Indigenous Peoples' Expectations for Forestry in New Brunswick: Are Rights Enough?

Abstract

This article considers how competing interpretations of rights upon forestland affect indigenous peoples' ability to derive benefits from forests, using interviews and an evaluation exercise in 13 First Nations communities in New Brunswick, Canada.We asked first what First Nations expect from provincial forest governance arrangements, and second, what is preventing them from attaining their expectations? Informants attached greatest importance to rights and environmental protection, but tangible outcomes fall far short of expectations. Economic benefits are promoted by the government, but are least important for informants and results are mediocre. Undertaking an access analysis, we observe that governance arrangements do not deliver the benefits sought by First Nations, that control mechanisms provide limited participation in governance, and that power remains firmly with government and private industry. We conclude that rights alone do not enable First Nations to access benefits and that governance arrangements do not provide certainty for sustainable management.

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

“…On a more practical level, the combination of Canada's jurisdictional framework and ineffective forest policy regimes has resulted in "command-and-control" forms of top-down forest governance, which are often rejected by Indigenous communities and regarded as inappropriate and counter-productive for learning and developing agreements (Greskiw andInnes 2008, p. 1941). Indigenous community representatives often have little formal training in forest management, which results in even greater power imbalances in resource governance and, ultimately, a diminished ability to derive meaningful community benefits from development (Wyatt et al 2015). To compound this issue, limitations imposed on First Nations governance structures by the Indian Act make it difficult to develop the appropriate institutional structures necessary to counteract these imbalances (Nikolakis and Nelson 2015).…”

“…Similarly, in a review of the John Prince Research Forest, Sherry (2005) Nations communities' process needs, including incorporation of way of life, values, beliefs, land ethics and knowledge systems. Likewise, in a study of 13 New Brunswick First Nations, Wyatt et al (2015) found that current forest management frameworks are largely failing to meet community expectations for deriving forestry-related benefits. Where this ultimately becomes an issue is when communities feel that their ability to meet their needs is becoming restricted, they may opt for more short-term benefits and adopt practices that are unsustainable in the long-term (Natcher et al 2004).…”

“…Citing C&I developed in partnership with the Tl'azt' en First Nation in British Columbia, Karjala and Dewhurst (2003) note that community-based indicators exclude some conventional elements, such as evaluating success through measuring timber yields. Similarly, Wyatt et al (2015) note that in many cases, success in forest management is reported in economic benefits, even though those aspects may be of only relatively minor importance to the communities directly affected by forest management practices. Indeed, through their with work with the Essipit Innu First Nation, Beaudoin et al (2016) illustrate that social and cultural benefits are often viewed by Indigenous communities as being equally important to economic outcomes, leading to the conclusion that "forestry is not the finality" (p. 517), but rather a means of achieving more important objectives, such as fostering respectful relationships between humans and the forest.…”

“…Ultimately, failure to provide opportunities for Indigenous communities to derive satisfactory outcomes may result in the pursuit of more adversarial approaches to inclusion in resource-based decision-making (Wyatt et al 2015). Processes that respect and incorporate Indigenous values and perspectives into forest management however, have the ability to not only improve the quality of current management practices (Wyatt et al 2011a) but to develop innovative new practices that are more acceptable to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous forest users who often share many of the same goals (Jacqmain et al 2012).…”

Participatory processes for public lands: Do provinces practice what they preach?

“…Forests are important for all citizens of both provinces; however, we focus on those participatory processes that are not specifically designed to address the Crown's obligation to consult First Nations. In NB and NS, First Nations' rights over the land were established in formal treaties with the British Crown in the early 18th century, and the Supreme Court of Canada has supported timber rights for First Nations in two cases (Wyatt et al 2015). Regarding general public involvement, numerous published reports have called for more robust, inclusive, and institutionalized public participatory processes (NBDNR 2004, 2005a,b, Select Committee on Wood Supply 2004, Nadeau et al 2007, NSDNR 2011, 2013b.…”