Aboriginal peoples and forest industries: Many options for collaboration, but... no easy solutions Envisioning Tomorrow’s Forests Sustainable Forest Management

Aboriginal peoples and forest industries:

Many options for collaboration, but... no easy

solutions

Envisioning Tomorrow’s Forests

Sustainable Forest Management Network ConferenceGatineau, Quebec, 22 April 2009

An SFMN State of Knowledge project

Learn from projects across Canada

Prepare two “State of Knowledge”

reports

Case studies of harmonization of Aboriginal and forest industry interests

Best practices for development and use of traditional land use mapping studies in forestry

Forestry across management

and knowledge systems

Stephen Wyatt Université de Moncton

Ron Trosper University of BCPeggy Smith Lakehead UniversityDavid NatcherUniversity of SaskatchewanMartin Hébert Université LavalJean-François Fortier Research AssistantGarth GreskiwResearch AssistantSolange Nadeau Canadian Forest

ServiceLuc Bouthillier Université Laval

plus other collaborators

Research team

Project partners

Treaty 8 First NationsAlberta

Daishowa-Marubeni International Alberta

FNQLSDIQuebec

Government of Quebec

Grand Council of the Cree

Quebec

Tolko IndustriesAlberta

Confederacy of Mainland Mi’kmaq

Nova Scotia

Government of Alberta

1 Why should Aboriginal people and the forest industry collaborate?

Peggy Smith

2 How can Aboriginal peoples and the forest industry collaborate?

Stephen Wyatt

3 How are Aboriginal people and the forest industry collaborating?

Jean-François Fortier

4 Collaboration needs to be built: it doesn’t just happen

Stephen WyattMartin Hébert

5 Implications for managers and practitioners

Stephen Wyatt

Why?

rights

pragmatic

How:

types

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

1

Why should Aboriginal people and the forest industry

collaborate?

Legal obligationsPragmatic reasons

Dr. Peggy Smith, Lakehead University

The Crown: constitutional obligation (s. 35) to recognize & affirm Aboriginal & treaty rights

Crown, in right of provinces, delegates forest management to industry

Industry may suffer the consequences of Crown’s failure to properly consult

Collaboration—legal obligations

Why?rightspragmatic

How:types

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

National Forest Strategies (1992-2008) & Criteria & Indicators of SFM: acknowledgement of rights

Current “Vision 2008 & Beyond” has focused on economic development: “Aboriginals & their businesses have a role to play in the forest economy. They are involved in the development of sustainable forest management practices, notably through the application of their knowledge & practices. As the dialogue between Aboriginals & governments, industry, & other forest sector members continues to evolve, it will create further opportunities that will benefit all & further sustainable forest management.”

Federal policy

Why?rightspragmatic

How:types

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

Historic treaties and modern day land claims

Treaties, rights and title

Why?rightspragmatic

How:types

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

Calder 1973 Recognition of “Aboriginal title”

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982, s. 35, Aboriginal & treaty rights

Sparrow 1990 Clarification of extent of “rights”

Van der Peet 1996 Rights based in historic use

Supreme Court of Canada decisions

Delgamuuk’w 1997 Aboriginal title, duty to consult, oral evidence, economic component

Marshall 1999 Rights to earn a “moderate living”

Powley 2003 Métis hunting rights acknowledged

Haida 2004 Crown duty to consult

Mikisew 2005 Duty to consult applies to treaties

Sappier, Gray 2006 Right to cut timber for personal use

Why?rightspragmatic

How:types

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

A “sui generis” (unique) form of land ownership

Rooted in historic occupation & use of land Existed prior to European settlement Replaced by more specific rights in treaties

The Sparrow TestAboriginal or treaty rights can be infringed if: there is a valid legislative objective honour of the Crown is respected infringement is minimal consultation has occurred before

infringement

Aboriginal Title

Why?rightspragmatic

How:types

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

Duty arises when Crown: knows of potential existence of right or title considers conduct that might adversely affect thisPurpose of duty: Reconciliation Treat Aboriginal peoples fairly & honorably Trigger negotiations Accommodate Aboriginal concernsPrinciples: More than minimum acceptable standard Carried out in “good faith” Substantially address concerns of Aboriginal

peoples Case specific—community by community

Duty to consult

Why?rightspragmatic

How:types

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

Onus on proving Aboriginal & treaty rights with First Nations & Métis

Based on historic use—burden of proof on Aboriginal peoples

Therefore, need to document historic & contemporary use

Based on oral history, written record, archaeological evidence

Mapping is key—traditional land use & occupancy

Proving occupancy

Why?rightspragmatic

How:types

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

For Aboriginal peoples: Obtain a share of economic and

employment benefits created by forestry Maintain and demonstrate use of the land Protect values, sites and uses of land Apply and maintain knowledge Control or influence land management Develop skills and experience in

contemporary land management Exercise title and treaty rights

Collaboration—pragmatic reasons

Why?rightspragmatic

How:types

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

For forest industries: Maintain access to timber resources Avoid potential conflict Improve forest management practices Minimize costs and maintain profits Demonstrate social corporate

responsibility and maintain social licence to operate

Comply with laws, policies and certification requirements

Increase the available labour pool


Why?rightspragmatic

How:types

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

For governments: Fulfill constitutional obligation to recognize

& affirm Aboriginal & treaty rights Fulfill commitments to achieve sustainable

forest management Manage public forest for greater good Promote environmental protection, including

maintenance of habitat essential for wildlife, biodiversity conservation, linked to cultural diversity & traditional land use

Promote economic development to sustain employment & government revenues


Why?rightspragmatic

How:types

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

2

How can Aboriginal peoples and the forest industry

collaborate?

Five principal forms of collaborationOutcomes of collaborationBalancing different forms of

collaboration

Dr. Stephen Wyatt, Université de Moncton

Economic roles and partnerships

Agreements, treaties and MOUs

Forestland mapping, planning and management

Influence on decision-making

Forest tenures

with more than 40 different sub-types

Five principal forms of collaboration

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

Obtaining an economic stake in the forest industry

Sub-types

Secondary transformation

Primary transformation

Harvesting & operations

Forestry planning

Employment agreements

Revenue & profit sharing

Silvicultural contracting

Services – camps, etc

Others, eg. carbon

• Effective for jobs, revenue and economic development

• Not always effective for forest management & traditional values

• Often established within existing forestry regimes

Different forms are possible

Nation-owned cooperatives joint ventures private

Economics Roles and Partnerships

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

Nation-to-Nation arrangements

Nation-to-industrySub-types

Self-government & comprehensive claims

Co-management agreements

Sector specific MOUs

Case specific MOUs

Specific claims

• Establish rules or framework for other forms of collaboration

• Can provide access to land and control of activities

• Rarely provide benefits such as employment or revenue

• Often related to judicial processes

Agreements, Treaties & MOUs

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

Establishing control over activities on the land

Sub-types

“Nirvana” - Aboriginal management

Comprehensive planning for all

Planning for management

Management activities

Mapping land use & occupation

Documenting traditional knowledge

• Contributing knowledge and information to a plan

• Setting objectives for land

• Planning or deciding what will happen

• Undertaking activities in accordance with a plan

• Monitoring and follow-up

Aboriginal peoples are rarely involved in higher levels of management

Forestland mapping, planning & management

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

Influencing decisions and actions on the land

Sub-types

Autonomy

Delegated authority

Joint decision-making boards

Advisory multi-party round tables

Information sharing

Information providingDifferent levels of decision policy planning management & operations

• Crown and industry are typically obliged to consult

• Certification and C&I also require consultation

• Consultation is booming across Canada

• Need to build upon traditional governance

How much power or influence do Aboriginal people have?

Influence on decision-making

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

Obtaining management rights from government

Sub-types

Aboriginal-controlled lands

Tenures designed by Aboriginal people

Land Trusts

Long-term tenures (NAFA I)

Significant volume (NAFA II)

Short-term / enterprise (NAFA III)

Minor (NAFA IV)

Emerging, e.g. carbon, NTFPs, etc.

• Delegation of management rights and responsibilities within existing regimes

• Does not imply recognition of Aboriginal rights or title

• Existing tenures typically designed for industry

Should Aboriginal people accept the existing system?

Forest Tenures

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

Collaborativeproject

EconomiccapitalRevenue

EmploymentTraining

Ecologicalcapital

BiodiversityWildlife

Forest health

Social capitalLeadership

Relationships

Institutional capitalCapacity to make decisions

Systems and processes

Outcomes of collaboration

Cultural capitalSharing knowledgeCustoms & values

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

Each form of collaboration is a scale from low to high

Balancing forms of collaboration

Economic

2 production1 productionHarvestingPlanning

EmploymentRevenue

ContractingServicesOthers

Agreements

Autonomy

Co-

management

Sector MOUs

Case MOUs

Specific claims

Management

Aboriginal

Comprehensiv

e

Planning

Actions

Land use

maps

TK studies

Influence

Autonomy

Delegation

Joint decisions

Round tables

Sharing info

Providing info

Tenures

Control

New tenures

Land Trusts

Long-term

Major volume

Short-term

Minor

Emerging

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

Each form of collaboration is a scale from low to high

Partners need to establish where they are on each scale

Outcomes, or capital, depends upon investments in collaboration


Tenures

Control

New tenures

Land Trusts

Long-term

Major volume

Short-term

Minor

Emerging

Influence

Autonomy

Delegation

Joint decisions

Round tables

Sharing info

Providing info

Management

Aboriginal

Comprehensive

Planning

Actions

Land use maps

TK studies

Agreements

Autonomy

Co-management

Sector MOUs

Case MOUs

Specific claims

Economic


EmploymentRevenue


Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers


Economic


EmploymentRevenue


Agreements

Autonomy

Co-

management

Sector MOUs

Case MOUs

Specific claims

Management

Aboriginal

Comprehensiv

e

Planning

Actions

Land use

maps

TK studies

Influence

Autonomy

Delegation

Joint decisions

Round tables

Sharing info

Providing info

Tenures

Control

New tenures

Land Trusts

Long-term

Major volume

Short-term

Minor

Emerging

Low collaboration across the board

Unlikely to satisfy aspirations of Aboriginal peoples or to promote reconciliation

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers


Economic


EmploymentRevenue


Agreements

Autonomy

Co-

management

Sector MOUs

Case MOUs

Specific claims

Management

Aboriginal

Comprehensiv

e

Planning

Actions

Land use

maps

TK studies

Influence

Autonomy

Delegation

Joint decisions

Round tables

Sharing info

Providing info

Tenures

Control

New tenures

Land Trusts

Long-term

Major volume

Short-term

Minor

Emerging

High on economic, low on others

Provides revenue and jobs, but does not meet other objectives of Aboriginal peoples

Unbalanced

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers


Economic


EmploymentRevenue


Agreements

Autonomy

Co-

management

Sector MOUs

Case MOUs

Specific claims

Management

Aboriginal

Comprehensiv

e

Planning

Actions

Land use

maps

TK studies

Influence

Autonomy

Delegation

Joint decisions

Round tables

Sharing info

Providing info

Tenures

Control

New tenures

Land Trusts

Long-term

Major volume

Short-term

Minor

Emerging

Resolution of Aboriginal rights can create conditions for other arrangements

Agreements alone do not provide full range of benefits

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers


Economic


EmploymentRevenue


Agreements

Autonomy

Co-

management

Sector MOUs

Case MOUs

Specific claims

Management

Aboriginal

Comprehensiv

e

Planning

Actions

Land use

maps

TK studies

Influence

Autonomy

Delegation

Joint decisions

Round tables

Sharing info

Providing info

Tenures

Control

New tenures

Land Trusts

Long-term

Major volume

Short-term

Minor

Emerging

Adaptive, resilient and sustainable relationships are likely to require building collaboration across all forms

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

3

How are Aboriginal people and the forest industry

collaborating across Canada?

An inventory of:- Practices on the ground- Research studies

Jean-François Fortier, Université de Moncton / Université Laval

An inventory of experiences & studiesCollaborative experiences

Trends across Canada and within provinces

Studies and researchSynthesis of our knowledge regarding

relationships between Aboriginal groups and forest sector

Does the research follow the trends?

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

Collaboration across Canada

Practices on the groundQuebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and

Maritime provinces

Inventory of research studies Across CanadaInvolving Aboriginal groups (Métis and First

Nations)Specific casesAssessing experiences of collaboration Factors Processes Results

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

How was inventory achieved?

Practices & StudiesAcademic and ‘grey’ literature reviewAnnotated bibliographiesKey informantsWorkshopsResearch assistants Database

Limitations Impossible to achieve an inventory of every

single experiencePractices evolve faster than our knowledgeAccessibility to information

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

Forms of collaboration

PROVINCESNumber of communities

TreatiesLand use

Foresttenure

Economic

roles

Influence on

decisions

Ontario 83 23 % 16 % 32 % 60% 33 %

Saskatchewan 62 19 % 61 % 27 % 33 % 33 %

Quebec 33 61 % 39 % 36 % 76 % X

New Brunswick

15 - 13 %100%

100 % -

Newfoundland and Labrador 4 50 % - 75% 50 % 100 %

Nova Scotia 14 43 % 78 % 7 % 100 % 43 %

PEI 2 - - - 100 % -

Total 213 28% 37 % 35 % 61 % 34 %

Collaboration across Canada

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

Collaboration in Quebec

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

What can we learn?

In some provinces, all communities are players in forest industryAll Maritime provinces except NF

Economic participation is the most popularEconomic partnerships in practice (60%)

Aboriginal land use & occupation One of common practices among Aboriginal

communities (37,1%)

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

Why are economic roles so popular?

Some suggestions:

Answer common objectives

- Access to resources and benefits

Policies encourages this approach

Negotiation processes are long and expensive

Context is favourable: economic liberalism

Might be seen as door that leads to other experiences of collaboration such as co-management

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

Forms of collaboration

Number

Treaties

Land usestudies

Foresttenure

s

Economic

roles

Influence on

decisions

Experienc

es

21328 % 37 % 35 % 60 % 34 %

Studies 58 19 % 37 % 10 % 17 % 29 %NoYes

Does research follow practice?

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

Does the research follow practice?

The research does not always follow trendsEconomic partnerships in practice (60%)Economic parnerships in studies (17%)

Why? Some ideas... Traditional trends in research (cultural

anthropology, human ecology, etc.) Conceptions of researchers towards

Aboriginal peoples Industry vs Aboriginal peoples

(irreconcilable interests) Participation of communities in forest

industry is recent Confidentiality of financial information

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

4

Collaboration needs to be built:

It doesn’t just happen

Relationships and collaboration are not static

Martin Hébert, Université LavalStephen Wyatt, Université de Moncton

Capacity builds as partners gain experience

Roles of stakeholders change

Context of forestry changes

Actors reflect on their experiences and adapt

Hierarchy of goals changes through time

Conditions of success include:Communication about interests and goalsEquity and fairness in processes and negotiationsBuilding sustainable institutionsMonitoring and evaluationPositive attitudes, relationships, trust &

confidence

Stakeholder relationships are dynamic

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

Collaboration as a process

Communication:Clarify goals &

interests

Institutions& processes

for implementation

Negotiation:Where mutual gain solutions are difficult

Monitoringevaluationfollow-up

Capital:Social

EconomicEcological

InstitutionalCultural

Mutual gains possible

Fast-track

Slow-track

Attitudes underlying the relationshipConfidence, trust, respect, open-mindedness, patience, etc.

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

Pos Neg

Conclusion

Implications for managers and practitioners

in Aboriginal communitiesin forest industriesin government agencies

Stephen Wyatt, Université de Moncton

Must choose between different forms of collaboration

Needs, priorities and capacity of community Opportunities provided by policy or partners Coherence with the community’s strategy

Several forms can be used at same time Ensure that these are complementary

Establishing rights creates space for collaboration Other forms will be needed for benefits Fighting for rights has proved effective, but can

make collaborative relationships more difficult

Implications for Aboriginal communities

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

Must choose between different forms of collaboration Needs, priorities and capacity of company Opportunities provided by communities Framework created by government policy and/or

certification

Company will probably require different arrangements with each community and in each province

Recognise that Aboriginal goals and interests are not limited to economic returns and timber products

Investments in collaborative capacity can help secure timber, avoid conflicts and attain social goals

Implications for the forest industry

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

One size does not fit allNeed to negotiate clear framework—especially

on consultation and rightsMake resources available—capacity-buildingPermit and encourage flexibility/local adaptationNeed to promote awareness among general

public/vested interests (i.e. industry, stakeholders)

Need to promote learning within public sector

Implications for government agencies

Why?rightspragmatic

How:typesbalancing

Practice & studies

Building

For managers

Communication:Clarify goals &

interests

Institutions& processes

for implementation

Negotiation:Where mutual gain solutions are difficult

Monitoringevaluationfollow-up

Capital:Social

EconomicEcological

InstitutionalCultural

Mutual gains possible

Fast-track

Slow-track

Attitudes underlying the relationshipConfidence, trust, respect, open-mindedness, patience, etc.

Tenures

Control

New tenures

Land Trusts

Long-term

Major volume

Short-term

Minor

Emerging

Influence

Autonomy

Delegation

Joint decisions

Round tables

Sharing info

Providing info

Management

Aboriginal Comprehen

sivePlanningActions

Land use maps

TK studies

Agreements

AutonomyCo-

management

Sector MOUs

Case MOUsSpecific claims

Economic


EmploymentRevenue


To take home ...

Resilience

Panarchy

Complexity

Seeing reality through others’ eyes

Getting the system in the room

Building a container

Documents

Aboriginal peoples and forest industries: Many options for collaboration, but... no easy solutions Envisioning Tomorrow’s Forests Sustainable Forest Management