciated it. Since this manuscript developed from Indigenous methodology, relational worldview, decolonizing methods, it is essential to
situate who we are as a researcher and what we are doing. The first person helps to do this.
Reviewer 2 Report
heritage 1264964
Review: Ongoing Colonization and Indigenous Environmental Heritage Rights
It was an interesting paper to review. The choice of first person writing was at first disconcerting, but given the relational positioning is ok.
Overall, the paper summarises Cree perceptions of environmental management failures through extensive quotes by Cree community members. Given the focus of the paper, and given the extensive nature of the quotes, I am concerned that there is only one author. I would have expected that the respective Cree community as a collective would have been included as an author. I am also looking for a formal statement of acknowledgments that surely would need to be included. Having read the paper, and having noted what I consider to be serious issues of inclusive work, some aspect of the paper resemble traditional approaches of researcher colonialism of Indigenous peoples intellectual property—surely not an impression the author wishes to convey.
Line 32 “This paper finds that” a statement like this does not belong into an introduction…it’s a conclusive comment, that can be made after the argument has been made.. better: “This paper will demonstrate that” or “This paper argues that”
Methodology—The methodology is totally inadequately explained. Where and when and how were the participants observations collected, where are the interview data stored?
Methodology—Ethics: I am looking for a statement and evidence that the author’s works, as it draws on interviews, has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Board of his institution. Surely, given the focus of his paper, that should be an essential element.
Methodology—Ethics: Did the Cree participants give informed consent that their views would be quoted to such an extent?
Methodology—Ethics: Are the Cree participants aware that their view are quoted to such an extent and these are not specifically attributed to them in the paper and that they are not included as collective authors?
MINOR ISSUES
There are issues of mixed-up capitalisation throughout.
Line 161–165 is a direct quote, it seems and should be in quotation marks.
Line 168–174 ditto
Line 178–181 ditto
Line 198–292 ditto I am stopping here commenting on this…this needs to be fixed throughout…this kind of lack of attribution marking of text is disconcerting…
Line 182 ‘Brocken’
Linr 363." Moving Forward’ sure no one would use the term ‘moving backwards’… rephrase !!
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's time and comments on my manuscript. They helped reshape our manuscript. We did a major revision according to the reviewers' comments. In following we detailed how we addressed our paper a point-by-point response to reviewers' comments. We used word track changes in our revision.
We appreciate your anticipation and look forward to hearing from you.
Revision detailed: according to Point-by-point response to reviewers' comments
Overall, the paper summarises Cree perceptions of environmental management failures through extensive quotes by Cree community members. Given the focus of the paper, and given the extensive nature of the quotes, I am concerned that there is only one author. I would have expected that the respective Cree community as a collective would have been included as an author. I am also looking for a formal statement of acknowledgments that surely would need to be included. Having read the paper, and having noted what I consider to be serious issues of inclusive work, some aspect of the paper resemble traditional approaches of researcher colonialism of Indigenous peoples intellectual property—surely not an impression the author wishes to convey.
Author Response: Thanks for your comments and suggestion. Your comments are critical. Although I shared research findings with communities Elders and Knowledge-keepers and received permission to publish this manuscript, your comment helped me rethink authorship. I discussed with a couple of Elders and Knowledge-keepers. One of the Knowledge-keepers kindly agreed to be co-author and help me to guide this manuscript. Thank you.
Line 32 “This paper finds that” a statement like this does not belong into an introduction…it’s a conclusive comment, that can be made after the argument has been made.. better: “This paper will demonstrate that” or “This paper argues that”
Author Response: We revised our manuscript according to this comment
Methodology—The methodology is totally inadequately explained. Where and when and how were the participants observations collected, where are the interview data stored?
Author Response: We revised our methodology section according to this comment, added new information
Methodology—Ethics: I am looking for a statement and evidence that the author’s works, as it draws on interviews, has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Board of his institution. Surely, given the focus of his paper, that should be an essential element.
Methodology—Ethics: Did the Cree participants give informed consent that their views would be quoted to such an extent?
Methodology—Ethics: Are the Cree participants aware that their view are quoted to such an extent and these are not specifically attributed to them in the paper and that they are not included as collective authors?
Author Response: We also revised our methodology section according to this comment, added new information
MINOR ISSUES
There are issues of mixed-up capitalisation throughout.
Line 161–165 is a direct quote, it seems and should be in quotation marks.
Line 168–174 ditto
Line 178–181 ditto
Line 198–292 ditto I am stopping here commenting on this…this needs to be fixed throughout…this kind of lack of attribution marking of text is disconcerting…
Line 182 ‘Brocken’
Linr 363." Moving Forward’ sure no one would use the term ‘moving backwards’… rephrase !!
Author Response: We addressed all the minor suggestions. Thanks a lot.
Reviewer 3 Report
The author has presented a sound case study, which I enjoyed reading and believe is worthy of publication after some revision.
Most prominently areas in the background needed expansion including a discussion of Canada’s relationship with the United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which needs to be better articulated (as an important context for understanding this particular case study). The slow uptake of UNDRIP by Canada (along with other major settler nations including Australia, the US and New Zealand), and what this might have meant for First Nations heritage in Canada, needs to be made more clear. Furthermore, more reference to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) needs to be made throughout the discussion, and in particular in the final section. A brief history of natural heritage protection in Canada and relevant current bodies and legislation would also be important for readers not from Canada.
I would also like to see more information about the projects under discussion, it is currently quite opaque, being referred to as a ‘pipeline project’.
I think it would also be beneficial to include a background section directly after the introduction about Cree First Nation approaches to heritage management (some of which could be drawn from Section 4). I think much of this information would be more relevant presented as background, upon which the major identified issues could follow (Section 3). Defining the Cree First Nations community is also essential somewhere at the start of the paper (where, who etc.), which I recommend doing somewhere in the introduction (around p.2. Line 93).
The methods need to also be made clear in the methodology (the theoretical framework and approach was well articulated). Were interviews conducted? Formal or informal conversations? How was the information discerned? Was ethics approval sought?
Specific comments
Introduction
p. 1. Line 29. ‘They’ here is a little nonspecific. Recommend rewording.
p.2. Line 55 (and throughout). Do Conventions and Declarations need to be in italics?
p.2. Line 79. Also ‘Traditional Ecological Knowledge’.
p.2. Line 85. The author asks, not the paper asks.
p.2. Line 93. A good place to define Cree First Nations communities.
Ongoing Colonial Politics and Practices on Indigenous Environmental Heritage Rights
Note that Knowledge-keepers is sometimes capitalised and sometimes not, need to be more consistent.
p.4., Line 143. Should be ‘Broken Trust from Researchers’. Academic implies from a university, but this section also covers researchers from industry and government.
p.4. Line 156. Should be ‘Micro-organism’, not micro-organ.
p.4. Line 162. Should be ‘work experience’, not work experiences.
p.4. Line 171. Define Huskies here, not in Line 178 (as it is the first mention).
p.4, Line 182. Should be ‘Broken Trust’, not ‘Brocken Trust’
p.5. Line 222. ‘Frustration’ as a section could theoretically be included in all of the above sub-sections within Section 3 (for example ‘lying’ is covered in 3.2).
p.6. Line 232. ‘Greediness’, should be changed to ‘Greed’.
p.6. Line 244. Title should read ‘Destruction of Environmental Rights’
p.6., Line 247. ‘kill medicine plants’, should be ‘killing medicinal plants’.
Indigenous perspectives on how to protect environmental heritage
p.7., Line 293. Is ‘Mother Earth’ a term used by Cree First Nations communities? If so retain, if not, I suggest revision.
p.7., Line 326. Be specific about what type of leak.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's time and comments on my manuscript. They helped reshape our manuscript. We did a major revision according to the reviewers' comments. In following we detailed how we addressed our paper a point-by-point response to reviewers' comments. We used word track changes in our revision.
Reviewer-3
The author has presented a sound case study, which I enjoyed reading and believe is worthy of publication after some revision.
Most prominently areas in the background needed expansion including a discussion of Canada’s relationship with the United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which needs to be better articulated (as an important context for understanding this particular case study). The slow uptake of UNDRIP by Canada (along with other major settler nations including Australia, the US and New Zealand), and what this might have meant for First Nations heritage in Canada, needs to be made more clear. Furthermore, more reference to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) needs to be made throughout the discussion, and in particular in the final section. A brief history of natural heritage protection in Canada and relevant current bodies and legislation would also be important for readers not from Canada.
I would also like to see more information about the projects under discussion, it is currently quite opaque, being referred to as a ‘pipeline project’.
Author Response: Thanks for your comments. These are all important issues, we are planning to develop new manuscript in this issue. Here we shortly addressed some of the issue in conclusion
I think it would also be beneficial to include a background section directly after the introduction about Cree First Nation approaches to heritage management (some of which could be drawn from Section 4). I think much of this information would be more relevant presented as background, upon which the major identified issues could follow (Section 3). Defining the Cree First Nations community is also essential somewhere at the start of the paper (where, who etc.), which I recommend doing somewhere in the introduction (around p.2. Line 93).
Author Response: Revised and incorporated.
The methods need to also be made clear in the methodology (the theoretical framework and approach was well articulated). Were interviews conducted? Formal or informal conversations? How was the information discerned? Was ethics approval sought?
Author Response: Revised and incorporated
Specific comments
Introduction
- 1. Line 29. ‘They’ here is a little nonspecific. Recommend rewording.
p.2. Line 55 (and throughout). Do Conventions and Declarations need to be in italics?
p.2. Line 79. Also ‘Traditional Ecological Knowledge’.
p.2. Line 85. The author asks, not the paper asks.
p.2. Line 93. A good place to define Cree First Nations communities.
Ongoing Colonial Politics and Practices on Indigenous Environmental Heritage Rights
Note that Knowledge-keepers is sometimes capitalised and sometimes not, need to be more consistent.
p.4., Line 143. Should be ‘Broken Trust from Researchers’. Academic implies from a university, but this section also covers researchers from industry and government.
p.4. Line 156. Should be ‘Micro-organism’, not micro-organ.
p.4. Line 162. Should be ‘work experience’, not work experiences.
p.4. Line 171. Define Huskies here, not in Line 178 (as it is the first mention).
p.4, Line 182. Should be ‘Broken Trust’, not ‘Brocken Trust’
p.5. Line 222. ‘Frustration’ as a section could theoretically be included in all of the above sub-sections within Section 3 (for example ‘lying’ is covered in 3.2).
p.6. Line 232. ‘Greediness’, should be changed to ‘Greed’.
p.6. Line 244. Title should read ‘Destruction of Environmental Rights’
p.6., Line 247. ‘kill medicine plants’, should be ‘killing medicinal plants’.
Indigenous perspectives on how to protect environmental heritage
p.7., Line 293. Is ‘Mother Earth’ a term used by Cree First Nations communities? If so retain, if not, I suggest revision.
p.7., Line 326. Be specific about what type of leak.
Author Response: We addressed all the minor suggestion.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have adequately addressed the issues raised in the review
Author Response
It is revised according to reviewers' comments and suggestions. The special editor also accepted this manuscript
