Upholding Aboriginal Rights and Values in BC’s Forestry Sector

Northern Gateway protest in Vancouver, BC (National Post, 2014)

While the implementation of the interventions described in my previous post would likely take years to integrate into BC’s forestry system, today’s foresters still have a significant responsibility to identify and uphold Indigenous values in their forestry practice. At the heart of this responsibility lies the duty to engage with Aboriginal communities in ways that demonstrate trust, goodwill, respect, commitment, and transparency, as doing so contributes to the establishment of positive relationships between foresters and Indigenous peoples (Province of BC, n.d.). In order to build beneficial, long-term relationships, foresters must understand First Nations’ deep connection to the land, and honor this connection by addressing its manifestation in Aboriginal claims, proven rights, and treaty rights, as well as in Indigenous traditional, cultural, and spiritual practices (Province of BC, n.d.). Foresters must also recognize the obstacles that Indigenous communities may face in fully engaging in the consultation process: limited financial resources, lack of technical or business-related knowledge, time constraints, and geographic barriers, among other factors, may hinder First Nations ability to participate and make their voices heard (Province of BC, n.d.). To mitigate these potential challenges, foresters should maintain open communication with the Indigenous communities they engage with, strive to accommodate their needs and limitations in the consultation process, and, whenever possible, provide communities with the support and resources they need to achieve desired levels of participation (Province of BC, n.d.). In addition, foresters should build capacity within their organizations to recognize First Nations histories, cultures, governance, values, and interests (Province of BC, n.d.). Such capacity building must incorporate the promotion of progressive practices and values, and may include:

• placing emphasis on personal, social, and moral responsibility
• increasing awareness of cross-cultural differences and promoting their acceptance
• developing nuanced communication and collaboration skills
• acting with honor, openness, transparency and respect
• developing policies for engagement, employment, environment, and social responsibility with respect to First Nations groups

(adapted from Province of BC, n.d.)

Adoption of these practices will pave the way for more positive forester-Indigenous relationships in the future, in which Indigenous rights, values, and visions for the future are respected and upheld. While identifying and upholding Indigenous rights is a legal obligation of the forestry sector, it also “makes good business sense,” as it allows for increased certainty in strategic planning and financial investment, fosters increased Indigenous support for forestry operations, and leads to positive synergies through enhanced collaboration between foresters and Indigenous communities (Province of BC, n.d.). Thus, it can be see that the integration of Indigenous values and notions of sustainability into land and resource management is integral to the continued growth and vitality of BC’s forestry sector, and can be achieved through targeted changes in institutional models of forestry education, cross-cultural communication, and organizational ethics.

References for this series of posts:

Alfred, T. (2009). Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto. New York: Oxford University Press.

Association of BC Forestry Professionals. (2006). Regulating the Profession: Practicing in BC. Retrieved from http://www.abcfp.ca/regulating_the_profession/practicing_in_bc.asp

BC Treaty Commission. (2009). Aboriginal Rights. Retrieved from http://www.bctreaty.net/files/issues_rights.php

Booth, A.L. & Skelton, N.W. (2011). “There’s a Conflict Right There”: Integrating Indigenous Community Values into Commercial Forestry in the Tl’azt’en First Nation. Society & Natural Resources, 24(4), 368-383. doi:0.1080/08941920902755390

British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Mines, and Lands [BCMFML]. (2010). The State of British Columbia’s Forests (Third Edition). Retrieved from http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/sof/2010/SOF_2010_Web.pdf

CBC News. (2013, January 8). 6 Landmark Rulings on Native Rights. CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/6-landmark-rulings-on-native-rights-1.1316961

Council of the Haida Nation. (2005). Haida Land Use Vision. Retrieved from http://www.haidanation.ca/Pages/documents/pdfs/land/HLUV.lo_rez.pdf

Hanson, E. ( 2009). Indigenous Foundations: Constitution Act, 1982 Section 35. Retrieved from http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-policy/constitution-act-1982-section-35.html

Indigenous Foundations. (2009a). Aboriginal Rights. Retrieved from http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/land-rights/aboriginal-rights.html

Indigenous Foundations. (2009b). Aboriginal Title. Retrieved from http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/land-rights/aboriginal-title.html

Law Commission of Canada (2006). Justice Within: Indigenous Legal Traditions [Discussion paper]. Retrieved from http://www.lcc.gc.ca

Lyall, A. (2015). Conservation 370 Second Assignment: Aboriginal Rights and Sustainability [Class handout]. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. Retrieved from www.connect.ubc.ca

McCorkel, J., & Myers, K. (2003). What Difference Does Difference Make? Position and Privilege in the Field. Qualitative Sociology, 26(2), 199-231. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/content/pdf/10.1023%2FA%3A1022967012774.pdf

Minkler, M. (2004). Ethical Challenges for the “Outside” Researcher in Community-Based Participatory Research. Health Education and Behaviour, 31, 684-697. doi:10.1177/1090198104269566

National Center for Cultural Competence. (n.d.) Definitions of Cultural Competence. Retrieved from http://www.nccccurricula.info/culturalcompetence.html

Newman, D. (2014, May 6). Why the duty to consult may be harming aboriginal communities. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/why-the-duty-to-consult-may-be-harming-aboriginal-communities/article18482956/

O’Neil, J. (1989). The Cultural and Political Context of Patient Dissatisfaction in Cross-Cultural Clinical Encounters: A Canadian Inuit Study. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 3(4), 325-344. Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0745-5194%28198912%292%3A3%3A4%3C325%3ATCAPCO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7

Parsons, R., & Prest, G. (2007). Aboriginal Forestry in Canada. The Forestry Chronicle, 79I(4), 779-784. Retrieved from https://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/publications?id=24177

Province of British Columbia. (2014). Guide to Involving Proponents When Consulting First Nations. Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=8CF98F756A984198AFD80AEA0E472F05

Province of British Columbia. (2015). Consulting with First Nations. Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=8CF98F756A984198AFD80AEA0E472F05

Province of British Columbia. (n.d.). Building Relationships with First Nations: Respecting Rights and Doing Good Business. Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/DownloadAsset?assetId=C3995CFCF6FB431B9AE2AE22B0206B32&filename=building_relationships_with_first_nations__english.pdf

Provincial Health Services Authority BC. (n.d.). Indigenous Cultural Competency (ICC) Training. Retrieved from http://www.culturalcompetency.ca/training

Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs [SSCLCA]. (2007). Taking Section 35 Rights Seriously: Non-derogation Clauses relating to Aboriginal and treaty rights. Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/392/lega/rep/rep05dec07-e.pdf

Sunseri, L. (2007). Indigenous Voice Matters: Claiming our Space Through Decolonising Research. Junctures, 9 (December 2007), 93-106. Retrieved from http://www.junctures.org/index.php/junctures/article/view/69/63

The Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission. (1999). Aboriginal & Treaty Rights. In The Justice System and Aboriginal People. Retrieved from http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter5.html

Tindall, D.B., & Trosper, R.L. (2013b). The Social Context of Aboriginal Peoples and Forest Land Issues. In D.B. Tindall, R. Trosper, & P. Perreault (Eds.), Aboriginal Peoples and Forest Lands in Canada (3-15). Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Retrieved from http://www.ubcpress.ca/books/pdf/chapters/2013/AboriginalPeoplesAndForestLandsInCanada.pdf

Tindall, D.B., & Trosper, R.L. (Eds.). (2013a). Aboriginal Peoples and Forest Lands in Canada. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Retrieved from http://www.ubcpress.ca/books/pdf/chapters/2013/AboriginalPeoplesAndForestLandsInCanada.pdf

Trosper, R. (2007). Now that Paiute forestry is respectable: Can traditional knowledge and science work together? (Working Paper). Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia [Tsilhqot’in]. (2007). Supreme Court of British Columbia BCSC 1770. (portions)

Turning Point Initiative Coastal First Nations. (n.d.). EBM Fact Sheet 4: Conservation that Protects Our First Nations Values. Retrieved from http://www.coastalfirstnations.ca/sites/default/files/imce/Fact_Sheet_4.pdf

Wilson, K. & Henderson, J. (2014). First Peoples: A Guide for Newcomers. ­Vancouver, BC: City of Vancouver. Retrieved from http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/first-peoples-a-guide-for-newcomers.pdf

Wyatt, S. (2008). First Nations, forest lands, and “Aboriginal forestry” in Canada: from exclusion to comanagement and beyond. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 38, 171-180. doi:10.1139/X07-214

Building Capacity to Sustain Indigenous Values in Forestry
In the current context of BC’s forestry sector, not enough is being done to incorporate Aboriginal visions of sustainability into policy and practice, a fact that has a direct and negative impact on Aboriginal people’s ability to exercise their rights (Wyatt, 2008). While the historical marginalization, disenfranchisement, and oppression of Aboriginal communities in Canada cannot be simply overcome by changes at the policy level, making Indigenous voices heard is an essential component of the reconciliation process, and is integral to the realization of “Indigenous resurgence” (Alfred, 2009). In order to mainstream Aboriginal rights and values in forestry, several steps must be taken to visiblize the connection between Indigenous culture and nature, bridge the ontological gaps between Western-Scientific and Indigenous paradigms, and clearly communicate Indigenous perspectives on sustainable land management. In the section that follows, this paper proposes three potential interventions that contribute to these aims: cultural competency training, inclusion of cross-cultural interpreters in the consultation process, and development of a guide to Aboriginal values in forestry authored by Indigenous peoples. 

Lil’wat Nation traditional uses of Western Red Cedar (Whistler Insider, n.d.)

Cultural Competency Training

Cultural competence can be conceptualized as the ability to understand and respect values, attitudes, and practices that differ across cultures, and to consider and respond appropriately to them in interpersonal- and institutional-level interactions (National Center for Cultural Competence, n.d.). Improving foresters’ cultural competence through compulsory cultural competency training would increase their awareness of the interconnected nature of Aborignal culture, rights, and values, and would equip them with the skills necessary to approach cross-cultural differences in respectful and productive ways. Cultural competency training programs have already been established in BC – for example, the Provincial Health Services Authority offers an “Indigenous Cultural Competency Training Program” that aims to “strengthen the skills of those who work both directly and indirectly with Aboriginal people […] and promote positive partnerships” (Provincial Health Services Authority BC, n.d.). While this training is available online and is open to those in non-health related fields, a training program tailored to the specific needs of forestry professionals should be developed. If such a training program were established, the Association of BC Forest Professionals (ABCFP) would be a suitable body to oversee its implementation within the province, as all foresters who wish to practice in BC must be ABCFP members (ABCFP, 2006). Since the ABCFP has the power to dictate its criteria for membership, it is in a position to enforce cultural competency training as a mandatory component of foresters’ professional education. As the mandate of the ABCFP is to “ensure the competence, […] professional conduct and integrity of [it’s] members,” the establishment of a cultural competency program for BC foresters falls well within its range of institutional objectives (ABCFP, 2006). Ideally, all aspiring foresters would be required to complete the program in order to qualify for membership as Registered Professional Foresters (RPF’s), and all existing ABCFP members would need to complete the training in order to maintain their RPF designation.

Inclusion of Cross-cultural Interpreters in the Consultation Process

The consultation process is rife with misunderstandings, which often harm Aboriginal communities and prevent their voices from truly being heard (Newman, 2014). These misunderstandings often arise from differences between Western-Scientific and Indigenous ways of knowing and being, which are grounded in taken-for-granted assumptions about how the world works and how knowledge is created (Trosper, 2007). In order for development in forestry to respect the rights of Indigenous people, forestry professionals must have a clear understanding of Indigenous peoples needs, values, and visions of sustainability; however, these understandings may be obscured by fundamental differences in foresters and indigenous communities’ ontological and epistemological assumptions. For example, Booth and Skelton (2011) found that significant tension exists between traditional First Nations values and the values of commercial foresters working in the Tl’azt’en community, and that failing to reconcile these differences leads to inter-cultural conflict. The challenges of reconciling Indigenous and Western-Scientific worldviews are summarized by one Elder from the Tl’azt’en Nation: “Our cultural values are so important and we keep saying that it is so important. So you bring somebody in that is not aware of our true cultural values and they think of it in a totally different aspect, and they come in not understanding us and that’s where this conflict starts” (Booth & Skelton, 2011, p. 377).

In order to bridge Indigenous and Western-Scientific worldviews, cross-cultural interpreters (CCI’s) should play an active role in the consultation process. CCI’s would be present during all interactions between Aboriginal leaders and professional foresters, and would act as a liaison between the two parties. In this role, CCI’s would be responsible for explaining Indigenous perspectives and values to foresters working with Aboriginal communities, and for providing insight into the cultural and historical context surrounding these values in order to help foresters understand their significance. CCI’s would also help Indigenous communities understand foresters’ perspectives, the technical or legal terminology that they employ, and the rights and responsibilities of both commercial foresters and their own community. Therefore, CCI’s must be highly knowledgeable about both Indigenous and Western-Scientific worldviews, and would ideally be from the Indigenous community in which they work. This “positionality” would provide them with the “insider knowledge” necessary to mitigate insider-outsider tensions that frequently characterize consultation process (McKorkel & Myers, 2003; Minkler, 2004). Moreover, it would allow them to assume the role of “explicit advocates” for their communities, which would help neutralize the power imbalance that is often present in Indigenous-Settler relations (O’Neil, 1989).

Andrea Lyall, my Aboriginal Forestry professor and BC’s first female Aboriginal forester! (Vancouver Sun, 2010)

Development of a Guide to Aboriginal Values in Forestry

The Province of British Columbia has developed a series of online resources to guide proponents – such as commercial foresters – in engaging with Aboriginal communities during the consultation process (Province of BC, 2015). These resources include a Guide to Involving Proponents When Consulting First Nations; a Proponent: First Nations Engagement Communication Log; a document detailing Updated Procedures for Meeting Legal Obligations When Consulting First Nations; and, of particular interest, a fifteen-page report on Building Relationships with First Nations: Respecting Rights and Doing Good Business (Province of BC, 2015). While the Building Relationships report states several times that the land has cultural, social, spiritual, and economic importance to Indigenous peoples, and that the well-being of Indigenous communities is “intricately linked to the land,” it does not go further to explain how this significance relates to Aboriginal rights or how should be addressed in land management decisions (Province of BC, n.d.).This is due to the fact that the Building Relationships report is clearly written from a government-centric and industry-centric perspective; for example, it highlights the benefits to Industry from building relationships with First Nations (which include increased certainty, access to labor, services, and local knowledge, and support for government consultation), but fails to discuss the potential harms to First Nations communities from failing to engage with them in a respectful and meaningful way (Province of BC, n.d.).

These omissions should not be taken lightly, as the exclusion of Indigenous perspectives seriously detracts from the report’s potential to positively impact Indigenous-Proponent relations during the consultation process. Thus, either a separate guide to Indigenous values in forestry and land management should be developed, or such content should be incorporated into an amended version of the Building Relationships report. In both scenarios, the guide should be written by Indigenous authors, privilege Indigenous ways of sharing knowledge (such as story, myth, imagery, and metaphor), and explicitly link Aboriginal people’s ability to exercise their rights to their involvement in (and ideally sovereignty over) land management decisions. The widespread dissemination of such a guide to all foresters working with Aboriginal communities would provide a concrete and accurate point of reference for foresters engaged in the consultation process, reduce ambiguity surrounding the significance and manifestation of Indigenous rights and values, and provide a platform for Indigenous knowledge to be heard and honored by the forestry industry.

Legal Definition

From the political perspective of the judiciary system, Aboriginal rights refer to the practices, traditions, and customs that are integral to the culture of First Nation groups, and that were established prior to European contact (BC Treaty Commission, 2009; Province of BC, 2014). Aboriginal title refers to a type of Aboriginal right that includes a right to the land itself, and encompasses the right to exclusive use and occupation of the land for a variety of purposes (BC Treaty Commission, 2009; Tsilhqot’in, 2007). Aboriginal interests refer to a range of potential, claimed, or established aboriginal rights, including treaty rights and aboriginal title (Province of BC, 2014). Such definitions of Aboriginal rights originate from within the western Eurocentric paradigm of BC’s legal system. Established through federal law, case law, and the legislative process, these definitions reflect the views of those empowered within the judiciary system – namely, judges, attorneys, politicians, and the like – and are fairly nebulous and broad. While such broad conceptualizations provide for the expression of Aboriginal rights in myriad forms, their lack of specificity leaves First Nations peoples vulnerable to having their needs, hopes, and values ignored, and creates ambiguity for those working with First Nations. For this reason, it is increasingly recognized that Aboriginal peoples must be afforded an active role in defining their rights, and in the development of policy that may affect them (Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs [SSCLCA], 2007, p. 27).

Supreme Court of Canada (Wikipedia, 2015)

Cultural Definition

In order to honor and respect Aboriginal interests during the consultation process, it is imperative that both the Crown and forestry professionals understand the unique values, needs, culture, history, and lived experiences of the Aboriginal peoples with whom they work (Tsilhqot’in, 2007). As Aboriginal rights are culturally based, grounded in history, and reflect First Nations values, it is imperative that forestry professionals understand how each First Nations group they engage with conceptualizes and defines its own rights (Law Commission of Canada, 2006; Tindall & Trosper, 2013b). While each group may describe their rights differently – according to the cultural context, geographic factors, present-day circumstances, etc. – several elements are integral to Aboriginal people’s conceptualization of their rights. These elements include:

• the right to their identity as Aboriginal people
• the right to self-determination
• the right to their traditional, ancestral lands
• the right to continue their traditional practices while maintaining ecological, recreational, social, and cultural values

(The Aboriginal Justice Commission, 1999; Turning Point Initiative Coastal First Nations, n.d.)

In the context of BC’s forestry sector, respect for the land – expressed through “the respectful interaction between the forest and the Aboriginal people of today for the benefit of generations unborn” – reflects a crystallization of these rights, and can be considered one of the the most important guiding principles in Aboriginal forest management (Parsons & Prest, 2003, p.780). In order for Aboriginal rights to be ensured in perpetuity, the land base must managed in ecologically, culturally, and economically sustainable ways. This is due to the interconnectedness of culture, nature, identity, and livelihood in Aboriginal ontologies. For Aboriginal peoples, the land is a cultural reservoir, a source of knowledge, and an intrinsic part of personal and cultural identity (The Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission, 1999). Since “time immemorial,” the land has provided Aboriginal peoples with both spiritual and material sustenance; thus, Aboriginal peoples view the entire land base as sacred (Indigenous Foundations, 2009b). As such, they believe they have a duty to use the land sustainably, which arises from their “relational accountability” to all living things, and their belief that humans are a part of – rather than separate from – the natural world (Sunseri, 2007). As an extension of this responsibility, Aboriginal peoples believe that sustainable land management must ensure that present and future generations are able to engage in traditional spiritual, cultural, and livelihood practices in ways that do not detract from the well-being and longevity of local ecosystems (Council of the Haida Nation, 2005). Since “any activity that irreparably damages the land irreparably damages First Nations culture,” and culture is intrinsically tied to Indigenous identity, sustainable management of trees, plants, and animals on traditional and ancestral lands is integral to the ability of Aboriginal people to fully enjoy their rights (Booth & Skelton, 2011, p.370). Thus, it can be seen that Aboriginal rights to land, culture, and identity converge in the realm of natural resource management, and that self-determination – expressed through the inclusion of Aboriginal values and visions of sustainability in forest management – is essential to the protection and realization of these rights (Law Commission of Canada, 2006).

Vancouver Island First Nation man in mask. (HelloBC, 2015)

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).

In the midst of exams, I was fortunate enough to attend the Yale Global Health and Innovation Conference in New Haven, Connecticut. Through Roxana and Brent’s generosity, 6 GRSers were sponsored to represent UBC at the event. Presenters and attendees flocked from all over the world to share in a weekend of truly revolutionary thinking about public health and social entrepreneurship in the developing world. The sheer number of presenters was staggering, and I spent several hours each day researching the sessions in order to choose which ones to attend. In the end, I took part in a variety of sessions – from lectures in huge auditoriums to workshops in a more intimate setting – and came away from the conference with a new perspective on numerous issues.

The conference was structured with several keynote presentations each morning, for which all conference attendees were present. Following the keynote speakers, the program broke out into research presentations, social entrepreneurship pitches, and student leaders in global health presentations, with multiple sessions throughout the day. Although the breakout presentations were interesting, I found them to be a bit too specific for my level of specialization. As a GRSer, I have certain areas of interest but haven’t narrowed my focus to one particular issue as of yet. Therefore, I feel that I connected most with the keynote presentations, as they were targeted to a more general audience and were highly diverse.

On the first day, the two keynote speakers who really caught my attention were Gary Hirshberg, co-founder and chair of  Stonyfield Organics, and Michael Moss, author of the critically acclaimed book Salt, Sugar, Fat. Both Hirshberg and Moss have an insider’s perspective on the food industry, which was fascinating to hear from. Even though they each approach the food industry from a different place – Hirshberg operates within the food industry while Moss is critical of it – they share the opinion that health should be the main objective of the food system, and that this objective has been usurped by the pursuit of profit maximization.

Hirshberg’s main concerns relate to the detrimental effect of conventional agriculture on environmental health; he fears that the externalization of cost that has allowed conventional agriculture to increase yields and decrease prices will lead to irrevocable damage to the earth’s ecosystem. He created Stonyfield Organics in order to show the world that the population can be fed through organic agriculture; moreover, he asserts that the transition to sustainable farming practices on a global scale could improve the situation of millions of people worldwide, and could help internalize many of the costs that are currently external to the agri-food economy. In addition, he strongly believes that conventional farming methods are responsible for innumerable negative effects on human health, and that it is only thorough abandoning our exalted doctrine of genetic modification and heavy pesticide/herbicide use that health outcomes will improve.

As we travel up the food supply chain, Moss’ area of interest comes into view: the processing and manufacturing of  “food-like” products. His work revolves around infiltrating food processing corporations in order to uncover the means by which the junk food industry has secured such powerful role in today’s economy. Through his investigation, he has come to the conclusion that the manipulation of three different properties of food – salt, sugar, and fat – has enabled the junk food giants to engineer foods that have similar addictive qualities to narcotic drugs. Through the engineering of “bliss points,” food items become utterly irresistible; moreover, junk food products are engineered to avoid the phenomenon of “taste-specific satiety,” which signals the body to stop eating a specific food (for example, taste-specific satiety explains why although you might be full from dinner, you can still “make room” for dessert). He asserts that the manipulation of food products in such a way is exploitative of human biology, and has been a critical factor in the rise of overweight and obesity worldwide.

Fascinating stuff! And thats just one PART of the morning session. I will follow up with more interesting info from the second day; for now I think I’ve left you with more than enough food for thought (get it? aren’t I punny?!).

I’ve been thinking about pursuing a directed studies a lot this term. I’ve encountered such interesting and thought provoking material in my courses so far, and feel inspired to explore some of the topics in more depth. Its tough trying to narrow my focus down, since I’m so interested in so many things! One concept that links many of these interests together is the idea of food value systems.

In general, value systems are a way of organizing and expressing individuals’ beliefs about morality, ethics, and justice. As such, I would like to propose the concept of food value systems as a means of describing individuals’ beliefs about food, and the basis upon which food choices are made. They draw on past experiences, nutritional knowledge, taste preferences, ethics, and social and cultural context to inform individual’s food values and beliefs. Food value systems help individuals make decisions about what, how much, and when to eat. They are generally beneficial, but can be harmful when individuals’ food values fail to optimize nutrition and wellbeing.

I feel strongly that food value systems are of critical importance to nutritional status and health. I believe that it is essential to understand the reasons behind food choice before nutritional interventions are put in place. Furthermore, I believe that the social and cultural values underlying food choice are an important part of food value systems, and as such must be acknowledged and respected in the development and implementation of nutritional interventions.

In the future, I would like to continue to explore the concept of food value systems and the role they play in determining the health of individuals and populations. I plan on pursuing directed studies on this topic, as I believe it is of personal – and global – significance. I’m not sure exactly what direction or form these studies will take, but I’m very excited about the opportunity to dive head first into a concept that I’m so passionate about. I will update soon when I have more details!

One concept that I’ve been interested in for a while now is the use of genetically modified foods in combatting food insecurity. GMOs are a highly controversial issue, made even more so when explored in the context of aid. There are many GMO products that have been developed specifically to target nutritional issues in the developing world. One such product has caught my attention: golden rice. Since many complex factors collectively determine the effectiveness of golden rice as a nutrition intervention, I though it would be interesting to analyze them in order to gain some clarity on the issue.

A comparison of white and golden rice

Golden rice is a variety of rice that has been biofortified with provitamin A (β-carotene) through genetic engineering. The main objective of golden rice is to combat vitamin A deficiency, which affects an estimated 250 million children world-wide. Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) is the leading cause of preventable childhood blindness around the globe, and has serious implications for child and maternal health: VAD increases the susceptibility to and severity of infections, maternal mortality, and risk of death from disease. According to the Golden Rice Project, the lack of β-carotene in traditional rice varieties increases the risk of VAD in rice-dependent populations. As such, it postulates that widespread dissemination of Golden rice could help alleviate vitamin A deficiency and improve child and maternal health on a global scale.

However, the use of golden rice to combat VAD is a highly controversial issue. Concerns about genetically modified foods have led many organizations to question the long-term impacts of golden rice on human and ecosystem health. Furthermore, the ability of golden rice to improve vitamin A status has been widely contested, as a large amount of rice must be consumed in order to meet daily vitamin A needs. Due to its bright orange colour, golden rice may not be accepted by cultural groups accustomed to traditional white rice varieties, and as such may be ineffective at reducing VAD on a population level. In contrast, existing vitamin A interventions have achieved broad uptake and coverage across a variety of socio-cultural groups. They have proven to be effective at preventing and treating VAD, and some cost only pennies per person. This has led some experts to suggest that golden rice is a high-cost solution to an issue that can be solved relatively inexpensively.

There is no question that VAD is a prevalent issue worldwide. VAD is a public health concern in more than half of all countries, and causes nearly 800 000 deaths of women and children each year. Those in developing countries are particularly at risk, as their diets generally revolve around a staple crop, and therefore are low in vitamin A rich foods (such as eggs, milk, dark leafy green vegetables, and deep orange fruit). Although traditional rice varieties do not contain vitamin A, golden rice has been engineered to contain 31 μg/g of β-carotene. After accounting for the conversion of β-carotene to vitamin A and losses through cooking, it has been determined that golden rice provides enough vitamin A to meet recommended daily allowances for women and children when consumed in sufficient quantities.

However, the body’s ability to absorb vitamin A depends on overall nutritional status and dietary composition. Adequate quantities of zinc, protein, and fats are necessary for vitamin A absorption; these nutrients are often lacking in the diets of rice-dependent populations. Golden rice does not contain significant amounts of these essential nutrients, and as such, the ability of golden rice to combat VAD in malnourished populations comes into question. Although golden rice provides enough vitamin A to meet daily needs, undernourished individuals may not be able to absorb it. As such, golden rice may not be effective at improving the vitamin A status of undernourished groups.

Moreover, golden rice is a relatively expensive solution to VAD. So far, hundreds of millions of dollars have gone towards the development of golden rice, and there is no question that additional funding would be needed to implement golden rice as a vitamin A intervention on a global scale. Funding for public health projects is often scarce, which brings into question the cost-effectiveness of golden rice as a VAD reduction strategy. The World Health Organization currently promotes several strategies to combat VAD, including dietary diversification, supplementation, and food fortification. Unlike golden rice, these strategies are inexpensive and help combat a broad range of nutritional deficiencies. As such, golden rice may not be the most appropriate strategy for VAD reduction in today’s economic climate.

Furthermore, the cultural acceptability of golden rice must be taken into consideration. White rice is traditionally consumed in many countries, and often carries cultural significance. For this reason, communities may resist the adoption of orange-colored rice, which would be a major obstacle to the implementation of golden rice on a global scale. However, the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board notes that many cultures traditionally use spices such as saffron or turmeric in rice dishes, rendering them similar in color to golden rice. Additionally, new and novel food products are continually being introduced to consumers worldwide, and food choices often reflect a balance between traditional beliefs and curiosity. As such, the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board believes that the health value and taste of golden rice will make it acceptable to those who need it.

It is worth noting that genetically modified foods – including golden rice – have been the subject of controversy since their inception. A product of recombinant genetic engineering, golden rice is composed of genetic material from viruses, bacteria, and non-food species. As with many GMO technologies, there is concern about the long-term impacts of golden rice on human and environmental health. Cross-pollination or gene transfer of virus-derived genetic material could have devastating ecological impacts in areas where golden rice is grown, and consequently could negatively affect crop yields and biodiversity. Furthermore, the effects of GM foods on human health are still largely unknown; consumption of golden rice could have negative effects on health long-term. However, the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board asserts that golden rice has been thoroughly researched, and that the cultivation and consumption of transgenic crops does not have an adverse effect on humans, animals, or the environment.

It can be seen that no clear consensus exists on the safety, acceptability, or effectiveness of golden rice. Although both proponents and opponents of golden rice cite scientific research to support their claims, it is important to recognize the subjectivity of scientific investigation. Furthermore, issues of ethics and culture are inherently subjective, and as such cannot be considered in absolute terms. At present, there is no definitive solution to the global issue of vitamin A deficiency. The future of public health will likely depend on a broad range of approaches and technologies; however, it is currently unclear what role golden rice will play among them.

photo: Golden rice. October 11, 2013 10:30. Reuters / Erik De Castro

Hi again,

Wow, first term sure flew by! I really enjoyed what I studied this term, and even though I’m glad to have finished with exams, I’m a bit sad that my classes are over. I took a diverse blend of courses this term, ranging from food and resource economics, to soil and environmental sciences, to land and food systems.  I was surprised to find that there was quite a bit of overlap in the material covered across my courses, with several key topics emerging again and again. Food security was one such recurring theme. Although it was covered extensively across my course load, each course approached food security from a different perspective and offered unique insights. I feel that approaching food security in such an interdisciplinary way allowed me to develop a more holistic understanding of the issue, as I was challenged to explore it in many different ways.

Looking back on what I’ve learned this term, I realize that my understanding of what food security means has gained depth and breadth. However, global food security is a highly complex issue, and the more I learn about it, the less confident I am in any one approach to resolving it. I had the privilege of attending the Global Youth Agricultural Summit in Calgary this summer, during which young leaders from around the world convened to discuss how to feed a growing and “hungry” world. As part of the application process, each candidate was asked to discuss the issue of food security locally and around the globe, and suggest solutions.

I recently revisited my application essay, and took the opportunity to compare my perspectives on food security then and now. I realize that although I feel the same about some fundamental principles, my opinion regarding several issues has shifted. Looking back, I see that I had a somewhat superficial understanding of the causes of food insecurity; I now understand that the root causes of hunger stem from exclusive political and institutional systems, which operate in favor of an upper class elite.  Of course, this is a vast oversimplification of the root cause of food insecurity, however I do believe that weak governance and institutions are formidable barriers to the realization of food security around the globe.

I’ve posted my original essay below, as a sort of baseline for my understanding of and perspective on food security. It will be interesting to see how my opinions continue to change as I learn more, and as global conditions continue to evolve and flux.

Presenting at the Youth-Ag Summit

 Sustainable Solutions to Feeding a Growing World

My name is Mikaela Hudson, and I am currently studying Food, Nutrition, and Health in the Faculty of Land and Food Systems at the University of British Columbia. I’ve lived in Vancouver, British Columbia for my entire life, and have witnessed first hand the effects of food insecurity on my community. From my perspective, unequal food distribution and limited food availability are the main causes of food insecurity and under-nutrition, both locally and globally. I believe that the development and institution of sustainable agriculture practices on a global scale will ensure food security in the present and for future generations.

I’ve lived in Vancouver, British Columbia for my entire life, and have witnessed first hand the effects of food insecurity on my community. From my perspective, unequal food distribution and limited food availability are the main causes of food insecurity and under-nutrition, both locally and globally. I believe that the development and institution of sustainable agriculture practices on a global scale will ensure food security in the present and for future generations.

From my point of reference, poverty is the leading cause of food insecurity in my community. Almost 10% of British Columbians are food insecure, meaning that they lack access to appropriate quantities of acceptable, nutritious food. Although there is no shortage of food for those who can afford it, people living near or below the poverty line often struggle to keep up with the high cost of living and rising food prices. In my opinion, food security can be obtained through developing sustainable food systems. Localization of the food supply, maximizing the efficiency of land use, reducing food waste, and increasing individuals’ involvement in the food supply chain are all components of the development of sustainable food systems.  I believe that the implementation of these strategies is the key to the establishment and maintenance of food security in my community.

The broader effect of food insecurity can be seen globally: one sixth of the world’s population is undernourished, and one out of every five people in the developing world is chronically undernourished. However, food availability data indicates that over 3600 calories are available per person per day, and that there is more food available globally than ever in history. As such, the main cause of under-nutrition is not an insufficient quantity of food produced, but the unequal distribution and limited availability of food internationally.

Although international food-aid is a valuable tool in handling food emergencies, it is neither a stand-alone nor a long-term solution to the global food security crisis. Lasting, sustainable solutions are needed in order to ensure the health of all individuals and communities. Sustainable agricultural practices will enable communities to use the available land to grow adequate quantities of nutritious, life-sustaining food. As a result, communities will no longer be dependent on foreign or government aid, and consequently will be able to achieve both food sovereignty and food security. Therefore, the development and implementation of sustainable agricultural practices is essential to the establishment of food security worldwide.

There are many ways in which sustainable agriculture can cultivate food security internationally. I believe that the development of sustainable agriculture programs in at-risk and aid-dependent countries is a key component of the solution to the world hunger epidemic. Such programs would educate communities about the importance of crop rotation and variety, how to maximize the efficient use of available land, and the importance of respectful treatment of the environment, the land, and all living things. Furthermore, the sustainable agriculture programs would be highly involved in the development and distribution of adaptive crops (that are resistant to harsh climactic conditions), and ensure the ethical treatment of those involved in the food systems and those who rely on them. The implementation of such programs would promote food sovereignty and food security, strengthen communities, and ensure the security and sustainability of food supply chains.

The Youth Agricultural Summit is an ideal opportunity for young agricultural innovators, advocates, and enthusiasts to share their unique perspectives on the issue of world hunger, and work together to create sustainable solutions. Through attending Youth-Ag, I will be able to collaborate with youth from different cultural and socio-economic backgrounds, and will gain a more holistic view of the problem of global food insecurity. When I think about the amazing potential that Youth-Ag has to have a significant impact on global food security, I’m reminded of one of my favorite quotes by Margaret Mead. She said “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has”. In my mind, there is no doubt that the Youth-Ag delegates will create positive change in the global food system. I am incredibly passionate about working with the international community towards ending world hunger, and would be honored to represent my community at the Youth-Ag 2013 Summit. Thank you so much for your consideration.

Welcome to my blog!  My name is Mikaela and I’m a second year GRS student here at UBC. My main area of interest is international development, specifically in South Asia. Development is very important to me, as I feel it is a powerful mechanism for positive change in the world. It is a rather vague concept though, and unfortunately is often associated with connotations of colonialism, paternalism, and rent-seeking. As such, I’ve come up with my own definition of (good) development:

Development is the process of increasing welfare and improving quality of life.  It is inherently empowering, inclusive and participatory.  Development is an action state; it is dynamic and ongoing.  In order for development to occur, it must be built upon a foundation of respect, equity and justice.

This blog is a way of documenting my journey through the GRS program.  Through my blog, I  plan on exploring new and controversial ideas, digging deeper into current issues, and sharing my experiences in and out of the classroom.  Although I don’t entirely agree with Mark Twain’s famous adage to make sure your schooling does not interfere with your education, I see enormous value in extra-curricular learning. I think travel is one of the best ways to learn more about the world and about yourself, and hope for it to play a large role in my university experience.

I’m new to blogging so please bear with me. I look forward to sharing my reflections and experiences with you, and welcome your feedback, comments, and questions!