Forests & Oceans for the Future Discussion and News

On March 13 as part of the BC Forum on Forest Economics and Policy, Chief David Walkem, BScF, MBA, RPF, President, Stuwix Resources Ltd. gave a presentation at UBC First Nations House of Learning. The subject of the talk was Forest Policy Changes Needed to Create a New Relationship with First Nations in BC – Lessons from the Merritt TSA Innovative Forest Practices Agreement Pilot Project

Chief Walkem highlighted the current challenges that First Nations and the province are now facing in the forest industry with implementing the New Relationship, increasing First Nation participation in forest management and the economy and creating ‘certainty’ in forest management.

The problem according to Chief Walkem is that the existing forest policy toolbox does not meet the needs of either First Nations or the government and therefore must be reformed. Policies must be developed that appropriately respond to the New Relationship commitments, court decisions regarding consultation and accommodation, the Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic in BC Interior and First Nation expectations that have emerged as a consequence of these factors. According to Walkem these expectations are: participation in land use & forest management decisions on a co-management basis; access to fiber and related economic opportunities; fair return from resource development in their homelands; and jobs, business opportunities and revenue sharing
According to Chief Walkem the existing provincial forest policy concerning First Nations, the Forest and Range Opportunities (FRO) Agreement, has part of the concept right in that it provides access to timber fiber and ‘sharing’ of provincial revenues, however the application of this policy has major/fatal flaws. While the FRO provides access to fiber, it is in the form of short term, non-replaceable forest tenures (<5 years) and small volumes (50 m3/band member) which limit investment. Furthermore the revenue sharing component is not based on real revenues but is formula driven.

The other policy concept that is right according to Chief Walkem, is the New Relationship however this is proving to be difficult to implement. Chief Walkem cites First Nations lack of financial & human resources to act without assistance and insufficient financial resources available to First Nations from provincial or federal governments as key issues. Implementation of the New Relationship is also confounded by an absence of mechanisms for meaningful First Nation input into higher level land use plans and the slow ‘trickle down’ from the premier’s office of its vision to government bureaucracy

Chief Walkem concluded that in order to capitalize on the recent momentum of positive changes in the province’s relationship with First Nations, changes to existing provincial forest policy are quickly needed. He pointed to lessons worth exploring in the ‘Innovative Forest Practice Agreement’ (IFPA) approach used in the Merritt Timber Supply Area (TSA) to help with developing these policy changes

The Merritt TSA IFPA Pilot is the only IFPA Pilot that incorporates First Nations in all aspects. The concept was to have all licencees, local provincial agencies, and First Nations working together to develop and implement the IFPA. In order to attain this goal they created the Nicola Similkameen Innovative Forestry Society (NSIFS) which is responsible for the creation of the IFPA Forestry Plan & Budget through 100% consensus decision-making.

There is direct First Nation participation on the NSIFS Board of Directors, the Technical Committee, and the Stakeholders Advisory group. There is indirect FN participation on the Merritt TSA Planning Committee, the District Operational Implementation Team (DOIT), the Forestry Referral Coordination, and the Forest Practices Certification process.

The results of the Merritt TSA IFPA from a First Nations point of view have been meaningful participation in land use and forest management decisions; incorporation of First Nations Interests and Values; development of FN land use inventories and a modelling database that incorporates FN interests and values at the strategic & stand levels on a co-management basis with government agencies; and licenses and access to fiber and economic opportunities.

Furthermore the eight First Nations communities involved have been able to develop Stuwix Resources Ltd. (Stuwix) and negotiate for a replaceable forest licence. They have also managed to reach a unique ‘Share Agreement’ with the other licencees and the Ministry of Forests which awards Stuwix a 50% share of any new AAC, 50% of jobs/contract from licencee new AAC and 50% of opportunities in NSIFS Forestry Plan.

Chief Walkem concluded that the Merritt IFPA Pilot project has provided valuable lessons on First Nation participation in the forest economy and in all aspects of forest management planning and based on these lessons he proposed four key areas for changes to Forest Policy:

1) Provide for meaningful First Nation participation in Land Use Planning – this is necessary to protect lower level plans such as those seen in the Merritt TSA
2) Amend FRO’s to provide for Replaceable forest tenures and for fair and equitable revenue sharing
3) Amend the IFPA legislation to enable the organizational aspects of the Merritt IFPA model to be implemented
4) Provide funding for meaningful Consultation and Referral processes with First Nations and provide the mechanism for First Nations to have input into the forest management process at all levels

On February 7th 2006, environmentalists claimed victory when the provincial government announced their plan for the protection of the Great Bear Rainforest. After a decade of conflict which attracted international attention and culminated in 1999 with the boycott of wood and paper products derived from the GBR by large companies including Lowe’s, Ikea and the Home Depot, an agreement was announced.

In December 2003 a multi-stakeholder consensus land-use agreement, which included environmental and industry representatives, was reached on the central coast and in June 2004 the agreements were formally presented to the provincial government and the local First Nation governments. Since that time up until February’s announcement the two nations have been in closed-door government-to-government negotiation presumably hammering out the details on the land-use plan. Those three years of silence provoked much speculation as to what the agreement would entail and how it would be implemented in order to include First Nations in the decision making process. However on February 7th the only substantive management decisions confirmed in the announcement of the Great Bear Rainforest Agreement was the protection from logging of 2 million hectares.
The announcement also came with promises to apply Ecosystem Based Management by 2009 and to achieve comprehensive First Nations involvement in the management of their traditional territory located within the GBR. Noticeable absent however, was a definition and clarification of the components of EBM or any details on the role, power and authority of First Nation involvement in the management of the Great Bear Rainforest and how it will be implemented/institutionalized. In the Provincial press release there was a reference to the formation of Land and Resource Forums in order to facilitate a provincial and First Nations working relationship to finalize and implement the land use plans; however the composition and relative power of these forums was not addressed.

So what exactly has been agreed upon other than the amount of protected area, to warrant the media frenzy of the February 7th announcement? At this point in time it is hard to tell as we are left to continue speculating as to what EBM entails and what exactly this agreement will mean for First Nations.

The GBR encompasses the traditional territory of twenty-five First Nations. The government states that all twenty-five were consulted during the planning process. Eighteen First Nations who were represented in the LRMP process are expected to sign government-to-government land use agreements with the Province. Four First Nations have refused to join in the planning process stating that it is inconsistent with their rights to land and traditional values and consequently inconsistent with the principles of the New Relationship

Extremely low salmon returns paired with falling salmon prices forced the Governor of Alaska to declare Bristol Bay an economic disaster in 1997, 1998, 2000 and 2001. In addition to economic hardship, the “no fish and fewer dollars” scenario, which persisted through the 2003 season, resulted in significant demographic change and the potential opening of Bristol Bay’s nonrenewable doors that have historically remained decidedly shut.

Located in southwest Alaska, Bristol Bay produces the largest red salmon runs in the world. Much like the volcanic mountains forming the backbone of the upper Aleutian Peninsula, the commercial fishing industry forms economic and social life in the region. The livelihood of the many rural fishing communities scattered along the coast of Bristol Bay’s rich waters depends entirely on ecological circumstance. Rapid ecological change in recent years reveals the magnitude of this relationship.
The late 1990s mark the beginning of an era of ecological uncertainty in Bristol Bay. Several outside factors influence the ecological condition of Bristol Bay communities.

Scientists agree that climate change is responsible for fisheries decline in this period. Low salmon returns and smaller than average fish are attributed to changes in atmospheric and oceanic conditions beginning in 1996. In addition to fewer and smaller fish, the impact of climatic change on Bering Sea life includes massive algae blooms over the continental shelf (visible from outer space), altered currents, a decrease in the annual extent of sea ice and warmer sea surface temperatures.

The economic piece of Bristol Bay’s pie extends beyond the Bering. It is comprised of overseas economies and international markets. The decline in sockeye salmon prices happened because of competition between farmed salmon and Alaska wild salmon in international markets. Japan is the major buyer of Bristol Bay salmon. Over 90 percent of sockeye salmon caught in Bristol Bay are shipped frozen to Japanese markets. A downturn in Japans economy in the late 1990s and competition from the farmed fish industry had significant and negative impacts on salmon prices. It is worth noting that between 1992 and 2003 farmed fish replaced wild salmon as the dominant product in Japanese markets.

The above factors bear considerable weight in the lives of Bristol Bay residents, fishermen and non-fishermen alike. The impacts of ecological change, notably high levels of out-migration (especially among young people) and local government program and budget cuts, create subsequent social and economic problems that are not easily remedied, or forgotten, with the return of healthy stocks. It is for these reasons that some residents of Bristol Bay have opened up to the idea of non-renewable resource development in the region.

For the first time in the history of Bristol Bay, the once taboo subject of oil development in Bristol Bay is being seriously considered. Mineral mining is another potential source of economic growth and opportunity in the region. A Vancouver-based mining exploration company recently released results from drilling tests near the headwaters of Bristol Bay’s productive streams. The Pebble Mine will be an open-pit mine and is believed to be the largest gold and second largest copper mine in North America.

Support for the introduction of new industry is complicated by the return of 43 million sockeye in 2004. The 2004 sockeye salmon season closed as the 10th largest run ever recorded and 2005 was just as impressive. Salmon prices have also improved over the last two years (from a low of 0.45 cents a pound in 2003 to 0.65 in 2005). Communities in the region have yet to reach a consensus on the actual risks and benefits of development in the region.