Evaluation of the First Nations Solid Waste Management Initiative

1.1 Background

In Budget 2016, the federal government recognized the challenges faced by many First Nations in managing solid waste on reserve and the environmental, health, and safety risks of inadequate solid waste management. It launched a $409 million, five-year First Nations Solid Waste Management Initiative, starting in 2016-2017.

1.2 Evaluation Scope and Methodology

The evaluation covers the period from April 2016 to September 2020. Data collection occurred between November 2019 and January 2021. Since the Initiative is relatively new and has primarily output-level performance data available, the evaluation took a formative approach – examining program relevance, performance, and efficiency with a view to determining progress toward outcomes and potential improvements.

The evaluation was led by an evaluation team from the Evaluation Directorate within ISC, supported by an external consultant firm.

Research for the evaluation consisted of a comprehensive document review, literature review, analysis of the Initiative's administrative data, interviews, and case studies of FNSWMI projects in individual First Nations and ISC regions. Data collection paused for six months in 2020 owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the steps the evaluation took toward co-development was establishing an Evaluation Technical Advisory Committee that represented stakeholders from ISC, First Nations, and Indigenous organizations. The committee members provided their input and it was integrated at the four key stages of the evaluation: the evaluation questions and evaluation initiation, the methodology report, the evaluation preliminary findings, and the draft evaluation report.

1.3 Key Findings

3.1 Program Profile

In Budget 2016, the federal government recognized the challenges faced by many First Nations in managing solid waste on reserve and the environmental, health, and safety risks. It launched the $409 million, five-year First Nations Solid Waste Management Initiative (FNSWMI), starting in 2016-2017. For First Nations located near municipalities, the focus would be on diverting waste from reserve lands to municipal facilities and on recycling and composting programs to reduce the volume of waste going to landfills. For remote First Nation communities, investments would support construction of properly engineered landfills and efforts to meet environmental standards, and limit potential environmental and health impacts.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (the department responsible at the time) allocated $112 million for 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 using a streamlined attestation process that gave the Initiative its initial financial authority. Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) sought approval from Treasury Board for funding ($297 million) for the subsequent three years of the five-year allocation from Budget 2016. The scope and activities of the Initiative remained the same.

The Initiative was designed to expand on and formalize the need to invest in solid waste management, which was being funded in an ad hoc manner using existing larger funding authorities:

• Capital Facilities and Maintenance Program: the main pillar of the Government of Canada's effort to support community infrastructure for First Nations on reserve;
• Lands and Economic Development Services Program: a funding program that enables the provision of lands, environmental and economic development support services to communities; and
• Contaminated Sites (On-Reserve) Program: a funding program that enables First Nations to cost-effectively manage contaminated sites to reduce and eliminate, where possible, risk to human and environmental health and liability associated with contaminated sites.

While none of these programs had an explicit focus on solid waste management, their use enabled the Initiative to be quickly established, building upon capacity already developed inside and outside of the department.

4.1 Evaluation Scope

The evaluation covers the period from April 2016 to September 2020. ISC's Senior Management Committee approved the terms of reference for the evaluation in November 2019, and data collection occurred between November 2019 and January 2021.

Since the Initiative is relatively new, starting its fifth year of implementation in April 2020, and with primarily output-level performance data available, the evaluation took a formative approach – examining program relevance, performance, and efficiency with a view to determining progress toward early outcomes and potential improvements.

4.2 Engagement with Indigenous Stakeholders

The evaluation team used a participatory and consultative approach through engagement with an Evaluation Technical Advisory Committee (ETAC). Members of this committee, which represents stakeholders from ISC and Indigenous communities and organizations, commented on the purpose and scope of the evaluation, the key evaluation questions and its methodology. Committee members were asked to: review the methodology report, including the data collection instruments; validate the evaluation preliminary findings following data collection; and review the draft evaluation report.

4.3 Evaluation Issues and Questions

The following questions guided the methodology of this evaluation. (A complete list of questions, indicators and evaluation methods is found in Appendix 3.)

4.4 Data sources

The evaluators drew from multiple lines of evidence using several data collection methods to allow for triangulation and to inform their conclusions and recommendations.

4.5 Limitations

4.6 Roles and Responsibilities

5.1 Responsiveness to Needs of First Nations

All lines of evidence point to the need to address solid waste management in First Nations. For decades, solid waste management systems in First Nations have lagged far behind those in nearby municipalities. Before 2016, 66% of First Nations did not receive funding for solid waste management infrastructure. An ISC spokesperson noted that many First Nation communities had outstanding issues 30 years ago and that departmental files contained studies going back three decades that recommended action to clean up communities. "It is only now that they are being cleaned up and waste disposal is being addressed."

As far back as the 1990s, the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's (INAC) Environmental Issues Inventory program identified many on-reserve landfills as presenting a medium to high-risk environmental liability. In 2017, there were more than 1,400 waste disposal sites on First Nations reserves, the majority unmanaged refuse sites.^{Footnote 2} Thirteen percent of these contained hazardous waste and many were close to community housing. Open-air dumping and burning of garbage – common practices in many First Nation communities – can pose risks to human health by contaminating groundwater and by releasing toxic substances such as furans and dioxins into the soil.^{Footnote 3}

Findings from academic research suggest it is not sufficient for the federal government to allocate funding to general public works in First Nations and expect it to be invested in solid waste management.^{Footnote 4} The Public Works Department of a First Nations community is typically responsible for such community services. However, funding allocated to this department is often diverted to other urgent priorities such as clean water and housing. As Zagozewki et al suggest, ensuring that funding actually goes to solid waste management may require funding that is targeted solely for that purpose.^{Footnote 5}

For the first time, through the FNSWMI, the federal government provided dedicated solid waste management funding, replacing previous ad hoc spending. The Initiative addressed the need to restore the community pride and well-being that comes from living in a clean, safe environment. Evidence from case studies and interviews showed that the FNSWMI allowed some First Nations to begin dealing with accumulated waste such as end-of-life vehicles, discarded tires, scrap metal or oil.

According to guidance from ECCC, funding support for solid waste management is especially needed in First Nations in northern and remote regions since they face unique challenges in waste management owing to climate, geology, population size and distribution, socio-economic factors, and access to services and facilities.^{Footnote 6}

5.2 Reach of the Initiative

The reach of the FNSWMI was extensive. The Initiative directly funded 305 First Nations to implement a project for solid waste management. In addition, 536 First Nations indirectly received funding from FNSWMI. This indirect funding includes financial support to tribal councils that provided services related to solid waste management on behalf of their member First Nations as well as funding from the FNSWMI to help defray some operations and maintenance costs for solid waste management systems in First Nations.

5.3 Completeness of Program Theory

Program theory, or theory of change, refers to the way an initiative is expected to produce its results. A theory of change builds on a program's logic model – the outputs and outcomes hierarchy – and it outlines the mechanisms of change, as well as the assumptions, risks, drivers of change and context that support or hinder the process of change. The FNSWMI has a logic model, which ISC Evaluation developed with FNSWMI program staff input, but does not yet have an explicit theory of change. The Initiative does have some of the components of a program theory since the funding categories reflect the solid waste management programming cycle as described in the literature, with emphasis on the infrastructure pieces. There is also some planning, capacity development and training, and partnership development (mainly MTSAs). The literature shows that solid waste management also requires behavioral change and, as will be shown later in the report, these aspects – promotion, education, training, awareness and engagement campaigns – have been less present in the implementation of the Initiative.

A more complete theory of change would borrow from systems thinking in planning and implementing interventions through the FNSWMI. The initiative is ultimately working toward improved health, safety and environmental conditions in First Nations. According to Hernandez et al, such change requires 'holistic, integrated approaches that address the causes of inequalities' rather than a narrow framing of technical solutions.^{Footnote 10} A systems approach would consider the larger picture at the community level, including the social, economic and cultural situation and their interconnections, rather than narrowly focusing on short-term technical fixes such as an engineered landfill or waste transfer station. The key to implementing a systems approach appears to be community-based planning and management, as experience in the BC region suggests.

A more comprehensive theory of change would also require incorporating or strengthening the following components, which are discussed in detail elsewhere in the report:

• Sufficient, long-term funding for operations and maintenance
• Defining a path toward transfer of solid waste management responsibilities to Indigenous communities and organizations
• Comprehensive national needs assessment
• Continuous community engagement and education
• Ongoing training for operators
• Ensuring that monitoring of decommissioned landfills is being conducted

5.4 Gender-Based Analysis Plus

Gender-based analysis policy was developed originally in 1999 and revised in 2006 by ISC's predecessor department, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.^{Footnote 11} Although these policies have been in place for many years, they have not been formally adapted into federal government program budget requirements until recently. ISC staff at headquarters and in the regions said that gender-based analysis was not conducted for the FNSWMI and specific criteria were never established to ensure the needs of different groups were addressed by FNSWMI projects. A member of the NAC said that such analysis is vital as it is the most vulnerable – children and the elderly – who are most at risk from the effects of poor waste management, such as air pollution from burning garbage or contamination of the local water supply.

Efforts were made in some projects to involve sub-groups within communities such as elders and youth in programming, or to address their distinct needs. According to one respondent, the BC regional office's team approach to solid waste management delivery included community engagement to prepare and launch new solid waste programs, input from experts and elders, and door-to-door communication to gain insights and customize solutions based on community needs. Several Indigenous organizations, including in Atlantic Canada, British Columbia, and Quebec, developed initiatives targeting youth. Examples include tools to increase solid waste management education in schools and the eco-patrollers initiative in Quebec that hired youth in some First Nations communities to raise awareness about solid waste management. Initiatives supported by First Nations organizations in Atlantic Canada and Ontario worked to incorporate assistance in getting waste to the curbside for elders and others with disabilities. Although these examples are commendable, overall, the Initiative missed potential opportunities and benefits had ISC applied GBA Plus consistently in each project.

6.1 Results

While the FNSWMI's administrative data explain where and how investments were made, they do not show what impact those investments have had in First Nations. Owing to the lack of an effective performance measurement system, the evaluation team relied largely on evidence from the case studies and interviews to assess the results of the Initiative. The sections below examine the results achieved against the expected outcomes at the intermediate level of the FNSWMI's draft logic model, while also covering expected outcomes at the immediate level.

6.2  Sustainability of Achievements

Representatives from all sectors agree that the major risk to the sustainability of the Initiative's achievements is the inadequacy of the funding formula for operating and maintaining solid waste management systems. Interviewees said that solid waste management is a municipal-type, essential service for First Nations that needs to be funded 100%. An ISC spokesperson said that the current asset-based funding formula "will be the death of everything that FNSWMI has accomplished," that the formula has zero to do with the reality of what it costs to run a solid waste management system, and that there is no way for First Nations to succeed under this regime. A study conducted by an Indigenous technical organization found that most municipalities in Ontario spend $120,000 per year on average to maintain their solid waste management programs. But ISC, between the Capital Facilities and Maintenance Program and the FNSWMI, provides Ontario First Nations with amounts that are typically less ranging from only $8,000 to $25,000 per year in operations and maintenance funding to sustain both diversion programs and a landfill. Operations and maintenance support from the Initiative can be higher in other regions, but is still inadequate, according to many interviewed for the evaluation.

A 2017 study for INAC made this recommendation: "INAC should update funding formulae based on recent reliable solid waste management system cost data as they become available, holistic waste management practices (recycling and composting) and best practice standards."^{Footnote 14} The Auditor General recently made a similar finding with respect to water infrastructure.^{Footnote 15} ISC's inadequate funding formula for operations and maintenance costs is therefore not limited to the waste sector.

Many respondents across all stakeholder groups suggested that First Nations should receive regular funding for solid waste management, including for operations and maintenance, using formulas similar to those used for schools and other infrastructure, based on population or an agreed average cost. Some First Nations and tribal councils are open to considering charging residents user fees, but these would likely cover only a portion of the operations and maintenance costs and their viability would depend on factors such as remoteness, economic health of communities, and household incomes.

Another risk to sustainability of the Initiative's achievements is the low level of monitoring conducted by ISC staff in regions. Some First Nation representatives in Ontario reported having fewer visits from ISC officers in recent years and limited follow-up by ISC after project completion. In Alberta, a spokesperson from an Indigenous organization said the regional office needs to gather feedback from First Nation waste operators on how well solid waste management is working and how it can be improved. An Indigenous organization representative in Quebec said that while there was good follow-up by the regional office on whether projects were completed and infrastructure built, there was little follow-up to see whether the solid waste management infrastructure was operational and achieving results. According to ISC regional staff, there is no formal mechanism in place to follow up and track the success of supported initiatives beyond the completion of individual projects. This speaks to the absence of a performance measurement system.

As discussed, another important gap identified by ISC regional staff in Ontario is the lack of funding for ongoing monitoring of decommissioned landfills. The current operations and maintenance funding formula can only fund existing landfills or refuse sites. An ISC representative said the FNSWMI cannot fund the monitoring of contaminated sites unless they have been deemed a waste site and are not eligible for funding through the contaminated sites program.

6.3  Effectiveness of Relationships

Cases studies and interviews showed that First Nations were well served with support, technical advice, and training from Indigenous technical organizations and tribal councils. The waste coordinators funded in tribal councils had an important role, especially for smaller First Nations with lower capacity. Training and support delivered through organizations such as the Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources in Manitoba helped many First Nations apply for funding and implement solid waste management projects. Knowledge-sharing was facilitated by annual solid waste forums and conferences held by the Sustainable Development Institute in Quebec and TSAG in Alberta, and through publications such as the Merganser newsletter from in BC, which reports on First Nations solid waste programs in the province.

Relationships between ISC headquarters and regional offices were effective in planning the annual distribution of FNSWMI funds to each region and collaborating to deliver the Initiative on the ground. By and large, relationships between ISC regional offices and First Nations have been effective. Where there is dissatisfaction on the part of First Nation stakeholders, it has been related to issues discussed elsewhere in the report, including delays in project approvals, lack of clarity on approval processes and funding decisions, and having to navigate between officers in the Environment Directorate and officers in Community Infrastructure or Capital Funding.

According to an ISC representative, the NAC for the FNSWMI was used to communicate the results of the Initiative, discuss eligibility criteria, and consult about any gaps. The spokesperson said, however, that there was uncertainty about the exact role of the committee. When interviewed, some members of the NAC agreed that the role of the committee was unclear, recounting meetings that included many presentations, but limited opportunity for discussion or to provide technical advice. One said they were informed "after a project had been implemented and they were not asking us for feedback – they were reporting on what had happened and how much money they had spent." Regional Advisory Committees were established to provide regional information to the NAC. These functioned in some regions. However, an ISC spokesperson said some regional committees were never set up.

An important relationship is that between First Nations and neighbouring municipalities that have landfills and where First Nations would like to establish municipal-type service agreements (MTSAs) to bring their solid waste to the municipal landfill. These relationships have varied in effectiveness across the country. Numerous First Nations have established good relationships and negotiated MTSAs for solid waste, for example between the community of Kitcisakik and the regional municipality in Vallée de l'Or in Quebec. However, in other regions some municipalities are less open to collaboration on solid waste management. In some cases, municipal representatives have exhibited openly racist attitudes and behaviours, according to an ISC respondent.

In Manitoba, where the province is moving to regional waste disposal sites, considerable effort was expended during the first phase of the FNSWMI to increase First Nations' access to these sites. But no new MTSAs were established between First Nations and municipalities. Many Ontario municipalities have been reluctant to enter MTSAs, owing to the province's long process for approval of new landfills and the concern on the part of municipalities of running out of space for their own solid waste. ISC regional office staff are closely involved in supporting First Nations in negotiations for MTSAs.

There are mixed views on how much emphasis the FNSWMI should place on developing MTSAs. According to a subject matter expert, the agreements are key to overall improvements in solid waste management for First Nations and that collaboration with neighboring municipalities can be a component of reconciliation. However, an Indigenous organization expressed the view that the Initiative places too much emphasis on MTSAs, transfer stations, and working with municipalities and not enough emphasis on supporting First Nations to pursue innovative approaches to recycling and waste diversion.

6.4  Management Effectiveness

6.4.1  Effective Aspects of FNSWMI Implementation

As discussed in section 5.2 (Reach of the Initiative), managers at ISC headquarters and in regional offices were effective in creating awareness of the FNSWMI. Hundreds of First Nation communities have applied for and received funding, and other FNSWMI funding has been directed to tribal councils and Indigenous technical organizations acting in support roles for First Nations. Regional offices created a prioritization plan of contaminated sites each year using the national classification system for contaminated sites. The Initiative also created a priority ranking tool for two types of major capital project proposals, i.e., new construction of landfills and transfer stations; and upgrades of existing landfills and transfer stations.

By and large, regional delivery of the Initiative has worked well since regional offices have direct connections to the First Nations and Indigenous organizations in their regions. Regional offices had the flexibility to respond to the differing needs of individual First Nations as they arose – from closing dumpsites in Ontario to funding the demolition of the remaining buildings from a residential school in Yukon. Representatives from Indigenous organizations in Quebec, Manitoba and BC praised the FNSWMI's flexibility. A spokesperson for one organization said the Initiative allowed for changes to accommodate unforeseen events, facilitated program access and accountability. A representative of another organization praised how the funding could be moved around between different categories.

Using the Integrated Capital Management System and the Environmental Management Branch project database, Initiative managers track solid waste management spending in each First Nation or organization and many other variables. As of September 2020, $320.5 million of $408.9 million in confirmed funds had been invested through the FNSWMI to support 955 projects. According to program managers, the remaining $88.4 million was on track to be spent by March 31, 2021, the end date of the Initiative's first five years.

ISC Evaluation analyzed administrative data as of April 30, 2020 to determine the distribution of investments among different types of projects. Using data received from ISC HQ Environment showing 16 different project categories, the evaluation team coded the projects and categorized them using the four project types: capacity building and training, infrastructure and operations, programs and partnerships, and waste management planning (fuller descriptions of the four project types are found in Appendix 2).

As shown in Figure 1, almost 60% of projects were in infrastructure and operations. The next largest percentage were in capacity building and training, the majority (57%) of which took place in Quebec. Thirteen percent of projects were in waste management planning, and only 6% of projects were in programs and partnerships. In both of these latter categories, Ontario region carried out more such projects in waste management planning and programs and partnerships than any other region.

Source: FNSWMI administrative data

Text alternative for Figure 1: FNSWMI Projects by Type, 2016-2020

Figure 1 illustrates the types of First Nations Solid Waste Management Initiative (FNSWMI) projects initiated during the period of 2016 to 2020. During this period, 6% of FNSWMI projects were of the 'Programs and Partnerships’ variety, 13% projects fell under 'Waste management planning’, 22% focused on 'Capacity building and training’, and 59% were 'Infrastructure and operations’ projects.

6.5 Regulatory Framework

In 2009, the Auditor General of Canada reported that "… while regulations under the Indian Act require a permit issued by INAC to operate a landfill site or burn waste on reserve lands, the Department has issued few permits and is not equipped to conduct inspections, monitor compliance, and enforce the regulations. Consequently, garbage is often not confined to licensed landfill sites and there is no monitoring of the impacts on drinking water sources and air quality."^{Footnote 16} The findings from this evaluation show that conditions in 2021 are largely unchanged from over a decade ago.

Most case studies conducted for the evaluation showed the absence of adequate federal regulation for the management of solid waste on reserve has resulted in illegal dumping in many First Nations. Even in First Nations that have put in place their own bylaws to curb illegal dumping, enforcement can be difficult and expensive. Representatives from the ISC Ontario regional office said that while First Nations are implementing their own bylaws to deal with solid waste pollution on reserve, they have no means to charge delinquent third parties, monitor and enforce bylaws. One First Nation discovered that the maximum fine that could be levied under the Indian Act for illegal dumping was $100.

Lack of regulations also means there is no clear standard for the construction of new infrastructure on reserve under the FNSWMI. A respondent from the Alberta regional office said it usually applies the provincial regulations, but only when funding permits. For its 2009 report, the Auditor General found that about 200 First Nations in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Ontario should have been issued permits by INAC for landfills but were not. The Auditor General found that only 14 permits had been issued (all in Saskatchewan) under the Indian Reserve Waste Disposal Regulations.^{Footnote 17} This evaluation found that this situation persists: ISC regional offices generally do not issue permits and the Saskatchewan region is still the sole region to use permits and contractual obligations to regulate solid waste on reserves. A representative from that office said there is potential to make greater use of the department's regulatory controls in other regions.

In some cases, ISC regional offices have approved the siting of solid waste management facilities such as landfills off-reserve, where provincial regulations apply. In northern BC, the Yukon regional office supported this option to build a transfer station serving a First Nation. This approach has also been used in Saskatchewan. When First Nation solid waste facilities are non-compliant on provincial crown land in Saskatchewan, the province seeks first to point out violations, but may resort to enforcement action such as cancelling the permit to operate, or summary offence charges. The province does not remedy non-compliance with education or training.

The First Nations Land Management Act (FNLMA) allows for signatory First Nations (of which there are over 150) to create and enact their own land codes through which they can develop solid waste management regulations. However, designing and implementing a FNLMA regime requires significant funding, dedicated resources, technical knowledge and training.

ISC has been working with Environment and Climate Change Canada to develop an approach to close the environmental protection regulatory gap. In 2020-2021, the Initiative allocated $1M for work in this area, including support for Indigenous organizations to begin discussions on the environmental regulatory gap and develop potential solutions.

7.1 Funding Model

There was a consensus among those interviewed for this evaluation that the proposal-based model for project applications is appropriate and has worked well for major infrastructure and capital spending such as landfill decommissioning, building new facilities such as waste transfer stations, and purchasing costly equipment such as garbage trucks. However, delivery of the proposal-based model can be improved, according to many. Some ISC regions expressed concerns with the lateness of annual allocation of regional funding envelopes for infrastructure. A solution could be to spread infrastructure funding to First Nations over more than one year to allow sensible timelines for larger, multi-phase projects.

For other components of solid waste management, most Indigenous organizations and many ISC staff consider 10-year grants or core funding to be more appropriate. In this view, these components should be assumed to be ongoing, regular aspects of solid waste management and should not require repeated proposals. They include operations and maintenance costs, planning, capacity development, and community engagement and education. A spokesperson for an Indigenous technical organization said that core funding or a longer-term grant would be a better way of funding the program to allow communities to invest in exactly what they need, when they need it. An ISC representative said that this approach would allow First Nations to build capacity and self-reliance. With longer-term, stable funding, more First Nations or tribal councils could hire a solid waste coordinator, who would provide program continuity despite frequent leadership changes in communities. A tribal council respondent said that longer-term funding would allow their organization to hire a solid waste coordinator who would be proactive in developing projects and education plans, and in examining opportunities for First Nations to save or make money. ISC is moving toward more block funding and 10-year agreements, and this approach should continue to be pursued for First Nations that qualify for longer-term funding arrangements.

8.1 Service Transfer

In 2016, the foundational document for the FNSWMI foresaw a gradual approach to devolution (or service transfer) whereby First Nations would assume full care and control of delivery of infrastructure within three to ten years. The foundational document notes that the Initiative's ultimate goal is to support First Nation self-determination by transferring solid waste management from government to First Nations. In this approach, funding in the first three years would allow critical needs to be addressed while also co-developing reform options with First Nations, to be implemented through years four to ten. Solid waste management assets would first need to be brought up to an acceptable standard, requiring significant investment over the ten years, well beyond the existing targeted funding.

To advance the goal of service transfer, the program needs to support the following conditions: (1) develop and implement First Nation-led hubs, institutions, authorities and other aggregations, (2) remove of barriers to financing, (3) guarantee support of operations and maintenance and minor capital assets, and (4) incentives for the use of service agreements where possible. The foundational document anticipated that the Initiative would require significant human resources within the department in its early years – almost 14 full-time equivalents (FTEs) per year for three years – so that resources match increased investments and complexity of projects. In this scenario, as First Nation communities and organizations increased their capacity, federal FTEs would move into First Nation organizations, reducing the overall departmental need for operations and maintenance funding, and increasing the need for grants and contributions.

In the 2019-2020 departmental plan, ISC states that among its planned results is that Indigenous people control the design, delivery and management of services.^{Footnote 18} In the plan, ISC commits to supporting Indigenous communities and organizations to exercise jurisdiction in the design, delivery and management of services, noting that this result is aligned with the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Calls to Action.^{Footnote 19}

Overall, few ISC representatives had much to say when asked about service transfer. One ISC respondent acknowledged that all departmental programs should be developing a plan to transfer program delivery to Indigenous partners, but noted that implementing a credible plan for devolution requires time and consultation with partners. In 2019, a FNSWMI presentation stated that the Initiative was exploring new funding models to transfer regional office functions to First Nation organizations and considering new institutional approaches such as regional First Nations waste management authorities.^{Footnote 20} In the first phase of the FNSWMI, ISC devolved the responsibility for the delivery of education and waste diversion programming to CMM for eight First Nations in the Atlantic Region and to the First Nations Land Management Resource Centre, which has coordinated over 40 solid waste projects in regions across Canada. While CMM has demonstrated success in the Atlantic region, it would need stronger capacity to manage and deliver infrastructure projects, including engineering capacity for approving plans and inspecting infrastructure.

First Nations and Indigenous technical organizations had varied reactions to the prospect of service transfer. Some respondents expressed caution, since they have seen past instances of devolution where services were downloaded without adequate resources. Other representatives among First Nations and Indigenous technical organizations want more action on this front. The representative of a national Indigenous organization said that investments in new ISC staffing within Lands and Economic Development at the beginning of the Initiative should have gone to strengthening regional Indigenous organizations to build capacity as a natural step toward devolution. All Indigenous respondents said that for service transfer to happen, there is significant work to be accomplished by the department to create the necessary enabling conditions. These include:

• Sustainable and reliable funding: Indigenous organizations in several regions said effective service transfer requires sustainable, predictable and reliable funding.
• Strengthened delivery capacity of Indigenous technical organizations and tribal councils: Many Indigenous technical organizations and tribal councils have suffered funding cuts in recent years and need to regain technical capacity, and specifically in solid waste management.
• Clarity about FNSWMI administration: Representatives of technical organizations said they want to understand more clearly how the FNSWMI is administered, its internal processes and how funding decisions are made as a first step in assuming solid waste management responsibilities.
• Development of an enabling policy and regulatory environment: There are several jurisdictional and policy issues to address that stand in the way of service transfer. These include provisions of the Indian Act as well as the First Nations Land Management Regime and self-government agreements. ISC respondents say that the FNSWMI has limited control over some aspects of the program owing to its use of funding authorities from other programs. For instance, it cannot make decisions on service delivery related to funding spent through the infrastructure process since that authority resides with the Capital Funding Management Program.

8.2 Best Practices

Community-based planning can be inclusive and effective for identifying solid waste management needs and solutions: Based on nearly a decade of work on solid waste management in collaboration with First Nations, the BC regional office developed a promising practice that fits with the department's Indigenous Community Development National Strategy.^{Footnote 21} It based its funding decisions on First Nations priorities and needs, as well as provincial enforcement orders with the goal of creating functioning, locally driven solid waste management systems that included infrastructure, human resources and governance. A team comprised of ISC staff, a community planner and an engineer worked in collaboration with Community-based Solid Waste Management Working Groups on project implementation. In this model, the planning process went beyond consultation and emphasized the engagement of stakeholder groups at the community level in First Nations.

Success in solid waste management is tied to good communication and ongoing education for First Nation community members: According to one ISC respondent, the need for better communication and promotion inside communities was a recurring theme at NAC meetings. In communities where education, toolkits, and training were provided and there was good communication, there seem to have been more successful programs. Examples of this type of effort come from the Sustainable Development Institute in Quebec, which has produced videos and an activities book for children on solid waste, recycling, composting and related topics. Based on ecological and scientific knowledge, and highlighting six Indigenous languages, the book and complementary materials are educational tools for Indigenous students to learn about their languages, as well as science and technology.

Ongoing training and capacity development in First Nations are essential: Training and capacity development are essential for managers and operators of solid waste management systems in First Nation communities. Capacity development involves strengthening First Nations and Indigenous organizations, which may include, but go well beyond, training. Both components need to be ongoing to embed good solid waste management practices within public works departments of First Nations and overcome high turnover among waste system operators. Promising practices have been implemented in BC by the Indigenous Zero Waste Technical Advisory Group, which has developed training for operators, technical manuals, and a circuit rider program, all of which are critical supports for small communities.

Indigenous technical organizations and tribal councils can play a major role, including acting as centres of excellence: Enlisting the services of Indigenous technical organizations as well as tribal councils in the FNSWMI has proven to be a promising practice. They bring technical expertise in solid waste management, collaborative approaches, act as an interface between First Nations and ISC, and stimulate community engagement. Indigenous technical organizations are essential to sharing knowledge and technical expertise among First Nations within regions. Currently, the Sustainable Development Institute in Quebec acts as a centre of excellence in solid waste management. The Sustainable Development Institute has developed a comprehensive regional portrait of solid waste management in First Nations in Quebec, created webinars and toolkits on solid waste management practices, and organizes an annual symposium on solid waste management.

Appropriate local solutions do not always need to be high-tech: Appropriate and innovative solutions can be low-tech. For example, in BC, mobile ‘eco-depots' provide an all-in-one operation for the collection, sorting, and storage of recyclables in at least eight communities in the Hazelton region. The mobile eco-depot combines roadside collection and sorting of recyclables with movable storage and hauling of materials in a cube van outfitted with large bags and containers. Household recyclables are taken weekly, and large bulky items are taken monthly to a regional depot.^{Footnote 22} The literature supports this lesson: "Technology is not a panacea, however, and is usually only one factor to consider when managing solid waste. Locally appropriate solutions must be selected and the best technology is often not the newest or most advanced."^{Footnote 23}

Partnerships for solid waste management can contribute to reconciliation: Strong partnerships and relationships with municipalities and provincial bodies can be part of reconciliation efforts, and can help overcome prejudicial attitudes on the part of municipal or provincial staff toward First Nations communities. Through work with the provincial stewardship organization Divert Nova Scotia, CMM assisted with the development of educational materials that are inclusive of Mi'kmaq worldviews for schools across the province. People involved in the waste management projects in Millbrook First Nation said they have received support from municipal authorities who have attended community workshops and worked with the First Nation when it struggled to comply with waste diversion regulations.

The costs of delaying action on solid waste management are greater in the long run: This lesson comes from a comprehensive study by the World Bank.^{Footnote 24} "Uncollected waste and poorly disposed waste have significant health and environmental impacts. The cost of addressing these impacts is many times higher than the cost of developing and operating simple, adequate waste management systems." The study cites research in Southeast Asia that estimated the economic cost of uncollected household waste that is burned, dumped, or discharged to waterways to be US$375/tonne. "For the same region, the World Bank estimated the integrated waste management costs for basic systems meeting good international hygienic standards to be US$50–US$100/tonne." In other words, it is about four to eight times cheaper to act decisively on proper solid waste management.

9.1 Conclusions

The FNSWMI is a major step forward in responding to longstanding needs in First Nations communities for dedicated funding in support of adequate solid waste management. However, significant gaps remain in responding to First Nations' needs, particularly for ongoing and adequate funding for the operations and maintenance of solid waste management systems.

Most First Nations received either direct or indirect funding through this Initiative, and the funding was broadly dispersed among both remote communities and those close to urban centres. Those First Nations that are closer to urban centres and supported by a tribal council are slightly more likely to receive funding. There are perceptions and real concerns that remote First Nations are struggling to access funding, to draft proposals and with poor internet connectivity. While there are areas that need improvement, the program has had some successes in promoting the program and partnering with Indigenous organizations to achieve results across regions. As such, the program needs to continue its successful outreach practises and redouble efforts to reach First Nations that are less likely to receive funding or who have struggled with their solid waste systems.   

FNSWMI did support some First Nations by increasing technical expertise and capacity, upgrading infrastructure, reducing contaminated sites, increasing the awareness and education level of solid waste management in First Nations,  increasing community access to diversion programs, and reducing the amount of solid waste in First Nations.

However, the performance data gaps prevented the evaluation from telling the full story and scale of impact of this program, including data on and integration of GBA Plus. FNSWMI's implementation was impeded by a few aspects, most notably: operations and maintenance funding formula is inadequate and funding needs to be stabilized. In some instances, a lack of emphasis on awareness and education to enhance engagement and First Nation staff training, which will help change community solid waste practices. There has been little post-closure landfill monitoring, despite risks to the environment and human health, regular testing of water and soil quality is not conducted consistently. In other cases, when an indigenous partners were attempting to access the program, they found it had a complex proposal submission process and were confronted with funding delays. Respondents suggested that proposal issues were, in part, caused by disconnects in coordination and communication between the Lands and Economic Develop and the Community Infrastructure sectors.

Additionally, the evaluation found that some solid waste business opportunities have not been fully taken advantage of, such as hauling their waste to municipal landfills, by First Nations due to some ISC regional policies. In instances where indigenous partners are operationalizing their solid waste management system there has been a lack clarity and practices around approval permits and enforcement authority in federal regulations solid waste, which has led to some waste sites to be degraded over time. And, there was little post-closure monitoring of landfill sites to help maintain First Nation's facilities.

While the proposal-based model is widely considered to be appropriate for major capital components of the FNSWMI, other components would be better served with more stable, longer-term funding mechanisms such as a 10-year grant or core funding.

Although the transfer of control of services to Indigenous partners is one of ISC's strategic priorities and it was an intended goal in the original conception of the FNSWMI, only small steps toward service transfer have been taken. In order for full service transfer to occur, the following enabling conditions need to be present: sustainable and reliable funding; strengthened delivery capacity of Indigenous Technical Organizations and Tribal Councils; clarified program administration; and an enabled policy and regulatory environment.

9.2 Recommendations

Based on the evidence presented and the above conclusions, the evaluators recommend that:

ISC adopt an approach to improving solid waste management systems in First Nations that considers the full lifecycle of solid waste management and incorporates the broader social, cultural, and economic context of each First Nation. Under such an approach, ISC should:

1. Allocate sufficient, reliable, long-term funding for the FNSWMI. The funding should provide adequate financial support to First Nations for the ongoing costs of operating and maintaining solid waste management systems.
2. Strengthen delivery of FNSWMI through the following:
   1. Examine and implement methods that will enhance community-led planning practices, decision-making practices, incentivise knowledge transfer from consultants to First Nations, and boost the funding directed to capacity building, engagement, and training. 
   2. Strengthen coordination between Lands and Economic Development sector and Community Infrastructure sector to better serve First Nations by simplifying and streamlining the approval and delivery process for solid waste management infrastructure projects;
   3. Apply GBA Plus to solid waste projects, program design and delivery; and
   4. Develop and implement a performance measurement system to monitor progress toward the program's outcomes, which should include the enhanced monitoring of solid waste management investments.
3. Assess and revise the National and Regional contracting and procurement policies to encourage and support First Nations, First Nation-owned companies, and Indigenous organizations to deliver their own service.
4. Continue working with Environment and Climate Change Canada, Indigenous stakeholders, and provinces to plan, develop, or modify regulations to support effective solid waste management in First Nations.
5. In keeping with the Department's commitment to support Indigenous communities and organizations to exercise jurisdiction in the design, delivery, and management of services, work with First Nation partners to chart a path toward sustainable service transfer of solid waste management responsibilities.

FINAL Management Response and Action Plan
Project Title: Evaluation of the First Nations Solid Waste Management Initiative

Action Plan