Aboriginal people and forestry companies in Canada: possibilities and pitfalls of an informal ‘social licence’ in a contested environment: Table 1

Governance as a driver of change in the Canadian boreal zone1

“…Comanagement (where Indigenous communities share authority and responsibility with the Crown or private sector) and selfgovernment (where communities are responsible for governing their lands with a high degree of decision-making about land use) agreements are argued to be more progressive forms of relationships between Indigenous peoples and the Crown (Campbell 1996;Curran and M'Gonigle 1999;Rynard 2000;Armitage et al 2007). Comanagement agreements are more inclusive and based on negotiation rather than litigation; however, the authority to assign decision-making power is still typically retained by the provincial and federal governments (Campbell 1996;Penikett 2012;Wyatt 2016). For example, the Essipit Nation of northern Quebec have an mutually beneficial agreement with a forestry corporation, but they are still "at arm's length" (Beaudoin et al 2015, p. 292) in decision-making, as they participate only through meetings, pub-lic hearings, and conversations (Beaudoin et al 2015).…”

“…For example, the Essipit Nation of northern Quebec have an mutually beneficial agreement with a forestry corporation, but they are still "at arm's length" (Beaudoin et al 2015, p. 292) in decision-making, as they participate only through meetings, pub-lic hearings, and conversations (Beaudoin et al 2015). Furthermore, comanagement agreements are not always beneficial for ecosystem services as agreements made with the private sector can be unfair and lead to unsustainable practices, and ecosystem management ideals may conflict with Indigenous values, where some communities believe they are part of the landscape and do not possess the power to manage it (Campbell 1996;Stevenson 1998;Parsons and Prest 2003;Stevenson 2006;Wyatt 2016).…”

“…Indigenous peoples consider themselves a nation, and so may prefer nation-to-nation agreements. Often agreements between natural resource corporations result in unfair relationships with Indigenous communities, due to the economic position of many Indigenous communities, placing ecosystem services further at risk, and leaving communities open to further economic decline (Wyatt 2016). These same relationships also pose the risk of degradation of Indigenous cultures (Campbell 1996;Ernstson and Sörlin 2013;Passelac-Ross and Smith 2013).…”

Framing Indigenous Bioenergy Partnerships

“…Non-renewable energy development in Canada has produced a variety of different types of participation, ranging from direct conflict between communities and companies (i.e., within meetings and through protests) to participation in energy development consultation through impact benefit agreements (IBAs) and environmental assessments (EAs) (Bagelman, 2016;Laurin & Jamieson, 2015). Companies may obtain social licence to operate (SLO) when communities participate through such processes, but this does not predetermine legal consent to the development (Laurin & Jamieson, 2015;Wyatt, 2016). SLO processes can be highly variable for what they deliver in terms of effectiveness and equity to Indigenous communities that are potential future partners with industry (Wyatt, 2016).…”

“…Companies may obtain social licence to operate (SLO) when communities participate through such processes, but this does not predetermine legal consent to the development (Laurin & Jamieson, 2015;Wyatt, 2016). SLO processes can be highly variable for what they deliver in terms of effectiveness and equity to Indigenous communities that are potential future partners with industry (Wyatt, 2016). SLO processes are especially vulnerable to limited capacity and transparency, as well as the legal frameworks that dictate development (e.g., forest harvesting; Wyatt, 2016).…”