This blog post is the first in a four-part installment exploring the current context of Aboriginal rights in British Columbia’s forestry sector. As I’ve become more aware of the current land use and ownership context in British Columbia, and the largely unceded nature of our land base, I’ve felt the need to delve more deeply into the social and historical background of our current land use practices. As I have a strong interest in forestry as a field of praxis and study, and many of BC’s landmark Aboriginal rights and title cases have resulted from forestry disputes, I chose to frame my inquiry through the lens of BC’s forest industry. In the first installment of this post, I will discuss the significance of Indigenous rights to BC’s forestry sector. In the second installment, I will define Aboriginal rights from both legal and Indigenous/cultural perspectives. In the third installment, I will propose three ways in which BC’s current forest management system can build capacity to sustain Aboriginal rights and values. In the final installment, I will make several recommendations towards enhancing foresters’ ability to identify and uphold Aboriginal rights in forestry practice. I understand that considering my lack of experience in the field, this piece represents my limited knowledge and personal opinion only, and is not intended to reflect those of either Aboriginal communities or the forest industry. I would be interested to hear what you think about this issue – please comment and share your thoughts!

Canadian Context of Aboriginal Rights

Aboriginal rights and title have been highly contested in both theory and practice throughout Canadian history. In 1982, the Canadian Constitution was amended to recognize and affirm Aboriginal rights; however, these rights were not clearly defined (Hanson, 2009; Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia [Tsilhqot’in], 2007). Subsequently, several court cases – including Guerin 1984, Sparrow 1990, Delgamuukw 1997, Marshall 1999, Haida 2004, and Tsilhqot’in 2007 – have challenged the Canadian justice system’s interpretation of Aboriginal rights (CBC News, 2013). These cases have called into question the way in which the Crown exercises its legal duty to consult with and/or accommodate First Nations prior to incurring on their asserted or established rights (Province of British Columbia [Province of BC], 2014). They have also called into question the role of natural resource managers – such as forestry professionals – in the consultation and accommodation process.

An example of BC’s beautiful forests (Canadian Press, 2013)

British Columbian Context of Aboriginal Rights

Aboriginal rights and title are a salient issue within the current context of British Columbia’s Forestry sector (Indigenous Foundations, 2009a; Tindall & Trosper, 2013b). In British Columbia, ninety-five percent of the land base is recognized to be unceded, ancestral territory of local indigenous peoples (Wilson & Henderson, 2014). However, many First Nations in BC have unresolved rights and title issues that prevent them from exercising sovereignty over these lands (British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Mines, and Lands [BCMFML], 2010). As close to sixty percent of BC’s land base is forested – and almost eighty percent of Canadian First Nations are located within forested areas – Indigenous peoples’ struggle for recognition of their rights and title often takes place over forest lands (BCMFML, 2010; Booth & Skelton, 2011). Over the past several decades, Aboriginal people in BC have employed a variety of strategies to gain control over their forest lands, including staging protests, establishing logging blockades, and seeking recourse through the judiciary system (Tindall & Trosper, 2013b). While not all of these strategies have been successful, they have collectively led to the enshrinement of mandatory consent, consultation, and accommodation protocol in BC’s legal code (Province of BC, 2014; Tsilhqot’in, 2007).

Assembly of British Columbia First Nations Crest (British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, 2010)

Significance of Aboriginal Rights to BC’s Forestry Sector

While it is ultimately the Crown’s duty to consult with First Nations and accommodate their interests, non-governmental parties (“proponents”) are often included in this process (Province of BC, 2014). As such, forestry professionals are frequently required to consult with First Nations communities about activities that may affect Aboriginal Interests (Province of BC, 2014). In general, forestry professionals’ are expected to provide First Nations groups with information about their proposed project, engage with First Nations to determine how Aboriginal Interests will be impacted, and discuss possible mitigation strategies to address these impacts (Province of BC, 2014). Depending on the strength of the case supporting the Aboriginal right or title, and the seriousness of the “potentially adverse effect” upon the right or title claimed, forestry professionals may be required to alter their plans to accommodate Aboriginal Interests (Tsilhqot’in, 2007, p. 25). Thus, in order to effectively mitigate the potential impacts of forestry activities on Aboriginal Interests, forestry professionals must seek to understand Aboriginal rights not only from a Canadian legal perspective, but also from the perspective of the First Nations groups with which they work (Tsilhqot’in, 2007).