Loading

Seeing the Forest for the Trees Exploring Indigenous Forest Stewardship and options for community forestry in so-called 'British Columbia'

The University of Victoria is located on unceded Lək̓ʷəŋən (Lekwungen) and WSÁNEĆ territories, specifically on the site of Sungayka Village, the ancestral land of the Lək̓ʷəŋən Checkonien family group, according to Cheryl Bryce (Songhees) (n.d.). The Lək̓ʷəŋən and WSÁNEĆ people have had relationships with these lands since time immemorial, and these relationships continue to this day.

Online learning means that we may not all be located on the same territories today. If you do not know already, take some time to begin learning about the Indigenous territories you are on (This may be a good place to start).

Introduction

This lesson is centered on the concept of "community forestry", a model of forestry that is intended to devolve decision-making power over forest resources to local communities, rather than governments or large corporations. This lesson will specifically look at some of the ways that Indigenous communities have engaged with community forestry in so-called 'British Columbia', and how Indigenous rights and land title intersect with current provincial community forestry policy. This lesson will explore and ask a number of questions:

  • Does community forestry policy in so-called 'British Columbia' allow for true devolution of decision-making power to local communities?
  • Further, does community forestry policy in so-called 'British Columbia' make space for Indigenous rights and title?
  • What are the potential opportunities and the limitations presented by the BC government's community forestry policy?
  • If there is not true devolution of power, what are some alternative models which could allow for local communities to have control over local resources?
  • How does the ongoing Land Back movement provide an opportunity for the transformation of what Indigenous community forestry can look like?

This questions are explored through five broad sections. The first section explores Indigenous forest stewardship, Indigenous rights and land title, and how historical and ongoing colonial violence threatens this stewardship. The second and third sections explore what community forestry looks like in so-called 'British Columbia', the potential opportunities it presents, and also it's limitations. The fourth section explores some alternative models and relational methods that could transform community forestry, including the concept of Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs). The fifth section seeks to situate the preceding discussion of community forestry and Indigenous forest stewardship within the ongoing Land Back movement, and the opportunity this presents. These sections are as follows:

  1. Indigenous Forest Stewardship Since Time Immemorial
  2. Community Forestry in so-called 'British Columbia'
  3. Contemporary Discourses on Community Forest Agreements
  4. Imagining New Paths Forward in Community-Centered Forestry
  5. The Land Back Movement

Indigenous Forest Stewardship Since Time Immemorial

Indigenous stewardship and management of forests has occurred on the lands claimed as so-called ‘British Columbia’ for millennia (Turner et al., 2013). As of 2014, over 70% of Indigenous communities in Canada are located in forested areas (NRCan, 2014; Lawler and Bullock, 2017). Sophisticated systems of land and resource management exist within Indigenous communities and are often put into practice over what Turner et al. (2013) call “multiple, intertwined spatial and temporal scales” (123). That is to say that Indigenous ecosystem management exists over variable spatial scales, from interacting with individual plants to landscape-wide management, and variable temporal scales, from days to years.

Berkes (2012) suggests that these sustainable management techniques evolve over time, beginning with the accumulation of knowledge about an environment, specifically how its plants and other species can potentially be used. With time, community social structures develop around these resources and how to optimize their management for accessibility and productivity (Turner et al., 2013; Berkes, 2012). Eventually, after multiple generations, these environments become embedded into a community’s belief system, allowing for what Turner et al. (2013) call the “development and maintenance of a truly sustainable anthropogenic system” (124). These sophisticated systems of traditional land and resource management, then allow for the cultivation of biological diversity and complexity of ecosystems. Maffi (2005) and Schuster et al. (2019) both find that regions where Indigenous communities manage land and resources overlap with regions which have the highest biodiversity in the world.

Case Study 1: Culturally Modified Trees and Sustainable Forest Management

The western redcedar and yellow cedar are culturally important species to Indigenous Peoples in British Columbia (Eldridge, 2013). Cedars have limited distribution in British Columbia, and canoes carved from these trees, and sheets of cedar bark are of high value and demand in Indigenous systems of trade. The combination of the cedars’ limited geographic distribution, relative scarcity, and high value, lead to the development of sophisticated cedar harvest and management systems (Eldridge, 2013).

In an archeological survey of CMT’s on the Skeena River in Ts’msyen (Coast Tsimshian) territories, up to 45 CMTs were recorded per hectare (Eldridge, 2002; Owens et al., 2002). Of the 1480 trees that make up the sample size, 1884 individual stripping and logging events were recorded. Eldridge (2013) suggests that the distribution of stripped cedar trees within these sample areas is indicative of multiple same-tree harvesting events and thus a complex forest management strategy which selects trees depending on intended use, and harvests bark strips with regeneration in mind. Leaving a remaining strip of bark on the tree allowed for the continued transfer of nutrients from the roots of the cedar to the needles, and allowed to the tree to survive and regenerate bark post-harvest (Eldridge, 2013). Strips are taken from select trees, based on the intended use and certain desirable characteristics and others were left without stripping. Actual logging of cedar for uses such as building structures is done very sparsely and selectively throughout coastal forests.

Culturally Modified Tree (CMT) (western redcedar) where bark has been stripped on Gitga'at (Ts'msyen) territories (Turner et al., 2013).

Want to learn more about Indigenous forest and plant management practices? Check out “Plant management systems of British Columbia’s first peoples” from Turner et al. (2013) here.

Colonial violence threatens Indigenous knowledge

“For over a century, the central goals of Canada’s Aboriginal policy were to eliminate Aboriginal governments; ignore Aboriginal rights; terminate the Treaties; and, through a process of assimilation, cause Aboriginal peoples to cease to exist as distinct legal, social, cultural, religious, and racial entities in Canada. The establishment and operation of residential schools were a central element of this policy, which can best be described as “cultural genocide.” – Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2017)

Colonial violence has and continues to threaten Indigenous knowledge (Simpson, 2004). While Indigenous forest stewardship is ongoing, colonial policy, violence, cultural genocide, and exploitive resource extraction have compounded to create conditions hostile to traditional land and resource management practices. Some examples of the numerous ways that colonialism and capitalism have enacted violence on Indigenous peoples, knowledge, and territories are through the following:

  • The Indian Act, introduced by the Canadian government in 1876, laid out the reserve system, which forced Indigenous peoples to live in limited areas, controlled their mobility on and off these lands, and limited access to their territories. (Vowel, 2016; Caverley et al, 2019). The Indian Act also restricted hunting and harvesting rights and outlawed a number of cultural practices.
  • The residential school system removed Indigenous children from their families and communities and violently tore away the language and culture of generations of Indigenous children (Vowel, 2016). Over 150 years of operation, 150,000 children attended and 6000 died during attendance (Vowel, 2016). The last school closed in 1996. The child-welfare system continues to remove a disproportionate number of Indigenous children from their communities (TRC, 2017; Vowel, 2016). This has threatened intergenerational knowledge sharing, and with it the transmission of forest management knowledge, in what amounts to “cultural genocide” (TRC, 2017; Simpson, 2004).
  • Ongoing ecological destruction, caused largely by rapacious resource extraction across the province (eg. industrial logging), has altogether removed the forests that Indigenous peoples in these territories once stewarded (Booth and Skelton, 2011; Simpson, 2004). On so-called ‘Vancouver Island’, 90% of valley bottom ancient forests have been logged (Wilderness Committee, 2017).

Indigenous Rights and Canadian Responsibilities in ‘British Columbia’

A number of historic and modern treaties across ‘Canada’ recognize the rights of Indigenous Nations and the Canadian government’s ongoing responsibility to uphold these rights (Hanson, 2009; Vowel, 2016). These treaties outline what Chelsea Vowel (Métis) calls “ongoing relationships”, and require reconsideration as the relationship that they establish progresses (Vowel, 2016, 258). In 1982, Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution was established, enshrining the rights of Indigenous peoples and the responsibilities of the Crown outlined in these treaties. Section 35 states:

  1. The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
  2. In this Act, “aboriginal peoples of Canada” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.
  3. For greater certainty, in subsection (1) “treaty rights” includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.
  4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

Learn about the Constitution Express, a direct action by Indigenous activists which resulted in the addition of Section 35 to the Canadian Constitution here. The action is lauded by activist Arthur Manuel, as the most effective direct action in the history of ‘Canada’

It is important to note that while Canada’s claim to land title over the majority of these territories is largely dependent on these treaties, they were not mutually understood to be cessions of land by Indigenous Nations (Vowel, 2016).

In the territories claimed as so-called ‘British Columbia’, only a small fraction of land is treaty-territory. In the landmark Calder (1973) and Delgamuukw (1997) cases, the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed that Indigenous title in ‘British Columbia’ exists and has never been extinguished. In the 1990s, a wave of direct actions by Indigenous Nations across the region arose in frustration out of the unwillingness of the BC government to engage in meaningful nation to nation relationships (Hanson, 2009). These actions, which disrupted the day-to-day of natural resource extraction, and the associated economic losses, motivated the creation of a now controversial BC Treaty Process, where Indigenous Nations are forced to engage in a non-Indigenous process which centers the interests of the BC government and big business (Hanson, 2009; Vowel, 2016; Haley, 2002). This BC Treaty Process has largely considered to have failed at resolving the question of title in so-called ‘British Columbia’ (Hanson, 2009).

In November 2019, the BC government passed the BC Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, landmark legislation which further recognizes and affirms the rights of Indigenous people, and has implications for forest management which will be discussed further below (Government of BC, 2019).

This discussion of Indigenous rights and title is important context to keep in mind as we explore the concept of community forestry and the manifestations of community forestry in ‘British Columbia’. As we will see later on, community forestry initiatives regulated through the provincial government operate on the assumption of legitimacy of the BC governments claim to land.

Want to learn more about Indigenous rights and the responsibilities of the Canadian government? Check out Chelsea Vowel’s (Métis) book Indigenous Writes available as an e-book through the UVic Library here

Case Study 2: Ada'itsx (Fairy Creek) Blockade - Industrial Logging Threatens One of Few Remaining Old Growth Watersheds

Since the beginning of the Canadian colonization, Indigenous forest stewardship has manifested in other ways as well, including direct action against industrial natural resource extraction. A recent action in this vein has been the Ada'itsx (Fairy Creek) Blockade on Pacheedaht Territories, which is blocking recently developed logging roads leading to the previously un-logged Fairy Creek headwaters (BC Tree Hunter, 2020). Ada'itsx (Fairy Creek) watershed is the last un-logged old growth watershed on the southern part of so-called ‘Vancouver Island’.

While Pacheedaht Chief and Council have not taken an official stance on the blockades, Pacheedaht elder Bill Jones has supported the blockades alongside forest activists, allies, and Indigenous youth, and the Ocean Wolves of Caycuse, an Indigenous led blockade to protect cedar (Laferte and Lazenby, 2020; Ocean Wolves, 2020). Bobby Arbress, one of the organizers of the blockade says the end-goal of the blockades is to “support the Pacheedaht Nation in the reclamation of their territory, sovereignty, and power of land” (Laferte and Lazenby, 2020). This is an example of how direct action can be a form of forest stewardship.

Learn more about the Ada'itsx (Fairy Creek) Blockade on their Facebook page here

Community Forestry in so-called 'British Columbia'

What is Community Forestry?

Before considering how community forestry developed in so-called 'British Columbia', let’s consider the concept of community forestry more generally. In their report on global community forestry, Charnley and Poe (2007) identify three major components of community forestry initiatives which can act as a useful summary:

  1. A local government has to have some degree of “responsibility and authority” over the forest. They must be involved with the management of forest resources and decision making. This often involves the creation of some kind of community enterprise or resource management council.
  2. The primary goal should be providing economic and social opportunities to the local population. Profits from community forestry activities should feed back into the local economy.
  3. There should be a focus on sustainable practices and maintenance of forest health so that forest initiatives can continue on a long-term basis.

The term “community forestry” is also associated with the terms social forestry, participatory forestry, agroforestry, communal forestry, community-based resource management, village forestry, among other terms (Glassmeier and Farrigan, 2005). These terms can have different meanings depending on the community and their regional context (Glassmeier and Farrigan, 2005). There are commonalities among these different terms, namely that they all involve some kind of local participation in forest management with the intention of directly benefiting local communities (Charnley and Poe, 2007). It is important to keep this diversity of terminology in mind as we explore community forestry further, and that not all communities which engage with community based forestry initiatives will necessarily identify with the term “community forestry”.

Where did Community Forestry in ‘British Columbia’ come from?

Forestry in so-called ‘British Columbia’ has a long and tumultuous history with regards to community engagement and sustainability (Gunter, 2000; Vernon, 2007). Of the 944,735 km2 that make up the province's land area, 79% is "publicly owned forested land", the regulation of which falls under provincial jurisdiction in Canadian law (Vernon, 2007). Yet, before 1940, the harvest of timber across these lands was unregulated within provincial government policy (Gunter, 2000). Concern over the “cut and run” forestry practices developing in the 1940s, the government initiated a Royal Commission of Inquiry into forest resources in BC (Haley, 2002). This commission led to the development of the current tenure system, where the provincial government grants exclusive timber harvesting rights in public forests to private parties. While this tenure system feeds revenue directly to the BC government and to forestry companies, it does little to support the forest ecosystem and local communities (Vernon, 2007). Interestingly, the 1947 commission’s report also recommended the development of a community-based forestry license, something which would not materialize until over 50 years later (Haley, 2002).

Increasing mechanization and corporate integration of forestry in BC, and the jobs lost and ecosystems degraded as a result, lead to increasing concerns in rural communities over lack of control over an industry which their lives depended on (Vernon, 2002). In response, public support for a community-based forestry framework swelled into the 1990s. A 1989 commissioner’s report lay the groundwork for current community forestry in ‘BC’, with recommendations to incentivize stewardship of forest resources and allocate one-third of the province’s annual allowable cut to local area-based tenures managed by communities, First Nations, and individuals (Haley, 2002). By the end of the 1990s, the BC government had launched a Community Forest Advisory Committee and a five-year pilot project. . By July 1998, legislation had been passed to authorize the development of Community Forest Agreements, opening up the possibility for local authority over forests.

Although community-owned industrial forest tenures have existed in ‘British Columbia’ since the 1950s, the development of this pilot project and the resulting legislation had the potential to create space for community-operated forestry outside of an industrial forest management model (Vernon, 2007).

What is a Community Forest Agreement?

In British Columbia, community forestry initiatives are often pursued under the Forest Act through Community Forest Agreements (CFAs) (Government of BC, 2018). Not all initiatives which resemble the parameters of community forestry that Charnley and Poe (2007) establish will necessarily fall under these agreements. Those initiatives managed with Community Forest Agreements are a subset of a wider group of forest initiatives with benefits for communities and the environment. In this lesson, we will look at community initiatives managed by CFAs and also those that exist outside of this framework.

Introduced as a five year pilot program in 1998, Community Forest Agreements (CFA) are forest licenses granted on a community-by-community basis to relevant stakeholders (Government of BC, 2018; Furness et al., 2015). Possible stakeholders which are able to obtain these licenses include societies, associations, and corporations, or consortiums of two or more First Nations, municipalities, societies or associations working in partnership. The intention of these agreements is to forward the values of a particular community with regards to forest use and economy. These agreements are granted on terms of 25-99 years and are replaceable every 10 years. CFA’s grant community stakeholders exclusive timber harvesting rights and are subject to provincial harvesting limits, fees, and regulation. A distinct feature of Community Forest Agreements is that the license holder(s) have rights to manage and harvest non-timber forest products, in addition to timber products allowable under regular forest tenure.

Read the legislation behind Community Forest Agreements, Division 7.1 of the Forest Act, here.

There are currently 58 Community Forest Agreements in ‘British Columbia’ together involving a total of 100 rural and Indigenous communities (BCCFA, 2020). The BC Community Forestry Association represents the interests and supports the expansion of community forestry in so-called 'British Columbia'.

Watch the video below if you'd like to learn more about community forestry in so-called 'BC' and the functions of the BCCFA.

Case Study 3: Qala:yit Community Forest on Pacheedaht Territories

The Qala:yit Community Forest is a partnership negotiated under CFA tenure between Pacheedaht First Nation and the Cowichan Lake Community Forest Co-op (Morse, 2019). Part of the Qala:yit Community Forest is located within BC Timber Sales Area, and so the community forest has obligations set out in the agreement to sell a quota of timber to BC Timber Sales, with some of the profits going towards Pacheedaht First Nation and Cowichan Lake Community Forest Co-op (Government of BC, 2018b). This unique tenure situation resulted from the significant competing industry over the land base. Without the allowance of BC Timber Sales area into the Qala:yit Community Forest, there simply would not be enough space for a reasonably sized community forest (Government of BC, 2018b). While this project is still in the early stages, Chief Jeff Jones of the Pacheedaht First Nation has the following to say about the development of the Qala:yit Community Forest (Morse, 2019):

“This is the latest stride that our nation has taken towards creating our own economic destiny, including a new sawmill and a new potable community water system that is capable of serving the entire Port Renfrew area. In partnership with the Cowichan Lake Community Forest Co-operative, BC Timber Sales and the province, we are achieving our goal of greater resource management in our traditional territory.” – Chief Jeff Jones of Pacheedaht First Nation (Morse, 2019)

Watch the video below for more information about the history of industrial forestry in the Cowichan Valley and the development of the relationship between Cowichan Lake Forest Co-operative and Pacheedaht First Nation.

Contemporary Discourses on Community Forest Agreements

The Potential of Community Forest Agreements

Community Forest Agreements create space for local interest and benefits, and sustainable management within the forest sector of so-called ‘British Columbia’ (Furness et al., 2015). Here are a few examples of ways which Community Forestry Agreements can work to benefit communities:

(i) Multi-stakeholder interaction can be a tool for relationship building at a local level

From their survey of 38 Community Forest Organizations (CFOs) in so-called ‘British Columbia’, Furness et al. (2015), found some indication of successful relationship building between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups through community forestry. While only 14 of the 38 surveyed CFOs were First Nations-led or in partnership with First Nations, 33 of the 38 organizations had Indigenous cultural values as a priority of their initiative. Below are some quotes from the Furness et al. (2015) survey responses:

“The community forest has created community interaction and friendship between us and white people”.
“[The community forest has developed] a really good relationship with local First Nations.”

Bullock and Hanna (2007) corroborate the opportunity for local relationship-building that community forestry presents. By requiring multi-stakeholder interaction in a community, the community forestry model encourages interaction among a diverse group of participants and creates space for collaboration.

(ii) Decentralization allows for diverse perspectives to be heard

This multi-stakeholder forum can make space for diverse knowledge systems and be inclusive of local-Indigenous knowledge systems, something which is largely absent at the provincial government level (Bullock and Hanna, 2007; Lawler and Bullock, 2017; Booth and Muir, 2013). Further, the space for public participation in decision making, afforded by the community forestry model, allows for community members to challenge status quo approaches to forest management (Bullock and Hanna, 2007; Furness et al., 2015).

Case Study 4: Wetzin’kwa Community Forest on Wet'suwet'en Territories

The Wetzin’kwa Community Forest located on Wet’suwet’en territories, is a 32,897 hectare community forest which was established under the CFA process in 2007 (WCFC, n.d.). The CFA tenure is held by the Town of Smithers and the Village of Telkwa, with participation and approval by the Office of the Wet’suwet’en. Although the Office of the Wet’suwet’en is not an official managerial partner in the CFA, all development decisions are set for their approval (Assuah et al., 2016).

Ongoing collaborations between the Town of Smithers, the Village of Telkwa, and the Wet’suwet’en First Nation have resulted in the incorporation of Wet’suwet’en knowledge and cultural values into the operational planning of the community forest (Assuah et al., 2016). While the Wet’suwet’en First Nation is not a manager of the forest within the CFA framework, there is one Board seat devoted to the Office of the Wet’suwet’en, and managerial decisions about harvest and road building go through the First Nation to ensure what Assuah et al. (2016) call “cultural sustainability” (238). This includes ensuring that medicinal and food plants and culturally important sites are protected, and that buffers around streams are adequate.

Looking out over the Wetzin'kwa Community Forest (Wetzin'kwa, 2016)

Learn more about the Wetzin’kwa Community Forest through this case study by Assuah et al. (2016) here

(ii) Environmental stewardship can be centered

In the survey conducted by Furness et al. (2015), they found that of 38 CFOS, two-thirds of them were established with the explicit purpose of environmental stewardship. Further, 37 of 38 CFOs maintained that environmental stewardship was a core priority of their organization. In their interviews with 18 First Nations experts and forestry professionals, Nikolakis and Nelson (2015) report that “environmental sustainability” is one of the central “long-term goals” of Indigenous forestry projects. Some interviewees would like to see a conservation-based approach to forestry take shape, where diverse forest values, apart from timber, are considered, such as carbon storage (Nikolakis and Nelson, 2015). Community forestry, which potentially allows for greater local decision making and centering of their community values of environmental stewardship, may provide a window of opportunity for these “long-term goals” to be realized.

The quote below is from a community engaged research project undertaken by Booth and Muir (2013) with the West Moberley and Saulteau First Nations, regarding the operational values of community members within the Little Prairie Community Forest joint venture. Booth and Muir (2013) conclude at the end of the project that the communities maintaining equal standing between cultural values, including protecting wildlife corridors, cultural sites, and ecosystems, and potential economic benefits, is of the utmost importance in forest management.

“The forest is important to me because it’s not just about First Nations’ Treaty Rights, it [is about] trying to protect the wildlife, the medicinal plants, the berries, and just the environment as a whole and if we don’t try to slow [industrial development] down, there’s going to be big impacts in the future and it is going affect our kids” (Saulteau First Nations Community Member from Booth and Muir, 2013)

Challenges with Community Forestry Agreements

While Community Forest Agreements have the potential to foster relationship building, create space for multiple knowledge systems, and center environmental stewardship, the reality of Community Forest Agreements can be much more challenging. Here are some of the challenges faced by communities engaged in this process:

(i) The power of communities is limited.

While there is the potential for local-relationship building between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups through community forestry initiatives, there is a desire beyond community forestry for the establishment of meaningful nation to nation relationships between First Nations and the Government of BC (Nikolakis and Nelson, 2015). Vernon (2007) argues that these nation to nation relationships can’t be fostered within BC’s current community forestry framework, because the framework does not make space for recognition of Indigenous land title. Entrenched in colonialism, the entire premise of the tenure system, including Community Forest Agreements, is dependent on Canada’s tenuous claim to land title. In both Furness et al.’s (2015) surveys with CFOs and Nikolakis and Nelson’s (2015) interviews with Indigenous forest experts, the central priority of forestry initiatives spearheaded by Indigenous communities was to gain some control over their territories and how natural resources are extracted from them.

In reality, as Ambus and Hoberg (2011) find in their policy analysis, the power of communities is extremely limited. Ambus and Hoberg (2011) find that the government does not go far enough to actually decentralize and devolve power to local communities. While communities retain the authority to make decisions with regards to botanical non-timber forest products, which are largely unregulated in so-called ‘British Columbia’, the final say with regards to timber harvesting remains in the hands of the BC Government. For example, within decisions of Annual Allowable Cut targets, communities can negotiate, but the government gets the final say. Ambus and Hoberg (2011) suggest that this indicates that community interests are not the “primary driver of management direction” within community forestry. Vernon (2007) argues that true decentralization of power within a community forestry framework would threaten to destabilize the BC Government’s control over and claimed title to the land.

(ii) An industrial agenda is hard to avoid.

Ambus and Hoberg (2011) further stipulate that the Community Forest Agreement, while intended to be an innovative solution to enhance community engagement in forestry, is in reality, a modified version of the previously existing Tree Farm License. As a result, community forestry legislation is entrenched in the traditions of industrial forestry (Ambus and Hoberg, 2011; Vernon, 2007). The inability of communities to determine their targeted Annual Allowable Cut and the requirements to work within the government’s regulatory bodies mean that the extraction of timber is potentially unavoidably centered in decision making, rather than any other priorities of the communities involved (Ambus and Hoberg, 2011; Vernon, 2007).

Vernon (2007) goes further to argue that as long as community forestry exists within a capitalist framework, where profitability is an ingrained requirement, a sustainable agenda cannot possibly be successful, and ecological degradation is inevitable. In their surveys of CFOs, Furness et al. (2015) heard that some community forests feel pressured to get their timber harvest out to market in order to prove themselves as economically viable to the government. This can hamper the CFOs ability to diversify into different forest sectors and make higher-cost, lower-impact harvesting methods less accessible (Vernon, 2007). This is reflected in that 30 of 38 community forests surveyed by Furness et al. (2015) relied exclusively on timber harvesting for profits.

(iii) Community forestry is not always economically viable.

In their surveys of 38 CFOs, Furness et al. (2015), found that the majority struggle to break even. While the BC Government has reduced the tax rates charged to community forests compared to the tax rate of commercial tenures, the community forest model still centers government revenue (Furness et al., 2015; Vernon, 2007). Due to their smaller scale and often lower-impact practices, community forest operations can be more cost-intensive and result in less timber-to-market than industrial forestry (Vernon, 2007). As a result, the system of government revenue can significantly eat into the financial benefits that a community may see from harvesting (Brown, 2005). Without financial benefits, the social benefits that community forestry initiatives are intended to bring to communities can be threatened altogether (Vernon, 2007; Nikolakis and Nelson, 2015).

Some questions to ponder: What do these challenges mean for community forestry in so-called 'British Columbia'? Is the current model really working to devolve power and provide lasting benefits to local communities? Is it really living up to the intended spirit of "community forestry"? How could this framework be re-imagined in ways which build meaningful nation-to-nation relationships?

Envisioning New Paths Forward in Community-Centered Forestry

Exploring New Approaches to Relationality

(i) From the BC Government: The BC Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

In November 2019, the BC government passed legislation to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into law (Government of BC, 2019). This legislation initiates a process to better align BC laws with the UN Declaration, in a spirit of reconciliation. In order to hold the government accountable and create a transparent process, it requires the development of an action plan and regular reporting to the Legislative Assembly. The legislation also sets the stage for relationships between Indigenous peoples and the BC government moving forward (Government of BC, 2019; United Nations, 2018).

Watch the video below, produced by the BC government, about the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was adopted in 2007 by the UN General Assembly (United Nations, 2018). The declaration is made up of 46 articles, some with multiple parts. While a number of the articles are relevant to the implementation of an Indigenous community-centered forestry system, Articles 29 and 32 speak in particular to environmental protection and resource extraction:

Article 29

  1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources. States shall establish and implement assistance programmes for indigenous peoples for such conservation and protection, without discrimination.
  2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.
  3. States shall also take effective measures to ensure, as needed, that programmes for monitoring, maintaining and restoring the health of indigenous peoples, as developed and implemented by the peoples affected by such materials, are duly implemented.

Article 32

  1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.
  2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.
  3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.

Read the entire UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples here

How can these articles be incorporated into Community Forestry Agreements? In the BC Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Forestry factsheet, which outlines some of the steps being taken to implement UNDRIP into the forestry sector, there is no mention of community forestry (Government of BC, n.d.). There is brief mention of an “Environmental Stewardship Initiative” and mention of further legislative reform to create mechanisms for joint and consent based decision making, which may allow for greater authority of Indigenous communities over forests. As we’ve seen, at present, the community forestry system in so-called ‘British Columbia’ does not go far enough to create space for Indigenous peoples to “determine and develop priorities and strategies” (United Nations, 2018; Vernon, 2007; Ambus and Hoberg, 2011). Within the current framework, Ambus and Hoberg (2011) say that Indigenous communities can “negotiate” the priorities of their community forest, but do not have outright authority to determine what these are.

Read the BC Government's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Forestry factsheet here

Implementing these articles may look like redressing the CFA program to make space for Indigenous rights and title, and allowing for local-community authority over decisions such as target annual allowable cuts (Caverley et al., 2019). Implementing these articles could also look like developing meaningful nation-to-nation relationships between Indigenous nations and the BC Government though forestry initiatives (Nikolakis and Nelson, 2015). This is reiterated in the recent BC Old Growth Strategic Review which calls for a “BC-Indigenous Government to Government Relationship” (Gorley and Merkel, 2020).

(ii) From Indigenous Perspectives: The Ethical Space and a Braiding Methodology

The Conservation through Reconciliation Partnership is a seven-year collaboration between the IISAAK OLAM Foundation, the Indigenous Leadership Initiative, and the University of Guelph, involving Indigenous leaders and experts, youth, Elders, conservation agencies, Indigenous Nations and non-Indigenous experts, in the “goal of supporting Indigenous-led conservation in Canada” (CRP, n.d.).

This project was informed by the methodology of "ethical space", and was developed by an Indigenous Circle of Experts, chaired by by Eli Enns (Tla-o-qui-aht) and Danika Littlechild (Ermineskin Cree Nation) (ICE, 2018). An “ethical space” is a place to come together in a way which respects all knowledge systems, with relationships founded and nurtured on multiple levels (Ermine, 2007; ICE, 2018). In this space, all knowledge systems are equal and knowledge systems do not have to corroborate one another to be valid. The “ethical space” is not a methodology for consultation; it is a methodology for conversation (ICE, 2018). This graphic illustrates what an ethical space can look like according to ICE (2018):

Illustration of an "Ethical Space" from the Indigenous Circle of Experts 2018 Report We Rise Together (ICE, 2018)

The methodology of “braiding” introduced by Robin Wall Kimmerer (Potawatomi) describes how one function of this “Ethical Space” may play out, with the metaphor of a three-stranded braid: scientific knowledge, Indigenous knowledge, and the knowledge of other-than-human worlds (Kimmerer, 2013). This braid allows for the inclusion of different knowledge systems into decision making, but respects the “sovereignty of [these] knowledge systems”, in that they can work together but cannot appropriate one another (Kimmerer et al., 2020). When Indigenous knowledge is not just on equal footing with western scientific knowledge, and is instead held up and considered a leader in conservation, policy centered on “kinship and reciprocity” can be established (Kimmerer, 2020).

For more information about "braiding" as a methodology, listen to Robin Wall Kimmerer describe this “braiding” methodology with the metaphor of the Three Sisters between 13:30-22:00 in this video here

Question: With your knowledge of how community forestry currently works in so-called ‘British Columbia’, what are some ways that these methodologies of an “Ethical Space” and “braiding” can be used to transform community-centered forestry initiatives (ICE, 2018; Kimmerer, 2013)?

Example Responses

  • Developing meaningful nation-to-nation relationships
  • Creating space for Indigenous knowledge and science in community forestry policy
  • Centering community forestry around forest stewardship rather than timber extraction
  • Restructuring forest governance possibilities to allow for the distinct governance models of local Indigenous Nations

A Potential Framework for Change: Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas

From the same project that developed the methodology of an “ethical space”, came the concept of Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs) (ICE, 2018). According to the Indigenous Circle of Experts report (2018), “We Rise Together”, an IPCA is:

“Lands and waters where Indigenous governments have the primary role in protecting and conserving ecosystems through Indigenous laws, governance and knowledge systems. Culture and language are the heart and soul of an IPCA.”

The report demands what Danika Littlechild (Ermineskin Cree Nation) calls “[transformative] system change” in order to center Indigenous rights and title in order to meet Canadian conservation targets (Littlechild, 2018). In addition to the development of new IPCAs, this requires that Canadians also take steps to “correct past wrongs and manage existing protected and conserved areas differently” (ICE, 2018, 32). It requires “true implementation of Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution” (which we considered earlier), according to the report (32). IPCA’s involve the following key factors (ICE, 2018, 40):

  1. Indigenous Leadership
  2. Long-term commitment to conservation
  3. Elevation of Indigenous rights and responsibilities

How does this IPCA model differ from the process demanded by a Community Forestry Agreement? A Discussion.

This model differs from the current community forestry model in that there is a requirement for Indigenous leadership and decision-making with regards to management, plans, governance structures, and objectives (ICE, 2018). In a CFA, there is no requirement for Indigenous involvement, although many CFAs involve local First Nations to some degree (Government of BC, 2018; Furness et al., 2015). Further, in a CFA, the parties managing the tenure do not have the final authority over management and decision-making (Ambus and Hoberg, 2011). In an IPCA model, Indigenous peoples take on the primary decision-making role (ICE, 2018).

The IPCA model also centers conservation and “multi-generational [stewardship]” (40), something which is largely absent from the legislation on CFAs by virtue of the focus on provincial government revenue through timber extraction (ICE, 2018). While CFA’s can remain in place for up to 99 years, allowing for some degree of multi-generational management, they are modeled too closely off of industrial forestry tenure to allow for the centering of conservation (Government of BC, 2020; Vernon, 2007).

By not requiring Indigenous leadership and truly devolving power over decision-making, the CFA model fails to align with the final objective of “[elevating] Indigenous rights and responsibilities” (ICE, 2018, 40). As Vernon (2007) argues, the CFA process is entrenched in racist and colonial policy which upholds the government’s claim to land, rather than truly devolving power to Indigenous communities (Ambus and Hoberg, 2011). Further, by not requiring Indigenous leadership involvement, the CFA process may further subjugate Indigenous title to land by granting decision-making power (albeit limited decision-making power) to other settler-colonial organizations (Ambus and Hoberg, 2011).

A major difference between the CFA model and the IPCA model is that of economy. While the CFA model depends on the industrial economy of primarily timber extraction, an IPCA model requires a primarily “conservation economy” (44) involving non-extractive activities such as tourism, carbon offsets, and recreation (Vernon, 2007; ICE, 2018). That’s not to say that ‘extraction’ cannot exist, in fact, the ICE (2018) report recommends zoning which allows for restricted access areas, areas for Indigenous use, shared use areas, and buffer areas where “light-tough development” and smaller scale resource extraction can exist (ICE, 2018, 46).

While the ICE (2018) report does not outline a prescriptive process for the development of IPCAs, it encourages the development of a flexible approach which can accommodate the diversity of needs, interests, governance, levels of protection, and partnerships requested by Indigenous Nations (ICE, 2018, 46). The framework set out in the ICE report provides an opportunity to reflect on the current state of community forestry in so-called ‘British Columbia’ and consider the potential for a new model to support Indigenous forest stewardship at the provincial level.

Read the entire ICE Report, Together We Rise, here

Case Study 5: Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks on Tla-o-qui-aht Territories

In 1984, in response to encroaching clear-cuts, the Ha’with (Tla-o-qui-aht Hereditary Chiefs) asserted that Wanachis-hilth-hoo-is (Meares Island) a Tribal Park, physically blocking logging company, Macmillan Bloedel from accessing the island (Murray and Burrows, 2018). In this declaration, the Tla-o-qui-aht insisted that all visitors “…adhere to the Laws of [their] Forefathers, which were always there” and declared their title over the land (Kuehls, 2002). This signaled the beginning of the Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Park system and was a pivotal event leading to the infamous “War in the Woods” over logging in Clayoquot Sound (Kuehls, 2002). The quote below comes from the Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks Alliance and gives some background as to why the Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks exist.

“The Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation lives by the principle of heshook-ish-tsawalk: Everything is one and all are interconnected. We acknowledge all humans as a fundamental part of our local ecology. To honour our reciprocal relationship with the land, we strive to engage all residents and visitors to Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks in our conservation economy. Stand with us and see Indigenous sovereignty reasserted, unbalanced relationships righted, and iisaak – respect for all living things – as a law of the land.” – Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks Alliance (2018)

Today, this tribal park system lies within the Clayoquot Sound UNESCO Biosphere Reserve on the west coast of so-called ‘Vancouver Island’ (ICE, 2018). Since 1984, the Tla-oqui-aht have developed an innovative Indigenous Water Governance system to manage the lands and waters of their territories (ICE, 2018). Three additional Tribal parks have been established since 1984, Ha`uukmin (Kennedy Lake Watershed), Tranquil Tribal Park and Esowista Tribal Park. The vision for these tribal parks is to create a “conservation economy” where there is a “balance of creation and consumption” (89), including sustainable economic opportunities and making space for watershed management and community development (ICE, 2018).

Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks Map showing the locations and extent of the four tribal parks, Wah-nah-jus-Hilth-hoo-is, Esowista, Tranquil, and Ha'uukmin (Lewis, 2013)

Watch the following videos to learn more about the Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks. In the first video, Joe Martin (Tla-o-qui-aht) shares some Tla-o-qui-aht teachings around harvesting trees and Elis Enns (Tla-o-qui-aht) explains the term "tribal park". In the second video, produced by Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks, features a number of Tla-o-qui-aht community members speaking about the Tribal Parks.

The Land Back Movement

In early 2020, Indigenous Youth for Wet’suwet’en peacefully occupied the steps of the BC Legislature for two weeks in solidarity with the Dinï ze' and Ts'akë ze' (Hereditary Chiefs of Wet’suwet’en), who were calling for the immediate stoppage of work on the Coastal Gas Link Project on Wet’suwet’en Yintah (land) (Wikler, 2020). These actions were accompanied by UVic student actions in solidarity with Indigenous Youth for Wet’suwet’en and the Dinï ze' and Ts'akë ze' (Korte, 2020; Fagan, 2020). This action was a part of the larger Land Back movement, which demands the return of the colonized lands, including those of so-called ‘Canada’ to Indigenous peoples (Longman et al., 2020).

Articles from the Martlet (UVic Student Newspaper) about Indigenous Youth for Wet'suwet'en Actions (Korte, 2020; Fagan, 2020)

Listen to Pam Palmater’s (Mi’kmaw) podcast episode where she interviews two Indigenous youth involved with Indigenous Youth for Wet’suwet’en actions to learn more here

In the Briarpatch Magazine Land Back Issue, editors Nickita Longman (George Gordon First Nation), Emily Riddle (nehiyaw), Alex Wilson (Opaskwayak Cree Nation), and Saima Desai (2020), discuss Land Back as the following:

“Land Back” is the demand to rightfully return colonized land – like that in so-called Canada – to Indigenous Peoples. But when we say “Land Back” we aren’t asking for just the ground, or for a piece of paper that allows us to tear up and pollute the earth. We want the system that is land to be alive so that it can perpetuate itself, and perpetuate us as an extension of itself. That’s what we want back: our place in keeping land alive and spiritually connected. (Longman et al., 2020)

This movement has been enacted across so-called ‘Canada’ through a variety of direct actions stretching from Wet’suwet’en Yintah (land) to Mi’kma’ki, and territories in between (King et al., 2019). These actions are motivated by “land theft” (8) of the Canadian government from Indigenous people through the imperatives of extraction, development, and capitalism (King et al., 2019). The Yellowhead Institute’s Red Paper, Land Back, spearheaded by Hayden King (Anishinaabe), Shiri Pasternak, and Riley Yesno (Anishinaabe), calls for the implementation of Indigenous models of free, prior, and informed consent (King et al., 2019). These models resist assimilatory Canadian government policies and instead “breathe life into jurisdiction and consent-based relationships” (60) which allow Indigenous peoples to have decision-making power over management of their lands.

Watch a summary of the Yellowhead Institute launch of their Red Paper, Land Back event at Ryerson University below

The ongoing Land Back movement is an opportunity for the BC government to own up to its responsibilities to Indigenous Peoples, laid out clearly in treaty, case law, and the BC Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and engage in nation-to-nation dialogue within the forestry sector, moving towards meaningful government to government relationships. In order for community forestry to exist in a meaningful way in so-called ‘British Columbia’ radical reform which truly devolves power, centers environmental stewardship, and recognizes the rights and title of Indigenous peoples, is necessary (Vernon, 2007). Models of Indigenous free, prior, and informed consent, outlined by King et al. (2019), and practiced by Indigenous-led direct actions across the country, potentially provide additional frameworks for how this system can be transformed to truly center Indigenous communities in approaches to community forestry.

Author Self-Location

Ellie McLeod (she/her) is a settler of Scottish, French, and English ancestry. She grew up on unceded Sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish), Stó:lō and Səl̓ílwətaʔ/Selilwitulh (Tsleil-Waututh) and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam) territories in so-called 'Vancouver' and on unceded Lək̓ʷəŋən (Lekwungen) territories in so-called 'Victoria'. She is a fifth year student in Environmental Geoscience and Indigenous Studies at the University of Victoria on unceded Lək̓ʷəŋən and WSÁNEĆ territories.

Works cited can be found here