Stephen Wyatt

First Nations, forest lands, and “aboriginal forestry” in Canada: from exclusion to comanagement and beyond

The term “aboriginal forestry” is used increasingly to describe the evolving role of First Nations peoples in Canadian forestry over the last 30 years. This paper reviews a diversity of experiences and identifies issues that have important implications for governments, forest planners, and First Nations: a forestry regime that reflects the interests of governments and industry rather than those of First Nations; variable implementation of aboriginal rights in forestry practice; benefits and problems of economic partnerships; limitations on consultation, traditional knowledge, and comanagement in forestry; and finally, different forestry paradigms. Among these experiences and issues, we recognise different visions for the participation of First Nations peoples in Canadian forestry. At one end of the spectrum, “forestry excluding First Nations” is no longer accepted. The most common form may be “forestry by First Nations,” representing a role for First Nations within existing forestry regimes. Other options...

Collaboration between Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian forest sector: a typology of arrangements for establishing control and determining benefits of forestlands.

Over the last thirty years, Aboriginal peoples, forestry companies and governments in Canada have developed a wide variety of arrangements and mechanisms aimed at fostering collaboration and establishing an increasing Aboriginal role in managing and harvesting forestlands. This paper seeks to facilitate the analysis and investigation of various forms of collaboration by presenting a typology based upon institutional arrangements and desired outcomes. Development of the typology followed an iterative process of categorisation, description, testing and revision, using scientific and grey literature combined with testing against an ever-widening number of communities; firstly in Quebec, then in six provinces and finally with 474 communities across the country. We identify five principal forms of collaborative arrangement, each with a number of sub-types: treaties and other formal agreements that establish roles and responsibilities; planning and management activities; influence on decision-making; forest tenures; and economic roles. The application and utility of this typology is illustrated through the examples of four communities, each of which is engaged in several different collaborative arrangements. The typology demonstrates the variety of arrangements that are available to encourage Aboriginal involvement in Canadas forest sector while also provided a basis for future work in comparing the benefits of different arrangements or in analysing the effectiveness of policies.

An inventory of collaborative arrangements between Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian forest sector: Linking policies to diversification in forms of engagement

This paper examines collaborative arrangements between Aboriginal peoples and the forest sector across Canada. Using a broad definition of collaboration, we identified 1378 arrangements in 474 Aboriginal communities in all Canadian provinces and territories, except Nunavut. We categorize these collaborative arrangements into five broad types: treaties and other formal agreements; planning and management activities; influence on decision-making; forest tenures; and economic roles and partnerships. Consistent data was available for only the first three types, which showed that close to 60% of Aboriginal communities use each approach. However, this masks significant differences between provinces. For example, economic roles and partnerships are in place in all New Brunswick communities and 74% of communities in British Columbia, but only 12% of Manitoban communities. The proportion of communities that have been involved in participatory processes in forest decision-making (such as advisory committees and consultation processes) is particularly high in Quebec with 88% of communities, but only 32% of communities hold forest tenures. We also find that three-quarters of all communities choose to engage in two or more approaches, despite the demands that this can place upon the time and energy of community members. We finally consider how policy environments in different jurisdictions affect the frequency of certain types of collaboration. This empirical study, and the typology that it demonstrates, can inform policy development for Aboriginal involvement in Canadian forestry and help guide future research into broader issues of collaborative governance of natural resources.

Certifying Small-Scale Private Forests in Eastern Canada: What Does It Take to Make It Happen?

Certification is increasingly important in Canada as a tool for promoting, monitoring, and rewarding sustainable forest management. However, success in certifying large public or industry-owned forests has not been matched by small-scale private forests, which nevertheless provide an important range of social, economic, and environmental benefits. In this exploratory research, we examine the presence and absence of certification systems in three adjoining regions of New Brunswick and Quebec, Canada, reviewing documents and interviewing woodlot owners and representatives of their organizations and the timber industry to identify factors contributing to the success or absence of certification. Industry demand, the role of organizations, and owner interest were highlighted as key factors in certification. However, there is also uncertainty around both the effectiveness of certification in achieving its goals and instability in the woodlot sector. We conclude with a series of questions to guide further research in this field.

How to wreck your own presentation: Twelve tips to confuse an audience

Increasingly, professional foresters are expected to participate in communication and consultation processes to present specialised knowledge to non-foresters. However, forest management is increasingly complex; forestry is too important to be left in the hands of those who do not understand its intricacies. In this tongue-in-cheek paper, we provide professional foresters with twelve easy-to-use tips to ensure that presentations to non-foresters remain hermetic, confuse the public and preserve the exclusivity of our professional competence. Forging an unclear message, finding a bad title, and failing to adjust to listeners are just the first steps to success in boring an audience. Over-confidence in technical gadgets and an over-powering use of presentation backgrounds, fonts, and special effects will add to the confusion. Furthermore, efforts should be made to conceal the key message by hiding the big picture, maximizing the quantity of information, and using slides that no one will remember. Jargon is highly effective and should be used wherever possible. The speaker should treat the audience as an amorphous crowd, avoiding contact with individuals and dodging questions. We finally suggest using the last slide as an ultimate weapon to ensure that everyone leaves the room more confused than when they arrived. We hope that these simple tips will help professional foresters across Canada to make the most of opportunities for presentations, thereby reinforcing the correct role of the public in forestry.