Growing together: A principle-based approach to building collaborative Indigenous partnerships in Canada’s forest sector

Paul Robitaille, MScF Cand., probitai@lakeheadu.ca

Overview

• Background• Purpose• Methodology• Principles for Building Collaborative Partnerships• Final Thoughts

2

Background

• Indigenous peoples across Canada participate in forest-based development in a diverse and ever-changing number of ways (Young and Duinker 1998; Griffith et al. 2015)

• Wyatt et al. (2013) identified five distinct types of participatory arrangements, with thirty-four different sub-types, including:– treaties, agreements and MOUs – management and planning roles – influence on decision making – forest tenures – economic roles

• Many communities engage in multiple participatory mechanisms simultaneously (Fortier et al. 2013)

3

Background

• A great deal of recent research has focused on opportunities for Indigenous participation in Canada’s forest sector:– Arrangements employed in individual communities (e.g. Bull et al. 2014)

– Factors contributing to the success of individual mechanisms (e.g. Berkes 2010)

– “Aboriginal Forestry” (e.g. Parsons and Prest 2003)

• Few studies have explored how to translate various lessons learned into inclusive and mutually-beneficial collaborative processes

• “While there is agreement on the need for [Indigenous] involvement, how best to legitimize…and empower participants… remains an outstanding issue.” (Klenk et al. 2013, p. 162)

4

Purpose

“What practical steps can be taken to facilitate more effective Indigenous–non-Indigenous collaboration in Canada’s forest sector?”

Review existing knowledge found within the peer-reviewed literature Propose a set of principles and underlying mechanisms that can be adopted by

resource managers, policy makers and Indigenous communities

5

Methodology

• Three-phase systematic literature review (Berrang-Ford et al. 2011)

– Using Web of Science

• Iterative, inductive analysis (Creswell 2014)

– Identify factors that have contributed to either successful or unsuccessful Indigenous participation in Canada’s forest sector

– Develop thematic groups– Combine thematic groups into general principles

6

Phase 1Keyword search

(2,954 articles)

Phase 2 Title, abstract review

(236 articles)

Phase 3Final article review

(77 articles)

PRINCIPLES FOR BUILDING COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS

7

8

Indigenous participation in Canada’s forest sector

Building respectful relationships

Broad community engagement

Bridging knowledge and value systems

Flexible and holistic management systems

Clear and relevant measures of success

Recognition of Aboriginal and treaty rights (Smith 2015)

Understanding biases and stereotypes (Lee and Kant 2006)

Well-defined and accepted roles (MacKinnon et al. 2001)

Forums for knowledge exchange (Natcher et al 2005)

Targeted engagement of marginalized groups (Reed 2010)

Transparent guidelines for determining which individuals are engaged (Davis and Wagner 2003)

Including individuals with land-based experiential knowledge (Davidson-Hunt 2006)

Culturally relevant forms of information sharing (Miller et al.2010)

Common definitions of “values” (Sapic et al. 2009)

Using modern technology to support tradition (Kayahara and Armstrong 2015)

Representing landscapes in ways that communities see them (Lewis and Sheppard 2006)

Adequate funding and support for values collection (Mabee and Hoberg 2004)

Community control of information (Robinson and Ross 1997)

Incorporating social and cultural considerations (Maclean et al. 2015)

Understanding available management options (VanSchie and Haider2015)

Accommodating preferred practices (Jacqmain et al. 2012)

Creating culturally recognizable landscape patterns (Lewis 2008)

Mechanisms to influence decision making (Fortier et al. 2013)

Recognizing limitations of current C&I frameworks (Natcher et al. 2009)

Community-derived criteria and indicators (Kant and Brubacher 2008)

Monitoring at the finest resolution possible (Fraser et al. 2006)

Transparent guidelines for aggregating data across spatial scales (Karjala et al 2004)

Forest certification as a tool in partnerships (Smith 1998)

Building Respectful Relationships• The benefits of positive Indigenous—non-Indigenous relationships are well

established:– Effective conflict resolution (Berkes 2010)

– Cross-cultural learning (Fraser et al. 2006)

– Achieving objectives of diverse groups (VanSchie and Haider 2015)

• However, many factors may hinder these relationships:– Jurisdictional tangle (Smith 2015)

– Lack of education for forest managers (Teitelbaum and Wyatt 2013)

– “Command-and-control” forms of forest governance (Greskiw and Innes 2008, p. 1941)

9

Building Respectful Relationships• How to build respectful relationships:

– Recognition of Aboriginal and treaty rights (Smith 2015)

– Understanding biases and stereotypes (Lee and Kant 2006)

– Well-defined and accepted roles (MacKinnon et al. 2001)

– Forums for knowledge exchange (Hvenegaard 2015)

• Confidence and trust take time to build

10

Broad Community Engagement• Current processes are often dominated by a small group of actors (Reed 2010):

– Elected leadership– Elders – Economic interests

• Many groups are under-represented:– Women– Youth– Lower socioeconomic classes

• Difficult to adequately represent a diverse community (Klenk et al. 2013)

• Risk that agreements may lose relevance over time (Zurba and Trimble 2014)

11

Broad Community Engagement• How to facilitate broad community engagement:

– Targeted engagement of marginalized groups (Reed 2010)

– Transparent guidelines for determining which individuals are engaged (Davis and Wagner 2003)

– Including individuals with land-based experiential knowledge (Davidson-Hunt 2006)

– Culturally relevant forms of information sharing (Miller et al. 2010)

12

Bridging Knowledge and Values Systems• Many studies have suggested that the cultural norms of various groups often

dictate the type of knowledge they value– Problematic for minority groups, such as Indigenous peoples, who already wield

less power in forest governance than more dominant groups such as industry or government (O’Flaherty et al. 2008)

• Different philosophies on human—ecosystem interactions (e.g. Smith 2015)

• Economic outcomes vs cultural consequences (Natcher et al. 2005)

• Therefore, there exists a need to develop concrete mechanisms to bridge worldviews and develop common understandings

13

Bridging Knowledge and Values Systems• How to bridge knowledge and values systems:

– Establish common definitions of “values” (Sapic et al. 2009)

– Adequate funding and support for values collection (Mabee and Hoberg 2004)

– Using modern technology to support tradition (Kayahara and Armstrong 2015)

– Representing landscapes in ways that communities see them (Lewis and Sheppard 2006)

– Community control of information (Robinson and Ross 1997)

14

Flexible and Holistic Management Systems• Many current forest management systems:

– Largely reflect Western worldviews (McGregor 2011)

– Have strong colonial legacies (Bouman et al. 1996)

– Assume that ultimate authority rests with provincial governments (Mabee and Hoberg2006)

• There remains a need to:– Develop processes that incorporate Indigenous values and interests—derived

through broad community engagement—into forest management– Provide communities with meaningful opportunities to occupy a more influential

role in forestry-related decision-making frameworks

15

Flexible and Holistic Management Systems• Towards the development of flexible and holistic management systems:

– Incorporating social and cultural considerations (Maclean et al. 2015)

– Understanding available management options (VanSchie and Haider 2015)

– Accommodating preferred practices (Jacqmain et al. 2012)

– Creating culturally recognizable landscape patterns (Lewis 2008)

– Mechanisms to influence decision making (Fortier et al. 2013)

• Recognize and accommodate potential capacity issues

16

Clear and Relevant Measures of Success• Current criteria and indicator (C&I) frameworks may not be effective for

evaluating the impacts on unique and diverse needs of many Indigenous communities– Process needs (Sherry 2005)

– Access to territories (Natcher et al. 2009)

– Forest-derived benefits (Wyatt et al. 2015)

• When communities feel as though their needs are not being met:– May opt for more conflict-based solutions (Maclean et al. 2015)

– May adopt less sustainable management options (Natcher et al. 2004)

17

Clear and Relevant Measures of Success• Towards developing clear and relevant measures of success:

– Recognize limitations of current C&I frameworks (Natcher et al. 2009)

– Community-derived criteria and indicators (Kant and Brubacher 2008)

– Monitoring at the finest resolution possible (Fraser et al. 2006)

– Transparent guidelines for aggregating data across spatial scales (Karjala et al 2004)

– Forest certification as a tool in partnerships (Smith 1998)

18

Final Thoughts• While the principles and tools presented in this article may be implemented

individually or in various combinations to both improve existing collaborative arrangements and develop new ones, they are best understood as an integrated, incremental process involving any number of motivated partners

19

Final Thoughts• By establishing relationships based on mutual-benefit and respect,

collaborators will be better positioned to:– Engage Indigenous communities on meaningful terms – Increase sensitivity to the diversity of interests, values and needs that exist

within communities and between groups– Reconcile differences that exist between deeply-held knowledge and value

systems – Develop management systems that respond to community needs– Derive meaningful benefits for all parties

And, ultimately, begin growing together!20

Acknowledgements• My warmest and sincerest thanks to:

– My research committee:• Dr. Chander Shahi• Dr. Peggy Smith• Dr. Nancy Luckai

– All of those who advised me during the development of this paper– The Biomass North Development Centre

21

QUESTIONS?

22