Forests & Oceans for the Future Discussion and News

The Forests and Oceans for the Futures Speakers Series are Podcast ready! In addition to the streamed video format our speakers series can now be loaded directly into your mp3 player.

To access a Forests and Oceans for the Future podcast copy the URL below and paste it into your podcast software application. Once you are subscribed, your podcast playlist will be updated automatically whenever the Forests and Oceans for the Future Podcasts directory is updated.

http://www.ecoknow.ca/podcasts/rss.xml

Inaugural Seminar

Dennis Brown on Salmon Management, 01/18/2006 (mp3 format).

From the cbc online:

At least 38 sockeye salmon runs along the West Coast are in danger of imminent extinction, says a new report by the Sierra Club of B.C.

The report by salmon biologist Dr. David Levy’s blames the declining sockeye runs on mixed-stock fisheries, poor fisheries management as well as climate change. Download full story. Original source here.

Left unsaid in the press release and related report is the underlying political agenda that takes as its starting point an opposition to BC’s family-based commercial fishing fleet. Of the five causes for the decline of salmon identified by the Sierra Club report it is the so-called mixed stock fishery that is highlighted as the primary factor of devastation. According to the report mixed stock fisheries –harvesting salmon in channels and along migration paths- must be replaced by terminal fisheries at river mouths or far inland close to spawning channels. With individual transferable fishing quotas crashing down upon BC’s fishermen the connection between the environmental movement’s sudden release of yet another crisis report raises serious questions. Fishing quotas, supported by many Environmental NGOs, act to privatize the resource and, in terms of the salmon fishery, may also contribute to the creation of so-called terminal fisheries.

One of the potential causal factors for resource decline that the report completely ignores is the effects of criminalization of aboriginal stewardship and harvesting practices dating from the extension of the Canadian Fisheries Act to BC in the 1880s. Why might this have a bearing on resource depletion?

Our research group has identified traditional practices of resource stewardship in several of the north coast watersheds (specifically on or near Banks Island and at Lowe Inlet) that would indicate that the level of fish stocks first encountered by the late 19th century industrial salmon canning fishery was in part a by-product of human activity –that is, what Gitxaała people were doing in terms of harvesting and watershed maintenance directly contributed to the level of fish available for harvest.

The Canadian Fisheries act made modification to waterways, use of barricades and traps a criminal offense as access to and ownership of the resource was transferred to the control of the colonial state and their corporate proxies (commercial fish canners). Our research documents extensive human intervention in the very creeks in DFO statistical area 5 identified by the Sierra Report as facing declining stock levels.

Gitxaała community members engaged in a series of practices that formally included practices that today might be referred to as watershed restoration and salmon enhancement. Rather than recognizing this history of aboriginal practices along the coast the Sierra Report (notwithstanding a nod toward our importance on page 26-7 of the report) focuses on the family-based commercial fishing fleet as being the primary cause of sockeye depletion. If only that was the ‘real’ source of the problem.

An effective solution would transfer control of the salmon fishery to the hands of the family-based fishing enterprises and First Nations community members –the people who are directly involved with and reliant upon the salmon. Local control combined with a return to an intensive programme of watershed management that draws upon the local ecological knowledge and traditional technologies can ensure sustainability for people and fish.

“Forest and Range Agreements are interim agreements between the Ministry of Forests and eligible First Nations designed to provide for “workable accommodation” of aboriginal interests that may be impacted by forestry decisions during the term of the agreement, until such time as those interests are resolved through treaty. These agreements provide the Ministry with operational stability and assist First Nations to achieve their economic objectives by providing revenue and direct award of timber tenure” (Source: BC Government)

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, Aboriginal Rights and Title are recognized and affirmed and that this Title is an interest in the land itself. Furthermore the Supreme Court of Canada has held that from this Title flows the Crown’s duty to consult with First Nations and accommodate their interests when making land-use management decisions within their claimed territories.

In 2002 in order to accommodate First Nation interests, the provincial government enacted the Provincial Policy for Consultation with First Nations to be used in conjunction with the Ministry of Forests Strategic Policy Approaches to Accommodation (2003). The MoF Strategic Policy outlined criteria for accommodation in order to develop further policy surrounding timber and revenue sharing. From this document emerged the template for the Forest Range Agreement (FRA). The Forest Range Agreement was conceived as negotiated interim measures between the Ministry of Forests and First Nations in order to accommodate the economic component of Title interests through revenue sharing and access to timber volumes.

This policy approach to accommodation and consultation has been met with opposition from First Nations. On February 11 2005 in Huu-Ay-Aht First Nation v. Ministry of Forests the court ruled in favour of the HFN, stating that FRA’s do not represent meaningful consultation and accommodation and therefore do not satisfy the Crown’s constitutional duty. In her ruling Madam Justice Dillon asserted that the reasoning for her decision was largely based on the fact that the FRA uses a fixed per-capital formula to calculate revenue sharing and timber allocation. Justice Dillon therefore ruled that the FRA did not represent meaningful consultation as it did not give consideration to the strength of the First Nations claim or degree of potential infringement.

In March 2005 BC Premier Gordon Campbell, along with the First Nations Summit, the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, and the BC Assembly of First Nations signed ‘The New Relationship’. The overriding principle of The New Relationship is a commitment by all parties to work towards the reconciliation of Aboriginal and Crown titles and jurisdictions. In accordance with this agreement are promises to revisit and restructure FRA’s as well as to create new opportunities for First Nations to participate in the forestry sector.