THE OPPORTUNITES AND LIMITATIONS OF FIRST NATIONS FORESTRY
AGREEMENTS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA: COLLECTIVE EXPERIENCE OF THE
TL’AZT’EN NATION & THE FUTURE NEED FOR COMMUNITY-BASED
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT & DECISION-MAKING

by

Som Bahadur Pun, RPF
I.Ed., Prithwi Narayan College, Pokhara, Nepal, 1988
Diploma in Forest Technology, NWCC, Terrace, BC, 1999
B.Sc., University o f Northern British Columbia, 2004

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIRMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER
IN
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
December 2014

© Som B. Pun, 2014

UMI Number: 1526517

All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

Di!ss0?t&iori P iiblist’Mlg

UMI 1526517
Published by ProQuest LLC 2015. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Abstract
Since industrial clear-cut logging practice was introduced, First Nations people in
British Columbia were mostly excluded from participation in the forestry sector and
resource-based economic opportunities. In response to several Court rulings, the Provincial
government introduced the Forestry Revitalization Act in 2003 and has negotiated several
forestry agreements with First Nations communities. As of April 2012,172 First Nations
communities across British Columbia, including the Tl’azt’en Nation have participated in
certain aspects o f these initiatives. However, to what extent First Nations communities such
as the Tl’azt’en Nation have been able to meaningfully participate in the forestry sector
through this new government initiative needs to be explored.
This research study was conducted within the traditional territory of the Tl’azt’en
Nation over the periods o f 2011 and 2013. The qualitative semi-structured interviews were
conducted between July 26 and August 10,2012 involving both the Tl’azt’en and nonTl’azt’en community members. The community consent and research agreement documents
were obtained from the Tl’azt’en Nation prior to conducting the research study. This
research study examines whether or not the Tl’azt’en Nation was able to achieve their
intended socio-economic goals through the recent forestry agreements, particularly since the
signing of the short-term Interim Forest and Range Opportunities Agreement in 2008.
My research demonstrates that while the community was able to obtain limited
economic benefits from the recent forestry negotiations such as the Forest and Range
Opportunities Agreement, the overall intended socio-economic objectives o f the community
were never fully realized due to a combination o f several factors. By focusing on the unique
needs and circumstances of the Tl’azt’en Nation, this thesis highlights the need for future
community-based resource management and decision-making within the traditional territory
of the Tl’azt’en Nation. This study advocates that the recognition of First Nations as an
equal partner with shared decision-making abilities must be realized in order to achieve
future success. This should be attained through devolution of centralized approaches to the
resource management and decision-making processes currently in place.

Table of Contents

Abstract....................................................

ii

Table o f Contents.......................................................................................................................iii
List of Tables & Figures............................................................................................................ ix
List of Figures............................................................................................................................ ix
Glossary........................................................................................................................................ x
Acknowledgement.....................................................................................................................xii
Chapter 1. Introduction............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................1
1.2. Research Motivation.........................................................................................................7
1.3. Research Goals and Rationale.........................................................................................8
1.4. Research Questions........................................................................................................ 10
1.5. Thesis Outline................................................................................................................. 10
Chapter 2. Literature and Policy Review................................................................................ 13
2.1. Introduction.................................................................................................................... 13
2.2. Literature Review........................................................................................................... 13
2.2.1. Historical Context and Aboriginal Self-Determination....................................... 13
2.2.2. The Impacts o f Post-Colonial Industrial Forestry on Aboriginal Peoples in BC
..............................................................................................................................................15

iii

2.2.3. The Inclusion of First Nations in the Forestry Sector...........................................19
2.2.4. Aboriginal Land Ethics & Subsistence-based Resource U ses............................ 21
2.2.5. The Conflicting Issues between Indigenous Values & Forestry Values.............23
2.2.6. The Importance of Community Capacity Building............................................. 25
2.2.7. The Concept o f Community Forestry: BC and International Perspectives........ 28
2.2.7.1 British Columbia Perspective..............................................................................28
2.2.12 International Perspective: The Nepalese Example..................................................34
2.3. British Columbia Forest Policy Documents Review.............................................. 37
2.3.1. Forest Tenure and Governance.............................................................................. 37
2.3.2. The Aboriginal Forest Tenure and Governance....................................................38
2.3.3. The Legal Frameworks: Aboriginal Rights & Title............................................. 42
2.3.4. First Nations Consultations and Forest Policy Guidelines..................................46
2.3.5. The New Relationship and Strategic Policy Approach to Accommodation

51

2.3.6. The Interim FROs Agreement and the Tl’azt’en Nation Engagement...............52
2.4. Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 53
Chapter 3. Methodology and Methods.................................................................................... 57
3.1. Introduction.................................................................................................................... 57
3.2. Methodology................................................................................................................... 58
3.3. M ethods...........................................................................................................................59
3.3.1. Primary Field Data Collection.............................................................................60

3.3.1.1. Semi-Structured Interviews..................................................................................61
3.3.1.2. Observations and Field Notes...............................................................................70
3.3.2. Secondary Data U se................................................................................................ 72
3.4. Data Analysis.................................................................................................................. 73
3.4.1. Manifest Content Analysis..................................................................................... 76
3.4.2. Latent Content Analysis..........................................................................................77
3.5. The Research Data Rigours and Credibility................................................................ 79
3.6. Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 82
Chapter 4. Tl’azt’en Nation Context........................................................................................83
4.1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................83

4.2. The General Overview of the Research Study Area....................................................83
4.3. The Traditional Territory of the Tl’azt’en Nation....................................................... 85
4.4. The Community Profile and Socio-economic Status..................................................90
4.5. Resource Development and Tl’azt’en Nation’s Involvement.................................... 92
4.6. Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 97
Chapter 5. Results o f Research Analysis................................................................................ 99
5.1. Introduction.................................................................................................................... 99
5.2. Tl’azt’en Nation FRO Agreement and Resource Allocation.................................... 101
5.2.1 The Tl’azt’en Nation FRO Agreement.................................................................101
5.2.2 Resource Allocation............................................................................................... 105

5.3. The Key Barriers for Tl’azt’en Nation Meaningful Engagement in Forestry
Sector.................................................................................................................................... 107
5.3.1 Forest Policy and Decision-making...................................................................... 107
5.3.2 First Nations Consultation and Referral Process.................................................111
5.3.3 Community Capacity Building............................................................................. 120
5.3.4 External and Internal Relationship Building........................................................ 123
5.3.5 Resource Development Strategies and Cumulative Impacts..............................128
5.3.6 Community-based Approaches and Self-determination..................................... 135
5.4 The Roles & Responsibilities of the Government, Industry, & Tl’azt’en N ation... 138
5.4.1 The Roles & Responsibilities o f the Government and Forest Industry.............138
5.4.2 The Roles & Responsibilities o f the Tl’azt’en Nation........................................ 142
5.5. First Nations Forest Tenure Alternatives.................................................................144
5.6 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 147
Chapter 6. Discussion: Research Results, and Practical & Theoretical Concepts

150

6.1. Introduction.................................................................................................................150
6.2. Legacy of Colonialism and Post-colonial Forest Policy in B C ................................ 151
6.3. First Nations Forestry Opportunities and Barriers.................................................... 157
6.4. Tl’azt’en Nations’ Approach to Resource Management & Socio-economic
Objectives.............................................................................................................................158
6.5. Need for Future Community-based Resource Management & Decision-making.. 163
6.5.1 Tl’azt’en Nation’s Desire for Community Forestry & Future Considerations. 165
vi

6.5.2 The Concept & Realistic Approach to Community-based Forest Management
168
6.6. Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 169
Chapter 7. Conclusion.............................................................................................................172
7.1. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 172
7.2. Answers to the Research Questions............................................................................ 178
7.3. Lessons Learned........................................................................................................... 181
7.4. Policy Recommendations............................................................................................ 184
7.5 Future Research Directions........................................................................................ 189
References................................................................................................................................193
Appendix A: Community Research Agreement............................................................... 208
Appendix B: TPazt’en Nation Chief and Council Resolution........................................ 214
Appendix C: TPazt’en Nation Information Sheet & Informed ConsentF orm ...............215
Appendix D: TPazt’en Nation Guidelines for Research in TPazt’enNationTerritory 219
Appendix E l : UNBC Research Ethics Approval (2011).................................................222
Appendix E2: UNBC Research Ethics Approval (2012).................................................223
Appendix F: Interview Consent Form............................................................................... 224
Appendix G: Research Interview Guide............................................................................ 226
Appendix H: Manifest Content Analysis Results: List of Selected Words/Word-Pairs232
Appendix I: Latent Content Analysis: Concept M apping................................................237

Appendix J: Latent Content Analysis Results: Concept Mapping Selected Themes.... 241
Appendix K: Handout Interview Questionnaire Results..................................................249

List of Tables & Figures
List of Tables

Table 1: The List of Selected Community Research Participants......................................... 63
Table 2: Registered Population of the Tl'azt'en Nation..........................................................91
Table 3: Total Harvested Areas within Fort St. James Forest District (1960 - 2012)......... 94
Table 4: The Links between Research Questions and Latent Content Analysis Themes. 100
Table 5: The Links between Key Theoretical Concepts & Latent Content Analysis Themes
...................................................................................................................................................150

List of Figures

Figure 1: Research Study Area Location M ap

................................................................... 3

Figure 2: Considerations for Levels of First Nations Consultation D iagram ...................... 49
Figure 3: The Tl’azt’en Nation Traditional Territory Boundary M ap.................................88
Figure 4: The Map o f Tl’azt’en Nation Management Control (CFA K4B and JPR F)...... 89
Figure 5: Fort St. James Forest District Licensee Operating Areas Map.............................93
Figure 6: Harvesting Trends in Fort St. James Forest District (1960-2012)........................ 95
Figure 7: Harvested Areas by Decades in Fort St. James Forest District (1960 - 2012).. 129
Figure 8: Prince George TSA Timber Supply Forecast (Past and Future).........................131

Glossary
AAC

Allowable Annual Cut

AANDC

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada

ABCFP

Association o f British Columbia Forest Professional

BC

British Columbia

BCTS

British Columbia Timber Sales

C&C

Chief and Council

CFA

Community Forest Agreement

CFAC

Community Forest Advisory Committee

CFPA

Community Forest Pilot Agreement

CFUGs

Community Forest User Groups

CMTs

Culturally Modified Trees

CORE

Commission on Resource Environment

CSTC

Carrier Sekani Tribal Council

DIA

Department of Indian Act

FCRSA

First Nations’ Community Revenue Sharing Agreement

FL

Forest License

FLtc

Forest License to Cut

FNWL

First Nations’ Woodland License

FPC

Forest Practices Code

FRAs

Forest and Range Agreements

FRBC

Forest Renewal British Columbia

FROs

Forest and Range Opportunities Agreements

FRP

Forest Revitalization Plan

FRPA

Forest and Range Practice Act

FSP

Forest Stewardship Plan

FTOA

Forest Tenure Opportunity Agreement

GIS

Geographic Information System

JPRF

John Prince Research Forests

LUP

Land Use Plan

LRMP

Land and Resource Management Plan

MARR

Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation

MFLNRO

Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

MFML

Ministry of Forests, Mines, and Land

MFR

Ministry of Forests and Range

MPB

Mountain Pine Beetle

NAFA

National Aboriginal Forest Association

NDP

New Democratic Party

NRFLs

Non Replaceable Forest Licences

NWCC

Northwest Community College

RCAP

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples

RFT

Registered Forest Technologists

RPF

Registered Professional Forester

TFL

Tree Farm License

TFNF

Task Force on Native Forests

TSA

Timber Supply Area

TSL

Timber Sale License

TSR

Timber Supply Review

UBCIC

Union o f British Columbia Indian Chiefs Council

UBC

University o f British Columbia

UBCIC

Union of BC Indian Chief

UNBC

University of Northern British Columbia

WL

Woodlot Licence

Acknowledgement
This study is inspired by Tl’azt’en Nation’s long struggle and aspirations for the
achievement of an improved socio-economic condition while protecting their community
interests. This study was possible because o f the genuine willingness, supports, and
directions of the many Elders, Keyoh holders, community leaders, natural resource staff,
and resource professionals. I would like to thank you for your generosity, friendship, and
specifically giving me the permission to conduct my research within the traditional
territory o f the Tl’azt’en Nation. Special thanks to those who agreed to participate in my
research despite your busy work schedules and other responsibilities. Your collective
views, opinions, and open and thoughtful interactions are the foundation of this study and I
hope I have interpreted them in a meaningful and justifiable manner.
From the bottom o f my heart, I like to thank my committee members, Dr Greg
Halseth, Dr Catherine Nolin, and Dr Antonia Mills for your invaluable support and
guidance. Your thoughtful comments, suggestions, and critiques helped me grow both
academically and personally. I am deeply thankful to my supervisor, Dr Greg Halseth for
your personal dedication, encouragement, and more importantly believing in me that I am
capable o f pursuing graduate study. Along the way I was challenged with many
unexpected circumstances and this thesis work would not have been completed without
your genuine support, understanding, and clear directions. With great respect and
recognition, I am very honoured to have each o f you on my committee. Your personal
commitments, dedications, and valuable contributions towards the completion of this
research study will never be forgotten.
I also want to thank my family and many good friends in Canada and abroad for
their moral support and encouragement. In particular, I am indebted to my parents who
not only brought me to this world, but also taught me a valuable lesson that nothing is
impossible in life. Despite being illiterate and financially challenged, my parents,
particularly my mother, always encouraged me to pursue education. Without their moral
support, I would not be here where I am today. Unfortunately, I lost my father during the
process o f this research study. His loss will never be replaced, but I know that my father
as well as my late grandmother are always watching over my shoulders and giving me the
guidance I need to be a successful person. I am very much grateful to my three children:
Sunita Pun, Hira Pun and Callum Pun who have taught me many lessons to be a caring and
responsible father. I know that my commitment to this thesis has kept me away from all of
you since I embarked on this journey in 2011 and I appreciate your patience and
understanding.
Finally, I want to thank the Provincial government o f British Columbia for
providing me a partial funding source to support my study. Many thanks to Brooke
Boswell, Beverly John, and Vanessa Joseph for your valuable assistance which helped me
organize my field data collection and research analysis. Many thanks also to Brian
Macdonald, Ian Niblett, and Andy Fraser from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural
Resources Operations for their valuable support in GIS mapping.

Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Historically, First Nations1people are the traditional occupants o f the forest lands and
eighty percent o f First Nations communities are situated within the commercially productive
forest regions in Canada (Curren & M’Gonigle, 1999; National Aboriginal Forestry Association
(NAFA), 2003). Despite their long history o f land occupancy, forest lands were managed and
controlled by industry and the government through the successive evolution o f the colonial
concept of forest policymaking and Crown ownership, and First Nations were either ignored or
excluded from participation in forest management and decision-making (Wyatt, 2008; Hoberg &
Morawski, 2008). The trend continues, the only exception being that the importance o f First
Nations consultation and a level of their participation in the forestry sector is recently being
recognized by both government and the forest industry. This is primarily due to several court
decisions affirming constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights and title, forcing the province to
more closely consult and find workable accommodations with First Nations whose traditional
lands have been altered by industrial logging activities (Parfitt, 2007).
Despite some favourable court rulings, however, First Nations do not have exclusive
rights to manage land and resources within their traditional territories because the court had
previously failed to determine the actual existence of Aboriginal title on any particular area or
parcel o f land (Dacks, 2002). The recent Supreme Court o f Canada decision in the Tsilhqot’in
case (2014) has augmented this because the court has declared Aboriginal title to some of the

1A term used since the 1970s to replace the word “Indian,” which was offensive to some people. Despite the
common use of the term there is no legal definition for the term “First Nations” whereas the term “Indian” is
recognized as Aboriginal people under Section 35 o f the Constitution Act (Aboriginal Affairs & Northern
Development Canada).

1

Tsilhqot’in land and resources and also emphasized that Aboriginal claims are not restricted to
only site specific locations as previously assumed. While the Provincial government of British
Columbia (BC) acknowledges this court decision, the certainty around how the Provincial forest
management regulations such as the Forest Act will apply to land covered by Aboriginal title as
well as the Provincial government’s rights and responsibilities regarding land title issues in BC
have yet to be determined. The future implications o f this milestone court decision could extend
beyond the traditional territories o f the Tsilhqot’in First Nations. Until then, ownership of the
lands and forest management in BC, including the traditional territory o f the Tl’azt’en Nation,
comes under provincial regulation while all Aboriginal rights are under exclusive federal
authority (Ministry of Aboriginal Relations & Reconciliation (MARR - Internet Access,
February 06), 2013). As such, how Aboriginal people2 may use their traditional lands is
determined through both Federal and Provincial legislation (Curran & M’Gonigle, 1999).
This research study was conducted within the traditional territory o f the Tl’azt’en3
Nation in northern interior BC located approximately 65 kilometers northwest of Fort St. James
and 220 kilometers northwest o f Prince George, British Columbia (Figure 1). This research was
carried out in partnership with Tl’azt’enne4 involving a diverse group of research participants
from various communities including both Aboriginal and non-aboriginal representatives, from

2 In Canada, three distinctively different groups: Indians, Metis, and Inuit are recognized by the Canadian
Constitution as Aboriginal peoples who are the decedents of the original inhabitants o f North America (AANDC).
3 The word T l’azt’en means “People at the Edge o f the Bay” in the Dakelh language.
4 The people o f the T l’azt’en Nation identify themselves as Tl’azt’enne in their Dakelh language.

2

T t a z t e n N ation
L ocation M ap
L egend
T raz te n
Nation
Distnct
Lakes
Rivers
(

City
M unicipality
Railw ay
Roads
Pnnce
George
to
Tl'azt'en
Nation

Provincial O verview

Fort S t

istnct

1:2 ,500.000
PI a z t'e n > N a tio n

st District

y a n d e rh o o f f o r e s t District

W hm w*

Source: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (September, 2014)
Figure 1: Research Study Area Location Map

3

both genders from varying socio-economic status, including community leadership and
professional backgrounds.
In their pursuit of improved socio-economic conditions, the TPazt’en Nation has
engaged in commercial forestry for nearly four decades, and has encountered many challenging
issues due to various external and internal factors including the rigid government forest policy
frameworks and decision-making practices, the lack of adequate resource allocation, a fair share
of revenue sharing opportunities, meaningful First Nation consultation, internal and external
relationship building, and community preparedness and capacity building. Despite their long
efforts, the socio-economic status o f the TPazt’en Nation remains unchanged and the
community is challenged with an unemployment rate as high as 85%. Concerned with a rapid
depletion of resources within their traditional territory and frustrated with the lack o f progress
towards socio-economic development in the community, the TPazt’en Nation continues to assert
their interests in the forestry sector through negotiating access to timber rights and short-term
revenue sharing opportunities with the Provincial government.
In light o f the “New Relationship”5 agreement document initiated by the government in
2005, the TPazt’en Nation signed the Interim Forest and Range Opportunities (FRO) agreement
in 2008 (The TPazt’en Nation FRO Agreement, 2008). With this agreement, the TPazt’en
Nation expected not only short-term economic benefits, but also recognition and reconciliation
of long-term community interests based on respect and appropriate accommodations of
Aboriginal rights and title. In addition, the TPazt’en Nation also envisioned the establishment o f
a more meaningful govemment-to-govemment relationship with the Provincial government (The

5 In light o f several court rulings favouring Aboriginal rights and title, a new relationship agreement was negotiated
between the BC Provincial governments, the Union o f BC Indian Chiefs, the First Nations Summit and the BC
Regional Assembly of First Nations in 2005 (See further details in sections 2.3.4 & 2.3.5).

4

New Relationship Document, 2005). The TFazt’en Nation however is dissatisfied with the
progress being made on these matters. Progress is hindered by the conflicting visions and
objectives of the Tl’a zf en Nation and the Provincial government. While short-term economic
benefits through resource extraction appears to be the focus of the government and forest
industry, the conservation of long-term community values and future sustainability remains the
ultimate goal of the Tl’azt’en Nation.
Although not happy with the compromises they have had to make, the long history of
their engagement in the forestry sector suggests that the Tl’azt’en Nation does not necessarily
oppose resource-based economic development activities. However, the primary goal o f the
TPazt’en Nation has always been to re-assert and defend their Aboriginal interests within their
ancestral land while pursuing economic opportunities to supplement their subsistence-based
local economy. One of the most important concerns o f the Tl’azt’en Nation is the protection of
their traditional culture, local environment, and livelihood values which are increasingly under
threat due to extensive resource extraction activities such as clear cut logging. My study
demonstrates that the previously developed forest policy approaches and recently implemented
government strategies through various forestry agreements have not worked favourably for the
Tl’azt’en Nation. As such, there is a need for the establishment o f community-based strategies
that address the unique needs and circumstances of the Tl’azt’en Nation, as other First Nations.
With continued hope for better resource utilization and management control over their
traditional territory, the Tl’azt’en Nation initiated a comprehensive Land Use Plan (LUP) in
2011. The Tl’azt’en Nation’s LUP is being developed based on the collective visions and
aspirations for the community that go beyond the scope o f existing land and resource
management practices. The purpose of this community initiative is to give a voice to the

5

TPazt’en Nation and the Keyoh holders6 concerns regarding the poor management o f land and
resource values within their traditional territories and to advocate for conservation of long-term
community interests. In addition to the LUP initiative, the TPazt’en Nation also pursued a
Community Forest Agreement (CFA K48) in 2012 which is perceived by community as a better
tenure option compared to previously held forest tenure such as a Tree Farm License (TFL 42).
However, while the CFA may be a preferred option, the fundamental concepts o f community
forestry regarding local community control over resource management and decision-making are
largely misunderstood in BC.
By initiating a community-based LUP and renewing a more favourable forest tenure
system such as a CFA, the TPazt’en Nation hopes to achieve desired socio-economic and
environmental goals through enhancing their ability for control over resource management and
decision-making. Similar community goals have been achieved through the successful
development o f community forestry programs in some international jurisdictions such as my
home country of Nepal where the majority o f rural communities have exclusive control over
resource management and decision-making within their traditional land base. This can be
achieved in BC if the Provincial government is willing to recognize and support communitybased initiatives such as the TPazt’en Nation LUP and take a progressive step towards the
implementation of the legal framework to allow the meaningful establishment o f a community
forestry model. This is more achievable now that the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision
in the Tsilhqot’in case (2014) has affirmed Aboriginal title to their land and resources.

6 The Keyoh holders are the traditional land holders o f the Dakelh people as well as the original owners and
stewards o f the traditional territories and its resources.

6

1.2. Research Motivation
In the last 16 years, I worked with both private and government sectors in various
capacities and geographic locations throughout both Coastal and Interior BC. As a resource
professional, I have engaged in a wide-range o f forest management practices and decision­
making including forest stewardship, forest engineering, harvesting inspections and monitoring,
silviculture projects supervision, and contract management. Since 2004,1 am employed by the
Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and worked in three different Forest
Districts including Prince George, Fort St. James, and Vanderhoof. I was working in and from
the Fort St. James Forest District office as a registered professional forester when this research
study was conducted between 2011 and 2013.
Aside from my professional career, I have visited several First Nations communities in
both coastal and northern interior BC and participated in various community events. Through
community engagement, I have gained an understanding o f First Nations culture, traditional
knowledge-based systems, and the resource management practices that sustained them for many
generations. Sadly, I have also witnessed the socio-economic realities of some First Nations
communities particularly in the northern regions of BC. Recently, I also had the opportunity to
participate in formal information sharing and consultation sessions with local First Nations
communities such as the Tl’azt’en Nation and the Nak’azdli Band located near Fort St. James,
BC, to discuss the proposed forest development activities within their traditional territories.
These meetings enabled me to closely observe some o f the fundamental issues and concerns of
the community with regards to current approaches to resource management and decision­
making.

7

Coming from an Indigenous ethnic minority group from Nepal, I witnessed many
similarities between First Nations communities in BC and my own community in Nepal.
Having a similar cultural and socio-economic background, I am deeply aware o f the issues and
challenges o f the Tl’azt’en Nation. More specifically, coming from a subsistence-based farming
and resource gathering community, I understand the significance o f maintaining traditional
knowledge-based systems, subsistence-based livelihood practices, the integrity o f the
environment and cultural values. My own experience growing up in a rural community in Nepal
where people have depended on the traditional land and resources for their livelihood for
generations taught me how traditional culture and a knowledge-based approach to resource
management practices can lead to long-term sustainability in a community such as the TPazt’en
Nation.
I have spent half of my life in Nepal, one o f the most impoverished countries in the
world, and another half in the highly developed nation o f Canada. I am perplexed and
disheartened with the socio-economic disparity that exists between Aboriginal and nonAboriginal communities here in BC. I often question how it is possible to have such a socio­
economic distinction in such a wealthy country. My personal curiosity and concern has led me
to pursue graduate studies to better understand the fundamental issues and challenges o f First
Nations communities such as the TPazt’en Nation around meaningful engagement in the forestry
sector and what can be done to improve the current situation.

1.3. Research Goals and Rationale
Over the years, several studies have been conducted within the traditional territory of the
TPazt’en Nation addressing various geopolitical, environmental, and socio-economic aspects of
the community, including forestry (Morris, 1999; Morris & Fondahl, 2002; Kaijala & Dewhurst,

2003; Sherry, Dewhurst, & Karjala, 2005; Sherry, Halseth, Fondahl, Kaijala, & Leon, 2005;
Grainger, Sherry, & Fundahl, 2006; Booth & Skelton, 2008). While the TPazt’en Nation’s
involvement in the forestry sector is well documented in some studies, particularly Booth and
Skelton (2008), a significant research gap exists since the signing o f the new FRO agreement
between the Provincial government and Tl’azt’en Nation in 2008. This research study addresses
this gap by examining some of the potential opportunities and limitations presented through
recent forestry agreement such as the FRO. The goal is to examine both current and previously
identified issues and challenges faced by the community and consider how they continue to
influence the Tl’azt’en Nation’s meaningful engagement in the forestry sector. By focusing on
some of the existing issues and challenges, this research explores the roles and responsibilities o f
both government and the Tl’azt’en Nation as well as the forest industry in addressing these
issues and concerns of the community.
This is an important research topic as both the previously held long-term based forest
tenures such as TFLs and the most recently held short-term FRO agreement, are perceived by
the Tl’azt’en Nation to be adversarial and inadequate to meet intended community goals and
aspirations. The collective experience o f the Tl’azt’en Nation suggests that simply obtaining
forest tenures and short-term revenue sharing agreements is not adequate for meeting intended
goals and aspirations of First Nations communities. As such, this research highlights the future
need for broader policy change and institutional innovation to promote community-based
resource management and decision-making. More specifically, it advocates for the
establishment of a better policy alternative to recognize First Nations as an equal partner with
shared decision-making power through the devolution of resource management and decision­

9

making. Future recommendations for forest tenure alternatives are also provided based on the
unique needs and circumstances o f First Nation communities such as the Tl’azt’en Nation.
This research provides a unique opportunity for both the Provincial government and First
Nations to better understand and focus on some o f the key issues and challenges First Nation
communities in BC such as the Tl’azt’en Nation are facing under the current forest policy
frameworks and tenure arrangements. Furthermore, this study emphasizes how locally managed
and controlled forest resource practices may contribute to the overall integrity o f cultural,
environmental, and socio-economic well-being o f a local community.

1.4. Research Questions
This research study addresses four key research questions. First, to what extent was the
Tl’azt’en Nation able to achieve intended socio-economic objectives since the signing of the
Interim FRO agreement in 2008? Second, with respect to meaningful participation in the
forestry sector, what are the fundamental barriers that inhibit the Tl’azt’en Nation from
achieving their short-term socio-economic objectives while maintaining long-term community
values? Third, given the current circumstances, what should be the roles of both the government
and the Tl’azt’en Nation for taking appropriate action to address the fundamental issues and
challenges of the community? Finally, based on the long-term community goals and objectives,
what type o f forest tenure would be suitable for the TPazt’en Nation’s future engagement in the
forestry sector?

1.5. Thesis Outline
This thesis addresses these questions in seven chapters: introduction, literature and policy
reviews, methodology and methods, Tl’azt’en Nation context, research analysis, discussion, and

10

conclusion. Chapter one introduces the research topic, my research motivation, research goals
and rationale, research questions, and thesis outline.
Chapter two is organized into literature and policy document review sections to
formulate the theoretical frameworks for the research questions. The overall theoretical
framework includes the legacy of colonialism and forest policy in BC, the Tl’azt’en Nation’s
forestry opportunities (and limiting factors), First Nations’ perspectives on resource
management and socio-economic objectives, and the future need for community-based forest
management and decision-making. The first section outlines literature focusing on the historical
context leading up to the recent development o f First Nations inclusion in forest management
practices in BC. It also highlights some of the important issues and concerns that impact
successful First Nations participation in the forestry sector. The second section reviews policy
that is directly relevant to First Nations participation in the forestry sector.
Chapter three outlines methods used to collect and analyze the research data. The
chapter begins with a brief description and rationale behind the choice o f my research
methodology and methods for collecting research data. This is followed by discussions on semi­
structured interviews, field notes, field observations, and secondary data. The chapter then
describes research data analysis using manifest and content analysis, and rationale for research
data validation. In addition, this chapter outlines some of the issues and challenges I
encountered during data collection, and the processes followed to resolve the issues. This
chapter concludes with a summary of research methods, rationale for the research approach,
strengths and weakness o f the research methods, and the strategies for ensuring the rigour and
credibility of the research methods being used.

11

Chapter four provides a general description of the study area. This is followed by
background information about the TPazt’en Nation’s traditional territory, community profile,
forestry involvement, and socio-economic status. This chapter concludes with a summary o f the
general research area, community involvement in the commercial forestry sector, and the current
socio-economic status of the Tl’azt’en Nation
Chapter five presents the findings based on primary research data collection and analysis.
Corresponding to the research questions, this chapter is organized into three sections. The first
section outlines the outcomes of Tl’azt’en Nation engagement in the forestry sector particularly
the recent FRO agreement. The second section outlines the issues and challenges o f the
Tl’azt’en Nation with regards to their successful engagement in the forestry sector in order to
achieve short-term economic goals while maintaining long-term community values. The third
section provides future considerations and recommendations for addressing such issues and
challenges.
Chapter six discusses the key research findings in the context of the literature and policy
document reviews using the theoretical framework that guided my research. It concludes with a
summary o f my analytical comments and discussion o f key research findings.
Chapter seven summarizes the key research findings and the response to the research
questions. This chapter also provides suggestions for future research based on questions
generated from this study.

12

Chapter 2. Literature and Policy Review
2.1. Introduction
This chapter comprises a combination of academic literature and forest policy document
reviews. The literature review includes various academic literatures to set the baseline
information to support the theoretical frameworks for this research. The policy review section
includes important forest policy documents pertaining to First Nations participation in forestry.

2.2. Literature Review
The literature review section includes the historical context and issues of Aboriginal selfdetermination, the impacts o f post-colonial industrialized-based forestry, First Nations
exclusion, and the later inclusion in the forestry sector, Aboriginal land ethics and subsistencebased resource use, the conflict between Indigenous and commercial forestry values, the
importance of capacity building, and finally the concept o f community forests.
2.2.1. Historical Context and Aboriginal Self-Determination
Prior to European contact, Aboriginal people were self-governed for thousands of years
and had well-established systems of governance, internal political authority, communal land
ownership, and resource use and distribution (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Canada (AANDC), 1996). The potlatch system is central to the culture, governance, and
spiritual essence of many Aboriginal people. This traditional institution was outlawed under the
Indian Act7 from 1884 to 1951 (AANDC, 1996). As such, many First Nations such as the
Witsuwit’en located in central interior of BC were forced to perform feasts underground and

7 Canadian federal government legislation, first passed in 1876, and subsequently amended several times since.
This legislation sets out certain federal government obligations and regulates the management of Indian reserve
lands, Indian moneys, and other resources (AANDC).

arrested if the feasts were conducted in public (Mills, 1994). Even though the ban was repealed
in 1951, these laws systematically replaced long-established traditional systems of governance
and effectively weakened the political, social, cultural, and subsistence-based economic
structures o f Aboriginal people in Canada given that traditional territories were considered
Crown land. This is the fundamental issue for First Nation peoples in BC which continues to
overshadow their long-standing hopes and aspirations for effective management that re­
establishes their decision-making control over the land and resources within their traditional
territories.
As described by Milloy (2008), the expansion of colonialism and institutionalization of
imperial policies such as the Royal Proclamation o f 1763 were a significant turning point for
Aboriginal people in Canada in terms o f their political independence and sovereignty over the
land. This policy created three levels of governance where the Imperial Crown gave authority to
the federal government, the colonies became provinces, and the self-governing First Nations
became a third order of government (Milloy, 2008). The primary objective of the proclamation
was to establish the British North American Empire by stabilizing relations with Aboriginal
people through negotiating settlement, imposing trade regulations, and acquiring lands
previously occupied by Aboriginal people. Shortly after the Royal Proclamation, the
independent entity o f Aboriginal self-governance, the ancient laws and customs, and the right to
land tenure became invalid under the rules o f the British Crown (Milloy, 2008).
A significant outcome of the proclamation was the creation of Indian Reserves which
was the beginning of the formal segregation of First Nations and the creation of a federally
controlled legal land boundary between First Nations and settler society (Milloy, 2008). This
was followed by the systematic takeover of the land and resources by way of forcible removal or

14

by denying access. Alfred (2009) further describes the effects of colonialism as the systematic
removal of First Nations from the land they occupied and the multi-generational impacts of
social, psychological, physical, and emotional trauma and continual financial dependency which
limits First Nations’ ability to achieve self-determination to this day.
The introduction o f the Indian Act in 1876 represented a further attempt to control and
assimilate Aboriginal people in Canada (Coates, 2008). Over time, the responsibility for First
Nations was shifted from the Imperial to the Federal government through the creation o f the
Canadian Department o f Indian Affairs (Milloy, 2008). The intended focus of the government
was to civilize and gradually assimilate First Nations into the settler society. To achieve this
goal, a number of settlement sites were established with the infrastructure o f “civilization” such
as schools, churches, European houses, and ploughed fields. One o f the most noticeable and
detrimental impacts o f government policy on First Nations people was the creation o f residential
schools which continued to operate with federal funding until 1986 (Milloy, 2008). Some o f the
intergenerational impacts o f residential schools include the loss of language, cultural norms,
spirituality, individual dignity, sense o f security, socio-economic self-sufficiency, and the impact
o f long-term physical and sexual abuse (Milloy, 2008).
2.2.2. The Impacts of Post-Colonial Industrial Forestry on Aboriginal Peoples in BC
As described by Alfred (2009, p. 45), “Colonialism is the development o f institutions and
policies by European imperial and Euro-American settler government towards Indigenous
peoples.” The legacy of colonialism continues under the name o f reconciliation and
empowerment through economic development and the expected outcomes o f self-government
processes, land claims agreements, as Aboriginal rights and title have not yet materialized
(Alfred, 2009). This may change in light of the Supreme Court’s recent Tsilhqot’in decision
15

(2014) which provides greater clarity both on the general issue o f Aboriginal rights and the
specific issue of title to land and resources in BC. However, the rapid expansion of
industrialized forestry continues within the unceded territories o f the First Nations, and their
direct impacts on Aboriginal traditional cultural and subsistence-based livelihood practices,
continue as a legacy of colonization in BC.
In Canada, about 80% o f Aboriginal communities are located in productive forest areas,
but one o f the most important issues for them is the lack o f control over their traditional
territories (Curran & M’Gonigle, 1999). Approximately one third (198) o f Canada’s 612 First
Nations live in BC (AANDC). First Nations people in BC have little control over their
traditional territories as 94% of the total land area is Crown land controlled and managed by the
Provincial government (MFLNRO - Timber Tenures in BC, 2012).
Prior to European contact, the forests provided Aboriginal people with almost all of their
material needs, including food, medicine, shelter, and a special place for their cultural and
spiritual activities (BC First Nations Forestry & Land Stewardship Action Plan, 2008). The
influx of Europeans in the 1800s and subsequent industrial forest resource development brought
significant change and disruption. In the early 1900s, the forest industry became the primary
engine for economic growth in BC and the expansion o f the forest industry and the scale o f
forest harvesting activities intensified pressure on the traditional land base and the livelihoods o f
First Nations communities. The forest was viewed as an unlimited resource ready to be
exploited exclusively for timber and other related products. This continued throughout the
1900s causing rising concern about the industrial development o f BC’s forest resources in the
1970s (Hayter, 2000).

16

According to Kimmins (1997), forest development in Canada can be divided into four
different phases: the initial unregulated exploitation phase, administrative organization of
forestry, ecological based forestry, and social forestry. The initial unregulated exploitation
phase caused extensive resource depletion, while the administrative organization o f forestry
concentrated on the industrial forestry sector - both failing to achieve sustainability. The
extensive resource depletion and lack o f appropriate forest management policy make
ecologically based and social forestry necessary approaches in BC.
Prior to the 1980s, the focus o f B.C. forest policy was to support a traditional regime
emphasizing the mutually compatible interest o f forest industry. As a result, Aboriginal policy
was largely peripheral and First Nations were excluded from involvement in forestry (Hoberg &
Morawski, 2008). The authors also point out the convergence o f two different policy regimes,
the BC forest policy regime and Aboriginal policy, produced dramatic policy change in BC. For

example, four different Royal Commissions of Inquiry have taken place in BC in response to
First Nations and environmental issues with regards to the allocation o f timber resources and
poor forest management practices. These Commissions include the Fulton Commission in 1909,
the first Sloan Royal Commission in 1945, the second Sloan Royal Commission in 1956, and the
Pearse Royal Commission in 1976 (Mitchell-Banks, 1999; Wilson, 1998; Cathro & Walsh,
2000). Based on the recommendations of these Royal Commissions, noticeable changes have
been made to forest policy in terms o f providing opportunities for small operators to access
timber. Some progress has also been made to recognize First Nations interests and rights within
the forestry sector.
In addition to the four Royal Commissions of Inquiry, the Commission on Resources and
Environment (CORE) was installed in 1992, and the Land and Resource Management Plan

17

(LRMP) process was also initiated in BC (Booth, 1998; Booth & Halseth, 2011). The principle
idea behind the establishment of the CORE and LRMPs was to optimize the use of natural
resources to support socio-economic and environmental needs. Later, the government also
introduced Forest Renewal BC (FRBC) in 1994 and the Forest Practices Code (FPC) in 1995.
Both FRBC and FPC focused mainly on community participation in forestry, rather than
community forestry itself. For instance, neither policy proposed or specified community control
over forests, but advocated that public input is essential in decision-making (Booth, 1998; Booth
& Halseth, 2011).
Under growing public pressure, the government further enacted the Timber and Jobs
Accord in 1997 to promote direct community and First Nations involvement in forest
management through job creation (BC Ministry o f Forests and Range, 1997). In 1998, the
government also implemented the Forests Statutes Amendment Act also known as Bill 34
(Booth, 1998). Despite government efforts to establish better forest management policy in BC,
the industrial focus o f policy combined with a high degree of corporate control over public land
created a demand for a new tenure system.
The successive expansion of post-colonial industrial forestry further intensified in the
late 20th century. As a result, the traditional cultural, socio-economic, and environmental values
were seriously altered in the presence of industrial resource management practices and global
corporate economic structures (Booth & Skelton, 2008). The issues of a rapid depletion o f
forest resources, an inability to maintain the cultural and subsistence-based livelihood activities,
and the lack o f ownership over the land and resources within their traditional territories have
become a major concern for First Nations communities. One of the primary concerns is that the
importance of cultural values and traditional knowledge-based resource management practices

are often misunderstood or ignored within the policy frameworks. In addition, despite the
recognition o f Aboriginal rights under the Constitution Act of 1982 and subsequent court rulings,
the continued disregard for Aboriginal rights and needs within the forest sector has prevented
First Nations from being effective participants (Bombay, 1997).
The recent government efforts to allow First Nations involvement in the forestry sector
through various forest tenures and revenue sharing agreements can be considered progress
towards reconciliation of previously held colonial attitudes. However, proper recognition of
Aboriginal rights and title with regards to resource use and management within their traditional
territories and inclusion of traditional cultural, social, and local economic values within the
policy frameworks remains unresolved. This is precisely why a First Nations community such
as the Tl’azt’en Nation continues to struggle in order to attain meaningful involvement in the
forestry sector, despite the fact that they have engaged in various levels of forestry operations
since the early 1980s.
2.2.3. The Inclusion of First Nations in the Forestry Sector
As highlighted by Pearse (1976), the focus o f the forest industry in BC has been to
accommodate industrial development. The existing tenure system that allows major licensees
and individuals to harvest timber on publicly owned land dates back to the 1940s. Long-term
tenure held by major forest companies in BC accounts for about 75% of the current provincial
allowable annual cut (AAC) (Forestry Revitalization Plan (FRP), 2003). Within this capital
intensive industrial focus, the inclusion o f First Nations in the forestry sector was ignored by the
provincial government (Smith & Ross, 2002). In fact, First Nations were excluded from the
tenure applications even though all logging activities took place on the land claimed by First
Nations across BC (First Nations Forestry Council, 2008).

Court rulings that affirmed constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights and title with
respect to land and resource use prompted a significant change to forest policy regimes in BC.
First, the Provincial government passed the Forestry (First Nations Development) Amendment
Act, 2002 (Bill 41) in 2002, which initiated amendments to the Forest Act, including the
introduction of a new section (s. 47.3). This particular amendment enables the Ministry of
Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO) (previously Ministry of Forests) to
invite applications from First Nations, without competition for various licenses such as
community forest agreement (CFA), forest license to cut (FLtc), forest license (FL), woodlot
license (WL), or a First Nations woodlands license (FNWL) in order to implement or further an
agreement with the First Nations (MFLNRO, 2011).
Shortly after the introduction of Bill 41, the Provincial government released its Forest
Revitalization Plan and subsequently introduced five pieces of forestry legislation8 in 2003.
This particular legislation initiated amendments to the Forestry Act and among other things
enabled new legal and administrative regimes for tenure and pricing in BC (Clogg, 2003). With
this forest policy reform, First Nations were finally able to participate in the forestry sector
through short-term based interim measure agreements that include both tenure and revenue
sharing opportunities. However, despite this legislative change, the FRP and related legislation
were developed without meaningful involvement o f First Nations (Clogg, 2003).
The recent forest policy reforms in BC enables First Nations to apply for various forest
licenses but they also require that First Nations enter into further implemented or treaty-related

8 Bill 27 - Market-based pricing
Bill 28 - Tenure reallocation & Industry compensation (20% Take back)
Bill 28 - Transition
Bill 29 - Changes to tenure obligations
Bill 44 - Defined Forest Areas Management

20

measures, interim measures, or economic measures with the province to qualify for these direct
awards (Clogg, 2003). However, since the majority of the forested land base in BC is already
allocated to major licensees, First Nations tenures are only possible through reallocation of
existing tenures. Through new legislation, the Provincial government took back 20% o f existing
replaceable tenures held by major licensees and redistributed it to BC Timber Sales (BCTS),
woodlots, community forests, and First Nations (FRP, 2003). O f this 20% take back, 12% was
transferred to BCTS and 8% was reallocated to First Nations under the condition that they agree
to enter into an accommodation agreement9 (Wilson & Graham, 2005). In terms of this tenure
reallocation, it is important to understand that the affected licensees were fairly compensated
with an estimated $200 million (FRP, 2003).
As of end of April, 2012, First Nations held tenures in BC represented 15.5% (6.0%
within competitively held tenures and 9.5% within direct awards tenures) of the total provincial
AAC. Between early 2002 to April 1, 2012, 172 First Nations across BC have signed a total of
256 direct award agreements including 66.1 million cubic meters (m3) o f timber volume
(MFNRO - Internet Access, March 19,2013).
2.2.4. Aboriginal Land Ethics & Subsistence-based Resource Uses
According to Aldo Leopold, “The land ethic simply enlarges the boundary o f the
community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land” (Leopold,
1966). Since Leopold’s holistic view, ideas and theories have been developed and shared by
various academic circles, government agencies, and policy makers towards the development of
sustainable resource management practices. In fact, there is no shortage o f ideas, theories, and

9 The Province o f BC has legal obligation to address First Nations concerns and reconcile Aboriginal interests and
when appropriate provide economic benefits and opportunities where there is a strong prima facie claim of
Aboriginal rights which may be significantly impacted by a proposed resource development decision.

21

knowledge around environmental ethics. Some efforts have been made to address
environmental protection and socio-economic balance, but economic gain appears as a
fundamental driving force behind any such theories and ideas.
First Nations’ view o f land ethics encompasses much broader perspectives in the sense
that everything in nature is equal and humans are a part of nature. For First Nations, nature is
central to the Aboriginal belief system and balance is essential to this system (Sherry & Myers,
2002). One o f the late Saik’uz Elders, Sophie Thomas simply described land ethics as, “If you
take care o f the land, it will take care o f you” (Carrier Sekani Tribal Council - Principle o f Land
Use, 2006). This simple yet powerful concept of ‘land ethics’ teaches us that we have moral
duties and responsibilities to treat our land with care. With this commonly shared vision and
belief systems, First Nations are able to practice a way of life handed down to them by their
ancestors.
It is well documented that Indigenous people occupied certain territories and
demonstrated occupancy of the land based on moral and ethical premises practiced by their
ancestors since time immemorial. First Nations people lived harmoniously within nature and
maintained a strong relationship with the natural world and acted as an integral part o f nature
rather than an independent entity (Deloria, 1999). They were able to gain knowledge
collectively over time through life experience and intimate interaction with their environments;
this knowledge they passed down to the next generation (Deloria, 1999). First Nations people
were the stewards of the land and resources within their respective traditional territories. By
following the basic principle of land use, “take care o f the land and the land will take care of
you,” they were able to effectively maintain and sustain their subsistence-based local economy
for many generations (Carrier Sekani Tribal Council - Principle o f Land Use, 2006. p.l 1).
22

Until the intrusion of Western civilization, First Nations people maintained a holistic
understanding o f the natural world, were close to the land, and intrinsically attuned to the land.
For them, survival required understanding the inter-relationships with the land as the land is
fundamental to their legal systems and livelihood. Since land was important to them, they
established a positive, intimate, and respectful relationship with the natural world (Booth &
Jacobs, 1990). They were keenly aware that it was nature that provided food, shelter, and gave
them meaningful purpose in being human. Their action on the land was based on an elaborate
code of respect and morality, as the natural world provided them with sufficient resources in
perpetuity and helped sustain ecological balance (Booth & Jacobs, 1990; Deloria, 1999).
To this day, First Nations exist as part of the landscape and they do not own but rather
act as part of nature. Contrary to the Western view where environment, trees, and wildlife can
be managed, their ideas and philosophy are focused towards the concepts o f long-term
stewardship o f the land and resources and a community-based integrated resource management
approach. One of the most compelling reasons behind First Nations’ approach to sustainability
is that they feel that their rights do not take precedence over any other entities in the natural
environment. As nature provides the primary basis for their livelihoods and survival, every
resource is collected with great awareness and care so that the needs for future generations are
not compromised.
2.2.5. The Conflicting Issues between Indigenous Values & Forestry Values
It is important to understand that First Nations people are deeply connected to the land
and the forests are an integral part of First Nations’ culture, spirituality, and economic selfsufficiency. For thousands o f years, forests provided a foundation for their subsistence
livelihood activities such as hunting, fishing, trapping, berry picking, medicinal plant collection,
23

as well as spiritual activities (Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2006). Having been confined to
limited reserve lands and surrounded by industrial forest economic development activities
located in their traditional territories, many First Nations communities viewed the forest sector
as a means to native economic self-sufficiency (Nathan, 1993). However, several First Nations
communities, such as the Tl’azt’en Nation, are struggling to realize the potential benefits from
forestry and to overcome some of the fundamental social, economic, and environmental
challenges primarily due to inconsistency between traditional Indigenous values and industrialbased forest economic values.
Given the historic record, recent government efforts to engage First Nations communities
in the forest sector through some short-term forestry license agreements is a good start.
However, there is a need for establishing long-term forest policy frameworks that enable the
development o f an alternative forest tenure system that addresses the key values and interests of
First Nations communities. This will require a deep understanding of traditional knowledge,
cultural values, and their relationship to the natural environment. As Booth & Skelton (2008)
points out, considerable tensions exist between traditional First Nations values and the values of
a commercial forestry operation, and reconciling these conflicting values is difficult. Often, the
underlying economic objectives o f the government and the forest industry undermine First
Nations community values and their ability to pursue sustainable-based resource management
practices and decision-making.
Recently, First Nations communities across BC are becoming increasingly involved in
the forest economy for the sake o f achieving short-term economic goals. Given the current
status of First Nations involvement in the forest sector, future success will depend on the
government’s willingness to adopt traditional knowledge and skills into the existing forest

24

management systems instead o f undermining their capabilities through a state controlled ‘top
down’ approach. The inclusion of social, cultural, and spiritual values, and existing subsistence
livelihood activities should be an integral part of forest management strategies in order to
recognize Indigenous values (Gurung, 2000).

2.2.6. The Importance of Community Capacity Building
With respect to successful community development, the importance of community
capacity is a highly emphasized topic among various jurisdictions and academic circles
throughout the world. BC is no exception when it comes to highlighting the importance o f
adequate community capacity building, particularly for those First Nations communities
engaged in resource sectors such as forestry. In fact, the importance o f building human capacity
and financial resources are identified as priorities for First Nations to engage in informed
decision-making with respect to land and forest stewardship within their traditional territories
(BC First Nations Forestry & Land Stewardship Action Plan, 2008).
The need for community capacity building is key to advancing the rights and values o f
Aboriginal people, and enabling them to effectively engage in the forest sector (Bombay, 2010).
According to Bombay (2010), capacity building involves Aboriginal governance, institutional
arrangements with other levels of government, and human resource development. At the
community level, building human capacity through the development o f skills, knowledge,
training, and support structures are identified as factors to respond to the challenges and
opportunities of local places (Halseth & Booth, 1998); and successfully participate in resource
management (Sherry, et al., 2005).
From an international perspective, emphasis is given to building the human capital of a
community through recognition and inclusion o f previously marginalized groups such as
25

women, youth, ethnic minorities, the poor and landless, and lower caste people.10 This proactive
approach has provided social equality and constitutional rights, and a mechanism for promoting
social balance in culturally constrained settings (Campbell & Denholm, 1992). In addition,
previously subordinate groups are becoming empowered and working effectively as successful
managers and productive members of the community (Upreti, 2000). Conflict resolution and
investment in community development projects have been regarded as a necessary basis for
effective sustainable community development, in addition to efforts to promote social balance,
public participation, training, and skills development.
The TFazt’en Nation has engaged in various forestry operations since the early 1980s,
and encountered several issues and challenges with regards to existing policy directions, tenure
arrangements, and lack o f adequate internal capacity to manage forestry related operations.
Given the complex nature of forest management practices and associated issues, the TPazt’en
Nation has no choice but to hire professionals to help them understand the legal obligations and
liabilities outlined under the current forest tenure agreements. For instance, administrative
documentation and reporting requires extensive professional knowledge and skills to prepare
and administer these documents. The Tl’azt’en Nation could face a series o f non-compliance
issues, penalties, and conflict situations with government, forest industry, and other stakeholders
operating in the area if the required responsibilities and obligations are not properly upheld.
The potential economic opportunities to improve their socio-economic conditions are
also limited due to the lack o f adequate financial resources to acquire technology and hire
trained professional staff to carry out both administrative and forest management operational
activities. The TPazt’en Nation currently relies on only two forest professional staff and one

10 There are groups of ethnic minorities in Nepal who are regarded as lower caste, or untouchable groups of people,
based on traditional Hindu beliefs.

26

geographic information system (GIS) technician to carry out both administrative and forest
management operational related responsibilities; while major licensees operating within their
traditional territory would require significantly larger staff and resources to carry out these same
administrative and operational activities. This puts the Tl’azt’en Nation at a disadvantage in
realizing the potential benefits from the forestry sector.
Building community capacity also requires a certain level of commitment from the
community. This can be done by adopting community visions and goals, sharing
responsibilities, learning from past experiences and taking proper action for improvements, and
focusing on long-term community goals rather than short-term economic goals. One of the
challenges for a community like the TPazt’en Nation is simply obtaining certain types o f forest
tenures or signing the short-term revenue sharing opportunities will not be sufficient to realize
the expected socio-economic goals o f the community. To be successful, the community should
focus on developing common goals, management strategies, and setting up future investments.
For example, Tl’azt’en Nation can use a certain portion of the shared revenue towards
community development related activities, and re-invest funding and surplus revenue generated
from forestry activities into community projects including education, training and skills
development, and other necessary community infrastructure.
The role o f First Nations in managing land and resources within their traditional territory
is a critical issue. As such, having adequate capacity within their own communities will help
them to make effective decisions and become successful players in the forest sector. A study
conducted by Harvard University suggests that having tribal foresters and skilled workers in
place, a tribal forestry company can not only control the company, but can also increase
production by as much as 6% compared to a previous non-tribal owner (Krepps, 1991). The

27

Tl’azt’en understand that their collective knowledge, participation, and responsibilities are
essential elements for achieving community goals and aspirations.

2,2.7. The Concept of Community Forestry: BC and International Perspectives
The concept o f community forestry is being applied throughout the world as an
alternative approach to industrial forestry practices (Beckley, 1998). Generally, the concept of
community forestry gives communities a meaningful voice in decision-making control over
local resources, shared forest benefits, and use of a range o f social and economic values within
forest management practices and decision-making processes.
One o f the distant jurisdictions, Nepal, has successfully adapted and implemented
community forestry projects for several decades. The inclusion o f social, cultural, and spiritual
values and the concepts of traditional knowledge-based forest management practices into
management strategies is an important tool for sustainable forest management practices and
local economic development (Gurung, 2000). In Nepal, the concept of sustainable forest
management practice has a lot to do with people, local culture, subsistence-based economy, and
overall community well-being. In BC, however, the potential benefits of community forestry
remain unrealized and short-term economic growth still takes priority over social and
environmental values. A complete analysis of the concept o f community forestry is beyond the
scope of this research study. The intent o f this section is to provide a brief overview on some of
the similarities and differences between how the concept o f community forestry is applied in
BC, Canada and other country such as Nepal.
2.2.7.1 British Columbia Perspective
While centralized management is still the dominant paradigm, the concept o f community
forestry is also applied and tested in BC, where the potential values o f community forestry were
28

recognized as early as 1930 (Mitchell-Banks, 1999). The concept o f local control over forest
resources was supported by the Sloan Royal Commission (1945), the Pearse Royal Commission
(1976), and the BC Forest Resources Commission or Peel Commission (1991) to address public
concerns over forest management in BC (Mitchell-Banks, 1999; Plant, 2009). The continual
poor management o f forests by forest companies led to a second Sloan Commission in 1956
which recognized that the concept of community forestry was a desirable approach for BC
(Wilson, 1998).
Despite Sloan’s recommendation for the implementation o f forest policy to support the
establishment o f community forestry, public forestland continued to be held in long-term
licensing under the existing tenure arrangements by a small number of large forestry
corporations (Haley & Luckert, 1990 cited in Mitchell-Banks, 1999). In order to address
continuing public concerns over non-timber values, the Forest Resources Commission,
otherwise known as the Peel Commission, was established in 1989 (Wilson, 1998). The Peel
Commission recommended that at least one-third of the AAC be set aside for smaller, areabased tenures that would be managed by individuals and small communities such as First
Nations (Haley, 1997).
In response to various Royal Commission recommendations, the provincial government,
led by the New Democratic Party, initiated steps towards the development o f sustainable forest
management policy in the early 1990s. Even though the idea may have been generated as early
as 1930s, the establishment of an actual legislative framework for the development of
community forestry is very new in BC. For instance, the Community Forest Agreement (CFA)
program was only initiated in December 1997 with the Forest Minister’s appointment o f a
Community Forestry Advisory Committee (CFAC). The legislation on CFAC was passed in

29

1998, but became effective only in December 4,2000 (BC Community Forestry Annual Report,
2001-2002). The government later issued a “request for proposals” inviting communities to
apply for a special 5-year Community Forestry Pilot Agreement (CFPA) (BC Community Forest
Annual Report, 2000-2001). Since its inception, the notion of community forestry gained
considerable support in many BC communities (Haley, 1997). As o f January 2012, there are 47
active community forests in BC covering approximately 1.28 million hectares o f Crown land
(MFLNRO, 2012).
Although community forestry in BC is fairly new, BC has come a long way in its efforts
to establish a community forestry program. Any opportunity comes with challenges, and BC has
its own set of challenges when it comes to alternatives such as community forestry. There is a
need for new thinking and significant policy change in BC to establish community driven forest
management practices, and the successful deliberation o f such an initiative will rest in the
government’s willingness to provide the appropriate legal frameworks and necessary financial
supports to local communities.
First o f all, there is ambiguity and lack o f understanding about the basic concept of
community forests. For example, one o f the key concepts of community forestry is local control
over decision-making. This is not the case in BC where the provincial government maintains
control over community forests and policy decisions are primarily directed towards timber
values and economic gains. As suggested by Beckley (1998), the philosophy behind community
forestry has been somewhat underestimated with narrow scope in terms o f meaningful objectives
and realistic goals. Furthermore, important aspects such as culture, local economic structure,
and geographic boundaries are either unknown or simply ignored (Norton & Hannon, 1997).

30

Secondly, one o f the important components of community forestry is to adopt local
knowledge such as First Nations traditional knowledge systems, and social and cultural values,
into management practices and decision-making. However, as Corcoran & Sievers (1994)
points out, the current formal education system is built upon assumptions stemming from the
Industrial Revolution in which people are taught the importance of economic growth. Many
important decisions are based on the assumptions made by professionals such foresters,
planners, ecologists, biologists, environmentalists, and engineers who are products of the EuroWestern education system. The authors further emphasizes that in the absence o f traditional
knowledge based learning, these professionals have failed to include critical social analysis in
their management decisions.
Third, one o f the most important aspects o f community forestry is community ownership
of the land and resources and control over decision-making. Duinker et al. (1994) stress that
before thinking about the socio-economic and environmental benefits from community forestry,
a property right must be understood. Essentially, if community forestry is to be successful, local
communities must be the primary owners and users of the forestland. However, this is not the
case in BC where community property rights in resource management are exclusively under
government control (Binkley & Zhang, 1998).
As Beckley (1998) describes, community forestry in BC is conceptualized and
appropriated by government offices and other related organizations, and regulated through a
centralized government system as opposed to local control. Hence, some well-known
community projects established in BC such as Revelstoke Community Forest, Mission, and
North Cowichan are not free from government imposed regulatory obligations. These
communities only have the right to manage and operate on a certain land base, not rights to the
31

overall management decision-making. In addition, there is no separate board or committee that
oversees the management; registered professional foresters (RPFs) make management decisions
and answer directly to the municipal council and not the local communities (Beckley, 1998).
The lack of democratic representation of the community in the management and decision­
making process contradicts the basic principles of community forestry.
Aside from ownership, it is equally important to understand that local control over forest
management decision-making is one the key criterion for community forestry. This is certainly
not the case in BC as local communities including First Nations are obliged to live within the
conditions set by the provincial government (Booth, 1998). Egan et al. (2002) highlight that
effective control over land and resources must be recognized as a strategic tool to promote
community-based forest management practice and capacity building. More importantly,
management decisions must be made by those who know best and are affected by the decisions
being made because, unlike distant bureaucratic and corporate decision makers, local decision­
makers must live with the consequences of their choices. Egan et al. (2002) also emphasize that,
in order to minimize the social inequality, attention must also be given to human issues such as
social equality, poverty reduction, power distribution, and gender roles in the community.
Fourth, the issue of competition with major licensees is certainly one o f the major
challenges for successful establishment o f community forestry in BC. The opportunities for
increasing the number of woodlots, and creating community forests are further curtailed by the
current government policy on privatization and the recent increase o f tenure rights for
corporations (Burda, 1997). As a result, the aspirations of B.C.’s communities towards
community forestry are hindered by the lack o f sufficient land base. With significantly smaller
land bases with limited quality timber supply and the lack of local capacity, most community

32

forestry simply cannot compete with the major forest industry in terms o f both resource use and
marketing. In fact, this may be the ultimate reason why alternative community forestry
approaches may not be a realistic goal in BC.
Lastly, a major drawback for successful establishment of community forestry in BC is
the current forest tenure system. As suggested by Mallik & Rahman (1994), the land tenure
arrangement is a critical factor in developing a successful community forestry project. Despite
the Sloan Royal Commission (1956) recommendation for change in existing tenure arrangement
such as TFLs, the same tenure system still exists and is held not only by industrial based forestry
companies, but also by some of the well-known community based forestry projects in BC. For
example, TFL #26 was issued to the District of Mission in 1958, TFL #42 to Tl’azt’en Nation in
1982, and TFL #56 to Revelstoke in 1993. These communities have no control over the land
and resources under these tenure arrangements, but must live by conditions set by the provincial
government (Booth, 1998).
In addition, the successful establishment of community forestry will require a significant
land base, and satisfaction from the benefits derived from managing the surrounding forest land
(Beckley, 1998). It is suggested that size o f land base should be between 10,000 and 100,000
ha, with a variety o f forest age-class structure, as well as substantial volumes o f good quality
timber (Duinker et al. 1994; Matakala & Duinker 1993). However, most communities in BC do
not have significant unallocated forestland nearby, and in most cases the purchase o f sufficient
forestland or existing forest tenures is not feasible (Allan & Frank, 1994). Typical size of the
TFL awarded for community forestry in BC range from as small as 8,500 to 225,000 ha
(Beckley, 1998). In the case of Tl’azt’en Nation, TFL #42 only covered 49,265 ha of the land
base and the community had no control over forest management decision-making.

33

2.2.7.2 International Perspective: The Nepalese Example
In recent years, the concept of community forestry has gained popularity throughout the
world (Egan et al., 2002). There are several examples of successful implementation of
community forestry projects, but community forestry in Nepal in particular has set a good
example and captured attention around the world. The need for better sustainable resource
management practices and local control over forests was realized in Nepal due to increased
dissatisfaction with the quality o f forest management practices and the centralized approach to
forest management and decision-making.
Historically, forest lands in Nepal were under the control o f central government and
often managed without appropriate forest policy and legislation. To mitigate problems
associated with a rapid deforestation, the Forest Nationalization Act was introduced in 1956
(Bajaracharya, 1983). This Act brought all forests under government control and administrative
power was legislated under the new Forest Act of 1961 (Gronow & Shrestha, 1991). Under this
Act, forests were considered common property and every village was forced to manage their
own forest while undergoing the overwhelming transition from the forest framed as
Indigenous/traditional space into forest claimed as national in jurisdiction and ownership. It was
soon realized that the 1956 Act violated local people’s traditional rights to forest land, and
criminalized forest practices and uses that were previously traditional. This state controlled
system eventually failed not only because it did not address local concerns, but also because it
lacked the institutional capacity for effective implementation (Gronow & Shrestha, 1991).
While the central government was still in power, the policy implementation process
continued on and a new National Forest Plan came into effect in 1976. Under this plan the
government still controlled the majority o f forest land, but began to provide technical support to

34

local communities that managed a few-fragmented woodlots in the country (Bajracharya, 1983).
For the first time in Nepal’s history, this plan set out national policies with four basic forest
management objectives. The objectives were: 1) to obtain the maximum contribution from the
forests towards national development, 2) to manage the forests to prevent further environmental
damage, 3) to attain self-sufficiency for communities from the development of basic forest
products, and 4) to preserve wildlife and natural resources (Bajarcharya, 1983). Though this
was an innovative approach, the new Act was ineffective in addressing some o f the conflicting
needs of the local forest users. This eventually led to an amendment o f the Forest
Nationalization Act in 1978.
Two types of forest tenures, the Panchayat Forest and the Panchayat-Protected Forest,
were created from national lands and given to the Village Panchayat11. Under Panchayat
Forests, each Panchayat received 125 hectares of government-owned land and obtained rights to
manage and protect the forest and use its products; while under Panchayat Protected Forests,
each Panchayat was eligible for 500 hectares of forest land and responsible for managing it as a
protected forest. In turn, the Panchayat was allowed to collect fuel wood, fodder, and other
forest products for local use, and to keep 75% of revenue derived from the sale of logs or forest
products from this protected forest (Bajaracharya, 1983). Meanwhile, the government also
initiated lease forests and private forests, allowing individuals or organizations to produce
timber, fuel wood, and other forest products on both crown land and private land. The
fundamental ideas and principles used in the Panchayat Forest and the Panchayat-Protected
Forest Rules and Regulations eventually led to creation o f Community Forestry.

11 A former political unit o f a party-less system o f Government of Nepal, suppressed since 1990 by a multi-party
system.

35

Even though initiatives were begun in 1978, a full-scale Community Forestry
Development Project did not start until the early 1980s. In order to provide policy guidelines,
the Master Plan for the Forestry Sector was created in 1988 (Gronow & Shrestha, 1991). It
clearly articulated the importance of community forestry and gave a clear policy framework to
meet people’s basic needs through sustainable forest management practices (Upreti, 2000). One
of the important aspects of the Master Plan was that more than 45% o f the total budget was
allocated towards community forestry development (Dongol, 2002). In addition, the plan also
emphasized the need for forestry research in Nepal, with an estimated cost o f $40 million US
(Bhattarai, 1993).
In Nepal, the majority o f the potential community forest lands have been handed over to
the local community forest user groups (CFUGs).12 By the late 1980s, over 60% of the
country’s forest was controlled and managed by local CFUGs (His Majesty Government of
Nepal, 1989). Progressive steps were taken toward implementing community forestry after a
change in the political system in 1990, which led to the formulation and creation o f the Forest
Act o f 1993 and the Forest Bylaws of 1995 (Maharjan, 1998). Under this important legislation,
various CFUGs were formed and given full rights and responsibilities for regeneration,
protection, and harvesting of local community forests (Dongol, 2002). As o f 1999, over 600,000
hectares of Nepal’s forested land had been formally handed over to 7000 CFUGs (Shrestha &
Pokharel, 2000). These numbers increased to over 848,000 hectares of community forestry and
11,000 CFUGs (approximately 1.2 million households) in 2002 (Baral, 2002). Recently, the

12 Local community forest user groups (CFUGs) are an assembly o f rural people and a local level civil society who
have been involved in community forestry and are responsible for development, organization, and management
decision-making over designated community forests.

36

total number of CFUGs has increased to 13,300 accounting for approximately 1.5 million
households throughout the country (Uprety, 2006).
In the case of Nepal, the success of community forestry owes much to the government’s
willingness to recognize the need for adequate policy implementation to provide supports and a
legal framework for sustainable community-based forest management. The recognition of
existing traditional knowledge, inclusion o f social and cultural values, capacity building through
community organization such as CFUGs, utilization o f non-timber products, and government
initiatives are driving forces behind the success of community forestry in Nepal.

2.3. British Columbia Forest Policy Documents Review
The policy review section includes some of the important forest policy documents
including forest tenure and governance, Aboriginal forest tenure and governance, and the legal
frameworks: Aboriginal rights and title, First Nations consultation and policy guidelines, the
New Relationship and strategic policy approach to accommodation, and finally the Interim
Forest and Range Opportunities Agreement and the engagement of the Tl’azt’en Nation.
2.3.1. Forest Tenure and Governance
In BC, the tenure system is the touchtone of the province’s forest policy and the design
and implementation of forest tenure policy directly influences the forest industry and a broad
spectrum o f socio-economic and environmental values (Pearse, 1976). Through tenure systems,
the government transfers specific rights to use Crown, or public, forest and other resources to
others such as private forest companies, communities, and individuals. The key statute
governing timber tenures is the Forest Act which sets out the forms of agreement such as
duration of the tenure, rights and obligations, and responsibilities for each tenure issued
(MFLNRO, 2012). The province’s Chief Forester makes the AAC determination for TFLs and
37

Timber Supply Areas (TSA). A separate AAC is assigned to every management unit such as
TFLs, TSA, CFA, and Woodlot License (WL).
Over 90% o f the annual harvest o f publicly owned timber occurs under three tenures
forms: Tree Farm License (TFLs), Forest License (FLs), and Timber Sale License (TSLs).
Several forms o f tenures such as TFLs, WL, and most o f TSLs grant exclusive rights to harvest
the timber within a specified area o f land while other forms o f tenures such as FL and some
TSLs that grant non-exclusive rights (NAFA, 2003). Recently, the First Nations Woodland
License (FNWL) has been added to the list as a major form of tenure agreement in BC
(MFLNRO, 2011). While FNWL is considered by the government as unique to First Nations’
interests in the land and resources, the fundamental basis for this new tenure development is
based on the legacy of the original tenure system which was created for the purpose of economic
expansion in the province. As Haley & Nelson (2006) point out, the forest tenure system in BC
remains a complex mix of new and old policies that have evolved over time and has failed to
provide the economic and social benefits it was designed to deliver. More importantly, it does
not consider the social, cultural, and subsistence-based local economic values and is particularly
unfavorable to First Nations people (Haley & Nelson, 2006).

2.3.2. The Aboriginal Forest Tenure and Governance
In BC, First Nations were locked out o f timber assignments for many decades, even
though all o f the logging activities took place on lands claimed by First Nations (First Nations
Forestry Council Briefing Document - BC Forestry Roundtable, 2008). In response to growing
concerns from First Nation people regarding the current tenure arrangement and overall forest
management practices, the Provincial government initiated some important steps in the last two
decades. These include the establishment o f a Task Force on Native Forestry (TFNF) in 1990,
38

the enactment of Forest (First Nations Development) Amendment Act in 2002, the introduction
of Forestry Revitalization Act in 2003, the initiation o f the New Relationship and
“Transformative Change Accord” 13 agreement documents in 2005, and the formation o f the
Working Roundtable on Forestry in 2008. The purpose o f these initiatives were to promote
greater opportunities for First Nations to access forest tenures, improve relationships with First
Nations, and more importantly, to close the socio-economic gap between Aboriginal and nonAboriginal people in BC.
The need for the establishment o f First Nations interests-based tenure system is welldocumented. For instance, the final report of the TFNF presented in 1991 highlighted that the
establishment of a secure tenure was one of the most important factors for First Nations
participation in the forestry sector after land claims (Webber, 2008; Task Force on Native
Forestry, 1991). The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) (1996) also recognized
the establishment of a formal tenure as one of the key strategies for Aboriginal people to regain
their rightful role in the forest management and to re-instate the underlying values of forests.
The RCAP (1996) further emphasized that Aboriginal concepts of tenure and ownership differ
significantly from the existing tenure systems which is developed based on resource extraction
and short-term economic benefits, which is contrary to First Nations’ holistic relationship with
the lands within their traditional territories.
Since the introduction of the Forestry Revitalization Plan in 2003, several First Nations
communities in BC signed interim agreements such as Forest and Range Agreements (FRAs)

13 In addition to the New Relationship agreement, the Provincial government o f BC, the government of Canada, and
the Leadership Council representing the First Nations in BC also signed the Transformative Change Accord (known
as Kelowna Accord) in 2005. This was initiated in efforts to strengthen the govemment-to-govemment relationship
and to close the socio-economic gap (in education, health, housing, and economic status) between Aboriginal and
non-Aboriginal peoples in BC.

39

and later Forest and Range Opportunities Agreements (FROs) under the new First Nations forest
policy provisions. As of March 2009, there were 131 First Nations groups in BC that had signed
the FRAs and FRO Agreements and an additional 114 First Nations groups had obtained one
time Direct Awards as o f August 2011 (Ministry of Forest and Range, 2013).
In response to the Report o f the Working Roundtable on Forestry recommendations
(2009), the Provincial government recently announced a new type of agreement in 2010, called
the Forest Consultation and Revenue Sharing Agreement (FCRSA). In theory, FCRSA is
different compared to previous agreements in the sense that it provides First Nations with
economic benefits based on the actual harvesting activities that take place within their traditional
territories. The FCRSA replaces the previous FRA and FROs and refocuses the revenue sharing
on meeting government’s two key objectives: 1) accommodation of Aboriginal interests, and 2)
providing funding to meet the Transformative Change Accord. Since 2010, the government has
signed 117 FCRSAs with First Nations in BC. Most recently, the government also introduced a
new form of forest tenure called First Nations Woodland License (FNWL) in 2011 (MFLNRO,
2011). If First Nations sign a new Forest Tenure Opportunity Agreement (FTOA), they may be
eligible to apply for FNWLs, which are considered compatible with First Nations’ asserted
interests in the management of land and resources within their traditional territories. In theory,
this long-term area-based tenure allows First Nations to have an increased role in forest
stewardship including the protection o f their traditional land use practices, utilization o f non­
timber forest products, and opportunities for future investment. To date, only two First Nation
communities: Huu-ay-aht First Nation and Canim Lake First Nations have signed FNWL
agreements in BC (MFLNRO, 2014).

40

Today, First Nation peoples in BC have the opportunities to apply for various tenure
applications such as CFA, FL, WL, Forestry License to Cut (FLtC), and FNWL. As of April
2012, 172 First Nations communities have signed 256 direct award agreements (MFLNRO,
2012). While First Nations people in BC hold proportionally higher forest tenures today than
two decades ago, many o f the issues and challenges regarding a meaningful establishment o f a
First Nations forest tenure system in BC remain unresolved. First and foremost, there is a lack
o f proper recognition and protection of Aboriginal and treaty rights and integration o f overall
land ethics, values, and traditional systems of governance into forest management (Smith &
Ross, 2002). Other research studies also emphasize the importance o f recognizing Aboriginal
rights and the integration of traditional systems o f governance and resource management
practices as part o f the forest policy development strategies such as First Nations tenure
development in BC (Curran & M ’Gonigle, 1999; Clogg, 2007; & Rogers, 2007). Secondly,
despite some forest policy reforms, the tenures still exist within the same administrative
framework in which government defines overarching management objectives and set the rules
for allowable harvest levels (Webber, 2008). Wyatt (2008, p. 177) further clarifies that,
“Forestry for First Nations represents the existing forest management system with a number of
modifications to reflect greater acknowledgement of and place for First Nations.” Thirdly, the
majority of First Nations in BC still do not have access to adequate timber allocation to support
viable economic opportunities in the forestry sector. This is mainly because the large portions of
Crown land and timber volumes are assigned to large, well-established forest companies with
higher capital investment than First Nations can compete with. For example, British Columbia
Timber Sales (BCTS), which is part o f the MFLNRO, is one of the major competing licensees in
BC, which manages 20% o f the provincial timber volume as compared to only 8% o f the AAC

41

set out for eligible First Nations (First Nations Forestry Tenure in British Columbia: Briefing
Document First Nations Forestry Council - BC Forestry Roundtable (2008).
Besides adequate timber allocation, First Nations do not have community capacity and
long-term sustainable resources to manage currently held forest tenures on their own (First
Nations Council Briefing Document - BC Forestry Roundtable, 2008). A recent study shows
that First Nations directly manage all legal responsibilities on only about 54% of the licenses
they hold and the remaining 46% o f licenses held by First Nations are under circumstances
where some or all of the legal responsibilities are transferred to a non-native third party. As a
result, First Nations receive only 22% o f employment opportunities with 32% of revenue sharing
resulting in only 6% employment opportunities for First Nations (SR Management Services Ltd,
2010). Between the periods of 2005 and 2009, the overall harvest volume from First Nations
tenures was approximately 7% o f the total provincial AAC which has increased to 15.5% by the
end of April 2012 (MFLNRO, 2012).

2.3.3. The Legal Frameworks: Aboriginal Rights & Title
With respect to legal frameworks, it is important to understand the meaning and scope of
Aboriginal rights and title. Aboriginal rights are practices, customs or traditions First Nations
participated in prior to European contact and are integral to the distinctive culture o f the First
Nations claiming the right whereas Aboriginal title is a subcategory o f Aboriginal rights, which
is the right to the land itself (Updated Procedures for Meeting Legal Obligations when
Consulting First Nations - Interim, Province of BC, 2010). Aboriginal rights include hunting,
fishing, and gathering activities that are protected under the Constitution and cannot be
extinguished by any government. Aboriginal title refers to exclusive use and occupation o f the

42

land for a variety o f purposes and can only be surrendered to the Crown through treaty
negotiations.
Many First Nations maintain that treaty negotiations are land sharing agreements, and
not land cessions as stated by the Royal Proclamation (The Office o f the Treaty Commissioners
- Internet Access, January 18,2014). Treaty rights are beyond the scope o f this research study,
but it is important to understand that Treaty rights14 are separate from Aboriginal rights.15 In
addition, Aboriginal interests are most commonly used terms in the resource management sector
which basically refers to claimed or proven Aboriginal rights and title and treaty rights that
require consultation (MFLNRO, 2010).
In Canada, the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights are recognized and affirmed in
Section 35(1) o f the Constitution Act, 1982 (Smith & Ross, 2002; MFLNRO, 2010). The rights
of Aboriginal people with respect to land and resources are also recognized and substantiated
through several land mark court rulings. Among several other court decisions, some o f the
important and relevant land mark court decisions include Calder v. British Columbia [1973]16,
Sparrow v. the Queen [1990]17, R, V. Van der Peet v. the Queen [1996]18, Delgamuukw v. British

14 Treaty rights are held by a First Nation in accordance with the terms of a historic or modem treaty agreement
with the Crown. Treaties may also identify obligations held by a First Nation and the Crown.
15 Aboriginal rights are practices, customs or traditions integral to the distinctive culture o f the First Nation such as
hunting, fishing, and gathering plants for traditional medicines and spiritual ceremonial purposes.
16 The Calder Case was the foundation of Aboriginal law in BC where for the first time Canadian law
acknowledged that Aboriginal title to land existed prior to the colonization o f the continent. In particular, the court
determined that Nisga’a title to their lands had never been lawfully extinguished through treaty or by any other
means.
17 The Sparrow Case was a precedent-setting Supreme Court o f Canada decision that affirmed Aboriginal fishing
and other rights. This court decision set out criteria for determining whether governmental infringement on
Aboriginal rights that were in existence at the time o f the Constitution Act, 1982 were justifiable. This is known as
the “Sparrow Test.”
18 The Supreme Court of Canada Van der Peet decision further defined Aboriginal rights such as fishing rights as
outlined in the Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

43

Columbia [1997]19, and Haida Nation v. British Columbia and Weyerhaeuser [2004]20, and Taku
River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia [2004]21. Most recently, the Supreme Court of
Canada decision in William v. British Columbia [2014]22 has also
granted land title to Tsilhqot’in First Nation providing more legal clarity to the land issue in BC.
Although Section 35(1) of the Constitutional Act, 1982 and subsequent court rulings
provide general protection of Aboriginal rights, most fail to define or set out particular
Aboriginal rights (MARR - Internet Access, March 15, 2011). As a result, many First Nations
in BC have unresolved Aboriginal rights and title issues that are being addressed by the
Provincial government through treaty, incremental treaty agreements and interim measures, and
broad-based discussions (The State of BC’s Forests (3rd ed.), 2010). Due to the several court
rulings favoring Fist Nations claims, the government, industry, and third party interest groups
have an enforceable and equitable legal duty to consult First Nations before proceeding with
development activities on potential treaty land and to seek accommodation of Aboriginal rights
(Sherry, Halseth, et al., 2005). More specifically, the Provincial government and decision­
makers have legal obligations to consult with First Nations and seek to address their concerns,
and where required, accommodate First Nations whenever it proposes a development activity or

19 The Delgamuukw Supreme Court of Canada decision confirmed that Aboriginal title does exist in BC, that it is
right to the land itself - not just right to hunt, fish, and gather foods and medicinal plants.
20 The Haida Supreme Court o f Canada decision emphasized the importance o f government duty to consult and
when required provide proper accommodation to Fist Nations when making land and resource use decisions that
could affect Aboriginal rights and title (both proven or unproven Aboriginal rights and title).
21 The Taku River Tlingit decision is similar to the Haida Nation v. British Columbia and Weyerhaeuser court
decision [2004].
22 In the Tsilhqot’in land mark decision, the Supreme Court o f Canada for the first time in Canadian history has
declared Aboriginal title to the land and resources. This court decision not only provides greater clarity both on
Aboriginal title and rights, but also the Province’s rights and responsibilities regarding future First Nations
consultation and how land and resource management decisions are made in BC. First Nation’s consent is now
required prior to making any land and resource management decisions within the Aboriginal titled land.

decision that could impact treaty rights or both claimed and proven Aboriginal rights
(MFLNRO, 2010).
The forest sector plays a major role in BC’s economy and proper recognition of
Aboriginal rights and title with respect to land and resource use and considerations for First
Nations interests and socio-economic values during the forest policy development process are
critical for future forestry development in BC. Specific to forestry development, the MFLNRO
has legal duties and obligations to consult and respect Aboriginal rights while maintaining a
timely approval process for forest business practices (Ministry o f Forests and Range Aboriginal Affairs Branch Policy Manual, 2003). This is part o f the government’s obligations to
ensure that the existing rights o f Aboriginal people are not unjustifiably infringed upon by the
forest development decisions o f the Crown or its licensees.
In addition, Aboriginal access to resources and control over management decision­
making within their traditional territories have also been defined by the negotiation o f land
claims and self-government agreements such as the Inuvialuit, Gwich’in, Inuit, and Nisga’a
Treaty (Sherry, Halseth, Fondahl, Kaijala, Leon, et al., 2005). Through a lengthy process of
legal claims and favorable outcomes o f the recent court rulings, Aboriginal people in BC have
been able to proclaim their inherent rights and title on traditional lands. Increasingly, the
integration of traditional knowledge and cultural values has become a part o f the resource
management strategy and decision-making in BC. However, significant issues and challenges
still remain with regards to an adequate access to resources and an effective control over land
and resources management decision-making within their traditional territories.
It is often understood that the primary intent o f the government approach to negotiations
with First Nations is to secure long-term resource development within their traditional territories

45

rather than implement policy that acknowledges and respects Aboriginal rights and title that are
protected under the Constitution Act and affirmed through several important court rulings cited
above. As Smith & Ross (2002, p. 1) point out, “the provincial systems o f tenure are a structural
and systemic impediment to the recognition and protection o f Aboriginal and treaty rights in
forest management in Canada.” Essentially, the ability to continue their traditional land and
resource uses and protection o f underlying forest values under existing systems has been the
primary focus of First Nations for exercising their rights (Smith & Ross, 2002).
2.3.4. First Nations Consultations and Forest Policy Guidelines
As the traditional occupants o f the land, First Nations people in BC hold unique legal
status which is recognized in Canadian law, such as Section 35(1) o f the Constitution Act, 1982,
which was subsequently affirmed through several Supreme Court decisions. To honour and
respect existing Aboriginal rights and title, the provincial government has legal duty to consult,
and when appropriate, accommodate First Nations on land and resource decisions that could
impact their Aboriginal interests (MARR - Internet Access, March 15, 2011). In response to
emerging Aboriginal case law, the Provincial government developed its first Aboriginal rights
policy in 1995, with the intent of avoiding or justifying the infringement o f proven Aboriginal
rights (MARR - Internet Access, March 15, 2011). In the wake of Aboriginal case law such as
the Supreme Court of Canada decision on the Delgamuukw case in 1997, the Provincial
government developed the Crown Lands Activities and Aboriginal Rights Policy Framework to
include the Consultation Guidelines in 1998. The most significant development o f this policy
was the consideration of Aboriginal title as the basis for consultation, because previously, the
government only had to consider consultation from informants o f Aboriginal rights to meet the
legal requirements established in the Sparrow decision (Marsden, 2005).
46

In light of two BC Court of Appeal decisions on the Haida Nations v. BC (Ministry o f
Forests) and Weyerhaeuser [2002] and Taku River Tlingit v. Ringstad et al. [2002], the
Provincial government expanded its Consultation Guidelines (1998) and introduced the
Provincial Policy for Consultation with First Nations in 2002. Subsequently, the Provincial
government also drafted the Ministry of Forests Consultation Guidelines, Ministry o f Forests
Policy on Aboriginal Rights and Title, and Strategic Policy Approaches to Accommodation in
2003 (MFLNR, 2013). These became primary policy guidelines for consulting First Nations,
although most of the provincial ministries had their own guidelines. Through this policy, the
Province emphasized First Nations consultation based on Aboriginal rights and title that are
asserted but unproven through the court proceedings (Marsden, 2005). This was standard
practice with respect o f First Nations consultation in BC until the most recent Supreme Court of
Canada decisions on the Haida Nation v. BC (Ministry o f Forests) and Weyerhaeuser [2004] and
Taku River Tlingit v. Ringstad et al. [2004], The court decisions provided a clearer
understanding of the rights and responsibilities o f the governments to consult and accommodate
First Nations interests and further defined what constitutes proper consultation and
accommodation (MARR - Internet Access, March 19, 2010). More importantly, the court
affirmed the Province’s duties to consult with First Nations regarding claimed but not yet proven
rights and where appropriate accommodate those rights [Haida decision - 2004] (MARR Internet Access, March 19, 2010).
In 2005, the Province began meetings with representatives o f the First Nations Summit,
the Union of BC Indian Chiefs and the BC Assembly of First Nations to develop new
approaches for consultation and accommodation. The focus was to develop a new vision and
goal towards creating a better relationship with First Nations in BC based on openness,

47

transparency, and collaboration instead of litigation to avoid future uncertainties (MARR Internet Access, March 19, 2010). Based on meetings, the Provincial government introduced the
New Relationship agreement document outlining the visions and principles o f the new
relationship. The highlight of this document is to establish a new govemment-to-govemment
relationship with First Nations, new processes and structures for coordination, and shared
decision-making on the land base. The document also proposes discussion on revenue sharing
to reflect Aboriginal rights and title interests and to assist First Nations with economic
development (MARR - Internet Access, March 19, 2010). A detailed description o f this New
Relationship agreement document is described in the next section (Section 2.3.5).
In 2010, the Provincial government released an interim Updated Procedures for Meeting
Legal Obligations when Consulting First Nations document to reflect new case law and legal
requirements established by the courts since April 2010. However, the procedures are not
intended to replace or supersede previous agreements such as the relationship development,
shared decision making arrangements, other process agreements or treaty between the province
and First Nations. The procedures outlined in this document further emphasize both claimed
and proven Aboriginal rights and title and provide a baseline for provincial government agencies
to meet legal obligations required by case law while fulfilling vision o f a New Relationship
(MARR - Internet Access, March 19, 2010).
The current consultation process consists o f four phases: 1) preparation, 2) engagement,
3) accommodation, and 4) decision and follow-up. Phase one involves the identification o f the
involved First Nation(s), identification o f treaties or process agreement(s), a review o f readily
available information, consideration o f the applicable consultation level, and deciding who will
engage the First Nation(s). The second phase involves providing information and seeking input,

48

engaging First Nation(s), and completing consultation at the appropriate level. The third phase
involves assessing consultation and the need to accommodate, identifying accommodation
options, and proposing accommodation measures and attempting to reach agreement. The final
phase involves assessing consultation and accommodation records, providing decisions to the
First Nation(s), and ensuring implementation o f the agreed accommodations (MARR - Interim
Updated Procedures for Meeting Legal Obligation When Consulting First Nations (Internet
Access, March 19, 2010). In general, the required level o f First Nations consultation is
determined based on the key indicators illustrated in diagram below (Figure 2):

Strong rights or
title claim, or

itrong

proven rights

Factors suggest
a reasonable

loderate

claim, or
proven rights,
or treaty rights

Little indication
of historical or
current use

mal

teal
itification

Minimal or no
impact

Reasonable probability of

High probability of

adverse impacts or

negative impacts or

infringem ent

infringements

Source: Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (2010, p.l 1)

Figure 2: Considerations for Levels of First Nations Consultation Diagram

In terms of methods of consultation with First Nations, the government currently uses an
ad hoc referral process whenever the Crown is about to make a decision which may impact

49

Aboriginal rights. Basically, the government consults with First Nations on behalf o f licensees
by sending letters to First Nations about the proposed resource development activities on Crown
land. First Nations are given a 60 day response period which is considered a formal consultation
process. First Nations have no other options but to follow the rules and policy around
consultation process and they must respond within this set time frame if they have any issues or
concerns regarding proposed development activities within their traditional territories. This is
followed by information sharing sessions with First Nations involving some degree o f
consultation, an assessment of Aboriginal claims, and possible considerations for
accommodation (Morellato, 2008). Generally, the scope o f consultation will depend on the
degree to which the forestry decision impacts the land base and the level of Aboriginal interests
impacted by the decisions being made (MFR - Ministry Policy Manual, 2003). However, the
degree of consultation and accommodation is determined by Crown officials (Morellato, 2008).
During the 60 day period, First Nations have the opportunity to review the scope of
proposed development activities and bring forward any issues or concerns they may have during
the information sharing sessions. However, due to the overwhelming number of referrals
received from multiple government agencies on a daily and weekly basis and the lack of
capacity, resources or staff to address those referrals, many First Nations are unable to properly
review and respond to all the referrals received. Regardless, the consultation is considered done
whether or not any response is received from First Nations within the 60 day period. The
current referral process is considered largely ineffective, dysfunctional, and flawed since the
Crown policies do not engage in truly collaborative decision-making processes with First
Nations (Morellato, 2008).

50

2.3.5. The New Relationship and Strategic Policy Approach to Accommodation
A historical Aboriginal-Crown relationship between the Province o f BC and the First
Nations Leadership Council was initiated in 2005 under the “New Relationship” policy
agreement (New Relationship Document, 2005). This approach was initiated following several
court decisions favouring Aboriginal rights and titles in respect to land and resource use in
British Columbia. The underlying premise of this new initiative was to establish a new
govemment-to-govemment relationship based on respect, recognition, and accommodation of
Aboriginal rights and title with regards to land and resource management, decision-making, and
revenue sharing (The New Relationship Document, 2005). This agreement confirms and
highlights the recognition of the right to Aboriginal title, protected under Section 35 o f the
Constitutional Act 1982, and the inherent right to make decisions over land use.
The strategic goals and visions o f this new agreement are to recognize First Nations as a
strong and equal economic partner, establish First Nations economic self-sufficiency, and
eliminate socio-economic disparity between First Nations and other British Columbians.
Furthermore, the goals are also to preserve First Nations cultures, language, and ensure that
lands and resources are managed in accordance with First Nations laws, knowledge, and values
(The New Relationship Document, 2005). With respect to the Strategic Policy Approaches to
Accommodation, the government is obligated to consult with First Nations on a wide-range of
forest and range management decisions and to seek to accommodate them for unjustifiable
infringements of Aboriginal title (MFR - Strategic Policy Approaches to Accommodation, Final
Draft (2003).

51

2.3.6. The Interim FROs Agreement and the Tl’azt’en Nation Engagement
Initially, the Forest and Range Agreements (FRAs) and Forest and Range Opportunities
(FROs) were conceived as interim measures between First Nations and the Ministry of Forests
and Range (MFR - Presently, MFLNRO) to provide economic incentives for First Nations
through revenue sharing and forest tenure opportunities. The purpose of these agreements were
to provide accommodations and revenue sharing in the form of either forest tenure and/or
revenue for any potential Aboriginal rights and/or title that may be impacted by forestry
decisions and to create stable conditions for resource development and operations on Crown
land (Strategic Policy Approaches to Accommodation, 2003). In general, these agreements were
non-replaceable and offered for 5-year terms, subject to the renewal of the agreement. The
tenures under this agreement are volume based and subject to the same terms and conditions that
apply to all other forest tenures in British Columbia (MFR, FRO - Frequently Asked Questions,
August 14, 2007). The amount of revenue and number o f forest tenures were determined based
on population size. In exchange, First Nations not only must agree to not engage in direct action
to exercise their right and title, but must also agree to the consultation process lead by the
Ministry of Forests and Range (MFR - Strategic Policy Approaches to Accommodation, Final
Draft, 2003).
The New Relationship amended the previous FRA which was replaced by a new
template entitled Interim Agreement on Forest and Range Opportunities. The important
developments in this new agreement were the removal o f the provision that enabled the province
to cancel agreements if First Nations challenged BC forestry decisions in courts (Union o f BC
Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) Press Release, June 6, 2006). Basically, FROs were based on the same
principles as the previous FRAs, and formally recognize the mutually agreeable new relationship

52

between the government and First Nations. Despite this new tenure amendment, FROs were
disputed by the UBCIC. One of the main concerns was limited economic opportunities for the
infringement of their Aboriginal rights and title in the forestry sector. The other concerns were
around the exclusion of First Nations from strategic, administrative, and operational decisions by
setting out a consultative process which does not incorporate First Nations laws and values into
land and forest use decisions (UBCIC letter to the Premier Gordon Campbell, 2006).
Effectively, First Nations strongly rejected the unilaterally pre-set conditions of the FROs
Agreement as these terms and conditions put serious limitations on the ability o f First Nations to
exercise and defend their Aboriginal rights and title during the term o f the agreement (Parfitt,
2007).
While several provisions o f the FROs Agreement were contested by First Nations
communities across BC, the Tl’azt’en Nation entered into the Interim FROs Agreement in 2008
(Tl’azt’en Nation Interim FROs Agreement, 2008). The total timber volume is not specified in
the agreement document, but the total revenue sharing o f $3.56 million was negotiated under
this agreement (Ministry o f Forests, Mines and Lands - First Nations & Land Use Planning
Branch, 2011). The overall purpose o f the agreement was to create viable economic
opportunities and help improve the socio-economic conditions o f the Tl’azt’en Nation while
creating a stable condition for forest resource development on Crown lands within the
Traditional territory o f the Tl’azt’en Nation during the term of the agreement (The Tl’azt’en
Nation Interim FROs Agreement, 2008).

2.4. Conclusion
Until European contact, Aboriginal people in Canada were self-governing with political
authority, and maintained communal stewardship over the land and resources within their
53

respective traditional territories for thousands o f years. These well-established traditional
systems of self-sufficiency were systematically replaced under the aggressive colonial systems
of assimilation and elimination policy. The long-term intergenerational impacts o f such
pervasive policy and subsequent government attitudes towards Aboriginal people has ultimately
shaped the historical relationships between the Crown and Aboriginal people in Canada and
continue to influence present day relationship building. In BC, a history o f government
exclusion o f First Nations from forest management, policy development and resource
management decision-making, and the successive takeover o f First Nations traditional territory
is considered by First Nations, including the Tl’azt’en Nation, as evidence of lasting colonial
attitudes towards Aboriginal people.
While some progress has been made on the policy front, particularly with respect to
recognition of the importance o f First Nations consultation during resource development
proposal period, little progress has been made towards the reconciliation of issues and concerns
of First Nations communities and the socio-economic implications of their involvement in the
commercial forestry sector. In the absence o f proper recognition o f Aboriginal rights and title
and the lack o f legitimate entitlement over the land and resources within their traditional
territory, First Nation communities such as the Tl’azt’en Nation continue to be challenged by
several external as well as internal factors that limit them from realizing the intended socio­
economic benefits from commercial forestry sector. As a result, the socio-economic gaps
between non-Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal community continue to widen despite
recent government efforts towards inclusion o f First Nations participation in the BC forestry
sector.

54

This research was undertaken prior to the Supreme Court of Canada’s Tsilhqot’in
decision (2014) which declared Aboriginal title to the lands and resources. This historic
landmark court decision confirms that Aboriginal people exclusively occupied their lands and
they were the proper land holders prior to 1846 when Canada legally became a sovereign
Nation. In other words, Aboriginal inherent rights and title were never extinguished by the
Crown and they are protected under the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982. As such, Aboriginal
inherent rights and title are constitutional matters not legislative matters; and as such, both the
Federal and Provincial governments cannot legally extinguish Aboriginal rights and title.
The Tsilhqot’in case began in 1983 when the Provincial government granted commercial
logging license within the traditional territory of the Tsilhqot’in Nation. The Tsilhqot’in Nation
opposed this and the talk between the government and Tsilhqot’in Nation broke down when the
Xeni Gwet’in (one o f the six Tsilhqot’in bands) claim for logging rights was refused. The
Tsilhqot’in later added a claim for Aboriginal title to the land and went to court in 2002. In
2007, the Provincial Court made a decision in favour o f the Tsilhqot’in claim to rights and title,
but the Provincial government immediately appealed the decision. After nearly 3 decades, the
Tsilhqot’in Nation finally won their case on June 26, 2014 when the Supreme Court of Canada
made its decision in their favor.
Currently, the Tsilhqot’in Nation is the only Aboriginal group that holds land title within
their traditional territories in Canada. However, several First Nations including the Tl’azt’en
Nation have asserted land claims in BC and the Tshilhqot’in decision provides a road map for
Aboriginal title claims beyond the traditional territory of the Tsilhqot’in First Nation and sends a
clear signal that the government cannot ignore the future claims for Aboriginal title to the lands
in BC. In this respect, the potential exists that the Tl’azt’en Nation will have their legitimate

55

ownership over their traditional territory recognized and regain control over how land and
resources are managed and revenue and economic benefits sharing are determined in the future.
How the Provincial government will make changes to its rules and regulations to truly respect
the Tsilhqot’in decision and honour the Tl’azt’en Nation’s land title remains to be seen.

56

Chapter 3. Methodology and Methods
3.1. Introduction
There are four basic elements o f social research: epistemology, theoretical perspective,
methodology, and methods (Crotty, 1998). All these elements are interlinked and contribute to
overall outcomes o f the particular research enquiry. For instance, epistemology is the basic set
o f beliefs or way o f looking at the world and making sense of it whereas the theoretical
perspective is the philosophical stance or a particular theory to guide research methodology and
data interpretation to make certain assumptions about how reality works. Research methodology
is the research strategy or design to develop the appropriate research methods to achieve the
desired outcomes which are guided by individual theoretical perspectives, whereas the research
method consists of the specific techniques or procedures used to collect data to support
theoretical perspective (Crotty, 1998).
This chapter outlines the research methodology and methods used to examine the
opportunities and limitations o f First Nations forestry agreements and community management
o f forests within the traditional territory o f the Tl’azt’en Nation. Following this introduction, a
brief description of the methodological approach to the research undertaken is discussed. The
third section provides detailed descriptions of the methods utilized for primary field data
collection, including techniques and procedures such as semi-structured interviews, field notes
and observations, and secondary data sources. The fourth section discusses the process and
methods of data analysis such as manifest and latent content analysis. Finally, the fifth section
addresses some of the strategies used to maintain and verify the quality of research data being
collected and how they were interpreted and validated to justify the research findings. In
addition, a brief discussion on some o f the strengths and weakness of the selected research
57

methods employed to collect data is also included. The chapter concludes with a summary of
the research methodology and methods used to collect and analyze research data.

3.2. Methodology
The choice of a qualitative research approach is influenced by personal goals and
experiences (Maxwell, 2009). Guba & Lincoln (1994, p. 105) point out that, “questions o f
methods are secondary to questions of paradigm, which we define as the basic belief system or
worldview that guides the investigator, not only in choices o f method but in ontologically and
epistemologically fundamental ways.” Ontology is the study of natural existence or reality and
epistemology is a set of philosophical beliefs about the nature of social reality and truth or
meaning that comes into existence through our engagement with the realities in our world
(Crotty, 1998). In this regard, I believe that my personal perspective and understanding about
the cultural and socio-economic realities o f the TPazt’en Nation has certain influences on how I
designed my research framework and selected particular research methods. Regarding my
research findings, it is possible that they may be the subject of diverse perspectives o f individual
research participants and ultimately community negotiations (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
Qualitative research involves an interpretive and naturalistic approach to the world based
on our individual perception and what we know about certain social phenomena based on social
definitions and how they are presented by people (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, 2005). Similarly,
Babbie (2004) defines that the primary focus of social research is to find regulatory patterns in
social life and generally reflects the collective behavior of many individuals.
This research was conducted within the traditional territory o f the Tl’azt’en Nation and
reflects the collective views and experiences of the Tl’azt’enne as well as other non-Tl’azt’enne
participants. One of the important concepts in social research is that research should be done
58

with community, not to community. As such, the basic principle behind developing my research
framework was to directly engage and work collaboratively with various Tl’azt’en Nation
community members on a partnership basis so that I am a known person in the community as
opposed to just another university graduate student researcher from a distance place. Through
this approach, I was able to engage with some of the key members o f the community including
community leaders, Elders, and Keyoh holders, participate in various community events, and
consider the rural context and rhythm of the community. Meanwhile, I was also able to respect
and honour cultural differences, engage in meaningful dialogue, understand community capacity
and challenges, and more importantly, take part in long-term relationship building.
One o f the advantages o f qualitative research is that it allows researchers to directly
observe social life and develop a richer understanding o f many social phenomena as they exist in
the natural setting. Furthermore, through the open and inclusive nature of the participatory
approach, social research allows for a greater understanding o f complex and diverse
representations of the individual research participants (Babbie, 2004). The findings o f my
research study reflect a wide range of individual perspectives on the respective research
questions and how I was able to observe and comprehend their real-life stories during the
qualitative research interviews. The intent of this research is to analyze, highlight, and interpret
the meaning and understanding o f long-term community values and the ongoing issues o f socio­
economic gaps and prevailing challenges o f the Tl’azt’en Nation as described by individual
participants during the research interviews.

3.3. Methods
The research method is the concrete tools, techniques or procedures used to gather and
analyse data related to the research question (Crotty, 1998). The quality and integrity of
59

qualitative research relies on the collection of qualitative data through appropriate selection and
use o f research methods that are relevant to research inquiry. Wolcott (1994) suggests that there
are three major modes o f collecting qualitative research data: experiencing through participant
observation, enquiring through interviewing, and examining through studying materials prepared
by others. To a certain extent, this study involves a combination of all these elements; however,
the qualitative field research interviews, and more specifically, the semi-structured interviews
with open-ended questions was the primary mode o f data collection. By using these techniques,
I was able to directly observe life experiences and important social variables such as individual’s
perspectives, meanings, behaviours, thoughts, beliefs, and intentions.

3.3.1. Primary Field Data Collection
Field research involves the direct observation o f social phenomena and individuals in
their natural settings and provides a broader perspective and a deeper understanding o f social life
(Babbie, 2004). This research was conducted primarily within the traditional territory of the
TPazt’en Nation between the periods of 2011 and 2013. Conducting any type of research within
the traditional territory o f First Nations communities such as the Tl’azt’en Nation requires
special consideration in terms o f cultural, geo-political, and socio-economic sensitivities of the
community involved. As such, field data were conducted with respect for local customs and
cultural values, language, and traditional knowledge and wisdom o f the Tl’azt’en Nation.
Respect for the Elders, community members, and the traditional territory of the TPazt’en Nation
were guiding principles throughout the experience of data collection in the field. More
importantly, the ethical guidelines as outlined in the community research agreement (Appendix
A), the Chief and Council (C&C) Resolution Document (Appendix B), the TPazt’en Nation
Information Sheet and Informed Consent Form (Appendix C), the TPazt’en Nation Guidelines
60

for Research in Tl’azt’en Territory (Appendix D), the policy guidelines of the Tri-Council
Policy statement, and the specific policy and procedures o f the Research Ethics Board at the
University o f Northern British Columbia (UNBC) (Appendix E) were obtained prior to
conducting field research and followed to avoid any negative impacts on the participants or the
research community.
As Babbie (2004, p.282) points out, “field research differs from other models of
observation in that it is not just a data colleting activity. Instead it is a theory-generating activity
as well.” Various field data collection techniques were used to ensure that the research methods
used were inclusive and complement each other for the purpose of analyzing, understanding, and
drawing conclusions from the research data being collected. Semi-structured interviews, field
observations, and field notes were the primary methods of field data collection. Field data were
collected in a manner that optimized manageability, verifiability, and purposefulness in order to
maintain a high quality of research findings.
3.3.1.1. Semi-Structured Interviews
Semi-structured interviews are probably the most commonly used data collection
technique in qualitative research (Bryman, 2008). Schoenberger (1991, p. 188) further stresses
that “the richness o f detail and historical complexity that can be derived from an interview-based
approach.” It is also argued that qualitative interviewing is a flexible and dynamic form that can
be used to gain in-depth information about phenomena that cannot be directly observed by the
researcher (Taylor & Bogdan, 1998). By employing this semi-structured research method, I was
able to directly engage with the research participants and understand their individual
perspectives on their own terms.

61

In order to maintain open and transparent communication with the research community,
the lists o f potential research participants were discussed with the TPazt’en Nation prior to
selecting the participants for the purpose o f semi-structured interviews. After receiving
comments and suggestions from the TPazt’en Nation, eleven research participants were selected
from various community groups from both inside and outside of the research community (Table
1). Due to the complex nature of my research, it was necessary for me to include a group o f
participants with diverse cultural, gender, socio-economic, educational, leadership, and
professional backgrounds.
The list of selected research participants included community leaders such as the Carrier
Sekani Tribal Chief, the TPazt’en Nation C&C members, Elders, Keyoh holders, TPazt’en
Nation Natural Resource staff, and various resource professionals, coordinators, and managers.
Overall, TPazt’en members represent approximately 55%, other members from neighboring
First Nations communities such as Takla Band and Yekooche represent approximately 18%, and
three non-Aboriginal participants represent approximately 27% o f the total participants. In
terms of gender representation, approximately 73% of the participants were male and 27% o f the
participants were female (Table 1).

62

Table 1: The List o f Selected Community Research Participants

Communities
Associations

dob Functions

Research
Participants

Gender

1

Ralph
Pierre

Male

Tache Village
(Band Chief)

2

Simon
John

Male

Tache Village
(Band Councilor)

3

Beverly
John

Female

Tache Village
(Band Councilor)

4

Sebastian
Anatole

Male

Binche Village
(Elder/Councilor)

5

Darren
Haskell

Male

Tache Village

Fisheries Manager/
Mining

6

Alex
Pierre

Male

Tache Village

Forest Planner

7

Elke
Lepka

Female

Takla Band
(Councilor)

8

Renel
Mitchell

Female

Fort St. James,
BC

9

Terry
Teegee

Male

Takla Band

Tribal Chief

10

John
Marchal

Male

Fort St. James,
BC

Operations Manager

11

Dexter
Hodder

Male

Fort St. James,
BC

Research Forest Manager

Organizations
Responsibilities
Band Chief, Knowledge
holder, and Traditional
Steward
Band Councilor,
Knowledge holder, and
Traditional Steward
Band Councilor, Natural
Resources
Manager/Coordinator
Band Councilor,
Knowledge holder, and
Traditional Steward

Band Councilor/
Natural Resources
Coordinator
Researcher, BC Capacity
Initiative Coordinator/
GIS Technician

Tl’azt’en Nation

Tl’azt’en Nation
Tl’azt’en Nation
Natural Resource
Department
Tl’azt’en Nation
Tl’azt’en Nation
Natural Resource
Department
Tanizul Timber
Ltd.
Takla Band Natural
Resource
Department
Tl’azt’en Nation
Natural Resource
Department
Carrier Sekani
Tribal Council,
Prince George, BC
Tanizul Timber
Ltd.
John Prince
Research Forest,
Fort St. James, BC

In addition to selected participants listed in Table 1, a concerned member from the
neighboring First Nation community (Yekooche) also voluntarily participated in this research
study and her responses were incorporated into the analysis. The semi-structured interviews for
this research study were conducted between July 26 and August 10, 2012. Following the

community interviews, I also organized two separate meetings with the First Nations Advisor at
the MFLNRO office in Fort St. James, BC on July 26 and August 22, 2013. The specific
purpose of these meetings was to discuss the First Nations consultation process and procedures
currently in place, and more importantly, to understand her perspectives on these process and
procedures as the principal mediator between the Tl’azt’en Nation and local government
agencies such as the MFLNRO. Through my engagement with this individual, I was not only
able to compare and verify some o f the First Nations consultation related topics discussed at the
interviews, but also relevant issues and barriers experienced by both the local government
representative and First Nations communities such as the Tl’azt’en Nation regarding the current
level o f consultation processes and practices. To a certain extent, this participant was considered
as a key informant since she was not only willing to share her knowledge and experience but
also provided access to some o f the key information that would not otherwise be available
(Bryman & Burgess, 1999). As with any other research participant, the purpose of the research
study and more specifically the reasons for the interview were explained before her
interviewing. Subsequently, her permission was also obtained to use any o f the relevant
information she shared as part of the data analysis.
Prior to conducting field interviews, the interview guide and consent form were approved
by the Research Ethics Board at UNBC (Appendix El & E2). The interviews were organized
based on the availability of individual research participants, preferred locations for interviews,
and scheduled meetings in community settings. This way, I was able to collect important
information in a relatively short period o f time while providing participants with a familiar, safe,
and comfortable place to facilitate the ease of the conversation during interviews (Dunn, 2005).
While most of the interviews took place in Tache village, some interviews were also organized

in other communities including the John Prince Research Forest (JPRF) office (also known as
Chuzghun Resource Corporation) located in Fort St. James, BC and the Carrier Sekani Tribal
Council (CSTC) office located in Prince George, BC, to facilitate those individual participants
living outside o f the research community.
At the beginning of each formal interview, I reviewed the interview consent form with
each individual participant and asked them to sign the consent form (Appendix F). This consent
form was drafted in accordance with the Tri-Council Policy Statement on the Ethical Conduct of
Research Involving Humans (2010). In addition to this interview consent form, an ‘Information
Sheet and Informed Consent Form’ (Appendix C) was also drafted as per the Tl’azt’en Nation’s
request. However, the purpose and content in the ‘Information Sheet and Informed Consent
Form’ were very much similar to the interview consent form. As such, only one consent form
was signed by each individual participant prior to interview.
After signing o f the consent form, the original signed copy was provided to each
participant and a copy was retained for the administrative purposes o f the study, which will be
kept until the completion o f this thesis. Once the consent form was signed, each participant was
asked if the interview could be audio recorded in its entirety for the purpose o f later
transcription. The primary purpose and justification for using audio recording was made clear to
the interviewee prior to recording each interview (Patton, 1980). With permission from all of
the participants, a small digital audio tape recorder was used to record interviews to ensure the
detail and accuracy of the information being collected from the interviews. This allowed me to
be more attentive to the interviewee responses and record particular interviewee’s perspectives
as fully and fairly as possible during interviews (Patton, 1980).

65

By using semi-structured interviews, I was able to ask a predetermined set o f interview
questions while allowing flexibility for interviewees to respond to issues in their own terms
without control from the researcher (Schoenberger, 1991; Dunn, 2005). Due to the flexible and
dynamic nature of interviewing, research participants were encouraged to discuss their thoughts
and experiences in an open and intimate setting throughout the interview process. As the
interviewer, I was able to ask further questions in response to what were seen as significant
replies (Bryman, 2008). As Patton (1980) points out, probes and follow-up questions allow
interviewer to expand the response to a question and therefore increase the richness o f the data
being obtained. Furthermore, as the interviews progressed, I was able to ask supplementary
questions to clarify or further explore issues o f interest raised during the interviews. The
outcomes of this process became an integral part o f my research study because it helped me
develop important research questions that I was not aware o f prior to interviews (Bryman, 2008).
Patton (1980, p. 211) contends that, “the basic thrust of qualitative measurement is to
minimize the imposition of predetermined responses when gathering data.” As such, openended questions combined with an interview guide (Appendix G) approach were employed to
provide flexibility in asking questions beyond the originally prepared semi-structured interview
questions. By using this format, I was able to engage in open and interactive dialogue and
gather comprehensive answers based on participants’ own personal thoughts and experiences.
Although a semi-structured interview process was followed during the interview, questions were
asked in a truly open-ended manner and individual participants were given the opportunity to
respond on their own terms (Patton, 1980). This allowed me to gather valuable insights and
detailed clarification from individuals’ perspectives and experiences, thus increasing the
likelihood o f useful responses. As suggested by Schoenberger (1991), open-ended interviews

66

may offer greater accuracy and validity o f the responses by allowing respondents to engage in an
open and interactive dialogue.
As part of the semi-structured interviews, a supplementary interview questionnaire was
also distributed to participants for their preview. The purpose o f this particular section was to
focus on the key interests, values, and priorities from the perspectives o f the Tl’azt’en Nation
with regards to land and resource management practices and decision-making within their
traditional territory. The highlighted topics include the current approach and status o f the First
Nations consultation processes, forest policy frameworks, community capacity building, a
community-based resource management initiative such as the Tl’azt’en Nation LUP,
community-based land and resource management and decision-making, and future alternatives
for First Nations forest tenure systems. These are key considerations for future policy
implementation to facilitate the establishment of community-based initiatives, and the
development of forest tenure alternatives based on the unique needs and circumstances o f the
community. Ultimately, analysis o f these processes is integral to attaining the objective of
recognizing Tl’azt’en Nation’s control over land and resource management and decision-making
within their traditional territory. The results from the questionnaire were incorporated into
overall research data analysis and are described in detail in the data analysis section.
Aside from its many advantages, there are also disadvantages for using semi-structured
interview methods. For example, this type o f research method can be a costly and timeconsuming process depending on the nature of research enquiry, the location o f the research
community, and the number o f research participants involved. Frechtling & Sharp (1997) argue
that this type of research method also requires well-qualified and highly trained interviewers to
properly conduct interviews and in some cases interviewees may distort information through

67

recall error, selective perception, and a desire to please the interviewer. He further claims that
the flexible nature o f the research method can also result in inconsistencies across interviews and
the volume of information gathered during interviews can be too large to viably transcribe and
interpret according to the resources available to the researcher.
Time and cost were certainly limiting factors in this research study, mainly because o f
the distance o f the research community and interview locations from the researcher, the number
of participants involved, and the complexity o f the necessary interview transcription process. In
total, 13 individuals, including 11 selected, 1 self-volunteered participant, and 1 representative
from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations took part in this research
study. Several long distance trips were organized between 3 different communities including
Tache, Fort St. James, and Prince George to meet with participants and conduct interviews (see
Figure 1). In some cases, it required extra effort in contacting and scheduling the interviews
with individual participants due to some changing circumstances o f the participants. The
estimated time for each interview was 45 minutes, but the actual interview time fluctuated
between individual participants. The average length o f interview was 70 minutes, ranging from
45 to 95 minutes.
While field interviewing was considerably time-consuming, transcription o f the
interviews was by far the most costly and lengthy process in field data collection and processing.
In order to ensure the accuracy of the interview data, an experienced individual was hired to
transcribe the digitally recorded interview data which took a considerably long time to complete.
Unfortunately, although the audio equipment used was newly purchased specifically for this
project, manufacturer defects produced repeated gaps in the recordings leading to incomplete
words, phrases, and some gaps in between the sentences. While an initial cursory review of the

68

recordings did not reveal the full extent o f these defects, they were thoroughly discovered as the
research assistant struggled to transcribe interviewee dialogue in complete threads.
Those participants with defects in their interview recordings were contacted and
informed about the potential issues regarding the quality and integrity o f the research data. They
were provided with the original interview transcripts and requested to either fill in the gaps in
the original transcripts or re-submit the entire interview responses in written form. This was a
particularly difficult and somewhat unusual circumstance to request some participants to re­
submit their responses after the interviews were already been completed. In total, approximately
30% of the participants were contacted to either revise certain sections o f the transcripts or to re­
submit their interview responses in their entirety. The majority o f these participants responded
by re-submitting their entire responses in written form while some interviewees provided their
responses over phone conversations and at scheduled meetings. Less than 10% of the
participants did not respond to my request for revisions. The quality o f the repaired interview
transcripts was reconcilable, and was much improved compared to the interview transcripts prior
to being, or that could not be, repaired.
Despite this unexpected setback, I learned a valuable lesson about being more diligent
about field interview preparation. In due course, I was able to gather necessary interview data
from all participants and finalize the interview transcripts by utilizing information from both the
original and revised interview transcripts and field notes. As Patton (1980, p.248) highlights,
“since the raw data of interview are quotations, the most desirable data to obtain would be full
transcription of interviews.” As such, a full transcription o f each interview was prepared for the
purpose of maintaining, organizing, and analyzing the raw data collected from the interviews.

69

Following the field interviews, the interview audio recordings, interview transcripts,
questionnaire results, and field notes were duplicated and securely stored in a secure location
such as a locked cabinet. The edited versions o f interview transcripts were sent to all
participants for verification so that necessary corrections could be made based on their
comments and feedback. O f the 11 participants, only two provided some minor comments while
others offered no comment or feedback. The comments received were generally around
technical details o f the interview design so no corrections were made in the actual content o f the
interview transcripts. After finalizing the interview transcripts, the transcript copies and field
notes were sent back to all participants for their personal record. In addition, the summary o f the
content analysis results and the results from the interview questionnaire were provided to all
participants as part of the interview summary notes. Separate copies of these documents were
also provided to the Tl’azt’en Nation for their record. Finally, both the hard and electronic
copies of the final research report will be provided to individual research participants and to
Tl’azt’en Nation after completion o f the study.
3.3.I.2. Observations and Field Notes
My personal association with the Tl’azt’en Nation extends beyond my research. I first
came into contact with the Tl’azt’en Nation during my community visits in 2006 and
subsequently established close relationships with various community members including the
Elders, youths, Keyoh holders, the C&C members, and Natural Resource staff. Between 2006
and 2013,1 have engaged with both the TPazt’en Nation and other local First Nations
communities, particularly the Nak’azdli Band through various community events such as annual
general meetings, First Nations cultural awareness related training and workshops, and other
important cultural functions including funerals. In 2011,1 was also invited to a C&C meeting in
70

Tache village to present my research topic. As a professional forester, as well as government
representative, I have also participated in several formal information sharing and consultation
meetings with the Tl’azt’en Nation, the TPazt’en Nation’s owned and controlled Tanizul Timber
Ltd., and the Nak’azdli Band to discuss the proposed harvesting block developments and
operations related activities within their traditional territories.
Through years o f association with the local First Nations communities, I have gained
significant exposure to local history, culture, and sense of community belonging, and have also
witnessed some of the community’s strengths and weakness. More importantly, I was able to
increase my visibility in the communities, which allowed me to develop closeness with
community members and discuss important issues that matter to them (Babbie, 2004). Having
access to the community setting and direct contact with individual community members also
gave me the opportunity to closely observe and gather more relevant information towards my
original research ideas and objectives. By observing both individual and group discussions and
interactions during different community events such as the C&C meetings, I was not only able to
experience a more realistic sense of community level issues and challenges, but also use this
insight to reflect on my research data collected during interviews. As Babbie (2004)
emphasizes, the presence of a researcher could potentially impact the situation to some degree;
as such, I took the position o f non-participatory observer - especially during important
community meetings - to avoid any potential interference.
As Patton (1980) observes, while the use of the tape recorder is an essential tool for
qualitative research methods, it does not eliminate the need for taking notes. For the majority of
the interviews, 1 was very fortunate to have a research assistant, provided by the Tl’azt’en
Nation. As a result, most of the field notes were taken by this research assistant. I reviewed and

71

compiled all field notes after the completion o f each interview which later became an integral
part o f data analysis. With this valuable support from a research assistant, I was able to pay
closer attention to individuals’ responses and ask further questions without distraction during the
interviews. In particular, it was very important for me to have a research assistant from the First
Nations community who is knowledgeable about the local culture, history, and who understood
some o f the community issues and challenges under discussion. To a certain extent, the research
assistant also provided me with crucial support in interpreting certain words, phrases, and
dialogue I was not fully able to understand or comprehend.

3.3.2. Secondary Data Use
As Royse (1991) argues, asking respondents for information about themselves is
intrusive, may have some unintentional effect upon respondents, and can be avoided by utilizing
existing data. Government documents including forest policy documents, Census data
information, historical data, and research data from previous studies were utilized as secondary
data sources. These data sources were used primarily for the purpose o f testing new hypotheses,
or exploring questions that were not considered or examined in the original study (Royse, 1991).
Due to the nature o f this research inquiry, it was important to utilize these types o f data sources
to establish baseline information about previous policy directions, community status, and socio­
economic indicators so that they could be compared with current research findings to see if there
are any changes over time. Similarly, relevant community statistical data including population
dynamics, demographic shifts, education level, and employment rates were collected using
federal government Census data.
There are advantages and disadvantages o f using secondary data. One o f the advantages
o f secondary data analysis is the availability of relevant and multiple data sources. However, it
72

is also possible that some important historical records may not be available, or may have been
lost (Royse, 1991). Considerable time and effort was saved in data collection by using various
existing secondary data sources and gaps in the historical data records regarding the impacts of
socio-economic change over time within the traditional territory o f the Tl’azt’en Nation. This is
a particularly challenging issue when conducting research involving First Nations because o f the
nature o f Aboriginal oral tradition. Unlike Western discourse which considers written word as
the dominant and legitimate form of record keeping, Aboriginal society relied on the oral
transmission o f stories, histories, and other important knowledge and skills for many generations
to maintain a historical record. This is certainly the case with the Tl’azt’en Nation where some
historical records are not available in the form o f written documentation since oral tradition still
plays a major role in maintaining historical records and sustaining their cultural identity.

3.4. Data Analysis
Research analysis is described as the process of bringing order to data while
interpretation is providing meaning and significance to the analysis (Patton, 1980). Patton
(1980) also emphasizes the importance o f having a clear sense o f the purpose during the formal
data analysis, particularly for qualitative data analysis. Furthermore, Kirby & McKenna (1989)
also highlight the importance of inter-subjectivity and critical reflection on the social context as
two essential components during research analysis in order to ensure the legitimacy of the words
and experiences shared by research participants and a meaningful interpretation of the social
reality. For Ellingson (2011, p. 595), research analysis is, “the process o f separating aggregated
texts (oral, written, or visual) into smaller segments of meanings for close consideration,
reflection, and interpretation.” Essentially, qualitative data collection and analysis is an iterative
process of interplay between analysis and data collection to develop concepts or theories.
73

The content analysis method was used to organize and simplify the complexity of
research data into some meaningful and manageable themes or categories (Patton, 1980). More
specifically, manifest and latent content analysis methods were used to examine and analyze
recorded semi-structured interview data or human communications (Babbie, 2004). The process
o f manifest content analysis involves counting the frequency of certain word, set o f words, and
phrases in the text whereas latent content analysis involves interpretation of some of the
underlying themes and meanings of the materials analyzed (Bryman & Teevan, 2005). Through
this process, themes or categories were developed by identifying and comparing certain links,
patterns, and relationships between interview data by using the constant comparative method
(Kirby & McKenna, 1989). The outcome o f the initial data analysis was the development o f a
considerably longer list o f potential themes or categories.
The unobtrusive means o f data analysis and interpretation of the meanings o f social
interaction through direct observation o f human communication via tests or transcripts are some
o f the advantages o f content analysis (Sherry, 2004). Another advantage o f content analysis is
its economy in terms o f costs. Also, data can be repeated to check for consistency since data are
not changed in the process (Babbie, 2004). However, Babbie (1979) also points out that content
analysis is not a straightforward process because the researcher faces a fundamental choice
between “depth” and “specificity” of understanding, which is essentially the choice between
“validity” and “reliability.” For example, simply counting the frequency o f certain words and
phrases in the interview transcripts may not validate richer and deeper meaning of the
participants’ personal thoughts, beliefs, and experiences. More importantly, the underlying
meaning o f communication or the reliability may be compromised by simply making an overall
assessment of the materials analyzed (Babbie, 1979).

74

A disadvantage o f content analysis is that it can be an extremely time-consuming process
(Sherry, 2004). In this research study, the determination o f selected words, sets o f words, and
phrases from a considerably large volume o f interview transcripts was time consuming. Because
of the qualitative nature of the data, content analysis was performed manually without the use of
computer software, and therefore, significant time and effort was required to complete the
content analysis. Sherry (2004) also comments that content analysis is an inherently reductive
process and subject to increased error, particularly when dealing with complex context. As such,
it is possible that the elimination o f some content occurred during the selection o f themes or
categories. In addition, only my involvement in the content analysis process can also be
considered as one of the limitations of the content analysis method used in this research study.
As suggested by Patton (1980), convergence and divergence were two problems that had
to be dealt with during the development of themes or categories. Given the large volume of
interview data, it was a fairly lengthy and complicated process to figure out the similarities and
differences between data and to determine what fit and did not fit into a certain theme or
category. For instance, while certain words and phrases used by the research participants were
easily fit together, some did not fit into a certain grouping or general pattern. However,
regardless of some irregularities, these words and phrases had to be considered as an important
part of the overall data analysis to avoid any potential bias towards individual participants’
specific thoughts, beliefs, and experiences.
Following completion o f initial data collection and analysis, I performed coding through
a simultaneous process o f mechanical data reduction and categorization o f data (Neuman, 2003)
to organize themes or categories and make analytical decisions about interview content. The list
o f themes were generated through a continuous processes o f comparison and linking between

75

certain properties and patterns of the oral, written, and other forms of communications and
linking relationships between both individual and groups o f data (Kirby & Mckenna, 1989;
Babbie, 1979). The large volume o f data was reduced to a manageable level through several
rounds of manifest content analysis and analytical categorization of data into themes that were
developed through concept mapping.

3.4.1. Manifest Content Analysis
The manifest content analysis refers to the directly visible and objectively identifiable
characteristics o f a communication such as specific words and phrases (Babbie, 1979). A careful
management of research data items was a critically important step given the collection o f a
considerably large volume of interview data. My first priority was to verify the content of the
data being collected to ensure that all interview materials such as transcripts and field notes were
in order and complete. Following this, I created several data files and organized various data
items including personal information of individual participants, interview guide, audio records,
original transcripts, completed questionnaires, and original field notes into separate data files
accordingly. For ethical reasons, a participant identity file was kept separate from other data
files containing interview contents such as the original interview transcripts and field notes
(Kirby & McKenna, 1989).
Multiple rounds o f manifest content analysis were conducted to select and organize the
content of the research data. The first round of manifest content analysis involved the
development o f lists of words, sets of words, and phrases based on readings through the
interview transcripts, filed notes, and summaries from the questionnaire. The selection of
certain words, sets of words, and phrases were considered important based on the frequency of
occurrence in the text. As suggested by Babbie (1979), it is often impossible to observe directly
76

everything you are interested in. As such, what is to be counted in content analysis is
determined by specific research questions (Bryman & Teevan, 2005). Keeping this concept in
mind, 1 focused on the most relevant words, sets o f words, phrases, and sentences pertinent to
the specific interview questions.
The second round of manifest content analysis involved counting o f the most apparent
and frequently occurring lists of words, sets o f words, and phrases generated during the first
round of manifest content analysis (Appendix H). This was primarily done by manually
highlighting and tallying them by hand. The similar terms or words and words-pairs with the
same root word such as the terms ‘community’, ‘communities’, and ‘community-based’ were
grouped together as the word ‘community.’
The third and final round o f manifest content analysis involved the categorization of the
list o f combined terms or words and word-pairs based on the frequency o f occurrence in the text
(Appendix H). Despite the low frequency o f occurrences, some o f the words and word-pairs
were included in the less than five categories given the fact that they strongly reflected certain
individuals’ views and opinions and contributed to overall data analysis.

3.4.2. Latent Content Analysis
Latent content analysis refers to the meanings contained within communication; or
interpretation o f the important themes and meanings o f the research data analyzed (Babbie,
1979; Bryman & Teevan, 2005). Latent content analysis goes one step further by examining the
relationships between concepts in a text (Sherry, 2004). Prior to conducting latent content
analysis, I revisited existing concepts and theories developed through my field observations,
community meetings, field notes, and various policy documents and academic literature reviews
to re-emphasize and organize my thoughts. Some new concepts or themes generated from
77

manifest content analysis were also added to the existing concepts list. Following this, I did
multiple readings through interview transcripts to develop and refine themes, coding important
themes and linking relationships between themes through concept mapping. Subsequently, I
compared conceptual categories generated through concept mapping against existing theories to
develop final themes.
In the first round o f latent content analysis, 1 read through the interview transcripts while
taking notes on potential themes. A list o f several themes was developed through the first round
o f reading through interview transcripts. This draft list was divided into main themes and sub­
theme categories to facilitate future examination. I re-read interview transcripts with themes
developed during the first round o f latent content analysis to review and edit the initial list of
themes. I then re-read the interview transcripts with the edited version o f themes to further
assess the themes list. The outcome of the first round o f content analysis was a much shorter
and refined list o f themes.
The second round of latent content analysis involved coding important themes developed
through the first round of latent content analysis and linking relationships between themes
through concept mapping. The process of concept mapping was accomplished by arranging
themes into different categories and linking relationships between concepts. The selected lists o f
themes were coded and organized into manageable content categories by focusing on specific
words and word-pairs that are indicative of the research questions (Sherry, 2004). The process
of concept mapping was an important part of latent content analysis which enabled me to move
from lists o f fragmented codes and pre-existing themes toward more cohesive theories or
conclusions. Thirteen general conceptual categories were developed through the concept

78

mapping process (Appendix I). These conceptual theories were the basis for the development of
final themes for latent content analysis (Appendix J).
The final and third round of latent content analysis involved testing o f the conceptual
categories generated through a second round o f latent content analysis against both manifest
content analysis results and pre-defined sets o f concepts and theories. Once again, I used the
process of concept mapping to further refine themes and make sense o f the overall meaning of
the analyzed data. The process of concept mapping enabled me to look more objectively at the
research data and reflect on pre-defined or presumed sets of concepts and existing theories.
The following themes were developed after completion of three rounds o f latent content
analysis:
1) The Tl’azt’en Nation FRO Agreement and Resource Allocation,
2) Forest Policy Development and Decision-making,
3) The Resource Development Strategies and Cumulative Impacts,
4) The First Nations Consultation and Referral Processes,
5) Community Capacity Building,
6) The External and Internal Relationships Building,
7) The Community-based Approach and Self-determination
8) The Government and Community Roles and Responsibilities, and
9) The First Nations Forest Tenures Alternatives
3.5. The Research Data Rigours and Credibility
As suggested by Patton (1980), strategies such as rival explanation, negative cases,
triangulation, and keeping the methods and data in context can be used to validate and verify
research data. The first step is to look for competing themes and explanations that may lead to
different findings or other logical explanations. The second task is to look for the instances and
cases that do not fit the pattern. The third task is to compare and contrast qualitative data
79

sources through triangulation, such as collecting different types of data on the same questions
using multiple methods or different theories to interpret a set o f data. Finally, the forth task is to
keep things in context by assessing possible sources o f distortion in the research findings such as
the timing and certain conditions during data collection (Patton, 1980).
Reliability refers to the extent to which results are consistent and reproducible while
validity refers to the accuracy of the findings (Dunn, 2005). The validity is further strengthened
by conducting both internal and external tests. For example, the internal validity test can be
conducted by assessing the accuracy o f the research design and considering alternative
explanations for any causal relationships being explored (Sherry, 2004; Yegidis et al. 1999).
The external validity test can be conducted to the extent to which the results of a study are
generalizable or transferable, or can be applied beyond cases that were actually studied (Sherry,
2004; Yegidis et al., 1999). Sherry (2004) further states that in a qualitative research approach,
results are not usually considered generalizable, but are often transferable which means the
findings can be applied from one context to another similar context, but not the general context
or sample at large.
In order to address the question of reliability testing, I followed several standard research
techniques and procedures. For example, I utilized pre-determined or standardized interview
questions to collect research data to ensure that the method of data collection is consistent
among all research participants. Subsequently, I performed multiple rounds of content analysis
until such point that any additional content in the text or bibits23 did not alter the overall results
of both manifest and latent content analysis (Kirby & MaKenna, 1989). In addition, I collected
my research data from a considerably large sample population with a diverse cultural,

23 A passage from a transcript, a piece o f information from field notes, a section o f a document, and snippet o f
conversation recorded (Kirby & McKenna, 1989).

80

educational, professional, organizational, and socio-economic background to avoid potential
biases. Finally, I also used multiple sources o f data including interview transcripts, field notes,
summaries from interview questionnaires, and personal notes from field observations and
community meetings, and secondary data sources as part o f the overall analysis.
In terms of ensuring the quality of internal validity testing, I developed and pre-tested the
interview guide (Appendix G) prior to conducting interviews for the purpose of feasibility and
consistency. The recorded interview data was transcribed by an experienced transcriber to
ensure the quality and accuracy of the data. Any flaws or issues found in the original transcripts
were resolved by reviewing and making necessary corrections based on the feedback and inputs
received from individual participants. After the completion of necessary revisions, the interview
summary notes were sent out to all research participants for their review and feedback prior to
data analysis. By soliciting feedback and input from research participants, or more specifically
checking and verifying research data with members, I was able to validate my research data
(Maxwell, 2009; Bryman, 1988; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The representation of a considerably
large and diverse sample population can also be considered as part o f the validity test.
As for the external validity test, although, the primary goal o f this research study is to
focus on the unique needs and circumstances of the Tl’azt’en Nation, the implications of
research findings may be applied to similar First Nations communities across BC, particularly
those who are involved in resource sectors such as forestry. However, it is important to note that
First Nations groups or communities in BC are unique and faced with different sets of
circumstances. As such, the research findings in this thesis reflect the specific views, opinions,
and experiences o f those participants interviewed and the community involved.

81

In the case o f both reliability and validity tests, triangulation was used to make sure that
research findings do not reflect a single method o f inquiry (Babbie, 2004). By using multiple
sources and methods for data collection, I was able to compare and contrast data to strengthen
the rigour and depth o f the research data being collected (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). This
allowed me to bring together diverse evidence from multiple points along the continuum
(Ellingson, 2011).

3.6. Conclusion
This research was conducted within the traditional territory o f the Tl’azt’en Nation
located approximately 65 km northwest o f Fort St. James, BC. The qualitative research methods
such as semi-structured interviews were used as primary methods of field data collection to
assess the opportunities and limitations o f community management o f forests in Tl’azt’en
Nation. In addition to semi-structured interviews, other methods such as interview
questionnaire, field notes, field observations, and secondary sources o f data were also used to
increase the rigour of the data collection procedure. Manifest and latent content analysis
methods were used to analyze the data. The reliability and validity of the research findings were
ensured through method triangulation by collecting data from a diverse group of individuals and
settings and using multiple sources and methods of data collection (Maxwell, 2009).

82

Chapter 4. Tl’azt’en Nation Context
4.1. Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to introduce and describe the general overview o f the study
area, the traditional territory of the TPazt’en Nation, and to provide a community profile. The
chapter also briefly discusses the scope of resource development and the involvement o f the
Tl’azt’en Nation in the forestry sector within their traditional territory as related to the socio­
economic status of the community. This chapter concludes with a summary o f the research area
and the brief description o f the scope o f resource development and Tl’azt’en Nation
involvement.

4.2. The General Overview of the Research Study Area
This study was conducted within the traditional territory of the Tl’azt’en Nation located
in north-central British Columbia, Canada, approximately 65 km northwest of Fort St. James,
BC and 220 km northwest of Prince George, BC (see Figure 1). The Tl’azt’en Nation is a semi­
remote First Nations community located along the north shore o f Stewart Lake, Tache River,
and Trembleur Lake. Other neighbouring First Nations communities in the area include
Nak’azdli, Takla, and Yekooche. The traditional territorial boundaries o f the Tl’azt’en were
recognized by these neighbouring Carrier groups, Nak’azdli to the south and east, Takala to the
north, and Babine to the west (Morris, 1999). To this day, these groups share and respect their
respective traditional territorial boundaries for various cultural practices and resource uses. The
Tl’azt’en Nation is affiliated with the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council (CSTC) through the treaty
process and is part o f the Dakelh24 Linguistic group (Sherry, et al., 2005). The CSTC represents

24 The word Dakelh means “We Travel by Water” in the Dakelh language (TPazt’en Nation official website - July
24, 2012)

83

eight different First Nations communities including Wet’suwet’en First Nation (Burns Lake),
Nadleh Whut’en (Fort Fraser), Nak’azdli (Fort St. James), Saik’uz First Nation (Stoney Creek
near Vanderhoof), Stellat’en First Nation (Fraser Lake), Takla Lake First Nation (Takla), and
Tl’azt’en Nation (Fort St. James). The Carrier and Sekani are Athapaskan linguistic groups and
the Carrier people refer to themselves as Dakelh-ne or Yinka Dene and the word “Sekani”
means “people of the rocks” (Brown, 2002). The Tl’azt’en Nation is comprised o f four clans:
Frog (Lusilyoo), Bear (Lohjeboo), Beaver (Lhts’umusyoo), and Cariboo (Granton).25
Geographically, the Tl’azt’en Nation is situated within the Sub-boreal Spruce (SBS)
biogeoclimatic zone combined with small portions of Englemann Spruce-Subalpine Fir zones
(ESSF) within the Fort St. James Forest District. The Lodgepole pine, Hybrid spruce, Black
spruce, Douglas-fir, Subalpine fir, Trembling aspen, Paper birch, and Black cottonwood are the
dominant tree species found within the traditional territory o f the Tl’azt’en Nation (Tanizul
Timber Ltd. Website 2013; John Prince Research Forest (JPRF) Website, 2013). These are
commercially valuable tree species and the primary source o f timber supply to support forest
industry in BC. The diverse forest stands also provide suitable habitats for many animal
populations including ungulates such as moose, deer, caribou and mountain sheep, and fur
bearing animals such as bears, wolf, lynx, beaver, mink and marten, and rodents such as rabbit,
mice, vole, marmot, porcupine, and squirrel. The rich ecosystems within these forest stands is
also home to many bird species such as eagle, hawks, owls, songbirds, grouse, ptarmigan and
waterfowl (Brown, 2002).
There are numerous lakes, rivers, and streams within the Tl’azt’en Nation traditional
territory. Some of the largest lakes and rivers include Stewart Lake, Pinchi Lake, Tezzeron

25 Clan names in Dakelh language (Yim, 2009; J. Beverly - personal communication, August 26, 2014).

84

Lake, Trembleur Lake, Tache River, Middle River and Kuzkwa River. These water bodies
provide excellent habitat for many fish populations including salmon, freshwater trout, char,
suckers, sturgeon, and whitefish (Brown, 2002).
The Tl’azt’en Nation was selected as the research community primarily because of my
familiarity with the community itself and personal connection with various community
members. Over the years, I have visited TPazt’en Nation on a several occasions and
participated in various community events and meetings. During my visits, I observed the
tremendous sense of community pride and determination towards building a better society. In
the meantime, I have also witnessed continual struggles with regards to protection and
maintenance of long-term community values and control over community priorities. As an
Indigenous person from Nepal, I share relatively similar cultural and socio-economic realities
with the TPazt’en Nation. As a professional forester, I see both the opportunities and challenges
o f the TPazt’en Nation for achieving intended community goals and objectives in the forestry
sector. I am deeply inspired by their courage and perseverance despite being a marginalized
society with limited management control and decision-making authority over their own ancestral
land which they have occupied for thousands of years.

4.3. The Traditional Territory of the Tl’azt’en Nation
Prior to European contact, the traditional territory o f the TPazt’en Nation encompassed a
vast land base that was a fully social and political landscape with a clear sense of ownership
over the land and resources (Morris, 1999). The establishment of the fur trade in 1806, the
Omenica Gold Rush in 1863, settlement of Indian Reserves in 1871, arbitrary expansion of
reserves in 1892, establishment of the Stuart Lake Agency by the Department o f Indian Affairs
in 1910, introduction of Crown land survey and land sales in 1911, extension o f the Pacific
85

Great Eastern Railway in 1968, construction of Tache-Fort St. James Road in 1969, and
subsequent expansion of industrial-based resource development activities such as forestry
contributed to a significant reconfiguration o f the traditional territory o f the Tl’a z f en Nation
(Morris, 1999).
As their ancestral lands progressively fell under state control o f the government, the
Tl’azf enne were forced to settle on relatively small areas o f reserve land (Morris, 1999; Morris
& Fondahl, 2002). There are 49 small reserve lands occupying 2,785.7 hectares within the
traditional territory o f the Tl’a zf en Nation (MARR, 2007). While these reserve lands are under
federal jurisdiction, the non-reserve portions o f the Tl’azf en Nation traditional territory and its
resources are under provincial jurisdiction. As a result, the majority of the Tl’azt’en territory is
under the control of the provincial government and managed by industrial forest companies
(Kaijala & Dewhurst, 2003).
Historically, the traditional territory of the Tl’azf en Nation was divided into several land
units (Keyohs) and managed through extended families and clans and passed down from one
family head to his or her successor for many generations (The Tl’azf en Keyoh Holders - Elders
Society, 2009). The Potlach or “Balhats” system was the central institution through which the
Carrier owned, managed, and protected the “Keyoh” and the Elders and Hereditary Chiefs
played an important role in managing land tenure and resource ownership (Brown, 2002). Each
family and Keyoh members carried out subsistence activities such as hunting, trapping, fishing
and gathering, and were responsible for managing the resources within their Keyoh. Under this
Balhats system, the Tl’azf en Nation had sets of rules governing access and the use o f resources
including re-distribution and monitoring of resources among individual Keyoh (Morris, 1999).
This traditional system of governance has been weakened over time due to the presence of

86

traders, missionaries, Indian agents, teachers, social workers, and elected Chiefs and Councils
asserting their control over various aspects of community life (Brown, 2002).
Despite significant influences from Euro-Canadian modes of visualization,
administration, and use of resources, the Tl’azf en’s territory was not erased or displaced
(Morris, 1999). In order to resist the Euro-Canadian influence, the Tl’az’ten Nation has utilized
several strategies including blockades to exert their voice and defend their territorial territory
against government intervention (Morris, 1999). To this day, the Tl’azf en Nation continues to
defend its traditional territory by expressing its opposition against increasing encroachment of
their traditional territory (Morris & Fondahl, 2002).
The present day Tl’azt’en Nation traditional territory covers some 6,500 square
kilometres (Heikkila & Fohdahl, 2010) or a total o f 723,000 hectares o f the land base (Tl’azt’en
Nation Draft LUP, 2011). In terms of administrative boundaries, the Tl’azt’en Nation
traditional territory represents approximately 23% of the total land area of 3,180,878 hectares
within the Fort St. James Forest District (MFLNRO data information) (Figure 3). Within this
administrative boundary, the Tl’azt’en Nation has full management control over 49,394 hectares
of the Community Forest (formerly TFL #42) and shared management control over 13,000
hectares of the John Prince Research Forest (JPRF) with UNBC (Figure 4). The total area of the
CFA and JPRF account for approximately 9% o f their traditional territory and the rest of the
91% of the land base and resources within it are under the control of various industrial-based
licensees.

87

TL'AZTEN NATION
TRADITIONAL TERRITORY

X i T T .'

Traditional Territory
■ I Indian Reserve N
-•©- Highway
A
Road
Im
— Rail Line
I
RiversXStreams Ji
LakesXRivers
Parks, Protected,
Reserve Areas
* CityVTbwn

nwiifiws

r^fcyLyvowfffF"*

^MrtrifTTr

Source: Tl’azt’en Nation Natural Resource Office (May, 2013)
Figure 3: The Tl’azt’en Nation Traditional Territory Boundary Map

Tl’azt'en Nation
Location Map
L egend
TTazten
Nation

Research
Forest

Native
Reserves

|jp i
t- J
G

hentio

•

CFA4B
Lakes
Rivers
City

Municipality
Railway
Roads

Provm ow Overview

v

«*s

rembleur
♦Teezeron

L
*

1:800.000

Te=h. (

Stuao
B inche

Lake

f

' ' FORT
ST JAMES

% \\ BURNS
A R r

^

1
DERHO

'Ssgssr Lake

Lake

Source: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, BC (May, 2011)
Figure 4: The Map of TPazt’en Nation Management Control (CFA K4B and JPRF)

89

4.4. The Community Profile and Socio-economic Status
Historically, there were five bands: Portage, Tache, Grand Rapids, and Middle River,
which were amalgamated by the Department of Indian Affairs into the Stuart-Trembleur Lake
Band in 1959 (Morris, 1999). Later, it was collectively renamed Tl’az’ten Nation in 1988 for
administrative purposes. In 1994, Portage separated from the Tl’azt’en Nation to form a
different band called Yekooche (Inden, 1996). The present day Tl’azt’en Nation consists o f two
main villages, Tache (Tachie) and Binche (Pinchie), and two other small settlements, K’uzche
(Grand Rapids), and Dzitl’ainli (Middle River) (Figure 3). Tache is the largest community
where the main administrative offices such as the Band Council, Natural Resources Office,
schools, daycare, Health Care Center, Public Works, and Elders Center are located.
The population numbers of the Tl’azt’en Nation differ between different data sources.
For instance, the official Tl’azt’en Nation website suggests approximately 1,300 (Accessed
February 24, 2013). However, based on the recent Tl’azt’en Nation presentation document
(JPRF - August 26, 2014), the current population number is 1,659. O f these, approximately
59% o f community members live off-reserve, and about 40% of community members living on
the reserve are youth. In addition, based on the MARR statistical data (August 2007), the
population size is 1,524 which is slightly different than those indicated on the website and the
Tl’azt’en Nation presentation document. However, the most recent census data shows that the
total registered population o f the Tl’azt’en Nation is 1,713. O f these, more than 65% of
community members live off-reserve (AANDC, 2013) (Table 2).

90

Table 2: Registered Population of the Tl'azt'en Nation
Membership
Status

Male

Female

Registered

302

238

On Reserve

540

Registered

20

11

On Other Reserve

31

Registered

0

1

Other Band & Crown Land

1

Registered

549

592

Off Reserve

1,141

Total
Number

The Total Registered Population

1,713

Source: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Data (June, 2013)

Prior to the Europeans contact, the Tl’azt’enne were self-sufficient people, but their
subsistence-based economic activities have been disrupted due to the presence o f industrialbased resource development activities. The imposition of several government administrative
policies and regulations such as banning o f the Potlatch in 1884, the introduction o f game laws
and the barricade treaty in the early 1900s, and the introduction of the registered trapline system
in 1926 are some o f the new orders that significantly impacted Tl’azt’en Nation traditional
economic self-sufficiency (Morris, 1999).
In recent years, the traditional socio-economic values of the society have been changed
drastically under the direct influence o f modem economic activities such as forestry (Morris,
1999). Morris (1999) emphasizes that the Tl’azt’en Nation did not choose, but rather was forced
to consider alternative economic opportunities in the commercial forestry sector due to increased
socio-economic pressure. In the hope of improving the overall socio-economic status o f the
community, Tl’azt’en Nation has shown its interest by participating in various levels o f
industrial-based economic activities, particularly in the forestry sector. However, traditional
subsistence-based livelihood practices such as hunting, fishing, and gathering are still the

91

primary sources of revenue for the local economy, which is supplemented by seasonal wage
employment and government subsidies (Heikkila and Fondahl, 2010).
Despite decades o f their engagement in the commercial forestry sector, the TPazt’en
Nation has gained limited economic benefits, and also encountered many challenges with
regards to proper maintenance and protection of long-term community values. In recent years,
the Tl’azt’en Nation is facing further challenges due to rapid depletion o f land and resources
within their traditional territory because o f the accelerated rate o f clear cut logging. The primary
concerns of the Tl’azt’en Nation are the lack o f protection of cultural and heritage values,
preservation o f ecological integrity, maintenance o f subsistence-based economic values, and
existing socio-economic disparity through their long engagement in the forestry sector (Morris
& Fondahl, 2002). Moreover, as Booth (1998, p.351) points out, “the Tl’azt’en Nation is not
only concerned about protecting traditional community values, but also realizing that the
reconciliation between values and economies may never be resolved.”

4.5. Resource Development and Tl’azt’en Nation’s Involvement
Currently, there are fifteen forestry licensees (Appendix L) and eight mining exploration
companies26 operating within the traditional territory o f the Tl’azt’en Nation (TPazt’en Nation
Draft LUP, 2011) (Figure 5). Most recently, the new Trans Canada - Prince Rupert Gas
Transmission Project is operating within the traditional territory.

26 Currently, only one mining company has gone through the test drilling and baseline review stage o f the
application process.

92

Fort St Jam es Licensee
Operating Areas
I . / y f Fir*! Nation* Traditional Tamtoria#
BCTimb*r Sales
Canadian Forest Produets Ltd.
Carrier lum ber Ltd
[•..^■,.^1 Conlfw
Dun Way
PSJ Community Forest
John Prince Research Forest
Sindar Group Forest Products ltd.
CFA4B
Tanizui
Una located
Y ekooohe P art 13 D esignated A rea

l aha

0

12.9

29

90

S ource : L icensee planning cell selection process 2012 (MFLNRO)

Figure 5: F ort St. Jam es Forest District Licensee O perating Areas M ap
Note: Some o f the smaller forest licensees that are operating within the Fort St. James Forest
District are not shown in Figure 5 due to the recent geospatial updates.

93

Over the last 50 years, 106,000 hectares (approximately 31.8 million m3 of timber
volume) of forest land have been logged and more harvesting operations are expected in the
future as the neighbouring forest districts such as Prince George and Vanderhoof will be shifting
their logging operations to the Fort St. James Forest District due to the timber supply shortage
(Tl’azt’en Nation Draft LUP, 2011). This accounts for over 35% o f the total land base (300,900
ha) being harvested within the Fort St. James Forest District between 1960 and 2012 (MFLNRO
Fort St. James Forest District, May 2013) (Table 3 & Figure 6).
Table 3: Total Harvested Areas within Fort St. James Forest District (1960 - 2012)
Area
(ha)

Year

1960

Area
<ha)

Year

Area
<ha)

Year

Area
(ha)

Year

100

1971

1000

1981

4000

1991

9000

2001

(*»»)
7000

1961

0

1972

3000

1982

3000

1992

8000

2002

11500

1962

200

1973

1500

1983

3000

1993

7500

2003

12000

1963

100

1974

3000

1984

4000

1994

10000

2004

9000

1964

200

1975

3000

1985

5000

1995

8000

2005

9000

1965

100

1976

3000

1986

6000

1996

8500

2006

11000

1966

300

1977

4500

1987

4500

1997

7000

2007

8000

1967

500

1978

4500

1988

6000

1998

7000

2008

6000

1968

100

1979

6000

1989

5500

1999

9000

2009

7500

1969

300

1980

5500

1990

6500

2000

7000

2010

12000

1970

2500

2011

13000

2012

27000

Year

Total

4,400

35,000

47,500

81,000

Area

133,000

G rand Total = 300,900 Hectares
Source: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Fort St. James Forest District
(May, 2013)

94

Harvesting Trend 1960 - 2012
35000
30000
25000
S

20000
15000
0000
5000

-5000

Year of Harvest

Source: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Fort St. James Forest District
(May, 2013)
Figure 6: Harvesting Trends in Fort St. James Forest District (1960-2012)

As indicated in Table 3 and Figure 6, the total area o f harvesting was only 100 ha in
1960 which steadily increased to 2,500 ha in 1970, 5,500 ha in 1980, 6,500 ha in 1990, and
7,000 ha in 2000. The harvested area almost doubled from 7,000 ha in 2010 to 12,000 ha in
2010, and more than tripled to 27,000 ha in 2012. In terms o f accuracy o f the data information
presented in Table 4 and Figure 6, it is important to note that the harvest areas prior to 2009
were fully harvested whereas the allocated harvest areas between 2010 and 2012 were permitted,
but may not be fully harvested yet due to changing circumstances o f the licensees and logging
operations.

95

The increased resource development activities, particularly clear-cut logging operations
within their traditional territory, is a major concern for the TPazt’en Nation and the presence of
increased resource extraction within their traditional territory has forced them to seek and
negotiate access to timber rights with the Provincial government by obtaining different forms of
forest tenure arrangements since the early 1980s. Historically, TPazt’en Nation’s involvement
in the commercial forestry sector began in 1982 by obtaining the TFL (TFL 42), which was
operated under Tanizul Timber Ltd. The TPazt’en Nation is unique in BC in that it was the first
Aboriginal community in the Province to acquire one of the major forest tenures such as TFL
(Booth, 2008). The community subsequently expanded their involvement in commercial
forestry by starting a saw mill, Teeslee Forest Products in the early1990s. Unfortunately, the
Teeslee Forest Products was permanently shut down in early 1998 due to inadequate mill
facilities, poor market conditions, and a lack o f management expertise (Booth, 2008). Tanizul
Timber Ltd. still exists with the capacity of only two resource staff (J. Marchal, personal
communication, November 20, 2009). In addition to obtaining the TFL and Teeslee Forest
Products, the TPazt’en Nation also started a value-added facility, TPazt’en Cabinet Shop in
1994, but it has since burned down (Sherry, et al., 2005). In 1998, the community also formed a
division called TPazt’en Woodlands to establish logging and silviculture contracts to create
additional employment in the community, which is also no longer in operation (Sherry, et al.,
2005).
Despite continual challenges, TPazt’en Nation has persistently sought opportunities in
the forestry sector to improve much needed economic prosperity in the community. For
example, TPazt’en Nation jointly managed the John Prince Research Forest with UNBC since
1999. The recent example o f TPazt’en Nation’s involvement in the forestry sector through

96

negotiation includes the signing o f the Interim Forest and Range Opportunities (FROs)
agreement in 2008 to acquire access to timber within their traditional territory and create short­
term economic opportunities in the community. This short-term based FRO agreement recently
expired on March 31,2013 and was replaced with the First Nations Consultation and Revenue
Sharing Agreement (FCRSA). In addition, the Tl’azt’en Nation is also in the process of
applying for a new First Nations Woodland License (FNWL) with revenue sharing opportunity.
In 2009, the TPazt’en Nation has also obtained a Community Forest Agreement, thereby
replacing the previously held TFL 42.
Although limited by many challenges, the Tl’azt’en Nation was subjected to similar
conditions as any major licensee under strict government control over resource management and
decision-making processes over which they have no control. In addition, the potential for
Tl’azt’en success in commercial forestry is hindered by the tradeoffs between long-term
community values and short-term economic benefits (Booth, 1998; Booth & Skelton, 2008).
Despite their persistent engagement in the forestry sector, the Tl’azt’en Nation continues to
struggle in order to realize real benefits from the forestry sector. Contrary to community
expectations, there is a lack of economic development and employment opportunities available
in the community. With an 85% unemployment rate, it is clear that there is a dire need for
improvement o f the social and economic condition of the community (J. Beverly, personal
communication, August 26, 2011).

4.6. Conclusion
The Tl’azt’en Nation is a semi-remote First Nations community located in north-central
British Columbia, Canada approximately 65 km northwest o f Fort St. James, BC or 220 km
northwest o f Prince George, BC. There are two main villages, Tache and Binche, and two other
97

small settlements K’uzche (Grand Rapids), and Middle River (DzitPainli) supporting a total of
1,713 people (AANDC). Prior to European contact, the traditional territory o f the Tl’azt’en
Nation covered a large tack o f land which is now limited by an administrative boundary
combined with small reserve lands covering only about 723,000 hectares o f area (Tl’azt’en
Nation Draft LUP, 2011).
Over time, the physical landscape as well as the socio-economic structures o f the
Tl’azt’en Nation have been altered significantly due to the increased presence of industrial-based
activities such as forestry and new systems of governance. Despite many challenges, the
Tl’azt’en Nation consistently seeks to assert their access rights to land and resource within their
traditional territory through their participation in the industrial-based resource sector since the
early 1980s. However, the Tl’azt’en Nation continues to struggle with meaningful participation
in forestry to realize real economic benefits.

98

Chapter 5. Results of Research Analysis
5.1. Introduction
In order to understand the opportunities and limitations o f community management of
forests in Tl’azt’en Nation, this chapter presents the results o f the analysis. The analysis was
conducted on data obtained through the primary data collection methods including semistructured interviews, field observations, field notes, and supplementary questionnaire and other
secondary data such as government statistic and census data, and policy documents. By
focusing on key issues and challenges and overall experiences of the Tl’azt’en Nation through
their involvement in the forestry sector, this chapter addresses four key research questions:
1) To what extent was the TPazt’en Nation able to engage in the forestry sector since
the signing of the Interim Forest and Range Opportunities Agreement (FRO) in
2008?
2) With respect to meaningful TPazt’en Nation participation in the forestry sector, what
are the fundamental barriers that prevent them from achieving their short-term socio­
economic objectives while maintaining long-term community values?
3) Given the current circumstances, what should be the roles o f both the government
and TPazt’en Nation for taking appropriate actions to develop future strategies based
on the unique needs and circumstances o f the TPazt’en Nation?
4) Based on the long-term community goals and objectives, what type o f forest tenure
would be suitable for TPazt’en Nation’s future engagement in the forestry sector?
Based on these research questions, this chapter is organized into four sections. The first
section outlines the intended purpose o f the Interim FRO Agreement that was signed between
the provincial government and TPazt’en Nation in 2008. This section examines various factors
which assisted and hindered TPazt’en Nation from achieving expected economic benefits from
the agreement. The second section highlights some o f the key issues and challenges TPazt’en
Nation is facing in order to achieve their short-term economic objectives while maintaining
long-term community goals through their involvement in the forestry sector. The third section
99

focuses on the expected roles o f the government, industry, and TPazt’en Nation for addressing
the current circumstances of the community and taking proper action for developing future
strategies to support community-based development initiatives. The final section explores future
forest tenure alternatives that may be best suited for addressing the long-term community goals
and objectives of a First Nation community such as the Tl’azt’en Nation. In order to address
each research question, appropriate links between research questions and selected latent content
analysis themes were developed (Table 4).
Table 4: The Links between Research Questions and Latent Content Analysis Themes
Research Questions
To what extent was the Tl ’azt en Nation
able to engage in the forestry sector since
the singing o f the Interim FRO in 2008?
2. With respect to meaningful Tl ’azt ’en
N ation’s participation in the forestry
sector, what are the fundamental barriers
that prevent them from achieving their
short-term socio-economic objectives
while maintaining long-term community
values?
I.

Selected Latent Content Analysis Themes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

3. Given the current circumstances, what
should be the roles o f both the government
and the Tl 'azt ’en Nation fo r taking
appropriate actions to develop future
strategies based on the unique needs and
circumstances o f the Tl ’azt ’en Nation?
4. Based on the long-term community goals
and objectives, what type o f forest tenure
would be suitable fo r Tl ’azt ’en N ation’s
future engagement in the forestry sector?

•
•

•

The Tl’azt’en Nation FROs agreement and
resource allocation
FRO Agreement/Resource Allocation
Forest policy development and decision­
making
First Nations consultation and referral
processes
Community capacity building
External and internal relationship building
Resource development strategies and
cumulative impacts
Community-based approach and selfdetermination
Government and Industry Roles and
Responsibilities
Community Roles and Responsibilities
o Leaderships level
o Membership level
Future forest tenure alternatives
o Long-term area based tenure
o Larger area based tenure
o Community forestry

100

5.2. Tl’azt’en Nation FRO Agreement and Resource Allocation
This section addresses my first research question: to what extent was Tl’azt’en Nation
able to engage in the forestry sector since the signing o f the Interim FRO Agreement in 2008?
This section begins with a brief background and a discussion of the purpose of Tl’azt’en
Nation’s FRO agreement and outlines some o f the potential opportunities and limitations o f the
agreement. In order to differentiate between potential opportunities and limitations of the FRO
agreement, this section is divided into two sub-sections: the Tl’azt’en Nation FRO agreement
and resource allocation.

5.2.1 The Tl’azt’en Nation FRO Agreement
The Tl’azt’en Nation is a unique First Nations community in that it has consistently
pursued economic opportunities in the forestry sector over the last three and half decades.
Despite many obstacles, Tl’azf enne haven’t given up their hopes and desires and continue to
seek meaningful participation in the forestry sector. Under increased pressure from industrial
resource development activities occurring within their traditional territory, the Tl’azt’en Nation
has no other alternative but to seek some level of economic benefit sharing opportunities from
the forestry sector to support the financial needs o f the community. Besides short-term
economic interests, it has become necessary for the Tl’azt’en Nation to re-negotiate various
forestry related agreements with the provincial government to re-assert and continually defend
their Aboriginal rights and title within their unceeded traditional territory.
In the spirit and vision o f the ‘New Relationship’, the Tl’azt’en Nation embarked on a
new forestry agreement by signing the Interim FRO agreement with the Provincial government
in March 31,2008. The overall objective o f this agreement was to create viable economic
opportunities and to assist in the improvement of social conditions in Tl’azt’en Nation through
101

economic diversification. This objective was to be realized through providing interim payment
and other economic benefits through a forest tenure opportunity and/or economic benefits
received by the province from forestry related development activities within traditional territory
of the Tl’azt’en Nation (Tl’azt’en Nation Interim Agreement on FROs, 2008).
Based on the set objectives, the Tl’azt’en Nation expected a creation o f viable economic
opportunities and improvement of social condition in their community. The primary focus of
the Provincial government, however, was to create a stable condition for resource development
activities on Crown lands within the traditional territory o f the Tl’azt’en Nation while providing
interim accommodation to the Tl’azt’en Nation during the period of agreement (Tl’azt’en Nation
Interim Agreement on FROs, 2008). As part of the FRO agreement, the Tl’azt’en Nation
received some revenue sharing opportunities through interim payment o f $712,252 annually
($178,063 quarterly payments) during the period o f agreement and also obtained direct awards
of some small non-replaceable forest licenses (NRFLs) (Tl’azt’en Nation Interim FRO
Agreement, 2008). Despite a small component o f NRFLs, this agreement was mostly
considered a revenue sharing agreement as opposed to a forest tenure agreement. The Tl’azt’en
Nation FRO agreement has expired as o f March 31, 2013 and was replaced with a new form of
forest consultation and revenue sharing agreement (FCRSA).
During my research interviews, participants noted that the government was simply
responding to the court ruling and they had no choice but to start consulting and seeking interim
accommodation with the Tl’azt’en Nation. The majority o f the participants also argued that it
was initiated by the government simply to fulfill a formality rather than to create a fair share of
revenue or focusing on community capacity building, creation o f job opportunities, and better
working relationships with government and industry as part o f the objectives outlined in the

102

agreement. The participants further highlighted that the FRO agreement was not nearly
adequate compensation for the amount o f resources extracted from Tl’azt’en Nation’s traditional
territory. Some participants even viewed the FRO agreement as a government tactic to make
TPazt’en Nation stay quiet for a while and slow them down in the process o f their efforts to
engage in the forestry sector. As described by one participant, by providing limited financial
assistance to First Nations to perform required obligations such as forestry referrals, the
government is able to say “we consulted First Nations” (Interview #5). As stated by one o f the
community elders and a research participant:
In the last fifty years, industry has taken the hell out o f our resources, out o f
billions and billions of dollars of forestry money and we never got anything
till five years ago we received some money in the form of FRO. However,
there was no good deal in FRO agreement for First Nations because it
worked on government favour not the Tl’azt’en Nation favour. (Interview
#8)
The issue o f the lack of equity o f revenue sharing generated from the traditional territory
of Tl’azt’en Nation, and more importantly, the proper recognition of Aboriginal interests
through the FRO agreement initiative was also highlighted by Chief Ralph Pierre. According to
Chief Pierre, “the overall purpose of the FRO agreement was to keep First Nations from
blocking the road” (Interview #6). A similar sentiment was shared by another participant who
stated that, “by minimizing disruption o f forestry activity such as road blockade, it gave the
“green light” to government and licensees to come to our traditional territory and conduct
business as usual resource management practices” (Interview #5). This individual further
explained that:
One o f the most debilitating aspects of the FRO agreement is that whether
we like it or not, we need economic opportunity and by signing onto the
FRO agreement, we basically gave them the right to come and extract
timber from our traditional territories without having our ability to say ‘N o’;

103

we were then forced into the limited piece-meal consultation and
accommodation process. (Interview #5)
With respect to my question regarding expected short-term economic benefits from the
FRO agreement, some participants supported the idea that to a certain extent the revenue sharing
portion of the agreement did provide some economic benefits to the community. For example, it
included overall management and improvement of community facilities and infrastructures
including the purchase of supplies to build cabins and trails located in Keyohs. Revenue sharing
also provided some financial assistance for Tl’azt’en Nation to retain certain staff at the Natural
Resources Department to carry out required administrative obligations such as responding to
proposed resource development referrals received from various government agencies and
licensees. However, the majority of the participants contended that the FRO failed to deliver the
overall objective o f the agreement which was to improve the economic and social conditions of
the community. They argued that the fundamental goals of the FRO agreement were to focus on
community capacity building, creation of job opportunities, and better working relationships
with government and industry, and these objectives were never fully realized. Overall, these
participants considered the FRO agreement as a quick fix strategy for broader community issues
and challenges that failed to meet the desired socio-economic objectives o f the community.
Approximately half o f the participants argued that a lack of community responsibility for
proper management and utilization of the money received from the FRO agreement was a
contributing factor for why the community was unable to benefit from the agreement. One o f
the participants argued that the revenue sharing opportunity should have gone directly to the
Keyoh holders instead o f the Band Office (Interview #10). Some participants felt that the money
received from revenue sharing wasn’t spent wisely and argued that it could have been beneficial
in the short-term if the community was ready and able to organize and develop a clear
104

community plan and put strategies in place. As one participant remarked, “you cannot spend
money based on the current need without learning the business aspect” (Interview #4).
Similarly, another participant admitted that, “we as a community had poor planning in place and
we just wasted the money, which we could have locked up and put away that money for rainy
day, or invested into the community infrastructures such as stores and even building new
community” (Interview #8).
The responses varied among participants when they were asked if the community was
able to accomplish the overall expected economic benefits as outlined in the agreement. While
some participants indicated a level of economic benefit, the majority responded that there was
no real economic benefit to the community through the FRO agreement. The common
understanding among participants was that the duration o f the agreement was too short and the
money received through revenue sharing was not nearly enough to realize the required socio­
economic needs of the community. Most o f the participants also emphasized that the revenue
sharing agreement was inadequate compensation for the amount o f revenue generated from the
resource extraction within the traditional territory. As stated by one participant, “what all First
Nations want is a fair share o f all the resources that leave their traditional territory and this is
certainly not the case within the traditional territory of the Tl’azt’en Nation” (Interview #6).
5.2.2 Resource Allocation
Besides short-term and limited revenue sharing opportunities, the lack of access to
adequate timber volume is one of the major setbacks for Tl’azt’en Nation in their pursuit of
meaningful engagement in the forestry sector. For example, as part of the tenure agreement,
Tl’azt’en Nation was able to obtain only three small NRFLs amounting to 306,610m3
(61,322m3/year) o f total AAC between 2010 to 2014 with a minimum o f 2,999m3 to maximum
105

of 55,324m3 AAC per year (Tl’azt’en Nation Direct Award Agreement, 2010, personal
communication with John Marchal, March 31, 2011). In the 2012/2013 fiscal year, Tanizul
Timber Ltd. was able to harvest and sell only 42,872.283m3 of timber volume compared to
4,166,502.341m3 of total timber volume harvested and sold from Fort St. James Forest District
(MFLNRO - Harvest Billing System Report, 2013). Based on these figures, Tl’azt’en Nation
only had access to approximately 1% of the total timber volume harvested and sold by other
licensees including some o f the major licensees such as BC Timber Sales (BCTS), Apollo,
Conifex, and Canfor from Fort St. James Forest District in the same 2012/2013 fiscal year. In
terms of revenue, Tanizul Timber Ltd. gained a total income of $413,662 from forestry
operations at the end o f March 2013 (Tanizul Timber Ltd. Financial Statement - March 31,
2013). This is only a fraction (approximately 1.3%) of the total revenue of $32,611,748.73
generated from the total volume sold from Fort St. James Forest District in 2012/2013 fiscal year
(MFLNRO - Harvest Billing System Report, 2013).
Clearly, having to compete with major licensees in the area is a real challenge for
Tl’azt’en Nation’s meaningful involvement in the forestry sector. As one participant pointed
out, “it was wrong thing for the government to give one license to another to create a large
licensee such as BCTS without properly consulting First Nations in the area.” The participant
further asserted that instead o f creating small business opportunities to support local First
Nations communities, the government created bigger business for themselves to gain maximum
profits at the cost of the Tl’azt’en Nation’s ability to properly manage and utilize resources
within their traditional territory (Interview #10).
Aside from limited access to timber volume, the Tl’azt’en Nation also does not have
access to quality timber because the volume assigned to them came from the uncut volume from

106

the previous tenures held by major licensees (20% take back volume) and consists o f low quality
timber with minimum economic value compared to the core reallocation (NAFA, 2003). As
described by the operations manager of Tanizul Timber Ltd as well as a research participant,
“we are currently focused on logging dead and dry timber that four years ago log buyers were
declaring non-salvageable” (Interview #2). In addition, the Tl’azt’en Nation also does not have
adequate human resources and financial capacity to take lull advantage o f the level of
opportunity available to them. For instance, all o f the harvested timber from NRFLs is sold to
local licensees such as Apollo and Conifex with no other viable economic benefits aside from
strictly selling timber ‘on the stump’ to these licensees (Interview #2).

5.3. The Key Barriers for Tl’azt’en Nation Meaningful Engagement in Forestry Sector
Some of the key issues and challenges of Tl’azt’en Nation with regards to meaningful
participation in a resource-based economy such as forestry are well documented in previous
studies (Morris, 1999; Morris & Fondahl, 2002; Dewhurst & Kaijala, 2003; Sherry, Dewhurst,
& Kaijala, 2005; Sherry, Halseth, Fondhal, Kaijala & Leon 2005, & Booth, 2008). However,
most of the previously identified issues and challenges continue to inhibit Tl’azt’en Nation to
this day despite their continued efforts and desires for improving their socio-economic
conditions through negotiating various forestry agreements. This section highlights some
fundamental barriers that prevent Tl’azt’en Nation from achieving their short-term economic
objectives while maintaining their long-term community values.
5.3.1 Forest Policy and Decision-making
One o f the major barriers for the meaningful engagement o f First Nations in the forestry
sector in BC is the government centralized approach to forest policy development and decision­
making processes. Under the existing regulatory frameworks, First Nations must follow the
107

rules and regulations, accept forest management systems, and adopt dominant visions and
objectives set by the government even though most forestry operations occur within their
traditional territories. As described by Wyatt (2008), the existing forestry regime in BC is the
evolution of colonial government decisions to retain public ownership of forests, while
permitting forest licensees to harvest timber on Crown land. As the primary purpose of existing
forest policy development was to maintain public ownership o f forests and secure the economic
interests of the Crown and industry, First Nations were generally excluded from management of
forest lands (Smith & Ross, 2002). Historically, from the beginning o f early settlement, the
forest policy regime in BC has been dominated by government and forest industry primarily
focusing on accommodating industrial economic development while retaining Crown ownership
over the land and resources (Pearse, 1976; Hoberg & Morawski, 2008). As a result, the
Provincial government continues to maintain ownership over publicly owned Crown lands while
only a handful o f large companies control the majority o f forest lands in BC (Phillip & Parfitt,
2013). In many respects, the existing centralized approach to forest policy development and
decision-making is viewed by Tl’azt’en Nation as the lingering effects of post-colonialism that
continue to impact their meaningful engagement in the forestry sector.
During interviews, participants were asked about their perceptions on the current
approach to policy development and decision-making processes in BC. Most participants
considered existing policy development and decision-making processes to be highly centralized,
rigid, and entrenched with complicated rules that are incompatible with First Nations’ holistic
approach to resource management and decision-making practices. The participants further
pointed out that the current forest policy development and decision-making processes directly
interfere with traditional systems o f governance, multiple resource uses, and community level

108

decision-making abilities. Some participants even commented that the government imposed
bureaucratic processes and policy frameworks were designed to support large industry and
ultimately to fulfill political and economic objectives of the government. Some o f the responses
were around the bureaucratic language used in the policy documents which are very complicated
for First Nations particularly, Elders and some Keyoh holders, to understand.
For most, the language used in the policy documents has to be translated into
understandable terms o f English, and even so, the transparency of the terms and objectives in the
documents are difficult to translate into plain language so that everyone can understand. A
participant further described current government approaches to policy development and
decision-making processes as “post-colonial divide and conquer tactics” to retain government
control over First Nations territories (Interview #3). For this participant, disrespect for cultural
and heritage values through the introduction o f ‘Culturally Modified Trees’ (CMTs) policy and
dismantling of the traditional system of fire management practice through imposition of
provincial fire suppression policy are clear indications of government’s post-colonial attitude
towards First Nations in BC.
This participant further observed that, “our biggest problem is that our knowledge and
our holistic process get acknowledged into legislature, at a true share decision-making table and
have the ability to make those changes” (Interview #3). A similar view was also shared by
several other participants who emphasized the lack o f First Nations involvement and input in
decision-making processes as one of the major barriers for First Nations’ ability to influence the
policy decisions that directly impact the overall socio-economic well-being of First Nation
communities such as the Tl’azt’en Nation. Approximately 50% o f the participants indicated that
meaningful considerations for overall environmental stewardships and ecological integrity, First

109

Nations cultural and subsistence-based livelihood values, and integration of traditional
knowledge-based resource management systems are poorly reflected during policy development
and operational practices (Appendix K).
After receiving their responses and perspectives on the government’s centralized
approach to policy development and decision-making processes, participants were asked about
their suggestions for future improvement. Some o f the common suggestions regarding future
policy directions were about reducing bureaucratic red tape and un-necessary hurdles, lower
stumpage rates, flexible tenure policy, and freeing up timber volume from other licenses such as
BCTS and Woodlots to provide viable timber supply opportunities for the Tl’azt’en Nation.
Other common responses emphasized the need for open and clear communication between all
parties involved, including First Nations, government, and industry, and working collaboratively
instead of being hard and tough on each other. The specific need for proper recognition and
appreciation for First Nations strength and desire to be full participants in the forestry sector
through policy reforms and inclusion of First Nations in the decision-making process was also
highlighted by one participant, as well as community leaders such as Chief Ralph Pierre
(Interview #6). In contrast to several other participants’ views and opinions, Chief Ralph Pierre
also emphasized the importance o f economic development through direct participation in the
forestry operations rather than opposing it and undermining the potential opportunities.
With regards to future improvements for policy directions, several participants expressed
some cynicism about the likelihood that there will be any forest policy development that reflects
First Nations’ interests. As one participant described, “people in Victoria, or wherever they are,
they are forever making decisions for us centrally, so it is difficult for us to go to a local
government agency such as the MFLNRO and say, we want to do this and we want to work
110

together because every time we go there, their hands are tied too” (Interview #10). Other
participants further articulated that there is definitely a need for some policy directions for
improvement and suggested that the government should be more involved with what is going on
within the traditional territory of the Tl’azt’en Nation and take approaches that are more
organized, practical, sensible, and collaborative. One pessimistic remark was shared by a
participant who suggested that the “only way it can be improved is if the government choose to”
(Interview #11). In his opinion, the existing government regulations and policy arrangements
will continue and it is the government who would ultimately make final policy decisions
regardless o f what the opinions or aspirations of the First Nations people might be. A similar
view was echoed by another participant who stated that, “improvement can only be made when
legislation and the Canadian constitution is changed to include the First Nations people and their
values; until that day comes, we are always going to be put on the bottom of the pile so that they
can come in and steal our resources” (Participant #12). Overall, only one participant responded
with a more optimistic view that current forest policy has improved from what it was twenty
years ago and to a certain extent helped establish consultation processes and renewed
relationships with First Nations and anticipated more progress would be made in the future.
5.3.2 First Nations Consultation and Referral Process
As outlined in section 2.3.4, government officials are currently guided by the interim
procedures outlined in the updated procedures for meeting legal obligations when consulting
with First Nations in BC. First Nations communities such as the TPazt’en Nation perceive these
consultation procedures as ‘business as usual’ formalities which fail to address their fundamental
issues and concerns with resource management and decision making processes that directly
impact their interests.
Ill

According to Smith (1995, cited in Wyatt, 2008), although the government is obligated
to take measures to avoid infringing Aboriginal rights and title, the meaning of consultation is
ambiguous because aside from some level o f information sharing, consultation processes rarely
include participation in decision making, or do not fully take Aboriginal rights into account and
treat First Nations as “just another stakeholder.” This appears to be the case for Tl’azt’en Nation
based on my interviews with various research participants as well as personal conversations with
other community groups. Given the magnitude of resource development activities taking place
within their traditional territory, the majority o f participants, particularly TPazt’en members,
indicated the lack of meaningful consultation based on open and transparent communication and
two-way dialogue between key community groups such as the Elders, concerned Keyoh holders,
community leaders, and the government representatives both at the local and provincial levels.
In my study, participants were asked about their opinions on the level of consultation and
the referral processes currently in place. While a small group o f individuals indicated that the
level o f consultation is in some ways thorough and to a certain extent improved from decades
ago, the majority of the participants considered consultation as a highly policy driven,
beaurocratic status quo, and in the view o f some participants, it is even considered to be a
misleading and manipulative process. One participant felt that, “consultation is basically when
the government will tell you what is going to happen and consider talking to you over the phone
as consultation” (Interview #10). Another participant further clarified that:
The current level of consultation process is basically meeting with the First
Nation liaison or consultation advisor to communicate concerns, which
accomplishes nothing and is a beaurocratic formality to establish a paper
trail to prove that consultation has occurred. The information the
government worker is given by the First Nation is not acted upon by
decision makers and concerns are just filed. (Interview #5)

112

Another participant affirmed that, “consultation is about courtesy thing and I think we miss a lot
of good opportunities during consultation because we all got ourselves trained to look for policy
before consulting,” (Interview #2). This participant further clarified that policy driven
consultation tends to be done according to the government’s policy objectives and there is a
need for capacity building for First Nations so they understand how things work.
Aside from concerns that the consultation process is carried out simply as a bureaucratic
token process, many participants expressed their concerns regarding the limited amount o f time
provided to First Nations for their responses to the overwhelming numbers o f referrals they
receive each year due to increased resource development activities. In most cases, multiple
referrals are bundled into one package and sent to the Tl’azt’en Nation expecting a timely turn­
around, which is impossible for Tl’azt’en Nation to achieve in a meaningful way (Interview
#13). For example, Tl’azt’en Nation received 80 referrals in 2010 consisting of up to 200 blocks
per referral (Tl’azt’en Nation Draft LUP, 2011). As described by a member o f the C&C, “with
hundreds if not thousands of referrals that are receive each year, the timeline is not conducive
for meaningful consultation especially when there is a lack capacity in the community to process
these referrals” (Interview #9). From her point o f view, the consultation process is simply a
short referral process, and First Nations are forced to respond in a short timeframe which is an
unjustifiable expectation that runs contrary to the form o f meaningful consultation that the
community expects.
The limited time frame puts communities into a disadvantaged position when it comes to
dealing with consultation and there should be consideration for increased timelines for response
and the possibility o f adding a filed session before any layout and further block development
gets finalized (Interview #9). A government representative (First Nations Advisor) as well as

113

research participant suggested that it should be realized that there are significant knowledge gaps
in the community which make meaningful consultation challenging, and getting up to speed is a
time consuming and challenging task for small communities such as Tl’azt’en Nation (Interview
#13).
Information sharing sessions are considered a formal method of consultation and First
Nations have the responsibility to attend this information sharing sessions. As such, it is very
important for First Nations to attend these information sharing sessions because the formal
consultation process is finalized regardless of First Nations participation during information
sharing sessions and whether or not any responses are received from First Nations within the 60
day period. Furthermore, as the licensees are not legally obligated to consult with First Nations,
the government acts on behalf of licensees and therefore it is critically important for First
Nations to fully participate in the consultation process so that their issues and concerns regarding
proposed forest development activities can be heard.
A critical issue concerning the current approach to the consultation process is the
undetermined roles and responsibilities between the Keyoh holders and C&C. For instance, the
Keyoh holders do not recognize C&C as their legitimate government representatives as they are
elected under the Department o f Indian Act (DIA). The government on the other hand does not
recognize Keyoh holders as a legal government entity so the government directly contacts the
C&C rather than contacting individual Keyoh holders during consultation. As indicated by
several participants, the Keyoh holders strongly oppose this type o f government approach and do
not fully support the agreements made between the government agency and the C&C.
Meanwhile, this conflict situation has also created a difficult environment for government
representatives for determining who to consult in the community. As a result, the direct contact

114

with the C&C has become a preferred method o f consultation despite the opposition from the
Keyoh members (C. Gilchrist - personal conversation, August 26, 2013 and July 26,2014).
With regards to forestry consultation and accommodation, the policies o f the MFLNRO
conform to the main Provincial Policy, but it has placed more emphasis on the accommodation
aspect o f consultation (Marsden, 2005). For example, as part of the FRO Agreement, the
Provincial government offered Tl’azt’en Nation short-term economic benefits in the form of
revenue sharing and limited direct tenure awards which was considered by Tl’azt’en Nation
inadequate consultation or the accommodation for the amount o f revenue generated from their
traditional territory. The similar opportunities are also available to Tl’azt’en Nation through a
new FCRSA, but for such economic benefits, the Tl’azt’en Nation’s commitment is to not
legally challenge MFLNRO on adequacy o f accommodation during the term o f the agreement.
In general, many Tl’azt’en members consider the current consultation process as a “Catch 22”
scenario where they have no other alternative but to follow and agree to the government-led
consultation process and procedures and are bound to participate in it even though they find it
inadequate.
In order to establish a fair and meaningful consultation process, it is critically important
for First Nations to have adequate notice and access to information regarding resource
development proposals which is currently limited. In addition to limited information, many
participants also spoke about the clarity and technicality o f the information which is difficult for
most Tl’azt’en Nation members to understand because o f the language barriers and therefore
defeats the intended purpose of the consultation. Most participants highlighted that information
sharing should be based on good faith and transparency and it has to be based on face to face

115

conversations and open dialogue between the key community members such as the Keyoh
holders, elders, and the government or the industry representatives.
Over 50% o f participants also pointed out that the consultation should be based on
govemment-to-govemment approach to maintain and validate one of the stated objectives of the
New Relationship policy document (2005). The majority of the participants stated that the
government or industry representatives must understand the different value systems between
First Nations, industry, and government in order to establish a balanced approach to consultation
and ultimately consensus-based decision-making. Furthermore, the government must not only
acknowledge and listen in good faith to its potential impact on Aboriginal rights, but must also
be willing to revise proposed actions when necessary to foster a better consultation process
(Interview #5).
One of the most commonly discussed issues among participants was about the
inadequate level o f First Nations involvement and input, and more importantly, the
inappropriateness o f the community level engagement. Currently, the government directly
contacts the Band office and the Band office informs to Keyoh holders about the proposed
resource development activities within their Keyohs. Generally, the Band offices do not agree
with the procedural and process-oriented aspect o f current consultation practices and the Keyoh
holders do not recognize the Band being their representative government body (Interview #13).
However, based on the responses received through the questionnaire, 55% o f the participants
indicated some level o f satisfaction with the level of consultation with individual Keyoh holders
prior to planning and resource development activities (Appendix K). Generally, many o f the
participants emphasized that the Keyoh holders want to be involved in upfront planning and

116

development phases o f the resource development activities and firmly believe that they should
be directly consulted not through the Band office.
According to these Keyoh holders, the primary role of the C&C should be to facilitate the
consultation process, not act on behalf o f the Keyoh holders. This type of conflicting situation
makes it difficult for all parties to come to the same table to discuss issues and concerns and
create a condition for meaningful consultation and informed decision making. One o f the major
issues is that the government does not recognize the traditional systems o f governance. As
suggested by an individual participant, “We need to acknowledge and ensure that we are
consulting with appropriate members o f the community such as the concerned Keyoh holders or
the collectively as the Nation not directly with the Band Council” (Interview #13).
Several participants also indicated that current resource management practices and
decision-making processes have consequently infringed upon some o f the key Aboriginal
interests within the traditional territory o f TPazt’en Nation. For example, misidentification and
harvesting of the culturally modified trees (CMTs) by some major licensees is a significant
concern to the Tl’azt’en Nation. In particular, the harvesting of the pre-1846 CMTs that are
protected under the Cultural and Heritage Act through the ‘Site Alternation Permit’ is the
primary concern for Tl’azt’en Nation. The TPazt’en Nation collectively sees this type of
practice as a clear indication o f ignorance or the imposition o f power justified by the policy
driven government objectives which is a direct insult to their cultural values and traditional
systems. Besides CMTs, several participants also highlighted the negative impacts o f resource
management and decision-making on several other Cultural and Heritage features such as the
protected heritage trails, cache pits, sacred sites such as burial grounds, and rock markings or
pictographs, as well as hunting, fishing, and resource gathering sites that are protected under the

117

Cultural and Heritage Conservation Act. More importantly, about 60% o f the participants
responded that Aboriginal rights and title are not at all considered during consultation process
(Appendix K).
Due to the distance and ineffective relationship with the Provincial government, the
Tl’azat’en Nation hopes to establish a better communication and closer relationship with the
local level government such as the MFLNRO located in Fort St. James, BC. The Tl’azt’en
Nation’s view on this local level relationship building is to create opportunities for better
communication and understanding, collaboration, and shared decision-making. However, the
management team and the statutory decision makers at local government such the MFLNRO do
not share similar views and try to stay away from the consultation process, thinking that they
would have a certain level of influence in decision-making (Interview #13). This type o f
divergent approach from the government side has created an even wider gap between the two
parties and created a barrier for meaningful consultation. Furthermore, it has put the Tl’azt’en
Nation in a vulnerable position under the continual legacy o f dependency on the government
systems which is virtually impossible to break.
Above all, perhaps, the greatest challenge for Tl’azt’en Nation is that despite the
recommendations, the statutory decision makers will ultimately make their decisions based on
the economic and political objectives o f the government and the Tl’azt’en Nation has very little
influence on the decisions being made and how they impact their future (Interview #13). As
described by one participant, “the government intention is already hundred percent what they
want to do through regardless of First Nations consultation or not and there is no use saying
‘No” and there is not much as a native person could do about it” (Interview #8).

118

Subsequently, participants were also asked who they think should be involved in the
consultation process, and when and how often consultation should occur. In terms of
community engagement, over three quarters o f the participants suggested that the consultation
should occur between the Keyoh holders or trapline holders, community leaders, concerned
members of the community, industry, and the government representatives including planners,
and managers. However, some groups o f participants stated that consultation should occur only
between the Keyoh holders, government, and industry. At least one quarter o f the participants
further specified that industry and government should consider the Keyoh holders as the number
one priority for consultation as they are a form o f government within the traditional territory of
the Tl’azt’en Nation (Interview #10). Several other participants also considered the importance
o f involving elders and asking them specific resource management questions during
consultation. Another participant even pointed out that the Minister (MFLNRO) should be
involved in the consultation so that he or she has the opportunity to directly witness the realities
o f the consultation process carried out locally.
In terms of the timing and frequency o f consultation, some individual participants
suggested that it will depend on the objectives of the consultation. Overall, the majority of
participants agreed that consultation should occur at the very early stages o f the planning and
development activities that are proposed within the traditional territory of the TPazt’en Nation.
One participant even suggested that consultation should occur at the timber supply review period
so that the AAC doesn’t impact First Nations’ use o f the land (Interview #12). In terms of
frequency, some participants suggested that consultation should occur only once (not piecemeal)
and others suggested every five years, but a significant portion of the participants argued that
consultation should occur continuously throughout the various stages of resource development

119

activities. One o f the participants further emphasized that consultation should occur at every
stage of development such as when they are considering the AAC determination within a timber
supply area, development of a higher level plan such as Forest Stewardship Plan (FSP), and
when issuing a licensee a tenure to harvest timber (Interview #12). Another participant also
supported the idea that the consultation should still continue even after issuing the tenure to
address the whole process from the block layout to the free growing stage (Interview #9).

5.3.3 Community Capacity Building
The need for community capacity building is one o f the key issues to be addressed in
advancing the forest interests such as rights and values o f Aboriginal people, and enabling their
effective engagement in the forestry sector (Bombay, 2010). In order to realize desired
community goals and objectives, the need for adequate Tl’azt’en Nation capacity building was
strongly reflected during my research study. For example, 55% of the participants indicated
community capacity building as a high priority for the Tl’azt’en Nation (Appendix K).
One of the questions asked during my research interviews was about some o f the
community strengths and weaknesses for meaningful participation in the forestry sector. A
group of participants identified TPazt’enne as a confident group o f people with much potential
for future improvements. Some participants also insisted that Tl’azt’en Nation is a progressive
and determined community with many hopes and dreams and they are consistently making
progress towards community capacity building. One of the participants simply claimed that “our
strength is our people” suggesting that Tl’azt’en Nation is a very well-equipped community in
terms of the wealth o f traditional knowledge, skills, and wisdoms passed down to them for
thousands of years and therefore they are more than capable of maintaining traditional way of
life if it wasn’t for the outside influences (Interview #9). Similar sentiments were also shared by
120

another participant who stated that, “I think, one aspect, we are hugely equipped; however, the
government doesn’t think that we are” (Interview #3). Another participant also commented that
“First Nations have wealth o f knowledge and capacity to offer and I think First Nations do not
need to be told what to do and what is best for them” (Interview #4).
A well represented portion of the participants spoke about some o f the community
strengths that exist in the community. These include a long history of land occupancy,
traditional knowledge based systems and practices, strong sense o f community pride and sense
of belonging, community experiences in the forestry sector, ongoing desires and community
determinations, and community adaptability and willingness to learn new things. While some
agreed that certain strengths exist in the community, most participants pointed out that there are
many weaknesses in the community that need to be addressed. For example, some o f these
weaknesses in the community include generational knowledge gaps, lack o f western education,
training and skills development, high staff turnover, and uncertainty around political situations
such as the Provincial and the C&C elections. A group o f participants also raised some
important issues regarding the lack of long-term community goals and visions in place,
community inability for setting up the realistic community goals and expectations, and in some
cases the ineffective use of available funding sources.
More than 80% of the participants believe that a lack of proper western education,
training and skills development is the most important barrier to the Tl’azt’en Nation’s
community capacity building. This was followed by another important issue o f lack o f long­
term community goals and vision, such as the establishment of a community-based economic
development plan, future investments, and the creation o f local employment opportunities. For
instance, some participants argued that certain potential opportunities have never been realized
121

in the community due to the lack of long-term community plans and visions. Some other
participants also pointed out that the lack o f unity among community leaders, Keyoh holders,
and community members is a major setback for TTazt’en Nation’s success in community
development initiatives. As noted by one participant, “there are some potentials that exist in the
community capacity building, but we choose not to take advantage o f it because we have this
thing on the reserve, ‘what can my Band do for me’, but none of them ever says, ‘what can I do
for my Band” (Interview #4).
In addition to the question about community strengths and weaknesses, participants were
also asked specifically about whether the TPazt’en Nation was able to participate in the forestry
sector in a meaningful way. A few of the participants thought that to a certain extent the
Tl’azt’en Nation is able to participate in the forestry sector in a meaningful way, but most
participants did not believe that the community was able to participate in the forestry sector in a
meaningful way. However, over 80% o f the participants highlighted that Tl’az’ten Nation is not
adequately equipped in terms of the required resources to properly manage forest operations and
capitalize on economic benefits from the forestry sector. The need for required levels of
education, training and skills development, community willingness for better coordination, and
setting up clear community goals were identified as top priorities for future community capacity
building.
More than three quarters of the participants suggested that there is a lack o f community
interest, particularly with youth groups in education, training and skills development
opportunities. Similarly, some participants also felt that there is a lack o f community interest in
local economic development activities such as starting businesses and future investment
strategies to create economic self-sufficiency. As one participant noted, “Naturally, we are not

122

very much o f business oriented type o f people, and we are not very interested in wealth too
much, we are happy with our comfort spot, than a million dollars in the bank” (Interview #8).
Also, as suggested by many participants, there is a lack of personal motivation and commitment
at the individual level for taking advantage o f the opportunities available to them. The reality is
that there are no economic prospective or other employment opportunities available in the
community and therefore youth are less likely to pursue certain educational and career goals. As
one participant described, “Reserves are not made for young people and if you let these young
people be here, they got no hopes because there are no role model who are successful”
(Interview #8).
The need for trained resource professionals such as registered professional foresters and
forest technologists in the community was mentioned by several participants. However,
TPazt’en Nation has produced only 3 forest professionals in its entire history despite the fact
that the community has engaged in various forestry operations for nearly four decades. Aside
from the lack o f professional expertise, Tl’azt’en Nation also lacks sufficient financial strength,
required management tools, and technology to carry out administrative and operational
activities. As a result, the Tl’azt’en Nation is at a disadvantage to address forest management
issues and seize potential economic opportunities to improve their socio-economic conditions.
Without sufficient funding sources and community infrastructures, the Tl’azt’en Nation
struggles to develop internal capacity building such as setting up business adventures and
creating education, training and skills development opportunities in the community.
5.3.4 External and Internal Relationship Building
In my research, many participants indicated a lack o f positive relationships between the
Tl’azt’en Nation and the Provincial government, forest industry, and also internally between the
123

C&C and the Keyoh holders. This was identified as one of the significant contributing factors
leading to unsuccessful community engagement in the forestry sector. In terms o f relationships
between Tl’azt’en Nation and the Provincial government, many participants indicated some
level of working relationships being established in recent years, but suggested that there is still
room for further improvement. Some participants recognized that building relationships with
the Provincial government has always been a far reaching goal for the community, suggesting
ongoing issue of a frustration and mistrust. Similar responses were received when participants
were asked about the relationship between the forest industry licensees and the Tl’azt’en Nation.
At the local level, individual participants indicated that, to a certain extent, the current
relationship with local government agencies such as the MFLNRO is relatively better than
before, but there is a lack of communication, open dialogue, and collaboration between the
community leaders and the management staff at the MFLNRO. These participants argued that
there is no govemment-to-govemment relationship being established which goes against one of
the intended objectives o f the New Relationship policy document and the subsequent FRO
agreement. Based on the responses received through the questionnaire, over 64% o f participants
indicated the importance o f establishing a meaningful govemment-to-govemment relationship
based on respect, recognition, and accommodation of Aboriginal rights and title (Appendix K).
A group of participants suggested that the uncertainty around both Provincial and local level
elections and the changing political and economic agendas of the government are contributing
factors impeding meaningful relationship building between the two parties.
In general, the majority of the participants referenced the ongoing issue o f post­
colonialism and dominant nature of treatment towards First Nations, the socio-economic
marginalization of the rural First Nations community through government objective-driven

124

economic agenda, and mistrust to be the major barriers for the establishment of meaningful
relationship between the two parties. Furthermore, the participants also highlighted the lack of
Tl’azt’en Nation’s ability for shared decision-making as an equal partner, management of land
and resources based on the community values and interests, and overall community selfdetermination as major contributing factors for the unhealthy relationship between First Nations
and the government of BC. One participant also pointed out that, every body assumes that the
C&C are in charge of everything, but the Keyoh holders are the legitimate government
representative for the Tl’azt’en Nation and therefore the govemment-to-govemment based
relationship should be established between the government and the Keyoh holders not with the
Band office (Interview #10).
Based on the overall responses received, the establishment o f better relationships
between the TPazt’en Nation, the government, and forest industry will depend on proper
recognition o f Aboriginal rights and title, appropriate accommodation for potential infringement
of Aboriginal interests, and acceptance of Tl’azt’en Nation as an equal partner with shared
decision-making abilities. Some participants suggested that the existing relationship between
the Tl’azt’en Nation, the government, and forest industry can be improved by adopting more
open and transparent communication lines between all parties involved. One participant also
discussed the importance o f respecting traditional knowledge-based systems and communitybased approaches to resource management practices and decision-making processes instead of
following the top-down approach that has become the status quo (Interview #3).
With respect to internal relationships, a significant number of participants expressed
considerable concern regarding unhealthy relationships between the Band Office and the Keyoh
holders. The majority of the issues stem from the legitimacy o f the government body

125

representing Tl’azt’en Nation and the roles and responsibilities over decision-making. The lack
o f recognition and respect for defined roles and responsibilities between the C&Cs and the
Keyoh holders has led to some hostility among community members. This conflict has created a
sense of division and mistrust among community members and has led to wider gaps between
the C&C and the Keyoh holders. One participant explained, “There is no collaborative effort
between the Band and people or the formal link between Keyoh holders and the Band”
(Interview #10). He further assessed that, the government takes an educated guess and directly
deals with the Band office instead o f the Keyoh holders thus creating more conflict in the
community. According to this individual participant, as the rightful owner of the traditional
territory, the Keyoh holders should be involved in any type of decision-making process right
from the beginning instead o f the current practice of decision-making through the Band office on
behalf of the Keyoh holders.
Some participants also indicated that due to this sense o f exclusion, some Keyoh holders
and community members have chosen not to participate in community meetings and in some
cases even acted independently by associating with certain industry representatives in attempts
to discuss and resolve some resource development related concerns within their Keyohs. This
has created more complex issues and challenges for the Tl’azt’en Nation’s efforts in trying to
resolve internal conflicts. For these individuals, the lack o f open and effective communication
between the Keyoh holders and the C&C are the fundamental reasons why certain animosity and
tension exists in the community.
Over the years, many internal conflicts have led to wider divisions and in some cases
even separation between community groups. For example, one o f the neighbouring First Nation
villages, Portage (Yekooche), once belonged to Tl’azt’en Nation but officially separated in 1994

126

to form a separate band. Throughout the study period, several members o f the TPazt’en Nation
strongly expressed their frustration and dissatisfaction regarding the existing political and socio­
economic circumstances o f the TPazt’en Nation. As one participant pointed out:
In the 1970’s, we were strong and everyone talked to one another,
communicated with one another, but we are not doing this anymore. A lot
of things going wrong and we have failed as a nation and the government
failed us from not letting us heal (Interview #10).
During my community visits, I also had the opportunity to communicate with several
other TPazt’en members from one of the TPazt’en village, Binche who also expressed certain
resentment towards the overall political and socio-economic conditions o f the TPazt’en Nation
and indicated that they are in the process of forming a separate band. Perhaps one of the clearest
indications of internal conflict is the recent resignation o f the Chief Ralph Pierre in December
2013. These are some troubling trends that create even wider gaps between community
members and puts the TPazt’en Nation’s future success as a nation at risk.
Most of the participants supported the idea that the government, forest industry, and the
TPazt’en Nation have roles to play in order to address the internal conflicts that exist in the
community. According to these participants, both the government and industry representatives
have the responsibility to be more aware of the sensitive nature of internal conflicts and for
respecting the traditional roles and responsibilities of the Keyoh holders as opposed to simply
contacting the C&C to make certain decisions that directly affect the livelihoods o f the Keyoh
holders. It is very important for both the government and industry representatives to understand
that the Keyoh holders were the legitimate owners and stewards of the land and resources with
the tradition territory of the TPazt’en Nation for thousands o f years and continue to do so to this
day and their traditional roles and responsibilities need to be respected.

127

5.3.5 Resource Development Strategies and Cumulative Impacts
Perhaps one of the most challenging aspects of Tl’azt’en Nation’s future engagement in
the forestry sector and their ability to maintain and carry out overall subsistence-based resource
uses and livelihood practices is the current rate o f forestry development activities taking place
within the traditional territory of the Tl’azt’en Nation. With several major forestry licensees and
other mining and resource exploration companies operating in the area, the Tl’azt’en Nation is
experiencing increasing pressure from resource extraction and economic development related
activities. Compared to previous years, the level o f harvesting activities in particular have
intensified in recent years because o f increased logging activities to salvage mountain pine
beetle (MPB) killed pine trees. An estimated 18.3 million hectares (723 million m3 timber
volume) of forested area in BC is affected by the MPB epidemic since the current infestation
began, and a significant portion o f Fort St. James Forest District is beetle infested (MFLNRO,
2013).
The harvesting trends have increased consistently since the 1960s, but began to increase
more sharply since the beetle epidemic which has slowed considerably since it peaked in 2005.
For example, until year 2000, the rate o f harvesting within the Fort St. James Forests District
remained fairly constant at a rate below 10% increase every decade, but this started to increase
significantly to over 58% between 2010 and 2011, was nearly 50% between 2011 and 2012, and
went up to more than 67% between 2012 to 2013 annually (Figure 7).

128

Harvesting Trends by Decades
60000
50000
40000
30000

20000
10000

I960

10000

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

201

2012

Planned

Year of Harvest

Source: Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations, Fort St. James Forest District
(May, 2013)

Figure 7: Harvested Areas by Decades in Fort St. Janies Forest District (1960 - 2012)

Figure 7 illustrates the historical trends for harvesting activities by decades within Fort
St. James Forest District between 1960 and 2012. In the future, the level o f harvesting activities
within Fort St. James Forest District will increase exponentially as more harvesting operations
are expected in the future mainly because other neighbouring Forest Districts such as Prince
George and Vanderhoof will be shifting their logging operations to the Fort St. James Forest
District due to the timber supply shortage in those Forest Districts.
In my research study, participants were asked about the most important and pressing
issues with regards to the current model of forest management practices that are taking place
within the traditional territory o f the Tl’azt’en Nation and the overall cultural, ecological, and
socio-economic impacts. Over 75% o f the participants stated that traditional, cultural and

ecological values and subsistence-based livelihood practices of the TPazt’en Nation are
seriously under threat due to a rapid rate o f resource exploitation within their traditional
territory. The majority of the participants criticized the accelerated rate o f clear cut logging and
resource road building operations with minimal considerations for ensuring the protection of
First Nations cultural values and management of multiple non-timber values such as
biodiversity, old growth forests, fish, wildlife, soils, water, and overall integrity o f the
ecosystems values. Collectively, the participants agreed that there is a lack of adequate
protection for important resource values including the protection o f significant cultural heritage
resource values that are largely overlooked during the planning, development, and operational
stages o f the forestry operations.
As one participant pointed out, “Although we have fairly strict rules around how things
are done, we are still overlooking some important values partly because we are focused on site
level not the stand level or the landscape level management practice” (Interview #1). This type
of site specific approach, as opposed to an ecosystem-based focus is considered by participants
as short-sighted and detrimental to future sustainability. More importantly, the lack of Tl’azt’en
Nation inclusion during all stages of the forest management and decision-making were
emphasized by several participants as a major issue with respect to current resource management
strategies. As stated by Chief Ralph Pierre, “While a lot has been overlooked and the land base
is never the same for those impacted, Keyoh holders that use the land base for trapping, hunting,
and fishing, it is always after the fact or not enough time is given to First Nation’s respond to
referral, if the First Nation has concern about the proposed cutting area.”
Several participants brought up the increased level o f AAC including the Chief
Forester’s allowance for up to 30% non-pine harvest such as spruce. For example, based on the

130

2012 mid-term timber supply review, the total AAC level for the Prince George Timber Supply
Area (PG TSA) including Prince George, Vanderhoof, and Fort St. James Forest Districts has
increased from 9.364 million m3 in 1996 to 12.5 million m3 in 2012 which is approximately 25%
increase from previous levels. O f this, approximately, 3.5 million m3 o f the total AAC was
partitioned for non-pine species types within PG TSA (MFLNRO - Mid-Term Timber Supply
Review, 2012).
If the current harvest levels are maintained until 2023 without mitigation, the timber
supply in the PG TSA is projected to decline by 32% in the mid-term from 9.364 million
m3/year to 6.4 million m3/year for 35 years and will gradually increase to a long-term level of
9.2 million m3/year (MFLNRO - Timber Supply Review, 2012) (Figure 8). However, as the
economic value o f the dead pine stands is deteriorating fast, many licensees have indicated that
the future timber shortage may occur as early as 2017 compared to year 2023 as predicted by the
MFLNRO.
harvest m ilionniV year

Prince George TSA - past AAC and future
timber supply forecast

16
cirrenl AAC 12.5 rrelion

pre-beetle AAC

reference scenario 6.4 million

-15

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

years from 2008

Source: Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations (May, 2013)

Figure 8: Prince George TSA Timber Supply Forecast (Past and Future)
131

This significant increase in AAC level was primarily justified by the mountain pine
beetle killed salvage logging and the objective was to salvage as much beetle-impacted pine as
possible (~ 70%) while limiting the harvest of non-pine species such as spruce, Douglas-fir, and
subalpine fir. However, according to a recent harvest report, approximately 46% o f the
lodgepole pine volume and 29% of the total volume including other non-pine species such as
Douglas-fir and subalpine fir that are harvested from Fort St. James Forest District in fiscal
2012/2013 year was the spruce component (MFLNRO - Harvest Billing System (HBS) Report,
2013). On average, approximately 31 % of the total timber volume harvested from Fort St.
James Forests District during fiscal years 2012/2013 and 32% during fiscal years 2013/2014
were spruce component (MFLNRO —Harvest Billing System Report, 2014).
It is expected that the harvesting o f green timber, particularly spruce stands, will increase
in the future as the beetle killed pine are rapidly deteriorating and becoming non-salvageable
timber. In addition, individual participants also raised issues regarding mismanagement of
understory forest stands, the lack of mixed species plantation, inadequate consideration for
ecological limits of the resource, and the lack of long-term landscape level planning and wildlife
habitat management strategies. One of the participants described that “the government has
mismanaged themselves, so they have increased resource development activities within our
traditional territories to support their economic objectives” (Interview #3). Other participants as
well as community elders emphasized the importance o f species diversification by concentrating
on planting more spruce, fir, and balsam instead o f planting mostly pine (Interview #8). For this
elder, the proper maintenance and protection o f biodiversity and overall land and resource values
that TPazt’en Nation depends on for their survival should be the most important aspect of land
and resource management strategy.

132

Besides this lack of consideration for non-timber values and inadequate forest
management practices, some participants also expressed their concerns regarding the future
shortage of timber supply. The imminent future timber shortage would mean limited
opportunity for the Tl’azt’en Nation’s access to viable timber supply to support their meaningful
engagement in the forestry sector. For instance, the TPazt’en Nation has already obtained a
CFA and is in the process o f obtaining a FNWL and other forest licenses in the future, but it will
require a substantial amount of timber supply to maintain and realize any economic benefits
from these forest tenures.
While a group of individual participants indicated some level of benefits from resource
development activities for easier access to hunting, trapping, and berry picking areas, the
majority of participants raised their concerns regarding the negative impacts of current resource
management approach. Some o f these concerns were about the Tl’azt’en Nation’s inability to
safely and effectively carryout out traditional subsistence-based livelihood practices such as
hunting, fishing, trapping, berry picking, and other resource gathering activities such as
medicinal plant collections. Several participants specifically spoke against the direct impacts of
clear-cut logging and road building activities within the traditional territory o f the Tl’azt’en
Nation. For example, as one participant pointed out, “clear-cut logging and resource roads have
jaded the quality o f our plants and ancient areas where it may have a high value o f subsistence
purposes” (Interview #3). Another participant simply stated that there are no real benefits to
Tl’azt’enne from increased resource development within the traditional territory o f the Tl’azt’en
Nation (Interview #9).
In general, the majority o f the participants described current forest management
strategies as short-sighted and strictly driven by short-term economic benefits rather than long­

133

term sustainability o f multiple resource values. One o f the participants, as well as the Tribal
Chief, Terry Teegee explained, “Now a day, all things are considered, but the number one value
is economic value, which is considered the most.” A similar view was expressed by another
participant who argued, “Mountain pine beetle salvage is currently managed to maximize
financial benefits to licensees and to government and no one is looking at the accumulated
impacts o f the amount and rate of cut such as fragmentation and depletion of wildlife habitats,
depletion o f old growth forest stands, and watershed impacts such as soil erosion” (Interview
#3). This participant further highlighted that, “Everything that we rely on comes from the forest
and when you damage that forest it is a loss of resources to us.”
As part o f these resource management strategies, many participants spoke about the
cumulative impacts o f resource development strategies that are currently undertaken within the
traditional territory of the Tl’azt’en Nation. Some of the highlighted cumulative impacts were
the long-term alteration o f landscape level biodiversity, significant loss o f fish and wildlife
habitats, depletion o f old growth stands, decreased moose population, introduction of invasive
plant species, increased soil erosion and degradation, increased sedimentation into the fish
bearing streams, and potential for the removal or alternation of important cultural heritage
features. While these are the real concerns for Tl’azt’en Nation’s future ability to adequately
maintain their cultural and subsistence-based livelihood practices, some participants assessed the
need for a proper environmental impact assessment and monitoring to mitigate the current
impacts. These participants emphasized the immediate need for research projects to properly
asses, monitor, and analyze the long-term cumulative impacts which is currently lacking.

134

5.3.6 Community-based Approaches and Self-determination
Certainly, one of the real challenges for the Tl’azt’en Nation’s meaningful engagement
in forestry is the lack of community-based land and resource management and decision-making
ability and overall community self-determination. As the First Nations’ land question remains
unresolved, First Nations communities in BC do not have effective management control or the
authority over the land and resources within their territory. In my study, most o f the participants
felt that Aboriginal interests have been interfered with and in some cases even violated under the
current forest policy regimes and overall resource management practices. In particular, these
participants expressed their concerns regarding the long-term impacts of increased resource
development activities that are taking place within the traditional territory of the Tl’azt’en
Nation. Furthermore, these participants also emphasized the lack o f adequate consultation and
the full inclusion o f community voices and input in resource management and decision-making
processes as well as the limited opportunities for the development o f community-based
initiatives based on First Nation interests.
Due to increased pressures from industrial-based activities and concerned with the lack
o f effective land and resource management strategies, the Tl’azt’en Nation has recently taken a
positive step towards the development of a community-based land use plan. With this initiative,
the Tl’azt’en Nation hopes to develop the best management strategies based on the vested
interests o f the community that go beyond the scope o f existing higher level development plans,
such as a forest stewardship plan. The focus o f this particular community-based initiative is to
give a voice to Tl’azt’en members’ concerns and aspirations for their territory, including
guidance for C&C on how to advocate on behalf o f the Nation, advocate for environmental
protection by developing partnerships and communication, develop a source of local stewardship

knowledge to help assess the referrals, identify areas of interests by the community for
restoration projects, and to develop and define criteria for community environmental monitoring
(Draft Tl’azt’en Nation LUP, 2011).
In order to focus on the importance of community-based resource management and
decision-making initiatives, participants were asked about the general awareness and
understanding, community level interests and supports, expected outcomes, and the fundamental
challenges o f the community for its successful development and implementation o f a draft
Tl’azt’en Nation LUP currently being developed. Most of the participants were aware of the
LUP and demonstrated a level o f understanding about the intent of the initiative. With regards
to community level interests and supports for LUP, the majority of the participants indicated that
there are adequate levels o f interest and support in the community, but a few participants were
convinced that there are not. Most participants maintained expectations that the LUP will
become a dynamic plan that can be used as a resource tool to provide management guidelines to
protect traditional cultural and subsistence-based economic and ecological vales important to the
Tl’azt’en Nation. These participants also emphasized the need for an alternative resource
management plan such as the LUP, which is developed based on traditional knowledge systems
and practices in order to maintain long-term community values and future sustainability.
In terms of fundamental challenges with regards to successful development and
implementation o f a community-based initiative such as the Tl’azt’en Nation LUP,
approximately 50% of the participants indicated that both the government and forest industry
will not recognize it as a legitimate document or tool to guide future resource management
practices as expected by the Tl’azt’en Nation (Appendix K). From the government and industry
perspectives, you cannot have two separate land use plans within the same resource development

136

unit because of the potential conflicts between the two separate standards and procedures, and
the legitimacy o f the document itself. Also, as indicated by some participants, there may not be
sufficient interest and support for a LUP by community members. Without full understanding
and support from community members, the successful development and implementation o f a
LUP could potentially be jeopardized. In addition to uncertainty around government and forest
industry approval and mixed responses from community members, the successful development
and implementation of a community-based initiative such as a LUP will also require substantial
financial resources which are currently lacking in the community.
As for future solutions, the majority of participants argued for a certain policy change to
recognize LUP as a legitimate document that can be used not only by Tl’azt’en Nation but also
by both the government and industry as an alternative resource management tool. These
participants further emphasized that the government needs to be open minded about the
development o f community-based initiatives such as LUP to address the specific needs and
concerns o f the community. An individual participant also suggested that First Nations should
have access to the same level of technical and professional expertise as the provincial
government to enhance development of community-based initiatives such as LUP (Interview
#5). While most of the participants focused on the proper recognition and support for LUP
initiatives, a group o f participants directed their focus towards the importance of local-level
understanding about the purpose and future benefits to the community and non-partition support
for the successful development of LUP.
Besides many other challenges, the lack of overall community self-determination within
their own traditional territory is by far the most challenging aspect for the Tl’azt’en Nation’s
meaningful engagement in the forestry sector. Indigenous people in Canada have the right to

137

self-determination, including the right to determine their political status and freely pursue their
economic, social and cultural development (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Canada (AANDC), 2010). Despite constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights and title as well
as the United Nations Declaration on Rights o f Indigenous Peoples - especially the right to selfdetermination - the Canadian government historically refused to recognize and ratify this
declaration on the basis that it was irreconcilable with its constitutional foundation and
ultimately a threat to non-Native rights (Manuel, 2006; Belanger, 2011). This historical
perception o f the Canadian government towards Aboriginal peoples and proper recognition and
respect for their inherent rights and title over the land and resources within their claimed
territories and the right to self-determination may change in light o f the recent Supreme Court of
Canada decision in the Tsilhqot’in case (2014).
5.4 The Roles & Responsibilities of the Government, Industry, & Tl’azt’en Nation
This section addresses my third research question: Given the current circumstances, what
should the roles of the government and forestry industry and the Tl’azt’en Nation be for taking
appropriate action to develop future strategies based on the unique needs and circumstances of
the Tl’azt’en Nation? Based on the responses received from participants, this section focuses on
the expected roles and responsibilities of the government, forest industry, and the Tl’azt’en
Nation for addressing some o f the issues and concerns o f the community to create future
opportunities. The section is divided into two sub-sections: the roles and responsibilities o f the
government and the forest industry and the roles and responsibilities o f Tl’azt’en Nation.
5.4.1 The Roles & Responsibilities of the Government and Forest Industry
A fundamental challenge for both the government and forest industry is the conflicting
goals and objectives and value systems between First Nations, government, and forest industry.
138

This makes it inherently difficult for both the government and forest industry to understand the
complex nature o f cultural, socio-economic, and political structures of First Nations
communities such as the Tl’azt’en Nation. In addition, with increased First Nations involvement
in the forestry sector, the government is also facing further challenges with regards to finding
viable timber allocations and operating areas for First Nations.
In my study, participants were first asked about what the roles and responsibilities o f the
government and forest industry should be for addressing some of the issues and concerns o f the
community for their meaningful participation in the forestry sector. The responses were varied
among participants. For instance, most participants suggested that the government should first
recognize the unique needs and circumstances o f the Tl’azt’en Nation and provide necessary
financial, technical, and professional supports to community for building community capacity.
Groups of participants also felt that there is a need for government to be more respectful and
aware o f community level interests and the long-term socio-economic and environmental values
of the Tl’azt’en Nation. Furthermore, some participants emphasized that one o f the most
important roles of the government should be to assist Tl’azt’en Nation in supporting advocacy
for their Aboriginal rights and provide better policy alternatives to support community-based
initiatives (Interviews #5 & #11). Specific to forest policy, government roles should be to have
a clear and good communication line with all First Nations and develop policy that works for
everyone not just the forest industry and government (Interview #6). More specifically,
government should take a step back, listen to what the local communities and First Nations have
to say, and provide equal opportunities for shared-decision making during policy development
processes (Interview #3). One participant further articulated that the government role should be:

139

To create better forest policy that takes into account the health of the whole
ecosystems and not just what the value o f the timber can bring to the
economy. Destructive forest practices should be reviewed and they should
be forced to follow their own forest stewardship policy (Interview #9).
Several participants also showed their discontent towards the local government agency
such as the MFLNRO approach to resource management and decision-making within the
traditional territory of the Tl’azt’en Nation. For instance, one participant suggested that
MFLNRO should not approve harvesting blocks if Tl’azt’en Nation has certain issues with a
block, and instead should support community concerns. For example, the government should
not allow any ‘Site Alteration Permits’ which would allow licensees to harvest cultural heritage
resources such as pre-1846 CMTs which are protected under the Heritage Conservation Act
(Interview #5). Most participants also advocated that it is critically important for government to
include First Nations during policy development and various stages of the resource development
and decision-making processes.
The participants also highlighted that government should adopt a better way of
consulting with First Nations to properly address their concerns and issues with regards to
resource development and decision-making approaches that directly impact their livelihoods.
Some participants also argued that although the forest industry is not obligated to consult with
First Nations, it will be in the best interests for them to have open communication with First
Nations so that they have a better understanding about community concerns and issues with
regards to both current and future impacts of resource development and management activities
and decision-making of First Nations communities such as the Tl’azt’en Nation.
In addition to policy provision, a participant also suggested that government should be
more involved indirectly with the Tl’azt’en Nation in local-level business investments and other
economic development activities since the resource extraction takes place within the traditional
140

territory of the Tl’azt’en Nation (Interview #8). A similar view was shared by another
participant who stated that both the government and forest industry should sponsor skills
development and training and even research projects to assess and determine the cumulative
impact of increased mountain pine beetle-killed harvesting on the land and resources within the
traditional territory of the Tl’azt’en Nation (Interview #9). Fundamentally, it is important to
recognize that Aboriginal people are not just another stakeholder since their rights and titles
enjoy protection under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (Parsons & Prest, 2003), and
now through the recent Tsilhqot’in decision (2014).
Finally, the common consensus among participants was that in order to support First
Nations’ meaningful engagement in the forestry sector, the government must consider forest
policy alternatives that incorporate the intrinsic values and interests o f the community based on
respect and recognition of Aboriginal rights and title. Also, considering the diverse groups o f
First Nations in BC, the policy must reflect the unique needs and circumstances o f a First
Nations community such as the Tl’azt’en Nation, as opposed to the current ‘one size fits all’
practice. Also, instead of tougher restrictions, government should establish innovative methods
for assessing individual community’s issues and priorities and provide more access to forest
tenures and revenue sharing opportunities. More importantly, the government and forest
industry must respect First Nations ways o f life, listen and understand their issues and concerns,
and work closely with them instead o f marginalizing and treating them as a source o f conflict.
In comparison to government, forest industry faces a unique challenge because they are
not a signatory party to the First Nations tenure and revenue sharing agreements, such as
previous FROs or the new FCRSA, and therefore they are not included in discussions o f First
Nation’s goals and objectives (Rogers, 2007). The forest industry also faces a different set of

141

challenges dealing with several First Nations groups since there are multiple First Nations forest
tenure holders within their operating areas. Often, overlapping boundary issues may also lead to
a conflict between various First Nations license holders. One of the major challenges for forest
industry is the uncertainty over both the short and long-term stability of the timber supply due to
the First Nations timber allocations. Above all, the ongoing issues around First Nations land
claims and unresolved treaty negotiations and the extent o f First Nations involvement in forest
management decision-making are the primary concerns to both the government and the industry
(Wilson & Graham, 2005).
5.4.2 The Roles & Responsibilities of the Tl’azt’en Nation
Participants were also asked about what the roles and responsibilities o f the community
over the land and resources within the traditional territory of the Tl’azt’en Nation should be.
The responses were two-fold: leadership level and membership level roles and responsibilities.
At the leadership level, most participants confirm that first and foremost, leadership roles
and responsibilities should be to establish a more open and transparent communication with the
Keyoh holders and community members. In addition, community leaders need to work closely
with various community groups on an ongoing basis to build trust, positive working
relationships, and increased unity in the community. Most participants also stressed that the
primary role and responsibility of the community leaders should be to focus on strong
community advocacy, future directions, and community capacity building. In addition, a
participant also highlighted that, “First Nations should also consult extensively with Keyoh
holders to identify and document the past and current cultural resources on their Keyohs.
Similarly, Keyoh holders should also be diligent and aggressive in communicating their interests
on the land and work closely with the Band, licensees, and the Ministry staff such as forest

planners to develop effective relationships so that they can effectively advocate for their rights
on the land” (Interview #5). Some participants even suggested that it is important for
community leaders to learn from the past and focus on the future priorities o f the community
instead of perpetuating the current practices which are proven to be unfavourable to community
success.
In terms of community members’ roles and responsibilities, the majority of the
participants focused on the need for creating a positive environment and unity in the community
through positive relationship building. In addition to building collective unity, participants also
emphasized the importance o f building individual strengths through education, training and skill
development in order to improve internal capacity, which is much needed in the community.
Some participants also argued that, in order to support community capacity building, everyone
in the community should also support the collective goals and priorities o f the community rather
than focusing on individual needs and interests. In addition, community members need to be
more involved in local initiatives and development projects and contribute to overall community
goals and objectives rather than opposing them. As one participant pointed out, “Community
members have to take responsibility for protecting their land and building relationship not only
with community members but also with the licensees in their area” (Interview #5). A
community elder as well as research participant commented that “One of the most immediate
and pressing issues for us is that we don’t have much resource left, so we as community should
be more involved in protecting our resources” (Interview #8).
In general, the majority of participants indicated that there is a lack of individual
ambition, motivation, and dedication in the community towards the achievement o f common
community goals and aspirations. For these participants, it was also equally important for

143

individual community members to focus on taking advantage o f the opportunities available to
them instead o f relying on the existing systems o f dependency and expecting that something will
be done for them.

5.5. First Nations Forest Tenure Alternatives
This section addresses my fourth and final research question: Based on long-term
community goals and objectives, what type o f forest tenure would be suitable for the Tl’azt’en
Nation’s future engagement in the forestry sector? The section briefly outlines the Tl’azt’en
Nation’s engagement in the forestry sector through various forest tenure opportunities over the
last 3 and half decades and also a possible tenure alternative that the Tl’azt’en Nation could
pursue. The primary purpose o f this section is to focus on the future forest tenure alternatives
that may work best for the Tl’azt’en Nation.
Under the jurisdictions o f the two levels o f government, First Nations communities such
as Tl’azt’en Nation are struggling to achieve their intended socio-economic goals, and the
establishment of community self-determination, through their engagement in the forestry sector.
Given the current circumstances, it will require a fundamental policy shift to recognize the
socio-economic interests o f First Nations as industry-based tenure systems have consistently
failed to address the unique needs and circumstance o f First Nation communities (Booth, 2008,
Smith & Ross, 2002). Furthermore, as suggested by Smith & Ross (2002), not only a new
tenure arrangement, but the resolution o f land claims, may be necessary if First Nations are to
achieve their own goals for managing forest lands.
In my study, participants were specifically asked about what type of forest tenure they
think would be a viable option for Tl’azt’en Nation. Some participants stated that they do not
have ideas as to what type of forest tenure would work best for First Nation communities such as
144

the Tl’azt’en Nation, or what it should be called (Interviews #1 & #7). One participant even
indicated that no such forest tenure exists yet because even FNWL is not good in some ways
policy wise (Interview #2). Overall, 54% of participants indicated the future need for an
alternative First Nations forest tenure system is high priority for the Tl’azt’en Nation (Appendix
K). Collectively, a majority o f the participants preferred community forest tenure as a viable
option for Tl’azt’en Nation as it is a relatively flexible and stable long-term area based tenure
option with a comparatively lower stumpage rate. Some participants defined community forest
tenure as a viable community-based tenure alternative which are the only suitable option
available for the Tl’azt’en Nation. In addition to long-term area based tenure, all participants
who are in favour o f community forest tenure agreed that there needs to be a large enough area
with sufficient timber supply to be a viable option for potential revenue generation.
The participants also emphasized that community should have exclusive control over the
planning, development, and implementation of management strategies and decision-making over
the community forests instead o f the existing centralized approach to management and decision­
making. Some participants even argued that the community should have control over the
revenue and economic benefits generated from the community forests so that they can focus on
the specific needs of the community through local economic development projects and future
investments opportunities. Given the lack of community capacity and required funding sources,
some individuals also suggested that the government should provide the necessary technical and
professional supports as well as funding for training, internships, and skill development
opportunities for community members to help establish local capacity.
Many participants emphasized the need for local economic development and
employment opportunities through the creation of local business adventures and future

145

investments as an important aspect of community capacity building. Through community forest
tenure, community also expects better management of multiple resource values such as non­
timber forest products, biodiversity, fish and wildlife, and cultural values. It is believed that the
successful development and implementation of community forest initiatives will create a sense
of community pride, collective community responsibility, and ownership over the land and
resources within the traditional territory o f the Tl’azf en Nation.
Some participants indicated that the recent community desire for switching from a TFL
to a CFA may be a positive step for the Tl’azt’en Nation, but expressed their concerns about the
existing forest policy frameworks and tenure arrangements that may limit the potential socio­
economic aspirations o f the Tl’azt’en Nation through the CFA. The current tenure system
imposes several policy restrictions on First Nations and limits them from successfully entering
the forest industry. Under the current tenure system, First Nations do not have control over the
forests within their traditional territories, but they must live according to the conditions set by
the provincial government which are developed within the context o f industrial forestry
requirements and therefore interfere with their unique community values and goals (Booth,
1998). In addition to policy restrictions, the Tl’azt’en Nation is also facing a set o f problems
associated with decreased market values since most of their allocated timber will be harvested
from deteriorated beetle-killed areas and imminent future timber supply shortage. Also,
currently there are no incentives for value-added products and, therefore, the Tl’azt’en Nation
may have to rely exclusively on raw lumber export which is challenging considering the
availability of a surplus timber supply from other major licensees that are operating in the area.
As previous experience o f the Tl’azt’en Nation suggests, simply by obtaining a major
forest tenure such as a TFL will not be enough to realize the intended goals and objectives o f the

146

community. However, any potential future benefits from a CFA will depend on how wellprepared and committed the community is in terms of setting up clear and concise community
plans, determining future goals and objectives, and allocating adequate resources to support
those goals. Similarly, it will also depend on genuine understanding and willingness of the
government for developing better policy alternatives and providing the required technical,
professional, and financial supports to the Tl’a zf en Nation. More importantly, the potential
benefits o f community-based forest tenure such a CFA will only be realized if the recognition
that local people are the primary users o f their forest land and resources.
In addition to providing long-term area based tenure systems, several participants also
suggested that the government should offer substantially larger operating areas with viable
timber supplies and provide stumpage relief (or create different stumpage rates) to encourage
long-term commitment and viable economic opportunities for the Tl’azt’en Nation.
Furthermore, participants also felt that the government should provide an equitable share o f
stumpage collected from the Tl’azt’en Nation traditional territory to support community-based
development projects including education, training and skill development initiatives, building
community infrastructure and the establishment o f local economic development projects.

5.6 Conclusion
The research analysis was conducted based on data obtained through primary data
sources such as semi-structured interviews, field notes, supplementary questionnaire, and other
secondary data sources such as government statistic and census data, and policy documents. In
order to facilitate constructive research analysis, the links between key research questions and
selected themes developed through latent content analysis were established. Based on key
research questions and the collective responses received from research participants, the research
147

analysis section focused on four main areas: the opportunities and limitations of the TPazt’en
Nation FRO agreement, the fundamental issues and challenges of the community for their
meaningful engagement in the forestry sector, expected roles and responsibilities o f the
government, forest industry, and Tl’azt’en Nation, and preferred forest tenure alternatives that
work best for Tl’azt’en Nation.
By negotiating a short-term FRO agreement with the provincial government, Tl’azt’en
Nation not only pursued some short-term economic benefits, but perhaps more importantly,
sought to re-assert their Aboriginal rights and title within their traditional territory. Based on the
objectives outlined in the agreement, Tl’azt’en Nation expected the creation of viable economic
opportunities and improvement of social condition in their community and also an improvement
o f relationship building. However, my research study demonstrates that the intended socio­
economic objectives of the community were never fully realized due to a combination of several
limiting factors including a short-term agreement, limited resource allocation such as viable
forest tenure options and poor quality timber, and adequate revenue and benefit sharing
opportunities. The lack of establishment o f meaningful relationship building with the Provincial
government is also an ongoing issue for the Tl’azt’en Nation.
More importantly, the highly centralized approach to policy development and decision­
making, inadequate levels o f First Nation consultation, the lack o f community capacity building,
both external and internal conflicts, rapid depletion o f resource values and cumulative impacts,
and the lack o f community self-determination are some of the key limiting factors that continue
to hinder Tl’azt’en Nation’s success in the forestry sector. In addition, the potential for socio­
economic benefits from the FRO agreement was also hindered by the lack of community
preparedness in terms o f having a clear and concise community plan and future goals, as well as
148

the effective management and utilization o f available funding sources during the period o f the
FRO agreement.

149

Chapter 6. Discussion: Research Results, and Practical & Theoretical
Concepts
6.1. Introduction

This chapter links my research analysis results with key theoretical concepts developed
from the literature and policy documents review. The legacy of colonialism and forest policy in
BC, First Nations forestry opportunities and hindering factors, First Nation’s perspectives on
socio-economic objectives, and the future implications of community-based approaches are the
focus o f the discussion. In order to facilitate my discussion, a direct link between key theoretical
concepts and selected latent content analysis themes is established (Table 5). This chapter
concludes with a summary of links between the research results and key theoretical concepts.

Table 5: The Links between Key Theoretical Concepts & Latent Content Analysis Themes
Key Theoretical Concepts

1. The Legacy o f colonialism and
forest policy in BC

Selected Latent Content Analysis Themes
Leeacv of Colonialism:
• Destructive and assimilative policies
• Systematic displacement o f traditional systems of
governance and lands entitlement
• Post-colonial conquer and divide tactic
• Socio-economic marginalization
• Undetermined Aboriginal rights and title
• Mistrust and divisiveness
Forest Policv in BC:
• Highly centralized approach to policy development and
decision-making
• Based on specific government objectives
• Lack o f adequate First Nations involvement and input
• Extensive resource exploitation with minimum impact
assessments and monitoring
• Deregulation o f Forest and Range Practice Act
• Direct interference with First Nations holistic views
150

•

Significant barriers to community-based development
initiatives
Opportunities:
• Short-term based revenue sharing opportunities (i.e.
FRO and FCRSA)
• Long-term based forest tenures (i.e. CFA and NFWL)

2. T l’a zt’en Nations’forestry
opportunities and hindering
factors

3. First Nations ’perspectives on
resource management and socio­
economic objectives

4. Future need fo r communitybased forest management and
decision-making

Hindering factors:
• Short-term based opportunities
• Limited resource allocation
• Lack of adequate operating areas and timber supply
• Significant policy constrains and steep competition
with major licensees
• Lack of meaningful First Nations consultation
• Lack o f community capacity building
• External and internal conflicts
• Changing circumstances (i.e. elections/staff turn-over)
• Lack of defined leadership roles and responsibilities
• Extensive resource extractions and cumulative impacts
• Lack of ownerships and management control over the
traditional territory
• Improvement o f economic self-sufficiency while
maintaining long-term community values
• Sustainable based resource development practices
• Local economic development opportunities based on
unique needs and vested interests o f community
• Fair share o f resource allocation, revenue, and benefits
sharing
• Traditional knowledge-based resource management
approach and environmental stewardship
• Protection o f non-timber products and cultural and
heritage resource values
• Community control over resource management and
decision-making

6.2. Legacy of Colonialism and Post-colonial Forest Policy in BC
The legacy of colonialism has shaped the present Aboriginal-Crown relationship and the
socio-economic distinction between First Nations and the non-Aboriginal population in British
Columbia. Much of the academic literature focuses on the long-term impacts of colonialism and
151

the ongoing issues of socio-economic disparity that exists between First Nations and other
British Columbians. As described by Alfred (2009), the long-term impacts of colonialism are
resource exploitation on Indigenous lands, expropriation of lands, extinguishment o f rights, the
residential school syndrome, racism, wardship, and welfare dependency. Harris (1997) further
defines the legacy of colonialism as a systematic takeover and reshaping o f Aboriginal land and
way of life by settler society with a capitalist values system in which First Nations to this day
struggle to deal with continual processes of assimilation, socio-economic marginalization, loss
o f cultural values, and ways of life related to their traditional lands. In fact, Harris (1997) argues
that the fundamental division between First Nations and settler society in British Columbia is
rooted in the very land that was stolen by settler society for resource development and where
future hopes lie for First Nations people.
In the case of the Tl’azt’en Nation, my research study suggests that the colonial legacy
continues to impact many aspects o f their daily life. For instance, the Tl’azt’enne have not only
been forced off their vast traditional territory and confined onto small reserves, but also have
been governed by AANDC, which is contrary to their former system o f governance through
clans and chiefs. This state imposed system o f governance has not only created a continual
system o f state dependency, but also a deep internal conflict between certain community groups
such as the elected Band Councils and the Keyoh holders. As a result, a wider gap between
community leaders, Keyoh holders, elders, and other community members has been created
further weakening much needed unity in the community. One o f the most obvious indications of
conflict among community members is that the Keyoh holders do not recognize elected Band
Councils as the legitimate representatives o f the community and dispute the relevancy of the
roles and responsibilities of the C&C mandated under the Indian Act. In many cases, some

152

Keyoh holders are reluctant to participate in community discussions and other important
meetings such as First Nations consultations and decision making processes. As a result, certain
decisions are made without adequate community representation and proper consultation with
some of the key community groups such as the Keyoh holders and Elders. This is the root cause
of mistrust, divisiveness, and conflict that continues to break apart social cohesiveness and self­
dependency of the Tl’azte’nne that existed for thousands of years. This type o f adversarial
situation owes much to the legacy of colonialism which continues to influence the present day
Tl’azt’en Nation, both politically and socio-economically.
With respect to First Nations inclusion, forest policy regimes remained unchanged for
many decades in BC. The long exclusion of First Nations participation in the forestry sector was
changed when the Provincial government embarked on a new strategic policy direction in 2003
aimed at addressing the Province’s long-lasting failure to reach accommodations with First
Nations whose traditional territories continued to be altered by land and resource development
activities such as clear-cut logging (Parfitt, 2007). With this new policy shift, First Nations were
able to engage in the forestry sector initially through interim revenue and resource sharing
agreements such as the FRA in 2003 and later the FRO agreement in 2005. However, as argued
by Howlett et al. (2009), while forest policy in BC has evolved over time, new policy directions
remain unclear as the government has continually maintained jurisdiction and formal legislative
control over the disposition of forest lands and resources in BC. Under this state control
approach, the current regulatory and forest policy frameworks are primarily structured around
fulfilling the political and economic objectives o f the government and forest industry and fail to
properly address the unique needs and circumstances o f First Nation communities (Booth &
Skelton, 2008). The crux of the problem is that the Province has unilaterally imposed the

current forest policy frameworks and legislations and First Nations have been excluded or
marginalized from the important policy discussions that have significant direct impacts on them
(Merkel et al., 2003). The authors further emphasize that despite the recent trend in increased
First Nations involvement in BC’s forest sector most First Nations have been unable to
capitalize on socio-economic opportunities in the forestry sector. This is true for the Tl’azt’en
Nation where the improvement o f socio-economic status of the community through their
engagement in the forestry sector remains largely unchanged.
Perhaps one of the most ambitious and seemingly progressive policy documents, called
the “New Relationship,” was initiated in 2005 with a broad vision and goals focused on bridging
the socio-economic gap between First Nations and other British Columbians, and improving the
historic relationship between the government and First Nations. One o f the positive outcomes of
this new policy approach is that the majority of First Nations groups in BC were able to
negotiate interim forestry agreements with the government and continue to re-negotiate new
forms o f agreements such as FCRSA and FNWL. However, while the increased level of First
Nations participation in the forestry sector is an impressive development, the achievement of
intended goals and objectives of the New Relationship policy document and thorough First
Nations forestry agreements remains largely unrealized. This is the case for the Tl’azt’en Nation
where the community has neither realized expected socio-economic benefits through forestry
agreement such as FRO or experienced establishment o f improved relationship with both local
and Provincial government counterparts.
One of the most important forest policy shifts in BC is the introduction o f the Forest and
Range Practice Act (FRPA) in 2002 and the subsequent implementation of ‘Result-based’ forest
management regimes in 2004. This new forest policy regime (FRPA) is considered as a new era

154

of forestry deregulation which places an unprecedented degree o f control over public resource in
the hands of forest companies without an adequate level o f resource development impact
assessments and monitoring (West Coast Environmental Law - Backgrounder, February, 2004).
My study reveals that the current forest policy frameworks and forest management practices
directly interfere with Tl’azt’en Nation’s holistic views and traditional systems o f land and
resource management. As the participants noted, experience of the community is that many
important community values such as management o f cultural and heritage values, fish and
wildlife habitats, non-timber forest products such as berries and medicinal plants, and
conservation o f physical and environmental attributes such as soils, water, and overall ecological
integrity have been seriously threatened under the current approach to policy frameworks and
resource development strategies.
Generally, the community perceives the current policy approach as a legal formality
mostly driven by the specific government economic objectives rather than adequate
consideration for long-term management and protection of other important cultural, socio­
economic, and environmental values. A consequence o f this type o f government imposed
objective is that First Nation communities such as the Tl’azt’en Nation have no other alternative
but to follow the rules and regulations set by the government for meeting an economic agenda
over which they have no control. As stated by Morris (1999), First Nations communities such as
Tl’azt’en Nation did not choose, but rather were forced to consider modem economic
development activities such as forestry as supposed to their traditional subsistence-based
economy.
Given the legal obligations, proper consideration for First Nations engagement and
consultation is an important aspect of forest management and decision-making in BC. However,

155

the issue of continual exclusion of First Nations involvement and input during policy
development and decision-making process remains central for First Nations. In the case o f
Tl’azt’en Nation, the highly centralized approach to policy development and decision-making
has created significant barriers to traditional knowledge-based resource management,
monitoring, and decision-making. For instance, the systematic elimination o f their traditional
fire management system that was based on traditional knowledge to increase productivity of
berry patches and root crops, improve forage for prey species, management of pests and improve
the quality of wildlife habitats, and create fuel breaks to reduce the risk o f fire around camps and
villages is one o f the examples o f policy barriers that prevent community from managing
resources within their own traditional territory. As Turner et al. (2000) explains, although the
ecological knowledge and succession through landscape burning is well understood by
Aboriginal people, their traditional knowledge-based resource management practices is
considered as non-scientific (Turner et al., 2000).
As Morris and Fondahl (2002) point out, one of the major concerns for Tl’azt’en Nation
is the preservation of ecological integrity and maintaining traditional land use and resource
utilization practices under the current approach to management o f the forests and other non­
timber resources within their traditional territory. However, the increased wildlife habitat
destruction, decline in the moose population, decreased forest cover and biodiversity,
contamination of fish bearing streams, and the removal o f cultural and heritage sites that are
protected under the Cultural and Heritage Act through ‘Site Alteration Permits’ are some o f the
ongoing concerns encountered by the Tl’azt’en Nation under the current approach to policy
development and resource management strategies.

156

While proper maintenance and protection of long-term community values such as
cultural and heritage features, hunting, fishing, and trapping areas, other resource gathering sites,
and overall ecological integrity have become real concerns for Tl’azt’en Nation, the community
has very little or no influence over how these values are managed and protected. As such, future
policy directions should be to focus on addressing community concerns based on full
participation o f First Nations groups and meaningful considerations for their input during policy
development and decision-making processes. My study shows that there is a need for
fundamental shifts within the centralized approach to government policy development and
decision-making processes to allow First Nations’ self-determination within their traditional
territories.

6.3. First Nations Forestry Opportunities and Barriers
In BC, the consideration o f First Nations participation in forestry sector was only
possible due to several court ruling affirming the Crown’s duty to undertake consultation and
when required accommodate First Nations for possible infringements of Aboriginal rights and
title due to proposed resource development activities within their traditional territories. The
enactment o f the Forest (First Nations Development) Amendment Act (Bill 41) in 2002,
development of a Provincial Policy for Consultation with First Nations and the Ministry of
Forests Consultation Guidelines in 2003, and the subsequent announcement of a broader set of
legislative and policy changes under the FRP in 2003 created considerable opportunities for First
Nations engagement in forestry sector. In general, the introduction of the FRP is considered to
be the most significant change to the Forest Act in over 50 years in BC (Clogg, 2003). Through
this new forest policy initiative, many First Nations communities across BC, including the
Tl’azt’en Nation, have been able to engage in the forestry sector mostly through short-term
157

tenure and revenue sharing agreements. If desired, First Nations are able to renew their previous
interim agreements such as FROs, with new revenue sharing agreements such as FCRSA. In
addition, if they are qualified and agree to sign FTOA, First Nations are also able to apply for
long-term area based forest tenure such as FNWL. This is a significant development
considering long exclusion and socio-economic marginalization of First Nation peoples in BC.
However, my study reveals that although First Nation communities such as the TPazt’en Nation
are able to pursue these new opportunities, they are constrained by many limitations around the
lack of community preparedness and capacity building, adequate resource allocation and funding
sources, and both internal and external conflicts. More importantly, the collective consensus of
the participants suggests that the lack o f community self-determination over land and resource
management within their traditional territories under the dominant nature of centralized
approach to forest policy development and decision-making is the biggest challenge for First
Nation peoples with respect to their meaningful engagement in the forestry sector.

6.4. Tl’azt’en Nations’ Approach to Resource Management & Socio-economic Objectives
Most of the literature on First Nations’ perspectives for resource management and socio­
economic objectives highlights the importance o f maintaining the long-term socio-economic
sustainability rather than short-term economic objectives. Since their livelihood depended on
land, First Nations people have always maintained a holistic understanding of the natural world,
established a positive and respectful relationship with nature, and had an intimate understanding
of the resource management and utilization (Deloria, 1999; Turner et al., 2007; Booth & Jacobs,
1990). Their ideas and philosophy and way of life remain the same as it did for many centuries
and it is more likely to continue for the future. Unfortunately, their long-held concepts of
stewardships and the richness of traditional knowledge-based systems o f resource management
158

practices are mostly considered un-scientific and invalid under the existing policy frameworks
and resource management strategies (Corcoran & Sievers, 1994). It can be argued that this is
one o f the missing links in regards to the establishment of a comprehensive landscape level
planning and integrated approach to resource management strategies in BC.
Traditionally, the Tl’azt’en territory was managed through the “Keyohs” and “Bahlats ”
systems where members of the clan owned and controlled a separate Keyoh (land management
units) and practiced subsistence activities such as hunting, trapping, fishing, and gathering
(Carrier Sekani Tribal Council - Aboriginal Interests and Use Study on the Enbridge Gateway
Pipeline, 2006). Today, their traditional systems of land management have been seriously
altered due to the heavy presence of industrial-based activities and introduction of new
economy. The TPazt’en Nation clearly understands the negative impacts o f resource
development activities and the compromise they have to make in order to receive some
economic benefits. The recent years have been particularly concerning to the Tl’azt’en Nation
due to a rapid increased in resource development activities and significant long-term cumulative
impacts within their traditional territory. As Morris & Fondahl (2002) describe, while gaining
economic benefits from the resource utilization is important to the TPazt’en Nation, the primary
concerns of the community has been for the proper protection o f the healthy forests ecosystems
and overall ecological integrity to support their subsistence livelihood practices. In recent years,
reduced numbers o f fish and wildlife such as the sockeye salmon and moose which the Carrier
people have depended on for generations has become a major concern for the TPazt’en Nation
which is worried about the increased level of wildlife habitat fragmentation and soil and water
contamination caused by the intensive beetle-killed salvage logging activities.

159

Based on my research findings, the reconciliation of conflicting values between
traditional land ethics, protection of cultural and resource values, and economic benefits has
been one of the most difficult challenges for the TPazt’en Nation under the current approach to
resource management strategies and government imposed socio-economic objectives. My
research also demonstrates that the TPazt’en Nation’s long-term socio-economic objectives are
to maintain subsistence livelihood practices, ensure environmental sustainability, reduce socio­
economic disparity, and improve quality o f life. With these goals, the TPazt’en Nation has
persistently pursued economic opportunities in the forest sector and faced significant issues and
challenges for achieving the intended community goals and objectives since the beginning of
their involvement in the forestry sector. In the short-term, it may be necessary for the TPazt’en
Nation to seek economic opportunities in the forestry sector, but the long-term goals are to have
access to and control over the land and resource management and decision-making within their
traditional territory. With this vision, the TPazt’en Nation has undertaken a step towards the
development of a comprehensive resource management strategy such as the TPazt’en Nation
LUP in 2011, exclusively based on their traditional knowledge-based community values and
interests.
Through this community-based initiative, the TPazt’en Nation hopes to mitigate and
reduce the negative impacts of industrial development activities such as clear cut logging by
identifying specific areas of concerns raised by the Keyoh holders and other community
members (Draft TPazt’en Nation LUP, 2011). The fundamental purpose behind the
development o f a community initiative such as the TPazt’en Nation LUP is multidimensional
and aims to achieve the following objectives:

160

1. Give a voice to community concerns by talking and listening to the TPazt’enne
and Keyoh holders and incorporating their aspirations into a land and resource
management plan;
2. Guide community aspirations for future conservation by thinking o f measures
that are area-based;
3. Advocate for environmental protection by developing areas for restoration
projects and by determining areas o f priority and use;
4. Develop environmental monitoring criteria based on family, community, and
Tl’azt’en Nation Keyoh management systems;
5. Determine special management zones by significance, and priority for
government and Tl’azt’en Keyoh system;
6. Create land development policies and protocols by listening to people and
incorporating their thoughts, ideas, and knowledge; and
7. Inform and assist Chief and Council decision-making process by providing the
best possible alternatives, information, and alternative options.
By setting up these broad objectives, the Tl’azt’en Nation not only proposes to
demonstrate their ability for identifying, prioritizing, and managing important resource values
within their traditional territory, but develop a management tool that can be recognized and
utilized by the government and industry, not just by the Tl’azt’en Nation. Ultimately, Tl’azt’en
Nation wants to develop resource management strategies and guidelines that are above and
beyond the current standards of resource management strategies which are largely driven by
economic objectives. In this respect, the Tl’azt’en Nation LUP would be the most desired
resource management tool, since it reflects the Keyoh holders’ aspirations for looking after the
overall integrity o f cultural and environmental values as well as the Chief and Council’s hope
for the establishment of more sustainable approach to resource management and socio-economic
development opportunities within their territory.

161

During my research, the majority of the participants expressed that the development of
LUP is important to the Tl’azt’en Nation not only for the purpose o f developing baseline data
information, but also proclaiming their Aboriginal interests within their traditional territory.
This LUP is being developed with the full collaboration of local Elders, Keyoh holders,
community leaders, and community members and is guided by the principles o f respect for the
lands and resource values. With this initiative, the community hopes to find a balance between
development opportunities, social and ecological constraints, and integration o f traditional land
use values to facilitate an integrated approach to resource management practices. While the
development of this plan will require both traditional and scientific knowledge, it is developed
by the Tl’azt’en based on both present and future priorities of the community.
Several participants also suspected that the successful development and implementation
of the community’s values and interests driven initiative such as LUP will depend on whether or
not it will be recognized and supported by both the government and industry. As explained by a
participant, it is more likely that government will not support the Tl’azt’en Nation’s LUP
believing that most of the values are addressed in the Land and Resource Management Plan
(LRMP). However, as suggested by many participants this type of government assumption is
not acceptable for the Tl’azt’en Nation since they were not consulted during the development of
the LRMP. In this context, the successful development and implementation of a LUP and the
prospect of future socio-economic objectives of the Tl’azt’en Nation will depend on both the
government’s willingness to recognize the fundamental issues and concerns o f the Tl’azt’en
Nation and the community ability for managing and controlling the land and resources values
within their traditional territory.

162

One o f the most widely agreed upon and compelling findings in this research is that the
Tl’azt’en Nation no longer wishes to be treated as a stakeholder within their own traditional
territory. Instead, the TTazt’en Nation wants to be recognized as a self-sustaining government
entity and the effective manager and care giver o f the land base they have occupied for many
generations. Having been involved in commercial forestry sector for nearly four decades, the
TTazt’en Nation sees no other alternatives but to have autonomy over the land base they use and
live within. Fundamentally, the community wishes to improve the current socio-economic
conditions through creating a viable economic opportunity while safeguarding and maintaining
the traditional cultural, environmental, and subsistence-based economic values for many
generations to come.

6.5. Need for Future Community-based Resource Management & Decision-making
One of the major obstacles for the establishment o f community-based forest management
alternatives is that despite 95% o f the Crown lands in BC is owned by the public, 86% of forest
lands and cutting rights is hold by 20 large corporations (Binkely & Zhang, 1998; Burda, 1997).
The opportunities for community-based forest licenses such as woodlots and community forests
are further curtailed by the government policy on privatization and the increased tenure rights
for corporations (Burda, 1997). Most recently, the Provincial government is contemplating
policy changes that would enable the conversation of some volume-based forest tenures such as
replaceable forest licence to area-based forest tenures such as tree farm licences, community
forest agreements, woodlots, and First Nations woodland licences (MFLNR - Discussion Paper:
Area-Based Forest Tenures, April 2014). If such a decision is made, the potential exists where
only handful o f major licensees will have longer-term control and corporate privatization over
large area o f forest lands which would further diminish the land base and future timber supply
163

available for community-based forest management alternatives. Even though, if certain volumebased tenures are reallocated to community forest agreements and First Nations woodland
licences, most o f the areas are no longer economically viable due to the extensive mountain pine
beetle infestation.
Within the dominant nature of government forest policies and industrial-based forest
management approaches, the Tl’azt’en Nation has persistently explored various forestry
opportunities and consistently failed to accomplish intended socio-economic objectives. One of
the primary reasons is because they do not have recognized ownership or management control
over the lands and resource management within their own traditional territory. As such, the
Tl’azt’en Nation has no other alternative but to abide by the rules and regulations set by the
government, despite being the original owner of the lands. Until now, the Tl’azt’en Nation have
not had the legal ability to decide how lands and resources are managed, how resources are
allocated, and how the revenue generated from the resource extractions activities within their
territory are distributed. This may change due to the recent Supreme Court o f Canada
Tshilhqot’in decision (2014) which has granted Aboriginal title to the land and resources.
During the period of this research study, the Provincial government has introduced a new
form of forest tenure and revenue sharing agreements such as FCRSA and subsequently a new
type o f forest tenure called FNWL. As a result, Tl’azt’en Nation has recently re-negotiated a
new form of agreement such as FCRSA in April 2013 and currently is in the process of
obtaining FNWL. The important development in this new agreement is the provision where
revenue sharing is calculated based on actual harvesting activities on the grounds rather than
former per capita based method used in FRO. With regards to FNWL, it is a long-term based
tenure and believed to be unique to First Nations’ asserted interests in the land and resources

164

including protection o f traditional use practices and management o f non-timber forest products
(MFLNRO, 2011). Prior to signing o f FCRSA, the Tl’azt’en Nation also obtained a CFA in
2009 replacing previously held TFL 42.
The recent development in increased forestry agreements between the government and
Tl’azt’en Nation is a clear indication o f Tl’azt’en Nation’s continual interests in forestry-based
economic opportunities and perhaps more importantly their determination for defending their
Aboriginal rights and title within their traditional territory. While previously held long-term
area based tenure such as TFL and short-term interim agreement measure agreement such as
FROs were found to be adversarial and inadequate to meet intended socio-economic objectives
o f the Tl’azt’en Nation, the future success through revised form o f revenue sharing agreement
such as FCRSA and long-term area based tenures such as CFA and possibly FNWL is yet to be
realized. The potential future success through these new opportunities will, depend on how
prepared and committed the community is and also the genuine commitments o f the government
for recognizing and supporting community needs.
6.5.1 Tl’azt’en Nation’s Desire for Community Forestry & Future Considerations
Based on my research, community forest agreement is the most desired forest tenure for
Tl’azt’en Nation since it is a long-term area based tenure and provides some management
flexibility and future stability for the community as a tenure holder. In theory, this type of
community-based tenure is considered as an alternative approach to industrial-based forestry
which allows community to have a meaningful voice in the decision-making process, gain
control over local resources, share forest benefits, and attain management o f multiple resource
values (Beckley, 1998). However, it is important to understand that even though it is
community-based forest tenure, it does not mean that the community owns the land and
165

resources and have the exclusive control over management decision-making. As a license
holder, a community such as the Tl’azt’en Nation only has the right to manage and operate on a
certain land base. However, the Tsilhqot’in decision may help the Tl’azt’en Nation argue for
greater rights to their land and achieve their long-term community objectives.
The key concept of community forestry is local control over decision-making. However,
one o f the misconceptions about community forestry in BC is that the basic understanding and
philosophy behind community forestry has been somewhat underestimated because o f the
narrow scope in terms of meaningful objectives and realistic goals (Beckley, 1998; Heley,
1997). More importantly, it was conceptualized and regulated through a highly centralized
government system as opposed to community control and even societal values are articulated as
economic goals (Mctaggart, 1993). Under the existing system, a community like the Tl’azt’en
Nation will have minimum control over the resource management and decision-making based on
long-term community values and interests. In addition to being regulated through centralized
government system, the land base allocated for CFA K4B is the same area which was previously
held under TFL without any changes to operating area or the additional timber volume. The
CFA K4B covers only 49,265 hectares and consists o f predominantly poor quality beetle killed
pine with some White Spruce, Douglas-fir, and Subalpine-fir stands (Tanizul Timber Ltd.
Website - Accessed April 03, 2014). This is a serious concern because in order for community
forestry to be successful, it will require not only significantly large operating area but also viable
source of timber supply to sustain future operations.
The TPazt’en Nation’s desire for obtaining community forest agreement is not only
timely but also a preferred option considering other tenure options available in BC. However,
simply switching from previous TFL to CFA without any significant changes including required

166

government policy implementation and adequate community preparedness raise a serious
question as to whether the expected benefits will be realized through community forest
agreements. Given the previous experience o f the TPazt’en Nation, the lack o f ownership and
decision-making over lands and resources within their own traditional territory may be the
determining factor for future community success through new forestry agreement such as
community forest agreement.
Any opportunity comes with challenges, and BC has its own set of challenges when it
comes to the establishment of community-based forest management alternatives such as
community forestry. First of all, the concept o f community forestry is ambiguous and
vulnerable to the vested interests o f both government bureaucrats and industry managers
(Beckley, 1998). Second, one o f the major challenges for establishing community forestry in
BC is the current forest tenure system which is largely designed to support industrial-based
forestry (Booth & Skelton, 2008). Third, the current forest policy fails to adopt First Nations
traditional knowledge-based resource management systems into management practices which
are one o f the important components of community forestry. Fourth, the existing localized
community system dynamic is a complicated issue, where some of the important aspects of
locally based perspectives such as culture, local economic structure, and geographic boundaries
are either unknown or simply ignored by the intellectual and political circles (Norton & Hannon,
1997). Lastly, community forestry is simply not compatible with the scale of the existing forest
industry in terms o f both resource use and marketing. In fact, it may be the ultimate reason why
alternative approaches such as community forestry may not be a realistic goal for the TPazt’en
Nation.

167

6.5.2 The Concept & Realistic Approach to Community-based Forest Management
In recent years, several alternative concepts such as ecological management, co­
management, innovative forest practice agreements, small-scale forestry, First Nations forestry,
and community forestry have been explored as the alternatives to industrial-based forestry. In
fact, there is no shortage in idealizing the many hypothetical prospects that would encompass the
socio-cultural, environmental, and economic wellbeing o f the society. Unfortunately, most of
the effort has been put into scientific research projects and publications focusing purely on the
human centric; nature is always viewed as dynamic thus implying human control, which is
desirable if not necessary (Harris, 1992). In the case of BC, the concept of community forestry
is perhaps the most desired approach when considering the establishment o f community-based
forest management particularly in a small community such as the Tl’azt’en Nation. However,
while the pragmatic application of the concept of community forestry is compelling, it is highly
subjected to both federal and provincial forest practices legislation and centralized approach to
decision-making, and as such, vulnerable to the vested interests o f both government bureaucrats
and industry managers (Beckley, 1998; Mctaggart, 1993). In this context, some o f the important
aspects o f locally based perspectives such as culture, local economic structure and subsistencebased livelihood practices, and geographic boundaries are either unknown or simply ignored by
the intellectual and political circles (Norton & Hannon, 1997). Although the need for alternative
approach such as community forestry is recognized in BC, there is a large gap between
conceptual ideas and practical applications of the community forestry model.
My research demonstrates that the preferred method o f forest management practice is to
adopt the concept of community-based forest management such as community forestry.
However, the majority of participants suggested that in order for a successful establishment of

168

community forestry, there is a need for fundamental changes that must occur both at the
government and community levels. My research also indicates a missing link where there is a
lack o f understanding and willingness to learn from the outside jurisdictions, particularly from
international experiences. For instance, Nepal is one o f the international communities where the
basic concept of community forestry has been not only adopted but also successfully
implemented in the last several decades. In Nepal, the concept o f community forestry is used as
an effective tool for understanding what community challenges and opportunities are and how
best to address the community strengths and weakness. Both opportunities and challenges o f a
specific community are determined based on the specific community’s interests and goals rather
than fulfillment o f the central government policy objectives. Here, community forestry is seen
as one form of ‘social forestry’ geared towards the subsistence needs o f local communities rather
than strictly focusing on economic growth as we see here in BC. It is commonly understood that
community forestry has more to do with people than with trees. The full recognition and
integration o f existing traditional knowledge, capacity building through community organization
such as community forest user groups (CFUGs), utilization o f non-timber products and perhaps
more importantly the liberal approach o f the Nepalese government towards required policy
implementations to support community forestry are driving forces behind the success o f
community forestry in Nepal.

6.6. Conclusion
The long lasting legacy o f colonialism continues to impact many aspects o f First Nations
communities both politically and socio-economically. The imposition of government control
over traditional systems o f governance through the Indian Act, socio-economic marginalization
through lack o f a fair share o f resource allocation and revenue sharing, and continual impacts of
169

resource exploitation through centralized systems of forest policy development and decision­
making are some of the lingering impacts o f colonialism.
Traditional ways o f life has been seriously altered for the Tl’azt’en Nation due to the
increased resource development activities taking place within their traditional territory. Without
having jurisdiction or effective management control over their own territory, the TPazt’en
Nation had no other option but to seek some economic opportunities in the forestry sector and
more importantly defend their Aboriginal rights and title due to the increased pressure from
resources development activities within their traditional territory. While short-term economic
goals may be necessary, the primary concern for TPazt’en Nation is proper maintenance and
protection of resource values and subsistence-based economic activities for their future survival.
Recently, the TPazt’en Nation has negotiated new forms of forestry agreement such as CFA and
FCRSA and they are on the way to obtain an FNWL. The future benefits from these new
forestry agreements have yet to be realized. Potential future success through these new
opportunities will depend on how prepared and committed the community is and on the genuine
commitment of the government for supporting community needs.
As an alternative to industrial-based forestry, the concept o f community-based forest
management such as community forestry has gained considerable popularity in BC. However,
there is a huge gap between concepts and practical applications of community forestry and the
achievement o f realistic benefits through such concepts remains largely unrealized. While BC
still struggles to establish a legal framework that allows a local community to have control over
resource management and decision-making, the successful development o f community forestry
in Nepal can be summarized in three basic principles: (1) the recognition and participation of
local people in decision-making, (2) transformation of controlling power over forests from the

170

government to the local people and (3) ultimate empowerment o f the local communities to
manage the forest to meet their needs (Stanley, 1998). Today, communities throughout Nepal
enjoy their exclusive rights over their resource use and management decision-making and there
is no government or corporate intervention in local resource management affairs (Beckley,
1998). In the case of BC, the traditional state control system still exists, under which the local
political and economic self-sufficiency are often undermined and simplified. Perhaps, it is time
we learn from an international jurisdiction such as Nepal, where the basic concept o f
community-based forestry is adopted and implemented through successive policy change to
address community needs and interests. The recent Canadian Supreme Court decision in the
Tsilhqot’in case (2014) makes the implementation of the Nepalese model more attainable within
the traditional territory o f the Tl’azt’en Nation .

171

Chapter 7. Conclusion
7.1. Introduction
Despite being traditional occupants and effective managers and stewards of their lands
and resources, First Nations were mostly excluded from participation in forest management and
decision-making. Although the importance of First Nations consultation and their participation
in the forestry sector have recently been recognized, the majority of forestlands are still under
the control of the government and the forest industry in BC. This is achieved through the
successive evolution o f the colonial concept o f forest policymaking to retain public ownership
and continual exclusion o f First Nations from management and decision-making within their
own traditional territories (Wyatt, 2008).
The recent engagement o f the TPazt’en Nation through FRO and revenue sharing
agreements with the provincial government is a clear indication o f their continued desire for
meaningful engagement in the forestry sector. However, despite much anticipated hope and
desire o f the community, the FRO agreement ended without any substantial results. With the
exception of limited revenue sharing opportunities, the majority o f participants are dissatisfied
with the rate o f progress being made towards the reconciliation of Aboriginal rights and title,
and with achievement towards intended socio-economic objectives. The lack o f recognition for
First Nations as equal partners with shared decision making authority, management of lands and
resources in accordance with First Nations laws and values, a fair share o f resource allocation
and revenue sharing, and creation of viable socio-economic development opportunities are some
of the contributing factors. In the short-term, the maintenance o f economic benefit and
relationships building with both the government and industry partners is important for the

172

TTazt’en Nation, but the protection of Aboriginal interests including rights and title and
effective jurisdiction over the land and resources within their traditional territory is paramount.
For many decades, the Provincial government has justified the infringement of
Aboriginal rights and title through forestry negotiations for the purpose o f securing economic
interests and maintaining Crown control over the land and resources within the traditional
territory of the TTazt’en Nation. The TTazt’en Nation on the other hand not only seeks a proper
recognition of Aboriginal rights and title, a fair share o f revenue and benefits opportunities, and
adequate compensation from the revenue extracted from their territories, but to ultimately gain
control over land and resource management and decision-making within their ancestral lands.
Clearly, the prospect of viable socio-economic prosperity or the potential for improved
relationships between the government and the TTazt’en Nation will not be realized without
meaningful consideration and reconciliation o f the conflicting visions and objectives o f the
government and First Nation peoples in BC. More importantly, the TTazt’en Nation’s
meaningful engagement in forestry sector will rely on their ability for community interests-based
resource management and decision-making within their traditional territory through community
self-determination.
The recent trend in First Nations community involvement in the forestry sector through
various forest tenures and revenue sharing agreements is an encouraging step in BC. However,
history shows that simply enunciating well intended forest policy initiatives at a central
government level without genuinely understanding the unique needs and circumstances o f the
local community does not mean a First Nation community will benefit. There is a significant
misunderstanding regarding meaningful First Nations engagement in the forestry sector because
of the prevailing conflicts between bureaucratic and economic objectives o f the government and

173

long-term community goals which remains to be reconciled. Despite considerable policy
amendments, the primary driver of forest policy development, resource management practices,
and decision-making is short-term economic profit. This often conflicts with the visions and
aspirations of First Nations communities such as the Tl’azt’en Naiton.
Given their historical engagement, the Tl’azt’en Nation does not necessarily oppose
resource-based economic development activities. However, the community wants to see the
land and resource values within their traditional territory managed properly based on mutual
respect and recognition o f Aboriginal rights and title, indigenous knowledge and traditional
systems, and proper protection o f cultural, environmental, and subsistence-based livelihood
values. The community is well aware about the fact that you cannot replace local culture and
livelihood values with money. For them, the goal is the conservation of traditional cultural,
environmental, and livelihood values that sustained them for many generations they continue to
do so for many generations to come.
The collective experiences of the Tl’azt’en Nation suggests that there is an urgent need
for the community-based approach to resource management and decision-making. In fact, one
o f the key interests o f the Tl’azt’en Nation is to have control over the land and resource
management and decision-making within their traditional territory. With this goal, the Tl’azt’en
Nation is in the final stage of developing a comprehensive LUP based on both traditional and
scientific knowledge-based approach with the long-term vision for improved land and resources
management practices. Since the Tl’azt’en Nation LUP is developed based on the local
knowledge and perspectives o f the Tl’azte’nne and the Keyoh holders, the community perceives
the Tl’zt’en Nation LUP to be the most preferred management tool for mitigating the negative
impacts of resource development activities. The full recognition and implementation of this

174

community-based initiative is necessary considering that the existing land use plan and resource
management strategies have failed to address community concerns. The Tl’azt’en Nation LUP
will require both recognition and support from the government as well as from the forest
industry to be successful.
During this study, the Tl’azt’en Nation obtained a long-term area based tenure (CFA) in
2009 and re-negotiated a new form of FCRSA in 2013. In addition, the Tl’azt’en Nation is also
in the process o f obtaining a newly introduced long-term area-based tenure such as a FNWL.
The community hopes to gain a better revenue sharing opportunity through FCRSA and expects
to have more management and decision-making ability over the land and resources within their
traditional territory. The FCRSA is a renewed version o f a short-term agreement whereas both
CFA and FNWL are long-term area-based tenures that are presumably the best available options
for the Tl’azt’en Nation. Based on my research findings, CFA in particular is considered by
many in the community as a preferred tenure option for them because of the longer term tenure
security and to a certain extent because it offers a community-based approach to resource
management with a comparatively lower stumpage rate. However, simply obtaining a long-term
area-based tenure such as CFA or FNWL and relying on the pre-conceived notion o f potential
future success through these tenure agreements will not be enough to achieve community goals.
The future success o f both CFA or FNWL will rely on government willingness to provide the
adequate financial and logistic supports to address community challenges as well as to address
how prepared the community is in terms o f building much needed internal capacity and
improvement o f internal relationship building among the Elders, hereditary Chiefs, Keyoh
holders, elected Band Council members, and community members. In addition, the potential
socio-economic benefits through these tenure opportunities will also rely on the Tl’azt’en

Nation’s ability for setting up clear and concise community goals and visions, and long-term
commitments about community self-determination.
While BC still struggles to establish a legal framework that allows local communities to
manage and control their land and resources, the concept o f community-based forest
management and decision-making process is successfully explored and implemented in some of
the countries such as Nepal. The inclusion of important socio-economic factors such as social
and cultural considerations, recognition o f local indigenous knowledge, capacity building,
utilization of non-timber products, and more importantly genuine recognition and supports from
the central government contributed to the establishment of a successful community forestry
program in Nepal. In Nepal, community forestry has more to do with people and protection of
local environment, indigenous knowledge and culture, and subsistence-based values rather than
short-term economic benefits. The broader objectives of the TPazt’en Nation LUP aligns with
the community forest model in Nepal since they are designed based on community perspectives
for the purpose of safeguarding future sustainability of the local culture, environment, and
subsistence-based livelihood values rather than short-term economic gain.
My study demonstrates that government imposed forest policy regimes, tenure
arrangements, and economic land and resource management strategies have not benefited First
Nation communities such as the Tl’azt’en Nation. Although the concept o f community forest
has long being explored in BC, the meaningful implementation o f this alternative approach has
been difficult under the existing conditions where the central government dictates how forest
resources are managed and decisions are made that directly affect long-term goals and
aspirations of the community. The Tl’azt’en Nation is one o f the unique First Nation

176

communities in BC which has in the last three and half decades persistently pursued various
forestry opportunities with no significant improvement to their socio-economic condition.
Given the current socio-economic status o f the Tl’azt’en Nation, there is a dire need for
the creation o f new visions through the recognition and implementation o f a community-based
initiative such as Tl’azt’en Nation LUP combined with required policy changes to support the
establishment o f a meaningful community forestry program. As the original occupants and
stewards of the land and resources, the Tl’azte’nne have the best knowledge and experience
regarding the dynamics o f changing landscapes and the need for safeguarding important cultural
and resources values. For the Tl’azt’en Nation, the traditional ‘Balhats’ systems is the law of
the land, the Keyoh holders are the custodians o f the land, and ‘taking care of the land’ is the
fundamental land ethic. Based on the responses I received from the research participants, the
Tl’azt’en Nation’s ability for regaining their control over the land and resource management and
decision-making within their ancestral land is the most important goal for the Tl’azt’enne (as
stated by the Elders, hereditary Chiefs, Keyoh holders, Chief & Council, resource professionals,
and community members) not the short-term economic benefits.
There is no denying the First Nation communities in BC are now able to pursue some
potential economic opportunities through various First Nations forestry agreements, but the
collective experience of the Tl’azt’en Nation suggests otherwise. Given the recent development,
BC is going in the right direction; however, I suggest it is time that the Provincial government
considers accepting the community-based concepts adopted both within and outside o f BC and
Canadian jurisdictions. The recent Supreme Court o f Canada’s Tsilhqot’in decision (2014)
provides a road map for Aboriginal title claims beyond the Tsilhqot’in First Nations’ traditional
territories and sends a clear signal that the government cannot ignore the Tl’azt’en Nation’s

177

legitimate entitlement over their traditional territory. As such, the future implications of the
Tsilhqot’in decision makes recognition o f community-based initiatives such as the Tl’azt’en
Nation LUP as a future land use plan and implementation o f more community-based forestry
program similar to the Nepalese model more achievable within the traditional territory of the
Tl’azt’en Nation. Ultimately, the Tl’azt’en Nation seeks to have better control over the land and
resources management and decision-making within their traditional territory through the
community-based approach instead of relying on the government imposed resource management
strategies and the short-term economic prosperity which have failed to meet the intended
community goals and objectives.

7.2. Answers to the Research Questions
Four research questions are central to this thesis. First, to what extent was the TPazt’en
Nation able to engage in the forestry sector since the signing o f the Interim FRO Agreement in
2008? While the community was able to obtain limited revenue sharing opportunity from the
Provincial government, the overall expected socio-economic benefits as well as other intended
purposes of the FRO agreement such as a meaningful establishment of govemment-togovemment based relationship based on mutual respect and recognition o f Aboriginal rights and
title were never achieved. For instance, with an 85% unemployment rate, the current status of
socio-economic development in the community remains unchanged. Similarly, there is no clear
indication o f improvement in establishment of govemment-to-govemment based relationship
between the Provincial government and the Tl’azt’en Nation as a result of FRO agreement. The
Tl’azt’en Nation’s expectation around shared decision-making ability through govemment-togovemment based relationship was never materialized mainly because of the dominant nature o f
state controlled resource management and decision-making approach.

Second, with respect to meaningful Tl’azt’en Nation participation in the forestry sector,
what are the fundamental barriers that prevent them from achieving their short-term socio­
economic objectives while maintaining long-term community values? Several external and
internal factors challenge meaningful engagement in the forestry sector. Specific to the FRO
agreement, a combination of several factors including a short-term based agreement, limited
resource allocation such as a viable forest tenure options and timber supply, and adequate
revenue and benefits sharing opportunities prevented the Tl’azt’en Nation from achieving their
intended socio-economic objectives. In addition, the potential for socio-economic benefits was
also hindered by some internal issues such as the lack o f collective community visions and
goals, a clear and concise community plan and future strategies, and community preparedness in
terms o f adequate community capacity to administer forestry operations. More importantly, the
lack o f required policy implementation and genuine willingness from the government for
supporting long-term goals and visions o f the community was one o f the contributing factors as
to why the Tl’azt’en Nation did not realize the potential benefits from the FRO agreement.
Third, given the current circumstances, what should be the roles of both the government,
forest industry, and the Tl’azt’en Nation for taking appropriate actions to develop future
strategies based on the unique needs and circumstances of the Tl’azt’en Nation? Due to the
complex nature o f cultural, socio-economic, and political structures of First Nation communities,
both the government and forest industry face a set o f challenges when dealing with resource
development and decision-making within First Nations traditional territories. Given the current
circumstances, all parties including the government, forest industry, and the Tl’azt’en Nation
have certain roles to play and responsibilities to fulfill in order to develop future strategies based
on the unique needs and circumstances of the TPazt’en Nation. For instance, in order to support

179

the Tl’azt’en Nation’s meaningful participation in the forestry sector, one o f the important roles
of government should be to consider forest policy alternatives that incorporate the intrinsic
values and interests of the community. The government should also recognize First Nations as
equal partners in land-use planning and forest management decision-making in order to promote
positive incentives for becoming a successful player in the forestry sector as well as enhance
positive relationship building. Considering the majority o f the resource extractions activities
that are taking place within the traditional territories of First Nations, the forest industry could
also provide necessary technical, professionals, and financial supports for community level
development projects. More importantly, both the government and forest industry must respect
First Nations way o f life by listening to and understanding their issues and concerns, and
working closely with them instead of marginalizing and treating them as a source o f conflict.
At the community level, both community leaders (hereditary Chiefs and elected Band
Council members) and individual members share certain roles and responsibilities for properly
acknowledging and addressing some of the existing issues and challenges that hinder their
success in the forestry sector. Given the current circumstances, one o f the primary focuses of
the community should be to establish open and transparent communication and dialogue
between Elders, hereditary Chiefs, Keyoh holders, and other community members to create
better working relationships. Aside from open and transparent communication, community
leaders should also work closely with various community groups on an ongoing basis to build
trust. In addition, some o f the important roles and responsibilities o f the community leaders
should be to focus on strong community advocacy, future directions, and community capacity
building.

180

Lastly, based on the long-term community goals and objectives, what type o f forest
tenure would be suitable for the Tl’azt’en Nation’s future engagement in the forestry sector?
With respect to future tenure alternatives, the collective response from research participants
suggests that there is a strong desire for long-term area based forest tenure particularly CFA. In
fact, the Tl’azt’en Nation has recently obtained a CFA, but previous experience shows that
simply obtaining certain forest tenures may not be enough to realize the intended goals and
objectives of the community. The future success o f the forest tenure such as CFA will depend
on how well-prepared and committed the community is in terms o f setting up a clear community
goals and future strategies. It will also depend on a genuine understanding and willingness of
the government for creating a provision for better policy alternatives to support communitybased initiatives and providing necessary supports to address current needs of the community.
In addition, substantially larger operating areas with viable timber supplies will be required to
realize future potential benefits from CFA.

7.3. Lessons Learned
The significant lessons learned through this research study can be divided into four broad
categories: 1) government policy objectives 2) socio-economic goals and expectations o f the
community, 3) complex internal conflicts, and 4) long-term community desires. These are the
important factors that contribute to the Tl’azt’en Nation’s success or lack thereof in forestry
sector.
With respect to government policy objectives, recent government initiatives allowing
First Nations participation in the forestry sector through various forestry negotiations is a
positive step, but the intended socio-economic objectives of the renewed government policy
initiative have been mostly unrealized. My research study shows that the primary focus o f the
181

government has been to simply fulfill a legal obligation and to create a stable condition for
resource development activities for future economic benefits rather than genuinely trying to
address First Nations’ interests in relation to proper recognition and accommodation o f
Aboriginal rights and title. Basically, the government has not met the strategic visions and goals
set out in the ‘New Relationship’ policy document which is the basic foundation o f First Nation
engagement in BC.
In terms o f the goals and expectations o f the community, my research study demonstrates
that both the government and the Tl’azt’en Nation realize that the ‘business as usual’ practice of
forestry engagement without adequately examining and understanding the unique needs and
challenges of the community will not result in achievement of expected socio-economic
objectives. While significant external government policy related issues and internal community
challenges remain unresolved, both the government and Tl’azt’en Nation have agreed to sign
new forestry agreements such as CFA and FCRSA and currently are in the process o f signing an
NFWL in the near future. I argue that there is no future certainty as to how these new
agreements will provide better results under the existing conditions.
With respect to complex internal conflict, one o f the findings o f my research suggests
that there is a certain degree of animosity between various community groups particularly
between the elected community leaders and the Keyoh holders. This is one of the major hurdles
for the establishment of both short-term and long-term community goals and visions o f the
Tl’azt’en Nation and their potential success in community level socio-economic development
initiatives. The creation o f this divisiveness in the community is primarily due to the conflict
between the recognition o f traditional systems o f governance through Keyoh system and the
government imposed new system of governance through the elected Band Councils. This new

182

system of governance which is mandated under the Indian Act is not acceptable to the Keyoh
holders who are the original owners and stewards of the lands and resources within the
traditional territory of the TPazt’en Nation.
I argue that any future success o f the TPazt’en Nation will depend on a strong unity,
social cohesion, and open and meaningful collaboration between all members o f the community.
Also, the community alone cannot resolve the complex nature o f internal conflict created
through the government political agenda. Therefore, both the Federal and Provincial
governments have a role to play in order to address this critical issue that impedes TPazt’en
Nation from building on their community strengths and ultimately achieving their community
goals and aspirations. This can be achieved through respecting the traditional systems of
governance and redefining the roles and responsibilities of the Keyoh holders over the lands and
resources practiced by TPazt’en Nation for many generations.
Finally, surrounded by extensive resource development activities taking place within
their traditional territory, the TPazt’en Nation has few other alternatives but to engage in the
government imposed forestry agreements to supplement their local economy. Although the
TPazt’en Nation is well aware o f the compromises they have to make, the short-term forestrybased economy has recently become an important aspect of their community. While the short­
term economic goal may be necessary for the TPazt’en Nation, the long-term goal o f the
community is to ensure proper maintenance and protection o f cultural, ecological, and
subsistence-based economic values that are critically important for their future survival.
Based on my research study, the TPazt’en Nation do not entirely oppose forestry
development, but the community wants to see a sustainable-based management of lands and
resource within their traditional territory. Moving forward, the TPazt’en Nation not only seeks a

183

proper recognition of Aboriginal rights and title through a fair share of revenue and benefit
sharing as well as adequate resource allocations and financial compensation from the revenue
extracted from their territories, but ultimately they seek to gain ownership and autonomy over
the land and resource management and decision-making within their ancestral lands.

7.4. Policy Recommendations
The TPazt’en Nation has participated in the forestry sector for several decades and
continues to struggle with many challenges. The fundamental basis for new forestry
negotiations such as the short-term based FRO agreement that was signed between the
Provincial government and the TPazt’en Nation in 2008 was the ‘New Relationship’ policy
document that was initiated in 2005. However, my research show that the strategic visions and
goals of the ‘New Relationship’ policy document that was negotiated between British Columbia
and First Nations leadership council, representing the Assembly o f First Nations BC - Region,
First Nations Summit, and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, have not been realized after nearly
two decades.
From the TPazt’en Nation’s perspective, the current forest policy frameworks including
First Nations consultation process and procedures have failed to address fundamental issues and
concerns o f First Nation peoples in BC. Based on the responses received from research
participants, the existing forest policy has been mostly adversarial to First Nations and only
favors the economic agenda o f the government and forest industry. More specifically, the
existing forest policy framework is regarded by First Nations as a rigid, inflexible, misleading,
and essentially post-colonial bureaucratic divide and conquer tactic which directly interferes
with First Nations holistic views and more importantly Aboriginal rights and title and
jurisdiction over their traditional territories.
184

One o f the most pressing issues for First Nation peoples with regards to current policy is
the lack of First Nations involvement and input during policy development. The unilaterally
crafted and determined forest policy frameworks and consultation process have become
significant barriers to First Nations’ meaningful participation in the forestry sector in BC. Given
the current scenario, I propose the following policy recommendations for future improvement:

Recommendation #1
It is vitally important to have full consideration for First Nations engagement and their
input during the policy development process. More importantly, the policy decisions should be
made based on mutual respect and consensus-based agreements between the government and
First Nations to move away from current centralized approach to policy development and
decision-making process which is not favorable to First Nations in BC. The future directions
should be to recognize First Nations as equal partners and incorporate their traditional
knowledge-based lands and resource management systems as an integral part o f policy
development and resource management strategy.

Recommendation #2
Until now, the scope of First Nations consultation has been limited to unilaterally
determined policy guidelines and administrative processes of the government. In light o f the
Tsilhqot’in decision, the recognition of the importance o f meaningful First Nations consultation
is far greater than ever before. It is critically important to understand that First Nations
consultation is not just meeting with some community members at the information sharing
session to discuss proposed development plans, rather it means acknowledging the fact that First
Nations’ true ‘consent’ is part o f the consultation requirement. At the policy level, the
government should consider reviewing unilaterally defined terms and objectives o f the current
185

consultation process which is considered by First Nations as failing to serve their interests. The
development of a future consultation process should be based on a fair and inclusive nature o f
discussion and dialogue between both the government and First Nations representatives.
Furthermore, it is critically important to properly identify and engage with certain community
groups such as the Keyoh holders, Elders, community leaders, and other concerned members o f
the community during the consultation process. For instance, the current practice o f First
Nations consultation through the Band Councils is unacceptable to Keyoh holders who are the
original owners and stewards of the land and resources.
At the operational level, First Nations consultation should occur during all stages of
resource development activities such as planning, development, and operational levels to
provide transparency with respect to management objectives and more importantly avoid
potential infringement of Aboriginal rights and title within their traditional territories.

Recommendation #3
Given the volume o f development proposals received annually, the government should
provide adequate funding and supports to facilitate First Nations capacity building including
required education, trainings, and skill development. It is critically important to understand that
due to a lack of capacity, First Nations are currently disadvantaged when it comes to dealing
with the overwhelming amounts of referrals they receive annually and more importantly in
defending their interests in relation to Aboriginal rights and title within their claimed territories.
It should also be acknowledged that First Nations invest significant time, effort, and funding in
responding to these referrals, and in most cases they have limited time and budget to properly
assess the scope of the development proposals. More importantly, the development proposals
should not go ahead without proper First Nations consultation with key members o f the
186

community such as the Keyoh holders and Elders, and obtaining consent from them, not just
meeting with individual representatives o f the Band Council.

Recommendation #4
Both the government and the community need to understand that the potential socio­
economic benefits through forestry agreements will not be realized simply by granting and
obtaining a type of forest tenure and negotiating short-term revenue sharing opportunities. As
such, the future policy focus should be around creation o f viable economic development and
employment opportunities in First Nation communities such as the Tl’azt’en Nation to address
long-standing economic dependency and bridge the existing socio-economic gaps.

Recommendation #5
In order to address specific issues and concerns of local First Nation communities, the
government staff and decision makers at the local level should be provided with more decision­
making authority since they have better knowledge and familiarity about the local First Nations
communities. This type of approach will not only facilitate a better working relationship
between local government agency and First Nations, but also expedite the decision-making
process to create both administrative and operational efficiency which is currently lacking.

Recommendation #6
Given the diversity o f First Nation communities across BC, future policy development
should reflect the unique needs and circumstances of individual First Nation communities such
as the Tl’azt’en Nation rather than the ‘one fits all’ approach currently in practice. For instance,
the fundamental issue o f reconciliation of Aboriginal rights and title and the legal jurisdiction
over traditional territory may be applicable to all First Nations across BC, but the economic
187

interests of the various groups particularly between Coastal First Nations and Interior First
Nations can be vastly different. As such, the government policy should consider these
differences to establish a fair and balanced approach to decide collaboratively about resource
allocation and funding distribution.

Recommendation #7
Given the increased level of resource extractions taking place within the traditional
territory of the Tl’azt’en Nation, the future focus should be to develop research projects which
are currently lacking. There is an urgent need for a comprehensive cumulative impact
assessments and monitoring to develop baseline data to facilitate future mitigation strategies and
proper development o f resource management and future policy development. This should be
done based on working collaboratively with the First Nations and listening to their concerns and
issues regarding the direct impacts of resource development activities within their traditional
territories.

Recommendation #8
In order to support First Nation’s socio-economic self-sufficiency and community selfdetermination, future policy development should be guided by the concept of community-based
approach to resource management and decision-making. This can be achieved through
recognition o f traditional systems of governance and decision-making, supporting long-term
community goals and objectives, and providing adequate resources for community capacity
building. This should help facilitate establishment o f community self-determination and also
create a sense o f social responsibility in the community. The future focus should be for overall
long-term sustainability not for short-term economic gains. In order to better understand the
potential benefits o f community-based approach to resource management and decision-making,
188

government policy makers should also consider exploring some of the successful examples of
community-based projects adopted outside o f BC and Canadian jurisdictions.

7.5 Future Research Directions
As the primary focus of my research was to assess some o f the opportunities and
limitations of short-term forestry agreements such as FRO in the context o f the complexity of
the socio-economic, cultural, environmental, and geo-political issues o f the TPazt’en Nation
community, their long standing issues with meaningful participation in the forestry sector
remains to be solved. Through the process of my research analysis several potential future
research directions have emerged. Some o f the possible future research directions include:

1. The Scope of Research Data Collection:
My research study was undertaken before the 2014 Tsilhqot’in decision. It would be
useful to include not only TPazt’en and other First Nations thoughts on forestry, mining, and
other resource development regulations but to include sufficient representations from the
government and forest industry sector particularly regarding leadership and management level
representations at the local, district, regional, and provincial levels who can directly influence
the decision-making process. The inclusion o f these participants should be considered in future
research in order to create a more balanced and comprehensive approach to solving the problems
of top-down government decisions.

2. The Future Viability of the TPazt’en Nation’s Forestry Engagement:
Recently, the TPazt’en Nation signed a CFA in 2009 and negotiated FCRSA in 2013
replacing previously held TFL 42 and FRO agreement respectively. In addition, TPazt’en
Nation is also in the process o f obtaining a FNWL. However, many community members are
189

concerned about how these new revenue sharing agreements and forest tenures will benefit the
TPazt’en Nation. Future research must examine the viability o f these new opportunities given
the ongoing issues o f a centralized approach to resource management and decision-making, the
issue of community preparedness and capacity building, existing policy constraints, and
imminent threats to the future timber supply shortage.
The future viability of forest tenures such as CFA or FNWL will rely on both the quality
and sustainable supply o f timber which is rapidly declining due to the mountain pine beetle
impact and extensive salvage logging practice. Also, the allocation of First Nations forest
license is always contested by major licensees because they are worried that First Nations will
take away their future timber supply. In addition, the potential for Tl’azt’en Nation’s future
success in forestry will also be influenced by one o f the major administrative obligations such as
stumpage payment. For instance, in the case o f FNWL, the Tl’azt’en Nation has to pay exactly
the same stumpage rate as major licensees. This will put Tl’azt’en Nation into a disadvantaged
position because o f the lack of adequate resources and community capacity to compete with
major licensees. In terms o f CFA, Tl’azt’en Nation will pay a relatively lower stumpage rate
which is known as a ‘Table Rate.’ However, the Tl’azt’en Nation is constrained by several
limiting factors including the lack o f both quality and sustainable based supply of timber supply,
community capacity, and more importantly the local-level decision-making authority.
Given the above scenarios, future research focus should examine if the government is
genuinely considering meaningful First Nations engagement in forestry sector through creation
o f new forest tenure alternatives such as FNWL or setting up for failure as experienced by
TPazt’en Nations through their previous agreements such as TFL and FRO which was largely
disappointment to community.

190

3. The Conversion of Volume-based Forest License into Area-based Tree Farm License:
Recently, the Provincial government is exploring the idea of converting replaceable
volume-based forest licenses into large area-based TFLs through the new “Roll Over” policy
(Bill 8 - Section 24) which will give a hand full o f forestry companies more exclusive rights
over public forests lands in BC. In fact, two major licensees: Canfor in Quesnel (Quesnel TSA)
and West Fraser in Houston (Morice TSA) have recently traded their existing forest licenses to
create large TFL without any consultation with the provincial government or the public (Bob
Simpson - Vancouver Sun, November 26, 2013). This has raised a serious concern among First
Nations and other communities in BC regarding privatization and monopolization o f the Crown
lands by the major corporations. As such, there is a need for examining the future implications
o f this type o f possible corporate privatization over public lands in BC.

4. Assessing the Effectiveness of First Nations Consultation Process:
Based on my research study, participants felt that there has not been proper consultation
and compensation for resources being extracted from the traditional territory of Tl’azt’en
Nation. The fundamental issue is that unilaterally designed and imposed First Nation
consultation process does not address the fundamental issues and concerns o f the First Nations
peoples. Ideally, consultation should start with open dialogue and asking questions and listening
to First Nations concerns. This is not the case where the government simply corresponds with
First Nations directly through the Band Councils or where the statutory decision-makers have
final say regardless of the level of consultation. As such, there needs to be a greater
understanding o f the fundamental meaning and purpose of the First Nations consultation process
currently in place and future research can address this important issue.

191

5. The New Landmark Tsilhqot’in Supreme Court Ruling & Future Implications:
Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada has granted some land title to the Tsilhqot’in
First Nation located in south central BC. This historic landmark court decision could change the
relationship between the government, industry, and First Nations and has significant legal
implications on the land question in BC. Canada First Nations now have the right to use and
control land and resources beyond reserve lands. This court ruling is particularly significant to
non-treaty First Nation groups such as the Tl’azt’en Nation and will affect future government
approach to governance o f the land base and its resources within claimed territories and future
relationship building between the Provincial government and First Nations. While this is a
major legal victory for BC First Nations, how the Provincial Forest Act will apply to title land or
to what extent First Nations will have ownership and jurisdiction over the land and resources
within their traditional territories remains to be determined. Time and future research is needed
to address this important issue.

192

References
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. (2010). About British Columbia First
Nations. Retrieved from https://www.aadncaandc.gc.ea/eng/1100100021009/1314809450456
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. (2010). The government o f Canada’s
approach to implementation o f the inherent right and the negotiation o f Aboriginal selfgovernment. Retrieved from httn://www.aadncaandc.gc.ca/ene/1100100031843/1100100031844
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. (2014). Population Characteristics.
Retrieved from http ://pse5-esd5.aincinac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNPopulation.aspx?BAND NUMBER=617
Adhikari, B., Di Falco, S., & Lovett, J. C. (2004). Household characteristics and forest
dependency: Evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecological
Economics, 48, 245-257. doi: 10.1016/j.ecdecon.2003.08.008
Alfred, G. T. (2009). Colonialism and state dependency. Journal o f Aboriginal Health, 5(2), 4260. Retrieved from http://www.naho.ca/ioumal/
Alfred, T. (2001). Deconstructing the British Columbia treaty process. Balayi: Culture, Law and
Colonialism, 3, 37-65.
Allen, K., & Frank, D. (1994). Community forests in British Columbia: Models that work. The
Forestry Chronicle, 70, 721-724. doi:10.5558/tfc70721-6
Babbie, E. R. (2004). The practice o f social research (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson/
Wards worth.
Babbie, E. R. (1979). The practice o f social research (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wardsworth.
Bajracharya, D. (1983). Fuel, food or forest? Dilemmas in a Nepali village. World Development,
11, 1057-1074. doi: 10.1016/0305-750x(83)90100-6
Baker, D. C., & James, N. M. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness o f British Columbia’s
environmental assessment process for first nations’ participation in mining development.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23, 581-603. doi:10.1016/s01959255(03)00093-3
Baral, J. C. (2002). Who should control the forests o f Nepal? Case study fo r mountain forum econsultation fo r UNEP/Bishkek global mountain summit. Retrieved from Mountain Forum
website: http://www.mtnfomm.org/sites/default/files/publication/files/287.pdf

193

BC First Nations Forestry Council. (2008). BC First Nations Forestry & Land Stewardship
Action Plan: Preparing fo r transformative change. Retrieved from
http://www.fnforestrvcouncil.ca/downloads/action-Dlan.pdf
Beckley, T. M. (1998). Moving toward consensus-based forest management: A comparison of
industrial, co-managed, community and small private forests in Canada. The Forestry
Chronicle, 74, 736-744. doi:10.5558/tfc74736-5
Belanger, Y. D. (2011). The United Nations declaration on the rights o f Indigenous peoples and
urban Aboriginal self-determination in Canada: A preliminary assessment. Aboriginal
Policy Studies, 7(1), 132-161. doi: 10.5663/aps.vlil. 10134
Bhattarai, T. N. (1993). Forestry research: Nepal (FORSPA Occasional Papers, no. 17).
Bangkok, Thailand: Forestry Research Support Programme for Asia and the Pacific.
Binkley, C. S., & Zhang, D. (1998). Impact of timber-free increases on British Columbia forest
products companies: An economic and policy analysis. Canadian Journal o f Forest
Research, 28, 617-625. doi:10.1139/x98-032
Bombay, H. M. (2010). Framework fo r Aboriginal capacity-building in the forestry sector.
Retrieved from National Aboriginal Forestry Association website:
http://www.nafaforestrv.org/pdfy2010/Framework%20for%20Abor%20CapacitvBuilding.pdf
Bombay, H., & Mactavish, J. (1997). An Aboriginal forest strategy: NAFA draft discussion
paper, January 1992. Ottawa, ON: National Aboriginal Forestry Association.
Booth, A., & Halseth G. (2011). Why the public thinks natural resources public participation
processes fail: A case study of British Columbia communities. Land Use Policy, 28, 898906. doi: 10.1016/j .landusepol.2011.03.005
Booth, A. L., & Skelton, N. (2008). Indigenous community values and commercial forestry: A
case study of Tl’azt’en Nation (Natural Resource and Environmental Studies Institute
Occasional Paper No. 3). Retrieved from the University of Northern British Columbia
website: http://wizard.unbc.ca/articles/1907140.145/1 .PDF
Booth, A. (1998). Putting “forestry” and “community” into First Nations’ resource management.
The Forestry Chronicle, 74, 347-352. doi:10.5558/tfc74347-3
Booth. A. L., & Jacobs, H. L. (1990). Ties that bind: Native American beliefs as a foundation for
environmental consciousness. Environmental Ethics, 12, 27-43.
doi: 10.5840/environethicsl 99012114
British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. (2014).
Discussion paper: Area-based forest tenures. Retrieved from
http://engage.gov.bc.ca/foresttenures/files/2014/03/Forest Tenure Discuss Paper.pdf
194

British Columbia Ministry o f Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, (n.d.). Harvest
billing system (HBS). Retrieved from https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hva/hbs/connecting.htm
British Columbia Ministry o f Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliations, (n.d.). Aboriginal law
cases. Retrieved from
https://lsb.gQv.bc.ca/Clients/Aboriginal Law Cases/Abo%20Law%20Cases/Forms/Items.
aspx
British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. (2012).
Agreements with First Nations: Forest and range agreements. Retrieved from
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/haa/FN Agreements.htm
British Columbia Ministry o f Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. (2012/ Mid-term
timber supply review - Prince George timber supply area [Background - June 08, 2012],
Retrieved from http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain pine beetle/mid-term-timbersupplv-proiect/Prince%20George%20TSA.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. (2012). Timber
tenures in British Columbia: Managing public forests in the public interests. Retrieved
from http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/hth/extemal/ipublish/web/timber-tenures/timbertenures-2006.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Mines and Lands. (2011). First Nations direct award
forest tenure opportunities guidelines. Retrieved from
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/haa/Docs/Public version Forest Tenure Opportunity Guidelin
es.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Mines and Lands. (2011). First Nations woodland license.
Retrieved from http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hth/timber-tenures/agreements/fhwl/fnwlindex.htm
British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Mines and Lands. (2011). Forest and range opportunities:
Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/haa/FRA faq.htm
British Columbia, Ministry o f Forests, Mines and Lands. (2011). Implementation o f the working
roundtable on forestry’s recommendations: Status update. Retrieved from
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/mof7forestrv roundtable/
British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Mines and Lands. (2010). The state o f British Columbia’s
forests (3rd ed.). Retrieved from
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/sof/2010/SQF 2010 Web.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. (2010).
Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/haa/FRA faq.htm

195

British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range. (2008). T l’a zt’en Nation Interim Agreement o f
Forest and Range Opportunities (March 31, 2008). Retrieved from
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/haa/Docs/Traztlen%20FRQ.pdf
British Columbia, Ministry o f Forests. (2004). Forest and range practices Act. Retrieved from
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/code/
British Columbia Ministry o f Sustainable Resource Management. (2004). First Nations
consultation guidelines: Sustainable resource management planning. Retrieved from
http://caid.ca/BriColConPol07152004.pdf
British Columbia Ministry o f Forests. (2003). Consultation guidelines. Retrieved form
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/haa/Docs/MOF Consultation guidelines final.pdf
British Columbia Ministry o f Forests. (2003). The forestry revitalization plan. Retrieved from
http ://www. for, gov.bc .ca/mof/plan/frp/frp lr.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Forests. (2003). Ministry policy: consultation process. Retrieved
from http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/haa/Docs/finalconsultationpolicv03.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Forests. (2003). Strategic policy approaches to accommodation
[Final draft]. Retrieved from
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/haa/Docs/Accomodation Policy final draft 10.pdf
British Columbia, Ministry o f Forests. (2002). Direct award legislation. Retrieved from
http ://www.for, gov.bc .ca/haa/policies reports .htm
British Columbia Ministry of Forests. (2002). Community forest agreement program [Annual
Report 2001-2002], Retrieved from
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/hth/external/ipublish/web/timbertenures/communitv/COMMFOR AR2001-02.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. (1999). Fort St. James land
and resource management plan. Retrieved from
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/slrp/pdf/LRMP/Fort%20St%20James LRMP.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range [Annual Report - 1997/1998]. (1998). Retrieved
from http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/mr/annual/ar 1997-98/report.htm
Brown, D. (2002). Carrier Sekani self-government in context: Land and resources. Western
Geography, 12, 21-67. Retrieved from
http://www.geog.uvic.ca/dept/wcag/publications.htm
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.

196

Bryman, A., & Teevan, J. J. (2005). Social research methods (Canadian ed.). Toronto, ON:
Oxford University Press.
Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research, London, England: Unwin Hyman.
Burda, C. (1997). Forests in trust: Reforming British Columbia's forest tenure system fo r
ecosystem and community health. Victoria: Eco-research chair o f environmental law and
policy (p. 151).
Campbell, J.G., & Denholm, J. (1992). Inspirations in community forestry. Report o f the
seminar on Himalayan community forestry, Kathmandu, Nepal. International Center for
Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Tri-Council
Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct fo r Research Involving Humans, December 2010.
Retrieved from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2/TCPS 2 FINAL Web.pdf
Carrier Sekani Tribal Council. (2006). Aboriginal interests & use study on the Enbridge
Gateway Pipeline: An assessment o f the impacts on the proposed Enbridge Gateway
Pipeline on the Carrier Sekani First Nations. Retrieved from
http://www.cstc.bc.ca/AIUS%20CQMPLETE%20FINAL%20inc.%20maps.pdf
Cathro, J., & Walsh, S. (2000). Tenure reform in British Columbia: Developing tenure that
benefits communities. Forestry Chronicle, 76, 429-431. doi:10.5558/tfc76429-3
Clogg, J. (2007). Tenure reform: Law reform paper. West Coast Environmental Law,
Vancouver, British Columbia. Retrieved from
http://wcel.org/sites/default/files/publications/Tenure%20Reform%20%20Law%20Reform%20Discussion%20Paper.pdf
Clogg, J. (2003). Provincialforestry revitalization plan —Forest Act amendment: Impacts and
implications fo r BC First Nations [Discussion paper]. West Coast Environmental Law,
Vancouver, British Columbia. Retrieved from
http://www.wcel.org/sites/default/files/publications/Provincial%20Forestrv%20Revitalizat
ion%20Plan%20-%20Forest%20Act%20Amendments%20%20Impacts%20and%20Implications%20for%20BC%20First%20Nations.pdf
Coates, K. (2008). The Indian Act and the future ofAboriginal governance in Canada. Research
paper for the National Centre for First Nations Governance. Retrieved from
http://fngovemance.org/ncfng research/millov.pdf
Corcoran, P. B., & Sievers, E. (1994). Re-conceptualizing environmental education: Five
possibilities. Journal o f Environmental Education, 25(4), 4-8.
doi: 10.1080/00958964.1994.9941958

197

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations o f social research: Meaning and perspective in the research
process. London, England: Sage.
Curran, D., & M ’Gonigle, M. (1999). Aboriginal forestry: Community management as
opportunity and imperative. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 37, 711-774. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.osgoode.vorku.ca/ohli
Dacks, G. (2002). British Columbia after the Delgamuukw decision: Land claims and other
processes. Canadian Public Policy, 28, 239-255. doi: 10.2307/3552327
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 3 S.R. 771 (1997).
Deloria, V. (1999). Spirit & reason. The Vine Deloria, Jr., reader. Golden CO: Fulcrum.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice o f qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). The Sage handbook o f qualitative
research (3rd ed., pp. 1-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dongol, C. M., Hughey, K. F. D., & Bigsby, H. R. (2002). Capital formation and sustainable
community forestry in Nepal. Mountain Research and Development, 22, 70-77.
doi: 10.1659/0276-4741 (2002)022[0070:CFASCF]2.0.Co;2
Duinker, P. N., Matakala, P. W., Chege, F., & Bouthillier, L. (1994). Community forests in
Canada: An overview. The Forestry Chronicle, 70, 711-720. doi: 10.5558/tfc70711-6
Dunn, K. (2005). Interviewing. In I. Hay (Ed.). Qualitative research methods in Human
Geography (2nd ed., pp. 79-105). Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
Egan, B., Ambus, L., & Woodsworth, A. (2002). Community Forestry: Concepts and
characteristics [A Background paper prepared for the B.C. Community Forestry Forum].
POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University o f Victoria. Victoria, BC.
Elligson, L. L. (2011). Analysis and representation across the continuum. In N. K. Denzin & Y.
S. Lincoln (Eds.). The Sage handbook o f qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 595-610).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
First Nations Forestry Council. (2008). First Nations tenure in British Columbia: Briefing
document First Nations Forestry Council - BC Forestry Roundtable. Retrieved from
http://www.fnforestrvcouncil.ca/downloads/first nations forest tenures.pdf
First Nations Summit. (2004). Increasing First Nations’participation in B C ’s forest industry.
Presented by the Grand Chief Edward John member of the First Nations Summit political
executive. Retrieved from http://www.fns.be.ca/pdf/ediohninsight060704.pdf

198

Fort St. James Forest District: Harvesting trends, 1960 - 2012 (n.d.). The Ministry o f Forests,
Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Fort St. James, BC: Author. Unpublished raw
data.
Fort St. James Forest District licensee operating areas map (2013). Scale: 1:250,000. Data
layers: licensee planning cell selection process (2012). The Ministry o f Forests, Lands and
Natural Resource Operations, Vanderhoof, BC. Map generated by Ian Niblett, April 13,
2013. Using ArcGIS. Version 10.1, Redlands, CA: Esri, 2012.
Forest and range agreements are not economically viable - Nadleh Whut’en Indian Band, Fort
Fraser, BC (2007, August). Press Release - Prince George Free Press.
Frechtling, J., Sharp, L. (Eds.) (1997). User friendly handbook fo r mixed methods evaluations.
Darby, PA: Diane Publishing. Retrieved from
http://books.google.ca/books?id=iN8Ff4mTrqcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs ge su
mmarv r&cad=0#v=onepage&Q&f=false
Gilchrist, V. J. (1999). Key informant interviews. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.),
Qualitative research (Vol. 1, pp. 354-371). London, England: Sage.
Grainger, S., Sherry, E., & Fondahl, G. (2006). The John Prince Research Forest: Evolution o f a
co-management partnership in Northern British Columbia. The Forestry Chronicle, 82,
484-495. doi: 10.5558/tfc82484-4
Gronow, J., & Shrestha, K. N. (1991). From mistrust to participation: The creation o f a
participatory environment fo r community forestry in Nepal. Social Forestry Network
[Papers 12b]. Retrieved from http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odiassets/publications-opinion-fil esZ1008.pdf
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K.
Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook o f qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guruing, D.J. (2000). Women’s management of mountain forests. In M. F. Price & N. Butt
(Eds.). Forests in sustainable mountain development: A state o f knowledge report fo r 2000
(pp. 112-116). International Union of Forest Research Organization. Wallingford, UK:
CABI Publishing.
Haley, D., & Nelson, H. (2006). British Columbia’s crown forest tenure system in a changing
world: Challenges and opportunities. BC forum on forest economics and policy [Synthesis
paper: SP 06-01]. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from
http://www.bc.forum.org/ media/SPQ601BCforrestenuresvstem.pdf
Haley, D. (1997). Community forestry in BC: Opportunities and constraints [Final report].
Forest Renewal BC research program: Science council of British Columbia. Retrieved
from http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/librarv/FRBC 1997/FRBC1997MR208.PDF
199

Haida v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), SCC 73 (2004).
Halseth, G., & Booth, A. (1997). Public participation and the new forest economy: Discussion
paper on concepts: "Community. ” Faculty o f Natural Resources and Environmental
Studies, University o f Northern British Columbia, Prince George, British Columbia.
Halseth, G., & Booth, A. (1998). Public participation and the new forest economy: Discussion
paper on concepts: Community economic development. Faculty o f Natural Resources and
Environmental Studies, University o f Northern British Columbia, Prince George, British
Columbia.
Harris, C. (1997). The Resettlement o f British Columbia: Essays on colonialism and geographic
change. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.
Harris, C. (2002). Making native space: Colonialism, resistance, and reserves in British
Columbia. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.
Harris, G. R. (1992). A practical and theoretical assessment of sustainable development - A case
study. International Journal o f Environmental Studies, 39, 313-323.
doi: 10.1080/00207239208710707
Hayter, R. (2000). Flexible crossroads: The restructuring o f British Columbia’s forest economy.
Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.
Hayter, R. (2003). The war in the woods: Post-Fordist restructuring, globalization and the
contested remapping o f British Columbia’s forest economy. Annals o f the Association o f
American Geographers, 93, 706-729. doi: 10.1111/1467-8306.9303010
Heikkila, K., & Fondahl, G. (2010). Reflections on the use of indigenous place-names in
curriculum from research conducted with TPazt’en Nation, British Columbia. FENNIA,
188, 105-122. Retrieved from http://ois.tsv.fi/index.php/fennia
His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, Ministry o f Forests and Soil Conservation (1989). Master
plan fo r the forestry sector Nepal, 1988-1989. The Asian Development Bank and Finnish
International Development Agency, Kathmandu, Nepal. Retrieved from
http ://www. forestrvnepal.org/wiki/102 or
http://www.forestrvnepal.org/publications/policv-papers/5465
Hoberg, G., & Morawski, E. (2008). Policy change through sector intersection: Forest and
Aboriginal policy in Clayoquot Sound. Canadian Public Administration, 40, 387-414.
doi: 10.1111 /j. 1754-7121.1997. tbO 1516.x
Howlett, M., Rayner, J., & Tollefson, C. (2009). From government to governance in forest
planning? Lessons from the case o f the British Columbia great bear rainforest initiative.
Journal o f Forest Policy and Economics, 11, 383-391.

200

Inden, P. (1996). Community Forest in British Columbia: Introducing tree farm license #42 held
by the T l’a zt’en Nation [BSF Graduation Essay]. University of British Columbia.
Joseph, C. & Krishnaswamy, A. (2010). Factors of resiliency for forest communities in
transition in British Columbia. Journal o f Ecosystems & Management, 10(3), 127-144.
Retrieved from http://www.iem-online.org/index.php/iem/index
John Prince Research Forest - Official Website, (n.d.). Background. Retrieved from
http://researchforest.unbc.ca/iprf/iprf.htm
Kaijala, K. M., & Dewhurst, S. M. (2003). Including Aboriginal issues in forest planning: A
case study in central interior British Columbia, Canada. Landscape and Urban Planning,
64, 1-17. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00196-2
Kimmins, J. P. (1997). The future of the forested landscape o f Canada. Forestry Chronicle, 67,
14-18. doi: 10.5558/tfc67014-l
Kirby, S. L., & McKenna K. (1989). Experience research social change: Methods from the
margins. Toronto: Garamond Press.
Krepps, B. M. (1991). Can tribes manage their own resource? A study o f American Indian
forestry and the 638 program [Project report series —Harvard project on American Indian
Economic Development]. Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy, John F. Kennedy
School of Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Leopold, A. (1966). A sand county almanac: With other essays on conservation from Round
River. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mactaggart, W. D. (1993). Bioregionalism and regional geography: Place, people, and networks.
The Canadian Geographer, 37, 307-319. doi:10.111 l/j.l541-0064.1993.tb00390.x
Maharjan, M. R. (1998). The flow and distribution o f costs and benefits in the Chuliban
community forest, Dhankuta district, Nepal. Rural development forestry network [Network
paper 23e]. The Nepal - United Kingdom community forestry project, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Mallik, U. A., & Rahman, H. (1994). Community forestry in developed and developing
countries: A comparative study. The Forestry Chronicle, 70, 731-735. doi:
10.5558/tfc70731-6
Manuel, A. (2006). Report on Canada's self-government and land rights policies at the root o f
Canada’s opposition to the UN draft declaration on Indigenous rights [submitted to Mr.
Rodolfo Stavenhagen, UN special rapporteur on the situation o f human rights and
fundamental freedoms of Indigenous peoples]. Retrieved from
http://www.firstnations.de/media/07-indigenous-ri ghts.pdf

201

Marsden, T. (2005). From the land to the Supreme Court, and back again: Defining meaningful
consultation with First Nations in Northern, British Columbia [Master Thesis]. University
of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC.
Matakala, P. W., & Duinker, P. (1993). Community forestry as a forest-land management option
in Ontario. In D. Bruce & M. Whitla (Eds.), Forest dependent communities: Challenges
and opportunities (pp. 26-59). Sackville, NB: Mount Allison University.
Maxwell, J. A. (2009). Designing a qualitative study. In Bickman, L. & Rog, D. J. (Eds.). The
Sage handbook o f applied social research methods (2nd ed., pp. 214-253). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Merkel, G., Smith, E., & Walkem, D. (2003). British Columbia First Nations forest policy forum
[Discussion paper - March 31, 2003]. Retrieved from
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/haa/Docs/Forest Policy Forum.pdf
Milloy, J. (2008). Indian Act colonialism: A century o f dishonour, 1869-1969. National center
for First Nations governance. Retrieved from
http://fngovemance.org/ncfng research/millov.pdf
Mills, A. (1994). Eagle down is our law: Witsuwit’en law, fasts, and land claims. Vancouver,
BC. UBC Press.
Mitchell-Banks, J. P. (1999). Tenure arrangements fo r facilitating community forestry in British
Columbia [Doctoral thesis]. Department o f forest resource management, University of
British Columbia. Retrieve from http://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/10948
Morellato, M. (2008). The crown’s constitutional duty to consult and accommodate Aboriginal
and treaty rights. National center for First Nations governance. Retrieve from
http://fngovemance.org/resources docs/Crown Duty to Consult Accommodate.pdf
Morris, P., & Fondahl, G. (2002). Negotiating the production o f space in Tl’azt’en territory,
Northern British Columbia. Canadian Geographer 46, 108-125. doi: 10.111 l/j.15410064.2002.tb00734.x
Morris, P. (1999). Negotiating the production o f space in TTazt’en territory, 1969 - 1984
[Master Thesis]. The University o f Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC.
Nathen, H. (1993). Aboriginal forestry: The role o f the First Nations. In K. Drushka, B. Nixon,
& R. Travers (Eds.). Touch wood: BC forests at the crossroads (pp. 137-170). Madeira
Park, BC: Harbour.
National Aboriginal Forestry Association (2003). Aboriginal-held forest tenures in Canada
(2002-2003). Ottawa, Ontario: NAFA.

202

National Aboriginal Forestry Association (2000). Aboriginal-forest sector partnerships: Lessons
fo r future collaboration. Ottawa, Ontario: NAFA. Retrieved from
http ://nafaforestrv.org/nafaiog/
Neuman, L. W. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Norton, B. G., & Hannon, B. (1997). Environmental values: A place-based theory.
Environmental Ethics, 1 9 ,227-245. doi:10.5840/enviroethicsl99719313
O’Neil, P. (2014, June 27). Landmark Supreme Court ruling grants land title to BC First Nation.
The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Landmark+Supreme-t-Court-t-m1ing+grants+land+t
itle+F irst+N ation+with+video/997083 8/storv.html
Parfitt, B. (2007). True partners: Charting a new deal fo r BC, First Nations, and the forests we
share. Canadian center for policy alternatives, BC office. Retrieved from
http://www.bctreatv.net/files/pdf documents/bc truepartners.pdf
Parsons, R., & Prest, G. (2003). Aboriginal forestry in Canada. The Forestry Chronicle, 79, 779784. doi:10.5558/tfc79779-4
Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Pearse, P. H. (1976). Timber rights and forest policy in British Columbia (Volume 1). Report of
the Royal Commission on forest resources. Victoria, British Columbia. Retrieved from
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Mr/Rc/Rc006/Rc006-1 .pdf
Phillip, S., & Parfitt, B. (2013, November 4). Proposed forest policy leaves First Nations bereft
Canadian centre for policy alternatives, BC office [Publication commentary]. Retrieved
from https://www.policvaltematives.ca/publications/commentarv/proposed-forest-policvleaves-first-nations-bereft
Plant, K. B. (2009). Forest tenure and management in British Columbia. Legislative library of
British Columbia [Background paper 2009:02/November 2009]. Victoria, BC.
Province of British Columbia (2010, May 07). Updated procedures fo r meeting legal obligations
when consulting First Nations (Interim). Retrieved from
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/DownloadAsset?assetId=9779EDACB673486883560B59BEB
E782E&filename=legal obligations when consulting with first nations.pdf
Province of British Columbia (2005). The new relationship. Retrieved from
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/topic/9EFBD86DA302A0712E6559BDB2C7F9DD/agr
eements/new relationship accord.pdf

203

Province of British Columbia (2005, November 25). The transformative change accord.
Retrieved from http://www.gov.bc.ca/arr/social/down/transformative change accord.pdf
Province of British Columbia (2002, October). Provincial policy fo r consultation with First
Nations. Retrieved from http://caid.ca/BriColConPol2002.pdf
Province o f British Columbia (1998). Consultation guidelines: Consultation on Aboriginal
rights and title. Retrieved from https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/lleng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/95292/95293/158379/158325/209972/A0E5A4 British Columbia Provincial Consultation Guidelines.pdf?nodeid=209979&vemum=l
Public policy forum (2005, January). Economic development in First Nations: An overview o f
current issues. Retrieved from http://www.turtleisland.org/business/ecdev.pdf
Rogers, J. (2007). Reshaping crown-First Nations relationships amid changing contests: An
examination o f the intersection between the crown’s promise o f a New Relationship and
the implementations o f the forest and range agreement. Resource management and
environmental studies [Master Thesis], University o f British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996). People to people, nation to nation: Highlights
form the report o f the Royal Commission on Aboriginal peoples. Ottawa, ON: Minister of
Supply and Services Canada. Retrieved from http://www.aadncaandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014597/1100100014637
Royse, D. (1991). Research methods in social work. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Schoenberger, E. (1991). The corporate interview as a research method in economic geography.
Professional Geographer, 43, 180-189. doi: 10.111 l/j.0033-0124.1991.00180.x
Schreier, H., Shrestha, B, Brown, S., & Shah, P. B. (2000). Quantitate, quality, and community
forestry issues in middle mountain watersheds. In R. Allen, H. Schreier, S. Brown, & P.B.
Shah (Eds.). The people and resource dynamics projects: The first three years (1996 1999): Proceedings o f a workshop held in Baoshan Province, Yunnan Province, China
(March 2-5, 1999) (pp. 129-138). Retrieved from http://lib.icimod.org/record/7455
Sherry, E., Dewhurst, S., & Kaijala, M. (2005). Aboriginal forest planning: Lessons from three
community pilot projects. The Canadian Journal o f Native Studies, 25, 51-91. Retrieved
from http://www3 .brandonu.ca/librarv/CJNS/
Sherry, E., Halseth, R., Fondahl, G., Kaijala, M., & Leon, B. (2005). Local-level criteria and
indicators: An Aboriginal perspective on sustainable forest management. Forestry: An
International Journal o f Forest Research, 78, 513-539. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpi048
Sherry, E. (2004). What is content analysis? In introduction to content analysis training, criteria
and indicators ofjoint forest management training materials. Northern Land Use Institute,
University o f Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC.
204

Sherry, E., & Myers, H. (2002). Traditional environmental knowledge in practice. Society &
Natural Resources: An International Journal, 15, 345-358.
Shrestha, B. T., & Pokharel, S. (2000). The potential of medicinal and aromatic plants for
sustainable mountain development in Nepal. In M.F. Price & N. Butt (Eds.). Forests in
sustainable mountain development: A state o f knowledge report fo r 2000 (pp. 312-317).
International Union of Forest Research Organization. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
Simpson, B. (2013, November 26). Opinion: What is the BC government’s vision for our public
forest? The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opinion+What+govemment+vision+public+forest/9
215722/storv.html
Sloan Royal Commission on Forestry (1945). Forest administration in British Columbia.
Victoria, BC. Retrieved from
http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/pubdocs/bcdocs rc/415333/415333 forest admin in be.
pdf
Smith, M. D. (1998). An Athabasca way o f knowing: Chipewyan ontology. American
Ethnologist, 2 5 ,412-432. doi: 10.1525/ae.l998.25.3.412
Smith, P., & Ross, M. (2002). Accommodation o f Aboriginal rights: The need fo r an Aboriginal
forest tenure (Synthesis report). Sustainable forest management network. University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
SR Management Services Ltd. (2010). First Nations forest tenure benching [presented to First
Nations Forestry Council, British Columbia]. Retrieved from
http://www.fnforestrvcouncil.ca/downloads/first-nations-forest-tenure-benchmarking.pdf
Stanley, B. (1998). Irish forestry. A Glimpse o f Forestry in Nepal, 55, 133-139. The united
mission to Nepal.
Supreme Court o f Canada confirms that Aboriginal policies must change (2004, November).
Press release - UBCIC, Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from http://www.ubcic.bc.ca
Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia, SCC 74 (2004).
Tanizul Timber Ltd. (2014). Community forest agreement (CFA K4B). Retrieved from
http://www.tanizultimber.com/
Tanizul Timber Ltd. (2014). Financial statements (2011/2012 & 2012/2013 fiscal years).
Retrieved from http ://www .tanizultimber.com/index .php/financial
Task Force on Native Forestry BC (1991). Native forestry in British Columbia: A new approach.
Final report o f the Task Force on Native Forestry. Victoria, BC.
205

Taylor S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook
and resource (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
The office o f the treaty commissioner (1989). Aboriginal rights and title. Retrieved from
http://www.otc.ca/pdfs/aboriginal rights.pdf
Tl’azt’en Nation Draft Land Use Plan. (2011). Unpublished Document - The Tl’azt’en Nation
presentations materials used during 2011 to 2014 UNBC field application courses in
resource management at the John Prince Research Forest, Fort St. James, BC.
Tl’azt’en Nation Keyoh Holders - Elders society publication, Volume 1, Issue 1 (2009).
Retrieved from
http://www.tlc.baremetal.com/%20PDF%20File/kevoh%20Holders%20iulv%20presentati
on%202nd%20draft.pdf
Tsilhqot’in Nation (Roger William) v. British Columbia, SCC 44 (2014).
Turner, N., Ignace, M. B., & Ignace, R. (2000). Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom of
Aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications, 1 0 ,1275-1287.
Ecological Society of America, doi: 10.1890/1051 0761 (2000)010[ 1275:TEKAWO]2.0.CO;2
Union o f British Columbia Indian Chiefs (2005). Stolen lands, broken promises: Researching
the Indian land question in British Columbia (2nd ed.) [Title and rights alliance
background paper: Forest and range agreements]. Retrieved from
http://www.ubcic.bc.ca/Resources/rilq.htm#axzz3MqskBSir
Union o f British Columbia Indian Chiefs (2006). Re: Interim agreement on forest and range
opportunities (Press release - resolution no. 2006-06). Retrieved from
http://www.ubcic.bc.ca/files/PDF/2006 06 InterimAgreementonForestandRange.pdf
University o f Northern British Columbia (2006). Research involving human participants:
policies and procedures. Retrieved from
http://www.unbc.ca/assets/policv/research/research involving human participants.pdf
Upreti, B. R. (2000). Social transformation through community forestry: Experiences and
lessons from Nepal. Nepal Swiss community forestry project/SDC Nepal. Retrieved from
http://www.mtnforum.org/sites/default/files/publication/files/280.pdf
Uprety, D. R. (2006). Conflicts in natural resources management: Examples from community
forestry. The Jahrbuch AcrOsterreichischen Gesellschaft fiir Agrarokonomi, 15, 143-135.
Retrieved from http://www.boku.ac.ac/oega
Webber, S. E. (2008). Aboriginal forest tenure and governance in British Columbia: Exploring
alternatives from a Stellat 'en First Nations community perspective [Master Thesis].
206

University o f British Columbia. Retrieved from
https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/789?show=fiill
We’re going bankrupt: What was to have become an economic driver for Nadleh Whut’en First
Nation, near Fraser Lake, has become a forest license catch 22 (2007, August, 18). The
Prince George Citizen Newspaper.
West coast environmental law: Deregulation backgrounder (2004). “ Timber rules”forest
regulations lower standards, the government hands and reduce accountability. Retrieved
from http://wcel.org/sites/default/files/publications/Deregulation%20Backgrounder%20%20Forest%20&%20Range%20Practices%20Act O.pdf
Wilson, J. (1998). Talk and log: Wilderness politics in British Columbia. Vancouver, BC. UBC
Press.
Wilson, J., & Graham, J. (2005). Relationships between First Nations and the forest industry:
The legal and policy context. A report for: the National Aboriginal Forestry Association,
the forest products association of Canada, and the First Nations forestry program.
Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wyatt, S. (2008). First Nations, forest lands, and “aboriginal forestry” in Canada: From
exclusion to co-management and beyond. Canadian Journal o f Forest Research, 38, 171180. doi: 10.1139/x07-214
Yegidis, B., Weinbach, R., & Morison-Rodriguez, B. (1999). Research methods fo r social
workers (3nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Yim, D. (2009). Evolving co-management practice: Developing a community-based
environmental monitoring framework with T l’a zt’en Nation on the John Prince Research
Forest [Master Thesis]. University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, B.C.

207

Appendix A: Community Research Agreement

This Agreement dated for reference the 09 day of September, 2010.

Community Research Agreement
The Opportunities and Limitations of First Nations' Forestry Licenses in British Columbia*. The Key
Challenges and implications of an Alternative Tenure Development for community Management of Forests In
Tl'azt'en Nations

Bclwecni

Tl'art'en Nation

And:

Som Bahadur Pun
(Principal Researcher)

Master of Science (MSc) Candidate
University of Northern British Columbia
Prince George, BC

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

WHEREAS the researcher and the First Nation agree to conduct the research under the conditions in this
agreem ent and to comply with the intent of the principles set forth herein;
WHEREAS the research study contemplated by this Agreement is of mutual interest and benefit to the
Researcher and the First Nation, it will further the articulation and dissemination of the role the land
plays in the First Nation's culture and society, and will further the documentation of rock markings
within the First Nation's traditional territory.

WHEREAS the Researcher includes Som Bahadur Pun, Master of Science (MSc) degree Candidate University of the Northern British Columbia, the conduct of Som Bahadur Pun and any/ail researcher
staff under his supervision are bound by this agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, in this consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the

parties hereto understand and agree as follows:

208

1. SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

1.1

The overall objective of my research study is to assess the opportunities and limitations of First
Nations’ Forestry Licenses in BC and discuss the key challenges and future viability for
development of an alternative forest tenure system that allows First Nations communities to have
a long-term control over management o f forests within their traditional territories. This is an
especially important research topic during this period when the provincial government’s
approach to provide short-term based forestry license agreements such as Forest and Range
-Agreement (FRA) and Forest and Range Opportunities (FROs) are perceived by many First
Nations groups to be adversarial and inadequate to meet their needs and intended community
goals. The recognition of long-term economic prosperity, social and cultural values, the role of
traditional knowledge of resource management systems and ownership issues of the traditional
land and resources are not adequately addressed within the current policy framework. The
government’s initiative to provide levels of economic incentives to First Nations’ communities
through short-term forestry license agreements is a good start. Despite the effort, however, there
is still no policy framework established in BC that allows First Nations’ communities to have
exclusive control ova* resource utilization and decision-making authority on their traditional land
base. It is very important to recognize that the indigenous people arc deeply connected to the
land where they live and the preservation o f their social and cultural values and their subsistence
livelihood practices are far more important to them than a short-term economic gain. Due to the
centralized approach to resource management policy development and decision-making, First
Nations communities have become increasingly dependent on authority structures, an uncertain
global market economy and limited employment opportunities over which they have no control.
2.
In the absence o f a long-term forestry license and adequate decision-making power, First Nations
communities across BC are faced with policy restrictions, increased competition with major
licensees and further economic and environmental challenges. This issue is further exacerbated
by some of the internal issues and challenges regarding lack of local capacity building, common
cohesion, community vision and goals as well as effective leadership roles. This project seeks to
make a contribution to academic theory and professional practices by identifying future policy
alternative which can guide the BC government in its implementation o f a policy for First
Nations management of the forests within their traditional territories under a new tenure model
that works best for them and the province of BC. Ideally, the establishment of an appropriate
forestry tenure system should help ensure (he resolution of some of the pending issues of
substantial concern relating to the current status of First Nations forestry licenses. Ultimately, it
should also create a positive and meaningful relationship between the government of and First
Nations communities in BC.

209

METHODS A N D PROCEDURES

2.1
Data will be gathered using the following methods or procedures:
a) Field assessments and interviews,
b) Policy review (i.e. FRA & FROs arrangements and forest tenure system).
c) literatures review and case study investigations.
2.2
Information collected in the field through archaeological surveys will be recorded by the way of notes,
waypoints, and photographs. Interviews and group meetings and follow-up meetings will be audio
recorded and transcribed. Key them es will be identified and used for the development of a conceptual
understanding of land use and the role rock markings play in land use. This conceptual understanding
will be validated by the First Nation for accuracy.
2 . RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE RESEARCHER

2.1
The Researcher shall provide both the hard and electronic copies of research results to the First Nation
including a copy of the audio tape/disk.

3-*

The Researcher, in undertaking research, shall:
a) Respect traditional copyrights;

b) Respect local customs and values;
c) Contribute to the interests of the First Nation in whatever ways possible so as to maximize the
return to the First Nation for their cooperation in the research endeavor.

4.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FIRST NATION

The First Nation, in providing support for the research, shall:
4 .1

The First Nation will provide support to the research by indentifying participants for interviews; provide
information pertinent to the location of markings; provide logistics support, provide general guidance to
the project and provide office space in which to conduct interviews if necessary.

5.

NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSE

5.1

No research products, traditional or Indigenous knowledge will be used for commercial purposes.

6.

INFORMED CONSENT

6.1

210

Informed consent of individual participants is to be obtained in these ways;
a)
An individual consent form will be read by the researcher to the participants prior to conducting the
interviews. The consent form will include the contact information of each the Researcher, the
Researcher's supervisor, the University Researcher Office. A copy will be left with the participant should
they wish to contact the Researcher for additional information.
b)
Participants have the right to withdrawal from the project at any time for any reason. In this case, that
participant's data will be destroyed.
7 . CONFIDENTIALITY
7.1

The names of participants and the First Nation are to be protected and respected in these agreed ways:

*)
All interview ees have th e right to ch oose to remain anonym ous or ch o o se to be credited for their
contributions and know ledge.

b)
For those wishing to remain anonymous, all interviews will be confidential. In no instance will the name
of a participant wishing to remain anonymous be attached to a record. Appropriate acknowledgement
wifi be documented for those individuals wishing to be credited for their contributions.

c)
The contribution of the First Nation to the study will be acknowledged in all published reports.
However, the First Nation also has the right to remain anonymous in future publications.
8 . EXPECTED OUTCOMES, BENEFITS AND RISKS.

8.1
This research study will benefit the First Nation collectively in the following ways;
a} The ultimate goal of this research study is to propose the fundamental criteria for development of a
successful First Nations’ Forestry Tenure system in BC through the recognition of the value of traditional
cultural values and subsistence livelihoods management skills, the integration of indigenous knowledge
and skills into forest m anagement systems and the devolution of control over decision-making and
m anagem ent practices in BC. A successful implementation of an appropriate forest tenure system will
not only help benefit First Nations' communities to have an effective control over resource m anagement
and decision-making authority within their traditional land base, but also create a positive relationship
with government of British Columbia.
Documentation
b)
Inform ational

The outcom e of data gathering and research findings during this research project will be useful for
information sharing betw een the First Nations communities, educational institutions, government
agency such as the Ministry of Forests and Range, the government of British Columbia, non­
governmental organizations (NGOs), various interest groups and general public. The publication of
research results will be strictly subject to First Nations' approval.

211

8.2
The Researcher wishes to use this research study for benefit in these ways;
a) Help identify and address some of the key issues and challenges First Nations' communities, such as
Tachie village is facing under the current First Nations' forestry license agreem ents (i.e. FRA & FROs) to
attain intended community goals. The goal is that the local community such as Tachie village will have '
the better understanding of the community's strengths and weaknesses as well as the opportunities and
challenges associated with the current status of First Nations forestry licenses. Both the community and
provincial government will see the need for the establishment of an alternative forest tenure system as
an opportunity to prom ote increased participation in the management and control of the area's forest
resources within their traditional territories.
b) Create positive incentives for First Nations' communities for their involvement in sustainable resource
management practices through the development of a common community's goal and vision and internal
capacity building.
c) Provide a comparative analysis for social and economic importance of the development of an
appropriate policy framework for the future forest m anagement and decision-making process,
e) The outcom e of this research project will also provide the baseline data information for future
research initiatives.
8 .3

The researchers will work with th e First Nation to ensure that the research will pose minimal risk to the
First Nation.
9 .0 DATA MANAGEMENT.
9 .1

A copy of the audio tape/disc and th e transcript will be kept by the Researcher for a period of up to 5
years upon which it will then be destroyed. A copy of interview tapes and transcripts will be provided to
the First Nation for record.
9 .3

A final report that will include all the synthesized data will be provided to the First Nation upon
completion of the project, as will a copy of the PhD dissertation.
10. DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS.
10.1

Any future publication or dissemination of research results, beyond what is described In this agreem ent
shall not be undertaken without an agreement between the Researcher and the First Nation.
10.2

The First Nation will be the first to receive research results and be invited to provided input and
feedback on the results. The results should be presented in a format and language appropriate and
accessible to the First Nation.
1 0 .3

The Researcher agrees to participate in community meetings to discuss the results and their
implications.
1 0 .4

Results will be reported to th e public at large scientific journals or other publications.

212

1 1 . TERM AND TERMINATION

11.1

This agreement shall have an effective date of September 30, 2010 and shall term inate on December 30,
2012 with the possibility to extend this agreem ent with the consent of both the First Nation and the c
Researcher.
11.2

The Researcher agrees to stop gathering information for th e research project under th e following
conditions:
a) If First Nations leaders make such a request;
b) If the researcher believes th at the research will no longer benefit the First Nation o r th e aims
of th e project.

Signed by
Chief Ralph Pierre
Representative of th e Tt'azt'en First Nation

Date:

Sgp

Signed By:
Som Bahaour ru n
Principal Researcher

Date:.

213

Appendix B: Tl’azt’en Nation Chief and Council Resolution

T

l

’a

z t

’e n

N

a t i o n

P.O. Box 670. Fort Si. James, B C. V0J1P0 • Phone: 250-64*0212 • Fax: 25O-64g-32S0 • E-mail: DianaAiaitinson<8'tlaaten.bcia

C h ie f a n d C o u n c il R e so l u t io n
|

The council of the T l ’a z t ’e n N a t i o n

Date o f Duly Convened Meeting

Ndfo un'M nett' onlnai:
Do Hereby Revolve:

BUHL#

DAY

MONTH

YEAR

1 28 9

in

Oi,

JoiK

That Tl'azfen Nation Chief & Council support Som Pun's proposed research with TTait'en Nation, titled:
The Opportunities and Limitations of Community Management of Forests in Tl'a/fen Nation, British
Columbia: the Key issues. Challenges, and Recommendations for Future Tenure Alternatives. The
research is in support of a Masters Degree in the Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Program
at the University of Northern British Columbia.

Q Attachments

Quorum ( f )

a

Chirf

thor
Councillor

214

Appendix C: Tl’azt’en Nation Information Sheet & Informed Consent Form

Name of Project:
The Opportunities and Limitations of Community Management of Forests in Tl’azt’en Nation,
British Columbia: The Key Issues, Challenges, and Recommendation for Future Tenure
Alternatives
Name of Research Participants: Eleven Participants in Total
Name of Researcher: Som Bahadur Pun
Research Interview Location: Various locations (Tache, JPRF office, and the CSTC office)
Research Interview Date: July 26th to August 10th, 2012

Som Bahadur Pun, I.Ed., BSc, RPF (Researcher)
Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Program
University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC)
3333 University Way, Prince George, BC, V2N 4Z9
Phone: (250) 960-5555 (UNBC)/(250) 562-2590 (Personal)
E-mail: puns@unbc.ca______________________________________
Dr. Greg Halseth (Supervisor)
Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Program (Geography)
University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC)
3333 University Way, Prince George, BC, V2N 4Z9
Phone: (250) 960-5826
E-mail: Halseth@unbc.ca____________________________________
Dr. Antonia Mills (Committee member)
First Nations Studies Program
University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC)
3333 University Way, Prince George, BC, V2N 4Z9
Phone: (250) 960-6690
E-mail: millsa@unbc.ca_____________________________________
Dr. Catherine Nolin (Committee member)
Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Program (Geography)
University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC)
3333 University Way, Prince George, BC, V2N 4Z9
Phone: (250) 960-5875
E-mail: Nolin@unbc.ca

215

Project Information:
Research Goals:
The purpose of my research interviews is to collect research data that reflects the experiences of
the Tl’azt’en Nation in the forestry sector. In particular, I will focus on the TPazt’en Nation’s
recent engagement in the Interim Forest and Range Opportunities (FROs) and Revenue Sharing
Agreement and the collective experiences of the community since the signing o f the agreement.
The interview questions are designed to focus on the key issues and challenges o f the Tl’azt’en
Nation with regards to community management of the lands and resources and decision-making
within the traditional territory of the Tl’azt’en Nation. My goal is to collect baseline research
data that could potentially be useful for the development of an alternative First Nation’s forest
tenure system that addresses the unique needs and circumstance of a First Nation community
such as the Tl’azt’en Nation.
Funding:
This research project is partially funded by the Provincial government o f British Columbia under
the Pacific Leader Scholarships program. I also received a small financial support from the
Tl’azt’en Nation. I am responsible for covering a significant portion of my research costs. I am
grateful to the Tl’azt’en Nation for providing me a research assistant to assist me with various
research works such as interview note taking and transcribing the interview details.
Participant selection:
A list o f prospective participants was prepared prior to interviews. The potential participants
were selected from various community groups including community leaders, Elders, keyoh
holders, community members, Tl’azt’en Nation natural resources staffs, and resource
professionals from outside community. The selection o f interviewees is based on recognition of
your knowledge, wisdom, traditional cultural and livelihood experiences, relevant educational
and training backgrounds, individual’s expertise, interests and overall contributions to the
research study. In total, there are 13 research participants for this research and majority of
participants were selected from the research community, the Tl’azt’en Nation. Other participants
are selected from a neighbouring First Nation community Takla Band and Fort St. James, BC.
Potential Risks and Benefits of Participation:
There are no anticipated risks involved with this research. I will work closely with the
community to ensure that the research will pose minimum risks to the Tl’azt’en Nation. The
proposed research will be conducted within the premise o f the ethical guidelines o f Aboriginal
peoples as outlined in the community research agreement, the policy guidelines o f the TriCouncil Policy statement, and the Research Ethics Board at the UNBC. More importantly, the
research proposal has been approved by the UNBC Research Ethics Board prior to field
interviews.
The potential benefits include the chance to share information and inform recommendations on
Aboriginal forestry. You may benefit from sharing your knowledge and ideas with other
participants as well as learning from other’s perspectives on the research topic. More
216

specifically, you will be able to contribute your ideas and visions for future forest policy
implementation and development of an alternative forest tenure system that may work best for
First Nation communities such as the Tl’azt’en Nation.
Details of Participation:
As a research participant, you will be involved in semi-structured interview with open-ended
questions and discussions. Your participation in the research is entirely voluntary, and therefore,
you may choose not to participate. If you decide to participate, you may also choose to not
answer any question that makes you uncomfortable. You also have the right to terminate the
interview at any time and have all the information you have provided withdrawn from the
research study.
Anonymity and Confidentiality:
Any information which may be used to identify individual participants will be protected and
respected at all times. The interviewees will have the right to choose to remain anonymous or
choose to be credited for their contributions and knowledge. Due to the nature o f the qualitative
research interviews, it should be noted that anonymity CANNOT be guaranteed. All interviews
will be kept confidential and under no circumstances the name o f a participant wishing to remain
anonymous will be attached to a record nor will information be presented that could identify
these people. For those individuals wishing to be credited for their contributions will be properly
acknowledged and documented in all published reports.
Any research interview related items such as the audio recordings, video recordings, photos, and
written materials will be used for a UNBC Master’s thesis, publications, reports, community
products, presentations, newsletters as websites.
I want my name associated with future publications (Audio recordings, video recordings,
photos, and written materials)
Yes _____
No

Storage of Research Materials:
All research interviews related Information gathered throughout the course o f this research
interview will be kept in locked research space at UNBC and will be accessible only to the
researcher and supervisor. All the digital computer files will be password protected and written
text files will be kept in a locked file cabinet in the UNBC research space. Any information
related to the interviews will be kept until the final research work is complete and will be
destroyed after completion of the thesis. The results o f the study will not be published without
permission from the Tl’azt’en Nation. Finally, this research is a part of a graduate degree;
therefore, results of this study will be available at the UNBC library.

217

I give permission to store the original copies of my recordings with TPazt’en Nation, following
the immediate completion of this project.
I give Som Bahadur Pun, researcher, permission to store copies o f my recordings in a secure
storage space at UNBC for up to seven years after the project is completed. At the end o f this
seven year period, all copies o f recordings will be destroyed. I understand that copies of my
original recordings may be archived at UNBC for other researchers to access. I understand that I
may place restrictions on access to all or parts o f my information.
UNBC Archives:
I want my recordings kept in the UNBC Archives with listing any restrictions
Yes
No

_____
_____

-ORI do not want my recordings kept in the UNBC Archives, please destroy copies o f my original
recordings
Yes
No

_____

Research Results: Research results will be presented at a community meeting following the
completion of the study. A copy of my thesis will be made available to the TPazt’en Nation and
those individual participants who request a copy o f my thesis. The participants and community
will be encouraged to contact the primary researcher, Som Pun at 250-560-2590 (personal) or email me at puns@unbc.ca. or my supervisor, Dr. Greg Halseth e-mail at halseth@unbc.ca in case
any questions that may arise from this research.
Complaints: Any complaints about this research study should be directed to the Office of
Research and Graduate Studies, UNBC at 250-960-6735 or e-mail: reb@unbc.ca.

I have read the above description of the study and I understand the conditions o f my
participation. My signature indicates that I agree to participate in this study.

(Signature of Researcher)

(Date)

(Signature o f Participant)

(Date)

Thank you fo r your valuable time and patience.
218

Appendix D: Tl’azt’en Nation Guidelines for Research in Tl’azt’en Nation Territory

1. Purpose
These guidelines have been developed to help ensure that, in all research sponsored and
supported by the Tl'azt'en Chief and Council, appropriate respect is given to culture, language,
knowledge and values o f the Tl'azt'enne, and to the standards used by Tl'azt'enne to legitimate
knowledge. These guidelines represent the standard o f "best practice" adopted by the Tl'azt'en
Chief and Council.
2. Principles
A. As Tl'azt'enne we have distinctive perspectives and understandings, deriving from our
culture and history and, embodied in Tl'azt'en language. Research that has Tl'azt'en
experience as it is subject matter must reflect these perspectives and understandings.
B. In the past, research concerning Aboriginal Peoples has usually been initiated outside the
Aboriginal community and carried out by non-Aboriginal personnel. Aboriginal people
have had almost no opportunity to correct misinformation or to challenge ethnocentric
and racist interpretations. Consequently, the existing body of research, which normally
provides a reference point for new research, must be open to reassessment.
C. Knowledge that is transmitted orally in the cultures of Aboriginal Peoples must be
acknowledged as a valuable research resource along with documentary and other sources.
The means o f validating knowledge in the particular traditions under study should
normally by apply to establish authenticity o f orally transmitted knowledge.
D. In research portraying community life, the multiplicity of viewpoints present within
Tl'azt'en Communities should be represented fairly, including viewpoints specific to age
and gender groups.
E. Researchers have an obligation to understand and observe the protocol concerning
communications within any Tl'azt'en community.
F. Researchers have an obligation to observe ethical and professional practices relevant to
their respective disciplines.
3. Guidelines
Aborieinal knowledee
A. In all research sponsored and/or supported by the Chief and Council, researchers shall
conscientiously address themselves to the following questions:
B. Are there perspectives on the subject of inquiry that are distinctively Aboriginal?
C. What Aboriginal sources are appropriate to shed light on those perspectives?
D. Is proficiency in Dakelh required to explore these perspectives and sources?
E. Are there particular protocols or approaches required to access the relevant knowledge?
F. Does Aboriginal knowledge challenge in any way assumptions brought to the subject from
previous research?
G. How will Aboriginal knowledge or perspectives be portrayed in research products and/or
how will these be validated?

219

Consent
A. Informed consent shall be obtained from all persons and groups participating in research.
Such consent may be given by individuals whose personal experience is being portrayed,
by groups in assembly, or by authorized representatives o f communities or organizations.
B. Consent should ordinarily be obtained in writing. Where this is not practical, the
procedures used in obtaining consent should be recorded.
C. Individuals or groups participating in research shall be provided with information about
the purpose and nature of the research activities, including expected benefits and risks.
D. No pressure shall be applied to induce participation in research.
E. Participants should be informed of the degree of confidentiality that will be maintained in
the study.
F. Participants should be informed o f the degree of confidentiality that will be maintained in
the study.
G. Informed consent of parents or guardian and, where practical, of children should be
obtained in research involving children.
Collaborative Research
A. In the studies located principally in Tl'azt'en communities, researchers shall establish
procedures to enable community representatives to participate in the planning, execution
and evaluation o f research results.
B. In studies that are carried out in the general community and that are likely to affect
particular Tl'azt'en communities, consultation on planning, execution and evaluation of
results shall be sought through appropriate Tl'azt'en Committees.
C. In community-based studies, researchers shall ensure that a representative cross-section of
community experiences and perceptions is included.
Review Procedures
A. Review o f research results shall be solicited both in the Tl'azt'en community and in the
scholarly community prior to publication or dissemination o f research findings.
Access To Research Results
A. Tl'azt'en Chief and Council shall maintain a policy o f open public access to final reports
of research activities except in cases involving information deemed to be confidential
and/or sensitive. Reports may be circulated in draft form, where scholarly and Tl'azt'en
community response is deemed useful.
B. Research reports or parts thereof shall not be made public where they are reasonable
grounds for thinking that publication will violate the privacy o f individuals or cause
significant harm to Tl'azt'en communities or organizations.
C. Results of community research shall be distributed as widely as possible within
participating communities, and reasonable efforts shall be made to present results in non­
technical language and in Dakelh languages where appropriate.
Acknowledgments
A. All Tl'azt'enne who contribute to the research must be acknowledged during and after
project.
B. Due credit must be given to Tl'azt'en Nation and Tl'azt'enne in the dissemination of
220

research results.
Ownershio/Coovrieht
A. Tl'azt'en Nation reserves the right to be the sole beneficiary of all commercial gains that
may be attained through the dissemination of all research results and/or the marketing
and sale o f products that may be derived from research results.
Community Benefit
A. In setting research priorities and objectives for community-based research, the
investigators shall give serious and due consideration to the benefit o f Tl'azt'en
communities.
B. In assessing community benefit, regard shall be given to the widest possible range o f
community interests, whether groups in question be Tl'azt'en or non-Tl'azt'en, and also to
the impact o f research at the local, regional or national level. Wherever possible, conflicts
between interests within the community should be identified and resolved in advance of
commencing the project. Researchers should be equipped to draw on a range o f problem­
solving strategies to resolve such conflicts as may arise in the course o f research.
C. Whenever possible research should support the transfer o f skills to individuals and
increase the capacity of the community to manage its own research projects.
Implementation o f Guidelines
A. These guidelines shall guide the activities o f all individuals, groups, funding agencies,
organizations, and communities conducting research sponsored and supported by
Tl'azt'en Chief and Council.
B. It shall be the responsibility, in the first instance, of all the researchers to observe these
guidelines conscientiously. It shall be the responsibility, in ascending order, of
investigators/researchers, Tl'azt'en Administration, and Tl'azt'en Chief and Council itself
to monitor the implementation of the guidelines and to make decisions regarding their
interpretation and application.
C. Where, in the opinion o f the researcher or the research manager, local circumstances make
these guidelines or any part of them inapplicable, such exception shall be reported to
Chief and Council through the appropriate Tl'azt'en administrative branch, and the
exception shall be noted in the research contract or contract amendments as well as in any
subsequent publication(s).
Research Contract
A. Once an agreement is developed between Tl'azt'en Nation and a particular group of
researchers about the nature, duration and purpose o f research activities, the researchers
will be expected to state (in writing) their agreement to follow Tl'azt'en Nation
guidelines.
B. Depending on the nature and scope if the particular research activity, Tl'azt'en Nation and
the researcher(s) may develop a detailed research contract which addresses the specifics
of the particular research project at hand.

221

Appendix E l: UNBC Research Ethics Approval (2011)

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
RESEARCH ETHICS BOARD

MEMORANDUM
To:
CC:

Som Bahadur Pun
Greg Halseth

F ro m :

Henry Harder, Chair
Research Ethics Board

D a te :

October 6, 2011

R e:

E 2 0 1 1 .0 9 2 0 .1 0 1 .0 0
The O pportunities and Lim itations o f First Nations' Forest T enures in
British Columbia: The key issues, challenges, and future
recommendations for community management of forest in Tl'azt'en Nation

Thank you for submitting amendments to the above-noted proposal to the Research
Ethics Board.
These amendments have been approved for a period of 12 months from the date of this
letter. Continuation beyond that date will require further review and renewal of REB
approval. Any changes or amendments to the protocol or consent form must be approved
by the Research Ethics Board.
Good luck with your research.
Sincerely,

Dr. Henry Harder
Chair, Research Ethics Board

222

Appendix F: Interview Consent Form

Research Tonic:
The Opportunities and Limitations of Community Management of Forests in Tl’azt’en Nation,
British Columbia: The Key Issues, Challenges, and Recommendation for Future Tenure
Alternatives

Purpose:
This research within the traditional territories of the Tl’azt’en Nation will assess the
opportunities and limitations of First Nations’ Forest Tenures and will discuss the key challenges
and future viability for development of an alternative forest tenure system that allows First
Nations communities to have control over the management o f forest resources and decision­
making within their traditional territories.
Selection of Respondents:
A list of prospective participants was prepared prior to interviews. The potential participants
were selected from various community groups active in various community cultural, social,
political, and economic activities. Key participants include community leaders, elders, keyoh
holders, educators, natural resource staffs, and resource professionals. Some people have
identified themselves as concerned members o f the community and are willing to participate in
an interview. The selection o f interviewees is based on individual’s interests and overall
contributions to the research study.
Anonymity and Confidentiality:
Any information which may be used to identify individual participants will be protected and
respected at all time. The interviewees will have the right to choose to remain anonymous or
choose to be credited for their contributions and knowledge. All interviews will be kept
confidential and under no circumstances the name of a participant wishing to remain anonymous
will be attached to a record nor will information be presented that could identify these people.
For those individuals wishing to be credited for their contributions will be properly
acknowledged and documented in all published reports. Furthermore, information will be kept
in locked research space at UNBC and will be accessible only to the researcher and supervisor.
Any information related to the interviews will be kept until the final research work is complete
and will be destroyed after completion o f the thesis. The results of the study will not be
published without permission from the Tl’azt’en Nation. Finally, this research is a part of a
graduate degree; therefore, results of this study will be available at the UNBC library.
Potential Risks and Benefits:
I will work closely with the community to ensure that the research will pose minimum risks to
the Tl’azt’en Nation. The proposed research will be conducted within the premise o f the ethical
guidelines of Aboriginal peoples as outlined in the community research agreement, the policy
224

guidelines of the Tri-Council Policy statement, and the Research Ethics Board at the UNBC.
More importantly, the research proposal has been approved by the UNBC Research Ethics Board
prior to field interviews. Therefore, I don’t anticipate any risks to participation. Benefits include
the chance to share information and inform recommendations on Aboriginal forestry.
Voluntary Participation:
Your participation in the research is entirely voluntary, and therefore, you may choose not to
participate. If you decide to participate, you may also choose not answer any question that
makes you uncomfortable. You also have the right to terminate the interview at any time and
have all the information you have provided withdrawn from the research study.
Research Results:
A copy of my thesis will be made available to the Tl’azt’en Nation and those individual
participants who request a copy of my thesis. The participants and community will be
encouraged to contact the primary researcher, Som Pun at 250-960-5741 (UNBC) or e-mail me
at puns@unbc.ca. or my supervisor, Dr. Greg Halseth e-mail at halseth@unbc.ca in case any
questions that may arise from this research.
The Estimated Timeline:
The estimated completion time for interview is 45 minutes to one hour.
Complaints:
Any complaints about this research study should be directed to the Office of Research and
Graduate Studies, UNBC at 250-960-6735 or e-mail: reb@unbc.ca.
I have read the above description of the study and I understand the conditions of my
participation. My signature indicates that I agree to participate in this study.

(Name - Please print)

(Signature)

(Date)

I agree that the interview can be audio recorded:

Y es___ N o ___

Initial____

I wish to remain anonymous in the study:

Yes__

Initial____

N o ___

225

Appendix G: Research Interview Guide

1.0 Introduction:
The purpose of my research interviews is to collect research data that reflects the experiences of
the Tl’azt’en Nation in the forestry sector. In particular, I will focus on the Tl’azt’en Nation’s
recent engagement in the Interim Agreement on Forest and Range Opportunities (FROs) and
Revenue Sharing and the collective experiences of the community since the signing o f the
agreement. The interview questions are designed to focus on the key issues and challenges of
the Tl’azt’en Nation with regards to community management of the lands and resources and
decision-making within the traditional territory of the Tl’azt’en Nation. My goal is to collect
baseline research data that could potentially be useful for the development o f an alternative First
Nation’s forest tenure system that addresses the unique needs and circumstance of a First Nation
community such as the Tl’azt’en Nation.
The research questions are divided into three parts: 1) general questions, 2) handout
questionnaire, and 3) additional comments and feedback. The first part consists of six main
themes with twenty seven general questions and sub-questions covering a wide range o f topics.
The second part consists o f ten short handout questions, which will be provided to the research
participants after the interview. Finally, the further comments section will provide the
opportunity for the research participants to add additional comments or inputs that might have
been missed in my interview questions. This section also gives me the opportunity to thank all
of the research participants for their valuable time, efforts, and input for answering the interview
questions and completing the handout questionnaire.
This interview will provide the opportunity for research participants to provide valuable input
and feedback to support the proposed research objectives. The interview session will be
recorded so that it can be studied properly based on what the research participants have said.
The estimated completion time for interview is between 1.5 to 2.0 hours.
2.0 Interview Questions:
PART I: General Questions
This section of the interview focuses on some of the opportunities and limitations of the
Tl’azt’en Nation’s involvement in the forestry sector and their collective experiences,
particularly since the signing of the Forest and Range Opportunities and Revenue Sharing
Agreement._________________________________________________
1. First, I would like to ask you about some general background information about yourself:
a. Are you a member of the Tl’azt’en Nation?
b. Which community do you currently live in?
c. How long have you been living in this community?
d. What is your membership status and role in the community?

226

2. Now, I would like to ask you about some of the key issues and challenges o f the Tl’azt’en
Nation with regards to land and resource management within the traditional territory of
the Tl’azt’en Nation.
a) What are the most important and pressing issues with regards to land and resource
uses within the traditional territory o f the Tl’azt’en Nation?
b) What is your perception on the increased resource development activities such as
forestry and mining within the traditional territory of the Tl’azt’en Nation?
c) Do you think you can protect the land and resource values while pursuing the
economic benefits through the forestry sector?
d) How do you compare the importance o f short-term economic benefits and other
important community values and interests?
3. Considering the current model of forest resource management practices and operational
activities:
a) In your opinion, what are the direct impacts o f clear cut logging and resource
roads building activities on subsistence-based economy such as trap line, hunting,
fishing, berry picking, and medicinal plant collection?
b) Do you think that some natural resource values might have been overlooked or
not considered during the planning and development phases of forestry
operations?
c) Similarly, are there any significant cultural heritage resource values that might
have been overlooked or not considered within the strategic operational plans?
d) What suggestions do you have to improve the protection of the First Nation’s
cultural, economic, and environmental values in the future?
4. Given the current provincial government’s approach to forest management policy
development and decision-making processes:
a) What are the specific policy barriers that you think limit the community’s abilities
for socio-economic self-determination in the forestry sector?
How can this be improved?
b) What is your opinion on the current level of consultation from the government
and forest industry?
- Who do you think should be involved in the consultation process?
- When you think the consultation process should take place?
- How often do you think the consultation process should take place?
c) In your opinion, what are the community’s strengths and weaknesses for a
meaningful participation in the forestry sector?
- Do you think community is adequately equipped to properly manage and
monitor land and resource related operations?
- What is your opinion about the ‘Referral Process’ currently in place?
d) Based on your own experiences regarding the Tl’azt’en Nation’s involvement in
the commercial forestry sector:
227

-

Do you think the Tl’azt’en Nation has been able to participate in the
forestry sector in a meaningful way?
How do you think the Tl’azt’en Nation should be able to engage in the
forestry sector?
What should be the role of the community over the land and resources
within the traditional territory of the Tl’azt’en Nation?
What should be the role of the government and forest industry?

e) What concerns or suggestions do you have for future approach to forest policy
development and management practices to support the Tl’azt’en Nation’s
community values and interests in the forestry sector?
5. At this point, I like to draw your attention to the community-based resource development
initiatives:
a) Are you aware o f any type of community-based land and resource management
initiative currently being developed by Tl’azt’en Nation?
b) Do you think there are sufficient interests and supports in the community for this
type o f initiative?
c) In your view, what are the fundamental challenges for the community to
successfully develop this type o f a community-based initiative?
d) What are the expected outcomes o f the community initiative currently being
developed?
e) What type of policy change you would like to see implemented in the future to
support this type of initiative?
6. Finally, I would like to ask you about the potential forest-related opportunity currently in
place.
a) Are you aware of the Tl’azt’en Nation Interim Agreement on Forest and Range
Opportunities (FROs) currently in place?
Yes _____
No _____
b) What you think the government was trying to accomplish through this type of an
agreement?
c) What you think about the community’s short-term goals and expectations from
this type of an agreement?
d) Do you think the community is able to accomplish expected economic benefits as
outlined in the agreement?
-

If no, why?

e) Going forward, what type o f a forestry tenure do you think would be a preferred
and viable option for the Tl’azt’en Nation?

228

PART II: Handout Questionnaire
This section o f the handout questionnaire focuses on the key interests, values, and priorities of
the First Nation communities such as the Tl’azt’en Nation with regards to land and resource
management practices and decision-making within the traditional territory o f the Tl’azt’en
Nation. These are the important aspects o f future considerations for forest policy development
initiatives to facilitate the establishment of an alternative First Nation’s forest tenure in British
Columbia.
On the scale of 1 to 4, please indicate the appropriate level o f your responses for each o f the
following topics:
1. How well do you think the current First Nation consultation process is addressing
the Aboriginal title and rights?
1.
2.
3.
4.

Not at all _____
Generally well _____
Moderately well _____
Very w e ll_____

2. How adequately do you think individual Keyoh holders are consulted at the early
stage o f the planning and development phases of the forest management
activities?
1.
2.
3.
4.

Somewhat adequate _____
Generally adequate _____
Moderately adequate _____
Fully adequate _____

3. How closely do you believe the values of overall environmental stewardship and
protection o f ecological integrity are considered within the current forest policy
framework?
1.
2.
3.
4.

Not at all considered _____
Somewhat considered_____
Moderately considered _____
Fully considered _____

4. Similarly, how well do you believe the protection of First Nation’s cultural and
subsistence livelihoods values are considered within the current forest policy
framework?
1.
2.
3.
4.

Not at all considered_____
Somewhat considered _____
Moderately considered_____
Fully considered _____

229

5. Given the current community’s challenges with regards to management o f human
resources and financial abilities, what would be the future priority for community
capacity building?
1.
2.
3.
4.

Not at all p rio rity _____
Low p rio rity _____
Moderate p rio rity _____
High p rio rity _____

6. Based on your own experience, how well do you think the recognition of
traditional culture and knowledge-based resource management systems being
integrated into the current forest policy development and management practices?
1.
2.
3.
4.

Very poorly integrated_____
Somewhat integrated_____
Reasonably integrated_____
Fully integrated_____

7. How do you expect the government’s recognition and implementation o f the
community-based resource management initiatives such as the Tl’azt’en Nation’s
Land Use Plan as a tool to guide future forest management practices within the
traditional territory of the Tl’azt’en Nation?
1.
2.
3.
4.

Not at all expected_____
Somewhat expected _____
Fairly expected _____
Highly expected_____

8. Given the current level o f relationship between the Tl’azt’en Nation and the
provincial government, how do you rank the value of establishing a meaningful
govemment-to-govemment relationship based on respect, recognition, and
accommodation of Aboriginal title and rights?
1.
2.
3.
4.

Not at all valuable _____
Somewhat valuable
Moderately valuable
Extremely valuable

9. Given the current centralized approach to policy development and decision­
making process, what do you think about the importance of an exclusive
community control over land and resource management and decision-making
within the traditional territory of the Tl’azt’en Nation?
1.
2.
3.
4.

Not at all im portant_____
Somewhat important _____
Moderately important
Extremely important
230

10. Based on the Tl’azt’en Nation’s recent involvement in various levels o f forestry
sector, how do you prioritize the need for developing an alternative First Nation’s
forest tenure based on the unique needs and circumstances o f a First Nation
community such as the Tl’azt’en Nation?
1.
2.
3.
4.

Not at all p rio rity _____
Somewhat p rio rity _____
Moderate p rio rity _____
High p rio rity _____

PART III: Further Comments
Are there any other topics that I have not touched upon that you like to discuss further?
Thank you very much for taking part in this interview and completing the questionnaire. Your
valuable time, input, and concerns are greatly appreciated.

231

Appendix H: Manifest Content Analysis Results: List of Selected Words/Word-Pairs

More than Hundred Occurrences
People, Young people, Young generation
Community, Communities, Community-base
Government, Governments, Govemment-to-govemment
Forests, Forestry
Plan, Planning
Resource, Resources
Land, Land base, Landscape
Non-timber values
Consult, Consultation, Referrals
Policy, Policies
Develop, Developed, Development
Try, Tried, Trying
Multiple values

380
319
319
243
212
182
169
131
128
117
112
111
108

More than Fifty Occurrences
Work, Worked, Working
Needs, Needed, Needing
Benefit, Benefits
Traditional territory
Interests, Vested interests
Log, Logged, Logging
Economic, Economy, Economical
Referrals process
Initiative, Initiatives
Keyoh, Keyoh holders
Cultural, Cultural values
Berry picking, Berry patches
Money
Relationships, New relationships, Partnerships building
Industry
Drastic changes, Changing
Protect, Protected, Protecting, Preservation
First Nations, Nations
Employment, Job, Jobs
Value, Cultural values
Management, Co-management
Live, Living, Way of life
Issue, Issues
Revenue sharing
Agreements

100
98
92
87
86
86
85
84
82
73
68
67
64
60
57
57
56
56
56
56
55
55
53
53
51

More than Thirty Occurrences
232

Education
Accelerated, Increase, Increased, Rapid pace
Fight, Fighting, Fought
Tenure
Band
Spend, Spent, Spending
Opportunity, Opportunities, Missed opportunities
Learn, Learned, Learning
Impact, Impacts, Impacted, Impacting
Cuts, Clear cut
FRO
Language, Language barrier
Support
Aboriginal right and titles
Capacity, Capacities, Capacity building
Use, Uses, Used, Utilized
Practice, Practices
Land Use Plan
Medicinal plants
Important
Activity, Activities
Help, Helps, Helped
Salvage timber

50
50
50
50
47
45
44
44
42
41
40
40
40
38
38
37
37
36
36
35
33
32
31

More titan Twenty Occurrences
Understand, Understanding
Knowledge
Meaningful
Reserve
Trapping
Improve
Short-term
Elder, Elders
Water quality, Water flow, Water level
Able, Ability
Hunting, Gathering
Decide, Decisions, Deciding, Decision-making
Business incentives, Prospects
Consider, Considered, Consideration
Health, Healthy, Safely
Hopes, Hopefully
Involve, Involved, Involving, Involvement
Sustain, Sustainability
Monitor, Self-monitoring
Long-term goal
Wildlife, Wildlife habitats fragmentation

30
29
29
28
27
27
27
26
26
26
26
25
25
24
24
23
23
22
22
22
22
233

Family, Families
Approach
Own, Ownerships
Disappear, Decline, Population down
Harvest, Harvested, Harvesting
Lose, Lost, Loosing
Proper, Appropriate, Adequate

22
22
22
22
22
21
21

More than Ten Occurrences
Goal, Common goals, Specific goals
Place, Places
Care, Care taker
Communication, Communication breakdown
Reduced stumpage
Trust, Mistrust
Fish and Wildlife
Limit, Limitation
Ask, Permission
Challenge, Challenges
Stand still
Invest, Investment
Overlook, Oversight
Implementation, Implemented
Fair share
Objectives, Government objectives
Adequately, Inadequate, Inappropriate
Government obligations

20
20
19
17
17
16
15
14
14
13
13
12
12
12
11
11
11
11

More than Five Occnrrmces
Potential
Teach, Teaches
Training, Trainings, Skills development
Understory stands, Mixed species, Distribution
Green wood
Tenure, Area-based, TFL, FNWL
Licensees
Waste, Wasted
Preserve, Preserved
Boundary, Boundaries
Industrial, Mining and explorations
Multinational corporations
Heal, Healing
Sufficient
Successful
Professionals
Environmental
ALA, Cultural objects

10
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
8
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
234

Cache pits, CMTs, Trails
Shortage, Shortages
Record, Records
Grassroots

6
6
6
6

Five and Less than Five Occurrences
Allow, Allowing
Together
Leader, Leadership
Roles
Responsibilities
Fail, Failed, Failures
Focus, Focused, Focusing
Potlatch system
Future guidelines
Stewardship
Threat, Risk, Concerns
Sensitive sites
Unity
Trustworthy, Truthful
Perspective
Helpless
Ecosystems
Grandparents, Grandchildren
Directions
Opinions
Creative
No legacy
Ecological integrity
Soil erosion,
Speak, Voice, Uphold
UN Declaration, Evidence
Minimal, Neglected, Negligence
Damage, Damaged, Disappeared
Pine beetle
Reluctant, Reluctance
Balanced, Incorporate, Integrate
Survival, Survived
Infrastructures
Strengths
Priority
Pursuing
Hydrological functioning
Scare, Scared, Nervous

Division, Divisiveness
Participate, Participated
Bottom-line
Weakness
Adapt, Adaptable
Spiritual, Spirituality
Maintenance, Assessment
Reasonable
Crown
Annual Allowable cut (AAC)
Mid-term timber supply
Forest Stewardship Plan
(FSP)
BCTS
Difficult, Difficulty
Strategies
Rationalized
Prohibitive
Reflects
Assumptions
Addressing
Streams, Rivers
Negative impacts
Disaster effects
Ministry (MoF), Spin-off
Deforestation
Invasive plants
Inability
Safely
Incomplete
Legislation, Legislated
Annual rent, Red tape
Measurable, Motivation,
Greedy
Capitalize, Maximize
High turnover
Historical
Burdensome, Misleading
Manipulative, Overwhelming
Final say

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
235

Favour industry
Not compatible
Comply, Compliance
Affected
Nutrient cycling
Fisheries
Token process
Personal feelings
Research analysis
Clarification
No formal link
Ungulate winter range
Aware, Careful
Centralized, Concur, Post-colonial
practice
Listen, Listening
Status Quo, Business as usual
Oral history, Holistic view, Land
ethics
Court ruling, Ratified, Reconciliation

Proposals
Recognition
Security, Food security,
Stability
Bureaucracy, Bureaucratic
Unreasonable, Unjust
Compromised, Impossible
Politics, Power, Abused,
Forced
Advocate Furiously
Expectations
Informed
Comprehend, Compete,
Competitive
Determined
Mentality, Perspectives,
Guideline, Practical
Static, Rigid
Progress, Steady progress
Disturbance, Destructive
Local, Local level, Contract,
Silvicutlrue contracts
Dedication, Determination

<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5

236

Appendix I: Latent Content Analysis: Concept Mapping

Resource Development

Forest Policy Development

Consultation and
Referral Process

Forests, Forestry
Mining and explorations
Pine beetle
Salvage timber
Cuts, Clear cut
Log, Logged, Logging
Harvest, Harvested,
Harvesting
Roads, Road access

Post-colonial practice
Centralized approach
Concur
Static, Rigid
Interferes
Not compatible
Barrier, Barriers

Court ruling
Fiduciary duties
Government obligation
AIA
Archaeological
Infringing
Adversarial

Complicated

Deforestation, Extraction
Destructive
Accelerated, Increase,
Increased, Rapid pace
Develop, Developed,
Development
Extraction

Rules, Laws, Provisions
Government objectives
Legislation, Legislated

Accommodate,
Accommodation
Consult, Consultation
Responsibility
Referrals

Imposed

Bureaucracy, Bureaucratic

Pushing, Pressure

Activity, Activities
Plan, Planning
Forest Stewardship Plan (FSP)
Management practice,
Practices
Approach, Mentality

Dictate
Heavy-handed
Bully
Intentional

Status Quo, Business as
usual
Token process
Piecemeal
Burdensome
Misleading

Negative effects
Issue, Issues
Protect, Protected, Protecting,
Preservation
Impact, Impacts, Impacted,
Impacting
Impede

Spin-off
Consolidated
Justified

Unsustainable

Negligence

Short-term objectives
Benefits, Benefits
Economic, Economy,
Economical
Multinational corporations

Abused
Requirements, Guidelines
Fire, Fire suppression

Involve, Involved,
Involving, Involvement
Respect, Respected,
Respectful, Disrespectful
Site Alteration Permits
CMTs
Trails

Reduced stumpage

Cultural objects

Favour industry

Rationalized
Incomplete

Manipulative,
Overwhelming
Final say
Stalled tactic
Proper, Appropriate,
Adequate
Meaningful

237

Money
Bottom-line

Resource Allocation &
Revenue Sharing
AAC
Mid-term timber supply
Elevated, Unsustainable
Future shortage
Inequitable, inadequate
Inappropriate
Unfair, Unjust, Unreasonable
Agreements
Compromised
Trade-off
Consequences

Cumulative Impacts

Annual rent
Red tape
Implementation, Implemented
Reluctant, Reluctance
Gentles, Gentler
Recognition
First Nations involvement
First Nations input
Impossible
Denial

Decision-making Process
Politics
Power
Centralized approach
Unfavorable
Insulting
Static, Rigid
Constraints
Suspicious
Disconnected
Stipulated
Assumptions
Prohibitive
Forced

Land, Land base, Landscape
Environment
Change, Changed, Changing
Drastic changes, Changing
Disaster impacts
Deplete, Depletion,
Disturbance
Independently
Multiple values
Non-timber values
Inappropriately
Understand, Understanding
Cultural values
Sensitive sites
Informed
Wildlife, Wildlife habitats
Decide, Decisions, Deciding,
fragmentation
Decision-making
Ungulate winter range
Freedom
Disappear, Decline, Population First Nations involvement,
down
First Nations input
Visual quality
Forest Tenure Alternatives
Biodiversity
Ecological integrity
TFL
Ecosystems
FRO
Watershed
Opportunity, Opportunities
Stream, Rivers
No legacy
Hydrological functioning
Community Forests (CFA)
Water quality, Water flow,
Large area-based
Water level

Cache pits
Cabins
Artifacts
Document, Legal
document
Record, Records
Evidence
Damaged
Disappeared
Neglected
Monitoring
Trained staffs
Responses
Timing
Frequency
Magnitude
Diligence
Transparent, Transparency
Recommendations
Inadequate
Speak
Voice
Believe, Believes
Realize
First Nations input
Necessary
Perception
Courtesy
Engage, Engagement
First Nations participation
Recommendations

First Nations Values &
Interests
Traditional territory
Boundary, Boundaries
Reserve, Band
Band, Chief and Councils
Aboriginal title and rights
UN Declaration
Ratified, Reconciliation
Self-governance
238

Fisheries
Nutrient cycling
Lose, Lost, Loosing
Siltation

FCRSA, FNWL
Woodlot License, FL, NRFLs
Sufficient
Potential

Cultural, Cultural values
Keyoh, Keyoh holders
Elder, Elders
Family, Families

Soil erosion

Community, Communities,
Community-based
Comply, Compliance

Generation

Degradation
Predation
Invasive plants
Understory stands, Species
mixed, Distribution
Damage, Damaged
Overlook, Oversight
Huge, Hugely
Mismanagement
Threat, Risk
Inability
Problem, Problems
Turmoil
Affected

Community Capacity
Building
Strengths and Weakness
Traditional knowledge base
systems
Education, Educate
Training, Trainings, Skills
development
Knowledge
Language, Language barrier

Research analysis

Translation, Comprehend
Technology
Professionals and Technical
staffs
Learn, Learned, Learning

Maintenance
Assessment
Minimal
Scare, Scared, Nervous

Teach, Teaches
Skilled, Trained staffs
Employment, Job, Jobs
Work, Worked, Working

Relationship Building
(Internal & External)
Relationships, New
relationships
Partnerships building
Crown, Government
Govemment-to-govemment
Ministry (MoF)
BCTS
Industry

Grandparents,
Grandchildren
Historical, Oral history
Society
Holistic view
Spiritual, Spirituality
Land ethics
Interests, Vested interests
Use, Uses, Used, Utilized
Live, Living, Way o f life
Hunting, Gathering,
Trapping
Fishing
Fish and Wildlife
Berry picking, Berry
patches
Security, Food security,
Stability
Place, Places
Care, Care taker
Potlatch system
Heal, Healing

Management, Co-management
Initiative, Initiatives
Goals, Common goals,
Specific goals
Funding

Subsistence
Stewardship
Sustain, Sustainability

Government supports

Consider, Considered,
Consideration
Own, Ownerships
Self-determination

Help, Helps, Helped
Needs, Needed, Needing
People, Young people
Motivation
Ambition

Sustenance

Land Use Plan
Assert Jurisdiction
239

Licensees
Compete, Competitive
Confusing
Dysfunctional
Improve, Improvement
Hopes, Hopefully
Balanced
Incorporate, Integrate
Appreciated
Influencing
Responding, Addressing
Organized
Imagination
Reasonable
Measurable

Leaderships
Leader, Leadership roles
DIA
Trust, Mistrust
Trustworthy, Truthful
Stuck
Unity, Together
Listening, understanding
Responding
Responsibilities
Directions
Focus, Focused, Focusing
Advocate Furiously
Adapt, Adaptable
Perspective
Strategies
Creative
Dedication
Uphold
Aware, Careful
Practical
Achieved
Concentrate
Reflect
Grassroots
Helpless, Reliance

Contribute, Contributing
Important
Business incentives
Prospects
Invest, Investment
Set, Setting up
Contract, Silviculture contracts
Benefit, Benefits
Communication
Relationships building
Partnerships building
Pursuing
Try, Tried, Trying
Successful
Capitalize, Maximize
High turnover
Infrastructures
Jointly
Empowered
Lobbying
Negotiating
Accomplishing
Determination
Progress, Steady progress
Continues, Continued
Priority

Local, Local level
Control
Decision-making
Long-term goal
Health, Healthy, Safely
Quality
Measure
Able, Ability
Included, Engaged
Self-sufficient
Hopes, Dreams, Hopefully
Provide, Providing
Survived, Survival
Monitor, Self-monitoring
Future guidelines

Internal Conflicts
Chief & Council
Keyoh holders
Relationships
Personal feelings
Opinions
Communication
breakdown
Clarification
No formal link
Spend, Spent, Spending
Foolishly
Waste, Wasted
Fight, Fighting, Fought
Division, Divisiveness
Divide, Divided
Fail, Failed, Failures
Fault, Guilty conscience
Expectations
Greedy
Frustration
Continuously
Perspectives
Unemployment
Missed opportunities
Difficult, Difficulty
Uphill battle
Helpless, Reliance
240

Appendix J: Latent Content Analysis Results: Concept Mapping Selected Themes

The Selected Themes:
1) The Tl’azt’en Nation FROs Agreement and Resource Allocation,
2) Forest Policy Development and Decision-making Process,
3) The Resource Development Strategies and Cumulative Impacts,
4) First Nations Consultation and Referral Processes,
5) Community Capacity Building,
6) The External and Internal Relationship Building,
7) Community-based Approach and Self-determination,
8) Government and Community Roles and Responsibilities
9) First Nations Forest Tenures Alternatives
1.0 The Tl’azt’en Nation FROs Agreement and Resource Allocation
A. FRO Revenue Sharing Agreement:
a) Forest and Range Opportunity (FRO)
b) Based on per capita based formula
c) Limited short-term based revenue sharing agreements to justify
government legal obligations
d) Lack of fair share of revenue being generated from the traditional territory
of the Tl’azt’en Nation
e) Inadequate financial compensation for ongoing resource extraction
activities within the traditional territory o f the Tl’azt’en Nation
f) Trade-off between short-term economic benefits and long-term
community values
g) Steep competition with major licensees i.e. BCTS and volatile market
economy
B. Resource Allocation:
a) Inequitable distribution of land and resource allocation between:
i. Major forest licensees
ii. BC Timber Sales
iii. Tl’azt’en Nation
b) Allocation o f relatively poor quality timber
c) Lack of sustainable based future timber supply
d) Lack of long-term forest tenure agreements
2.0 Forest Policy Development and Decision-making Process
A. The current Approach:
a) Highly centralized process
i. Post-colonial concur and divide tactic
ii. Rigid and complicated rules
iii. Heavy handed and imposed upon
iv. Favours forest industry
v. Based on government objectives
241

b) Direct consequences
i. Directly interferes (incompatible) with First Nations holistic views
ii. Lack of First Nations involvement and input in decision-making
iii. Significant barriers to community-based development initiatives
B. Future Recommendations:
a) Need to recognize the unique needs and circumstances of the individual
First Nation community such as the Tl’azt’en Nation
b) Policy implementation to properly assess and address the specific policy
barriers that impedes community goals and objectives
c) Proper recognition and respect for traditional systems of governance and
resource management decision-making process
d) Inclusion of First Nations full participation during the policy development
and decision-making process
3.0 The Resource Development Strategies and Cumulative Impacts
A. The Resource Development and Management Practices:
a) The mountain pine beetle impacts
b) Heavy presence of industrial-based activities
c) Short-sided mid-term timber supply review and future impacts
d) Increased allowable annual cut (AAC) uplift
e) The accelerated rate o f clear cut logging
• Mountain pine beetle salvage logging
• Mix of green timber harvesting
• Future shortage of timber supply
f) Mismanagement o f the understory stands and mixed plantation
g) The lack o f appropriate considerations for multiple resource values
h) The lack of meaningful First Nations involvement
i) Driven by short-term economic benefits and government objectives
j) Disregard for future sustainability and long-term impacts
B. The Long-term Cumulative Impacts:
a) Altered landscape level biodiversity
b) Increased wildlife habitats fragmentation
c) Permanent damage to sensitive sites and ecological integrity
d) Changing hydrological functioning and nutrient cycling
e) Increased site degradation and soil erosion
f) Inadequate protection and maintenance o f traditional cultural and
subsistence-based economic values
• CMTs, heritage trails, cache pits, and sacred sites
• Hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering (berries & medicinal
plants)
g) The lack o f proper environmental impact assessment and monitoring
h) The lack o f research to analyze long-term cumulative impacts

242

4.0 First Nations Consultation and Referral Processes
A. The Consultation Process:
a) The Constitution Act and subsequent court ruling
b) The government legal duty and obligations
c) The current levels o f consultation
i. The consideration o f Aboriginal interests
• Existing Aboriginal right and titles
• Specific community issues and concerns
ii. The potential infringement o f First Nations interests
iii. The lack of open dialogue between community leaders and the
management staffs at the local government agency i.e. MFLNRO
iv. Limited community level considerations and government
responses
v. Inadequate level o f First Nations involvement and input
d) The appropriateness of the community engagement
i. The Chief and Councils (elected government body under DIA)
ii. The Keyoh holders (traditional land owners)
> The consultations should occur between the government
and industry representatives and the Keyoh holders
> The Chief and Council role should be to facilitate
consultation process not act on behalf o f the Keyoh holders
e) The adequacy of information sharing and transparency
i. Limited access to information by Tl’azt’en Nation
ii. Legislatively designed policy frameworks and procedures
iii. Lack of First Nations knowledge and understanding o f the policy
frameworks and procedures (language barriers)
iv. The community capacity
• Lack of available resources
• Lack of funding sources
• Lack of sufficiently trained staffs
f) The lack of meaningful relationships between all parties involved
i. The provincial government and industry
• Some improvement, but need improvement
ii. The local government agencies
• Some improvement, but requires more improvement
• Reluctance at the management level
iii. Community level
• Conflict between the Keyoh holders and the Chief and
Councils
• Undetermined roles and responsibilities
• Communication breakdown and mistrust

243

B. The Referral Process:
a) The Tl’azt’en Nation’s perceptive on current practice:
i. Bureaucratic stalled tactic
ii. Policy driven - Status quo
iii. Token process
iv. Misleading and manipulative
v. Piece meal-based and burdensome
b) The fundamental issues and concerns:
i. Overwhelming amounts of referrals received by Tl’azt’en Nation
ii. Limited timeline for proper Tl’azt’en Nation’s response
iii. Lack of sufficient funding and professional/technical supports
iv. Lack of adequate community involvement during planning,
development, and operational stages o f the resource development
activities
v. Ultimately, the Provincial government and statutory decision
makers have a final say on the issues
5.0 The Community Capacity Building
A. Community Strengths and Weakness
a) Community strengths:
i. Long history of land occupancy
ii. Traditional knowledge based systems and practices
iii. Strong sense of community pride and belonging
iv. Long-time involvement in the forestry sector
• Local knowledge and experiences
• Vested interests of the community
• Adaptability and willingness to learn
v. Ongoing community desires and determinations
vi. Long standing commitment for community self-determination
b) Community weakness:
i. The generational knowledge gaps
ii. Lack o f education, trainings, and skills development
iii. Lack of long-term community goals and visions
iv. Uncertainty around the political situation
• The Chief and Councils election
• The provincial election
v. Uncertainty around global market economy
vi. Ineffective use o f available funding source
vii. Lack of realistic based community goals and expectations
• Economic development plans
• Viable business prospects
• Future investments and capitalization
• Local employment opportunities
244

•

High staff turn-over rate (community & government levels)

B. Leadership Roles and Responsibilities
a) Internal relationship building
i. Trust building with the Keyoh holders
ii. Work closely with community members
iii. Effective communication and information sharing
iv. Open communication and transparency
b) External relationships building
i. Provincial and local government agencies
ii. Industry (licensees)
iii. Stake holders
iv. Local and regional communities
c) Setting-up community development plans and goals

i. Have a clear goals and directions
ii. Strong community advocacy
iii. Pursue and explore future opportunities
iv. Learn from the past and focus on future priorities
C. Community Roles and Responsibilities:
a) Working together towards common goals
b) Collaborative approach and unity
c) Collective motivation and ambition
d) Individual contribution and dedication
D. Government Roles and Responsibilities:
a) Recognize the unique needs and circumstances o f the community
b) Understand and respond to community issues and challenges
c) Recognize and provide support for community-based initiatives
6.0 The External and Internal Relationship Building
a) The relationships between the government and the Tl’azt’en Nation:
i. The historical relationship:
• The ongoing issue o f colonialism and dominant nature o f treatment
towards Tl’azt’en Nation
• The continuation o f social and economic marginalization
• Mistrust and divisiveness
ii. The New Relationships:
• Lack o f meaningful govemment-to-govemment relationships
• Lack of recognition for Tl’azt’en Nation as an equal partner
• Lack of defined roles and responsibilities and shared decision­
making
b) The relationship between the licensees and the Tl’az’ten Nation:
245

•
•

Some progress being made
Requires more improvement

c) The relationship between the Chief and Councils and the Keyoh holders:
• Conflicting issue regarding the roles and responsibilities
• Traditional system o f governance versus elected Band Council
• Lack of trust and effective communication
• Lack of unity and collaboration
7.0 Community-based Approach and Self-determination
A. The Community-based Approach:
a) The Tl’azt’en Nation Land Use Plan (LUP)
i. Local-level resource management strategies and decision-making
ii. Based on traditional knowledge-based systems and practices
iii. Based on vested interests o f the local community
iv. Based on long-term community values and the key priorities
• Protection of cultural and subsistence-based economic values
• Protection of ecological integrity and multiple use values
• Maintenance o f future sustainability and traditional way o f life
b) The expected future goals and objectives
i. Community-based monitoring program
ii. Local-level response to emerging issues and challenges
iii. Future land and resource management guidelines
iv. Facilitate meaningful consultation process
c) Fundamental issues and challenges
i. Recognition from the government and industry
• Cannot have two separate land use plans
• Cannot be recognized as legal document
ii. Required funding and community resources
iii. Changing circumstances and future implementations
iv. Mixed level o f community interests and supports
B. The Community Self-determination:
a) Un-determined Aboriginal right and titles
b) Lack o f ownerships and jurisdiction over the traditional territory
c) Lack of recognition for traditional systems o f governance
d) Lack of community control over land and resource management and
decision-making
8.0 The Government and Community Roles and Responsibilities
Government Roles and Responsibilities:
• Recognize the unique needs and challenges o f the community
246

•
•

Provide adequate support for community capacity building
Address specific policy barriers to support community-based interests

•

Adopt full inclusion of First Nations during policy development and decision­
making processes

Community Roles and Responsibilities:
a) Leaderships Level
• Establish an open and transparent communication with the Keyoh
holders and community members
• Work closely with the Keyoh holders to build trust and better
relationship
• Develop clear community goals and future directions
• Focus on community capacity building
• Adopt strong community advocacy
• Learn from the past and focus on future priorities
b) Membership Level
• Support community goals and priorities rather than focusing on
individual’s needs and interests
• Take advantage o f the opportunities available in the community
• Focus on building individual strengths through education, trainings,
and skills development
• Consider impotence of individual’s ambition, motivation, dedication,
and contribution towards achieving community goals

9.0 First Nations Forest Tenure Alternatives
a) Previously held forest tenure and agreements
i. Tree Farm License (TFL 42)
ii. Forest and Range Opportunities Agreement (FRO)
• Revenue sharing
• Non-replaceable forest license
b) Existing forest tenures and agreements:
i. Community Forest Agreement (CFA)
• Formerly TFL 42
ii. Co-management with UNBC (John Prince Research Forest)
iii. Non-replaceable forest license
c) The new Forest Tenure and Revenue Sharing Agreements

i.

First Nations Consultation & Revenue Sharing Agreement (FCRSA)
• Revenue sharing opportunity (No tenure)
• Replaces FRO
247

d) Forest Tenure Opportunity Agreements (FTOA)
i. Forest license and forestry license to cut (NRFL)
ii. Replaceable area based tenure
• First Nations woodland licenses (FNWL)
• Woodlot Licences (WL)
• Replaceable forest license
e) The preferred future forest tenure alternative
i. Community Forests Agreement:
• Community-based forest tenure
• Larger area-based tenure
• Stable future timber supply
• Long-term tenure agreement
ii. Need for political will and government supports for:
1. Flexible policy alternative
• Reduced stumpage
• Reduced annual rent
• Silviculture costs
• Silviculture contract awards
2. Funding for community development projects
• Community infrastructures
• Economic development and business ventures
• Staffing (permanent and support staffs)
3. Professionals and technical skills development
• Education
• Trainings
• Internships
iii. Future expectations and community benefits:
• Sense of ownerships and collective responsibility
• Control over the planning and decision-making processes
• Control over the revenue and economic benefits
• Management o f multiple non-timber values
• Economic diversification and employment opportunities
• The economic, social and environmental sustainability

Appendix K: Handout Interview Questionnaire Results

Responses Ratings
Questionnaire

The considerations fo r
Aboriginal title and
rights during First
Nations consultation
process
The level o f consultation
with individual Keyoh
holders prior to planning
and resource
development activities
Considerations fo r over
all environmental
stewardships and
ecological integrity
during policy
development process
Considerations fo r First
Nations cultural and
subsistence-based
livelihood values during
policy development
process
Future priority fo r
community capacity
building
The recognition and
integration o f traditional
knowledge-based
resource management
systems into the current
forest policy development
and management
practices
The recognition and
implementation o f the
Tl ’azt 'en Nation’s Land
Use Plan initiative as a

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Not at all

Moderately
Well
(2 = 18%)

Very Well

(6 = 55%)

Generally
Well
(3 = 27%)

Somewhat
Adequate

Generally
Adequate

Moderately
Adequate

Fully
Adequate

(6 = 55%)

(3 = 27%)

(2 = 18%)

(0 = 0%)

Not at all
Considered

Somewhat
Considered

Moderately
Considered

Fully
Considered

(4 = 36%)

(4 = 36%)

(2 = 18%)

(1 = 10%)

Not at all
Considered

Somewhat
Considered

Moderately
Considered

Fully
Considered

(6 = 55%)

(4 = 36%)

(1 = 9%)

(0 = 0%)

Not at all
Priority

Low
Priority

Moderately
Priority

High Priority

(0 = 0%)

(2 = 18%)

(3 = 27%)

(6 = 5%)

Very
Poorly
Integrated

Somewhat
Integrated

Reasonably
Integrated

(6 = 55%)

(3 = 27%)

(2 = 18%)

(0 = 0%)

Not at all
Expected

Somewhat
Expected

Fairly
Expected

Highly
Expected

Overall
Results

Not at All
(0 = 0%)

Somewhat
Adequate

Not at all
&
Somewhat
Considered

Not at all
Considered

High
Priority

Fully
Expected
Very poorly
Integrated

Not at all
Expected
249

tool to guide future
resource management
practices within the
traditional territory o f
the Tl ’azt 'en Nation
The importance o f
establishing a meaningful
government-togovemment relationships
based on respect,
recognition, and
accommodation o f
Aboriginal title and
rights
The importance o f
community control over
land and resource
management within
traditional territory o f
the Tl ’azt ’en Nation
Future need fo r an
alternative First Nations
forest tenure

(5 = 46%)

(3 = 27%)

(3 = 27%)

(0 = 0%)

Somewhat
Valuable

Moderately
Valuable

Extremely
Valuable

(1 = 9%)

(2 = 18%)

(7 = 64%)

Not all
Important

Somewhat
Important

Moderately
Important

Extremely
Important

(1 = 8%)

(0 = 0%)

(2 = 18%)

(7 = 64%)

Not at all
Priority
(0 = 0%)

Somewhat
Priority
(1 = 10%)

Moderately
Priority
(4 = 36%)

High
Priority
(6 = 54%)

Not at all
Valuable
(1 = 9%)

Extremely
Valuable

Extremely
Important

High
Priority

250