Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100074

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cleaner Waste Systems

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/cleaner-waste-systems

A review on solid waste management in Canadian First Nations

communities: Policy, practices, and challenges ]]
]]]]]]
]]

Ziyu Wang, Zhikun Chen, Chunjiang An

⁎

Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, QC H3G 1M8, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: There is an increasing concern regarding the sustainable solid waste management (SWM) around the world. This
Solid waste management review first summarizes First Nations’ social behavior, culture, environmental perspectives, and sustainable
First Nations development perspectives. The review then introduces the laws and regulations regarding the First Nations SWM
Policy and regulation system and environment at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels. These laws and regulations can be
Practices
described as the basic guides, restrictions, and useful improvement tools for First Nations SWM. After this,
several technical reports and journal articles focusing on Canada’s Native First Nations are used to provide a
comparison between urban and remote communities and allow analyses of three key issues (open dumping, open
burning, and COVID-19) so as to describe the current state of Canadian First Nations SWM practices and de-
monstrate their diversity in Canada. Lastly, the potential First Nations SWM improvement strategies are in-
troduced through education and training, process improvement, and zero-waste possibilities.

1. Introduction
There is an increasing concern regarding the sustainable solid waste
management (SWM) around the world. First Nations is a term used to
describe the indigenous people, one of the earliest inhabitants of the
North American continent. The term expresses not only respect for First
Nations and their contributions but also their quest for self-government.
As of 2016, there were more than 820,000 First Nations individuals in
Canada, and more than forty percent of them lived on reserves
(Statistics Canada, 2021). As of today, very little data or information on
solid waste generation, management, and disposal in First Nations
communities are publicly available or disclosed in Canada. Similarly, in
the research field, there is a lack of research papers and academic re-
views related to this topic. Based on the above status quo, this review
will identify the SWM-related problems existing in First Nations com-
munities and future directions for improvement by analyzing First
Nations' environmental views, current laws and regulations, and dif-
ferent SWM practices in rural and urban First Nations communities.
Regarding the review methodology for this paper, journal papers,
technical reports, and government disclosure documents related to First
Nations and SWM are used to examine and analyze details of the entire
life cycle of SWM systems in First Nations communities across Canada
and make an outlook on their future progress possibility. At the same
time, some interviews with First Nations members and elders are used
to reflect the actual situation more directly. In Section 2, reports dis-
closed by organizations and governments and interviews with First
Nations members are used to explain the unique environment and
sustainable views of First Nations communities from environmental
legislation and traditional culture and help readers better understand
First Nations' unique behaviors that exist in SWM systems. In Section
3.1, Canadian-wide federal and provincial laws and regulations that can
directly guide First Nations communities are summarized and analyzed.
They are a major contributor to the formation of existing First Nations
SWM practices. Section 3.2 uses technical reports, relevant SWM
journal papers, and expertise from government agencies and third-party
agencies to analyze and compare seven stages of urban and remote First
Nations SWM practices. This section helps dispel some inherent mis-
conceptions and helps readers develop a comprehensive understanding
of First Nations SWM systems. Sections 4 and 5, respectively, analyze
the problems that the First Nations are facing with SWM and give po-
tential improvement and promotion strategies. These two sections' main
sources of review are journal papers and technical and government
reports.
2. First Nations and the environment
In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development
(WCED) published a report entitled “Our Common Future,” which is
also called the “Brundtland Report” (WCED, 1987). The Brundtland
Report stated that achieving sustainability is the common strategy for
all humanity, including First Nations. Agenda 21 is a United Nations
(UN) action plan on sustainable development, which is a product of the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: chunjiang.an@concordia.ca (C. An).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clwas.2022.100074
Received 4 November 2022; Received in revised form 7 December 2022; Accepted 30 December 2022
2772-9125/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Z. Wang, Z. Chen and C. An
Earth Summit held in 1992. In the 26 chapters of Agenda 21, it is ex-
plicitly required that indigenous people, including the First Nations, use
their traditional knowledge to participate in sustainable development
and protect their lands from environmental problems. The above two
documents formally recognized First Nations’ roles in environmental
protection and sustainable development (McGregor, 2010). The “Con-
vention on Biological Diversity” in 1993 and the World Summit on
Sustainable Development in 2002 added more details and reaffirmed
the important role of First Nations and their traditional knowledge in
environmental protection and sustainable development.
2.1. Traditional knowledge and environmental understanding of First
Nations
The traditional knowledge mentioned in the previous paragraph can
be defined as certain factual data, religious concepts, or practices that
have already been integrated into First Nations’ culture. Most tradi-
tional knowledge can be preserved and communicated through socia-
lizing, teaching, and rituals such as songs, dances, and ceremonies.
Some examples of traditional knowledge are oral narratives, cosmolo-
gical observations, techniques for planting, hunting skills, and the
manufacture of specialized tools (Bruchac, 2014). Traditional knowl-
edge can be described as the precious wealth that the First Nations have
collected over generations to ensure their most suitable life and beha-
vior patterns. Relevant Canadian government departments have con-
sidered First Nations’ traditional knowledge in many vital policies, such
as the Species at Risk Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act,
and the National Forest Strategy; however, thus traditional knowledge
is ALSO depreciating (Nadasdy, 1999). Furthermore, even though
gathering and analyzing customer requirements should be accom-
plished early in a project, only a few stakeholders actively attempt to
understand First Nations peoples, their world views, and their knowl-
edge systems during environmental practices, including SWM.
2.2. Differences in the concept of sustainable development
As an important part of traditional knowledge, specialized under-
standings of local ecosystems have established, for the First Nations, a
different view of the environment and sustainable development than
others. Sustainable development is usually defined as “Development
that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987). However,
the First Nations soon discovered that this principle or definition did
not align with their traditional knowledge. Therefore, in 1997, First
Nations representatives from seven regions (British Columbia, Alberta,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Atlantic, and Quebec and Labrador)
jointly completed a report called Towards Sustainable Development,
which is a strategy for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development (DIAND) that includes their own sustainable development
view. In the report, First Nations chiefs pointed out that First Nations
have an obligation to contribute to the protection of the environment
for all humanity but also to ensure a high quality of life and that First
Nations communities are more concerned with how to give what they
have to the environment rather than use (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, 1997). In other words, the relationship be-
tween First Nations and the environment involves cooperation, coex-
istence, and respect. Moreover, in some First Nations communities,
people consider the environment or the land to be their mother. In Dr.
Anderson Assuah’s interview with First Nations individuals, one inter-
viewee explained that he attempts to protect the environment because
he is a hunter and trapper, and this is his way of life (Assuah, 2020). If
First Nations’ environmental views are not fully understood and re-
spected, conflicts will inevitably arise and have negative effects on
ongoing environmental protection practices.
2
Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100074
2.3. Environmental legislation on First Nations
To protect Mother Earth for the First Nations, establishing and im-
plementing laws and regulations related to environmental protection is
an indispensable process. The earliest policies for First Nations related
to the environment in Canada date back to before the founding of the
Confederation. At that time, the Queen of England established a
number of treaties with the First Nations, including content related to
the land and the environment. After the establishment of the Canadian
Confederation, the Canadian government promulgated the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act in 1992, which clarified the responsi-
bilities, procedures, and roles of the federal government in environ-
mental protection and waste management. At the same time, it also
reduced the jurisdictional overlap between the federal and provincial or
territorial governments. Then, on September 14, 1999, the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act was passed, which further increased
federal participation in environmental protection and SWM programs.
The two Acts mentioned above established the Canadian federal gov-
ernment’s approach to promoting sustainable development through
assessment and pollution prevention. In 2008, the Federal Sustainable
Development Act reaffirmed the sustainable development commitments
and created a Sustainable Development Advisory Council, including
First Nations representation (McGregor, 2010).
Nonetheless, in Canada, the status quo is that provincial and terri-
torial governments primarily oversee environmental protection legis-
lation. In order to have clear communication among the environment
ministers of the provinces and territories, the Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment (CCME) was established in 1964 and is
composed of environment ministers from the federal, provincial, and
territorial governments. Relying on this platform, ministers have set
strategic directions for achieving broad outcomes, such as Canada-wide
policies and technical products. Furthermore, a number of First Nations
municipal governments in Canada, such as the Matsqui First Nation,
Temagami First Nation, and Sudbury Area First Nation, have partnered
with third-party environmental agencies to develop First Nations-based
Environmental Management Plans (EMPs). Through the guidance of the
EMP, First Nations municipal governments can draft or optimize re-
levant laws and regulations, including First Nations’ SWM law. A
leading example is that the Matsqui First Nation (British Columbia,
Canada) has drafted new laws and regulations about SWM, sewage
treatment, and disposal (Matsqui First Nation, 2012).
3. First Nations and solid waste management
Solid waste management, as an integral part of environmental as-
sessments and environmental protection plans, is directly related to the
daily life, health, and well-being of First Nations. According to data
from Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canadians generated
approximately 34 million tonnes of municipal solid waste (MSW) in
2016 (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2020). About 30% of
this solid waste (around 9 million tonnes) becomes involved in re-
cycling or composting processes, and the remaining solid waste (around
25 million tonnes) is sent directly to landfills or incineration facilities to
generate energy or alternative fuels. In 2016, the three categories of
materials with the highest proportion of degradable waste were food,
wood and wood products, and paper, which accounted for 23.3%, 11%,
and 9.9%, respectively; for non-degradable waste materials, the top
three categories were plastic (13.4%), building materials (8.6%), and
metals (3.2%). The above trends should be fundamentally the same in
the First Nations communities; however, every community has a unique
situation. The laws and regulations associated with the SWM system,
the SWM service capacities, and the natural environment where the
community is located can also directly affect First Nations’ waste
management practices. It cannot be ignored that growing waste vo-
lumes, lack of targeted legislation, and inadequate infrastructure and
Z. Wang, Z. Chen and C. An
financial resources are seriously threatening the health, well-being, and
quality of life of First Nations members.
3.1. First Nations and solid waste management legislation
A complete waste management system usually includes processes
such as generation, storage, collection, transport, processing, and dis-
posal. Ensuring that a waste management system complies with ap-
propriate regulations and laws can minimize its environmental impact
throughout its life cycle. As mentioned in the second section, Canada
has a unique system of environmental regulation; however, regulations
regarding the environment and SWM designed specifically for First
Nations are as rare as the relevant data. Due to the self-government
rights clarified in the Indian Act and the First Nations Land
Management Act (FNLMA), the SWM responsibilities of First Nations
are largely vested in agencies like Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) at
the federal level. However, provincial governments also issue policies
on SWM, which can influence and guide the practices of the First
Nations community.
3.1.1. Solid waste regulations and laws for First Nations at the federal level
At the federal level, the ISC is one of the government agencies
mainly responsible for the policies of First Nations. The primary mission
of the ISC is to support and empower the First Nations to independently
provide services, solve problems, and improve their health, environ-
ment, and economy. As part of its mandate, it promulgates and enforces
laws and regulations concerning First Nations Environmental
Protection, including SWM. Municipal-type service agreements
(MTSAs) are ISC-led programs designed to create good relationships
between First Nations communities and municipal SWM facilities and
make First Nations communities eligible to use these facilities. For ex-
ample, Kitcisakik community and Vallée de l′Or municipality in Quebec
have established a good relationship and negotiated MTSAs for SMW
(ISC, 2021). Until today, the only publicly available and universal
regulation regarding waste management for communities in reserves is
the Indian Reserve Waste Disposal Regulation, which has not been
updated in time to include new trends such as recycling and waste di-
version (Assuah and Sinclair, 2021). At the same time, it is challenging
to implement policy and regulation supervision due to various natural,
policy, and cultural constraints. For example, open burning is explicitly
prohibited in the Indian Reserve Waste Disposal Regulation, but it is
still used in some First Nations communities currently. In the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act, some provisions apply to only First Na-
tions people, and there are several sections dealing with the control of
the movement of hazardous waste.
In the SWM area, the CCME has issued policies and guidelines for
bio-solids, compost quality, extended producer responsibility, ha-
zardous waste, packaging, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Currently, most of the First Nations community is using the above
guidelines. It is worth mentioning that CCME and its partners have
created Small-Scale Waste Management Models (SSMs), which are
suitable for implementation in rural, remote, and isolated Canadian
communities after specialized research and evaluation (Xu and Yuan,
2017). Moreover, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a kind of
waste recycling and management system that is widely used across
Canada, one designed to hold stakeholders accountable for the life cycle
of the goods they sell (Corrêa et al., 2022). The types of waste covered
by EPR systems usually include but are not limited to beverage con-
tainers, electronics, lead-acid batteries, packaging and paper products,
paint solvents, pesticides, gasoline, pharmaceuticals, tires, used oil, and
antifreeze. Currently, most Canadian provinces already have world-
leading EPR systems that have guided the establishment of many First
Nations-focused waste recycling programs, such as the Ontario Blue Box
program.
3
Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100074
3.1.2. Solid waste regulations and laws for First Nations at the provincial
level
In Canada, due to the self-governing nature of First Nations com-
munities, legislative and enforcement activities for First Nations SWM
practices are generally not undertaken by provincial departments.
However, the provinces can influence First Nation SWM in several
ways. The main strategy on the part of the British Columbia (BC)
government is to promote cooperation between First Nations and re-
levant enterprises and organizations to ensure that the Environmental
Management Act can direct all SWM practices. In this context, the First
Nations Recycling Initiative was created. The Alberta provincial au-
thority has agents to monitor First Nations environmental conditions
and publish annual reports, which are guided by the Environmental
Protection and Enhancement Act and Waste Control Regulation. In
contrast, some details in the SWM laws in Saskatchewan, Ontario (ON),
and Quebec (QC) are more specific to First Nations.
In Saskatchewan, the Ministry of Environment regulates waste
management and enforces landfill and transfer station compliance
based on the Environmental Management and Protection Act, 2010
(EMPA). The contents of the EMPA include but are not limited to reg-
ulations concerning used petroleum and antifreeze products, waste
electronics equipment, waste paint, scrap tires, household packaging
and paper stewardship, and agricultural packaging products. As an
essential part of the EMPA, Environmental Management and Protection
Regulations are mainly used to regulate hazardous waste landfills, in-
dustrial and private landfills, and recycling and composting facilities;
furthermore, the Municipal Refuse Management Regulations (MRMRs)
are mainly for municipal landfills and transfer stations. Although the
waste management facilities in First Nations reserves are not regulated
by the EMPA and MRMRs (this role is mainly reserved for the ISC),
provincial acts can provide guidance on the operation and management
of the relevant facilities.
Today, the Ministry of Environment of Saskatchewan is finding ways
to cooperate with community stakeholders and the First Nations to
develop the Solid Waste Management Strategy. This strategy is a plan
for increasing public engagement and continually adapting environ-
mental management practices to address the challenges of growth and
protect the environment. In the discussion paper of the Saskatchewan
Solid Waste Management Strategy, the Saskatchewan government has
pledged to make First Nations SWM facilities a major component of the
new version of the strategy (Government of Saskatchewan, 2017).
The Ontario SWM legislative system primarily focuses on recycling,
a low-carbon and environmentally friendly way to dispose of waste, in
First Nations communities. Over the past two decades, the Ontario
government has provided specific legislation and funding for the re-
cycling of a number of waste products from First Nations communities,
and most of the existing regulations are based on the Waste Diversion
Act (WDA), enacted in 2002 (Robins Environmental, 2012). One of the
famous instances is the Ontario Blue Box program, which is also the
first comprehensive EPR program in North America. As required by the
WDA, all Ontario communities participating in the Blue Box program or
other similar programs are required to complete the annual Datacall via
an online portal and process managed by the Ontario Resource Re-
covery and Productivity Authority (RPRA) to share data, report costs
and performance, and determine residential waste diversion rates
(Stewardship Ontario, 2020). As of May 2012, a total of seven First
Nations communities have completed Datacalls through municipal
platforms or the framework of the WDA in Ontario, including the Ati-
kameksheng Anishnawnbek First Nation, the Wahnapitae First Nation,
the Wikwemikong Unceded Indian Reserve, the Sagamok Anishnawbek
First Nation, the Serpent River First Nation, the Shawanaga First Na-
tion, and the Batchewana First Nation (Robins Environmental, 2012).
The active participation of the above seven communities is a gratifying
achievement but also shows that similar regulations and programs still
have plenty of room for improvement in terms of the participation of
First Nations communities.
Z. Wang, Z. Chen and C. An
In mid-2020, to further reduce carbon emissions, the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, RPRA, and
Stewardship Ontario have jointly developed a plan to transition the
Blue Box Program to a full producer responsibility program by 2025
(Stewardship Ontario, 2020). It is foreseeable that, due to the increased
participation of producers, more First Nations communities will be
covered by the new version of the Blue Box program. Likewise, under
the guidance of the WDA, the Municipal Hazardous and Special Waste
program, the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment program, and
the Used Tire program are all examples of programs in Ontario that the
First Nations recognize and participate in.
In Quebec, there are more players in First Nations waste manage-
ment than in other provinces, including several government depart-
ments (Ministère de l′Environnement et de la Lutte contre les change-
ments climatiques, Le Bureau d′audiences publiques en environnement,
and RECYC-QUÉBEC), the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador
(AFNQL), and the Quebec First Nations Waste Management Regional
Committee). The codes of legislation and conduct of these organiza-
tions, as mentioned above, are based on the environment quality act
(EQA), which aims to protect the environment, the living species in-
habiting it, and human health and safety by law. It is clearly stipulated
in EQA53.30.4 that the current situation of the relevant community
must be considered when entering into an agreement with a First
Nations community regarding the environment.
Recently, the Quebec government has been actively promoting the
implementation of Bill 65. The primary purpose of Bill 65 is to mod-
ernize curbside collection and deposit-return systems in Quebec
through the proposed revision of the EQA. As of today, Quebec’s
curbside collection systems have been in existence for 26 years; the
guidance document, the Régime de compensation pour la collecte
sélective municipale, has been established for 17 years; and deposit-
return systems have been in continuous use for 38 years. The lack of
substantial changes in the curbside collection and deposit-return sys-
tems in Quebec has resulted in stagnant systems and a large number of
recyclables being ignored. The negative impacts are exacerbated in
remote First Nations communities with poor infrastructure and re-
sources. In this case, Bill 65 was proposed to change the status quo.
Because the use of the EPR method is one of the key contents of Bill 65,
it will lead to increased efficiency in terms of waste recycling and solid
waste management in First Nations communities.
However, Aboriginal representatives at the First Nations of Quebec
and Labrador Sustainable Development Institute (FNQLSDI) workshop
raised their concerns about the transport costs of the new plan and
wanted to ensure that the obligation to consolidate does not lead to a
loss of income or collection contracts for the First Nations. Today, Bill
65 has concluded the hearing and draft phases and entered the formal
transition phase. Moreover, according to the plan of the Quebec gov-
ernment, deposit-return systems and curbside collection systems will be
modernized and fully implemented, with EPR, by the end of 2022 and
early 2025, respectively.
3.2. Comparison of solid waste management stages in remote and urban
communities
First Nations communities are widespread across Canada. Some First
Nations people live in remote and isolated areas, which can be defined
as an area located over 350 km from the nearest service center or
without year-round road access. Based on the administrative data of the
ISC shown in Fig. 1, 5% of all First Nations people in Canada are located
in a zone more than 350 km from the nearest service center, and 17% of
them have no year-round road access. In addition to remote fly-in
communities and reserves, many First Nations communities are around
or even within cities. According to Thomas Anderson, more than half of
all Indigenous people in Canada lived in a metropolitan area as of 2016
4
Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100074
(Anderson, 2019). The differences in the SWM process caused by these
two situations will lead to different strategies for the relevant agencies.
3.2.1. Generation stage
Regarding the generation stage, a full understanding of the sources,
types, volumes, composition, and generation rates of solid waste in First
Nations communities is basic to the design and operation of any SWM
system. However, this process is usually challenging to accomplish,
especially in remote areas with a shortage of funds and equipment. The
key reason for this is the heterogeneous nature of the waste; for in-
stance, locality-specific perturbations, the potential for the magnifica-
tion of error, and difficult-to-monitor weather and moisture conditions
can all be challenges in waste characterization. According to rough
estimates, residential and household waste in a typical Canadian city or
community generally accounts for 55–65% of total waste, and com-
mercial, institutional, and industrial waste accounts for 35–45% of total
waste. Solid waste sources in remote communities are mainly re-
sidential and multi-family waste, as well as some industrial waste from
resource-based industries, such as fish-processing plants or handicraft-
processing factories. Because of the relative inaccessibility of these
communities, few utility institutions, firms, and heavy industry stake-
holders establish their facilities in remote areas. This results in such
areas producing a smaller fraction of institutional, commercial, and
heavy industrial waste or perhaps none at all.
In contrast, First Nations communities around or within cities nor-
mally have well-established commercial systems, public utilities, and
industrial types. For instance, in the 1990s, First Nations communities
in the Fraser River area (BC, Canada) have the most critical salmon
fisheries in the world (Noakes et al., 2003). Therefore, their solid waste
composition is close to the average. Based on the data from the Te-
magami First Nation (ON, Canada) waste diversion report (2018)
shown in Fig. 2 below, estimated waste generation rates of paper,
plastics, metal, and glass for Temagami First Nations were 14.2%,
11.64%, 3.85%, and 3.72%, respectively. The waste generation rate of
organics was 39.7%, which was higher than the sum of the above four
types of waste. A similar situation also occurred in M′Chigeeng First
Nation (ON, Canada) in 2012. At that time, waste generation rates for
paper, plastics, metal, glass, and organics were 16.3%, 13.1%, 4.2%,
1.9%, and 38%, respectively (Robins Environmental, 2012). These two
examples help prove the previous inference. At the same time, the solid
waste volume in such areas is also much greater than in remote areas.
3.2.2. Storage stage
There are many factors that can affect on-site waste storage, in-
cluding climate and season, disposal method selected, waste types,
socio-economic conditions, and local customs and preferences. Well-
designed containers are not used for on-site storage in some First
Nations communities located in remote areas. In order to reduce costs,
they usually use wooden or plastic bins for storage and, sometimes,
even open-air stacking in specific areas. In this case, some health,
safety, aesthetic, and operation problems may occur. One typical ex-
ample is that the use of simple on-site storage containers for waste can
attract stray dogs and bears, causing harassment and safety risks for
community residents. Furthermore, remote communities often do not
have unique containers for different waste categories, and simple on-
site storage containers also hinder further on-site processing and col-
lection.
In First Nations communities near cities, individuals usually use
standard-compliant containers, which have a manageable size; are
made of durable, washable, and lightweight material; and allow for the
complete enclosure. They can more easily access the recommendation
guidelines, education programs, and enforced by-laws and ordinances
offered by nearby municipalities or organizations. In some commu-
nities, people may use hauled containers to store bulk commercial
Z. Wang, Z. Chen and C. An
Fig. 1. Remoteness of First Nations (ISC, 2021).
waste for easier collection; however, most communities use stationary
containers for residential solid waste.
3.2.3. On-site processing stage
Before the waste is collected, some communities perform on-site
processing to reduce waste volume, alter its physical form, or recover
usable materials. Some examples of on-site processing are home com-
posting to reduce the amount of food and gardening waste, grinding to
transport food waste through the sewer system, compaction to reduce
the volume of waste by up to 60%, and sorting to recover and reuse
paper and plastics. Many factors must be considered when designing an
appropriate on-site processing plan, such as environmental impacts,
reliability, capacity, safety, ease of operations, system efficiency, eco-
nomics, and aesthetics. Due to financial, equipment, and human re-
source constraints, remote communities generally do not conduct on-
site processing, and dump waste directly into containers for further
collection.
Source separation and compaction are two main on-site processing
techniques in First Nations communities near cities. Source separation
is the sorting of the materials that make up waste at its point of gen-
eration for more efficient recycling or final disposal. In these commu-
nities, curbside separation into specially marked containers is the most
common method. For the compaction technique, there is a significant
potential for conflict between the on-site processing of MSW and its
potential recovery because compaction leads to contamination, which
is undesirable from the standpoint of materials separation. Today, some
Fig. 2. Waste generation rates for Temagami FN in 2018 and M′Chigeeng FN in 2012 (Robins Environmental, 2012 and Robins Environmental, 2018).
5
Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100074
First Nations communities are piloting home compost pretreatment.
Communities around the Surrey area (BC, Canada) have proven
through their practices that home composting can be a triple win. In
this case, a home-composting program can divert kitchen waste from
landfills, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and decrease fuel costs and
air pollution for waste collection vehicles (Federation of Canadian
Municipalities, 2017).
3.2.4. Collection stage
There are more differences between the two kinds of communities in
the solid waste collection phase. Transfer and transport equipment and
facilities are expensive to construct and operate, so many remote
communities do not have enough funds to hire enough collection
workers and collection equipment. In this case, these communities ty-
pically do not have door-to-door waste pickup services, fixed collection
schedules, or centralized waste collection systems. Therefore, First
Nations people need to bring waste to the dump or a transfer site in-
dividually. Moreover, collection equipment in remote communities is
generally small, such as 5-gallon buckets and pickup trucks. In the
Wahnapitae First Nation, people use bear trailers, which open at the
sides and back and tip to hitch onto a pickup truck for waste collection
(Robins Environmental, 2012).
Today, non-profit organizations such as Recycle BC are involved in
waste collection in remote First Nations communities. They travel to the
community on demand by appointment to collect specific or recyclable
waste, including but not limited to rechargeable and single-use
Z. Wang, Z. Chen and C. An Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100074

Table 1
Recycling programs in BC for Frist Nations (First Nations Recycling Initiative, 2018).

Program Waste Materials Collection methods Transportation Storage Requirements

Call2 Recycle Rechargeable, single-use batteries
Electro Recycle Small appliances, power tools,
exercise equipment
Electronic Products Recycling Electronics and computers
Association
Health Products Stewardship Prescription drugs; Non-
Association prescription drugs; Natural health
products
Major Appliances Recycling Large appliances: fridges, stoves,
Roundtable washers, dryers and more
Outdoor Power Equipment Corded or battery powered outdoor
Institute of Canada equipment
Recycle BC Packaging and paper
Return-It Ready-to-drink beverage containers
Tire Stewardship BC Car tires, medium truck tires,
agricultural tires, logger skidder
tires and bicycle tires and tubes
Depot or Event Cover cost of transportation No public access and in
covered area
Depot or Event Cover cost of transportation No public access and in
covered area
Depot, Event, or collector in Cover cost of transportation or No public access and in
community dropped off at EPRA depot covered area
Drop-off at collection site Containers need to be dropped off Secured and no
at Pharmacy public access
Depot, Businesses or Collected by Scrap Metal Central location
Event Contractor
Depot or Event Collected by preexisting network of No public access and in
scrap metal contractor covered area
Depot or Event Cover cost of transportation No public access and in
covered area
Drop off at Bottle Depot Cover cost of transportation or
dropped off at Return-It depot
Depot or Event Cover cost of transportation Central location

batteries, appliances, car tires, power tools, exercise equipment,
packaging and paper, beverage containers, electronics and computers,
and drugs. There are nine programs via the First Nations Recycling
Initiative (FNRI) in BC that can provide recycling services to First
Nations communities, as shown in Table 1 below. The collection ac-
tivities on the part of non-profit organizations not only greatly reduce
the pressure on remote communities to transport and dispose of waste
but also increase their recycling rates. According to Tim Ames, manager
of Recycle BC, some remote communities have centralized waste col-
lection activities during the festivals observed in their culture, and in-
formation, awareness, and education for community members are es-
sential to improve the efficiency of the collection stage.
The other First Nations communities near cities usually have door-
to-door waste pickup services, fixed collection schedules, and cen-
tralized waste collection systems because they can receive services from
neighboring cities. Across Canada, most communities require curbside
collection to occur once a week in the summer. For example, seventeen
of the twenty-one Aboriginal communities in the Ontario Sudbury Area
have curbside waste collection services, and all seventeen have weekly
collection rates (Robins Environmental, 2012). There are three types of
waste collection trucks: manual, semi-automatic, and fully automatic.
Less worker involvement can reduce the risk of worker injury and re-
duce costs. In most cases, the government is responsible for establishing
public health standards, such as refuse storage regulations, minimum
collection frequencies, and collection vehicle regulations. The com-
munity is responsible for establishing public convenience standards,
such as collection sources, collection frequency, and collection types. In
recent years, some communities have established facilities in which to
collect specialized waste, such as recyclables. For instance, the Wah-
napitae First Nation offers a community swap area and registered sites
that accept used electronics and tires (Federation of Canadian
Municipalities, 2017). In addition, both municipal and private compa-
nies can become providers of solid waste collection services with their
own pros and cons. The choice of a service provider for First Nations
communities is generally made on a case-by-case basis; however, mu-
nicipal providers usually offer lower prices, and private providers
generally offer higher quality services.
3.2.5. Transfer stage
There are two main goals for designing a solid waste transfer
system: minimizing cost and maximizing efficiency. Common transfer
methods are motor vehicle transport, railroad transport, water trans-
port, air transport, and hydraulic systems. In remote areas, First Nations
people typically use individuals’ vehicles or pickup trucks provided by
the contractors to haul waste to another site (Federation of Canadian
Municipalities, 2017). The situations in fly-in communities and com-
munities without road and rail access are special. All waste that cannot
be disposed of in these communities is transported by air or water to
facilities in large cities. A typical example is Bella Bella in BC province,
which produces solid waste that is transported by air and water to fa-
cilities in the Vancouver area for processing.
In communities near cities, waste usually is transported via specia-
lized garbage trucks; sometimes, recyclable and unrecyclable solid
wastes are transported separately. In this case, vehicles must be de-
signed for highway traffic, and their unloading methods must be simple
and dependable. In addition to motor vehicle transport, urban First
Nations communities may use water transport for construction and
demolition (C&D) wastes and railroad transport for hazardous wastes.
Some First Nations communities already have a well-established waste
transfer plan; for instance, the First Nations communities near the city
of Whitehorse (Yukon, Canada) have joined the transfer program to
divert at least half of their solid waste from landfills by 2015 and
achieve zero waste by 2040 (Federation of Canadian Municipalities,
2017).
Today, some SWM participants, stakeholders, and First Nations
partners attempt to establish more transfer stations, which are facilities
that act as temporary storage areas for waste dropped off by local
garbage trucks to save on transportation costs, improve the pretreat-
ment process, and improve public access. West Nipissing Environmental
Management Services is an example of a transfer station that can serve
as a point of transfer for comingled containers and a processor of fiber
material (Robins Environmental, 2012). It should be noted that, if the
high incidence of vehicle tire damage at transfer stations can be re-
duced, the cost of the SWM system will be further reduced. The main
advantage of transfer stations for stakeholders is the possibility of
providing a regional landfill at a competitive cost; at the same time,
First Nations communities can also profit from affordable service prices.
3.2.6. Processing, treatment, and recovery stage
Currently, waste processing technologies and systems are designed
and used for four main purposes: to improve the efficiency of SWM
systems, minimize health and safety hazards, recover materials and
facilitate reuse, and recover energy. To achieve efficiency improve-
ment, a proper system must reduce transportation costs (labor, fuel, and
traffic impacts), storage costs (container size and physical space), and
disposal costs (treatment, monitoring, and handling). Remote

6
Z. Wang, Z. Chen and C. An Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100074

communities generally seldom perform waste processing and often
choose to transport solid waste directly or move it to landfills. However,
some communities with sufficient labor may carry out the separation of
recycling through manual sorting. To reduce the volume of solid waste,
open burning is also used, while it can cause human and environmental
health problems.
Furthermore, the recovery process in an SWM system can be defined
as recovering material that cannot be reused or recycled, which is dif-
ficult to achieve in remote First Nations communities, such as com-
munities in the Arctic Circle. The reason is that there are no appropriate
facilities, not enough labor, and no well-established plans for com-
pleting further processing. The average recycling rate in these com-
munities is about 11%, which is lower than the global average of 20%
(Burns et al., 2021). Some remote Arctic First Nations communities are
also facing some C&D waste challenges as a result of the demolition of
abandoned radar stations (Keske et al., 2018). Normally, C&D waste
must be sorted efficiently and thoroughly via a combination of the
trommel, magnets, and hand sorting (Chen et al., 2022; Laadila et al.,
2022). However, due to the lack of equipment and institutions, First
Nations people in those communities can only engage in manual sorting
or direct transportation.
In urban First Nations communities, mechanical treatment and se-
paration are usually performed in Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs),
which are always transfer stations. The design of an MRF depends
primarily on the types of recyclables, the presorting or sorting situation,
and the combinations of materials. The simplest MRF is called a drop-
off center, which is usually established in some central location, such as
a shopping center or school. In this case, participation and the question
of how to maintain neatness are two critical points that must be focused
on. In an MRF, some examples of size reduction technologies are
hammer mills for glass, impact crushers, shredders, cascade mills, and
jaw crushers. Progressive Waste Solutions in Ontario is an example of
an MRF that handles two streams, one for containers and the other for
fibers. This MRF serves a large land area, including all of the District of
Muskoka, the Parry Sound Area, the Georgian Bay Area, the Haliburton
District, and the Almaguin Highlands, and it can process 26,000 tonnes
of waste per year (Robins Environmental, 2012). All MRF facilities
serving First Nations in the Sudbury Area as of May 2012 are shown in
Table 2.
For waste separation, in addition to certain conventional equipment,
such as trommels and screens, eddy current, pressured blower, and light
fraction equipment can also be used for metal materials, light materials,
and glass, respectively. Compaction or mechanical volume reduction is
one of the oldest waste-processing techniques, and it can occur at both
collection trucks and disposal sites. By using compactors to reduce the
volume of solid waste, large garbage trucks have the ability to take on
more waste before having to offload at the dump. When MSW is com-
pacted, its density is increased as a result of crushing, deforming, and
relocating individual items in the refuse; however, such MSW com-
paction is generally reversible. Moreover, the drying of the light
fraction and the dewatering of waste sludge are two new kinds of
techniques that can be used to prepare paper sludge and sewage sludge.
Once dewatered, the sludge can be mixed with other solid wastes to
reduce total waste volume, produce recoverable by-products and
compost, and be buried in a landfill. In recent years, there have been
more and more facilities in First Nations communities that have chosen
wastewater sludge as an option because First Nations communities can
profit by selling sludge and compost.
3.2.7. Disposal stage – landfill
A sanitary landfill can be defined as a highly engineered facility for
the isolation of waste from the environment. According to the World
Bank, 37% of waste around the world is disposed of in a landfill (Kaza
et al., 2018). Normally, a modern landfill must have an operational
plan, a gas collection system, a leachate collection and treatment
system, a groundwater monitoring system, a closure plan, and a post-
closure monitoring program. However, remote First Nations commu-
nities cannot obtain sufficient funding to build modern sanitary land-
fills, pay high maintenance and operating costs, and hire relevant ex-
perts for guidance. Therefore, many of them choose historical waste
disposal methods, such as open dumps or burn pits, to dispose of solid
waste, which can cause problems with smoke and odor, rodents and
insects, aesthetics, differential settlement, fire potential, and ground-
water pollution via the leachate.
In addition, these open dump sites are not properly assessed before
selection, and they are abandoned when the sites reach maximum ca-
pacity. The good news is that these communities are receiving more
economic and technological support with social, technology, and eco-
nomic development, as well as more attention being to First Nations
people. Based on the information obtained from the ISC, the Capital
Facilities and Maintenance Program and the First Nations Solid Waste
Management Initiative (FNSWMI) provide Ontario First Nations com-
munities with between $8,000 and $25,000 per year for the operation
and maintenance of landfills in their area (ISC, 2021). The logic model
for FNSWMI is shown in Fig. 3. Although these supports cannot radi-
cally change the status quo within a short timeframe, they can give
communities access to regional resources. In Nova Scotia, achieving
regional cooperation in SWM has been one of the main resource man-
agement strategies, and the government is attempting to work closely
with each region, including First Nations communities, to develop long-
term regional plans to increase regional disposal facilities’ diversion
rates and prohibit open burning.
In contrast, urban First Nations communities can typically access
modern sanitary landfills, whether they are local or regional. Before a
standard landfill can be put into operation, many steps must be com-
pleted in advance, such as site assessment for soils and groundwater,
site selection, and construction quality assurance, and quality control
certification. The first step in site selection is eliminating unlikely
candidates, such as wetlands, archaeological sites, floodplains, and
airports. Landfill stakeholders and First Nations partners must then

Table 2
MRF facilities in Sudbury Area until May 2012 (Robins Environmental, 2012).

Facility Location Processing # Of Material Materials Weigh Bag

Capability Streams Scale Breaking

Sudbury MRF Sudbury Full Single Fibers Yes No

Green Circle Environmental MRF Sault Ste. Marie Full Two Fibers and Containers Yes No
Progressive Waste Solutions MRF Bracebridge Full Two Fibers and Containers Yes Yes
Municipal Waste and Recycling Blind RiverBlind River Full Four Paper, Cardboard, Containers, and Yes Yes
Consultants MRF Glass
West Nipissing Environmental Sturgeon Falls Limited Two Fibers and Containers No No
Management Services MRF
R&D Recycling North Bay Full Two Fibers and Containers Yes No
Corbiere Enterprises MRF M′Chigeeng First Nation Limited Two Cardboard and Aluminum cans No No
Strong MRF Township of Strong Limited Six Cardboard, Aluminum cans, Steel No No
cans, Paper, Plastic bottles

7
Z. Wang, Z. Chen and C. An
Fig. 3. Logic Model for FNSWMI (ISC, 2021).
assess how water moves underground, how soils are classified, what
kinds of soil are appropriate, what types of soil are present on-site, and
whether the on-site soil is sufficient. In this case, the seasonal high
water table factor is easily overlooked and may threaten First Nations
people’s health, safety, and normal life. First Nations’ traditional
knowledge and culture are also part of the consideration of whether
landfills are established in First Nations areas or reserves. Due to the
concerns of neighboring residents and the BANANA theory (Build
Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone), it may be problematic to
open new landfills. In other words, everybody wants his or her garbage
dealt with properly but not close by. Stakeholders and First Nations
partners need to find ways to minimize the risk to public health,
minimize the environmental impact, maximize the level of service
provided to the facility users, and minimize the cost to facility users. In
order to achieve the goals mentioned above, using advanced, well-de-
signed liner systems, landfill cover systems, and leachate collection
systems is a good strategy.
Today, due to the above-mentioned site selection constraints, the
acceleration of urbanization, and First Nations cultural opposition,
there is less and less land around cities that can be used as landfills. This
is why more and more communities are looking for more sustainable
ways to dispose of their waste, such as compositing, waste-to-energy
(WTE) systems, and anaerobic digestion (Yao et al., 2020). At the same
time, there are a growing number of landfills that have reached their
maximum capacity and are entering the closing phase. For example, 13
of the 21 landfills that can serve Aboriginal people in the Sudbury re-
gion have closed as of 2012, and only eight remain open (Robins
Environmental, 2012). Therefore, the post-closure use and monitoring
of sites have become increasingly important because of such sites’ po-
tential environmental threats and economic benefits. Closed landfills
represent some of the largest human-made structures that exist. The
typical post-closure monitoring period is usually from ten to twelve
years, and the maximum can be thirty years in some sensitive areas. The
two main reuses of closed landfills are recreational facilities and in-
dustrial development facilities, which can increase jobs and residents’
incomes in the First Nations community.
8
Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100074
3.2.8. Disposal stage – composting
The composting process can be defined as an aerobic process during
which organic matter in the solid waste can be decomposed into humus-
like substances and minerals by microbes. In Canada, yard debris,
kitchen (food) waste, and manure are the three primary sources of
composting. In the contemporary world, composting is becoming in-
creasingly popular in all First Nations communities. There are two key
reasons for this, and the first is that it can reduce the amount of waste
produced by a community by around thirty percent. Through decom-
position, the waste mass can be reduced by more than forty percent,
and the volume of waste can be reduced by more than fifty percent. The
existence of less waste significantly increases the lifespans of disposal
facilities. At the same time, communities can also achieve reductions in
waste associated with landfills, in land occupation, in air, land, and
water pollution (Song et al., 2021). First Nations communities around
the town of Cape St. George are leaders because of their composting
systems. They plan to decrease the overall waste shipped to landfills by
at least 40%, and they had achieved a 25% reduction as of 2017
(Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2017). The second reason is
that composting can recover organic materials by creating new re-
sources rather than waste. The product of the degradation of organic
waste materials is humus. Humus can be used to improve soil structure,
texture, and aeration, loosen clay soils, help sandy soils retain water,
improve soil fertility, and stimulate healthy root development. In other
words, humus can increase crop yields of First Nations communities and
increase First Nations people’s income as an economical product.
Moreover, in the traditional culture of the First Nations people, the use
of humus can be seen as a return to Mother Earth (Bergeron, 2021).
Regarding composting, the technology used in remote and urban
communities is fundamentally the same but slightly different in two
respects. The first difference concerns animal-based organic materials.
In remote communities, meat and dairy waste is too difficult to dispose
of in small-scale systems, and it can also cause animal-attraction-, odor-,
and pathogen-related problems (Chen et al., 2020). However, in urban
areas, more extensive facilities have the ability to deal with animal-
based organic materials without the issues mentioned above. Secondly,
Z. Wang, Z. Chen and C. An
there are three types of composting systems (windrow composting,
aerated static pile, and in-vessel composting), but remote First Nations
communities are not generally free to choose from any of these three.
For windrow composting, a turning process that involves large equip-
ment should be completed to improve gas exchange, and this requires
large areas of land and can cause odor problems. Therefore, some
communities cannot choose this type of system due to their lack of
funds and equipment, as well as their respect for the land. The second
type of system, the aerated static pile, involves placing perforated
piping to provide air circulation for aeration. Although this type of
system does not require large equipment for turning, land occupation
and additional piping and maintenance costs prevent this type of
system from being an option in some remote communities. An in-vessel
composting system confines waste within a container or vessel, which
can control the airflow and temperature. This is the best choice for
remote First Nations communities because it requires less land space
and composting time. In contrast, urban First Nations communities can
choose the most suitable of the three according to their circumstances.
In November 2021, FNQLSDI released the latest version of the Guide for
the Management and Operation of a Composting Facility, which pro-
vides detailed guidance to the First Nations on all aspects of the com-
posting system (Bergeron, 2021). It can significantly increase the like-
lihood that the First Nations people in Quebec will understand and
eventually use composting technology.
3.2.9. Disposal stage – other methods
The two techniques focused on in this section are waste-to-energy
technology and anaerobic digestion. Waste to energy is a technology
that utilizes the thermal oxidation of organic matter to create usable
energy. The reason a large number of thermal treatment facilities were
established in the late twentieth century and the early twenty-first
century is that they can reduce waste volume (85–95%), reduce waste
mass (70–85%), reduce hygienic risks, recover energy, and be located
close to the waste source. However, this kind of technology’s dis-
advantages includes high costs, air pollution problems, and the de-
struction of resources that could otherwise be recovered. Due to the
Fig. 4. Biogas utilization flowchart.
9
Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100074
high construction and maintenance costs, waste-to-energy technology
cannot be used in remote areas. Particulate matter (fly ash), which
contains solid residues, condensable particles (metals), and organics
(dioxins and furans), is a major source of air pollution at WTE facilities.
A standard-compliant WTE facility requires well-designed air pollution
control systems, and cyclones, electrostatic precipitators, fabric filters,
and venturi scrubbers are commonly used equipment.
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is an anaerobic process that breaks down
organic matter to create a gas, biogas, and an organic residue, digestate
(El Gnaoui et al., 2022). Such AD technology interests some commu-
nities and stakeholders because it can treat food waste in a sustainable
fashion, reduce reliance on landfills, produce a renewable energy
source, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (El Bari et al., 2022;
Ourradi et al., 2022). Biogas is the term used for the gaseous mixture of
methane, carbon dioxide, and water produced from AD. Biogas yield
and composition are dependent on the feedstock used. First Nations
communities around the city of Saint-Hyacinthe (QC, Canada) are
leaders in producing and using biogas in North America (Federation of
Canadian Municipalities, 2017). Currently, there are two kinds of
biogas utilization. Firstly, biogas can be burned directly in boilers to
produce electricity, heat, and cooling, or it can be used in place of fossil
fuels. Secondly, normal biogas can be upgraded to biomethane for use
as a natural gas substitute, for heating and cooking, as well as for use as
a transport fuel. The biogas utilization flowchart is shown in Fig. 4.
The digestate is a nutrient-rich by-product of AD, which can be a
valuable biofertilizer. It can be the source of nitrogen, phosphorous,
and potassium, improve soil quality and structure, increase crop yields,
reduce odors and pathogens, reduce reliance on chemicals, and increase
potential income from sales. If the feedstock, storage, transportation,
and marketing issues of AD facility products can be resolved, AD can
also become a good choice for First Nations communities. In this case,
small-scale AD facilities are generally suitable for rural development
areas, and large-scale AD facilities are more suited to commercial/in-
dustrial urban areas. Furthermore, these facilities can be co-located
with other existing infrastructure and thus save a great deal of land if
they can be placed away from sensitive receptors.
Z. Wang, Z. Chen and C. An
4. Issues facing the First Nations
In recent years, the three main issues related to SWM that Canadian
First Nations communities have faced are open dumping, open burning,
and challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. These issues can
create more negative impacts on environmental, social, and human
health and the economy in regions with small communities, remote
locations, and extreme and rapidly changing climates. The causes of
these issues are complex; therefore, a comprehensive analysis is re-
quired to help First Nations resolve issues and minimize negative im-
pacts.
4.1. Open dumping
The open dumping method can be described as an informal option
used when a community generates more waste than it can dispose of via
sanitary methods (ISO, 2018). The use of open dumps is common in
areas facing budget constraints, such as low-income communities. Ac-
cording to some elders of three Saskatchewan First Nations commu-
nities (the Mistawasis First Nation, the Muskeg Lake Cree Nations, and
the Muskoday First Nation), their community members typically have
only a few options for waste disposal, and there are more than 100 open
disposal pits in backyards and public areas still in operation today
(Zagozewski et al., 2011). In the Matsqui First Nation, environmental
agents identified issues such as waste dumping at the former sandpit
and illegal waste dumping (Matsqui First Nation, 2012).
The main feature of open dumps is that they lack a complete op-
erational plan, a leachate collection and treatment system, and covers.
Leachate collection and treatment systems are critical in avoiding
contaminating soil and surface and groundwater bodies around landfills
and dumps. First Nations’ food sources are typically derived from local
farming. In this case, if the soil becomes contaminated with toxic sub-
stances, such as heavy metals in leachate, and causes soil acidification,
it can cause crop failure and increase the risk of food shortages in First
Nations communities. Based on the research, in Garden Hill and
Wasagamack communities (Manitoba), open dumping sites have caused
soil samples to exceed parkland, residential, commercial, and industrial
guidelines and surpassed the background level by 30 times for chro-
mium levels, 100 times for arsenic levels, and more than 1000 times for
copper and zinc levels (Oyegunle and Thompson, 2018). At the same
time, most First Nations communities rely on local surface or ground-
water for their drinking water supplies, and toxic contamination in the
leachate may cause serious negative impacts on First Nations people’s
health. Based on the guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality
(GCDWQ), if water samples are contaminated by leachate, various
parameters, including chloride, sulfate, pH, arsenic, barium, iron,
manganese, lead, total dissolved solids, and total coliform bacteria, will
exceed standard values (Zagozewski et al., 2011). The cover system is
often described as the last barrier between the waste and the outer
environment, which can protect the public from direct contact with
waste, minimize odor issues, control animals and disease carriers,
minimize fire potential, control water movement into the landfill, and
help prevent erosion and blowing debris. In other words, without waste
covers, community residents would be directly at risk from waste. For
example, some First Nation members in the Matsqui First Nation dis-
posed of fish waste via the open dumping method, which caused odor
problems and annoyed residents (Matsqui First Nation, 2012).
In contemporary society, there are four main reasons for the diffi-
culty involved in resolving open dumping issues for the First Nations.
The first is the shortage of specific funds for SWM. If the First Nations
do not have sufficient funds, they cannot operate and maintain sanitary
waste disposal facilities, transfer waste from generation sites to facil-
ities in large cities, or apply cutting-edge technologies. In low-income
communities, funding is usually prioritized for livelihood projects ra-
ther than SWM projects. In other words, in some First Nations com-
munities, a lack of funds means their waste disposal systems cannot
10
Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100074
keep up with the development of industry and the increase in the
amount of waste. To change this situation, these communities need the
help of third-party agencies, such as Indigenous and Northern Affairs
Canada and the ISC. One example is the five-year FNSWMI program
begun by the federal government in 2016, which launched with $409
million in total (ISC, 2021). By using the investment from the FNSWMI
program, most of the old landfills with illegal open dumping in the
Aundeck Omni Kaning First Nation (ON, Canada), the Dease River First
Nation (BC, Canada), and Kitcisakik (QC, Canada) were closed. How-
ever, the low technical capacity of some communities cannot ensure the
investments are used efficiently, and thus appropriate training must go
hand in hand with funding.
Training and education programs can also help deal with the second
problem, a lack of awareness of the magnitude of the environmental
problems caused by open dumping. Due to the rapid development of
science, technology, and the economy, the First Nations lifestyle has
undergone tremendous changes, resulting in an increase in the amount
and toxicity of waste. At the same time, because of the unofficial nature
of open dumping, it is difficult for community members to have a
quantitative understanding of it. All of the above prevents First Nations
people from learning that they are being exposed to risks in time to
prevent it. Therefore, when members of the First Nations community
around the City of Whitehorse were concerned about the negative im-
pacts of open dumping and began implementing waste-diversion pro-
grams, the contamination of water bodies by waste leachate was al-
ready occurring (Burns et al., 2021).
The limitations of natural conditions are the third reason the open
dumping method is still used. This point primarily concerns remote
First Nations communities within the Arctic Circle. Arctic communities
typically have three features in terms of natural conditions. Firstly, they
are usually isolated and remote, which means they do not have year-
round road access and can only rely on air or water-borne transporta-
tion for the delivery of waste and goods and materials for SWM (Burns
et al., 2021). Secondly, the ground may be permanently frozen. The
third feature is the frequent occurrence of extreme weather, such as
snowstorms. In this case, the frozen soil and severe freeze-thaw pro-
blems make it difficult to build, operate, and maintain modern sanitary
landfills. Airport closures due to extreme weather and icy waterways
make waste diversion difficult to achieve. Furthermore, the cost of
SWM projects will increase incalculably due to the harsh natural con-
ditions. To sum up, open dumping has become one of the few options
for community members in remote First Nations communities within
the Arctic Circle.
Lastly, there are insufficient regulations and laws that restrict open
dumping in most First Nations communities, although the First Nations
were granted land management rights and related legislative powers
through the Indian Act and the FNLMA in 1999. As mentioned above,
the slow progress of legislation on open dumping in First Nations areas
may be due to a lack of appropriate technology, insufficient funding,
and vague and confusing data. If laws and regulations cannot effectively
limit open dumping, the consequences are sometimes unpredictable. It
is foreseeable that the legal and regulatory gaps related to open
dumping will gradually be filled as stakeholders and members of the
First Nations community pay more and more attention to the issue of
open dumping. For instance, the Matsqui First Nation is preparing a
solid waste management law prohibiting waste dumping on reserves
based on the results of the EMP (Matsqui First Nation, 2012).
4.2. Open burning
Open burning is a waste disposal method that can be defined as
outdoor burning without an enclosure with a chimney or stack (SNC-
Lavalin, 2016). This type of waste disposal is common next to homes in
First Nations communities or in the more than 1,000 unmanaged First
Nations dumps located around Canada in 2017 (ISC, 2021). Open
burning practices are even more unregulated and controlled in rural
Z. Wang, Z. Chen and C. An
and remote areas. Based on the report from the Fraser Valley Regional
District (FVRD), in BC, many communities in rural areas, including First
Nations communities, engage in the open burning of waste, including
crop waste, and a “culture of burning” even exists in some parts of
FVRD (SNC-Lavalin, 2016).
Some people who carry out the open burning of waste often have the
false perception that the waste will not exist if it is burned. They do not
know that open waste burning creates conditions for incomplete com-
bustion. In this case, a host of toxic gases and compounds, such as
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, heavy metals
(mercury, arsenic, and lead), benzene, styrene, formaldehyde, dioxins,
PCBs, and furans, travel through the air and threaten living beings
exposed to them around open burning areas. In recent years, some First
Nations community members have voiced their concerns about the
issue: “Smoke gets into our little village. We have to shut all our win-
dows” (Zagozewski et al., 2011). These air toxins or melted plastic
waste may also enter the soil, groundwater systems, and other bodies of
water around open burning sites. In this case, the contaminants can
contaminate bodies of water and enter the food chain. In many First
Nations areas, people’s main food is fish; however, they may stop eating
local fish if they worry that contaminants have made the local fish no
longer healthy. This phenomenon may further lead to increased un-
employment in the regional wild fishing industry, the loss of self-suf-
ficiency in communities, and a loss of confidence in traditional culture
and food.
Compared with conventional pollution sources, particulate matter
(PM) emissions from open burning are relatively high. Based on data
from the FVRD, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions caused by the open burning
of yard waste in 2010, around to 7.15 tons in total (SNC-Lavalin, 2016).
The amount of PM per unit volume of agricultural waste burned may be
twice that of yard waste. If a person is exposed to high levels of parti-
culate matter for a short period of time, it can cause health effects such
as eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, coughing, sneezing, runny nose,
and shortness of breath. Prolonged exposure can cause irreversible
physical problems, such as asthma and heart disease. Furthermore,
greenhouse gases that accelerate global warming and the potential risk
of forest fires from waste incineration are also negative impacts of open
burning that cannot be ignored. The Canadian Northwest Territories, an
area with dense First Nations communities, is warming about three
times as fast as other regions, specifically by 2.3 degrees Celsius, ac-
cording to 2019 Canada’s Changing Climate Report (Bush and Lemmen,
2019). Problems caused by rising temperatures, such as the loss of
permafrost, rising sea levels, the high incidence of forest fires, and the
disappearance of wildlife, have seriously affected First Nations people’s
normal life, health, and well-being.
The reasons why open burning is difficult to limit in First Nations
communities are very similar to that regarding open dumping, such as a
lack of funds, challenging natural conditions, and a lack of efficient
waste disposal technology. In addition to these, there is not much land
available for the establishment of modern sanitary landfills in some
areas, such as the Arctic and near highly urbanized cities. Therefore,
open burning may be one of the few options. Regarding the relevant
laws and regulations for controlling open burning, they are common
and tend to specify size, content, temporal, and geographical restric-
tions; however, the enforcement of open burning regulations is sporadic
in most First Nations communities due to a lack of staff capacity or
jurisdictional authority. Moreover, some regulations do not address all
kinds of open burning activities. For instance, the provincial Open
Burning Smoke Control Regulation of BC does not mention residential
or “backyard” waste burning or agricultural waste burning (SNC-
Lavalin, 2016). In this case, because most of the regulations related to
open burning are based on reports and fines, it is difficult to punish
some cases without detailed rules.
Today, an increasing number of First Nations communities and
municipalities are looking for ways to minimize open burning. Finding
alternative waste disposal methods is generally their preferred option.
11
Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100074
The three existing improvement options are introducing an exhaustive
recycling program, establishing composition facilities, and using WTE
systems when conditions permit. The Temagami First Nation began its
waste diversion project in 2017. This project introduced wastepaper,
cardboard, and C&D waste that were originally burned in the area into
the recycling program (Keske et al., 2018). Compared with traditional
open-air incineration, the WTE system has an efficient waste gas and
incomplete combustion product treatment system, which can minimize
the potential negative impact of incineration on the environment. At
the same time, the energy produced after combustion by WTE can also
reduce the cost of electricity for the First Nations. However, alternatives
are generally tailored to local conditions; for example, composting
systems are beneficial in predominantly agricultural communities but
are not a good option in communities without composting needs.
Therefore, the selection and implementation of alternatives require a
thorough evaluation. Furthermore, in terms of regulatory improve-
ments, many municipalities have increased the need for permits and
registrations for open burning practices.
4.3. COVID-19 pandemic
Coronavirus disease 2019 has a high fatality rate, rapid spread, and
a long incubation period. Due to the implementation of emergency
public policies, the increase in household waste, including personal
protection equipment (PPE), packaging for household goods, and food;
the decrease in support from and access to third-party organizations
and government agencies; and the rising cost of waste management
have become unavoidable (Cai et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021).
Since the onset of the pandemic, two types of waste in First Nations
areas have seen a marked increase. Firstly, disposable PPE, such as
masks, disposable gloves, and goggles, has become a daily necessity and
caused a significant increase in plastic and fiber-based MSW materials
(Wang et al., 2022). Based on the modeling of the World Health Or-
ganization, 89 billion disposable masks, 76 billion disposable gloves,
and 1.6 million goggles are used every month globally (Roy et al.,
2021). PPE is not just ordinary solid waste; in many cases, it is defined
as biohazardous or infectious waste because it directly contacts human
body fluids.(Aragaw and Mekonnen, 2021) This unique property re-
quires them to be replaced frequently. Therefore, their numbers will
only decrease after the pandemic is over. The sheer volume and unique
properties of PPE waste pose a great challenge to First Nations com-
munities with poor processing and disposal capacity, as well as those
unable to handle hazardous or medical waste. The second type of waste
that is increasing is discarded food. At the beginning of the pandemic,
many people hoarded food at home because they were panicked about
emergency measures such as lockdowns and an uncertain future.
However, they could not consume all of this food, so much food was
discarded. Another reason for increased food waste is that some food
rotted in transit because it could not be delivered in time. Increased
operating costs for SWM systems and labor shortages in the First Na-
tions region due to the pandemic have also contributed to food waste
collection, processing, and disposal delays, as well as potential odor and
microbial issues.
Because the COVID-19 pandemic has restricted travel to First
Nations communities, third-party organizations and government agen-
cies have only a limited ability to interact with and observe them. In
Manitoba, a landfill facility that was a model of waste reduction in 2019
was described as “a mess” by the First Nations during the pandemic
period due to the loss of trained staff to operate it (ISC, 2021). At the
same time, there were fewer First Nations communities than expected
that were able to participate in waste management activities, such as
recycling, provided by third-party organizations, like Recycle BC. Ac-
cording to Timothy Ames, the manager of Recycle BC, he and his
partners visited five First Nations communities in 2019 to collect 715
tires, 135 large appliances, and 16 car batteries. By contrast, in 2020,
they only had the chance to visit two communities to recycle 350 tires
Z. Wang, Z. Chen and C. An
and 37 large appliances. Some First Nations members expressed their
concern that the number of discarded cars and large appliances on their
lands had grown since the beginning of the pandemic. Furthermore,
because there was not sufficient information on results at the im-
mediate, intermediate, and ultimate levels, the ISC and other research
agencies had to suspend their research programs for the First Nations.
The good news is that the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic is easing
over time, and activities related to the First Nations are gradually re-
suming. It is foreseeable that the SWM system in First Nations com-
munities will return to pre-pandemic levels in the near future.
5. Recommendations for future efforts
Based on comparing the entire SWM process in remote and urban
First Nations communities and analyzing the main issues, First Nations
SWM systems have three key features: insufficient independence;
complex natural, social, and cultural conditions; and unclear waste
data, including data on waste locations. In response to the above, well-
established education and training programs, targeted single-SWM-
stage modernization improvements, and the goal of zero waste in the
community are three potential directions for improvement in the SWM
system for First Nations communities. Most of the future improvements
mentioned in Sections 3 and 4, such as increased cooperation, updated
regulations, and established waste whole-process detection systems,
will not be presented in this section.
5.1. Education and training programs
Today, in Canada, the SWM work in First Nations communities is
often conducted by external consultants and engineering firms; there-
fore, the knowledge and capacity of local workers and members may
not be strong. In other words, the First Nations are not dealt with as
partners. As the name suggests, an efficient project is usually divided
into two parts: education and training. The primary purpose of the
education section is to promote awareness and basic knowledge of SWM
among children, students, and residents. For instance, in the
Wahnapitae First Nation and the Atikameksheng Anishnawbek First
Nation, printed fliers and websites are used for recycling programs
(Robins Environmental, 2012). Relevant lectures, activities such as the
blanket exercise and annual spring cleanup, and community-based so-
cial marketing tools are also some options. Professional training is for
SWM participants such as First Nations workers as well as managers and
collaborators. Having more First Nations members become involved in
the operation and management of the SWM system through training
programs may not only increase the independence of the community
regarding SWM but also increase employment and community income.
At the same time, education and training programs also maximize the
use of support from governments and third-party organizations.
5.2. SWM target stage improvement
Because each First Nations community exists given its unique nat-
ural, cultural, and social conditions and background, it is not easy to
find a universal improvement plan for the entire SWM process for all
First Nations. However, the community can process customized im-
provements in one or several stages with limited funding and tech-
nology. For example, a BC First Nation community chose to use a mo-
bile “eco-depot” trailer instead of a long-building-period waste transfer
station (ISC, 2021). Another example is in the Town of Mattawa and
Township of Papineau-Cameron (ON, Canada). Due to the short trans-
portation distance and small waste generation, they designed a custom-
made trailer pulled by a standard pickup truck for collecting containers
and fibers (Robins Environmental, 2012). This practice not only saved
the construction costs of recycling facilities but also increased the
convenience of transportation.
12
Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100074
5.3. Zero waste
With the help of three strategies, First Nations communities have the
potential to reach net zero waste due to their lack of industrial and
commercial wastes and low populations. Firstly, First Nations com-
munities can determine the types of products they obtain from outside
sources based on their waste disposal capabilities, types of facilities,
and associated programs. For example, in a community that has a re-
cycling facility for paper products, their product packaging may be
dominated by paper. The second strategy is to partner with third parties
to execute 5 R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recover, and Residuals
Management) programs. As mentioned in Section 3.2, some recycling
programs and recovery facilities are serving the Canadian First Nations.
Lastly, businesses and facilities in First Nations areas can be encouraged
to participate in zero-waste certification, such as the Total Resource Use
and Efficiency (TURE) certification provided by the GBCI. Chumash
Casino Resort is a leading example in Santa Ynez, California, US, which
received the TRUE Silver certificate. This Resort is owned by the First
Nations and developed “close the loop” programs for densified poly-
styrene cups, cigarette waste, post-consumer carpet material, and used
uniforms (GBCI, 2019).
6. Conclusions
Based on the above information, analysis, and review, the SWM of
the First Nations involves noticeable cultural differences, less targeted
laws and regulations, and significant differences between urban and
remote areas. These situations have further contributed to the en-
vironmental and social problems caused by open dumping, open
burning, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Fortunately, First Nations com-
munities have strategies and tools, including but not limited to edu-
cation and training programs, 5 R strategies, and support from gov-
ernments and third-party organizations, with which to mitigate or
resolve existing issues and improve their SWM systems. With the con-
certed efforts on the part of all stakeholders and partners, it is fore-
seeable that the First Nations SWM systems will become more modern
and create First-Nations-style planning, operation, and management
processes.
Data availability
The data are included in the paper.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Concordia University
Undergraduate Student Research Award program. The authors’ sincere
gratitude goes to Timothy Ames from Recycle BC for the support and
guidance during the data collection process. The authors are particu-
larly thankful for the insightful comments and suggestions from the
editor and the anonymous reviewers.
References
Anderson, T., 2019, Results from the 2016 Census: Housing, income and residential
dissimilarity among Indigenous people in Canadian cities.
Aragaw, T.A., Mekonnen, B.A., 2021. Current plastics pollution threats due to COVID-19
and its possible mitigation techniques: a waste-to-energy conversion via pyrolysis.
Environ. Syst. Res. 10 (1), 8.
Assuah A. 2020. Examining the role of and potential for indigenous and social learning
through community-based solid waste management in Canadian First Nation com-
munities University of Manitoba.
Z. Wang, Z. Chen and C. An
Assuah, A., Sinclair, A.J., 2021. Solid waste management in western Canadian First
Nations. Waste Manag. 129, 54–61.
Bergeron, C., 2021. Guide for the Management and Operation of a Composting Facility
adapted to the context of First Nations in Quebec. First Nations of Quebec and
Labrador Sustainable Development Institute.
Bruchac, M., 2014. Indigenous knowledge and traditional knowledge. encyclopedia of
global. Archaeology 3814–3824.
Burns, C., Orttung, R.W., Shaiman, M., Silinsky, L., Zhang, E., 2021. Solid waste man-
agement in the Arctic. Waste Manag. 126, 340–350.
Bush, E., Lemmen, D.S., 2019. Canada’s Changing Climate Report. Government of
Canada.
Cai, M., Guy, C., Heroux, M., Lichtfouse, E., An, C., 2021. The impact of successive
COVID-19 lockdowns on people mobility, lockdown efficiency, and municipal solid
waste. Environ. Chem. Lett. 19 (6), 3959–3965.
Chen, Z.K., An, C., Fang, H., Zhang, Y., Zhou, Z., Zhou, Y., Zhao, S., 2020. Assessment of
regional greenhouse gas emission from beef cattle production: A case study of
Saskatchewan in Canada. J. Environ. Manag. 264, 110443.
Chen, Z.K., Feng, Q., Yue, R., Chen, Z., Moselhi, O., Soliman, A., Hammad, A., An, C.,
2022. Construction, renovation, and demolition waste in landfill: A review of waste
characteristics, environmental impacts, and mitigation measures. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. 29, 46509–46526.
Corrêa, Rd.S., de Oliveira, U.R., Abdalla, M.M., Fernandes, V.A., 2022. Systematic lit-
erature review on sustainable products: Impact on organizations, research opportu-
nities and future perspectives. Clean. Waste Syst. 1, 100003.
El Bari, H., Lahboubi, N., Habchi, S., Rachidi, S., Bayssi, O., Nabil, N., Mortezaei, Y., Villa,
R., 2022. Biohydrogen production from fermentation of organic waste, storage and
applications. Clean. Waste Syst. 3, 100043.
El Gnaoui, Y., Frimane, A., Lahboubi, N., Herrmann, C., Barz, M., El Bari, H., 2022.
Biological pre-hydrolysis and thermal pretreatment applied for anaerobic digestion
improvement: Kinetic study and statistical variable selection. Clean. Waste Syst. 2,
100005.
Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2020, National Waste Characterization Report:
The Composition of Canadian Residual Municipal Solid Waste.
Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2017. Solid Waste Management Toolkit.
First Nations Recycling Initiative, 2018, Community Collection Event Guide.
GBCI, 2019, Chumash Casino Resort. https://true.gbci.org/chumash-casino-resort.
Government of Saskatchewan, 2017, Saskatchewan’s Solid Waste Management Strategy.
Indigenous Services Canada (ISC), 2021, Evaluation of the First Nations Solid Waste
Management Initiative.
ISO, 2018, Sustainable cities and communities — Indicators for city services and quality
of life.
Kaza, S., Yao, L., Bhada-Tata, P., Van Woerden, F., 2018, What a Waste 2.0: A Global
Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. Urban Development, World Bank.
Keske, C.M.H., Mills, M., Tanguay, L., Dicker, J., 2018. Waste management in Labrador
and northern communities: Opportunities and challenges. North. Rev. 47 (47),
79–112.
Laadila, M.A., LeBihan, Y., Caron, R.F., Vaneeckhaute, C., 2022. Physical and chemical
characterization of construction, renovation and demolition waste in the Quebec
province. Clean. Waste Syst. 1, 100002.
13
Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100074
Matsqui First Nation, 2012, Matsqui First Nation Environmental Management Plan.
McGregor, D., 2010. The earth keepers solid waste management planning program: A
collaborative approach to utilizing aboriginal traditional knowledge and western
science in Ontario. Int J. Can. Stud. 41, 69–98.
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, 1997. Towards Sustainable
Development.
Nadasdy, P., 1999. The politics of TEK: power and the ‘integration’ of knowledge. Arct.
Anthropol. 36 (1/2), 1–18.
Noakes, D., Fang, L., Hipel, K.W., Kilgour, D.M., 2003. An examination of the salmon
aquaculture conflict in British Columbia using the graph model for conflict resolu-
tion. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 10 (3), 123–137.
Ourradi, H., Lahboubi, N., Habchi, S., Hanine, H., El bari, H., 2022. Methane production
from date seed cake (Phoenix dactylifera L.) using mesophilic fed-batch anaerobic
digestion. Clean. Waste Syst. 2, 100009.
Oyegunle, A., Thompson, S., 2018. Wasting indigenous communities: A case study with
garden hill and Wasagamack First Nations in Northern Manitoba, Canada. J. Solid
Waste Technol. Manag. 44 (3), 232–247.
Robins Environmental, 2012,Sudbury Area First Nation Recycling Program
Implementation Evaluation .
Robins Environmental, 2018, Temagami First Nation Waste Diversion Project Final
Report.
Roy, P., Mohanty, A.K., Wagner, A., Sharif, S., Khalil, H., Misra, M., 2021. Impacts of
COVID-19 outbreak on the municipal solid waste management: Now and beyond the
pandemic. ACS Environ. Au 1 (1), 32–45.
SNC-Lavalin, 2016. Fraser Valley Regional District Open Burning Practices and Policy
Options. Final Report.
Song, P., Huang, G., An, C., Xin, X., Zhang, P., Chen, X., Ren, S., Xu, Z., Yang, X., 2021.
Exploring the decentralized treatment of sulfamethoxazole-contained poultry was-
tewater through vertical-flow multi-soil-layering systems in rural communities.
Water Res. 188, 116480.
Statistics Canada, 2021. A snapshot: Status First Nations people in Canada.
Stewardship Ontario, 2020. Blue Box Program Transition & Stewardship Ontario Windup
Plan.
Wang, Z., An, C., Lee, K., Chen, X., Zhang, B., Yin, J., Feng, Q., 2022. Physicochemical
change and microparticle release from disposable gloves in the aqueous environment
impacted by accelerated weathering. Sci. Total Environ. 832, 154986.
Wang, Z., Guy, C., Ng, K.T.W., An, C., 2021. A new challenge for the management and
disposal of personal protective equipment waste during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sustainability 13 (13), 7034.
WCED, U.N., 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development.
Xu, Q., Yuan, Q., 2017, Solid waste management in Canadian First Nations communities.
15th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology.
Yao, Y., Huang, G., An, C., Chen, X., Zhang, P., Xin, X., Shen, J., Agnew, J., 2020.
Anaerobic digestion of livestock manure in cold regions: Technological advancements
and global impacts. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 119, 109494.
Zagozewski, R., Judd-Henrey, I., Nilson, S., Bharadwaj, L., 2011. Perspectives on past and
present waste disposal practices: a community-based participatory research project in
three Saskatchewan First Nations communities. Environ. Health Insights 5, 9–20.